[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76112-76125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26652]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2019-0014; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BD03
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status
for the Dolphin and Union Caribou
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS),
determine endangered status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(Act), as amended, for the Dolphin and Union caribou (Rangifer tarandus
groenlandicus x peary), a distinct population segment (DPS) of the
barren-ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus). After
reviewing new survey information received during the public comment
period that identified significant decline in the population during a
recent 4-year period, we have reevaluated the status of the DPS. Our
reassessment concluded that the species is in danger of extinction now.
Therefore, we are listing this DPS as endangered under the Act. Listing
this DPS as endangered also means that the proposed rule under section
4(d) of the Act will not be finalized or put in place. Rather, the
prohibitions under section 9(a)(1) of the Act and our implementing
regulations for endangered wildlife will apply to all Dolphin and Union
caribou specimens. The Dolphin and Union caribou is native only to
Canada.
DATES: The rule is effective January 12, 2023.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2019-0014. Comments and
materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in
preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2019-0014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel London, Acting Chief, Branch of
Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES, Falls Church, VA
22041; telephone 703-358-2491. Individuals in the United States who are
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial
711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay
services offered within their country to make international calls to
the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species may be
listed as endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened
species can only be completed by issuing a rule.
What this document does. This rule revises the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
in part 17 (50 CFR 17.11(h)) to add the Dolphin and Union caribou DPS
as an endangered species. After reviewing new survey information
received during the public comment period, which identified drastic
decline in the population of the herd, we have reassessed the status of
the DPS and determined it to be in danger of extinction.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors, alone or in combination: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. We have determined that the Dolphin
and Union caribou DPS is in danger of extinction throughout all of its
range, meeting the definition of an endangered species. The major
threats that impacted the Dolphin and Union caribou are the cumulative
effects of climate change and other changes brought about by climate
change, such as a long-term decline in sea ice, increase in icing
events on land, and increases in shipping traffic as a result of
reduced ice.
Peer review and public comment. In accordance with our joint policy
on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the
role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we solicited the
expert opinion of five appropriate and independent specialists for peer
review of the species report that provides the biological basis for
this listing determination. We received responses from all five peer
reviewers.
[[Page 76113]]
The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing determinations
are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses.
Their comments and suggestions can be found at https://fws.gov/library/categories/peer-review-plans.
Previous Federal Actions
On August 31, 2021, we proposed to list the Dolphin and Union
caribou as a threatened species under the Act (86 FR 48619) with a rule
issued under section 4(d) of the Act. Please refer to the August 31,
2021, proposed rule for a detailed description of previous Federal
actions concerning Dolphin and Union caribou that occurred prior to
August 31, 2021.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered
comments from the public on the proposed rule. During the public
comment period, we received new survey information that reveal that the
Dolphin and Union caribou experienced a catastrophic decline during the
years 2015 to 2018 in which the herd lost 75 percent of its 2015
population (from 18,000 individuals down to 4,000 individuals) in a 4-
year timespan. While this decline seems to have somewhat stabilized in
the 2020 survey (3,800 individuals), this survey data means that since
1997 the Dolphin and Union caribou herd has now declined from
approximately 34,000 individuals to approximately 3,800 individuals.
This rapid decline is due to a combination of factors described in both
the proposed rule and this final rule. These factors include a decline
in foraging quality due to climate change, changes in sea-ice level, an
increase in shipping traffic, and parasites. Some population decline
due to hunting may also be a contributing factor. For these reasons, we
are finalizing the listing of the Dolphin and Union caribou in 50 CFR
17.11(h) as an endangered species under the Act. We have also revised
the proposed listing entry by adding specific geographic information
about the straits that the Dolphin and Union caribou use when migrating
between Victoria Island the mainland; however, this revision to the
``Where listed'' column is not the result of new information.
Finalizing the listing of the Dolphin and Union caribou as
endangered means that the proposed rule under section 4(d) of the Act
will not be finalized or put in place, including the proposed trophy
import exemption from the prohibition that was provided in the proposed
rule. Rather, the prohibitions under section 9(a)(1) of the Act and our
implementing regulations for endangered wildlife will apply to all
Dolphin and Union caribou specimens. Therefore, for example, when this
final rule is effective (see DATES, above), all imports and exports
will be prohibited, with the exception of those accompanied by section
10(a)(1)(A) permits issued for scientific purposes or to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species (see Available Conservation
Measures, below).
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
Dolphin and Union caribou is presented in the species report and the
proposed rule (86 FR 48619; Service 2021, pp. 4-10; available at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2019-0014).
The Dolphin and Union caribou is found on Victoria Island and the
Canadian mainland, encompassing the Canadian provinces of Nunavut and
the Northwest Territories (NWT). The caribou is a migratory species
with a calving period occurring during the summer months on Victoria
Island. The herd then crosses the sea ice of the Coronation Gulf,
Dolphin and Union Strait, and Dease Strait to their wintering grounds
on the mainland. The primary driver of the Dolphin and Union caribou
status is climate change and its effect on the formation and breaking
up of sea ice between Victoria Island and the mainland. As of 2020, the
herd population was estimated to be 3,815 individuals (Campbell et al.
2021, p. 70). This number represents a decline of approximately 90
percent from the population peak of 34,558 individuals in 1997. After
1997, the population steadily declined to 27,787 individuals in 2007
and 18,413 individuals in 2015. In 2018, the population was 4,105, a
decline of over 78 percent from the 2015 population. Possible reasons
for this decline are the cumulative effects of known stressors such as
the effects of climate change, disease, and parasites (discussed in
greater detail below in the Summary of Biological Status and Threats
(Campbell et al. 2021, p. 15)). The survey conducted in 2020 confirmed
that the 2015-2018 decline did occur, with an estimated size at that
time of 3,800 caribou.
Evaluation of the Dolphin and Union Caribou Subpopulation as a Distinct
Population Segment
Under section 3(16) of the Act, we may consider for listing any
species, including subspecies, of fish, wildlife, or plants, or any DPS
of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). Those entities are considered eligible for listing under the
Act (and, therefore, are referred to as listable entities), should we
determine that they meet the definition of an endangered or threatened
species.
Under the Service's DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996),
three elements are considered in the decision concerning the
determination and classification of a possible DPS as threatened or
endangered. These elements include are:
(1) The discreteness of a population in relation to the remainder
of the species to which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population segment to the species to
which it belongs; and
(3) The population segment's conservation status in relation to the
Act's standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e.,
whether the population segment is endangered or threatened).
A population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be considered
discrete under the DPS policy if it satisfies either one of the
following conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same
taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
(2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within
which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of
the conditions described in the Service's DPS policy, its biological
and ecological significance will be considered in light of
congressional guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used
``sparingly'' (see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session). In
making this determination, we consider available scientific evidence of
the DPS's importance to the taxon to which it belongs. Since precise
circumstances are likely to vary considerably from case to case, the
DPS policy does not describe all the classes of information that might
be used in determining the biological and ecological importance of a
discrete population. However, the DPS policy describes four possible
classes of information that provide evidence of a population segment's
biological and ecological importance to the taxon to which it belongs.
As specified in the
[[Page 76114]]
DPS policy, this consideration of the population segment's significance
may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Persistence of the DPS in an ecological setting unusual or
unique to the taxon;
(2) Evidence that loss of the DPS would result in a significant gap
in the range of a taxon;
(3) Evidence that the DPS represents the only surviving natural
occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an
introduced population outside its historical range; or
(4) Evidence that the DPS differs markedly from other populations
of the species in its genetic characteristics.
To be considered significant, a population segment needs to satisfy
only one of these criteria, or other classes of information that might
bear on the biological and ecological importance of a discrete
population segment, as described in the DPS policy. Below, we summarize
discreteness and significance for the Dolphin and Union caribou.
Discreteness
Please refer to the proposed rule for a more in-depth evaluation of
the Dolphin and Union status as a DPS of the barren-ground caribou
(Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) (86 FR 48619, August 31, 2021). Below
is a summary of the analysis and our conclusion.
The Dolphin and Union caribou is markedly separate from other
populations of the barren-ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus
groenlandicus). Behaviorally, the Dolphin and Union caribou is a
migratory population that calves on Victoria Island in the summer and
winters on coastal tundra on the mainland. This migratory lifestyle is
in contrast to the remainder of the subspecies that either spend their
entire life cycle on the mainland or on an island (McFarlane et al.
2016, p. 2). In addition to behavioral differences, the Dolphin and
Union caribou is also geographically isolated from other members of the
subspecies during part of its life cycle. Although the subpopulation's
range overlaps with other barren-ground caribou subpopulations during
the wintering months on the mainland, while on Victoria Island, the
Dolphin and Union caribou is geographically isolated from other
subpopulations of the barren-ground caribou on the mainland (McFarlane
et al. 2016, p. 16).
