49204 Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 1990 / Rules and Regulatious

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration50 CFR Part 227[Docket No. 900387-0292)

PIN 0648-ABI3

Listing of Steiler Sea Lions asThreatened Under the EndangeredSpecies ActAGENCY: NationalMarineFisheriesService(NMFS). NOAA, Commerce.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS is listing theSteller(northern) sealion (Ewnetopiasjubatus)throughoutits rangeasthreatenedundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct of 1973, 16U.S.C.1531 etseq. (ESA) andisestablishingprotectivemeasuressimilarto thosecontainedin the previousemergencyrule(April 5, 1990; 55 FR12645).More comprehensiveprotectiveregulationsandcritical habitatdesignationarebeingconsideredin aseparate,forthcoming rulemaking.NMFS adoptedthis dualrulemakingapproachin orderto expedite thefmallisting of the Steller sealion. This listingdecisionis basedon revie~andanalysisof commentson theproposedlisting (July 20, 19q0: 55 FR 29793)and atpublic hearings.It is beingtakenbecauseof significantdeclinesin theStcUersealion population. The numberof Stelier sealions observedon certainrookeriesin Alaskahasdeclinedby 63’~since1985 ~~ndby 82~~since1960.Decliresareoccurringin previouslystable areas.Significant declineshavealsooccurredon theKuril Islands,USSR.EFFECTIVE DATES: December4. 1990.ADDRESSES: The completefile for thisrole is availablefur reviewat the Officeof ProtectedResourcesand IlabitatPrograms(F/PR)NMFS. 1335East-Westfbgh~ay.Silver Spring, MD20910.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mr. HerbertKaufman.ProtectedSpeciesMonagementDi~ision, SilverSpring.MD, 301-427—2319.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BackgroundOn November21, loIn,, the

E~ivironrnentalDefenseFundand17otherenvironmentalorganizationsreutionedNMFS to puhli~hanemergencyrulelisting thc Stellerse.i(mi asdfl endangeredsptr.iasaridtolaitiate.a rulemakingto na-ike the listingpermanent.Undersection4 of ire F.SA.NMFS determined thatthepetinorpresentedsubstantialiriforniatiunindicatingthe actionma~be war r,iritedarid r”qriisted comments(Frhrririrr 2’~.

1990; 55 FR 6301). OnApril 5. 1990 (55FR 12645).NMFS issuedan emergencyinterim rule listing theSteller sealion asthreatenedandrequestedcomments.The emergencylisting is effective for 240daysandexpireson December3, 1990.

In March1990. NMFS appointedaSteller sealion recoveryteam,whichheld its first meetingon April 27, 1990.The teamis responsiblefor draftingarecoveryplanandprovidingrecommendationsto NMFS onnecessaryprotectiveregulations for theSteller sealion.

NMFS alsois conductingseveralresearchprojects,including populationssurveys,assessmentof sea lion healthandfitness,a stock identificationstudy.analysisof fisheriesdata,andbloodandtissue analyses.

NMFS proposedlisting the Steller sealion as a threatenedspeciesunder theESA on July 20. 1990 (55FR 29793).Theproposedrule containedprotectiveregulationsimilar to thoseof theemergencyrule. OnJuly 20, 1990,NMF’Salsoissuedanadvancednoticeofpurposedrulemaking(55 FR 29792),requestingpublic commentsto assistNMFS in itS efforts to developseparate.morecomprehensiveprotectiveregulationsandcritical habitatdesignation.

NMFS hastakenthis dual trdckrulemakingapproachbecauseit i~anlSto avoida hps~’betweenthee~pirat1orrof theexnergenc~interim listingandthefinal listing. Thereis not sufficienttimeto issuea proposedrulewithcomprehensiveprotecti‘~c reguIalionsincluding aproposedcritical hdbitatdesignation.soricit public comments,provide an opportunityfor publichearings,conductth~requiredregulator~and economicanalyses,andissuea final rule b~December3, 1990Further,N\IFS believesit is preferableto ronsidart~reinformationpro~idedinthe recoveryplanprior to publishingconiprehensiveproposedprotectiveregulations. Therefore,the Sers icerslisting theSteller sealion asathreatenedspeciesnow with a limitedsetof protectisemeasuresand~sillproposemorecomprehensiveprotectiveregulationsandcritical habitatin aSr paraterulemaking.

Commentson theProposedRule

NNIFS received13 commentsinte’~poriseto the luly 20. 1990 noticeofproposedrulemaking:Four cornrner:tswurarer.nr~edfrom err~ironmentalgroups, fourcommentswere re ervedfrom stateard local governmcnts,twoconin:erils~ere r(ceivedfrom ~satiteA1uskanicterestgroups.onecommonttSdS recei~ed from afshing industr%cn tip. oai’ mmmcmlwas receivedfroni

a privateindividual. andonecommintwas receivedfrom the Steik’r SeaLionRecoveryTeam.Additional commentswerereceivedat public hearingsheld inAnchorage.Cordova.andKodiak,Alaska.Thesecomments,which arediscussedbeIo~s.addressthe foI~owingissues: Listingclassification,bufferzones,incidentallike, shootingprohibition, subsistence.er.forcenient,exceptions,addtk.nalpro:ectivemeasures.research/e’perirnentation.andpublic hear:rgs

List~epclo.~csificuftr.o

Nearlyhalf thecornnientersaddressedthe listing classificationissue.Severalcommenters believedthat thespeciesshouldbelisted asunddngeredratherthanthreatenedbasedon tIre dramaticandcontinuingdeclrnesin abundanceinAlaska. Onecommeaternotedthat theAlaskapopulationof Stefler sealionsdeclinedby 86 perr’ent overthe last29yearsand63 pc.rcentin the last 5 years.This comnienteraddedthat the evidenceindicatestI~utthe declineis continuingandaccelerating,resultingin e\tinctionin se’ oralyears.Anothercornmenterstatedthat thi roost recentpopulationdatachowthat theeeo~raphicextent(ifthedeclineis increasingaswell.

NMFS believesthat a popidationdeclineis a scffi lint basisfor listing aspeciesas threatenedor endangered.Inthe an,eof theStellersort ion, NMFSbeli&rve.s th~1tic’ avuli;iblr roformationsupportsathre~tenedclassificationratherthan an eridargeredclass:ficatiun.Thereis not sufficientinformation to ru-nsr.l~’ranimalsindifferentgeographicrep arisassepaiattpopalr.tions:the’vfo~ethestatusof theentire s: cmosn.tst be considered.

Tutu uounls 0r spamans atrookeriesandIar~loutsites throughoutmostofAlaskaandthe USSRin 1909 wereabout50.000, i rid :ating a totalpopinir lion size in this aipaof at leastone~hrid more than this number.1 hereareares u~hereSteller senlionabundanceis stableor not decliningsignuuicuntl~.F’ur~hermore.preirminaryresultsfrom tl~e1990Steller sealionsurvey showthat about2:i,000adult and

sealiars were counted,similarto the loan mount.Thc~eresultsindicati’that tb pepula:ion hasnot declinedfurther in aroes‘~bore:le declir.u hadbeensitrific.unt andthat the 1989countsw’ ~‘ not anemalous.NMFS doe,not belie’~ethat thespeciescurrently isin dangerof es’irichonthroughoutall orasignificantportion of its range(i.e..t’naa gored N~TS ill continuetomeinitor th.j SR!ior seahocpopulationIf the dun roe coot fluesat the rate in the~ (ltt ~d’ 911(3 (urrtinuesto spread.

Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 4205

I

NMFS will reconsiderthe listingclassification.

Two commentersconcurredwith the“threatened” listingbut stated that thisclassification should be extendedto theentire rangeof the species,includingCalifornia populations of the Steller sealion. One of thesecommentersreferredto the commenton theemergency listingthat documenteda decline of90 percentin the species’ populationin California.

