[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 51 (Monday, March 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12602-12603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6545]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 021097A]


Gulf of Maine Aquaculture-Pinniped Interaction Task Force

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 
the Gulf of Maine Aquaculture-Pinniped Interaction Task Force (Task 
Force) was established to advise NMFS of issues and problems regarding 
pinnipeds interacting in a dangerous or damaging manner with 
aquaculture resources in the Gulf of Maine. The Task Force's final 
report to NMFS was made available for public review and comment on 
February 20, 1996. A summary of the comments received on the final 
report of the Task Force and NMFS' response to those comments is 
provided in this notice.
    The MMPA requires that NMFS consider recommendations from the Task 
Force and prepare a report to Congress recommending alternatives to 
mitigate the effects of aquaculture-pinniped interactions. NMFS has 
completed a draft report to Congress, and it is available to the public 
upon request for review and comment (see ADDRESSES).

DATES: Comments on the draft report to Congress must be submitted on or 
before April 16, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the report are available from, and written 
comments should be sent to, Chief, Marine Mammal Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 
20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTJG. Daniel Morris (508) 281-9388, or 
Dr. Thomas Eagle (301) 713-2322.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The salmon aquaculture industry in the northeastern United States 
has grown substantially in the last decade, as have regional 
populations of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) and gray seals 
(Halichoerus grypus). The industry claims that losses caused by seals 
attacking the salmon pens are substantial and that the frequency of 
attacks has increased in recent years. Seals are protected under the 
MMPA, and the actions that salmon growers can take to protect their 
pens from seals are limited to non-lethal deterrence measures by the 
MMPA.
    Pursuant to section 120(h) of the MMPA, a Task Force was 
established by NMFS to examine the issues and problems associated with 
pinniped-aquaculture interactions in the Gulf of Maine. Task Force 
members were selected from the aquaculture industry, state government, 
the scientific community, and conservation organizations. The Task 
Force convened three times for multi-day meetings, visited pen-sites, 
conducted public hearings, met with salmon growers, conducted surveys, 
and reviewed literature related to the issue, prior to completion of 
its report. The report contained Task Force recommendations to mitigate 
the seal predation, all of which represent the consensus of the Task 
Force. NMFS is required to consider recommendations of the Task Force's 
and draft a report to Congress recommending options available to 
mitigate the interaction. After opportunity for public review and 
comment of the draft report, NMFS must submit its recommendations to 
Congress.

Comments Received by NMFS on the Task Force Report

    NMFS received six letters from the public regarding the Task Force 
report. All of these comments supported generally the Task Force 
findings and recommendations. The Task Force recommended against lethal 
deterrence measures.In general, NMFS expects to concur with that 
recommendation; however, NMFS is considering recommending that Congress 
reexamine the prohibition on intentional lethal taking of pinnipeds 
that was enacted in the MMPA Amendments of 1994 so that NMFS could 
authorize intentional lethal methods on a case-by-case basis, including 
the limited purpose of removing pinnipeds that are inside net-pens.
    Comment: Is there anything known about the age, sex, and health of 
the seals that attack pens? Would lethal removal of that population 
segment have an adverse effect on the population at large?
    Response: Little is know about the biology of seals that attack 
pens. The impacts of lethal removal on affected stocks, if the MMPA 
were amended for such authority, would have to be considered in 
granting an authorization.
    Comment: In the typical attack scenario, growers claim, ``A seal 
would not be caught in the act of attacking but would be targeted as it 
approached the vicinity of a previously attacked pen.'' Identification 
of individual animals in the wild is especially difficult, and it is 
doubtful that the perpetrator of an attack can be distinguished from 
others.
    Response: Identifying animals for lethal removal would be one of 
the issues that would have to be addressed if such an authority were 
included in the MMPA.

[[Page 12603]]