Morphological and genetic discontinuities between Dolphin and Union
caribou and other subpopulations of the barren-ground caribou provide
further evidence of this separation. Morphologically, the Dolphin and
Union caribou are smaller and lighter in color than the mainland
barren-ground caribou (McFarlane et al. 2009, p. 125). Genetically, the
Dolphin and Union caribou is more closely related to the mainland
barren-ground caribou than other island caribou with which it shares
Victoria Island (McFarlane et al. 2009, p. 125). Despite being more
closely related to mainland subpopulations, the Dolphin and Union
caribou also maintains genetic distinctness from them (McFarlane et al.
2016, pp. 8, 14; McFarlane et al. 2009, p. 125, Zittlau 2004, p. 113).
Phylogenetic analyses conducted on mitochondrial DNA reveals that,
during the caribou recolonization of the Arctic at the end of the last
Ice Age, the Dolphin and Union caribou diverged from the other barren-
ground caribou subpopulations approximately 3,000 years ago (McFarlane
et al. 2016, pp. 15-16).
In summary, we determine that the Dolphin and Union caribou is
markedly separated from neighboring caribou subpopulations. At
different times of the year, the Dolphin and Union caribou is
physically (geographically) and reproductively isolated from the
mainland subpopulations. The Dolphin and Union caribou also exhibit
unique migratory behavior, and genetic data supports the separation of
the subpopulation from the barren-ground caribou. Therefore, we
consider the Dolphin and Union caribou subpopulation to be discrete
under our DPS policy.
Significance
We found that the Dolphin and Union caribou is significant to the
Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus taxon because it differs markedly from
other members in the taxon in its genetic characteristics.
The barren-ground caribou contains three genetic variants: the
mainland subpopulations, the Southampton Island subpopulations, and the
Dolphin and Union caribou subpopulations. A study of allelic frequency
shows that each subpopulation forms a unique cluster (McFarlane et al.
2016, p. 9), with the Dolphin and Union caribou being closer
genetically to the mainland subpopulations than the Southampton
subpopulation. This conclusion is further supported by a comparison of
the fixation index (FST value) between the multiple
subpopulations including the Southampton, Dolphin and Union, and
different mainland subpopulations that yielded a similar conclusion
(McFarlane et al. 2016, p. 9; McFarlane et al. 2014, p. 83). The
FST value for the Southampton subpopulation varies between
0.436 to 0.527. For the Dolphin and Union caribou, values vary between
0.059 and 0.067. For the mainland subpopulations, values vary between
0.004 (a calculation output that can be considered to be a zero) and
0.038. An FST value of zero means that the two
subpopulations being compared are genetically identical, while a value
of one suggests that it is possibly a different species. As can be seen
here, the Southampton subpopulation has the highest level of genetic
distinctness relative to the other two. While not as genetically
distinct, the Dolphin and Union caribou still possess an Fst
value that is greater than the mainland subpopulations, by a large
enough margin suggesting genetic distinctness from the rest of the
subspecies (McFarlane et al. 2016, p. 9). This conclusion is supported
by other publications that also identified the Dolphin and Union
caribou as being distinct from all other mainland barren-ground caribou
subpopulations (McFarlane et al. 2014, p. 83; Zittlau et al. 2009, as
cited in Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC) 2011, p. 25; Zittlau 2004, p. 113).
In addition to their allelic differences, a study of the gene flow
of the Dolphin and Union caribou supports the genetic distinctness of
the subpopulation. Gene flow of the Dolphin and Union caribou appears
to flow in a southward direction. That is, there is an outward flow of
the Dolphin and Union caribou gene into the neighboring mainland
barren-ground caribou subpopulation located to the south of Victoria
Island. However, the gene flow of the mainland barren-ground caribou
into the Dolphin and Union caribou subpopulation is slower (McFarlane
et al. 2014, p. 88). This phenomenon can be explained by the behavioral
difference between male and female caribous. While female caribous
display site fidelity, male caribous tend to wander farther afield.
Because female Dolphin and Union calve exclusively on Victoria Island,
they are geographically isolated from the mainland barren-ground
caribou subpopulation (Nagy et al. 2011, p. 2,335). On the other hand,
there is greater detection of first- and second-generation male
migrants among other subpopulations of caribou (McFarlane et al. 2016,
pp. 11, 14). This result suggests that some male Dolphin and Union
caribou may migrate to other barren-ground caribou subpopulations
resulting in outward gene flow. Additionally, in periods of multiple
years the dispersal rate is zero, meaning
[[Page 76115]]
that no gene flow occurred out of the subpopulation (McFarlane et al.
2016, p. 14). Overall, the gene flow patterns reinforce the genetic
data, demonstrating that, while occasionally genetic exchange occurs
between Dolphin and Union caribou and the mainland barren-ground
caribou subpopulations, the Dolphin and Union caribou maintains its
genetic uniqueness.
This conclusion is supported by other studies that identified the
genetic distinctness of Dolphin and Union caribou from other caribou
subpopulations (McFarlane et al. 2014, pp. 82-83; McFarlane et al.
2009, p. 125; Zittlau 2004, p. 113). Additionally, the Dolphin and
Union caribou experience geographic isolation on Victoria Island during
calving season, which contributes to a limited outward gene flow
between the Dolphin and Union caribou and other populations of Rangifer
tarandus groenlandicus (Nagy et al. 2011, p. 2,335). Although some
genetic exchanges with the mainland barren-ground caribou occur through
the migration of male Dolphin and Union caribou, the subpopulation's
geographic and genetic isolation likely contributed to its genetic
uniqueness. Thus, we find that the Dolphin and Union caribou differs
markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic
characteristics.
Summary
Given that both the discreteness and the significance elements of
the DPS policy are met for the Dolphin and Union caribou, we find that
the Dolphin and Union caribou constitutes a valid DPS of Rangifer
tarandus groenlandicus. Because we find the Dolphin and Union caribou
subpopulation to be both discrete and significant, we evaluated whether
this DPS is endangered or threatened based on the Act's definitions of
those terms and a review of the factors listed in section 4(a) of the
Act.
Conservation Status of the Dolphin and Union Caribou
In 2004, COSEWIC (2004, entire) evaluated the status of Dolphin and
Union caribou and assessed them as a special concern. In February 2011,
Dolphin and Union caribou were added to Canada's Federal Species at
Risk Act (SARA or S.C.) as a species of special concern (Stock
Assessment Review Committee (SARC) 2013, p. 97). The recovery plan for
the Dolphin and Union caribou published in 2018. We discuss the
recovery plan in greater detail in Status of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, entire; SARC 2013,
p. 97). In 2017, COSEWIC assessed the Dolphin and Union caribou status
to be endangered (COSEWIC 2017, p. x). However, as of the publication
of this final rule, the Dolphin and Union caribou has not been
reclassified as endangered under SARA.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for threatened and
endangered species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the Service issued final rules that revised the regulations in
50 CFR parts 17 and 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify
threatened and endangered species and the criteria for designating
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020 and 84 FR 44752; August
27, 2019). At the same time the Service also issued final regulations
that, for species listed as threatened species after September 26,
2019, eliminated the Service's general protective regulations
automatically applying to threatened species the prohibitions that
section 9 of the Act applies to endangered species (collectively, the
2019 regulations).
As with the proposed rule, we are applying the 2019 regulations for
this final rule because the 2019 regulations are the governing law just
as they were when we completed the proposed rule. Although there was a
period in the interim--between July 5, 2022, and September 21, 2022--
when the 2019 regulations became vacated and the pre-2019 regulations
therefore governed, the 2019 regulations are now in effect and govern
listing and critical habitat decisions (see Center for Biological
Diversity v. Haaland, No. 4:19-cv-05206-JST, Doc. 168 (N.D. Cal. July
5, 2022; vacating the 2019 regulations and thereby reinstating the pre-
2019 regulations) and In re: Cattlemen's Ass'n, No. 22-70194 (9th Cir.
Sept. 21, 2022; staying the vacatur of the 2019 regulations and thereby
reinstating the 2019 regulations until a pending motion for
reconsideration before the district court is resolved)).
However, given that litigation remains regarding the court's
vacatur of the 2019 regulations, we also undertook an analysis of
whether the decision would be different if we were to apply the pre-
2019 regulations. We concluded that the decision would have been the
same if we had applied the pre-2019 regulations. The analyses under
both the pre-2019 regulations and the 2019 regulations are included in
the decision file for this final rule. The Act defines an endangered
species as a species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range,'' and a threatened species as a
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' because of any of
the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could affect a species' continued existence.
