Marine Mammals; Subsistence Taking of Northern Fur Seals

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