[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 158 (Thursday, August 17, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39044-39047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17379]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 216
[Docket No. 170303228-7752-02]
RIN 0648-BG71
Subsistence Taking of Northern Fur Seals on the Pribilof Islands;
Final Annual Subsistence Harvest Levels for 2017-2019
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; Final annual fur seal subsistence harvest levels.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the regulations governing the subsistence taking
of North Pacific fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) (northern fur seals),
NMFS is publishing the expected harvest levels from 2017-2019 on St.
George and St. Paul Islands, Alaska (the Pribilof Islands) to satisfy
subsistence requirements of the Alaska Natives residing on the Pribilof
Islands (Pribilovians). NMFS is establishing the 2017-2019 harvest
levels at 1,645 to 2,000 fur seals for St. Paul Island and 300 to 500
fur seals for St. George Island.
DATES: Effective September 18, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Two Final Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), one Draft
EIS, annual subsistence harvest reports, and other references are
available on the Internet at the following address: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/pr/fur-seal.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Williams, NMFS Alaska Region,
907-271-5117, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Eastern Pacific stock of northern fur seals (fur seals) is
considered depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16
U.S.C. 1361, et seq. The subsistence harvest from this stock on the
Pribilof Islands is governed by regulations found in 50 CFR part 216,
subpart F, published under the authority of the Fur Seal Act (FSA), 16
U.S.C. 1151, et seq. Pursuant to 50 CFR 216.72(b), every three years
NMFS must publish in the Federal Register a summary of the
Pribilovians' fur seal harvest for the previous three-year period. NMFS
is also required to include an estimate of the number of fur seals
expected to satisfy the subsistence requirements of Pribilovians in the
subsequent three-year period. After a 30-day comment period, NMFS must
publish a final notification of the expected annual harvest levels for
the next three years.
On May 18, 2017 (82 FR 22797), NMFS published the summary of the
2014-2016 fur seal harvests and provided a 30-day comment period on the
estimates of the number of fur seals expected to be taken annually to
satisfy the subsistence requirements of the Pribilovians of each island
for 2017-2019. In that notice, NMFS estimated the annual subsistence
needs for 2017-2019 would be 1,645 to 2,000 fur seals for St. Paul
Island and 300 to 500 fur seals for St. George Island and provided
background information related to these estimates.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Annual Harvest Estimates
NMFS did not make any changes from the proposed notice of annual
harvest levels. The harvest levels for each island remain the same and
therefore the annual harvest levels remain 1,645 to 2,000 fur seals for
St. Paul Island and 300 to 500 fur seals for St. George Island.
Comments and Response
NMFS received nine distinct comments from four parties on the
notice of the 2017-2019 proposed annual harvest estimates (82 FR 22797;
May 18, 2017). A summary of the comments received and NMFS's responses
follows.
Comment 1: In an effort to stabilize the ecosystems, only
indigenous people should be allowed to take part in these kills and
every effort should be made to establish a line of communication with
indigenous leaders regarding concerns of human influence and its
effects on the ecosystem. Removing fur seals could result in an
increase in lower trophic levels and a decrease in higher trophic
levels.
Response 1: Pursuant to the Fur Seal Act, 16 U.S.C. 1152, ``it is
unlawful, except as provided in the chapter or by regulation of the
Secretary, for any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to engage in the taking of fur seals in the North Pacific
Ocean or on lands or waters under the jurisdiction of the United States
. . .'' Regulations issued under the authority of the Fur Seal Act
authorize Pribilovians to take fur seals on the Pribilof Islands if
such taking is for subsistence uses and not accomplished in a wasteful
manner (50 CFR 216.71). NMFS works in partnership with the Pribilovians
under co-management agreements pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection
Act to discuss human influences on the ecosystem and issues of concern
for the northern fur seal population on the
[[Page 39045]]
Pribilof Islands in particular. NMFS prepared an Environmental Impact
Statement for Setting the Subsistence Harvest of Northern Fur Seals
(NMFS 2005), which analyzed the effects of the subsistence harvest of
fur seals on the Pribilof Islands. That analysis indicated that trophic
level changes were not expected to occur, and NMFS has not observed
trophic level changes resulting from the harvests in the intervening
years. NMFS recently prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for the Management of Subsistence Harvest of Northern Fur
Seals on St. George, (NMFS 2014) and a Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement for the Management of Subsistence Harvest of Northern
Fur Seals on St. Paul (NMFS 2017). Both analyses indicate that trophic
level changes still are not expected to occur.
Comment 2: The currently authorized harvest is higher than is
justifiable given that actual harvest numbers have been lower than
authorized harvest levels since 1985 and given the continued decline in
fur seal pup production.
