[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-16849]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 12, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 215
[Docket No. 940414-4191; I.D. 032494B]
Marine Mammals; Subsistence Taking of Northern Fur Seals
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule; fur seal subsistence harvest estimates on the
Pribilof Islands.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the regulations governing the subsistence taking
of northern fur seals, NMFS is required to publish an estimate of the
number of seals expected to be harvested in the current year to meet
the subsistence needs of the Aleut residents of the Pribilof Islands,
AK. Additionally, this document amends existing fur seal regulations,
making the subsistence harvest take estimates applicable for 3 years
instead of 1 year. The intended effect of this rule is to limit the
take of fur seals to a level providing for the subsistence needs of the
Pribilof residents while minimizing negative effects on the seal
population.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final notice of subsistence need estimates is
effective July 12, 1994, and applies to the harvest beginning June 23,
1994. The final rule that amends existing fur seal regulations, making
the harvest estimates applicable for 3 years instead of 1 year, is
effective August 11, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Dr. William W. Fox, Jr., Director, Office of Protected
Resources, 1335 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Zimmerman, (907) 586-7235,
Margot Bohan or Michael Payne, (301) 713-2322.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) population is
considered depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (50
CFR 216.15(c)). The subsistence harvest of northern fur seals on the
Pribilof Islands, Alaska, is governed by regulations found in 50 CFR
part 215, Subpart D--Taking for Subsistence Purposes, and has been
regulated to minimize negative effects on the population. These
regulations were published under the authority of the Fur Seal Act, 15
U.S.C. 1151 et seq., and the MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. (see 51 FR
24828, July 9, 1986).
The purpose of these regulations is to limit the take of fur seals
to a level providing for the subsistence needs of the Pribilof Aleuts
while using humane harvesting methods, and to restrict taking by sex,
age, and season for herd management purposes.
The St. Paul and St. George Islands' harvest estimates are given as
a range, the lower end of which can be exceeded if NMFS is given
notification and the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA),
determines that the subsistence needs of the Aleut residents from
either of the islands have not been satisfied. Conversely, the harvest
can be terminated before the lower range of the estimate is reached if
it is determined that the subsistence needs of the Pribilof Aleuts have
been met or the harvest has been conducted in a wasteful manner.
NMFS published a summary notice of the 1993 fur seal harvest on
November 1, 1993 (58 FR 58297). The proposed estimates for the 1994 fur
seal subsistence harvest and the proposed rule to make the harvest take
estimates applicable for 3 years instead of 1 year were published on
May 13, 1994 (59 FR 25024). Following acceptance and consideration of
public comments on this proposal, NMFS is publishing this final notice
of the expected harvest levels for 1994, as follows: St. Paul Island:
1,645-2,000; St. George Island: 281-500. In addition, this document
amends existing fur seal regulations, making these take estimates
applicable for 3 years instead of 1 year.
Comments
NMFS received four sets of comments on the proposed harvest
estimates and the proposed rule.
Comment: One commenter opposed the proposed amendment to the
existing fur seal regulations. The commenter stated that NMFS continues
to allow the wasteful taking of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands, and
that the proposed rule change would place NMFS in the position of
endorsing and authorizing wasteful take for an extended period. The
commenter asserted that rather than addressing the wasteful seal
killing that has persisted on those islands for years, NMFS, to the
contrary, now proposes to institutionalize this improper conduct for 3
years without further question.
Another commenter voiced support for the regulatory amendment. The
commenter reasoned that the take has been relatively stable and the
upper and lower limits of the estimate range were wide enough to allow
change, and, therefore, as the populations of animals and people vary,
so can the target goals for future harvests.
Response: Regulations on subsistence taking of northern fur seals
have been devised to limit take to a level providing for legitimate
subsistence needs of the Pribilof Natives while minimizing negative
effects on the seal population. These regulations are intended, thus,
as preventative measures against wasteful taking and improper conduct
within each harvest season. (Wasteful taking is discussed in greater
detail at 58 FR 42027, August 6, 1993.) The rationale behind the 3 year
estimate of subsistence need versus an annual estimate was explained in
the proposed estimates of subsistence need (59 FR 25024, May 13, 1994).
