Marine Mammal Protection Act; Final Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale, 62961-62965 [E8-25101]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 / Notices
preliminary determination for all
shipments of merchandise under
consideration entered or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or
after publication date: (1) The rate for
Currency Conversion
the exporter/producer combinations
We made currency conversions into
listed in the chart above will be the rate
U.S. dollars, in accordance with section we have determined in this preliminary
773A(a) of the Act, based on the
determination; (2) for all PRC exporters
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
of merchandise subject to this
the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal investigation that have not received
Reserve Bank.
their own rate, the cash–deposit rate
will be the PRC–wide rate; (3) for all
Verification
non–PRC exporters of merchandise
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the subject to this investigation that have
Act, we intend to verify the information not received their own rate, the cash–
from DunAn and Sanhua upon which
deposit rate will be the rate applicable
we will rely in making our final
to the PRC exporter/producer
determination.
combination that supplied that non–
PRC exporter. These suspension–ofCombination Rates
liquidation instructions will remain in
In the Initiation Notice, the
effect until further notice. We will
Department stated that it would
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or
calculate combination rates for certain
the posting of a bond equal to the
respondents that are eligible for a
weighted–average amount by which the
separate rate in this investigation.56 This NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated
practice is described in Policy Bulletin
above. The suspension of liquidation
05.1.
will remain in effect until further notice.
Therefore, we have preliminarily
determined that critical circumstances
do not exist for imports of FSVs for the
PRC–wide entity.
Preliminary Determination
The weighted–average dumping
margins are as follows:
Exporter/Producer
Combination
Percent Margin
Exporter: Zhejiang
Sanhua Co., Ltd.
Producer: Zhejiang
Sanhua Co., Ltd. .......
Exporter: Zhejiang
DunAn Hetian Metal
Co., Ltd.
Producer: Zhejiang
DunAn Hetian Metal
Co., Ltd. ....................
PRC–Wide Entity* ........
15.41
26.72
55.62
* The PRC–wide entity includes Tianda.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations
performed to parties in this proceeding
within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d) of
the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend
liquidation of all entries of merchandise
subject to this investigation, entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. For the exporter/producer
combinations listed in the chart above,
the following cash deposit requirements
will be effective upon publication of the
56 See
Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 20255.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:50 Oct 21, 2008
Jkt 217001
International Trade Commission
Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of
the Act, we have notified the ITC of our
preliminary affirmative determination of
sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the
Act requires the ITC to make its final
determination as to whether the
domestic industry in the United States
is materially injured, or threatened with
material injury, by reason of imports of
FSVs, or sales (or the likelihood of sales)
for importation of FSVs within 45 days
of our final determination.
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments
may be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration no
later than seven days after the date on
which the final verification report is
issued in this proceeding and rebuttal
briefs, limited to issues raised in case
briefs, may be submitted no later than
five days after the deadline date for case
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309. A table of
contents, list of authorities used and an
executive summary of issues should
accompany any briefs submitted to the
Department. This summary should be
limited to five pages total, including
footnotes. The Department also requests
that parties provide an electronic copy
of its case and rebuttal brief submissions
in either a ‘‘Microsoft Word’’ or ‘‘pdf’’
format.
In accordance with section 774 of the
Act, we will hold a public hearing, if
requested, to afford interested parties an
opportunity to comment on arguments
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62961
raised in case or rebuttal briefs.
Interested parties, who wish to request
a hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30
days after the date of publication of this
notice.57 Requests should contain the
party’s name, address, and telephone
number, the number of participants, and
a list of the issues to be discussed. If a
request for a hearing is made, we intend
to hold the hearing three days after the
deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs
at the U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and
location to be determined. See 19 CFR
351.310. Parties should confirm by
telephone the date, time, and location of
the hearing two days before the
scheduled date.
We will make our final determination
no later than 135 days after the date of
publication of this preliminary
determination, pursuant to section
735(a)(2) of the Act.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: October 15, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–25178 Filed 10–21–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XI77
Marine Mammal Protection Act; Final
Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet
Beluga Whale
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; response to comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS announces the
availability of the final conservation
plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale
pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972, as amended
(MMPA). NMFS incorporated into this
document new information on Cook
Inlet beluga whales and comments
received on the draft conservation plan
released for public review and comment
on March 16, 2005.