The emergencyinterim rule applied tothe entire rangeof the Steller sealion,as doesthe final rule. Although theCalifornia populations areincluded,specificprotectivemeasuresfor Stellersealions in California (such asbufferareas)are not. NMFS and theRecoveryTeam are reviewingthe statusof thespeciesthroughout its rangeandtheneed for additional protective measures.In a separaterulemaking.NMFS willproposemore comprehensiveprotectiveregulation.andcritical habitat.

Onecommenterexpressedconcernaboutclassifyingthe Stellersealion asthreatenedbeforeidentifying thereasonfor the population decline.ThecoinmentersuggestedthatNMFSconductadditionalresearchon theprobable causesof thedecline prior toreclassificationof the species.

The available datasupportalisting ofthreatenedthroughouttherangeof theStellar sealion. NMFS believesthat ademonstrateddeclinecanjustify alisting of speciesand thatpreciseknowledgeof the reasonsfor the declineis not a prerequisite.Eachof the fivefactors describedin section4(a)(1)ofthe ESA, which can causea speciestobe threatenedor endangered,isdiscussedEn detail below. NMFS hasdeterminedthat the Steller sealion is athreatened specie.andthat it is lilce1~that this condition Is causedby acombination of thefactors specifiedunder section4(a)(l) of the ESA. N1~ffSis sponsoringresearch projectstodeterminethe causeof thepopulationdecline. Theresultsof this research-wlflbe consideredwhenNMFS proposescomprehensiveprotectiveregulationsand critical habitat designation.

Buffer Zone.sNMFS receivedeight commentson

buffer zones.One commenter’concurredwith the list of the buffer zonesdesignatedin theproposedrule. Sixcommentersindicatedthat the bufferzonesshould bedesignatedin otherareas notcoveredin theemergencyrule.Two of theje coinmentersstatedthatbuffer zonesshould be establishedaround all rookeries in thespecies’rangeandthatthesizeshouldbeincreasedto indudesurroundingfeedingareas (i.e.. up to 00 miles (96.6

kilometers)from arookery).OneofthesecommenterealsostatedthatNMFS shouldprohibitoverflightsoverall bufferzones.Twoother commentererequestedthatbufferzonesbeestablished aroundmajorrookeriesoffthe California coast,including FarallonIsland National Wildlife RefugeandAno Nuevo Island. The last twocommenters recommendedthatadditional rookeries, notyet showingpopulationdeclines,beprotectedby 0.5-nautical mile (0.9 kilometers)bufferzones.Oneof thesecominentersrecommendedthat NMFS considerissuingprohibitions or guidelinesonaircraftactivity nearrookeries.Of thesix comntentersthat supportedstrengtheningof thebufferzoneprovisions,two commentersstated thatbuffer zonesshouldbe establishedforall haulauts. A third commenterwantsNMFS to establishbufferzonesforhaulouta when Stellersealionsareonthem.

NMFS believesthatadditionalbufferzonesmay be neededtoprovideadequateprotectionto theStellersealion until morecomprehensiveregulationsarein place.Because thearea ofmajordeclinecontinue,westwardbeyondKiskaIsland,andincludessealion rookerieson Buldfr,Agattu, andAttn Islands,NMFSad~rookerieslocatedon thoseislandsto thelist of location,where3 mile (4.&kilometers)(at-seaand0.5 mile (0,8kilometers)on-Landbufferzonesareineffect.Additionalmodification, to thebufferzone provisionswill beconsideredwhenNMFS proposesmovecomprehensiveprotectiveregulation.and criticalhabitatafterconsideringtherecommendationsof the RecoveryTeam, the Marine Mammal Commissionand thepublic.

One commenterrequestedthatNMFSreducethe sizeof the buffer zoneonAdak Island. This coinmenterclaimedthat the rookery is smellerthan listedand that small vesselsdo not have anadverseimpact onStellersealionsevenat I nautical mile (i.e kilometers).

The NMFS believeskeepingthe threenautical mile (5.5 kilometers)bufferzonearound the rookery on Adak Island willbenecessaryto provide protection totheStellersealion without havingsignificant effectson marine usergroups.If current researchindicates thatmodificationsto thelistedbuffer zonesare warrantecLNMFS will implementsuchchanges.Individualsmayobtainexemption.where an ‘activi(y will nothave anysignificantadverseaffectonStellar sealions, theactivity hasbeenconductedhistorically or traditionally-inthe buffer zones, and thereIs no readily

availableor acceptablealternativeto orsitefor the activity.”

IncideatciTakings

Five commentersrecommendedthatthe incidental take quota be reduced.Two of the commentersstatedthat thequotashouldbe basedon biologicalconsiderationsandsuggestedthat thequota be set at1 percentof the indexcountof Stellersea lions (not includingpups) in a region. Oneof thesecommenters recommended thatthisformula also apply to Alaskan waterseastof 141~W longitudeandto watersoff of Washington.Oregon, andCalifornia. regions not covered by theproposedrule. Another commenter,noting that the proposedquotawasmore than 2.5times higherthan theworst-caseestimateof the actualincidental take, statedthat the proposedquota wasmeaninglessand shouldbereduced.This commenteradded thattheincidentaltakein non-fishing activities(e.g., oil exploration)shouldbeprohibited. One commenter statedthatthe incidentaltakequota should bereducedto zero,that the quota shouldbe apportionedgeographically,andthatthe quotashouldtakeinto accounttheageand saxstructuresof the takes.Twoof the comnienterssuggestedthat NMFSinvestigatemechanismsto reducetheincidentaltakeIn fisheries.

NOAA scientistscurrently areevaluatingmethodsfor establishingandmonitoringincidental takequotasforSteller sealioi~.This effort is onecomponentof the Lor~-rangemanagementstrategythat is anticipatedto be implementedwhenthe MarineMammalExemptionPro~amexpiresin1993. NMFS alsowill determinewhetherfishing practicesor~ar can be used toreduce oreliminateiucidentaltakesassociatedwith fishing. NMFS willaddressfishinggearandpracticesin theforthcomingrulemakingdealingwithcomprehensiveprotectiveregulations.As part of the rulemakingprocessforthe comprehensive conservationprogram,NMFSwill considermodificationsof thequotaincludinglocation, ageandsex.

ShootingPrvhibj’tion

All five commentersthat addressedthe shootingprohibition concurred withNMFS~,proposal. Twoof thecommenters.however,recommendedthat theprohibition beextendedtoharborsealsand California sealions;oneof the commentersrecommendedthat the prohibiton be extendedtoharbor sealsonly. The commentersarguethat the extensionis necessarytoprevent inadvertent shooting of Stellar

I49206 FederalRegister/ Vol 55, No. 2.27 / Monday, November 26, 1990 I Rules and Regulations

sealions becausethe three species aresimilar inappearanceandoftenswim inthe sameareas.Oneof thecommentersaddedthat the prohibition would beeasierto enforceif it were extendedtotheothertwo species.

N~vtFSagreesthat the inadvertentshootingof Steller sealions is apotentialproblemandwill examinethe~ten~iofl of the shootingprohibition to

California sealions andharborseals;~henit proposescomprehensiveprotectiveregulations.

One commenterstatedthat ther’gulatory languageregardingtheshootingprohibition was unclear,claiming that “within 100yards” (91.4meters) couldbeinterpretedto meaneitherthat the individual firing aweapon couldnotbe within 100yards11.4 meters)of a Steller sealion or thatthe projectile could land within 100yirds (91.4meters) of aSteller sealion.

NMFS believesthat the intent of ther~gu1atorylanguageregarding theshootingprohibitionis clear.To preventmisinterpretationof theregulation,NMFS issuesthe following clarification:50 CFR 227.12(a)(1)prohibits thedischargeof a firearm where theprojectile will strike or land within 100yards (91.4meters) of a Stellar sealion.~MFS believesthat this clarification iss’jfficient and that no change in ther-gulatory language is required.