NMFS has recognized the need to reevaluate the regulatory issues
regarding subsistence (57 FR 34081, August 3, 1992). As a first step
towards addressing this need, NMFS proposed that Sec. 215.32(b) of the
fur seal regulations be applicable for a 3-year period, beginning in
1994. The regulatory amendment is based on the fact that the actual
number of fur seals harvested each year since 1989 has been relatively
consistent, and the fur seal take has never exceeded the upper limit of
the estimated range for subsistence need within any year of the
harvest. NMFS anticipates that the subsistence needs of the Pribilof
Island residents may increase during the next 3 years. However, based
on historical evidence to date, the year-to-year subsistence needs are
not expected to increase to levels exceeding the range established in
this final estimate.
Comment: One commenter supported the implementation of a
cooperative management plan as a means of protecting the fur seal. The
cooperative plan would expand governmental conservation efforts, and
involve local people on the islands to a larger extent in fur seal
management issues. The commenter requested that particular effort be
made to establish a structure that will enable the residents of the
Pribilof Islands to more actively participate in the monitoring and
regulating of the harvest.
Response: NMFS agrees with the commenter's suggestions. Section 119
of the recently reauthorized MMPA allows for NMFS to enter into
cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations to conserve
marine mammals and to provide for a co-management of subsistence use by
Alaska Natives. NMFS intends to pursue the development of such a
program that would further the goal of cooperative management and
monitoring with the Alaskan native organizations.
Comment: One commenter stated that the 1994 subsistence estimates
are too high because they are based on historically wasteful seal
killing practices carried over from the period of commercial harvest
when only the choicest cuts of meat were taken for human consumption.
The commenter continued by stating that through the adoption of these
estimates, NMFS further institutionalizes waste and sanctions a level
of seal killing known to reflect wasteful practices.
Response: This comment is similar to the one presented and
discussed in the final subsistence estimates for 1993 (58 FR 42027,
August 6, 1993). In that final notice, a commenter maintained that the
present harvest level did not reflect the true subsistence need on the
Pribilof Islands. However, available information indicates that the
present number of fur seals taken for subsistence on the Pribilof
Islands is not higher than necessary to provide for subsistence needs.
During one of the last periods when fur seals were taken solely for
subsistence purposes on St. Paul Island, 1912-16, the number of fur
seals taken each year (range 1,764-3,483) was significantly higher than
it is at present, even though the human population on St. Paul Island
at that time was less than one-half of the present population.
Therefore, the commenter has inaccurately assumed that practices
carried over from the commercial harvest have resulted in a level of
subsistence use greater than that used historically on the Pribilof
Islands.
Comment: A commenter stated that there is no basis for setting the
lower end of the estimated subsistence range based on the greatest
number of seals killed during any year over the past 6 years.
Response: NMFS believes that the present range of fur seal
subsistence estimates used on St. Paul and St. George Islands are
justified. During the past 3 years the number of seals taken in the
subsistence harvest has stabilized, ranging from 1,482 to 1,645 takes
each year on St. Paul Island and from 194 to 319 each year on St.
George Island. Generally, the lower limits of the estimate ranges for
the islands have been approached during each of the past 3 years, but a
difference of 1 or 2 actual days of harvest between years can result in
the difference observed between the estimated number and actual number
of seals taken within any one season. The apparent trend toward
stability in the harvest totals on St. Paul and St. George Islands
indicates to NMFS that the proposed estimates of annual need accurately
reflect the actual subsistence requirements on the islands.
Comment: One commenter stated that the estimate of need should not
be based on numbers of seals. Rather, it should be based on the
quantity of meat that is required for subsistence needs. The commenter
provided data indicating that, by its calculations, approximately 450-
570 fewer seals could have been harvested on St. Paul Island in 1993
had the harvest estimates been based on the amount of meat required by
residents of St. Paul, rather than based on a number of seals required.
