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.
12604 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Notices

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery

Management Council (Council) will

hold a meeting of its Executive

Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held from

March 24-25, 1997. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for specific dates and

times.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 9721

Executive Drive North, St. Petersburg,

FL; telephone: (813) 570-5301.

Council address: South Atlantic

Fishery Management Council, One

Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston,

SC 29407-4699.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Buchanan, Public Information

Officer; telephone: (803) 571-4366; fax:

(803) 769-4520; email:

susan_buchanan@safmc.nmfs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Meeting Dates

March 24, 1997, 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

The Executive Committee will meet to

hear the status of the NMFS Sustainable

Fisheries Act General Implementation

Plan, develop an implementation

schedule for Sustainable Fisheries Act

Provisions and Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act Amendments, and discuss how the

Council and NMFS can work together to

improve data collection.

March 25, 1997, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

The Executive Committee will hear a

presentation on a Department of the

Navy request to the Council, establish

guidelines for holding informal

meetings with fishermen, review and

modify the Council Statement of

Organizational Practices and

Procedures, discuss the function of

Council staff, discuss the status of the

calendar year 1997 budget and the

calendar year 1999 budget request,

discuss planning for future meetings,

and address other business.

Special Accommodations

These meetings are physically

accessible to people with disabilities.

Requests for sign language

interpretation or other auxiliary aids

should be directed to the Council office

(see ADDRESSES) by March 17, 1997.

Dated: March 7, 1997.

Bruce Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–6544 Filed 3–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

Public Information Collection

Requirement

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Renew

Information Collection #3038–0031:

Procurement Contracts.

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures

Trading Commission is planning to

renew information collection 3038–

0031, Procurement Contracts, which is

due to expire on June 30, 1997. The

information collected consists of

procurement activities relating to

solicitations, amendments to

solicitations, requests for quotations,

construction contracts, award of

contracts, performance bonds and

payment information for individuals

(vendors) or contractors engaged in

providing supplies or services. In

compliance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, the Commission

solicits comments to:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the agency,

including the validity of the methodology

and assumptions used; (2) evaluate the

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the

burden of the collection of information

including the validity of the methodology

and assumptions used; (3) enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the information

to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden

of the collection of the information on those

who are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated, electronic,

mechanical, or other technological collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology, e.g., permitting electronic

submission of responses.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 16, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to

comment on this information collection

should contact the CFTC Clearance

Officer, 1155 21st Street NW,

Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418–5160.

Title: Procurement Contracts.

Control Number: 3038–0031.

Action: Extension.

Respondents: Businesses.

Estimated Annual Burden: 604 hours.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on March 11,

1997.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–6592 Filed 3–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–M

Public Information Collection

Requirement

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of intent to renew

information collection #3038–0019:

Stocks of grain in licensed warehouses.

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures

Trading Commission is planning to

renew information collection 3038–

0019, Stocks of Grain in Licensed

Warehouses, which is due to expire on

May 31, 1997. The information collected

is used to detect potential problem

market situations. Without this

information the Commission would not

be aware of the amount of deliverable

grain and ungraded grains in federally

licensed warehouses. In compliance

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995, the Commission solicits

comments to:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the agency,

including the validity of the methodology

and assumptions used; (2) evaluate the

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the

burden of the collection of information

including the validity of the methodology

and assumptions used; (3) enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the information

to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden

of the collection of the information on those

who are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated, electronic,

mechanical, or other technological collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology, e.g., permitting electronic

submission of responses.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 16, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to

comment on this information collection

should contact the CFTC Clearance

Officer, 1155 21st Street NW,

Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418–5160.

Title: Information Concerning

Warehouses.

Control Number: 3038–0019

Action: Extension.

Respondents: Contract Markets.

Estimated Annual Burden: 1,768

hours.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on March 11,

1997.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–6593 Filed 3–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–M

Public Information Collection

Requirement

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.