[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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a777379727b7f76346d737676737b77695a74757b7b347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2a474349424b4f46045d434646434b47596a44454b4b044d455c">[email protected]</span></a>.

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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>