In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other
actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may
have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that indirectly affect individuals such as
through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors).
The term ``threat'' may encompass--either together or separately--the
source of the action or condition, or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then
[[Page 76116]]
analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a
whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light
of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the
species--such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation
efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the
definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species''
only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the
expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to
depend on it when making decisions. It is not always possible or
necessary to define the foreseeable future as a particular number of
years. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the best scientific and
commercial data available and should consider the timeframes applicable
to the relevant threats and to the species' responses to those threats
in view of its life-history characteristics. Data that are typically
relevant to assessing the species' biological response include species-
specific factors such as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity,
certain behaviors, and other demographic factors.
The species report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological status review for the Dolphin and Union caribou, including
an assessment of the potential threats to the DPS. The report does not
represent a decision by the Service on whether the species should be
listed as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. It does,
however, provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory
decisions, which involve the further application of standards within
the Act and its implementing regulations and policies. The following is
a summary of the key results and conclusions from the report; the full
report can be found at Docket FWS-HQ-ES-2019-0014 on https://www.regulations.gov.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this portion of the preamble, we review the biological condition
of the species and its resources and factors that affect the species to
assess the species' overall persistence. The Dolphin and Union caribou
live in a harsh environment that is sparsely populated with people.
Ecosystems can be complex, and factors affecting the health and
viability of species are not always readily apparent. Caribou
biologists have suggested a number of factors that may have contributed
to the decline of the Dolphin and Union caribou. In addition to the
major threats discussed below, we also assessed other threats that we
concluded have minor effects on the species; those assessments can be
found in our species report. The minor threats include deterioration of
the quality and quantity of nutrients available within their habitat,
predation (primarily by wolves), and outbreak of parasites or disease.
The major threats that will be discussed below are:
Sea-ice loss;
Hindered ability to seasonally migrate due to lack of sea
ice and possible drowning;
Hunting;
Disturbance due to development, oil and gas exploration,
or shipping.
A primary factor affecting the Dolphin and Union caribou is the
timing of freeze-up and sea-ice connectivity; these conditions are
affected by ships breaking up the gray ice (young ice the thickness of
which is less than 4-6 inches), other ice-breaking activities for
tourism and oil and gas industries, and potential loss of sea ice due
to climate change (Leclerc and Boulanger 2018, pp. 39-40; Dumund and
Lee 2013, p. 335; Poole et al. 2010, entire). These related factors are
discussed in two reports: Sea Ice and Migration of the Dolphin and
Union Caribou Herd in the Canadian Arctic: An Uncertain Future (Poole
et al. 2010, entire) and the species status report prepared by the
Species at Risk Committee for the Dolphin and Union Caribou, published
in December 2013, for the Northwest Territories (SARC 2013, entire).
Additionally, a draft management plan for the Dolphin and Union caribou
was made available for public comment in the spring of 2017 after a
reassessment conducted by COSEWIC in 2015-2016 (Leclerc 2017, pers.
comm.). We refer readers to these documents, which are available at
https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2019-0014, for more
detailed information. Here, we summarize the information.
Climate Change
Changes in climate and weather patterns are suspected to be a major
contributor to the decline of this caribou (Hansen et al. 2011, pp.
1,917, 1,920-1,922; Miller and Barry 2009, p. 176; Prowse et al. 2009a,
p. 269; Tews et al. 2007a, pp. 95-96; COSEWIC 2004, pp. viii, 55-58).
The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or
variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or
precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades
or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human
activity, or both (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
2013, p. 1,450).
The demographic, ecological, and evolutionary responses of caribou
to threats from climate change are complicated to predict. The
complexity stems from the species' habitat requirements and resilience
to the effects of climate change. Current models for the Arctic predict
deeper snow cover, increasing rainfall, increasing rain-on-snow events,
warm periods, more thawing-freezing cycles, and a higher risk of ice-
layer formation on the soil within the snowpack during the winters of
the coming decades (Hansen et al. 2011, p. 1,917; Turunen et al. 2009,
pp. 813-814; Putkonen and Roe 2003, entire). Caribou populations
respond negatively to the occurrence of more precipitation, greater
snowfall, and subsequently more freezing rain events, which makes
access to food more difficult (COSEWIC 2015, pp. 44-46; Miller et al.
2007, p. 33). However, other models support a conclusion that caribou
may experience increases in population numbers if climate change
results in a 50 percent increase of taller, denser vegetation and woody
shrubs (Leclerc 2017, pers. comm.; Tews et al. 2007a, p. 95). As
ecological systems are dynamic, it is complicated to predict how one
change (such as a rise in temperature) will affect other elements
within the ecosystem (such as the amount of precipitation that falls as
freezing rain, rather than snow) (Parrott 2010, p. 1,070; Green and
Sadedin 2005, pp. 117-118; Burkett et al. 2005, p. 357).
For the purpose of this assessment, given that the primary threat
to the Dolphin and Union caribou is considered by caribou researchers
to be loss of sea ice due to climate change and increase in shipping
activities, we rely on climate projection models undertaken by the IPCC
(IPCC 2014a, pp. 8-12). Relevant to our discussion, these models
discuss future trends for precipitation and air and water temperature,
which has an impact on
[[Page 76117]]
the condition of the caribou habitat. Projections of sea-ice loss using
representative concentration pathways (RCP) 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios and
rain-on-snow events in the Canadian Arctic vary in their time scale
(Mallory and Boyce 2018, p. 2,192; Jenkins et al. 2016, p. 4; Engler
and Pelot 2013, p. 21; Stroeve et al. 2012, p. 1,012). While all
climate models agree that sea-ice loss will occur in the Canadian
Arctic, there is disagreement on when that loss will take place. Some
models project the Canadian Arctic will experience ice-free periods as
early as 2050, while others project that due to the influx of sea ice
from the Arctic Ocean, sea ice in the Canadian Arctic will persist into
the 2080s (Li et al. 2019, pp. 1-2; Derksen et al. 2018, p. 198;
Mallory and Boyce 2018, pp. 2,194-2,195; Johnson et al. 2017, p. 16;
Jenkins et al. 2016, p. 4). This uncertainty is due in part to the flow
of sea ice from the Arctic to the east coast of the Canadian Arctic
Archipelago (Derksen et al. 2018, p. 218).
In addition to sea-ice loss, the thinning of sea ice can also have
an impact on the caribou, because if sea ice is too thin, it will not
be able to support the caribou's weight. We thus take into
consideration changes in ratio over time between the thinner first-year
ice versus the thicker, multiyear ice (Li et al. 2019, p. 2) in the
Dolphin and Union caribou's range. In addition to changes in sea ice,
because the Dolphin and Union caribou use the Dolphin and Union strait
as part of its migration route, we also take into account information
on historical, current, and projected shipping traffic through the
Dolphin and Union strait. Because of a projected increase in ice-free
periods, shipping traffic is highly likely to increase (Governments of
the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 41).
Most models project that portions of the Canadian Arctic will be
ice free by 2040-2060 (Derksen et al. 2018, pp. 198, 218; Johnson et
al. 2017, p. 16; Lu et al. 2014, p. 61).
Loss of Sea Ice
Sea ice is an important component of the seasonal migration of the
Dolphin and Union caribou. Dolphin and Union caribou migrate across the
Dolphin and Union Strait using the temporary, annual seasonal ice
bridge from Victoria Island to the mainland. During the months of
September and October, Dolphin and Union caribou ``stage'' on the south
coast of Victoria Island waiting for the ice to form for the herds to
cross. The caribou may cross at any time during this time period on the
newly formed gray ice to their winter range on the mainland (Nishi and
Gunn 2004, as cited in COSEWIC 2004, p. 35). More recently, the
formation of the sea ice has been delayed, which results in caribou
waiting a longer period for ice to form. Due to limited food
availability on Victoria Island during the winter months to support the
herd during the winter months, longer delays for crossings risk
reducing the fitness of individuals within the herd. Furthermore, when
crossings do take place, because of the delay in sea ice formation, the
sea ice that forms is often too thin to hold the caribou's weight
resulting in individuals falling through the ice. This likely increases
energy consumption for the caribou to get out of the water, and
increases the likelihood of both individual and mass drowning events
(Poole et al. 2010, p. 414; Gunn 2003, as cited in COSEWIC 2004, p.
35).
