[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1529-1539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-473]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 18
RIN 1018-AE26
Import of Polar Bear Trophies From Canada: Addition of
Populations to the List of Areas Approved for Import
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule announces findings on the import of polar bears
(Ursus maritimus) taken in sport hunts in the areas formerly known as
Parry Channel-Baffin Bay and Queen Elizabeth Islands, Northwest
Territories (NWT), Canada, under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service summarizes the new research
data used by Canada to redefine these areas into five populations:
Queen Elizabeth Islands, Norwegian Bay, Kane Basin, Lancaster Sound,
and Baffin Bay, and provides a summary of the Nunavut Land Claim and
the new Flexible Quota Option. The Service finds that Lancaster Sound
and Norwegian Bay meet the requirements of the MMPA and adds them to
the list of approved populations in the regulations. The Service defers
the decision on Queen Elizabeth Islands, Baffin Bay, and Kane Basin.
DATES: This rule is effective February 10, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teiko Saito, Office of Management
Authority, telephone (703) 358-2093; fax (703) 358-2281.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 18, 1997, the Service published in the Federal Register
(62 FR 7302) the final rule for the import of trophies of personal
sport-hunted polar bears taken in Canada by U.S. hunters. The rule
established the application requirements, permit procedures, issuance
criteria, permit conditions, and issuance fee for such permits and made
legal and scientific findings required by the MMPA. Before issuing a
permit for the import of a polar bear trophy, we, the Service, must
make a finding that the polar bear was legally taken by the applicant,
and in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) and after
opportunity for public comment, must make the findings listed in
section 104(c)(5)(A) of the MMPA. We made these findings on an
aggregate basis to be applicable for multiple harvest seasons as
follows: (a) The Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) has a
sport-hunting program that allows us to determine before import that
each polar bear was legally taken; (b) the GNWT has a monitored and
enforced program that is consistent with the purposes of the 1973
International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears
(International Agreement); (c) the GNWT has a sport-hunting program
that is based on scientifically sound quotas ensuring the maintenance
of the affected population stock at a sustainable level for certain
populations; and (d) the export of sport-hunted trophies from Canada
and their subsequent import into the United States would be consistent
with CITES and would not likely contribute to illegal trade of bear
parts. In addition, we found that the prohibition on the import of
pregnant and nursing marine mammals in section 102(b) of the MMPA would
be met under the application requirements, issuance criteria, and
permit conditions in the regulation.
We provided information in the final rule to show that the
following polar bear populations met the criteria specified in the
MMPA: Southern Beaufort Sea, Northern Beaufort Sea, Viscount Melville,
M'Clintock Channel, and Western Hudson Bay. We deferred making a
decision for other populations: Parry Channel-Baffin Bay, Queen
Elizabeth Islands, Foxe Basin, Gulf of Boothia, Southern Hudson Bay,
and Davis Strait. At the same time, we announced that upon receipt of
substantial new scientific and management data, we would publish a
proposal for public comment and consult with the MMC. Any population
found to meet the criteria would be added to the list of approved
populations in the regulation at Sec. 18.30(i)(1).
When we proposed the polar bear rulemaking in July 1995 (60 FR
36382), the Department of Renewable Resources (DRR), GNWT, had begun an
intensive population inventory of the Parry Channel-Baffin Bay area. We
treated the Parry Channel-Baffin Bay area as a single population based
on the best available scientific data at that time and current
management practices by the GNWT. However, we recognized that
forthcoming information would likely show the area to be composed of
multiple populations. The final rule reflected our response to the
numerous comments received on the treatment of the Parry Channel-Baffin
Bay area as a single unit, rather than the new data resulting from
Canada's ongoing research and management changes. To avoid further
delay in completing the final rule, we chose to complete the rulemaking
on the proposed rule and to publish the new data in a subsequent
proposed rule. Thus, we deferred making a decision for the Parry
Channel-Baffin Bay population in the final rule.
Canada provided information to the Service as their research in the
Parry Channel-Baffin Bay areas progressed. In August 1995, Environment
Canada stated in a letter to the Service that current status
information on the Parry Channel and Baffin Bay areas ``would
disqualify these populations,'' but new additional information could be
available for review in early 1996. At the 1996 Polar Bear Technical
Committee (PBTC) meeting the GNWT presented preliminary information
that four polar bear populations were identified within an area that
included the former Parry Channel-Baffin Bay and portions of the Queen
Elizabeth Islands polar bear populations. Based on the preliminary
data, the GNWT recommended boundary changes and renaming of the Parry
Channel population as Lancaster Sound, boundary changes for the Baffin
Bay population, and identification of the new Norwegian Bay and Kane
Basin populations out of areas of Queen Elizabeth Islands. In July
1996, we received additional information on these areas and were
advised that research and inventory studies in the areas were ongoing.
In January 1997 additional information on these areas was obtained at
the PBTC meeting, including information on new
[[Page 1530]]
population boundaries (Map 1) and population estimates, implementation
of the Flexible Quota Option, and management changes as a result of
further implementation of the Nunavut Land Claim.
Map 1. Boundaries of polar bear populations in Canada. Southern
Beaufort Sea (SB), Northern Beaufort Sea (NB), Viscount Melville (VM),
Queen Elizabeth Islands (QE), Norwegian Bay (NW), Kane Basin (KB),
Lancaster Sound (LS), Baffin Bay (BB), Gulf of Boothia (GB), M'Clintock
Channel (MC), Foxe Basin (FB), Davis Strait (DS), Western Hudson Bay
(WH), and Southern Hudson Bay (SH).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11JA99.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
On June 12, 1997, Congress amended the MMPA to ease the criteria
that need to be met before a permit can be issued to import polar bear
trophies taken before April 30, 1994 (i.e., pre-Amendment bears). See
Public Law No. 105-18, Sec. 5004, 111 Stat. 187-88 (1997). Under the
new language, we can issue an import permit for such trophies after:
(a) the applicant has provided proof to show that the polar bear was
legally hunted in Canada and (b) we have published a notice of the
application in the Federal Register for a 30-day public comment period
and collected the permit issuance fee, which has been set by regulation
at $1,000. These pre-Amendment trophies are subject to the inspection,
clearance, and tagging procedures previously described in the final
rule published February 18, 1997 (62 FR 7302). Based on the June 12,
1997, amendment, we are currently accepting and processing applications
for permits to import polar bear trophies sport hunted prior to April
30, 1994, and will propose separately a revision of the regulations to
implement the provisions of the amendment.
Scientific Findings and Summary of Information
Findings
We find that the Norwegian Bay and Lancaster Sound populations have
sport-hunting programs based on scientifically sound quotas ensuring
the maintenance of the affected population stock at a sustainable
level. We continue to defer making a finding for the Kane Basin and
Baffin Bay populations pending the outcome of ongoing management
actions between Canada and Greenland for the cooperative management of
these shared populations. We also continue to defer
[[Page 1531]]
making a finding on the Queen Elizabeth Islands population that now
contains land only in the far northern part of the Canadian Arctic
Archipelago.
