[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