Since the beginning of monitoring in 1979, record low levels of sea
ice have occurred in recent years. From 1968 to 2015, sea ice declined
at a rate of 6.1 percent per decade (Environment and Climate Change
Canada 2016, p. 8). Multiyear ice, which is thick enough to support the
caribou's weight, has been declining over time. In the mid-1980s,
multiyear ice accounted for 75 percent of all ice in the Arctic. By
2011, it accounted for 45 percent of all ice (Li et al. 2019, p. 2).
Climate models indicate that the Arctic will continue to experience
accelerated loss of sea ice (Zhang et al. 2010, as cited in in Meier et
al. 2011, p. 9-3; Bo[eacute] et al. 2009, p. 1; Wang and Overland 2009,
pp. 1-3).
Additionally, landfast ice has also been decreasing. Landfast ice
is important to the Dolphin and Union caribou as the Dolphin and Union
strait is a narrow passage that the DPS uses for its migration
corridors. Over the 10-year intervals starting in 1976, the maximum
extent of landfast ice throughout the Arctic was: 2.1x10\6\ km\2\
(1976-1985), 1.9x10\6\ km\2\ (1986-1995), 1.74x10\6\ km\2\ (1996-2005),
and 1.66x10\6\ km\2\ (2006-2018) (Li et al. 2019, p. 5).
A decrease in sea ice has continued to occur with trends
accelerating since the year 2000 (COSEWIC 2015, p. 46). Sea-ice
freezing now occurs 8-10 days later in the Dolphin and Union Strait and
Coronation Gulf than in 1982 (Poole et al. 2010, pp. 414, 419, 425).
Current and projected decreases in sea ice is negatively affecting and
is likely to continue to negatively affect the crossings by the Dolphin
and Union caribou, including the potential of breaking through the ice
and drowning (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, pp. 41-42; Poole
et al. 2010, p. 426). Because the Dolphin and Union strait is located
at the southernmost point of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, sea-ice
loss in this region is higher than in other regions farther to the
north (Pizzolato 2015, p. 28). Additionally, continued increase in
shipping is expected through the Northwest Passage (Governments of the
NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 42). The effects of increasing shipping will
be especially pronounced for the Dolphin and Union caribou because the
Dolphin and Union strait is the primary migration route for the caribou
and is also a major shipping lane through the Northwest Passage
(Engeler and Pelot 2013, p. 9).
As the sea-ice season is shortened and the ice thins, it is more
easily broken by ice-breaking ships. A longer shipping season and an
increase in ships in the Northwest Passage can fragment the Dolphin and
Union caribou's summer and wintering ranges while delaying their
migration. Due to the shorter sea-ice season, the number of ships
travelling through the Northwest Passage has already increased from
four per year in the 1980s to 20-30 per year in 2009-2013. The majority
of these transits are icebreakers with trips primarily occurring in
August through October, the period of time when the Dolphin and Union
caribou are preparing for their southward migration to the mainland
(Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 41). For example, in late
October 2007, barge ships broke the ice every 12 hours for a few days
in the Cambridge Bay to keep a channel open. This channel prevented the
caribou from crossing during this time (Poole et al. 2010, p. 426). As
stated above, sea-ice freezing in the fall now forms 8-10 days later
than it did in 1982. Using RCP models 4.5 and 8.5, the annual time
period where the Arctic is ice-free is projected to increase over the
course of the 21st century (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p.
43; Poole et al. 2010, p. 425). Given the increases in periods of ice-
free months, it is reasonable to conclude that shipping traffic through
the strait will increase over the course of the 21st century.
Therefore, the breaking up of sea ice due to continued increases in
shipping traffic, combined with projected sea-ice loss due to climate
change will have a significant negative impact on the species now and
into the future (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, pp. 41-44;
Leclerc and Boulanger 2018, pp. 39-40; Johnson et al. 2017, p. 102.).
Given the Dolphin and Union caribou's current population, it is
unlikely that Victoria Island will be able to support the subpopulation
if
[[Page 76118]]
connection to wintering grounds in the mainland is lost (Johnson et al.
2017, p. 102; Leclerc and Boulanger 2018, p. 39).
Summary of Climate Change
Climate change is negatively affecting and likely to continue to
negatively affect the Dolphin and Union caribou in a number of ways.
The most significant impact of climate change on the caribou is the
timing of the formation of sea ice. As part of their life cycle,
Dolphin and Union caribou migrate between calving ground on Victoria
Island and wintering ground on the mainland (Nishi and Gunn 2004, as
cited in COSEWIC 2004, p. 35). However, sea-ice formation has been
delayed with caribou having to wait for a longer period of time before
they can cross between Victoria Island and the mainland (Poole et al.
2010, p. 414; Gunn 2003, as cited in COSEWIC 2004, p. 35). In addition
to a delay in sea-ice formation, the sea ice that forms tends to be
thinner, increasing the likelihood of ice breakup and drowning events
(Poole et al. 2010, p. 426).
Overall, the Dolphin and Union caribou subpopulation appears to
continue to decline (Leclerc and Boulanger 2018, p. 36; Gunn et al.
2000, pp. 42-43).The delay and loss in the formation of sea ice can
impact the Dolphin and Union caribou's ability to migrate between the
mainland and Victoria Island thereby increasing the likelihood of mass
mortality event as a result of drowning and starvation due to
insufficient food resources on Victoria Island during the winter
months. Therefore, given the projected impacts of sea-ice loss in the
Dolphin and Union strait, we conclude that these effects have had a
negative impact on the Dolphin and Union caribou.
Parasitic Harassment by Botflies
Caribou serve as host to two oestrid species: warble flies
(Hypoderma tarandi) and nose botflies (Cephenemyia trompe). In the
Arctic region, few hosts are available for parasites; warble flies and
nose botflies are particularly well adapted to survive in the Arctic
climate using caribou as their host. Although these oestrids are
widespread throughout the summer range of most caribou herds, their
populations are considerably smaller in the high Arctic as that is the
latitudinal extreme of their range due to temperature, hours of
daylight, and wind conditions (Gunn et al. 2011, pp. 12-14; Kutz et al.
2004, p. 114). However, some researchers have expressed concern that,
should warming trends continue, the parasitic rate of development and/
or infectivity timeframes could become altered, which may increase
energy expenditure of Dolphin and Union caribou through harassment
(Kutz et al. 2004, p. 114).
Warble Flies
Temperature and cloud cover are vital factors for harassment of
caribou by warble flies as these two factors affect the flies' activity
level (Weladji et al. 2003, p. 80; Nilssen 1997, p. 301). Warble flies
are most active during warm, sunny days; warble fly activity increases
with increasing temperature (Weladji et al. 2003, p. 80). Within the
Arctic, the annual mean surface temperature has increased at a rate of
0.34 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (0.61 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) per
decade from 1982 to 2004 (Wang et al. 2012, p. 1). The duration of the
melt season has increased by 10-17 days per decade, which is
representative of these warmer temperatures (Comiso 2003, p. 3,498).
In Cambridge Bay, Victoria Island, the mean average daily
temperature in the winter is between -36.2 and -29.8 [deg]C (-33.2 and
-21.6 [deg]F). In summer, the mean average daily temperature is between
-6.8 and 10 [deg]C (37.4 and 44.2 [deg]F) (Dumund and Lee 2013, p.
330). Average annual temperatures may increase by 3-6 [deg]C by 2080
(Meier et al. 2011, pp. 9-17-9-18; Olsen et al. 2011, p. 112; Dunkley-
Jones et al. 2010, p. 2,411). Based on these anticipated temperatures,
we calculated the expected temperatures if the temperature was to
increase by 3 [deg]C (scenario 1) and by 6 [deg]C (scenario 2). The
climate models used in this table used a previous set of scenarios
known as the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) to project
the low-emissions scenario (SRES B1) and high-emissions scenario (SRES
A2). More recently, a newer set of scenarios (i.e., RCPs) was prepared
that included a wider range of future conditions and emissions. SRES B1
is roughly comparable to RCP 4.5 and SRES A2 is similar to RCP 8.5
(Melillo et al. 2014, p. 821). These similarities between specific RCP
and SRES scenarios make it possible to compare the results from
different modeling efforts over time (Melillo et al. 2014, p. 821). See
table, below.