Summary of Information
We considered the new available information in reassessing whether
the five populations now meet the required finding that there be a
sport-hunting program based on scientifically sound quotas that ensure
the maintenance of the affected population stock at a sustainable
level. We considered the overall sport-hunting program for each
population, including such factors as whether the sport-hunting program
includes: (a) Reasonable measures to ensure the population is managed
for sustainability (i.e., monitoring to identify problems, ways of
correcting problems, etc.); (b) harvest quotas calculated and based on
scientific principles; (c) a management agreement between the
representatives of communities that share the population; and (d)
compliance with quotas and other aspects of the program as agreed to in
the management agreements or other international agreements.
An independent review of these populations was conducted by Dr. J.
Ward Testa on behalf of the MMC and the results were reported to the
Service in April 1997. The purpose of Dr. Testa's report was to review
and evaluate Canada's polar bear management program, particularly as it
related to the current status and sustainability of the polar bear
populations for which we had deferred final decisions in the February
18, 1997, final rule. Specifically, the report addressed: (1) Whether
Canada's polar bear conservation program is based upon sound principles
of resource management; (2) whether the procedure being used by
Canadian scientists to estimate sustainable polar bear harvests is
conceptually sound and reflects current knowledge about polar bears;
(3) whether the judgments concerning the number, discreteness, and
status of putative polar bear populations in Canada are based upon the
best available data and appropriate analyses; and (4) the likelihood
that the data and procedures being used to assess population status and
manage harvests will allow polar bear populations in Canada to grow or
be maintained at current levels (Testa, 1997). Dr. Testa's conclusions
are discussed below in context with our findings on the Norwegian Bay,
Lancaster Sound, Kane Basin, and Baffin Bay populations.
A. Population Management
The rationale of the GNWT polar bear management program is that the
human-caused kill (e.g., harvest, defense, or incidental kill) must
remain within the sustainable yield, with the anticipation of slow
growth for any population. This program has several components
including: (a) Use of scientific studies to determine and monitor
changes in population size and establish population boundaries; (b)
involvement of the resource users and incorporation of traditional
knowledge to enrich and complement scientific studies; (c) harvest data
collection and a license tracking system; and (d) enforcement measures
through regulations and management agreements.
In Canada, management of polar bears has been delegated to the
Provinces and Territories. However, the Federal Department of
Environment Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service) maintains an active
research program and is involved in management of populations that are
shared between jurisdictions, particularly between Canada and other
nations. In addition, Native Land Claims have resulted in Co-Management
Boards for most of Canada's polar bear populations. The PBTC and
Federal/Provincial Polar Bear Administrative Committee (PBAC) meet
annually to ensure a coordinated management process between these
parties (Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) unpublished
documents are on file with the Service). Study of the Parry Channel-
Baffin Bay area highlights the cooperative and shared management that
has come to characterize Canada's polar bear program. The GNWT
conducted the study of this area in cooperation with the Hunters and
Trappers Associations of several communities, Parks Canada, the
University of Saskatchewan, and the Greenland Fisheries Institute.
Participation by the Institute is of relevance since polar bears of the
Baffin Bay and Kane Basin populations are shared with Greenland and
harvested by residents of both countries. The results of these studies
have been shared among participants, representatives of the Wildlife
Management Boards, and Provincial and Federal polar bear managers at
the annual PBTC and PBAC meetings as well as at the World Conservation
Union (IUCN) Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) meetings which bring
together specialists from all countries that have polar bears (GNWT).
Additional information on the GNWT management program for polar bear,
including the use of inventory studies, population modeling, and peer
review, is provided in the Service's February 18, 1997, final rule.
We noted in that final rule that Canada has established an
effective management program for polar bear. Testa (1997) agreed in his
report to the MMC with our appraisal of the GNWT polar bear management
program. In particular, he noted that due thought has been given to the
program and much has been accomplished, particularly with regard to
broad scientific and political collaboration, community education about
conservation principles, a high level of community involvement with
management decisions, and implementation of adaptive, sustainable
harvest quotas at the community level which resonate well with basic
conservation principles.
B. Calculation of Harvest Quotas Based on Population Inventories
The DRR calculates harvest quotas based upon population boundaries
delineated from inventories and mark-recapture studies (USFWS 1997;
Bethke et al. 1996). Using satellite telemetry technology, researchers
place collars on female polar bears and track the movements of the
collared animals. The data collected is then used to define the
population boundaries. Collars, either for satellite telemetry or radio
tracking, cannot be reliably used for adult male polar bears since
their necks are approximately the same size as the head and collars are
easily lost. Polar bear researchers are still seeking alternative
tracking technology suitable for male bears.
Inventory of the Parry Channel-Baffin Bay area and bordering
islands of the Queen Elizabeth Islands area was begun in 1991 with the
use of satellite collars. Additional collars were used in successive
years through 1995. Considerable information on the mark-recapture
studies of these areas, including the number of collars deployed, the
areas in which they were used, the number of bears recaptured by age
and sex class, and the methods of analyzing the data is provided in
detail in the 1997 NWT submission to the PBTC (GNWT 1997).
Canadian polar bear managers have concluded, based on analysis of
the data collected from this research, that there are five polar bear
populations in these areas. These are the new Norwegian Bay and Kane
Basin populations, the renamed Lancaster Sound population, the revised
Queen Elizabeth Islands population, and the Baffin Bay population.
Testa (1997) reported that the population boundaries are the result of
extensive research with satellite and conventional telemetry and that
the
[[Page 1532]]
reorganization of the Parry Channel-Baffin Bay and Queen Elizabeth
Islands populations was conducted using procedures previously described
by Bethke et al. (1996). Recognizing the inevitable uncertainties of
science, Testa cautioned that the conclusions concerning polar bear
stocks, their spatial boundaries, degree of separation, and sizes might
not be completely correct. However, he asserted that the conclusions of
Canadian polar bear researchers and managers are certainly based on the
best available data and analyses.
The GNWT's use of data and management considerations to identify
population boundaries is consistent with the definition of ``population
stock'' as used in the MMPA (USFWS 1997). The GNWT recognizes that the
boundaries of these stocks are partly determined by land mass, sea ice,
and open water barriers that bar polar bear movement, and by management
considerations. One such management consideration has led to a recent
change to the Northwest Territory Big Game Hunting Regulations. In the
past, the take of a bear was counted against the quota of the
population from which it was removed. In recognition of the sometimes
overlapping nature of populations which are not separated by some
physical barrier, current regulations establish a 30-km zone on either
side of a contiguous boundary between two polar bear populations.
Practically speaking, what this means for hunters is that they can
continue to track a polar bear across the population boundary and up to
30 km within the adjoining population. The take of that bear is then
counted against the quota of the population from which the hunter's tag
was provided. This regulation change reflects the description of
population units as functional management units where immigration and
emigration are negligible relative to the effects of harvest or defense
kills (GNWT 1997).
A more recent investigative tool for defining population boundaries
is the study of genetic variation among polar bears. Data obtained from
such studies suggest that there is a genetic basis to the population
boundaries (Paetkau et al. 1995). However, further work is needed to
better understand how genetic variability should be interpreted and its
relation to defining populations. Testa (1997) commented that genetic
studies generally provide less resolution for management purposes than
satellite telemetry.