Two commentersrecommended that~.MFSdevelop non-lethal deterrentsandevaluatetheir effectivenessat reducingdamage to fishingcatch and gear andt’leir possibleimpactson animals.

N?VIFS agreeswith thecommentersthat non-lethal deterrents should bedavelopedfor useby fishery vesseloperatorsand crews.At this time,however, NMFS is not awareof anymethods that have been proven to beeffectiveat deterring marine mammalsfrom interactingwith fishing activities.

Subsis:eneeFive cominentersaddressedthe taking

of Steller sealions for subsistencepurposes.Two commentersstatedthatsubsistenceharvestingis a minimalcontributor to the populationdeclineofsealions. Oneof thesecommentersexpressedconcernthat thetraditionsand livelihood of Native Alaskanswould be adversely affectedifsubsistenceharvesting wereregulated.One commenterdisagreedwith thesubsistenceexceptionin theproposedrule, recommendingthat the subsistencetake be included in an overallquota thatwould include incidental takesand thatNMFS regulate the subsistenceharvest.

NMFS agrees that thesubsistenceharvest is minimal and probably has notcontributed to the population declineof

Stellersealions.Although the actuallevel of the subsistenceharvestisunknown, it is estimatedto befewerthan100animals annually. Based on theavailable information NMFS believesthat it would be more appropriate toaddressthe regulation of subsistenceharvestingwhen NMFS developsthecomprehensiveprotective regulations.

One commenterexpressedconcernthat the creation of buffer zonescouldthreaten traditional subsistenceharvestactivities becausea number oftraditionalharvestsites are locatedwithin the boundaries of buffer zones.This cornnienternoted that exemptionscould be difficult to obtain and fearedthat the burden of proof would beplaced onAlaskan Natives.Thecommenterrecommendsthat N?~WSestablish clearcriteria for providingforsubsistenceharvestingin buffer zones.In the long run, the commenter suggeststhat N!VWS establish a moreflexibleregulatorystructurethat providesprotection for Steller sealions withoutplacing undue restrictions onsubsistenceharvest activities.

NMYS recognizesthepossible adverseimpacts of the listing on traditionalactivities that arenot contributing to thedecline ofSteller sealions. This ruleincludes anexceptionto the shootingprohibition for subsistenceharvestingand an exemption processfor traditionalactivities in buffer zones.Conflictsbetweenbuffer zonesand traditionalhuntingsiteswill be handled on acase-hy.casebasis throughthe exemptionprocess. Becausesubsistencehunting isa traditional activity, hunters have todemonstratethat no alternative sitesarereadily available and that the huntingwill not adverselyaffect the rookery.The regulation, however,doesnutinclude a blanket exemptionforsubsistencebecauseNMFS believesthatalternative huntingsitesmay beavailable in somecasesand that it isnecessaryto minimize avoidable humancontactat and nearrookeries. NMFSwill further considertheinterrelationship betweenbuffer zonesandsubsistenceharvesting whenitdevelopscomprehensiveprotectiveregulations.

Another commenter concurred withthe regulatory exceptionfor subsistenceharvesting but requestedNMFS toexaminethe subsistenceharvest anddetermine whether theharvestis beingconductedin a non-wastefulmanner~

NMFS agreesthat subsistenceharvesting of Steller sealions should beconductedin a non-wastefulmanner.Examination of this issue,however,could not be addressedin the finallisting without delaying its publication.

Enforcement

Threecomnientersexpressedconcernthat enforcementof the provisions in theemergencyinterim rule wasinadequate.Two of thesecommentersspecificallyaddressedenforcementof the shootingprohibition while theother commenteraddressedincidental takes andenforcementof buffer zones.Onecommenterrecommendedthatintentionalkills shouldbe a priority forthe observerprogram.AnothercommentersuggestedthatNMFSexpandthe observerprogramforincidental takes.

NMFS agreesthat enforcement isacritical component oftheseregulationsand retains the expanded observerprogram establishedunder theemergency listing.Foreign processorsand domesticgroundflshvessels125 feet(38 meters)or more in length now carryobservetsduring all of their operationsin the ExclusiveEconomicZone (EEZ) ofthe Bering Seaand in the Gulf of Alaska.Groundflshvesselsof 60 to 124 feet(18to 38meters) in length carry observersduring30percent of their operations ineachquarter. Three additional fisheriesin Alaska that areclassifiedas CategoryI under theMMPA, PrinceWilliamSoundset anddrift gillnet for salmonand SouthUniniak(Unimakand FalsePasses)drift gilinet for salmon, hadobservercoverageduring the 1990fishing seasonand arescheduled tohave coveragein the 1991 fishingseasoncontingent upon final publication of theRevisedList of Fisheries.NMFS also isretaining theobserverauthority of theemergencyruleby allowing theNI’VWSAlaska Regional Director to placeanobserveron any fishing vessel.Ifadditional information indicates that thecurrent observerprogram requiresmodification,such modification could beimplementedunder the authority of thisrule. NMFS also is evaluatingtheobserverprogramas partof thedevelopmentof a long-rangemanagementstrategyforimplementation of the Marine MammalProtection Art Amendments of1988.

Exceptions

Threecommentersaddressedtheexceptionsprovided under the proposedrule.Oneof these commentersstatedthat thecriteria for severalof theexceptions werevagueand/orunjustifiedand that thelack ofspecificity couldpose enforcementproblems. The commenterexpressedconcernover thefollowing exceptiorprovisionsi Taking for the protection o~the animalor public health or the non-lethal removal of a nuisance animal.

Federal Resister / VoL 55. No. 227 / Monday, November26. 1900 I Rules and Regulalions 492O~.

entranceinto bufferzonesbygovernmental agenciesfor nationaldefenseor theconductof otherlegitimate activities, emergencysituations,andexemptions.In addition.the commenterrecommendedthatNMFS modify the exemptionapplicationprocedure to include public comments.to placethe burdenof proof on theapplicant, and increase thestringencyoftheadverseimpact criterion horn“willnot haveasigmficant adverse impact”to ‘will not have any adverse impact.”

NMFSbelievesthat the exceptionsestablishedin 50 CFR 227.12(b)paragraph (1) through(4) areappropriate, necessary,and welldefined.Thefirst provision parallelssection109(h)of the Marine MammalProtection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1361etseq.(MMPA), which, among other things.allows the taking of beachedandstrandedanimals for rehabilitationpurposes, anectvty that may benefitthespecies.NMFS believesthat localofficials need theauthority to protectthe safetyof their citizenswhennecessary.Only a verysmallnumberofanimals are likely to be taken for theprotection of the public healthandwelfare or by the non-lethal removalof“nuisance animals,”andthis provisionis not likely to have anyaffecton thepopulation. NMFS believesthesecondprovision is necessaryto allowgovernmentfunctions,suchas CoastGuard activities,NOAA’s nauticalchartingresponsibilities and wildlifesurveys,to continue. Noneof theseactivitiesis expectedto significantlyaffect thesealion population. Further.Federal agenciesmust consult undersection7(a){2) of tlie ESA on anyactionthat may affectSteller sealions toensurethattheactionis not likely tojeopardizeits continued existence.

NMFS believesthat theexemptioncriteria andprocessestablishedby thisrulemaking will adequatelyprotectthedesignatedrookeries.NMFS deesnotexpectmanyexemptionsandbelievesthat exemptionsarenecesearytoaccountfor unforeseen circumstances.Furthermore, the criteria narrowlydefine conditions underwhich NMFScangrantan exemption.Sincetheemergency listingbecameeffectiveonApril 5. 1990.NMFS has actedon twoexemptionapplications-In onecasetheexemptionwasgranted becausetheapplicant veryclearly met all threscriteria;The activity has beenon-goingsince1930, disturbanceof therookeryhas not been aproblem.and there axeno reasonableor ~asible altetmativest~the site.In theothercase, inwhicl~atourist lodge’sapplicationfor entry intothe Marmot Island bufferzoneto view

andphotographSteller sealions wasdenied,NMFS ruledthatalternativesitesand alternative “wildernessexperience’activities were available.Theseexamplesdemonstratethat theexemptionprocedureis unlikely toreducethe protectionaffordedby theestablishmentof bufferzones.