Table--Cambridge Bay, Victoria Island, Nunavut, Canada: Temperature Increase Scenario Up To 2080
[Adapted from Environment Canada 2013, as cited in Dumond and Lee 2013, p. 330.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month Mean average daily temp........ Current conditions
Scenario 1 (temperature increase by 3
[deg]C)
Scenario 2 (temperature increase by 6
[deg]C)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December................................. Low............................ -36.2 -33.2 -33.2 -26 [deg]F -30.2 -20 [deg]F
[deg]C [deg]F [deg]C [deg]C
High........................... -29.8 -21.6 -26.8 -16.2 -23.8 -10.8
[deg]C [deg]F [deg]C [deg]F [deg]C [deg]F
July..................................... Low............................ 6.8 [deg]C 44.2 [deg]F 9.8 [deg]C 49.6 [deg]F 12.8 [deg]C 55 [deg]F
High........................... 10 [deg]C 50.0 [deg]F 13 [deg]C 55.4 [deg]F 16 [deg]C 60.8 [deg]F
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The low-temperature threshold for warble fly activity is around 10
[deg]C (50 [deg]F) (Vistness et al. 2008, p. 1,312; Weladji et al.
2003, p. 81; Nilssen 1997, pp. 296, 300; Breyev 1956, 1961, as cited in
Nilssen and Anderson 1995, p. 1,236). Before pupation, warble fly
larvae can move at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) per day at 4 [deg]C
(39.2 [deg]F). At 4 [deg]C (39.2 [deg]F), pupation did not occur, but
larvae were observed to be alive (crawling) up to 47 days after exit
from the host (Nilssen 1997, p. 298). The transition of warmer
temperatures to areas of cooler air creates a barrier north of which
pupation may not occur. Because parasitic fly harassment is low below
13 [deg]C (55.4 [deg]F), and no oestrid harassment occurs below 10
[deg]C (50 [deg]F), this temperature threshold is significant for
caribou, particularly the Dolphin and Union caribou with respect to
oestrid harassment. Under both scenarios, summer temperatures are
projected to increase to a high of 13-16 [deg]C where the Dolphin and
Union caribou occur, which would result in an increase in warble fly
harassment.
Infestations by both warble flies and botflies result in metabolic
costs, such as behavioral responses (Witter et al. 2012, p. 292;
Nilssen and Anderson 1995, p. 1,237). Caribou increase and modify their
movement when harassed by warble flies (Witter et al. 2012, p. 284).
When warble flies are present, caribou spend a greater proportion of
time avoiding insects, rather than resting or feeding (Witter et al.
2012, p. 292; Fauchald et al. 2007, p. 496). Avoidance behaviors
include jumping, running, leg stomping, and, with respect
[[Page 76119]]
to nose botflies, sudden nose dropping (Fauchald et al. 2007, p. 496;
Colman et al. 2003, p. 15). Cows were observed temporarily
disassociating themselves from their calves in an attempt to avoid
flies (Thomas and Kiliaan 1990, p. 415). Additionally, reduced fitness
may result in a reduction of available milk for calves in lactating
females (Weladji et al. 2003, p. 84). The projected increase in
temperature during the summertime will result in an increase in botfly
activities, which will likely result in a reduction in fitness for the
Dolphin and Union caribou.
Nose Botflies
Caribou experts consider the potential negative effects of nose
botfly on caribou to be less than warble flies. While the types of
effects are similar between the two species of flies, such as causing
avoidance behavior in caribou, the magnitude of those effects are not
as extreme for the nose botfly as that caused by the warble fly. This
species enters the caribou through the caribou's nose and lives in the
caribou's throat for part of its life cycle. The caribou exhibit
distress from this species--they have been observed to duck their heads
under water to avoid nose botflies (Witter et al. 2012, p. 284;
Fauchald et al. 2007, p. 496). An increase in the temperature by more
than 3 or 6 [deg]C in July could increase harassment of nose botflies
on the Dolphin and Union caribou, although the severity will not be as
high as that caused by warble flies.
Summary of Parasitic Harassment
Currently, oestrids that use caribou as their hosts are at the
latitudinal extreme of their range due to temperature, hours of
daylight, and wind conditions (Vistness et al. 2008, p. 1,307). We note
that a threat to the Dolphin and Union caribou and the caribou's
response to that threat are not, in general, equally predictable or
foreseeable. Oestrid flies could expand their range, and they could
possibly negatively affect the Dolphin and Union caribou if the
temperature increases by 3 to 6 [deg]C by 2080. The low-temperature
threshold for warble fly activity has been determined to be around 10
[deg]C (50 [deg]F) (Vistness et al. 2008, p. 1,312; Weladji et al.
2003, p. 81; Nilssen 1997, pp. 296, 300; Breyev 1956, 1961, as cited in
Nilssen and Anderson 1995, p. 1,236). However, a warmer climate is
likely to increase the distribution and abundance of warble flies and
will lead to greater impact on the Dolphin and Union caribou.
Conservation Measures: Legal Protection
Under the Act, we are required to evaluate whether the existing
regulatory mechanisms are adequate. With respect to existing regulatory
mechanisms, the Dolphin and Union caribou was listed as special concern
under SARA in 2011 and the Government of the Northwest Territories
Species at Risk Act (SARC 2013, p. v). ``Special concern'' means that
the Northwest Territories (NWT) manage a species on the basis that it
may become threatened if it is not managed effectively. Species listed
as of special concern are not protected under prohibitions that apply
to threatened and endangered species. For these species, conservation
benefits are provided through a management plan that is prepared after
the species is listed (S.C. Ch. 65). In 2017, COSEWIC recommended the
herd be listed as endangered due to population decline within the past
20 years and continued persistence of threats related to climate change
(COSEWIC 2017, p. x). However, as of 2022, the Dolphin and Union
caribou has not yet been changed from a species of special concern to
endangered under SARA.
The management plan for the Dolphin and Union caribou was published
in 2018 (NWT 2018, entire; SARC 2013, p. 97). The management plan
contains a list of recommended actions, including holding regular
meetings between management agencies and local communities to make
recommendation on the management of the Dolphin and Union caribou,
monitoring changes in the Dolphin and Union caribou's population and
habitat, and obtaining better harvest data (Governments of the NWT and
Nunavut 2018, pp. 56-61). However, these recommendations are voluntary
(Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 3). While the management
plan does not commit any parties to any actions, the management and
hunting of the Dolphin and Union caribou is mutually agreed upon by the
native people (Inuit and Inuvialuit) and the territorial governments
(NWT and Nunavut). Species experts note that the jurisdictional
structure of caribou management in Canada is complex (Festa-Bianchet et
al. 2011, p. 422). Wildlife management in the territories is under a
co-management structure and falls under the Land Claims Agreement of
the different indigenous groups. Caribou conservation involves
legislation at the Federal and Territorial levels, in addition to
wildlife management boards (COSEWIC 2004, p. 61).
Hunting
Caribou are an integral element of human society in the high Arctic
(Taylor 2005, as cited, in Maher et al. 2012, p. 78; Miller and Barry
2009, p. 176). Under SARA, exceptions to prohibitions enable indigenous
peoples to exercise their harvesting rights (COSEWIC 2015, p. 52). The
Dolphin and Union caribou is currently hunted by the Inuit and
Inuvialuit for subsistence, and this subsistence hunting is managed by
local governments and the communities. However, concerns about the
sustainability of hunting exist due to the lack of accurate harvesting
data, although mandatory reporting has recently been implemented for
indigenous communities (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2021, p. 2;
Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, pp. 20, 67; Governments of
Nunavut and the NWT 2011, p. 18). Caribou are protected by land claim
agreements, and hunts are co-managed by boards such as the Nunavut
Wildlife Management Board, the Government of Nunavut, Department of
Environment (GN-DOE), and hunting associations (COSEWIC 2004, p. 61).
The Wildlife Management Advisory Council for the Inuvialuit Settlement
Region in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board
for the Nunavut Territory, the GN-DOE, and the Inuit and Inuvialuit
native people all play a role in the regulation of hunting of the
Dolphin and Union caribou population.
Although there are no harvest limitations of the Dolphin and Union
caribou for indigenous communities, Inuit hunters who hunt caribou for
subsistence have voluntarily placed moratoriums on hunts in the past
(Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, pp. 20-21). Based on
extrapolations of harvest between 1996 and 2001 of the communities of
Kugluktuk, Cambridge Bay, Umingmaktok, and Bathurst Inlet, subsistence
harvest of the ``island'' caribou (which may include individuals not
from the Dolphin and Union herd) in Nunavut was estimated to be from
2,000 to 3,000 annually for those years (Schneidmiller 2011, p. 1).
From 1988 to 1997, annual harvest of Dolphin and Union caribous by the
community of Ulukhaktok varied between 178 and 509 per year
(Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 20). Since then, local
communities have tried to reduce the annual harvests of the caribou
through the implementation of a quota system (Governments of the NWT
and Nunavut 2021, in litt.). Data for 2010-2014 reveal a decline of
annual harvest to 10-80
[[Page 76120]]
caribou per year (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 20). In
2021, as a result of the decline of the herd in the past few years,
harvest quota was reduced to 50 animals (Governments of the NWT and
Nunavut 2021, in litt.). While the reporting of this data is voluntary,
the reduction in annual harvest since the 1990s indicate that local
communities have regulated hunting by its members as the Dolphin and
Union caribou population has declined.