Response: The commenter's estimate of the number of seals that need
not have been killed in 1993 (450-570) was based on an average maximum
percent-use value of 60 percent. This value was a result of a 1987
study in which 83 seals were weighed before and after virtually all
consumable parts (including many parts that are only marginally edible,
such as connective tissues, etc.) had been removed (i.e., everything
was taken except for the pelt, blubber, skull, neck, inedible internal
organs, and body fluids). This butchering technique is referred to as a
whole cut, and a mean 53.3 percent of each animal (maximum
approximately 60 percent) was dressed out under these circumstances (53
FR 17773, May 18, 1988).
During the 1987 harvest, 101 carcasses were also weighed before and
after butchering had removed only the front flippers, shoulders,
breasts, hearts and livers (referred to as the butterfly cut), the
parts historically eaten. A mean 29.1 percent of each animal was
dressed out under these circumstances (53 FR 17773, May 18, 1988).
Thus, it was determined that the range of percent-use values between
animals that have been butchered to remove only selected parts, and
animals that have been butchered to remove virtually all consumable
parts (including many parts only marginally edible), lies between 29.1
and 53.3 percent of the initial carcass weight. Whether the harvest is
being conducted in a wasteful versus non-wasteful manner focuses on
whether or not the butterfly cut method of butchering is interpreted as
a wasteful manner as defined in the regulations. NMFS determined, based
on a 1992 study, that the butterfly cut does not represent a wasteful
manner of taking (discussed in greater detail at 58 FR 42027, August 6,
1993).
During the 1992 harvest, NMFS weighed the whole carcass, as well as
the weight of each major body part (breast, shoulder, arm, ribs,
backbone, and hindquarter as well as heart, liver, front flippers, rear
flippers, head, guts and pelt), to determine the proportion of edible
meat that was available from the different parts of the body for each
of six fur seals. In summary, the mean weight of the parts taken in a
whole cut totaled 54.9 percent of the beginning weight of the seals,
and the mean weight for the parts constituting a butterfly cut was 32.5
percent, indicating a mean percent-use difference of approximately 22
percent. However, using mean values from the 1992 study, the total
amount of edible meat (excluding bone, minimally edible connective
tissue, and inedible tissue) available from a whole cut seal was 29.6
percent (range 26.8-31.6) of the beginning weight of the animal
compared to 21.1 percent (range 18.9-23.4) taken from a butterfly cut
seal. Therefore, the average difference in the amount of edible meat
between the two butchering techniques is approximately 8-9 percent of
the original body weight of the animal, not the 22 percent difference
that has been widely used to characterize the two different techniques,
and that was used in the commenters calculations. As NMFS explained in
the 1993 document of final subsistence estimates, while a whole cut
does result in more meat being made available for subsistence use than
does the butterfly cut, both cuts result in a substantial portion of
the edible parts of the seal being used for subsistence, and the real
difference in edible meat being made available to the user has been
greatly exaggerated.
Comment: One commenter cautioned that NMFS must guard against
economic incentives that might lead to higher harvest levels. The
commenter continued to state that NMFS should retrieve all seal penis
bones or bacula to assure that potential trade in these items will not
result in excessive seal killing. The commenter did not feel that this
was either unreasonable or burdensome on the part of NMFS. Moreover,
some Pribilof residents have suggested this approach as a means to
reassure concerned parties that the commercial value of seal bacula is
not an incentive for harvesting fur seals.
Response: NMFS' position is that the subsistence harvest and the
estimates of subsistence needs must not be based upon commercial
interests. There is no indication that the harvest is being driven by
commercial interests; however, NMFS will continue to monitor the
disposal of carcasses, and the removal of bacula from animals taken in
the harvest, to ensure that commercial interests are not factors in the
subsistence harvest.
Comment: One commenter stated that the subsistence harvest methods
used by the Aleut sealers do not need to be monitored or regulated to
ensure compliance with NMFS' standards for substantial use of seal
carcasses.
Response: The regulations governing the subsistence harvest of fur
seals require that NMFS' representatives monitor the harvest and
collect information on the number of seals taken and the extent of
utilization of the fur seals taken (51 FR 24832, July 9, 1986). NMFS
believes that alternatives to the present fur seal management regime
should be considered and discussed during the development of a
cooperation management program under section 119 of the MMPA. The
commenters' concerns will be considered further in these discussions
and in any future rulemaking to revise these regulations.