Two commentersexpressedconcernthat vesselswould not haveaccesstosafe anchorageslocatedin bufferzonesduring storms.

NMFS sharesthecommenters’concern that vesselshaveaccessto safeanchorageduring storms.N~MFSnotesthat both the proposedandfinal rulescontain an exception to the bufferzoneentryprohibition in caseof emergencysituations;50 CFR 227.12(b)(4)statesthat approach restrictionsinto bufferzonesdoesnot apply when“compliancewith that provisionpresentsa threat tothe health. safety,or life of a person orpresentsasignificantthreatto thevesselor property.” The emergencysituationprovision would permit avesseloperator to entera buffer zoneforthe purpose ofsecuring thevesselat asafeanchorageduring a storm.

Additional ProtectiveMeasures

Over half of thecommer,tersbelievedthat additional protective regulationsare needed andthat the interimprotective measuresunder theemergencyrule areinadequate.Most ofthesecommenters implicatedtrawlfisheriesas amajor contributor to thedecline’in the Stellar sealion populationby depletingthe Steller sealion’s preyspecies.Additional recommendationsincluded limiting trawling to daylighthours, prohibiting the use ofgill netsaroundrookeries,prohibiting fishing foxpollock whentheyarecarryingroe, andreducingtheoverall quota of grou.ndflsh.One commeiileraddedthat the raplddecline in theStellersealion populationrrequired immediateactionand thatNMFSshoulddevelopan interiamanagementand conservationplan inthe absenceof final comprehensiveprotective regulations.

NMFS agreeswith the commentersthat morecomprehensiveprotectivemeasuresmay berequired.However,NMFS doesnot want to delaythelistingof the specieswhile proposedprotectiveregulationsarebeingdevelopedandevaluated.NMFS will, therefore.propose morecomprehensiveprotectiveregulations and ~ritica1habitatin aseparaterulemaking as indicatedin~thepreamble to theproposedrule..This ruleincludesthe limited prolec~veregulationsspecifiedin theproposedrule. NMFS, however,believesthattheselimited regulations(e.g..buffer

zones,shootingprohibitionjwill be

adequate inthe near-term.

Resecirch/Experirnentation

Six commentersrecommendedthatNMFS sponsorresearchto determinethecauseof the Steller sealion’spopulationdeclineandto developappropriateconservationmeasuresandamanagement plan.Severalof thecommenterssuggestedthatNMFS focuson therelationshipbetweenfisherypracticesandtheStetlersealionpopulation.Anothercommentersupported researchto assessthe impactof toxic pollutantson thepopulationdecline.One commenterrecommendedthat NMFS implementexperimentalconservationmeasuresthat testhypothesesonthe causesof thepopulation decline.

NMFS agreesthatmore informationisneededto determinethecause(s)of thedecline.NMFS is undertakingresearchto determineimportantfeedinglocationsby usingsatellite monitored tagsattachedto femalesealions.Thesestudies alsoshouldprovideinformationon locationsof at-seamortalities.Studiesto determine stockdifferentiationwill continue. Resourcesurveyson thedensityof sealion preyspeciesareproposed.Satellitelinkedtelemetrywill be usedto determinesealion feedingareasfor comparisonto thefindings from thesesurveys.Thebehavior of sealionsin relationtocommercialfishing activities andtheassociationbetweenfeedingsealionsandprincipal fishing areas will beexamined.NMFS also will evaluatetheimpact of the protective measures[i.e..shooting prohibition,buffer zones)establishedby this role.

Pub/ic Hearings

Two commentersrequestedthatNMFS hold public hearings on therulemaking.Oneof the commentersstated that public hearingswerenecessarybecausemany affectedindividuals were unlikely to submitwritten comments in responseto thepublicationof the proposedlisting in theFederalRegister.The other commenterindicatedthat public hearings werejustified giventheimportanceoffisheriesto the localeconomyandtheimportance of the Stellersealion to thecomniunity.

N~vWSagreedwith the commentersthat the public hearings wereappropriate given the importanceof therulemakingto thecommunity.hiresponse.NMFS held threepublichearings:Oneon October16.1990 inAnchorageansi.on October18.1990.

49Cc Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 227 / Monday. November 26. 1990 I Rules and Regulations

hearingswere heldin Kodiak and

Cordova, Alaska.

Summary of the Statusof the Species

TheS~al1er(northern)sealion,Eumetopias jubatus, rangesfromHokkaido,Japan,throughtheKurilIslandsandOkhotskSea,AleutianIslandsandcentralBeringSea,Gulf ofA’aska, southeastAlaska.andsouthtocentralCalifornia.Thereis not sufficientinformationto consideranimalsindfferent geographicregionsas separatep~pulaLions.The centersof abundanceanddistribution are theGulf of AlaskaandAleutianIslands.respectively.Rackeries(breedingcolonies)are foundfrom the centralKuril Islands(46 ‘Nla~itude)to AnoNuevo Island,California (37 ‘N latitude); mostlargerookeriesarein the Gulf of AlaskaandAleutian Islands.More than50 Stellers~alion rookeries and a greaternumberof haulout sites have beenidentified.

During the 1985 breeding season,68,000animalswerecountedon Alaskarookeriesfrom Kenai Peninsula to KiskaIs land, compared to140,000countedin1956-60.A 1988Status Report concludedthat the population sizein 1985 wasprobably below 50 percentof thehistoric population sizein 1956-60andbelow the lower bound of its optimumsustainablepopulation level under theMMPA. A comparablesurveyconductedin 1989showedthat the numberobservedon rookeriesfrom Kenai toKiska declinedto 25,000animals. Thisindicates a decline ofabout 82 percentfrom 1956—60to 1989 in this area.P’-eliminary resultsfrom the 1990Stellersealion surveyshowthat about 25,000adult and juvenile sealions werecounted,similar to the1989count. Theseresultsindicate thatthepopulationhasnot declinedfurtherin areaswherethed~’clinehadbeensignificant,andthatthe1989 countswerenot anomalous.Thecountsarenot anestimateof totalnunbersof animalsbut includeonlythose animalson thebeach(excludingpups)at the time of the survey.As such.theycai he usedto indicatetrendsinabundaice,ratherthan to estimatetotalspeciesabundance.Copiesof the 1988S itus Report and a 1985Update areavailable (seeADDRESSES).

Speciesabundanceestimatesduringthe late 1970’srangedfrom 245—290,000adult andjuvenileanimals.A currenttotal populationestimateis notavailable.However,countsatrookeriesa~dhaulout sites throughoutmostofAlaskaandtheUSSR in1989, plusestimatesfrom surveysconductedinrecent years atlocations not counted in1q89. providea minimumnumberfor thespeciesduring1989. The summariesofthese counts andestimatesare:

Summaryof FactorsAffecting theSpecies

An endangeredspeciesis anyspeciesin dangerof extinction throughoutall ora significantportion of its rangeandathreatenedspeciesis any specieslikelyto becomean endangeredspecieswithinthe foreseeablefuture throughoutall ora significantportion of its range. Speciesmaybe determinedto beendangeredorthreateneddueto oneor moreof the fivefactors describedin section4(a)(1) ofthe ESA. These factorsas theyapplytoSteller sealionsarediscussedbelow.

A. Thepresentor threateneditestruction,modification,or curtailmentofits habitator range. Steller sealionsbreedon islands in the North PacificOcean,generally far from humanhabitations. Thereis no evidencethatthe availabilityof rookeryspaceis alimiting factor for this species.As thenumber of animals continuesto decline,rookeriesare beingabandonedandavailable rookery spaceis increasing.However, activities that result indisturbance,preyavailability or otherfactorsmay beaffectingthesuitabilityof theavailablehabitat.