Response 2: NMFS disagrees. NMFS authorizes the harvest levels in
order to satisfy the subsistence requirements of Alaska Natives on each
island. NMFS evaluated the complexities of establishing an annual
subsistence requirement in the EIS for the subsistence harvest of
northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands (NMFS 2005). The estimates
of the number of seals expected to be taken annually over the next
three years to satisfy the subsistence requirement reflects a
combination of nutritional (food security), social, and cultural needs.
The actual amount harvested in a given year may be less than the
subsistence requirement and is dependent upon the seasonal availability
of fur seals and other food resources as well as other factors such as
environmental variability and the availability of harvesters. Through
the co-management process NMFS and the Tribal governments have
discussed the estimation of subsistence requirements and importance to
community members to ensure the subsistence harvest levels are
sufficient to account for environmental changes and changing needs of
the Pribilovians.
NMFS arrived at the authorized harvest level of 1,645 to 2,000 fur
seals for St. Paul Island and 300 to 500 fur seals for St. George
Island after considering these factors, consulting with Tribal
representatives, and reviewing information in the environmental
analyses which indicated that harvests up to this level will not have
significant consequences for the fur seal population (NMFS 2005, 2014,
and 2017). While NMFS acknowledges a decline in pup production, NMFS
explained in the proposed notice that fur seal reproduction depends
disproportionately on females. Consequently, the subsistence harvest of
fur seals is limited to males that have not reached adulthood. Further,
harvest at the maximum allowable level on St. George and St. Paul
Islands would amount to 21.2 percent of the Potential Biological
Removal (PBR) level (i.e., 21.2 percent of the maximum number of
animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from
the stock while allowing the stock to reach or maintain the optimum
sustainable population level). However, PBR assumes random mortality
across all ages and both sexes. Because the subsistence harvest is
regulated to select only sub-adult male fur seals (including pups on
St. George) the population-level effect of the subsistence harvest on
the stock is lower than 21.2 percent of PBR.
Comment 3: The Pribilovians have managed to feed themselves and
increase their own local population for over 30 years without the need
of killing thousands of fur seals annually.
Response 3: NMFS disagrees that the local populations on St. Paul
and St. George have increased over the past 30 years. Both the Alaska
Native population and total population on St. Paul and St. George are
smaller today than 30 years ago (NMFS 2017). In recent years fur seal
harvests on both islands have been lower than the allowable harvest
levels NMFS is identifying here (1,645 to 2,000 fur seals for St. Paul
Island and 300 to 500 fur seals for St. George Island). As noted above
in response to Comment 2, the actual amount harvested may be less than
the full subsistence requirement due to factors such as environmental
variability, availability of fur seals and other food resources, and
the availability of harvesters.
Comment 4: NMFS should cap the harvest levels at the highest number
killed in the most recent five year period.
Response 4: This comment is beyond the scope of this action. NMFS
has developed the proposed and final notice pursuant to current
regulations at 50 CFR 216.72(b). These regulations dictate that NMFS
provide a summary of the preceding three years of harvesting and a
discussion of the number of seals expected to be taken annually over
the next three years to satisfy the subsistence requirements of St.
George and St. Paul Islands. Through this notice NMFS is neither
proposing nor seeking comment on alternative ways to set harvest caps.
Comment 5: NMFS should refrain from relying on the PBR level as the
basis for its conclusion that the proposed harvest levels will not have
adverse effects on the Eastern North Pacific Stock of fur seals.
Instead NMFS should be using an approach that assesses the impact of
losses to the population from subsistence harvests in addition to the
population decline that already is occurring and that may continue to
occur.
Response 5: NMFS disagrees. Evaluating harvest levels relative to
PBR is a valuable means to use the best available scientific
information to evaluate the consequences of human caused mortality. As
stated in response to Comment 2, harvest at the maximum allowable level
on St. George and St. Paul Islands would amount to 21.2 of the PBR, and
PBR assumes random mortality across all ages and both sexes. Because
the subsistence harvest is regulated to select only sub-adult male fur
seals (including pups on St. George) the population-level effects of
the subsistence harvest on the stock is lower than 21.2 percent of PBR.
In addition, NMFS has modeled and analyzed the population
consequences of various harvest levels and age and sex restrictions on
the harvest using alternative methods besides PBR, and has come to a
similar determination: That the harvests of non-breeding male fur seals
at the upper limit defined do not measurably effect the abundance or
reproductive potential of the fur seal population, even in light of the
observed decline in the population (NMFS 2005, 2014). Analysis provided
in the 2017 draft SEIS on population consequences of various harvest
levels and age and sex restrictions for St. Paul Island is also
consistent with those conclusions.