Subsistence Harvest Estimates for 1994 Through 1996
NMFS published a document proposing a range of subsistence need
estimates for 1994-96 based on the results of the 1992-93 harvests (59
FR 25024, May 13, 1994). NMFS proposed that the lower bound of the
harvest estimate for northern fur seals on St. Paul Island for each
year, 1994-96, remain at 1,645 (the same as that in 1992 and 1993). If
the Aleut residents of St. Paul Island reach the lower limit of the
estimated range of animals during the harvest, and still have unmet
subsistence needs, they may request an additional number of seals, up
to a harvest total of 2,000 fur seals. For St. George Island, NMFS also
proposed that the lower bound of the estimate of subsistence need for
each year, 1994-96, remain at the 1992 and 1993 level of 281 fur seals.
If the Aleut residents of St. George Island reach the lower level of
estimated need during the 1994 harvest, and still have unmet
subsistence needs, they may request an additional number of seals up to
a harvest total of 500 (the upper bound estimated for the 1991-93
harvests).
The Aleut residents of St. Paul and St. George Islands may harvest
up to the lower bound of the applicable estimate between June 23 and
August 8 of each year, 1994-96. If, at any time during the harvest, the
lower estimate of subsistence need for an island is reached, the
harvest must be suspended for no longer than 48 hours, pursuant to 50
CFR 215.32(e)(1)(iii), pending a review of the harvest data to
determine if the subsistence needs of the island residents have been
met. At such time, the Pribilof Aleuts may submit information
indicating that subsistence needs (for either island) have not been
met. This information should be submitted as quickly as possible,
optimally just prior to the time that notification is given that the
lower end of the harvest estimate has been reached in order to assure
that the required harvest suspension lasts no longer than 48 hours. If
the Pribilof Aleuts substantiate an additional need for seals, and
there has been no indication of waste, the AA must provide a revised
estimate of the number of seals required for subsistence purposes. If
additional information is not submitted by the Pribilof Aleuts, the AA
will consider only the information in the record at the time of the
suspension. It is likely, under such circumstances, that the revised
subsistence estimate would remain the same as the original estimate. If
that is the case, no additional takings would be authorized.
Classification
NMFS has determined that the approval and implementation of this
document and amendment to the current regulation will not significantly
affect the human environment, and that preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement on this is not required by section 102(2) of the
National Environmental Policy Act or its implementing regulations. This
rule makes only minor changes to the regulations governing the taking
of fur seals for subsistence purposes; this action does not entail
significant substantive revision. Because this rule does not alter the
conclusions of previous environmental impact analyses and environmental
assessments (EA), it is categorically excluded by NOAA Administrative
Order 216-6 from the requirement to prepare an EA.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
The General Counsel, Department of Commerce, certified to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The reasons were published with the proposed
rule and harvest estimates (see 59 FR 25024, May 13, 1994). Therefore,
a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 215
Administrative practice and procedure, Marine mammals, Penalties,
Pribilof Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 6, 1994.
Charles Karnella,
Acting Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 215, subpart
D, is to be amended as follows:
PART 215--PRIBILOF ISLANDS
1. The authority citation for part 215 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1151-1175, 16 U.S.C. 1361-1384.
2. Section 215.32 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 215.32 Restrictions on taking.
* * * * *
(b) By April 1 of every third year, beginning April 1994, the
Assistant Administrator will publish in the Federal Register a summary
of the preceding 3 years of harvesting and a discussion of the number
of seals expected to be taken annually over the next 3 years to satisfy
the subsistence requirements of each island. This discussion will
include an assessment of factors and conditions on St. Paul and St.
George Islands that influence the need by Pribilof Aleuts to take seals
for subsistence uses and an assessment of any changes to those
conditions indicating that the number of seals that may be taken for
subsistence each year should be made higher or lower. Following a 30-
day public comment period, a final notification of the expected annual
harvest levels for the next 3 years will be published.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-16849 Filed 7-7-94; 3:02 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-W