    Comment: A paper recently published in Conservation Biology offers 
some insight into the issue of lethal removal of predators. This paper 
provides a decision matrix for assessing the need to kill abundant 
wildlife to protect endangered species prey. The paper concludes that 
unless the interaction situation is caused by a limited number of 
individuals, and no other preventative measures are available, lethal 
control of the abundant native species should not be considered. If 
culling cannot be supported as a measure contributing to the recovery 
of endangered species, it surely cannot be justified to mitigate losses 
of farm stock.
    Response: NMFS is not considering the merits of culling pinniped 
populations to protect farm stock.
    Comment: All letters included specific mention of the Task Force's 
deliberations regarding the use of lethal force to control/prevent seal 
depredation. Commenters supported the Task Force's three criteria that 
should be met to justify the lethal taking of individual seals presumed 
to be depredating salmon pens. It was noted that current conditions in 
the industry would not fit the criteria included in the Task Force 
Report.
    Response: Comment noted.
    Comment: During the interim exemption program of the MMPA, the 
killing of depredating seals was allowed under certain conditions if 
the lethal taking was reported to NMFS. Popular news media reports 
suggest that fishers admitted killing an estimated 300 animals per 
year; however, only two official reports of kills were filed with NMFS 
during the 5-year program. Given the potential under-reporting of 
intentional lethal takes of seals during the interim exemption period, 
a letter suggested that any program authorizing growers under certain 
conditions to shoot seals within cages is likely to be abused. 
Furthermore, some growers demonstrate an impressive array of 
deterrents, while others employ relatively few measure; therefore, non-
lethal deterrence has not received a valid test of effectiveness. 
Intentional lethal deterrence is not warranted at this time.
    Response: Comment noted.
    Comment: The Task Force Report states that seal-fish farm 
interactions seem to be most frequent during February when harbor seals 
have redistributed to the south of Maine. Ice seals may be the actual 
culprits during this season, and their behavior might warrant different 
predator control strategies than would harbor and gray seals. Although 
a portion of the harbor seal population shifts southward during winter, 
harbor seals remain the most abundant seal species in Maine during 
February.
    Response: Ice seals (harp, hooded, and ringed seals) occur in the 
Downeast region in winter, but attacks on the pens by these species 
have not been reported. It is conceivable that a seal may be 
misidentified; for example, a juvenile harp seal may be mistaken for a 
harbor seal. Although deterrence of ice seals may require different 
strategies, specific measures have not been explored.
    Comment: One economic consideration related to predator control 
that is not addressed in the Task Force Report is the cost of 
rehabilitating wounded seals. Costs include fees for personnel, 
transportation, feed, veterinary supplies, and services.
    Response: Section 101(a)(4) of the MMPA authorizes the deterrence 
of marine mammals to prevent damage to private and public property, 
including fishing gear and catch, so long as deterrence measures do not 
result in the death or serious injury of marine mammals. Minor injury 
that may result from deterrence measures would not require 
rehabilitation.
    Comment: Under the Interim Exemption for Commercial Fisheries (MMPA 
section 114), intentionally killing depredating seals was used to 
classify fisheries. Incidental takes of seals should also be 
considered. Predator nets pose a risk of injury and mortality through 
entanglement of harbor and gray seals.
    Response: Aquaculture facilities are classified in Category III in 
the current list of fisheries under MMPA section 118 because the 
likelihood of serious injury or mortality of marine mammals incidental 
to net pen operations is considered remote.
    Comment: Avian predators, such as loons and cormorants, are 
frequently observed near the net pens, and their attacks may contribute 
to the stresses experienced by the penned fish.
    Response: Comment noted.
    Comment: More needs to be known about the effects of acoustic 
deterrence devices on harbor porpoises. No additional acoustic devices 
should be permitted in the area until more is known about how harbor 
porpoises use the inshore waters.
    Response: Comment noted. NMFS is currently trying to develop a 
consistent policy for activities that introduce noise in the oceans.
    Comment: California sea lions are numerous and can be easily 
trained. Individual sea lions could be trained to refrain from 
attacking the salmon in the pens while protecting the pens from rival 
pinnipeds. The sea lion could be domesticated to serve the growers. 
Also, the Task Force report states that the presence of dogs is of no 
benefit with regard to predation control; however, some breeds of water 
dogs may be trained enter the water to deter would-be predators.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the need for creative approaches to 
mitigate pinniped damage at fish farms.
    Comment: Several salmon pen sites established near traditional seal 
haulouts report having no remarkable seal predation problems. There 
seems to be no correlation between the location of pens with respect to 
haul-outs and the levels of predation.
    Response: The Task Force discerned no significant relationship 
between predation rates and proximity to haulouts. Site fidelity, prey 
availability, and other uncontrollable factors would confound any 
attempt to restrict siting of net-pens with respect to haulouts. The 
Task Force recommended research to investigate relationships between 
predation rates and location of haul-outs but made no recommendations 
regarding the siting of aquaculture operations.
    Comment: Government assistance, such as low-rate loans, grants, and 
practical incentives, is necessary: 1) To ensure non-lethal predator 
control devices are employed and maintained optimally: and (2) remove 
the unfair advantage foreign salmon growers appear to have.
    Response: If growers formed cooperatives as suggested in the Task 
Force Report, these organized efforts would facilitate marketing and 
other business-related aspects related to aquaculture without 
government assistance. Many variables, such as labor costs, veterinary 
treatment, environmental regulation, and shipping costs, affect 
competitiveness in international markets. Thus, governmental funding 
for predator control devices may not be a complete, or even effective, 
option.

    Dated: March 11, 1997.
Hilda Diaz-Soltero,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 97-6545 Filed 3-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F