57 See
E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM
19 CFR 351.310(c).
22OCN1
62962
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 / Notices
The conservation plan is
available on the Internet at the following
address: https://
www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/
protectedresources/whales/beluga/
management.htm. Copies of the
conservation plan may be reviewed and/
or copied at NMFS, Protected Resources
Division, 222 W. 7th Ave., Room 517,
Anchorage, AK 99513; or at NMFS,
Alaska Regional Office, Protected
Resources Division, 709 W. 9th St.,
Juneau, AK 99802.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mandy Migura, NOAA/NMFS, Alaska
Region, Anchorage Field Office, (907)
271–5006, or Kaja Brix, NOAA/NMFS,
Alaska Region, (907) 586–7235.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Background
The MMPA requires NMFS to prepare
a conservation plan to promote the
conservation and recovery of any
species or stock designated as depleted.
The Cook Inlet beluga whale stock
declined by nearly 50 percent from 1994
to 1998. In response to this significant
decline, NMFS designated the Cook
Inlet beluga as depleted under the
MMPA on May 31, 2000 (64 FR 34580).
A draft conservation plan was released
for public review and comment on
March 16, 2005 (70 FR 12853). This
conservation plan incorporates new
information on Cook Inlet beluga whales
as well as information and suggestions
received from the public, State, Federal
and municipal agencies, Alaska Natives,
industry and environmental groups. The
goal of this conservation plan is restore
the Cook Inlet beluga whale population
to its optimum sustainable population
(OSP). The conservation strategy NMFS
developed to attain this goal has four
components: (1) improve our
understanding of the biology of Cook
Inlet beluga whales and the factors
limiting the population’s growth; (2)
stop direct losses to the population; (3)
protect valuable habitat; and (4)
evaluate the effectiveness of these
strategies and the success of the
conservation actions in restoring the
Cook Inlet beluga whale population.
The Plan will be reviewed and updated
every five years. The goal of the Plan
will be met when the depleted
designation for Cook Inlet beluga whales
can be removed.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Comments and Responses
NMFS received 115 letters of
comment on the draft conservation plan
for the Cook Inlet beluga whale.
Substantive comments of a similar
nature are consolidated, grouped by
subject and responded to below.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:50 Oct 21, 2008
Jkt 217001
NMFS received suggestions regarding
editorial and format changes to the draft
conservation plan. Generally, these
suggestions regarding editorial and
format changes were accepted, and the
plan has been modified accordingly.
Substantive comments are summarized
and addressed in this notice.
Comment 1: More than one hundred
commenters advocated habitat
protection. Comments varied with some
recommending development prohibition
in Type 1 habitat, prevention of oil and
gas activities in Type 1 and 2 habitats,
providing for discrete protected areas,
and broadening Type 1 and 2 habitat
areas. One commenter said NMFS failed
to recommend measures that adequately
protect these key beluga feeding and
breeding areas. Comments also
expressed concern about specific
development projects such as Knik Arm
Bridge, Coastal Trail, Port of Anchorage
expansion, Campbell Creek, and coastal
development. Many commenters urged
additional habitat research.
Response: NMFS believes habitat
protection to be one of the principal
actions needed to recover this
population to its OSP. The conservation
plan outlines what we believe to be
appropriate conservation actions
associated with varying habitat types as
determined by specific habitat
characteristics and frequency and
timing of use by Cook Inlet beluga
whales.
Beluga habitat use was ascertained by
examining long-term data derived from
intensive annual aerial surveys
conducted from 1993–2007, monthly
surveys from June 2001 to June 2002,
aerial surveys in August 2006 and
August 2007, traditional knowledge
gathered through interviews with Cook
Inlet beluga hunters, habitat modeling,
Cook Inlet aerial surveys conducted by
other government agencies (Alaska
Department of Fish and Game and
Minerals Management Service), satellite
tracking of 14 beluga whales, stranding
data, archeological studies,
opportunistic reports, and other
scientific study reports.
The final conservation plan has
reexamined and updated habitat
information and valuable habitat types.
Additional information was
incorporated into the definitions of
habitat types I, II and III from NMFS
analyses and from surveys conducted
for the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll
Authority and the Port of Anchorage.
Important habitat has been identified
and will be reassessed periodically
when new data are gathered, the
population recovers, or as habitat
changes over time. Habitat
classifications and corresponding
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
management goals will be reassessed as
this conservation plan is periodically
updated.