The second phase of each population inventory is to estimate
population numbers using mark-recapture techniques. The DRR mark-
recapture studies are based on the following: (a) Marking of 15 to 30
percent of the bears in the population; (b) sampling the entire range
of the population to determine the fraction that are marked and the
fraction that are unmarked; and (c) aiming for a target 15 percent
coefficient of variation on the population estimates (GNWT 1997). For
small populations, such as Kane Basin and Norwegian Bay, the DRR
recognizes that it can be difficult to obtain a large enough sample
size needed for the estimates. The alternative for these small
populations would be to sample in areas where bears are known to
concentrate. However, this would introduce bias. Instead, priority is
given to reducing bias by using the same protocol in small as well as
large areas which requires sampling throughout the entire range of the
population. Since there are absolute limits to the precision of
information from small populations that no sampling protocol can
overcome, a full risk assessment will be done on these populations. A
new computer program for this purpose has been developed and was
presented at the 1998 Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine
Mammals (GNWT 1998). This is an international forum attended by marine
mammal researchers from many countries.
Three key characteristics of the GNWT calculation of sustainable
harvest from the population estimates are: (a) Assumption of no density
effects; (b) emphasis on conservation of female bears through hunting
at a ratio of two males to one female; and (c) use of pooled best
estimates for vital rates (e.g., rates of birth and death) for all
Canadian polar bear populations with the exception of Viscount Melville
(USFWS 1997). In his review and evaluation of the procedures used by
the GNWT to estimate sustainable harvests, Testa expressed some
reservations about the modeling aspects but went on to test the polar
bear parameters provided by Taylor et al. (1987) with a general
population model. He concluded that a 3 percent harvest of the female
segment of the polar bear population is sustainable and probably
conservative, and that the assumptions made for calculation of the
sustainable harvest are reasonable. Additionally, he noted that these
low rates of harvest, even if somewhat greater than 3 percent, are
unlikely to result in irreversible reductions of bear numbers on the
time scale of Canada's research and management actions. Harvests of 4
to 6 percent of the original population would take from 9 to 23 years
to reduce the female population by 30 percent. In this context
overharvest is possible, but reversible in the same or shorter time
span by regulating or eliminating quotas, particularly if density
dependent effects come into play (Testa 1997). Information on the
allocation of the sustainable harvest as community quotas can be
obtained from the Service's February 18, 1997, final rule.
The final year of mark-recapture work needed to estimate population
numbers in the Norwegian Bay, Lancaster Sound, Kane Basin, and Baffin
Bay populations was conducted in 1997. The last field season for the
Norwegian Bay, Lancaster Sound, and Kane Basin populations was
conducted in spring while the last Baffin Bay field season was
completed in the fall during the open water season when polar bears are
found onshore. Preliminary estimates for these populations have been
calculated based on the data obtained by the GNWT through the Fall 1996
field season. Some data analysis had yet to be completed as of the 1998
Polar Bear Technical Committee Meeting but the final analysis was not
anticipated to be qualitatively different than the preliminary analysis
(GNWT 1998).
Table 1 provides information based on the GNWT reporting format for
each of these populations including the population estimate, the total
kill (excluding natural deaths), percentage of females killed, and the
calculated sustainable harvest. Based on this information the status is
expressed as increasing, stable or decreasing represented by the
symbols ``+'', ``0'', and ``-''. The symbol ``0*'' refers to the recent
implementation of the Flexible Quota Option in the management program
as described below.
Table 1. Draft status for the Norwegian Bay (NW), Lancaster Sound
(LS), Kane Basin (KB), Baffin Bay (BB), and Queen Elizabeth Islands
(QE) populations. Average kill and harvest figures over several
seasons, and for the 1995/96 and 1996/97 seasons.
[[Page 1533]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Year average 91/92-95/ 3-Year average 93/94-95/ Season 95/96 Season 96/97
96 96 ------------------------------------------------------
Pop. Pop. Reliability ------------------------------------------------------ Pop.1, 2
est. Kill(% ) Sustainable Kill(% ) Sustainable Kill(% ) Sustainable Kill(% ) Sustainable Trend
harvest harvest harvest harvest
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NW.................................... 100 Fair.................. 4.0(30.0) 4.5 4.7(42.9) 3.5 7(57.1) 2.6 2(0.0) 4.5 0/0/0*/+
LS.................................... 1700 Good.................. 81.2(24.9) 76.5 81.7(26.0) 76.5 80(26.9) 76.5 77(22.1) 76.5 0*/0*/0*/0
KB.................................... 200 Fair.................. 6.2(37.1) 8.1 6.3(38.1) 7.9 6(35.0) 8.6 5(60.0) 5.0 0/0/0/0*
BB.................................... 2200 Good.................. 122.2(35.4) 93.2 120.3(35.0) 94.3 117(34.2) 96.5 57(35.7) 92.4 -/-/-/0
QE.................................... 200 None.................. 0.0(--) 0.0 0.0(--) 0.0 0(--) 0.0 0(--) 0.0 0/0/0/0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--overharvest.
+underharvest.
0 no change, a difference of 3 or less between the kill and the sustainable harvest.
0* population stable because of management changes.
2--Population Trend expressed for 5 yr. avg./3 yr. avg./95-96 season/96-97 season.
The Service considers the use of qualitative terms to report the
reliability of population estimates within the present context to be
valid since they were determined through research using scientific
methodology and are a conservative approach (USFWS 1997). However, we
also recognize that the use of quantitative references, such as the
standard error, are more acceptable. The GNWT anticipates that
qualitative terms for the Lancaster Sound, Norwegian Bay, Kane Basin,
and Baffin Bay populations will be replaced with quantitative terms as
final analysis of the latest research data is completed (GNWT).
C. Management Agreements and the Nunavut Land Claim
Polar bear management in Canada is a shared responsibility
involving Federal, Territorial, Provincial, and land claim
participants. Coordination of these parties is the result, in part, of
PBTC and PBAC meetings as well as management agreements between the
resource users and the GNWT. These management agreements are an
intrinsic part of cooperative polar bear management in Canada. In
Sec. 18.30(i)(1)(iii) we recognized management agreements as an
essential part of making the finding that there is a sport-hunting
program to ensure the sustainability of the affected polar bear
population.
The settlement of native land claims in Canada served as an impetus
for the development of the management agreements. The Norwegian Bay,
Lancaster Sound, Kane Basin, and Baffin Bay populations, among others,
fall within the Nunavut Land Claim signed in 1993. Both this claim and
the Inuvialuit Land Claim signed in 1984 establish co-management boards
for cooperative management of wildlife resources, including polar bear
(GNWT). The respective roles of the GNWT and the Nunavut Wildlife
Management Board and the Inuvialuit Wildlife Management Advisory
Council are defined in law. The wildlife management advisory boards are
regarded as the main instrument of wildlife management action in the
NWT, although the Minister of the Department of Renewable Resources is
the ultimate management authority (GNWT). The current approach to polar
bear management begins with community meetings and concludes with
Population Management Agreements that are signed by the communities
that share a population and the Minister of Renewable Resources,
reviewed by the Native Land Claim Boards, and finally transmitted to
the Minister of the Department of Renewable Resources as
recommendations for regulation changes to implement the agreements
(GNWT).