The feedinghabitat of Steller sealionsin Alaska may have changed. State ofAlaska biologistsfound that populationsin the Gulf of Alaska during the 1980’shad slowergrowth rates, poorerphysical fithess(lower weights, smallergirth), and lowered birth rates. Somedata showa high negativecorrelationbetweenthe amount of walleyepollockcaught and sealion abundance trendsinthe easternAleutians and central Gulfof Alaska. It is possiblethat a reductionin availability of pollock. the mostimportant prey speciesin most areas, isacontributingfactor in the decline in thenumber of Steller sealions in westernand central Alaska.

B. Over-utilizationfor commercial,recreational,scientific,or educationalpurposes.Between1963—72.over45,000Steller sealion pups were commerciallyharvested in theeasternAleutianIslands andGulf of Alaska. This harvestmay explain thedeclinesin theseareasthrough the 1970’s.The actual level ofsubsistenceharvest ofSteller sealionsis unknown, but is probably lessthan100animals annually,primarily at St.Paul Island in the Pribilofs during falland winter months.This taking is not ofsufficient magnitude to contribute to theoverall decline. A smallnumber have

alsobeentakenfor public displayandscientificresearchpurposes.

C. Diseaseor predation.Sharks, killerwhalesand brown bears areknown toprey on Steller sealion pups. Mortalityfrom sharks and bearsis not believed tobe significant. When sealion abundancewashigh, the level of mortality fromkiller whaleswasprobablynotsignificant, but assealion numbersdecline, this mortality mayexacerbatethe decline in certain areas.

Diseaseresulting in reproductivefailureor deathcould be asourceofincreasedmortality in Stellersea lionpopulations,but it probably doesno~explain themassive declinesinnumbers.Antibodiesto two typesofpathological bacteria (LeptospiraandChiamydia),a marinecalicivirus(SanMiguel SeaLion Virus), and sealherpesvirus were found in the bloodofStellersealions in Alaska. Lap tuspiresand SanMiguel sealion viruses may beassociatedwith reproductive failuresand deaths inCalifornia sealions andNorth Pacific fur seals.Chiamydiahasnot beenstudied previously in sealions,but is known from studiesof PribilofIsland fur seals.Noneof theseagents isthought to be asignificant causeofmortality in Steller sealions.

D. The inadequacyof existingregulatorymechanisms.Someprotection for the Stellersealion isprovided under the MMPA, whichprohibits the taking of Stellar sealions,with certainexceptions,including aninterim exemptionfor commercialfishing. Once1,350Steller sealions havebeenkilled incidentalto commercialfishing, section114of the MMPArequiresNMPS toprescribeemergencyregulationsto prevent,to themaximumextentpracticable,any furthertaking.Intentionallethal takesareprohbited.Inaddition. section114(g)of the M~WAprovides that regulations maybeprescribed to prevent taking of a marinemammal speciesin a commercial fisheryif it is determined that suchtaking ishaving, or is likely to have, a significantadverse impact on that marine mammalpopulation stock.

E. Othernatural or manmadefacwrsaffectingitscontinuedexistence.Stellersealions aretaken incidental tocommercial fishing operationsin theGulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea.Between1973and1988, U.S. observerson foreignand joint venture vesselsoperating in theseareas reported 3,661marine mammals taken. Stellersealionsaccountedfor 90 percent of thisobservedtotal. Basedon these observedtakesandan extrapolation tounobservedfishing, the total number ofStellersealions incidentally killed by

I

Alaska ..

WA. OR and CASritishColumbiaUSSR

53.0004.0006,0003.000

56.000

IFederal Register I VoL 55, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 1990 I Rules and Regulations 4920Q

the foreign and (oint venturecommercialtrawl fisheriesduring 1973—1988isestimatedat 14,000.Since1985,however, the level and rate of observedincidental take hasdecreasedto thepoint where, by itself, it is not sufficientto accountfor the most recentlyobserveddeclines.

Observerprograms under the M1~4PA,andfor thegroundflshfisheriesofAlaskaunder theMagnusonFisheryConservationandManagement Actof1976,asamended,16 U.S.C.1801 etseq.(MagnusonAct), will assistNMFS indeterminingwhethertheincidentaltakeof Steller sealions duringcommercialfishing operationsorother observableactivitiesarefactorsin thedeclinein thenumberof theseanimalsin Alaska.

There arereportsof fishermenandother people shootingadult Steller sealions at rookeries,hauloutsites,andinthewaternearboats,but themagnitudeof this mortality is unknown. Theseactivities also have the potential fordisruption of breedingactivities and useof rookeriesand haulout sites.

DeterminationNMFS has determinedthat the

available evidenceindicates the Stellersealion is likely to becomeanendangeredspecieswithin theforeseeablefuture and that thethreatenedclassificationis appropriate.Although the precise causesof thedecline have not beendetermined, it islikely that the current condition iscausedby a combination of the factorsspecifiedunder section4(a)(1)of theESA.

The number of Steller sealionsobservedon certainrookeriesin Alaskadeclinedby 63percentsince1985and by82 percentsince1960.The dedinehasspread from the easternAleutianIslands, where it began in theear’y1970’s,eastto the Gulf of Alaska andwestto the previously stablecentralAleutian Islands.Declinesare occurringin previously stableareas and ontheKuril Islands. USSRDespitethis welldocumenteddecline, NMFS doesnotbelievethat an endangeredlisting isappropriate at this time. Total countsofsealions at rookeriesand hauloutsitesthroughout most of Alaska and theUSSRin 1989wereabout 56,000, whichwould indicate a total population sizeinthis area of at leastone-thirdmorethanthis number.NMFS must considerthestatus of the entire species,includingareas whereSteller sealion abundanceis stableor notdeclining significantly.becausethere is not sufficientinformation to consideranimals indifferent geographic regions asseparatepopulations. Furthermore. preliminaryresults from the 1990Steher sealion

surveyshowthat about 25.000adult andjuvenilesealions were counted,similarto the 1989count.Theseresults indicatethat the population has notdeclinedfurther in areaswherethedecline hadbeensignificant, and that the 1989countswere not anomalous.Therefore,N1vIPSdoes notbelieve that the speciescurrentlyis in danger of extinctionthroughout all or a significantportion ofits range (i.e., endangered),andis listingthespeciesas threatened.

Final ProtectiveRegulations

Until more comprehensiveregulationsaredeveloped,NMFS is adoptingprotective measuressimilar to thoseinthe emergencyinterim rule, as follows:

1. Prohibit shootingnearsealions.Although theNMPA prohibitsintentional lethaltakeof Steller sealions in the courseof commercialfishing, fishermen have not beenprohibited from harassingsealions thatare interfering with their gearor catchby shootingat or near them. Since thesepractices mayresult in inadverteptmortalities, NMFS is prohibiting thedischargeof a firearmwithin 100yards(91.4meters) of a Steller sealion.

Exceptions to theshootingprovisionsinclude: For activities authorized by apermit issuedin accordancewith theendangeredspeciespermit provisions of50 CFR part 222, subpart C; forgovernmentofficials taking Steller sealions in a humane manner,if the takingis for the protection or welfareof theanimal, the protection of thepublichealth andwelfare, or the nonlethalremoval of nuisanceanimals; and for thetakingofSteller sealions forsubsistencepurposesunder section10(e)of the ESA.

2. Establish BufferZones.NMFS isestablishinga bufferzoneof 3nauticalmiles (5.5 kilometers)aroundtheprincipalStellersealion rookeries in theGulf of Alaska and the AleutianIslands.Rookeries insoutheasternAlaska. eastof 141 W longitude, havenotexperiencedthe declinesreported Incentral and westernAlaska and nobuffer zonesareestablishedfor theseareas.No vesselswill be allowed tooperatewithin the3-mile (5.5kilometers) buffer zones,with certainexceptions.Similarly, no person will beallowed to approach on land closer thanone-half (½)mile (0.8 kilometers) orwithin sight of a listed Steller sealionrookery. On Marmot Island, no personwill be allowed to approach on landcloser than one andone-half (1½)miles(2.4 kilometers) from the easternshore.Marmot Island waspreviously thelargestSteller sealion rookery in Alaskaand theeasternbeachesare usedthroughout the yearby thesealions.