Response to proposed habitat
alterations will vary according to the
sensitivity of the habitat.
Comment 2: NMFS should prioritize
actions, and fully fund and identify
funding sources for the research plan set
forth in the draft conservation plan.
Two commenters requested that NMFS
ask Congress for $20M per year during
the next five years to manage and
research the Cook Inlet beluga whale
stock. Four commenters recommended
that a ‘‘team’’ of experts convene a
workshop to review the priorities and
funding needs for Cook Inlet beluga
recovery.
Response: Priorities for research and
management projects were updated in
the final conservation plan. Costs for
various activities have been estimated,
but identifying funding sources is
outside the scope of this document.
Current NMFS funding supports annual
abundance surveys and co-management
activities. The conservation plan takes a
comprehensive look at identifying
funding needs and will be used
(adaptively) to set regional management
and research priorities.
Comment 3: The draft conservation
plan failed to address non-hunting
impacts on belugas and their important
habitats, including pollution, noise, oil
and gas development, aviation impacts,
sewage, military activities, coastal
development, and food supplies, among
other things.
Response: Subsistence hunting was a
major contributing factor in the Cook
Inlet beluga decline during the 1990s.
The long-term harvest regulatory
process will be finalized in 2008. NMFS
agrees that research and management
should address non-hunting impacts
and expanded these aspects in the
conservation plan. The threats
discussion has been updated in the final
conservation plan to address the
concerns from these commenters.
Comment 4: More detail is needed on
the overview of Cook Inlet beluga
whales.
Response: NMFS has updated and
expanded the background information
on Cook Inlet beluga whales. NMFS will
continue to use and gather the best
available information on Cook Inlet
belugas and provide that information to
the public through updates to the
conservation plan.
Comment 5: Discrete action
thresholds need to be provided which
describe specific management steps
should the beluga population continue
to decline.
E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM
22OCN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 / Notices
Response: NMFS has revised the
Conservation Action section of the
conservation plan to include more
specific actions necessary for the
conservation and management of the
Cook Inlet beluga whales.
Comment 6: More outreach and
development of a broader stakeholder
group is necessary.
Response: NMFS conducted
significant outreach to the public and
interested groups when the draft
conservation plan was published (e.g.,
notice in the Federal Register, public
meetings, mailings, press release, NMFS
website). The comment period for the
draft conservation plan was extended 30
additional days to enable all interested
parties to formulate their comments.
Consequently, NMFS’ address list for
interested parties on Cook Inlet beluga
whales has been expanded. Specific
outreach on stranding response was
conducted in local area communities to
improve the capacity for stranding
Response: Homer in 2003, Anchorage in
2006 and 2007, and Seward in 2008.
Comment 7: Some commenters
opposed NMFS’ restrictions in Cook
Inlet on coastal development, oil and
gas, National pollutant discharge
elimination system (NPDES) permits,
vessel traffic, etc. unless objective
scientific research supports the
conclusion that restrictions would aid
in Cook Inlet beluga whale recovery.
Some commenters said the draft
conservation plan was inaccurate if it
implied development had significantly
impacted the beluga population or their
recovery. Commenters supported
additional research for Cook Inlet
belugas and their habitat.
Response: NMFS agrees that more
research should be done for the Cook
Inlet belugas. The habitat research and
monitoring sections have been
expanded in the final conservation plan.
Although the Cook Inlet beluga
population decline in the 1990s was
attributed primarily to Native
subsistence harvests, since 1999 the
harvest has been severely restricted
(only five belugas taken from 1999–
2008) and the population has not
increased as expected. It is probable that
other factors are keeping the beluga
population from recovering, and it is
prudent to protect their habitat.
Important habitat has been
characterized in this conservation plan
and will be reassessed periodically
when new data are available, the
population recovers, or as habitat
changes over time. With so few belugas
remaining (estimated abundance of 375
belugas in 2008), failure to protect
important habitats could rapidly reduce
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:50 Oct 21, 2008
Jkt 217001
the Cook Inlet beluga population to a
level where recovery is impossible.