In contrast to indigenous communities, Canadian citizens and
resident immigrants are limited to a specific number of caribou they
can hunt per year. Non-subsistence hunting including sport-hunting by
nonindigenous residents and nonresidents is managed through an annual
quota system (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, pp. 68-69). In
the NWT, Canadian citizens and residents are allowed to take up to two
bulls per year during the hunting season (August 15-November 15).
Nonresident and non-Canadian citizens are allowed the same number but
need to be accompanied by a guide. In Nunuvut, residents can hunt up to
five caribou per year (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, pp. 68-
69). Despite the availability of hunting tags, in the past several
years, no tag-based sport-hunting of Dolphin and Union caribou has
occurred in Nunavut (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 69;
Leclerc 2017, pers. comm.; Governments of Nunavut and the NWT 2011, p.
18). Hunting is now currently restricted to indigenous hunters
(Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2021, in litt.).
In the NWT, the governments reported that 25 tags are available
annually for outfitted sport-hunting on Dolphin and Union caribou, but
no such hunts have occurred in more than 20 years (Governments of NWT
and Nunavut 2011, p. 10). At a more local scale, committees and trapper
associations are involved in monitoring caribou. In 2007, nonbinding
management recommendations were made to maintain a balanced harvest for
subsistence (i.e., harvest different age classes and sexes of animals
depending on the season and avoid shooting pregnant cows during the
spring) (Dumund 2007, p. 44).
With respect to imports into the United States, as noted above, no
tag-based non-subsistence hunting (sport-hunting) has occurred in
Nunavut or NWT in recent years, and no trade data indicates that
Dolphin and Union caribou are hunted and subsequently imported into the
United States. This caribou entity is not listed in the Appendices of
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) (https://www.cites.org; also see Conservation
Status of the Dolphin and Union Caribou). CITES is an international
agreement between governments with the purpose of ensuring that
international commercial and noncommercial trade in wild animals and
plants does not threaten their survival. CITES entered into force in
1975 and is an international treaty among 184 parties, including Canada
and the United States. A review of the Service's Law Enforcement
Management Information System (LEMIS) database indicated that caribou
are not currently tracked by subspecies (LEMIS contains information on
caribou at the species level), so we do not currently have data on the
import of the Dolphin and Union caribou.
Hunting has not been implicated as a current threat to Dolphin and
Union caribou. While unsustainable hunting may have contributed to a
historical decline in the Dolphin and Union caribou, currently
subsistence hunting is managed, and sport hunting is not taking place.
(Dumond and Lee 2013, p. 329; SARC 2013, p. ix; Dumund 2012,
unpaginated). The Dolphin and Union caribou is being monitored closely
by the Government of Nunavut, the Government of the Northwest
Territories, and the Government of Canada. In summary, hunting may have
played a role in the decline of the Dolphin and Union caribou in the
past; however, management of the Dolphin and Union caribou has reduced
the impact of hunting.
Protected Areas
The southwestern portion of the Dolphin and Union caribou range
lies within the boundaries of Tuktut Nogait National Park (COSEWIC
2017, p. 4). While protected, this area constitutes a small portion of
the DPS's overall range. On the other hand, the calving ground for the
Dolphin and Union caribou on Victoria Island is not protected. Studies
are currently under way to define a calving strategy and determine
suitable habitat (Leclerc and Boulanger 2018, pp. 37-38). Caribou
biologists indicate that areas that are suitable for calving but are
currently unused should be anticipated and managed for potential future
use (Nagy 2011, p. 35). The best available information suggests that
current protected areas are well managed.
Shipping, Exploration, and Developmental Activities
The Northwest Passage, which includes the Dolphin and Union Strait,
is likely to become more navigable to large ships in the near future
due to decreased ice in the passage, and thus could be exposed to
increased exploration activities. Ships traveling through the Northwest
Passage could be routed through the Dolphin and Union Strait as
temperatures become substantially warmer. In recent years, the strait
has been ice free for 2 months during the summer, leading to increased
maritime traffic with heavy ship traffic concentrating around the
strait used by the Dolphin and Union caribou (Leclerc 2017, pers.
comm.; Pizzolato et al. 2016, pp. 12,148-12,149). Given that ice levels
in the 2010-2012 periods have been the lowest since 1968, it is very
likely that shipping traffic through the strait will increase (Howell
et al. 2013, as cited in Pizzolato et al. 2016, p. 12,152). Currently,
traffic to the Beaufort Sea is the second highest in the Northwest
Passage after the Hudson Bay (Pizzolato et al. 2016, p. 12,149; SARC
2013, p. 94). Shipping traffic through the strait increases in years
where multiyear-ice levels, which present significant impediment to
ship traffic, are low (Pizzolato et al. 2016, p. 12,152). In the
Victoria Strait region (located at the opposite end of the channel to
the Dolphin and Union strait), shipping activity tripled during the
2006-2013 period (Pizzolato et al. 2016, p. 12,152). Shipping traffic
negatively affects the migration of the Dolphin and Union caribou by
causing ice breakup during the winter (SARC 2013, p. 47).
If the warming trend continues in this region as climate models
indicate, conditions for offshore oil and gas exploration and
production will likely improve, increasing the likelihood of shipping
traffic (Pizzolato et al. 2016, p. 12,152; Barber et al. 2008, p. 17).
The potential increase in mining and shipping traffic in the Dolphin
and Union Strait could have demographic and ecological consequences for
the Dolphin and Union caribou. A larger number of Dolphin and Union
caribou on the mainland have been sighted with thicker coats of fur,
suggesting that more of them are falling through the ice (Poole et al.
2010, p. 416). While increasing shipping traffic will lead to the
breakup of the ice, some Inuit have indicated ships run through the
straits during the summer months, which is outside of the primary
migration months (SARC 2013, p. 47). However, the reduction in
multiyear ice in the strait over time will result in greater shipping
traffic even during the winter (Pizzolato et al. 2016, p. 12,152; SARC
2013, p. 94).
Compounding the increasing trend of shipping traffic is a
complicated
[[Page 76121]]
regulatory environment. Shipping traffic through the Artic is governed
by a complex set of international agreements, national regulations, and
territorial laws that affects different types of shipping (Porta et al.
2017, p. 66). At the international scale, the basic legal framework of
shipping is organized under the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS) which identify maritime zones and the rights and
obligations states have within that zone (Porta et al. 2017, p. 69). At
the national scale, Canadian shipping is regulated through the Arctic
Waters Pollution Prevention Act of 1969 and the Arctic Shipping
Pollution Prevention Regulation of 1978 (Grove 2017, pp. 65, 68). These
regulations sought to balance the commercial interest of shipping
companies and the potential effects of shipping on local indigenous
communities and the environment (Porta et al. 2017, p. 77). While the
preamble to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act underscores
Canada's commitment to Arctic development to occurs in lockstep with
environmental stewardship and protection, exploitation of natural
resources of the Canadian Arctic is occurring at greater scale than in
the past with larger and more frequent shipping vessels travelling
through the area (Porta et al. 2017, p. 77). Furthermore, current
shipping routes pass through areas that have been considered to be
environmentally sensitive areas (Porta et al. 2017, p. 78).
In an attempt to better coordinate these different regulations and
protect environmentally sensitive areas, Canada began to implement the
Northern Marine Transportation Corridors (NMTC) Initiative in 2017.
This initiative involves multiple governing agencies including the
Canadian Coast Guard, Transport Canada and the Canadian Hydrographical
Service. The initiative sought to limit the ecological impact of
shipping by identifying routes where service levels and supporting
infrastructure are available at the highest level. One of the routes
identified would pass through the Dolphin and Union strait. While local
communities and civil society has expressed general support for the
initiative, concerns remain regarding the integration and creation of
protection for environmentally and culturally sensitive areas (Porta et
al. 2017, p. 67). This suggest that more efforts and coordination need
to take place between governing agencies, the shipping industry, and
local communities to better manage and mitigate the effects of shipping
on the environment. Overall, while Canada has undertaken efforts to
better manage environmentally sensitive areas, in light of increasing
shipping traffic as a result of loss of sea ice, more coordination will
likely be needed to mitigate the effects of shipping on the local
ecosystem.