Comment 6: NMFS should provide a more rigorous analysis of
subsistence needs, including a discussion of (1) why NMFS believes that
those needs are more than five times higher than the average number of
seals harvested per year on St. Paul over the past 15 years, (2)
whether St. Paul residents have been foregoing the opportunity to
stockpile meat during the harvest season for use later in the year and,
if so, why this might be the case, and (3) how any shortfalls in the
availability of seal meat may have been offset by greater reliance on
other subsistence species (i.e., are data available that show
corresponding trends in these other harvests?).
Response 6: As indicated in response to Comment 2, NMFS, in
consultation with the Tribal governments, considers recent harvest
levels and nutritional
[[Page 39046]]
(food security), social, and cultural needs when developing estimates
of the number of fur seals expected to be taken annually to satisfy the
Pribilovians' subsistence requirements over the next three years.
During co-management meetings between NMFS and the Tribal governments,
the Pribilovians conveyed that sudden, unanticipated, and prolonged
environmental and/or socioeconomic changes may alter the annual
subsistence requirements. As a result, the Pribilovian communities need
flexibility built into the estimate of the number of fur seals expected
to satisfy their subsistence requirements. The estimated number of
seals expected to satisfy the subsistence requirements must be higher
than the average number of seals harvested annually in recent years in
order to ensure the Pribilovians' subsistence requirements are
satisfied annually over the next three years.
Pribilovians forego opportunities to stockpile fur seal meat during
the harvest season due to practical limitations and costs of freezer
space, limited availability of volunteer harvesters due to competition
with wage-earning jobs, and competition for available labor from the
local halibut fishery. The Pribilovians have repeatedly indicated that
seal meat is not interchangeable or replaceable with other meat. No
other marine mammals are available in the same manner on the Pribilof
Islands. Steller sea lion and harbor seal hunting primarily occurs
during the winter and spring in the nearshore waters of the Pribilof
Islands when few if any fur seals are present, and the harvest levels
are modest due to limited availability. Approximately 20 Steller sea
lions were successfully retrieved each year on St. Paul over the past
five years (Aleut Community of St. Paul Island unpublished data), and
changes in any one year most likely represent a natural change in
availability rather than the ability to substitute for the fur seal
harvest by increasing hunting effort for sea lions.
There are no data available to evaluate how changes in availability
of one subsistence resource may be offset by another, and the
Pribilovians have indicated that subsistence resources are not inter-
changeable or replaceable. Pribilovians rely on fur seals to provide a
significant portion of their annual meat requirement. In addition, as
indicated in the response to Comment 2, the fur seal harvest provides a
cultural sharing opportunity to connect the community with their
environment and history. Even when fewer seals are harvested, the
cultural component is important. Shortfalls of meat based on their
availability can be offset, but not replaced, by greater use of store-
bought or other subsistence resources. Both Pribilof communities
regularly experience a lack of diversity and availability of store-
bought and wild foods. The price and availability of store-bought and
wild food on the Pribilof Islands can undermine food security and
impact estimates of the number of fur seals necessary to meet the
subsistence requirements of the Pribilovians. Further, community
members must regularly choose between spending time pursuing
subsistence resources to maintain cultural practices and food security
versus spending time in wage-earning jobs to purchase store-bought
foods and other necessities.
Comment 7: Harvest levels proposed for St. George are higher than
the actual harvest reported since the regulatory change in 2014. The
recent regulatory revisions to authorize the subsistence harvest of
both sub-adult males and pups on St. George may have changed harvest
patterns and the yield of meat per seal. As such, NMFS should provide a
more rigorous analysis of the subsistence requirements of Pribilovians
residing on St. George.
Response 7: NMFS interprets this comment as requesting that we
analyze the subsistence requirements of Pribilovians residing on St.
George by analyzing the yield of meat per fur seal pup and sub-adult.
Analyzing the yield of meat per fur seal pup and sub-adult would not
provide an accurate estimate of the number of seals expected to be
taken annually over the next three years to satisfy the subsistence
requirements of Pribilovians on St. George. Meat is not the only edible
subsistence resource obtained from fur seals. Seal oil, tongues,
kidneys, and fermented seal flippers are highly valued subsistence
resources which are not accurately reflected by measurements of edible
meat.
In addition, previous efforts by NMFS to quantify the yield of meat
per seal (58 FR 42027, August 6, 1993) created significant delays in
the harvest process on St. Paul Island. This was largely a function of
scientists and managers having to weigh and measure people's food
multiple times on the killing field. The additional handling ultimately
extended the duration of the harvest, extended the time that seals were
held in groups on the harvest grounds prior to stunning, and required
harvesters to volunteer for longer periods.