The conservation plan develops a
strategy based on what is known about
these whales and what can be done to
understand them better, prevent further
declines, and aid the stock to recover its
population to the OSP. NMFS pursued
a scientifically-based conservation plan,
while using a precautionary approach to
management. We believe this plan is (1)
appropriate given our current
knowledge of Cook Inlet belugas and
their low population abundance, (2)
comprehensive in nature by combining
management and applied research for
many different issues, and (3) adaptive
through subsequent revisions and
updates. The conservation plan has
used the best available scientific,
commercial, and traditional ecological
knowledge available at this time.
Comment 8: Commenters expressed
concern about pollutants from sewage,
industry, aircraft, storm drains, Eagle
River Flats, and ballast water. Stronger
environmental standards and
monitoring were recommended.
Response: The final conservation plan
included additional pollution
information when available. Information
was added on Anchorage wastewater
treatment, Anchorage stormwater,
Stevens International Airport deicing,
ballast water discharges, and military
testing at Eagle River Flats. Contaminant
analysis has been done on Cook Inlet
belugas since 1992 and results are
presented in the conservation plan.
Contaminant analysis will continue to
be a priority and funded when possible.
NPDES permits for outfalls and oil and
gas development will be reviewed and
appropriate mitigation will be
recommended.
Comment 9: The final conservation
plan should address acoustic impacts as
related to geophysical operations in
Cook Inlet. Some commenters noted that
mitigation measures have been
implemented during seismic surveys to
eliminate noise impacts to beluga
whales. Other commenters advocated
additional acoustic restrictions on
geophysical operations in Cook Inlet not
be included, while yet other
commenters advocated additional noise
restrictions and another recommended
additional acoustic studies before
restrictive actions are instituted.
Response: NMFS recognizes the
cooperation and effort of industry to
eliminate and reduce impacts to the
marine environment. NMFS agrees that
additional acoustic studies and
monitoring should occur and will
continue to gather acoustic information
and update protocols to protect beluga
whales. Recommendations for noise
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62963
regulation and acoustic studies have
been improved in the final conservation
plan.
Comment 10: Some commenters
supported a status review under the
ESA.
Response: Even though a status
review under the ESA occurs
independently from a conservation plan
under the MMPA, NMFS agreed with
commenters that a second status review
was necessary for Cook Inlet belugas.
The purpose of a status review is to
assemble the best scientific or
commercial data available, in this case
on Cook Inlet beluga whales, within its
known historic range. Since publication
of the draft conservation plan in 2005,
NMFS released a status review for the
Cook Inlet beluga whales in November
2006, followed by an update in April
2008. NMFS considered the information
presented in, and conclusions drawn
from the status reviews for the
conservation plan.
Comment 11: NMFS needs to update
the historic Cook Inlet beluga
abundance and carrying capacity.
Response: The conservation plan used
the best available scientific data, both
for Cook Inlet beluga whale population
status and carrying capacity
determinations. Cook Inlet beluga whale
data collected before 1990 have been
reviewed and included where
appropriate in the conservation plan.
NMFS has also included traditional
ecological knowledge on the population
where appropriate.
Historic abundance of Cook Inlet
beluga whales was estimated from an
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
survey conducted in 1979. The 1979
beluga count was the most
comprehensive survey for Cook Inlet
belugas prior to 1993, and by using a
conversion factor for missed belugas, it
provides the best scientific method and
available data for a historical abundance
estimate. Given that the true number of
whales Cook Inlet could support is
unknown, NMFS is using this historical
abundance estimate as the carrying
capacity. Edits were incorporated into
the conservation plan to better clarify
the historical abundance estimate and
carrying capacity. The beluga
population trend analysis was updated
with the most recent abundance
surveys.
Comment 12: NMFS should establish
guidelines that protect the whales from
undue harassment from tour operators
and jet skis.
Response: Harassment of marine
mammals under the MMPA is currently
considered as part of the definition of a
‘‘take.’’ Takes are prohibited under the
MMPA. NMFS will evaluate the need
E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM
22OCN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
62964
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 / Notices
for further guidelines as they might
pertain to tour operators and jet ski
operations that may cause takings of
Cook Inlet beluga whales.
Comment 13: Some commenters
supported tighter controls on oil and gas
activity. Commenters urged NMFS to
take a stronger approach to determine
the effects of existing oil and gas
activity.