One effect of the Nunavut Land Claim is the division in 1999 of the
NWT into the Nunavut Territory and some presently unnamed western
territory. The transition for this change has already begun with
restructuring of departments including amalgamation of the DRR and
others into the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic
Development (M. Taylor, personal communication). The NWT polar bear
project has been transferred from Yellowknife, NWT, to Iqaluit, the
future capital of the Nunavut Territory. We view these changes as a
continuation of a process begun with settlement of the Nunavut Land
Claim in 1993. Management actions taken to date, including development
of the management agreements, have been with an eye toward
establishment of the Nunavut Territory and are a further example of
Canada's commitment to a responsive management program for polar bear.
The success of the Canadian management agreements and others, such
as the Inupiat-Inuvialuit Agreement for the Southern Beaufort Sea polar
bear population, has led to the acceptance of such agreements as an
important tool for interjurisdictional polar bear management. At the
1997 IUCN meeting for polar bear, the PBSG reiterated the need for
cooperative management of shared populations both as a benefit to polar
bears and as a requirement of the International Agreement.
Specifically, the contribution of management agreements was recognized
and the need for additional agreements was called for in a new
resolution to the International Agreement that concluded that ``the
development of sound conservation practices for shared populations
requires systematic cooperation, including use of jointly collected
research and management information to develop cooperative management
agreements'' (PBSG 1997).
The Canadian Government is actively pursuing development of a
management agreement for polar bear populations shared between Canada
and Greenland. These shared populations include the Kane Basin, Baffin
Bay, and Davis Strait polar bear populations. A meeting was held in
January 1997 to identify management needs and to discuss the potential
development of a management agreement for these shared populations. The
following areas were identified as necessary elements of a co-
management agreement: (a) agreement on the boundaries, population, and
sustained yield of the three populations; (b) acceptable division of
the sustained yield; (c) harvest monitoring; (d) a management system to
ensure the sustained yield is not exceeded; and (e) agreement on other
harvest practices, such as family groups, protection of dens, etc.
Representatives of Greenland have clarified that, unlike the
Inuvialuit-Inupiat agreement for the Southern Beaufort Sea population,
any management agreement for populations shared with that country would
need to be government to government rather than user group to user
group. At this point it is uncertain how Canada will be represented
given the complex sharing of management responsibilities for polar bear
within Canada. A committee was
[[Page 1534]]
formed to examine the options for Canadian representation. The options
are expected to be discussed at future meetings on development of
management agreements between Canada and Greenland (GNWT).
D. Compliance With Quotas and the Sport-Hunting Program
The community quotas are based on harvest of polar bears at a ratio
of two males:one female (USFWS 1997). While this allows for the harvest
to be 50 percent higher than if polar bears were harvested at a 1:1
ratio, implementation of the sex selective harvest has posed problems.
For some communities where the sex ratio was set as a target of
management agreements, there was ineffective enforcement when the
harvest of females exceeded the target in some years. For those
communities where the sex-selective harvest was implemented through
regulation, difficulty distinguishing between male and female polar
bears led to mistakes and inconsistent law enforcement action for those
mistakes. To respond to these problems, the Flexible Quota Option was
developed. All communities within the four populations of Norwegian
Bay, Lancaster Sound, Kane Basin, and Baffin Bay have agreed to follow
the Flexible Quota Option . This change has been incorporated into the
respective management agreements and, subsequently, into the
regulations which implement those agreements.
The premise behind the Flexible Quota Option is that it will allow
for mistakes in sex identification and for community preferences in
sex-selective harvesting while keeping the harvest within sustainable
yield. There are two parts to this system. The first part is a harvest
tracking system that monitors the number of males and females killed in
the past 5 years. If the sustained yield was not taken in any one of
the past 5 years, then the difference between the sustained yield and
the actual kill is counted as a positive credit. These accrued credits
can then be used to compensate for an overharvest in a future harvest
season. If no credits are available (i.e., the full sustained yield was
taken in each of the past seasons or any available credits have already
been used), then an overharvest can be mitigated by quota reductions in
future years. Once the overharvest has been corrected by a quota
reduction, the quota returns to its original level. Since community
quotas are a shared allocation of the overall population quota, a
community without positive credits can receive credits from one of the
other communities hunting from that same polar bear population. If
there are no credits available or if a community chooses not to provide
credits to another, then the overharvest is mitigated by a quota
reduction to the community which experienced the overharvest.
The second part of the Flexible Quota Option is the calculation of
the quota based on sustainable sex-selective harvesting of one female
bear for every two males. The GNWT summarizes the system as follows.
The number of quota tags allocated to a community depends on the
community's allocation of the sustainable yield of female bears (F)
from any one population as established through a management agreement,
the number of female bears killed in the previous year
(Kt-1), and the proportion of female
bears in the previous year's harvest
(Pt-1). The quota for the current year
(Qt) is then calculated as:
Qt= (2F-Kt-1)/
Pt-1
The value of (2F-Kt-1) cannot exceed F, and the value of
Pt-1 cannot be less than 0.33. If the value of (2F-
Kt-1) is less than zero, the quota is zero and the
subsequent year's quota is calculated by designating Kt as
the value of -(2F-Kt-1) (GNWT 1996).
Testa (1997) concluded that this was simply a way to average the quota
over two years when a village inadvertently exceeds its quota in a
given year. In this way the average take of female bears cannot exceed
the sustainable rate.
Because of the emphasis on conservation of female bears, the sex
ratio of the overharvest must be taken into consideration when a quota
reduction is necessary. As a result, the reduction is handled
differently for male versus female bears. Reductions to the quota as a
result of an overharvest of males occur only when the maximum number of
females has also been taken or exceeded. The correction for such an
overharvest is one male for each male overharvested. A correction is
not made for an overharvest of male bears if the number of females
taken is less than their sustained yield. The rationale for this
decision is that although males were overharvested, females were not.
As a result, those females not harvested will reproduce and compensate
for the additional males removed from the population. In contrast, when
an overharvest of females has occurred, the quota reduction is not
simply one quota tag for each female overharvested. Instead, the sex
ratio of the harvest must be considered in determining the necessary
quota reduction for the following year or subsequent years, if
necessary (GNWT 1996).
The management agreements identify the steps to be taken to
implement the flexible quota system. The DRR reviews the harvest data
of the previous season and identifies any overharvest. Then the
community HTO's, Regional Wildlife Boards, Wildlife Officers, and
Regional Managers develop sustainable alternatives to quota reductions,
if possible. These could include use of credits from that community
that experienced the overharvest or the borrowing of credits from
another community that hunts from the same polar bear population. By
July 1 of each year, the DRR must report the harvest data and quota
recommendations to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB). The
NWMB can accept these recommendations or vary them depending on the
input of the Board and consultation with the communities. They submit
final recommendations to the Department Minister who must make a final
decision, taking into consideration the DRR harvest report and NWMB
recommendations, by August 1 (GNWT).
