[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