Smith, T.D. 1973. Variable Population matrices: Theory and Application to the Evaluation of Swartzman, G.L. 1984. Factors bearing on the present status and future of the eastern Bering Sea fur seal population with special emphasis on the effect of terminating the subadult male harvest on St. Paul Island. Prepared for the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, 1625 I Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20006. Townsend, C.H. 1899. Pelagic sealing, with notes on the fur seal seals of Guadalupe, the Galapagos, and Veltre, D. W. and M.J. Veltre. 1983. The northern fur seal: a subsistence and commercial resource for Aleuts of the Veterninary Panel Report. 1971. Report of the Veterninary Panel Evaluating Humaneness of the Northern Fur Virginia Mason Research Foundation. 197 1. Zeusler, F.A. 1936. Report on Contract No. 14-71-0001. Report of oceanographic cruise, United States Coast Guard cutter Chelan, VI. PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENTS The draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on November 10, 1983. A Notice of Availability of the draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 1983, establishing a public comment period which ended on January 6, 1984. Copies of the draft EIS were widely distributed to agencies, organizations and individuals, including congressional delegations. Please see Section VIII for a partial list of addressees. Written comments were received from the following individuals and organizations during the environmental review period on this issue: Comment Reference A B C D E F G H I J K L Commenter, Affiliation, Date Robert A. Hinman, Deputy Director, Division of Game, Michael K. Orbach, Associate Professor of Anthropology, and Robert S. Burd, Director, Water Division, U.S. Environmental Lydia Black, Anthropology Division, Providence College, dated December 27, 1983. Don Young, Congressman for all Alaska, U.S. House of Bruce Jodar, Consequence, dated December 30, 1983. Robert J. Wilson, dated January 4, 1984. Hisao Azuma, Counselor, Embassy of Japan, dated January 5, 1984. Cheryl Mouras, Senior Vice President, Animal Protection Harry E. Hodgdon, Executive Director, The Wildlife Society, dated January 5, 1984. Jack W. Lent fer, Environmental Research and Consulting, dated January 5, 1984. Cynthia E. Carlson, Birch, Horton, Bittner, Pestinger and M N P ૨ R S Vivia Boe, Seal Project Coordinator, Greenpeace International, dated January 6, 1984. Sherrad C. Foster, Director, Marine Issues Project, Defenders of Wildlife, dated January 6, 1984. Bruce Blanchard, Director, Environmental Project Review, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, dated January 6, 1984. Richard T. Tinney, Seal Rescue Fund Director, Center for David J. Hayes, Counsel for International Fund for Animal Senator Carl Levin, United States Senate, dated January 6, 1984. John R. Twiss, Jr., Executive Director, Marine Mammal Corrections suggested by these reviewers have been made to the text of the EIS wherever possible. Copies of all letters of comment received on the draft EIS are included at the end of this Section. Major issues identified in these comments are outlined and discussed below. PROCEDURAL AND LEGAL CONCERNS Comment: The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) applies when negotiating and implementing the Convention. Reference: F-1, M-8, Q-2-5, Q-33-38 Response: In International Fund for Animal Welfare v. Baldrige, No. 84 1838 (D.D.C. June 28, 1984), the court concluded "that the substantive provisions of the MMPA contravene the Convention with respect to the particular killings at issue here, and that hence under section 1383 [ of the MMPA] the Convention takes precedence." The MMPA does not require the U.S. to amend the Convention to make it consistent with the MMPA. Rather, subsection 108(b)(2)(B) of the MMPA requires, under certain circumstances, that the Secretary of State initiate negotiations to modify the Convention to make it consistent with the MMPA. If, however, such negotiations are unsuccessful, the Secretary of Commerce is required to take steps to continue the existing Convention "so as to continue to protect and conserve the North Pacific fur seals and to prevent a return to pelagic sealing." Comment: The draft EIS does not evaluate impacts associated with annual decisions that will be made during the life of the Convention, i.e., whether or not to harvest each year, and if so, how many seals should be killed. Reference: Q-65-69 Response: The commenter, while correctly stating that the 1984 draft EIS is closely patterned on the 1980 EIS and that the U.S. asserted that the 1980 EIS not only analyzed the impacts of Convention renewal but also analyzed the impacts of conducting an annual harvest, mischaracterizes the court ruling in International Fund for Animal Welfare v. Baldrige. The commenter incorrectly states that the court declined to rule on the scope of the 1980 EIS. As the court held: "Contrary to plaintiffs' assertion that the 1980 EIS concerned only the impact of the renewal of the Convention and not the annual kills, that document specifically addressed the impact of annual kills through 1984 at levels even greater than that planned for this year. Once an EIS has been properly filed for an ongoing