The 1996/97 polar bear harvest season was the first in which the
communities used the Flexible Quota Option. In the first year of
implementation, all populations were hunted within sustained yield for
both males and females. Some corrections were made for communities that
were unable to meet their harvest targets. These corrections included
use of credits from another community and quota reductions. In
developing the Flexible Quota Option, the GNWT believed that it would
be able to accommodate differences in hunting preferences, differences
in hunting opportunities as a result of weather effects, and would keep
each population's harvest within sustainable yield (GNWT 1996).
Although this system of regulating and monitoring the quota is
considered somewhat less conservative than the previous method, in the
first year of its use it has shown itself to be more effective at
achieving a sustainable harvest for all populations.
As referred to above, there are some less conservative elements to
the Flexible Quota Option. The first element is the manner in which the
DRR assigned the initial credit balance. All communities that agreed to
use the new system entered it with a zero balance of negative credits
but were allowed to retain their positive credits. These positive
credits can be used to offset future overharvests. The DRR recognizes
the inconsistency of this approach but believes that it will not have a
long term negative effect on the populations and that such an approach
was necessary to win support for the system. The second element is the
Flexible Quota Option
[[Page 1535]]
feature that allows unused quota tags to essentially be ``rolled over''
to the following year as a positive credit. In the past, unused quota
tags were not retained into the following year. We recognize, as did
Testa (1997), that this change could theoretically slow the growth of
Canadian polar bear populations. However, it should be recalled that
under the previous system the sex ratio of the harvest was set as a
target for some populations, including the former Parry Channel-Baffin
Bay, rather than into regulation (PBSG 1995). The flexible quota system
does not provide this option. Sex ratios are set into regulations for
all communities using the flexible quota system, thus providing an
additional element to conserve female polar bears that was not present
in the previous system. Given the results to date, we believe that the
flexible quota system is a reasonable alternative for those communities
that have had difficulty consistently hunting at a 2:1 ratio. In
commenting upon the system, Testa (1997) recognized the experimental
nature of the Flexible Quota Option, but concluded that it was
conceptually sound and needed a chance to have its wrinkles worked out.
Status of Populations the Service Approves
The Service approves the Norwegian Bay and Lancaster Sound
populations as meeting the required findings of section
104(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the MMPA based on currently available information
and adds them to the list of approved populations in Sec. 18.30(i).
Norwegian Bay (NW)
The preliminary population estimate for this new area is 100 with
fair reliability based on the analysis of data collected from the
inventory and mark-recapture studies. This population was identified as
being separate from the Queen Elizabeth Islands population previously
described in the Service's February 18, 1997, final rule. A harvest
quota of four bears has been calculated for this population. The quota
is allocated to the community of Grise Fiord.
Table 1 provides information on the 5- and 3-year average of the
harvest in comparison to the sustainable level. These figures were
calculated retrospectively for Norwegian Bay using harvest data from
Grise Fiord once a new population estimate was obtained. As is shown in
the table, the harvest conducted prior to identification of the
Norwegian Bay population occurred in excess of the sustainable harvest
level. The community residents of Grise Fiord have agreed to the terms
of a revised management agreement which includes use of the Flexible
Quota Option to ensure that future harvests are sustainable and all
family groups are protected. No females were taken in the 1996/97
season during the first year of the Flexible Quota Option, and the
overall harvest was within sustained yield.
Lancaster Sound (LS)
The GNWT reports a preliminary population estimate of 1,700 with
good reliability. Based on the new population estimate, a harvest quota
of 76.5 has been calculated. Three communities, Grise Fiord, Resolute,
and Arctic Bay, harvest bears from the Lancaster Sound area. All family
groups are protected in this population. The Service pointed out in the
February 18, 1997, final rule that the harvest of polar bears from the
combined Parry Channel-Baffin Bay area had exceeded the quota by more
than 70 percent over the 5- and 3-year average of harvest results from
1991 through 1996. This apparent lack of compliance was of concern to
the Service and was one of the reasons for deferring a decision on the
area, pending the results of ongoing research and management
activities. The GNWT has now recalculated previous harvests in the
Lancaster Sound population based on the separation of the data for the
former Parry Channel-Baffin Bay area and the new population estimates
for Lancaster Sound and Baffin Bay. As shown in Table 1, based on the
most recent data, Lancaster Sound did experience some overharvest over
a 5- and 3-year average of seasons from 1991 through 1996. However,
female bears were conserved in that less than 30 percent of the harvest
was composed of females. This accounts for the lack of change in the
sustainable harvest over the same time period. These data show that the
Lancaster Sound population was not overharvested and is being managed
on a sustainable basis.
As mentioned above, we consider compliance with quotas as an
essential part of any management program. The communities have signed a
new management agreement which includes the use of the Flexible Quota
Option to help ensure compliance with quotas and correct for
overharvests if they do occur in the future.
As described above, under the Flexible Quota Option an overharvest
of male bears results in a quota reduction only when the harvest of
female bears has met or exceeded the maximum allowed. The 5-year
harvest history for the Flexible Quota Option shows the Lancaster Sound
area had 30 credits for female bears. In contrast, the harvest history
shows an accumulated debit of 38.5 male bears for the population. It is
unclear whether the predominance of males in the harvest was due to
hunter preference or to a greater availability of male bears in this
area. This emphasis on harvesting male bears from this population by
one community was relieved, however, to a limited extent by the
predominance of harvesting females by another community.
Status for Populations for which Scientific and Management Data are
Not Presently Available for Making a Final Decision
After reviewing the best available scientific and management data
on the populations addressed below, the Service is not prepared to make
a final decision on whether populations of Kane Basin, Baffin Bay, or
Queen Elizabeth Islands satisfy the statutory criteria of section
104(c)(5)(A) of the MMPA. As future scientific and management data
become available on these populations, we will evaluate such data to
determine whether a proposed rule should be published that would add
such populations to the approved list in Sec. 18.30(i)(1).
The NWT shares the Kane Basin, Baffin Bay, and Davis Strait
populations with Greenland. Greenland does not have an agreement with
NWT or communities as to how they will manage their portion of the
populations. The management of polar bears in Greenland rests with the
Greenland Home Rule Government. There is no limit on the number of
polar bears taken. Although females with cubs-of-the-year are
protected, older family groups are harvested. In 1993 Greenland started
to systematically collect harvest data. In 1994, a harvest
questionnaire was developed for all species, including polar bears.
Greenland has experienced difficulties in obtaining complete and
accurate harvest records, but the collection of data is expected to
improve as the harvest reporting system becomes better known (GNWT).