The purposes of the bufferzonesinclud~Restricting the opportunities forindividuals to shoot at sealions andfacilitating enforcement of thisrestriction: reducing the likelihood ofinteractionswith sealions,suchasaccidentsor incidental takingsin theseareas where concentrations of theanimals are expectedto be high;minimizing disturbances andinterference with sealion behavior,especiallyat pupping and breeding sites;and, avoiding or minimizing otherrelated adverse effects.

Exceptions to thebuffer zonerestrictions include: activities authorizedby permits issuedin accqrdancewiththe endangeredspeciespermitprovisions of50 CFR part 222. subpart C;for governmentofficials taking Stellersealions in a humane manner, if thetaking is for the protection or welfare ofthe animal, the protection of the publichealth and welfare,or the ncnlethalremoval of nuisanceanimals; forgovernmentofficials conductingactivities necessaryfor national defenseor the performance of other legitimategovernmental activities; andforemergency situationsthat present athreat to the health, safetyor life of aperson or asignificant threat to a vesselor property. Further, a mechanismisprovided to allow the Director, AlaskaRegion.NMFS to issueexemptionsfortraditional or historic activities that donot have asignificant adverseeffectonsealions and for which there is noreadily available and acceptablealternative. Notice ofall suchexemptionswill be published in theFederalRegister.There is no overallexception to thebuffer zonerestrictionsfor subsistencetaking of Steller sealions; and exemptionissuedby theRegional Director will be needed.

3.EstablishL’lcider?taI Kill Quota.When theMMPA wasamended in1988to requireemergencyregulationsonce1,350Steller sealions wereIncidentallykilled In anyyear,thepopulationnumberswerebased, inpart, on 1985data. In four study areas inAlaska,Steller sealions declinedby an averageof 63 percentfrom 1985 to 1989.Therefore, NMFS is prohibiting theincidental killing of more than 675Stellersealions on anannualbasis inAlaskanwaters andadjacentareasofthe EEZ westof 141’ W longitude. Inassociationwith the emergencyrule,NMFSinstituteda moreefficientmonitoring system.Foreign processorsand domesticgroundflsh vessels125 feet(38 meters)or more in length now carryobserversduring100 percent of theiroperations in theEEZ of the Bering Seaand in the Gulf of Alaska. Groundfish

49210 FederalRegister / VoL 55. No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

vesselsof 60 to 124 feet (18 to 38 meters)in lengthcarryobservers during30percent of theiroperationsin eachquarter.ThreeadditionalfisheriesinAlaskathatareclassifiedas CategroyIunder theMMP& thePrinceWilliamSoundsetanddrift glilnet fishery forsalmonand the South Ummak(UnimakandFalsePasses)drift gillnet fisheryforsalmon,hadcoverageduring the1990fishing seasonand are scheduled tohave coverageduring the 1991season,iftheyremainin CategoryI in the 1991RevisedList of Fisheries.The totalincidental take ofsealions will beestimatedmonthly during the courseofthe fishing season,basedon thein-seasonobserverreports.In order tocontinueto monitor this quota,NMFS isretaining the observerauthority of theemergency ruleby allowingtherespectiveRegional Directorto placeanobserveron anyfishing vessel.If dataindicate that the quota is beingapproached, theAssistantAdministrator for Fisheries,NOAA, willissue emergencyrulesto closeareastofishing, allocatethe remainingquotaamong fisheries, or takeotheractiontoensurethatco~ninercia1fishingoperationsdo not exceedtheqeota.

Critical Habitat

TheESA requiresthatcritical habitatbe specifiedto the aiaximumextentprudentanddeterminableat the timethespecie,is proposedfor listing. NMFSintendsto proposecritical habitat attheearliestposuibledateasa partof thecomprehensiveprotectiveregulations.NMFS will consider physicalandbiological factorsessentialto theconservationof thespeciesthat mayrequire specialmanagementconsideration or protection.Thesehabitat requirementsincludebreedingrookeries, hauloutsites, feedingarenaandnutritionalrequirements.Indescribingcriticalhabitat,NMFS willtake into considerationterrestrialhabitats adjacent to rookerie, and thea’need for protection from developmentand other uses,suchasloggingor

AdditionalConservationMeasures

In additionto protectiveregulations,conservationmeasuresfor speciesthatare listedas endangeredorthreatenedunder theESA Includerecognition.recoveryactions,designationandprotectionof critical habitat,andFederal agencyconsultation.NMFS hasestablishedaRecoveryTeam toassistin developingaRecovery Planfor theStellar sealion. This planwill helpguide

the recoveryeffortsof NMFS and otheragenciesandorganizations.

Section7(a)(2) of theESA requiresthat eachFederalagencyinsurethatanyactionauthorized,funded,or carriedoutby the agencyis not likely to jeopardizethe continuedexistenceof a listedspeciesor resultin the destructionoradversemodificationof its crtticalhabitat. Federalactionsmostlikely toaffect the Steller sealion includeapproval and implementation of fisherymanagement plans andregulationsunder the MagnusonAct permittedactivities on land near rookeriesandhaulout sites,suchas timber,mineraland cii development~and, leasingactivities associatedwith offshore oiland gas exploration anddevelopmentonthe OuterContinentalShelf.

OncetheStelier seahon is listedasthreatened,it is, by definition,considereddepleted under theMMPA.and additional restrictions apply underthat Act, suchasaprohibition on takingfor public display purposes..

ClassificationSection4(b)(1)of theESArestrictsthe

information thatmaybe consideredwhen assessing speciesfor listing.Basedon this limitation andtheopinioninPacificLegalFOALUdUtiORv. Aiidrus,657F.2d 829(6thdr.,1.981)~.NMFS ha..categoricallyexcludedall listingactionsunder theESA fromenvironmentalassesementrequirementsof theNationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act (48FR 4413.February8.1984).

As notedin the Conferencereportonthe1982amendmentsto theESA.economicconsiderationshavenorelevanceto detenninationsregardingthe listing status of species.Therefore,the econonaicanalysisrequimmenteofExecu1i~eOrder12295.theRegulatoryFlexibility Act, and thePaperworkReductionAct arenotapplicableto thelisting p~OceSL

NMFS is waivingpartof the 30-daydelay betweenthe publicationof a finalruleandits effectivedateunder5 U.S.C.553(d).Therewill bevery few newregulatory requirementsapplicabletothepublic asaresultof thi.. final rulebecauseit is verysimilar to theemergencyrulewhichha, tinted theStellersea lion as a threatenedspeciessinonApril 10.1990.BecausethatemergencyruleexpiresonDecember3.1990, it would becontraryto the publicinterestto delaythe effectivedateofthis final rule beyond Decembert anysuthdelaycould bedetrimentalto theStellersealion becauseit would causeahiatus in th. protectionof thespeciesunder theESA.Therefore,NMFS finde

thereis goodcauseto waivethe 30-daydelay in theeffectivedateundersection553(d)(3), and is makingthis ruleeffectiveDecember4, 1990,

List of Subjectsin 5; CFR Part227

Endangeredandthreatenedwildlife.

F~rthe reasonsset out inthepreamble, 50 CFR part 227is amendedas follows;

PART 227—THREATENEDFISH ANDWIWLWE

1. Theauthoritycitation for part 227continues to read as follows:

Authurily: 18 U.SC. 1531elseq.

2. In ~ 227.4,anewparagraph(f) is

added to read asfollows:§ 221.4 Enianeralionatthreateneds—s.

(I) Stellar(northern)sealion(Eumelopiasjubatus).