annual program, each year's activity need not be the subject of a new or supplemental EIS if the program has not been expanded or revised." Just as the 1980 EIS discussed the environmental effects of annual harvests, this EIS assesses the impacts of annual harvests through 1988. If there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns which bear on this proposed action or the program is revised or expanded, a supplemental EIS will be prepared. Comment: A six year extension of the Convention is too long, considering the uncertainty surrounding the population status and other relevant factors. Reference: F-6, G-2, I-2, M-2,7,8-10, Q-23-25, S-1,3,5 Response: We agreed with these comments and amended the initial negotiating position to include only a four year extension of the Convention. The 1984 Protocol provides, in addition to a maximum four year extension the opportunity to reconsider the terms of the treaty within its first two years in force. BIOLOGICAL AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS Comment: The Pribilof seal harvest may be responsible for the current decline in population. Reference: F-3,4, I-3, M-3, P-3, Q-6-12 Response: Sections III.B.8-9 of the final EIS contain data and discussions relevant to this issue. The conclusions may be summarized as follows. The male-only harvest is hot thought to be related to the decline because (a) historically, increasing trends have been associated with a male harvest, and (b) currently, the seals on St. George Island are declining at the same rate as those on St. Paul, although the St. George harvest was terminated more than 10 years ago. Recent work by Soviet scientists, discussed in Section III.B.9 and in greater detail in NMFS(1985), suggests the need for continuing evaluation of the harvest and its role, if any, in population declines. The Standing Scientific Committee of the NPFSC concluded that the harvest is probably not contributing to the decline and that no adjustments in harvest levels are required. This view is shared by other scientists (e.g., Swartzman, 1984). Comment: The draft EIS does not provide enough analysis of the biological effects of terminating the harvest. Reference: Q-12, F-4,5, M-4, P-3, S-3 Response: According to Swartzman (1984), as discussed briefly in Section III.B.8 of the final EIS, there is no evidence that terminating the male harvest will have a positive effect on northern fur seal population recovery efforts. On the contrary, the resultant increase in subadult males might cause an increase in pup mortality on land. As reported in Section III.B.9, recent work by Soviet scientists suggests the possibility of an indirect effect of the male harvest on reproductive rates. It is the consensus of the scientists on the Standing Scientific Committee, however, that the harvest probably is not contributing to the decline, and that no adjustments in harvest levels are required. Comment: The threat of a resumption of pelagic sealing has been overstated. Reference: F-7, G-3, H-5, I-3, P-3, Q-20-22, S-3 Response: As stated in the draft and final EISS, we do not think a resumption of directed pelagic harvests is likely at this time. The kind of pelagic sealing practiced at the turn of the century would no longer be economically feasible. However, the resumption of pelagic sealing on an opportunistic basis is a likely consequence of the termination of this Convention. The loss of any portion of the breeding stock of this declining species could be devastating to a recovery of the population to levels approaching OSP. Comment: An additional alternative could have been considered, namely, foregoing the United States' share (70 percent) of the harvest. Reference: M-8, N-4, Q-20 Response: The 1984 Protocol and the statement expressing the concerns of the Party Governments will allow flexibility concerning possible adjustments of harvest levels. This agreement allow the U.S. to reduce or suspend its harvest under unforeseen circumstances, so as to ensure that harvesting will not have disastrous effects on the species. However, it is the consensus of the scientists participating each year at the Standing Scientific Committee of the NPFSC that no adjustments in harvest levels are needed. There is also some indication that reducing the harvest could adversely affect the population (see Swartzman 1984). Comment: The draft EIS did not adequately discuss other possible causes of the population decline. Reference: F-2, G-2, K-5,6, M-5, N-7, S-7,8 Response: Section III.B.9 of the final EIS contains additional information on the possibility that disease, predation and toxic substances could be involved in the population decline. Changes in the amount of food available have also been suggested as a factor in the decline of the Pribilof fur seal herd. If food resources are limited, one would expect reduced mean body sizes and reduced growth rates. As detailed in NMFS (1985), however, this is not the case for northern fur seals. For example, the average body size has increased, a response which is more consistent with an increased than a decreased level of food availability. It appears that mortality at sea is the likely principal factor behind the decline. Comment: Genetic effects of the harvest need to be considered. Reference: I-2, F-2 |