As mentioned above, Greenland and the GNWT have conducted
cooperative population inventory studies for the past 4 years. The
brief summary of the January 26, 1997, meeting for the co-management of
polar bear stocks shared between Greenland and Canada reported that the
status of polar bears in the shared populations is disturbing. ``It
appears that the Davis Strait and Baffin Bay populations are being
depleted by over-harvesting. Additionally, Grise Fiord has identified a
quota for the Canadian portion of Kane Basin which, if taken, will
cause this population to decline as well'' (GNWT).
[[Page 1536]]
The Queen Elizabeth Islands population now contains land only in
the far northern part of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. No hunting is
allowed in this area and the population size is unknown. Canada's plans
for this area are unclear at this time.
Kane Basin (KB)
Like Norwegian Bay this new population was identified as occupying
an area formerly considered to be part of the Queen Elizabeth Islands
population. Unlike the Norwegian Bay population, the Kane Basin
population is shared with Greenland. The population estimate for this
area is 200. Management agreements for the NWT portion of Kane Basin
and Baffin Bay populations are in place that include protection of all
family groups and use of the Flexible Quota Option. During the 1996/97
harvest season more than 50 percent of the quota was taken as female
bears. As a result, under the Flexible Quota Option the quota for this
population will be reduced to one for the 1997/98 harvest season. As
long as the 1997/98 quota of one bear is not exceeded and no females
are taken, the overharvest of females in the 1996/97 season will have
been compensated for and the quota will return to five (M. Taylor,
personal communication).
The Kane Basin population is currently considered stable but a
single NWT community, Grise Fiord, has a quota for harvesting from the
Kane Basin population. If this occurs, the population is expected to
decline since Greenland hunters also harvest from this population.
Discussions of a co-management agreement between Canada and Greenland
are expected to be conducted concurrently for the Kane Basin, Baffin
Bay, and Davis Strait populations.
Baffin Bay (BB)
The preliminary population estimate for this area is 2,200. The
combined Parry Channel-Baffin Bay population estimate of 2,470 reported
in the final rule was derived from the 2,000 estimated for Parry
Channel (now Lancaster Sound) and 470 from northeastern Baffin Bay. In
spring the polar bears in the Baffin Bay area are distributed
throughout Baffin Bay and much of the population is unavailable for
mark-recapture, leading to underestimates of the population size. For
this reason the mark-recapture work of the most recent inventory study
has been conducted in the fall, open water season when Baffin Bay polar
bears are on shore in Canada (GNWT 1997). Fall 1997 is expected to be
the last field season required to complete the inventory study. The
harvest data for this population is presented in Table 1 but should be
considered preliminary pending harvest information from Greenland. The
communities of Broughton Island, Clyde River, and Pond Inlet that
harvest from this population have agreed to a revised management
agreement which includes protection of all family groups and use of the
Flexible Quota Option.
As explained above for the Lancaster Sound population, the GNWT has
re-examined the population status of past years based on the new
population estimate. Overharvesting is a problem for this shared
population. Data from Canadian hunts conducted in the 1996/97 harvest
season show a total kill substantially below the sustainable harvest
level, and a harvest sex ratio of nearly 2:1. However, as previously
described, there is currently no management agreement between Canada
and Greenland for this shared population and there are concerns that
the population may be declining.
Queen Elizabeth Islands (QE)
Recent research data led the GNWT to redefine the boundaries of
this population. The area was divided into three populations: Kane
Basin, Norwegian Bay, and Queen Elizabeth Islands. The revised Queen
Elizabeth Islands population is comprised now of land only in the far
northern part of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. The population size
is unknown but it is believed that there are few polar bears in this
remote area. No hunting is allowed in the area.
Background
On February 2, 1998, the Service published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register (63 FR 5340) to announce findings on the import of
polar bears taken in sport hunts in the areas formerly known as Parry
Channel-Baffin Bay and Queen Elizabeth Islands, Northwest Territories,
Canada. Specifically, we reviewed new information and considered
whether there was now a sport-hunting program in place that was based
on scientifically sound quotas ensuring the maintenance of the affected
population stock at a sustainable level. This finding was previously
deferred in the Service's February 18, 1997, final rule pending the
outcome of ongoing management and research activities. The Service
received 14 comments, including 5 form letters, comments from 7
individuals, and 1 humane organization. Comments were also provided by
the MMC as part of the consultative process required by the MMPA.
Summary of Comments and Information Received; General Comments
Issue 1: Several respondents requested that the Service approve the
Baffin Bay and Kane Basin populations now but postpone the issuance of
import permits until there is a management agreement in place between
Canada and Greenland for these shared populations.
Response: The Service believes management agreements need to be in
place before we approve a population since they are an essential part
of co-management of polar bear populations between the resource users
and government wildlife managers. Although Canadian authorities are
pursuing development of a joint management agreement with Greenland,
the content, format, and parties to such an agreement have yet to be
decided.
Issue 2: The MMC thought the Service should indicate how frequently
hunters follow and take bears across population boundaries under the
30-km rule and re-examine the rationale for how population boundaries
have been set if such movements are not rare.
Response: The Service does not agree. Harvest data and research,
including marking and tagging data collected over several years, have
shown that Canada's polar bear populations are relatively closed with a
clear core area and minimal overlap. The use of the 30-km rule assists
Canada in managing bears in areas where the likelihood of overlap is
greatest. Canada monitors populations, analyzes the data on the
movement of bears, and anticipates boundaries may change as new
information on polar bear movements becomes available (USFWS 1997) .
Issue 3: One commenter stated that the MMPA criteria require the
findings to be made on the whole of Canada rather than on a population-
by-population basis and that acceptance of qualitative terms to define
the population estimates is unacceptable.
Response: These issues were discussed at length in the Service's
February 18, 1997, final rule. We believe these issues were addressed
in the development of the regulations and encourage those interested in
these issues to read the previous final rule.
Comments on the Flexible Quota Option
Issue 1: The MMC recommended that the Service closely track the
implementation of the new Flexible Quota Option to ensure that it works
as expected and that the quotas continue to meet the statutory
requirements.
Response: The Service continues to review new information on
Canada's
[[Page 1537]]
polar bear management program, including implementation of the Flexible
Quota Option. We participate in the PBTC meetings where Canada annually
reviews its management program for polar bears, which provides us with
up-to-date information. The regulations allow the Service to
scientifically review the impact of permits issued on polar bear
populations to ensure there is no significant adverse impact on the
sustainability of the Canadian populations. The initial review is to
occur by March 20, 1999.
Issue 2: One commenter expressed concern over the Flexible Quota
Option, stating that it does not comply with the MMPA criteria, is not
precautionary, maximizes opportunities to hunt, and was politically
rather than biologically motivated.
Response: In making its findings under the MMPA, the Service
considered whether Canada's polar bear management program will ensure
the sustainability of the affected population stock. The Flexible Quota
Option was developed in response to problems some communities
experienced with the previous system. It allows for hunter preference
in harvesting for a particular sex, and for mistakes in sex
identification while still providing mechanisms for enforcement of the
quotas and corrections to the quotas if overharvests occur. The
Flexible Quota Option does not change how polar bear tags are
distributed to communities. It does alleviate the need for having two
separate types of tags (i.e., male only and either sex) that were used
in the two-tag system. Hunters must still have a tag for each bear
taken, and tags are distributed to communities based on the community
quota as previously described in the Service's February 18, 1997, final
rule (62 FR 7302).