Comment 8: To the extent Native subsistence taking of northern fur
seals is permitted, taking of fur seals for other than subsistence
purposes should not be permitted.
Response 8: NMFS agrees. As noted in response to Comment 1 above,
the Fur Seal Act and its implementing regulations restrict the take of
fur seals to take for subsistence uses and not accomplished in a
wasteful manner.
Comment 9: Pribilovians of St. Paul Island recently requested a
revision of the harvest regulation to authorize, among other things, a
longer harvest season, the use of firearms to harvest fur seals, the
shooting of fur seals in the water, and the targeting of young animals
that are not yet sexually dimorphic. The combined effect of the
proposed revision in harvest guidelines appears likely to result in a
dramatic increase in the number of animals killed each year such that
close to 2000 fur seals could be killed annually. We support the ``No
Action'' alternative that was presented in the notice of availability
of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and
opportunity for public comment published in 83 FR 4337, January 13,
2017.
Response 9: This comment is beyond the scope of this action. NMFS
will solicit comments separately on any proposal to revise the harvest
regulations for St. Paul Island.
Classification
National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS prepared an EIS evaluating the impacts on the human
environment of the subsistence harvest of northern fur seals, which is
available on the NMFS Web site (see ADDRESSES). A draft EIS was
available for public review (69 FR 53915; September 3, 2004), and NMFS
incorporated the comments into the final EIS (May 2005). A draft SEIS
was prepared regarding the management of the subsistence harvest of
northern fur seals on St. George Island, made available for public
review (79 FR 31110; May 30, 2014), and NMFS incorporated the public
comments into the final SEIS (79 FR 49774; August 22, 2014). A draft
SEIS was prepared regarding the management of the subsistence harvest
of northern fur seals on St. Paul Island, made available for public
review (82 FR 4336; January 13, 2017), and NMFS is reviewing those
public comments separately from the action considered here. An SEIS
should be prepared if (1) the agency makes substantial changes in the
proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or (2)
significant new circumstances or information exist relevant to
environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its
impacts (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). After reviewing the
[[Page 39047]]
information contained in the 2005 EIS and 2014 SEIS, the Regional
Administrator has determined that (1) approval of the proposed 2017-
2019 fur seal subsistence harvest notice does not constitute a change
in the action; and (2) there are no significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the
proposed action or its impacts. Additionally, the proposed 2017-2019
fur seal subsistence harvest levels will result in environmental
impacts within the scope of those analyzed and disclosed in the
previous EIS. Therefore, supplemental NEPA documentation is not
necessary to implement the 2017-2019 fur seal subsistence harvest
levels discussed in this document.
Executive Order 12866 and 13563
This proposed action is authorized under 50 CFR 216.72(b) and is
not significant for the purposes of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
at the proposed action stage that it would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The harvest
of northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, is for
subsistence purposes only, and the estimate of subsistence need would
not have an adverse economic impact on any small entities. Background
information related to the certification was included in the proposed
estimates published in the Federal Register on May 18, 2017 (82 FR
22797). We received no comments on this certification and are not aware
of anything that would change the conclusion of the certification;
therefore a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this
action, and none has been prepared.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not contain any collections of information subject
to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Executive Order 13132--Federalism
This action does not contain policies with federalism implications
sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under E.O.
13132 because this action does not have substantial direct effects on
the states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Nonetheless, NMFS worked closely with
local governments in the Pribilof Islands, and these estimates of
subsistence use and need were prepared by the local governments in St.
Paul and St. George, with assistance from NMFS officials.
Executive Order 13175--Native Consultation
Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000 (25 U.S.C. 450 Note), the
executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), the
American Indian Native Policy of the U.S. Department of Commerce (March
30, 1995), the Department of Commerce's Tribal Consultation Policy
(including the Department of Commerce Administrative Order 218-8, April
26, 2012), and the NOAA Procedures for Government-to-Government
Consultation With Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native
Corporations (November 12, 2013) outline the responsibilities of NMFS
in matters affecting tribal interests. Section 161 of Public Law 108-
100 (188 Stat. 452) as amended by section 518 of Public Law 108-447
(118 Stat. 3267) extends the consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 to
Alaska Native corporations. NMFS contacted the tribal governments of
St. Paul and St. George Islands and their respective local Native
corporations (Tanadgusix and Tanaq) about setting the next three years'
subsistence requirements and considered their input in formulating the
proposed action. NMFS notified the tribal governments and Native
corporations when the proposed action published in the Federal Register
for a 30-day comment period (82 FR 22797, May 18, 2017); no comments
were received.
Executive Order 13175--Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action
because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
Dated: August 11, 2017.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-17379 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P