3. in subpartB~a newsectionis addedto read as follows:

§ 221.12 StatlersealIon,(a) Proliibitians—{1)No dischargeof

fireorm& Exceptas providedinparagraph (b} of this section,no personsubject to thejurisdiction of theUnitedStatesmay dischargeafirearmat orwithin 190yards(91.4meters)of aStellersealion. A firearm is anyweapon, suchasapistol or rifle.capableof firing amissile usinganexplosivechargeasapropellant.

(2) Noapproachin buffetareas.Except as providedin paragraph(b) ofthis section:

(i) No owneror operator ofavesselmayallow thevesselto approachwithin3 nauticalmiles(5.5 kilometers)of aSteiler sealion rookerysitelisted inparagraph (aX3)efthis section:

(ii) No personmayapproachon landnot privatelyownedwithin one-halfstatutorymiles(0.8kilometers)or withinsightof. Stetier sealion rookerysitelistedin paragraph(aX3)of this section.whicheveris greater,excepton MaimotIslan* and

(iii) No person may approachon landnot privatelyownedwithin one andone-half statutory miles (2.4 kilometers)orwithin sightof theeasternshoreofMarmot1aland~including theSteller se-alion rookerysitelisted in paragraph(a)(3j of this section.whicheverisgreater.

(3)Listed sealion rookerysites.ListedStellarsealion rookerysitesconsist of therookeriesin the AleutianIslandsand theGulf of Alaskalisted inTable1.

Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 1990 I Rules and Regulations 49211

TA8L.E 1. LISTED STELLERS~LION ROOKERY SITES”

IslandFrom To NOAA

Chart NotesLat. Long. Lat. Long.

1. Outer I 59205 N 150’23.0 W 59’21.0 N 15024.5 W 16681 S quadrant2. SugarloafI 58’53.0 N 152~02.0W 16580 Whole island.3. Marmot I 58’14.5 N 151~47.5W 58•100 N 151~5lOW 16580 SE quadrant.4. Chinkof I 55~46.5N 155’39.5 W 55’46.5N 155’43.O W 16580 S quadrant.5. Chow~atI 56’00.5 N 158~41.5W 56’OO 5 N 158~42.0W 16013 S quadrant.6 Atlcins I 55’03.5 N 159~l8.5W 16540 Whole island.7. ClIernabura I 54’47,5N 15931.0W 54~45.5N 159~33.5W 16540 SE corner.8. Pinnacle Rock 54’48.0 N 161’46.0 W 16540 Whole island.9. Clubbing Rks (N) 54~43.0N 182~26.5W 16540 Whole island.Clubbing Rks (S) 54’42.0 N 162’26.5 W 16540 Whole Island.10. Sea Lion Aks 55~28.0N 163’12.0 W 16520 Whole island.11. Ugamak I 54’14.0 N 164’48.0 W 54’13.0 N 164~48.OW 16520 E end of island.12. Akun I 54~175 N 165~34.0W 54’lB 0 N 165~31.0W 16520 Billings Head Bight.13. Akutan I 54’03.5 N 166~00.0W 54’05.5N 166~05.0W 16520 SW corner, Cape

Morgan.14. Bogoslof I 53’58.0 N 168’02.0 W 16500 Whole island15. Ogchul I 5300.0 N 168’24.0 W 16500 Whole island.16. Adugak I 52~55.0N 169~10.5W 16500 I Whole island.17 Yunask~I 52~42.0N 170~38.5W 52~410 N 170’34.5 W 16500 NE end.18. Seguam I 52~21.0N 172’35.0 W 52~21.0N 17233.0 W 16480 N coastSaddlendge

Pt19. Agligadak 52’06.5 N 172•54.0 w 164.80 Whole island.20. Kasatochi I 52’10.0 N 175’31.0 W 52’10.5 N 175’29.0 W 16480 N half of island.21. Adak I 51~36.5N 176°58.5W 51~38.0N 176~59.5W 16460 I SW point. Lake Pont.22. Gramp rock 5V29.0 N 178~20.5W 16460 WhOle island.23. Tag I 51’33.5 N 178’34.5 W 16460 Whole island.24. Ulak I 51’20.0 N 178’57.O W 51~185 N 17859.5W 16460 SE corner, Hasgox Pt25. Semisopochnol 51’58.5 N 179M5.5 E 5r57.0 N 179’46.0 E 16440 E quadrant, Pochno

PtSenitsopochno 52015 N 179~37.5E 52~01.5N 179’39.0 E 16440 N quadrant, Petrel Pt.26. Amchltka I 51’22.5 N 179’2$.0 E 5V22.0 N 179’25.0 E 16440 East Cape.27 Amohittca I 5V32.5 N 178’50.0 E 16440 Column Rocks.28. Ayugadak Pt 5V45.5N 178’24.5 E 16440 SE coast of Rat

Island.29. Kiska I 5r57.5 N 177’21.0 E 5r56.5 N 177’20.0 E 16440 W central, Lief Cove.30. Kiska I 51’52.5 N 17T13.0 E 5r53.5 N 177~12.OE 16440 Cape St. Stephen.31.Wakusl 57’ll.ON 16956.OW 16380 Whole island.32. Buldi I 52~20.5N 175~57.0E 5223.5 N 175~51.0E 16420 Se point to NW point.33. Agattu I 52’24.0 N 173~21.5E 18420 Gllion Pont.34. Agattu I 5223.5 N 173’43.5 E 5222.O N 173’41.0 E 16420 Cape Sabak.35. Attu I 5257.5 N 17231.5 C 52’54.5 N 17228.5 E 16420 Cape Wrangell.

‘Each sde extends in a c$ockw~edirection from the frst set of geographic coordinates along the shoreline at mean lower low water to the second Set 04Coordinates: or. if only one Set of geographic coordinates is listed, the sate extends around the entire shoreline 04 the island at mean lower low water.

BILLING CO0E 3510-22-N

I

49212 FederalRegister I Vol. 55. No. 227 1 Monday. November 26, 1990 I Rules and Regulations

z0

(0

a0

a(0

00

aI-

80

00

0N-

0 0 0o 0 00 0 00 In 0(C In (4)

00

0U)

FederalRegister/ Vol. 55, No. 227/ Monday, November 25. 1990 I Rules and Regulations 49213

• 59°25’N

• 59°20’

Outer ~sIandRookery

— Rookery 34.4~Iebu~er2oneChart 16681

1~

1 5O03O~W 1 50020

I49214 FederalRegister / Vol. 55, No. 227 I Monday, November 26, 1990 / RulesandRegulations

O,N

58°50’

58°30’

1 52°30’W 152°OO’

FederalRegi.ter/ VoL 55, No. 227 / Monday, Noveinbe~28. 19w) f RulesandRegulations

58°40’N

58°20’

58°OO’

41213

1 52°30~W 152°OO 151°30’

..

49218 Federal R.g~sterfVaL55,N& 227 [Mon~y,November2&. ~g9OI’ RulesandReguIalioi~

Chirikof Istand Rookery

1 55°30’

Rookery I~\X~’J3 MIle ixiffer zone~1 I

56°20’N

.56°OO’

55°40’

Chart 16580

1 55°OO’II

I 56°OO’W

FederalRegister/ VoL 55.. No. 227/ Monday November26..19~f RulesandRegulations

Semidi Islands

Chowlet I.

,~‘‘. ,.~, . • -. _-.~‘C —‘C.~’ ....~1,. ‘.‘“ i

Rookery k\\\\\\”l 3 MIle bufferzone - Chart 16013I —~ I

-56°30’N

- 56°1O’

55°50~

Chowiet Islands Rookery

1 57°OOW 1 56°30’

‘~‘~ — ‘~ 4.- ________________

49211 FederalRegisterf VoL 55, No. 227/ Monday;.November~4~O / Rulisis andRegulatloos

Simeonof I

Chemabura and AtktnsIstand Rookeries

— Rookeiy ___ 3 MIle buffer zone Chart 165401 I

159°OO

1. . ~

55°1ON

•55°O0

54°50

Big Koniuji I.