Repeated harvests in excess of the quota appeared to be a problem
for communities hunting from the Lancaster Sound and Baffin Bay
populations under the previous system. In contrast, following its first
year of use, not one population harvested under the Flexible Quota
Option experienced an overharvest. Although we acknowledged two aspects
of the system were less conservative than the previous system (see
section D), the system can be viewed as being more conservative for
some populations (e.g., Norwegian Bay, Lancaster Sound, Kane Basin, and
Baffin Bay). Under the previous system, the sex ratio of the harvest
was a target goal but was not set in regulation. This presented a
problem when the overall harvest was within quota but the take of
female bears exceeded the target ratio. The Flexible Quota Option
requires harvests to be within quota, and provides a means to ensure
that the take of female bears remains within sustained yield.
Communities which take too many females have to either take a quota
reduction for the following season or compensate by using an accrued
credit from a previous years underharvest of females. As a result, the
ability to enforce harvest quotas and the sex ratio of the harvest, if
needed, has been strengthened by the adoption of the Flexible Quota
Option. We, along with other experts, recognize that this system is
based on sound wildlife management practices.
Issue 3: One commenter claimed that under the Flexible Quota Option
males could be harvested to the last bear without penalty.
Response: The Service disagrees. Under the Flexible Quota Option,
all polar bear harvests and other human-caused kills (i.e., accidental
deaths as the result of scientific research) must be within quota.
There are penalties for taking bears in excess of the quota. However,
unlike the harvest of female bears, hunters are not penalized for
taking male bears in excess of a 2:1 sex ratio provided the overall
harvest is still within quota. The reason for this is that for each
male taken, a female bear is not taken and thus females bears are
further conserved. The belief is that the take of male bears is offset
by the conservation of female bears who will in turn produce male
offspring. In addition, Canada's management program for polar bears
protects all bears in family groups, including males up to 2 years old.
The program also includes ways to monitor changes in the population age
and sex structure (i.e., sample and data collection of the harvest,
scientific research, and observational data from hunters and
residents). Canadian wildlife managers and resource users have
procedures to address population changes accordingly and have used them
to seek solutions to management concerns in the past (e.g., for the
Viscount Melville population).
Issue 4: One commenter disagreed with the Service's statement that
the Flexible Quota Option had already shown itself to be an effective
option, and argued that the Service could not judge whether the system
is effective for a species, such as polar bear, which is long-lived and
difficult to study.
Response: The Service agrees that rapid assessment of the long term
effectiveness of a quota system is not possible for polar bear. The
Service's comment was meant to recognize the new Flexible Quota Option
as an effective alternative to the previous system, not assess the
effectiveness of the system long term. We have changed the text in this
final rule to better reflect this.
Issue 5: The same commenter remarked that the Service's discussion
of J. Ward Testa's report on the Flexible Quota Option ignored the
caveats in the report, and criticized the Service for interpreting
Testa's remarks as giving ``blanket approval'' to the Flexible Quota
Option . The commenter also recommended that the Service postpone
approval of Lancaster Sound and any population using the Flexible Quota
Option until all the ``wrinkles'' are worked out.
Response: The Service believes Testa's report was accurately
summarized in the proposed rule, but has added text to the final rule
to clarify our summary. Although Testa recognized the experimental
nature of the Flexible Quota Option, he concluded that it was
conceptually sound and needed a chance to have its wrinkles worked out.
The Service agrees with this assessment, believes that the system has a
solid theoretical and biological basis--while being flexible and
pragmatic--and therefore, approved populations that use the Flexible
Quota Option.
Comments Specific to Lancaster Sound and Norwegian Bay
Issue 1: The MMC noted that data in Table 1 appears to indicate
that the actual harvest levels in Lancaster Sound and Norwegian Bay may
have exceeded the sustainable harvest in previous years. They believe
the Service should not approve these populations retroactively unless
the Service has determined that Canada's management program was based
on scientifically sound quotas ensuring the maintenance of the affected
population at a sustainable level at the time the bear was taken.
Response: As discussed by the Service in the February 18, 1997,
final rule, the MMPA specifically uses the present tense in the
findings--``Canada has a monitored and enforced sport-hunting program
consistent with the purposes of the Agreement on the Conservation of
Polar Bears.'' There is no other reference in the MMPA amendment that
provides for the findings for trophies taken in the past to be based on
the program at the time of taking. The Service has already indicated
that bears may be imported from previously deferred populations once
that population is approved as meeting all of the MMPA criteria for
import.
Issue 2: The MMC recommended that the Service explain how we
concluded
[[Page 1538]]
that past take levels have been sustainable and why we believe it is
not indicative of possible management problems at least in past years.
Response: The Service did not state, nor does it believe, that
harvests in excess of the quotas may not be indicative of a management
problem. It was for this reason, in part, that the Service did not
approve the former Parry Channel (now Lancaster Sound) and Baffin Bay
populations in the February 18, 1997, rulemaking. As discussed in the
previous response, the Service is making a finding on the current
management program in accordance with the MMPA amendment, not on
whether the past take levels have been sustainable.
Issue 3: One commenter criticized the Service for not providing
convincing biological information in the rule to support the creation
of the Lancaster Sound population.
Response: The Service's role is to review Canada's polar bear
management program to make the findings outlined in the MMPA. Under
Canada's current management program, Lancaster Sound and Norwegian Bay
are identified as separate polar bear populations. We summarized
information on the methods used by Canada to determine and review
populations in the February 18, 1997, final rule and earlier in this
rule, citing published and unpublished reports and papers. Detailed
information, including the number of bears marked, the sex and age-
class of marked bears, and descriptions of the methods used to analyze
the data can be found in these references, which are available from the
Service.
Issue 4: The same commenter criticized the Service's proposed
decision to approve Lancaster Sound in that it ``appears highly suspect
because management stats indicate it has been sport-hunted heavily,
boundary changes have eliminated any overlap with Greenland, and the
dramatic over-harvest has been eliminated for Lancaster Sound by
redrawing the boundaries''.
Response: Canada has recognized the Lancaster Sound and Baffin Bay
populations as separate for many years with the boundary of Lancaster
Sound far removed from Greenland. The Service treated these populations
as a single unit for the purpose of the Service's February 18, 1997,
final rule because the exact boundary separating the two populations
had not been defined pending ongoing research results. The results of
the research (GNWT 1997) provided substantial new information which
allowed Canada to delineate the new boundary and the Service to approve
Lancaster Sound population for the import of sport-hunted trophies
under the MMPA.
Comments on the RISKMAN Program
Issue 1: The MMC recommended that the Service conduct its own
evaluation of Canada's new risk assessment computer program--RISKMAN--
and advise the MMC of the results.