Response: NMFS agrees that
monitoring oil and gas activity in Cook
Inlet should be comprehensive and
effective. NMFS reviews all applicable
Federal permits for oil and gas
development and recommends
appropriate mitigation measures and
stipulations as necessary.
Comment 14: NMFS should invoke its
statutory authority to implement various
management tools to protect Cook Inlet
beluga whales.
Response: Under various authorities,
NMFS has implemented management
measures to protect Cook Inlet beluga
whales. Among the protection measures,
NMFS enforces the MMPA marine
mammal take moratorium. NMFS has
issued regulatory provisions that
prevent or restrict Native subsistence
harvests. NMFS is listing the whale as
an endangered species under the ESA.
Also, with this conservation plan,
NMFS is describing methods to stop
direct population losses and restore the
stock.
Comment 15: The marine mammal
stranding plan and network should be
expanded. Commenters indicated that
more stranding data in Cook Inlet
should be collected and analyzed.
Response: NMFS agrees. The
conservation plan reflects NMFS’ efforts
to improve stranding response and
agreements. Furthermore, stranding
outreach workshops have been held
(with USFWS) in Homer (2003),
Anchorage (2006, 2007), and Seward
(2008). NMFS plans to update the Cook
Inlet stranding plan in 2008/2009.
Comment 16: Four commenters
indicated that the draft conservation
plan used flawed methodology, flawed
population estimates, and unrealistic
recovery rates.
Response: The final conservation plan
was updated with the most recent
abundance surveys and trend analysis.
The annual abundance surveys on Cook
Inlet beluga whales are a comprehensive
and statistically validated assessment of
the Cook Inlet beluga whale population
Aerial survey methodology has been
consistent since 1994 and video analysis
has been improved over the years as
technology has advanced. For
odontocetes, the typical average growth
rate is 4 percent per year. The Cook Inlet
beluga population has seen a 1.5 percent
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:50 Oct 21, 2008
Jkt 217001
annual decline since 1999 when the
harvest was regulated. This declining
trend since 1999 indicates that factors
other than subsistence hunting may be
preventing recovery. A detailed
discussion on population abundance
estimates and recovery rates is included
in the conservation plan.
Comment 17: The draft conservation
plan failed to adequately address beluga
whale subsistence issues.
Response: The final conservation plan
was edited to better clarify subsistence
issues. NMFS recognizes the cultural
and nutritional values of subsistence
foods, including beluga whale, for
Alaska Natives. Harvests from this stock
have been severely restricted (0 to 2
whales annually) since 1999. Alaska
Native subsistence harvests will
continue at low levels when the five
year population average is more than
350 Cook Inlet belugas. The
conservation efforts on subsistence
harvests are due to both the voluntary
efforts by the Native hunters and
conditions imposed by Federal law.
Since 2000, six annual comanagement agreements have been
signed between NMFS and Cook Inlet
Marine Mammal Council in compliance
with Public Laws 106–31 and 106–553.
NMFS has worked extensively with
experts, including Native hunters, to use
the best available science and
traditional knowledge in our
management and conservation of Cook
Inlet belugas. This includes workshops
by NMFS, Cook Inlet Marine Mammal
Council, and Alaska Beluga Whale
Committee.
A technical working group was
created by an administrative law judge
to develop a Cook Inlet beluga harvest
management plan for 2005 and
subsequent years that would recover
Cook Inlet belugas while allowing for
traditional subsistence use. The longterm harvest regulations were finalized
in 2008. It is probable that other factors,
not subsistence harvest, keep the
population from recovering. This is
addressed in the final conservation
plan.
Comment 18: NMFS should
immediately enter into agreements with
relevant Federal agencies to ensure
enhanced protection measures are in
place for Cook Inlet issues, concerns,
and development projects that are
outside NMFS direct jurisdiction.
Response: NMFS has good working
relationships with other State and
Federal agencies and does not believe
additional agreements are necessary at
this time. No changes were made to the
conservation plan to develop
agreements with other agencies.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Comment 19: While beluga tagging
efforts provide invaluable information
on beluga movements and behavior, the
actual tagging process and subsequent
tag conveyance by whales poses
heightened risk (stress) to the tagged
whales.
Response: Some research activities
may have the potential to negatively
affect the small population of Cook Inlet
beluga whales. NMFS carefully
evaluates all marine mammal research
permit applications to ensure that the
proposed research is not likely to have
a long term direct or indirect impact on
the stock.
