12602 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Notices

public with an early opportunity to

engage in discussions regarding the RP/

EIS and to provide oral and written

comments. The NOA of the draft RP/EIS

was published in the Federal Register

(61 FR 41383–41384, August 8, 1996)

with the comment period ending on

October 8, 1996. Based on comments

received, modifications were made to

the documents and a RP/FEIS was

prepared. The final RP will become part

of the Record of Decision. The

background and rationale for this action

were discussed in the NOA and are not

repeated here.

B. RP/FEIS

The purpose of preparing the RP/EIS

is to coordinate and implement

restoration projects under the CB/

NRDA. Since this is a programmatic EIS,

the management alternatives reflect

general approaches to the restoration of

natural resources and services injured as

a result of releases of hazardous

substances and discharges of oil in the

Commencement Bay environment. The

five alternatives subjected to detailed

analysis were: (1) No action; (2) speciesspecific; (3) habitat function; (4)

acquisition of equivalent natural

resources and services; and, (5)

integrated approach. The integrated

approach, which is a comprehensive

plan based on the habitat function

alternative, but supplemented with the

best features of the other alternatives, is

the FWS and NMFS/NOAA’s preferred

alternative. This alternative best meets

the needs of the CB/NRDA restoration

goals and principles by maximizing

ecological benefits to a wider range of

natural resources and their associated

services.

Dated: February 24, 1997.

Thomas J. Dwyer,

Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service.

Dated: March 4, 1997.

Nancy Foster,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–6543 Filed 3–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

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 aquaculturepinniped 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 pinnipedaquaculture 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 netpens.

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Notices 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, nonlethal 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 wouldbe 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

[I.D. 030597E]

South Atlantic Fishery Management

Council; Public Meeting.

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.