Stochastic (Random) Events and Processes
Species endemic to small regions, or known from few, widely
dispersed locations, are inherently more vulnerable to extinction than
widespread species because of the higher risks from localized
stochastic (random) events and processes, such as industrial spills and
drought. Those species face an increased likelihood of stochastic
extinction due to changes in demography, the environment, genetics, or
other factors, in a process described as an extinction vortex (a mutual
reinforcement that occurs among biotic and abiotic processes that
drives population size downward to extinction) (Courtois et al. 2003,
pp. 394, 402). The negative impacts associated with vulnerability to
random demographic fluctuations or natural catastrophes can be further
magnified by synergistic interactions with other threats.
The Dolphin and Union caribou is known from a single geographic
population that migrates between Victoria Island and the Canadian
mainland (SARC 2013, p. xiv; Governments of NWT and Nunavut 2011, p. 2;
Poole et al. 2009, p. 415). As a result, the Dolphin and Union caribou
is vulnerable to stochastic processes and is highly likely to be
negatively affected by these processes. Year-to-year variation in the
timing of sea-ice formation, shipping traffic, and usage of
icebreakers, in combination with other threats, could impact the
migration of the Dolphin and Union caribou (Poole et al. 2010, pp. 414,
419, 425; Sharma et al. 2009, p. 2,559). Therefore, it is likely that
stochastic processes have negative impacts on the species in
combination with other factors such as sea-ice loss and shipping. Given
the recent, significant decline in the Dolphin and Union caribou, the
effects of stochastic events on the herd will be magnified resulting in
greater vulnerability.
Synergistic Interactions Between Threat Factors
We have evaluated the individual threats to the Dolphin and Union
caribou throughout its range. The primary threat affecting the Dolphin
and Union caribou is the loss of sea ice due to climate change and
increased shipping through the straits. Other factors, though not as
severe as loss of sea ice and shipping, can become threats in the
future due to the cumulative effects they will have on the Dolphin and
Union caribou. For the Dolphin and Union caribou DPS, warble fly and
nose botfly harassment, disease, and predation are threats that,
synergistically, could have an impact on the Dolphin and Union caribou.
As discussed above in this document, the Dolphin and Union caribou
population continues to decline from its recent peak in 1997 (Dumond
and Lee 2013, p. 334). While the exact cause of the decline is not
known, a number of factors acting synergistically can put additional
pressure on the population. Botfly harassment has the potential to
increase if surface temperature increases by more than 3-6 [deg]C
(Dumund and Lee 2013, p. 330). One recent climate-projection model
points toward an increase in botfly activity, which will increase the
energy expenditure of caribou (Witter et al. 2012, p. 284). Although
these factors individually do not amount to a significant threat to the
Dolphin and Union caribou, acting synergistically with major threats of
sea-ice loss and shipping, they can have a detrimental impact.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In our August 31, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 48619), we requested
that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by
November 1, 2021. We also contacted appropriate Federal agencies,
scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and
invited them to comment on the proposed rule. We did not receive any
requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided
during the comment period either has been incorporated directly into
the final rule or is addressed below.
Peer Reviewer Comments
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of
listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of five
appropriate specialists regarding the species report. The peer
reviewers have expertise that includes familiarity with Dolphin and
Union caribou and its habitat, biological needs, and threats. We
received five responses, which informed the species report and proposed
rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing
determination is based on scientifically sound data, conclusions, and
analyses.
[[Page 76122]]
The comments we received helped inform the status of the DPS. Peer
reviewer comments and expert opinions were incorporated into the
species report (USFWS 2022, entire).
Public Comments
We received 12 public comments in response to the proposed rule. We
reviewed all comments we received during the public comment period for
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed rule. Two
commenters provided substantive comments or new information concerning
the proposed listing and 4(d) rule for Dolphin and Union caribou.
Below, we provide a summary of the two substantive issues raised in the
public comments we received. Comments outside the scope of the proposed
rule, and those without supporting information, did not warrant an
explicit response and, thus, are not presented here. Similar comments
have been consolidated.
(1) The Governments of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories
provided additional information on the hunting program currently
implemented in Canada. Specifically, the comment identified current
harvesting quotas and types of individuals who are allowed to hunt.
Response: We have incorporated the new information on hunting
quotas for the Dolphin and Union caribou in Canada into this rule and
the species report.
(2) Two comments, one from the Governments of Nunavut and the
Northwest Territories, provided updated information resulting from
surveys conducted in 2018 and 2020. As noted above, these new surveys
identified significant decline in the herd after 2015.
Response: The new information presented indicated that the herd is
in more serious decline than we were aware of when we proposed to list
the Dolphin and Union caribou as a threatened DPS. The decline is due
to a combination of threats mentioned in this rule, including the
effects of climate change on sea ice and icing events, shipping traffic
through the straits, and parasites. After reviewing the new information
and consulting with species experts in Canada, we conclude that the DPS
is in danger of extinction now. As such, we are finalizing the listing
of this DPS as endangered under the Act.
Determination of Dolphin and Union Caribou Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires
that we determine whether a species meets the definition of
``endangered species'' or ``threatened species'' because of any of the
following factors: (A) the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. For a more detailed discussion on
the factors considered when determining whether a species meets the
definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species'' and our
analysis on how we determine the foreseeable future in making these
decisions, please see Regulatory and Analytical Framework, above.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Dolphin and Union caribou. In section 3(6), the Act defines an
``endangered species'' as any species that is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range and in section
3(20), defines a ``threatened species'' as any species that is likely
to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The best
available information indicates that the Dolphin and Union caribou has
experienced a steep decline (Leclerc and Boulanger 2018, p. 36). A
number of threats including sea ice loss, icing events, and parasitic
harassment, acting synergistically likely played a role in reducing the
population. We have concluded that the decline was primarily as a
result of loss of sea ice due to climate change and an increase in
shipping traffic (Factor A). Other threats, including parasitism
(Factor C), predation (Factor C), and hunting (Factor B), have a
limited or unknown impact at this time, but could become more serious
threats in the future.
Although the herd has changed its migration patterns and its
resource use in the past, access to the wintering ground on the
mainland played an important role in the historical recovery of the
species (Leclerc and Boulanger 2018, p. 37; Nishi and Gunn 2004, as
cited in COSEWIC 2004, p. 35). Current trends indicate sea-ice loss in
the Dolphin and Union caribou's range will continue through the end of
the 21st century (Meier et al. 2011, pp. 9-2-9-3; Wang and Overland
2009, p. L07502; Bo[eacute] et al. 2009, p. 1). While crossings are
still taking place suggesting that current sea-ice thickness is
sufficient for crossing (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p.
30), the continued decline in the DPS population suggests that other
stressors are having a larger effect in negatively affecting the
Dolphin and Union caribou's current overall resilience.
One such factor in addition to sea-ice loss from climate change is
the increase in shipping traffic through the Dolphin and Union
caribou's habitat, which delays the formation of sea ice. Sea ice
between Victoria Island and the mainland now forms 8-10 days later than
it did in 1982, a trend that will continue to accelerate (Poole et al.
2010, p. 414). Additionally, because the Dolphin and Union strait
occurs at the southernmost point of the Northwest Passage, shipping
traffic is more concentrated in this region than in other portions of
the Canadian Archipelago (Pizzolato et al. 2016, pp. 12,148-12,149).
The continued increase in shipping traffic combined with projected ice
loss in this region will have a significant effect on the Dolphin and
Union caribou by delaying or preventing the migration to wintering
grounds on the mainland (Poole et al. 2010, p. 414). Additionally, the
breaking up of the sea ice can result in caribous falling through the
thinner ice and increases the likelihood of mass drowning events.
Although the Dolphin and Union caribou was able to adapt in the
past after the caribou ceased migration to the mainland during the
early 1900s due to introduction of firearms (USFWS 2021, pp. 9-10), the
trend since 1997 suggests a steady decline. Furthermore, given the
decline in the DPS population, it is unlikely that Victoria Island will
be able to support the Dolphin and Union caribou (Leclerc and Boulanger
2018, p. 39). Additionally, with only one extant population, the
Dolphin and Union caribou possess very limited redundancy making it
highly susceptible to stochastic events. The Dolphin and Union caribou
representation is also limited as little to no genetic exchange occurs
with adjacent caribou subspecies. As noted in Significance, above,
while genetic outflow occurs from the Dolphin and
[[Page 76123]]
Union caribou herd into other barren-ground caribou subpopulations on
the mainland, very little genetic inflow occurs from the other barren-
ground caribou subpopulations. Overall, given the decline in the
population and its restricted range and population, we assessed the
Dolphin and Union caribou to currently possess low resiliency,
redundancy, and representation.
In addition to the potential loss of connectivity between Victoria
Island and the mainland, the Dolphin and Union caribou also experience
impacts from other threats. The impacts of these other threats,
however, are more uncertain. Insect harassment from warble flies
increases the energy expenditure of affected animals (Scheer 2004, pp.