Comment 20: A goal of the
conservation plan should be to analyze
Cook Inlet salmon and other prey
availability more closely.
Response: NMFS agrees. The need for
a forage fish analysis research project
was included in the conservation plan.
Comment 21: Reorganize and clarify
the conservation strategy and step-down
outline. The step-down outline needs
better organization and specificity.
Response: NMFS agrees. The entire
conservation program, including the
conservation strategy, has been
reorganized for clarity and re-prioritized
in the conservation plan.
Comment 22: Improve the
enforcement plan by adding specific
information on who will conduct air,
boat, and vehicle patrols and when; and
specifically how NMFS will interface
with citizens and community groups to
enhance enforcement oversight.
Response: The enforcement section
was updated to include the 2008 NOAA
Law Enforcement Plan for Cook Inlet
belugas (see Appendix D); however, this
plan does not describe specific
enforcement methods and activities
which may compromise the
effectiveness of the enforcement plan.
Comment 23: Exploratory drilling
should not be limited to November 1
through April 1 of each year. Due to
winter ice conditions in Cook Inlet, this
restriction will effectively eliminate all
exploratory drilling in the inlet.
Response: This specific condition has
been eliminated in the final
conservation plan. However, NMFS will
develop mitigation measures (including
timing) tailored to drilling locations and
beluga presence on a case by case basis
as coordinated under the MMPA, ESA,
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and
Magnuson-Stevens Act (as it pertains to
Essential Fish Habitat).
Comment 24: One commenter
encouraged NMFS to avoid
recommending an outright prohibition
on wastewater discharge permits for
Type 1 habitat. Wastewater treatment
needs can be tailored to meet even the
E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM
22OCN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 / Notices
most stringent receiving water
requirements identified in a permit.
Response: NMFS has reassessed its
position in the conservation plan.
NMFS acknowledges that a lack of
sewage treatment in a growing urban
area would have negative impacts.
Further, NMFS acknowledges that
wastewater treatment needs can be
tailored to meet a permit’s requirements;
therefore, this prohibition was removed.
Comment 25: One commenter noted
that Type I and II habitat management
measures place severe restrictions on
any work that would be associated with
placing and maintaining undersea
electrical cables. The commenter said it
is not aware that previous cable circuit
installation and subsequent operation
have negative impacts on the beluga
whale population.
Response: NMFS has no evidence that
electrical cable operation or
maintenance has had negative impacts
on beluga whales. Any cable installation
must go through the Corps of Engineers
permitting process, as required by law.
The goal of the conservation plan is not
to restrict development or prohibit
maintenance for undersea electrical
cables, but rather to protect beluga
habitat and allow the population to
recover and expand to its historic range.
Projects in Type I habitat area (which
has been redefined in the conservation
plan) should not adversely affect the
beluga habitat.
Comment 26: One commenter says
that NMFS must continue to study
belugas to help future preservation and
knowledge efforts, and must not delay
actions ensuring the belugas’ survival.
Response: With the continued annual
decline at 1.5 percent since harvest was
regulated in 1999, we agree that
conservation actions need to occur
immediately. The conservation plan
develops a strategy based on: (1)
improving our knowledge about the
biology of these belugas and the factors
that are limiting their population
growth; (2) stopping direct losses to the
population; (3) protecting valuable
habitat; and (4) evaluating the
effectiveness of these strategies and the
success of the conservations actions in
restoring the Cook Inlet stock to its OSP.
NMFS pursued a scientifically-based
conservation plan while using a
precautionary approach to management.
As monitoring and studies provide
additional scientific information,
management can be adjusted
accordingly. This section was clarified
in the final conservation plan.
Comment 27: One commenter is
concerned that NMFS plans to re-assess
this stock for possible listing under
ESA, and asserts that it is inappropriate
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:50 Oct 21, 2008
Jkt 217001
for NMFS to abandon the current comanagement agreement and
conservation measures.
Response: Although NMFS is listing
Cook Inlet beluga whales as an
endangered species, NMFS will
continue to co-manage Cook Inlet
belugas with the Cook Inlet hunters and
make use of conservation measures
under the MMPA while a recovery plan
under the ESA is being prepared.
Comment 28: NMFS should not
manage or authorize fishing operations
that are likely to have an impact on
beluga whales. The commenter adds
that the draft conservation plan is
unclear as to NMFS’ role in Federal and
State fisheries.