Response: The RISKMAN program is one aspect of the Northwest
Territories Management Program for polar bears. Under the MMPA, the
Service is to determine whether Canada has an overall polar bear
management program based on scientifically sound quotas to ensure the
maintenance of affected population stock at a sustainable level. We
believe the development of this program demonstrates Canada's pursuit
of a management program based on the best available scientific data,
and that Canada's presentation of this program in an international
forum optimizes the opportunity for critical review and input from the
scientific community. Therefore, we do not believe that an independent
evaluation of RISKMAN by the Service is warranted.
Issue 2: One commenter stated that the Service must re-evaluate its
decision to approve Lancaster Sound since the Canadian Wildlife Service
(CWS) indicated during a presentation of the RISKMAN program that data
must be more precise and more frequently collected to maintain high
confidence in current harvest levels.
Response: The Service disagrees. RISKMAN models the effects of
harvest and other removals on the subject population. It is an
individual based model and operates most effectively with extensive,
detailed population and harvest data. RISKMAN is a valuable tool for
managers to help monitor the consequences of removals upon the
population and to refocus management efforts, if needed. Its intended
use is to assist Canada in improving its management programs for polar
bears and other bear species. The conclusions made by the CWS based on
RISKMAN do not indicate that the current management program does not
meet the requirements of the MMPA.
Required Determinations
This final rule was not subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866. A review under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) has revealed that this rulemaking would not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, which
include businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions. The
proposal will affect a relatively small number of U.S. hunters who have
hunted, or intend to hunt, polar bear in Canada. Allowing the import of
legally taken sport trophies, while maintaining the restriction on the
sale of trophies and related products, will provide direct benefits to
individual sport hunters and a probable small beneficial effect for
U.S. outfitters and transportation services as U.S. hunters travel to
Canada. If each year an estimated 50 U.S. citizens hunted a polar bear
in Canada at an approximate cost of $21,000, then $1,050,000 would be
expected to be spent, mostly in Canada. It is expected that the
majority of taxidermy services will be provided in Canada. Since the
trophies are for personal use and may not be sold in the United States,
there are no expected market, price, or competitive effects adverse to
U.S. business interests. The $1000.00 fee collected from each U.S.
hunter upon issuance of a trophy import permit is used for the
management of the shared U.S./Russian Federation polar bear population
as required by the MMPA, and does not affect U.S. business interests.
This final rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, and will not
negatively affect the economy, consumer costs, or U.S.-based
enterprises. The groups most affected by this rule are a relatively
small number of U.S. sport hunters who choose to hunt polar bear in
Canada, and a comparatively small number of U.S. outfitters,
taxidermists, and personnel who provide transportation services for
travel from the United States to Canada.
The Service has determined and certified pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will
not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or
State governments or private entities.
The Service has determined that the rule has no potential takings
of private property implications as defined in Executive Order 12630.
The rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, in
their relationship with the Federal Government or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, the Service has
determined that the rule does not have significant Federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department has
determined
[[Page 1539]]
that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the
requirements of Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
The Office of Management and Budget has approved the collection of
information contained in this final rule as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and has assigned clearance
number 1018-0093 which expires on February 28, 2001. The Service will
collect information through the use of the Service's form 3-200-45. The
likely respondents will be sport hunters who wish to import trophies of
polar bears taken while hunting in Canada. The Service will use the
information to review permit applications and make decisions, according
to criteria established in statutes and regulations, on the issuance or
denial of permits. The applicant must respond to obtain a permit. A
single response is required to obtain a benefit. The Service estimates
the public reporting burden for this collection of information to vary
from 15 minutes to 1.5 hours per response, with an average of 30
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The
estimated number of likely respondents is less than 150, yielding a
total annual reporting burden of 75 hours or less.
The Service prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the final
rule published in the Federal Register (62 FR 7302) on February 18,
1997, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and concluded in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based on a
review and evaluation of the information contained within the EA that
there would be no significant impact on the human environment as a
result of this regulatory action and that the preparation of an
environmental impact statement on this action is not required by
Section 102(2) of NEPA or its implementing regulations. Based on the
review of current information and comments received on the February 2,
1998, proposed rule, the Service has determined that this EA is still
current. The FONSI has been revised to reflect the regulatory actions
taken by the Service to approve the Lancaster Sound and Norwegian Bay
polar bear populations for issuance of permits to import personal
sport-hunted polar bear trophies. The issuance of individual marine
mammal permits is categorically excluded under 516 DM6, Appendix 1.
The Service has evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized
Tribes and determined that there will be no adverse effects to any
Tribe.
References Cited
Bethke, R., M. Taylor, F. Messier, and S.E. Amstrup. 1996.
Population delineation of polar bears using satellite collar data.
Ecol. Appl. 6:311-317.
GNWT, Department of Renewable Resources. 1996. Report prepared
for the Polar Bear Technical Committee Meet., no. 25, 12 pp.
GNWT, Department of Resources, Wildlife, and Economic
Development. 1997. Report prepared for the Polar Bear Technical
Meet., no. 26, 11 pp.
GNWT, Department of Resources, Wildlife, and Economic
Development. 1998. Report prepared for the Polar Bear Technical
Meet., no. 27, 42 pp.
Paetkau, D., W. Calvert, I. Stirling, and C. Strobeck. 1995.
Microsatellite analysis of population structure in Canadian polar
bears. Mol. Ecol. 4:347-354.
PBSG, The World Conservation Union. 1995. Polar Bears. Proc,
Eleventh Working Meet. IUCN/SSC PBSG Jan. 25-28, 1993, Copenhagen,
Denmark. O.Wiig, E.W. Born, and G.W. Garner, eds. Occas. Pap. IUCN
Spec. Surv. Comm. No. 10. Gland, Switzerland.
PBSG, The World Conservation Union. 1997. Resolutions from the
Twelfth Working Meet. IUCN/SSC PBSG Feb. 3-7, 1997.
Taylor, M.K., D.P. DeMaster, F.L. Bunnell, and R.E.
Schweinsburg. 1987. Modeling the sustainable harvest of female polar
bears. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:811-820.
Testa, J.W. 1997. Importation of Polar Bear Trophies from Canada
under the 1994 Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Report prepared for the Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 9
pp.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997. Importation of
Polar Bear Trophies from Canada under the 1994 Amendments to the
Marine Mammal Protection Act; Final Rule. 62 FR 7301. 31 pp.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians,
Marine mammals, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, the Service hereby amends Part 18 of chapter I of
Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
PART 18--MARINE MAMMALS
1. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. Amend Sec. 18.30 by revising paragraph (i)(1) introductory text
to read as follows:
Sec. 18.30 Polar Bear sport-hunted trophy import permits.
* * * * *
(i) Findings. * * *
(1) We have determined that the Northwest Territories, Canada, has
a monitored and enforced sport-hunting program that meets issuance
criteria of paragraphs (d) (4) and (5) of this section for the
following populations: Southern Beaufort Sea, Northern Beaufort Sea,
Viscount Melville Sound (subject to the lifting of the moratorium in
this population), Western Hudson Bay, M'Clintock Channel, Lancaster
Sound, and Norwegian Bay, and that:
* * * * *
Dated: December 16, 1998.
Stephen C. Saunders,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 99-473 Filed 1-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P