10-11). With regard to disease, although local communities have
identified affected individuals, the impact on the overall
subpopulation is unknown (SARC 201, p. 80). Predation could have an
impact on the Dolphin and Union caribou. Earlier reports suggest that
predation does not represent a major threat, but lingering concerns
remain (COSEWIC 2017, p. 27; Gunn 2005, pp. 10-11, 39-41). Lastly,
while unregulated hunting played an important role in the historical
decline of the Dolphin and Union caribou, current management efforts in
place regulate hunting, and sport hunting is not currently taking
place. However, the DPS continues to decline (Dumond and Lee 2013, p.
329; SARC 2013, p. ix; Dumond 2012, unpaginated). As noted elsewhere,
the Dolphin and Union caribou has consistently declined within the past
20 years to around 3,800 individuals from 34,000 individuals, and the
resiliency of the DPS has been significantly compromised, affecting its
ability to withstand stochastic events (Campbell et al. 2021, p. 2).
Furthermore, with only one extant population, the Dolphin and Union
caribou has very limited redundancy and representation.
In summary, the Dolphin and Union caribou has experienced
significant population change over the past century. The Dolphin and
Union caribou experienced a significant decline in the early 20th
century due to the introduction of firearms and excessive hunting
(COSEWIC 2004, p. 41; Gunn et al. 2011, p. 37; Manning 1960, pp. 9-10).
The population rebounded in the latter half of the 20th century
reaching its maximum size in 1997. Since then, however, the single
population of the Dolphin and Union caribou has declined once more.
Surveys conducted in 2007 revealed a modest decline of the species
(Dumond and Lee 2013, p. 334). A survey in 2015 revealed that the
decline continues (Governments of the NWT and Nunavut 2018, p. 36;
Leclerc and Boulanger 2018, p. 36). Additionally, recent survey data in
2018 and 2020 documented continued, major decline from approximately
18,000 individuals in 2015 to about 3,800 individuals in 2020 (Campbell
et al. 2021, p. 2). We find that a number of threats, including
primarily sea-ice loss due to climate change and shipping, and to a
lesser extent insect harassment, predation, and hunting, acting in
tandem and synergistically, has negatively impacted the species to such
a degree that is in danger of extinction.
Given the new information regarding the continued decline and
current population size of the species, we have reevaluated the status
of the species. In the proposed rule, we concluded that continuation of
the current trends would likely result in the species becoming in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. We now find that a
number of threats, including primarily sea-ice loss due to climate
change and shipping, and to a lesser extent insect harassment,
predation, and hunting, acting in tandem and synergistically, has
negatively impacted the species to such a degree that it is already in
danger of extinction, even in the absence of future intensification of
the threats.
Therefore, after evaluating threats to the species and assessing
the cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors,
we conclude that the Dolphin and Union caribou is currently in danger
of extinction throughout all of its range as a result of the ongoing
and projected decline caused by the increase in threats described above
that has already occurred.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. We have determined that the Dolphin and Union caribou is in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did
not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range.
Because the Dolphin and Union caribou warrants listing as endangered
throughout all of its range, our determination is consistent with the
decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289
(D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in which the court vacated the aspect of the
Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of
Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014) that
provided the Service does not undertake an analysis of significant
portions of a species' range if the species warrants listing as
threatened throughout all of its range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Dolphin and Union caribou DPS meets the
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we are listing the
Dolphin and Union caribou DPS as an endangered species in accordance
with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
The purposes of the Act are to provide a means whereby the
ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend
may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such
endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as
may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and
conventions set forth in the Act. Under the Act there are a number of
tools available to advance the conservation of species listed as
endangered or threatened species under the Act. As explained further
below, these conservation measures include: (1) recognition, (2)
recovery actions, (3) requirements for Federal protection, (4)
financial assistance for conservation programs, (5) prohibitions
against certain activities.
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, as well as
in conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign
governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery
actions to be carried out for listed species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR part 402 implement the interagency
cooperation provisions found under section 7 of the Act. Under section
7(a)(1) of the Act, Federal agencies are to use, in consultation with
and with the assistance of the Service, their authorities in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to ensure, in consultation with the
Service, that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such
agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed
species or result in destruction or adverse modification of its
critical habitat.
[[Page 76124]]
A Federal ``action'' that is subject to the consultation provisions
of section 7(a)(2) is defined in our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
402.02 as all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or
carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the United
States or upon the high seas. With respect to the Dolphin and Union
caribou, actions that may require consultation under section 7(a)(2) of
the Act include incidental take of the caribou on the high seas.
Additionally, no critical habitat will be designated for this species
because, under 50 CFR 424.12(g), we will not designate critical habitat
within foreign countries or in other areas outside of the jurisdiction
of the United States.
Section 8(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(a)) authorizes the
provision of limited financial assistance for the development and
management of programs that the Secretary of the Interior determines to
be necessary or useful for the conservation of endangered or threatened
species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1537(b) and (c)) authorize the Secretary to encourage
conservation programs for foreign listed species, and to provide
assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the training
of personnel.
The Act puts in place prohibitions against certain actions with
listed species. The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a
series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all
endangered wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act,
codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to import; export; deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any
means whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any species listed as
an endangered species. In addition, it is unlawful to take (which
includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,
or collect; or to attempt any of these) endangered wildlife within the
United States or on the high seas. It is also illegal to possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Under section 9(g) of the Act
it is also unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to attempt to commit, solicit another to commit, or cause
to be committed, any of these prohibited acts. Certain exceptions apply
to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits for endangered wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22,
and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part
13. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the
following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities. The Service may also register persons
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States through its captive-
bred-wildlife (CBW) program if certain established requirements are met
under the CBW regulations (50 CFR 17.21(g)). Through a CBW
registration, the Service may allow a registrant to conduct certain
otherwise prohibited activities under certain circumstances to enhance
the propagation or survival of the affected species: take; export or
re-import; deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in interstate or
foreign commerce, in the course of a commercial activity; or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. A CBW registration
may authorize interstate purchase and sale only between entities that
both hold a registration for the taxon concerned. The CBW program is
available for species having a natural geographic distribution not
including any part of the United States and other species that the
Director has determined to be eligible by regulation. The individual
specimens must have been born in captivity in the United States.
Sections 9 and 10 of the Act also contain certain statutory exemptions
from the prohibitions for certain qualifying specimens and activities.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a final listing
on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of a listed
species. Based on the best available information, the following actions
are unlikely to result in a violation of section 9, if these activities
are carried out in accordance with existing regulations and permit
requirements; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Take of the Dolphin and Union caribou in its native range in
Canada; and
(2) Trade in the Dolphin and Union caribou and its products that is
both outside the United States and conducted by persons not subject to
U.S. jurisdiction.
Based on the best available information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they
are not authorized in accordance with permits or exemptions under the
Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Import into the United States of the Dolphin and Union caribou
and its products, without obtaining permits required under section 10
of the Act.
(2) Export of the Dolphin and Union caribou and its products from
the United States without obtaining permits required under section 10
of the Act.
(3) Take of the Dolphin and Union caribou within the United States
or on the high seas, or possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or
ship, by any means whatsoever any such wildlife and its products that
has been taken illegally.
(4) Deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or
foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of
commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce the Dolphin and Union caribou and its products.
(5) Attempt to commit, solicit another to commit, or cause to be
committed, any of these prohibited acts with Dolphin and Union caribou
and its products.
Separate from its listing as an endangered species, applicable
wildlife import/export requirements established under section 9(d)-(f)
of the Act, the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371, et seq.),
and 50 CFR part 14 must also be met for Dolphin and Union caribou
imports and exports. Questions regarding whether specific activities
would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be sent to
the Division of Management Authority of the Service's International
Affairs Program (managementauthority@fws.gov; 703-358-2104).
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that we do not need to prepare environmental
analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) in connection with listing a species under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
[[Page 76125]]
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket Number FWS-HQ-ES-2019-0014.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the
Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I,
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11 in paragraph (h) by adding an entry for ``Caribou,
barren-ground [Dolphin and Union caribou DPS]'' in alphabetical order
under Mammals to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read
as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Caribou, barren-ground [Dolphin Rangifer tarandus Canada (Victoria E 87 FR [Insert
and Union caribou DPS]. groenlandicus. Island, Coronation Federal Register
Gulf, Dolphin and page where the
Union Strait, document begins],
Dease Strait, and 12/13/2022.
Canadian Mainland
in Nunavut and
Northwest
Territories).
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-26652 Filed 12-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P