Response: The conservation plan has
been clarified to differentiate between
managing Federal fisheries and
providing input to State fisheries.
Dated: October 16, 2008.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E8–25101 Filed 10–17–08; 11:15
am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
Third Party Testing for Certain
Children’s Products; Notice of
Requirements for Accreditation of
Third Party Conformity Assessment
Bodies To Assess Conformity With
Part 1508, Part 1509, and/or Part 1511
of Title 16, Code of Federal
Regulations
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Requirements for
Accreditation of Third Party Conformity
Assessment Bodies To Assess
Conformity With Part 1508, Part 1509,
and/or Part 1511 of Title 16, Code of
Federal Regulations.
AGENCY:
Introduction: The Consumer Product
Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’), at section
14(a)(3)(B)(ii) as added by section
102(a)(2) of the Consumer Product
Safety Improvement Act of 2008
(‘‘CPSIA’’), Public Law 110–314, directs
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)
to publish this notice of requirements
for accreditation of third party
conformity assessment bodies (‘‘third
party laboratories’’) to test children’s
products for conformity with the
Commission’s regulations for full-size
baby cribs at 16 CFR part 1508, for nonfull-size baby cribs at 16 CFR part 1509,
and/or for pacifiers at 16 CFR part
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62965
1511.1 2 Each manufacturer (including
the importer) or private labeler of cribs
and/or pacifiers subject to those
regulations must have products
manufactured more than 90 days after
the Federal Register publication date of
this notice tested by a laboratory
accredited to do so and must issue a
certificate of compliance with the
applicable regulations based on that
testing.3 4
The Commission is also recognizing
limited circumstances in which testing
performed by a laboratory on or after
May 16, 2008, 90 days prior to the date
of enactment of CPSIA (August 14,
2008), but prior to Commission
acceptance of the laboratory’s
preexisting accreditation, provided that
accreditation is accepted not later than
December 26, 2008, may form the basis
for the certificate of compliance with
the crib and/or pacifier regulations
required of the manufacturer or private
labeler.
This notice provides the criteria and
process for Commission acceptance of
accreditation of ‘‘third party’’
laboratories for testing to the regulations
for cribs and/or pacifiers (laboratories
that are not owned, managed, or
controlled by a manufacturer or private
labeler of a children’s product to be
tested by the laboratory for certification
purposes), ‘‘firewalled’’ laboratories
(those that are owned, managed, or
controlled by a manufacturer or private
labeler of a children’s product to be
tested by the laboratory for certification
purposes and that seek accreditation
under the additional statutory criteria
for ‘‘firewalled’’ laboratories), and
laboratories owned or controlled in
whole or in part by a government.
The requirements of this notice are
effective upon its publication in the
Federal Register and are exempted by
CPSIA from the notice and comment
rulemaking requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553.5
1 Section 102 of CPSIA also required the
Commission to publish requirements for
accreditation of laboratories for testing to the lead
paint ban at 16 CFR part 1303. Those requirements
were published in the Federal Register on
September 22, 2008. 73 FR 54564–6.
2 Children’s products are those designed or
intended for use primarily by children 12 years old
and younger.
3 Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA as added by
§ 102(a)(2) of CPSIA requires that certification be
based on testing of sufficient samples of the
product, or samples that are identical in all material
respects to the product.
4 Of course, irrespective of certification, the
children’s product in question must comply with
applicable CPSC requirements. See, e.g., CPSA
§ 14(h) as added by CPSIA § 102(b).
5 CPSA section 14(a)(3)(G) as added by section
102(a)(2) of CPSIA exempts publication of this
E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM
Continued
22OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62961-62965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-25101]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XI77
Marine Mammal Protection Act; Final Conservation Plan for the
Cook Inlet Beluga Whale
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; response to comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces the availability of the final conservation
plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA). NMFS incorporated into this
document new information on Cook Inlet beluga whales and comments
received on the draft conservation plan released for public review and
comment on March 16, 2005.
[[Page 62962]]
ADDRESSES: The conservation plan is available on the Internet at the
following address: https://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/
protectedresources/whales/beluga/management.htm. Copies of the
conservation plan may be reviewed and/or copied at NMFS, Protected
Resources Division, 222 W. 7th Ave., Room 517, Anchorage, AK 99513; or
at NMFS, Alaska Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, 709 W.