I.

I.

ChernaburaL

159°30’W

i~ :~ ~ -. 0

FederalRegisterI VoL 55~No~227 / ‘Monday~November26. 1990 f RulesandRegulations 4121*- 1

•55°1O’N

540501

162°OOW - 161 0301

f - ~

49~Ø FederalRegister!Vol.55. No.227/ Monday, November26.19~Jf Rulesand Regulations

55°OON

.54000!‘VIII’

162’°40W 1 62°20’ 162~O~’

~

FederalRegister/ Vt 65.No.227/Monday, November26, i~ I RulesandRegulations 412~

162°301 163000’

49~ FederalRegisteiI VoL 5~N~ó.~‘ I Mbnd~y.~vefl~ber 26. 1996/ RulesandRègulafionA

Ugamak Island Rookery

54°30’N

Unimak Pass’

Ugamak,L

N

‘164°301

* - ~-‘~“-~ -

Fi4a.J IegiaIer/ Vat SS~-Me. Z27,~M~ndey,NovemberZ~,1~G/ solesand Regulation,

166°OOW” — - 165°30’’

“..~?~‘ ‘-~‘ ‘-~ ,, __________

49224 FedergRegister1 Vo1~55.No. 2271 Monday,November26, 1990/ &u~sandRegulatlon*

168°OOW-

I

167°3~.-

,-. ~ ~ ~ - ____________

FederalRegister/VoL 55. No. 227 / Monday, November26, 19a0J RulesandRegulation.

53°20~N

53°00’

- ~-7 ‘“-.“,

I49226 FederalRegister / Vol. 56.No~227 / Monday, November26. 1990 / Rules.’and Reg~il~tions

53°1ON

52°50’

I

FederalRegisterI Vol. 55, No~227 / Monday, November 26, 1990 / Rulesand Regulations

Yunaska Island Rookery

- 53°OO’N

- 52°40’

49227

Rookery 3 Mile butlerzone Chart 16500

Bering Sea

171°00’W 1 70°30’

I

49228 Federal Register/ Vol. 55. No. 227/ Monday, November26, 1990 / RulesandRegulations

52°30’N

52°10’

I73°O0’W 172°30’

Federal Register I VoL 5~.No. 227 1 Monday, November26, 1990 / Rulesand Regulations

5-2°20’N

52°OO’

1 75~30’W 175°00

49230 FederalRegister I Vol. 55, No. 227 / Monday, November 26. 1990/ Rulesand Regulations

52°00’N

51040

1 77°OOW 176°30’

4

FederalRegisterI VoL 55, No.227/ Monday, November26.1960/ RulesandRegulations

Tag Island and Gramp Rock Rookeries

-51°50’N

Kavalga I

Ogiluga I.

Rookery L\\~J3Mite bufferzone Ctiartl646O

I.

- 51°30’

178°50’W 1 78°30’

4923~ FederalRegisterI VoL 55, No. 227 / Monday, November26, 1990 / RulesandRegulations

1 79°2QW 1 79°00’

I

Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 227 / Monday. No~ernber26. 1990 I Rules and Regulations

Semisopochnol Island Rookeries

I

— Rookery 3 Mile buffer zone

1 79°30’W

Chart 16460

180000’-

-52°1O~N

49233

51°50’

FederalRegister/ VoI~.55~-No.227/ Monday, November26,1990 / RufesandRegulations

51 °4O~N

51 o2oa

Amchitka Island Rookery

Rookery I~’\\\\WJ 3 Mile buffer zoneChart 16440

1 79°00’E I 79°20’ 1 79°40’

Federal Register/ Vol. 55, No. 227 f Monday, November26. 1990 1 Rules and Regulations 49235

17&°30E 17900O~

4~3$ FederalRe~!Mer/ Vol. 55. No. 2271 Monday,November26. 1990 1 RulesandRegulations

52°1O’N

510501

1 77°OO’E 177°30

I

FederalResister/ Vo4. 55. No. Z27 / Monday. November 2~.1990 / Rulesani.1Regulaticaa

57°20N

57°OO’

~23?

170°20W 1 70°OO’

49238 Federal Register/ VoL 55, No~227 / Monday, ~‘k’~ernber26, iggo I Rulesand Regulations

52°40N

52°20’

1 75c40E 176°1O’

I

Federal Reer / VOL 55, N~ZV / Mimdiy, Mo4~ber2e.1~(V/Rules andRvgurations

173°20E 173°50’

49240 Federal’ Regster/VoI. 55, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 1990 I Rules andRegulations

- - - 173°OO’

53°10N

52°50’

172°30’E

SIWNG CODE 3610-fl-C

Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 227 I Monday, November 26, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 49241

(4) Quota. If theAssistantAdministratordeterminesandpublishesnotice that 675Steller sealions havebeenkilled incidentallyin the courseofcommercial fishing operations inAlaskanwatersandadjacentareasoftheU.S. ExclusiveEconomicZone(EEZ)westof 141’ W longitude duringanycalendar year, then U will beunlawful tokill anyadditional Steller sealions inthis area.In order to monitor this quota.the Director,AlaskaRegion.NationalMarine FisheriesService, mayrequirethe placementof an observer onanyfishing vessel.If data indicate that thequota is beingapproached, theAssistantAdministrator will issueemergencyrules to establishclosedareas,allocatethe remaining quota among fisheries,ortake other action(s) to ensure thatcommercial fishing operations do notexceed the quota.

(b) Exceptions—(1)Permits.TheAssistantAdministratormayissuepermitsauthorizing activities that wouldotherwisebe prohibited underparagraph (a)of this sectioninaccordance withand subject to theprovisions of 50CFR part222. subpartC—ErnlangeredFish or Wildlife Permits.

(2) Official activities.Paragraph (a) ofthis sectiondoesnot prohibit or restrictaFederal.stateor local governmentofficial, orhis orherdesignee. whoisactingin thecourseof official dutiesfrom:

(I) Taking a Steller sealion in ahumanemanner, if thetaking is for theprotection or welfare of the animal, theprotection of the public health andwelfare, or thenonlethalremovalofnuisanceanimals;.or

(ii) Entering the buffer areastoperform activities that are necessaryfornational defense,or the performanceofotherlegitimategovernmental activities.

(3) SubsistencetakingsbyAlaskanatives.Paragraph (a)(1) of this sectiondoesnot apply to the taking of Stellersea lions for subsi8tencepurposes undersection10(e)of the Act.

(4) Emergency situations.Paragraph(a)(2)of thia sectiondoesnotapply tc~an emergencysituation in whichcompliancewith that provision presentsa threat to the health, safety,or life of apersonor presentsa significant threat tothe vesselor property.

(5)Exemptions.Paragraph (a)(2) ofthis sectiondoesnot apply to anyactivity authorized by a prior written

exemptionfrom th~Director, AlaskaRegion.National Marine FisheriesService. Concurrently with the issuanceof any exemption.the AssistantAdministratorwill publishnoticeof theexemptionin the FederalRegister.Anexemption may be granted only if theactivity will not have a significantadverseaffect on Stellersealions, theactivity hasbeenconductedhistoricallyor traditionally in the bufferzones,andthere is no readily availableandacceptablealternative to or site for theactivity.

(c) Penalties.(1) Any person whoviolatesthis sectionor theAct is subjectto thepenaltiesspecifiedin section11 oftheAct, andanyotherpenaltiesprovidedby law.

(2) Any vesselusedin violation of thissectionor theEndangeredSpeciesAct issubjectt~forfeiture under section11(e)(4)(B)of the Act.

Dated:November9. 1990.William W. Fox, Jr.,AssistantAdminis�rctorfor Fisheries.NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdjninisSration.[FR Doc. 90-27600 Filed 11—23--90; &45 amtSIWNO cOOC 35lO-22-~