9th St., Juneau, AK 99802.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mandy Migura, NOAA/NMFS, Alaska
Region, Anchorage Field Office, (907) 271-5006, or Kaja Brix, NOAA/
NMFS, Alaska Region, (907) 586-7235.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA requires NMFS to prepare a conservation plan to promote
the conservation and recovery of any species or stock designated as
depleted. The Cook Inlet beluga whale stock declined by nearly 50
percent from 1994 to 1998. In response to this significant decline,
NMFS designated the Cook Inlet beluga as depleted under the MMPA on May
31, 2000 (64 FR 34580). A draft conservation plan was released for
public review and comment on March 16, 2005 (70 FR 12853). This
conservation plan incorporates new information on Cook Inlet beluga
whales as well as information and suggestions received from the public,
State, Federal and municipal agencies, Alaska Natives, industry and
environmental groups. The goal of this conservation plan is restore the
Cook Inlet beluga whale population to its optimum sustainable
population (OSP). The conservation strategy NMFS developed to attain
this goal has four components: (1) improve our understanding of the
biology of Cook Inlet beluga whales and the factors limiting the
population's growth; (2) stop direct losses to the population; (3)
protect valuable habitat; and (4) evaluate the effectiveness of these
strategies and the success of the conservation actions in restoring the
Cook Inlet beluga whale population. The Plan will be reviewed and
updated every five years. The goal of the Plan will be met when the
depleted designation for Cook Inlet beluga whales can be removed.
Comments and Responses
NMFS received 115 letters of comment on the draft conservation plan
for the Cook Inlet beluga whale. Substantive comments of a similar
nature are consolidated, grouped by subject and responded to below.
NMFS received suggestions regarding editorial and format changes to
the draft conservation plan. Generally, these suggestions regarding
editorial and format changes were accepted, and the plan has been
modified accordingly. Substantive comments are summarized and addressed
in this notice.
Comment 1: More than one hundred commenters advocated habitat
protection. Comments varied with some recommending development
prohibition in Type 1 habitat, prevention of oil and gas activities in
Type 1 and 2 habitats, providing for discrete protected areas, and
broadening Type 1 and 2 habitat areas. One commenter said NMFS failed
to recommend measures that adequately protect these key beluga feeding
and breeding areas. Comments also expressed concern about specific
development projects such as Knik Arm Bridge, Coastal Trail, Port of
Anchorage expansion, Campbell Creek, and coastal development. Many
commenters urged additional habitat research.
Response: NMFS believes habitat protection to be one of the
principal actions needed to recover this population to its OSP. The
conservation plan outlines what we believe to be appropriate
conservation actions associated with varying habitat types as
determined by specific habitat characteristics and frequency and timing
of use by Cook Inlet beluga whales.
Beluga habitat use was ascertained by examining long-term data
derived from intensive annual aerial surveys conducted from 1993-2007,
monthly surveys from June 2001 to June 2002, aerial surveys in August
2006 and August 2007, traditional knowledge gathered through interviews
with Cook Inlet beluga hunters, habitat modeling, Cook Inlet aerial
surveys conducted by other government agencies (Alaska Department of
Fish and Game and Minerals Management Service), satellite tracking of
14 beluga whales, stranding data, archeological studies, opportunistic
reports, and other scientific study reports.
The final conservation plan has reexamined and updated habitat
information and valuable habitat types. Additional information was
incorporated into the definitions of habitat types I, II and III from
NMFS analyses and from surveys conducted for the Knik Arm Bridge and
Toll Authority and the Port of Anchorage. Important habitat has been
identified and will be reassessed periodically when new data are
gathered, the population recovers, or as habitat changes over time.
Habitat classifications and corresponding management goals will be
reassessed as this conservation plan is periodically updated.
Response to proposed habitat alterations will vary according to the
sensitivity of the habitat.
Comment 2: NMFS should prioritize actions, and fully fund and
identify funding sources for the research plan set forth in the draft
conservation plan. Two commenters requested that NMFS ask Congress for
$20M per year during the next five years to manage and research the
Cook Inlet beluga whale stock. Four commenters recommended that a
``team'' of experts convene a workshop to review the priorities and
funding needs for Cook Inlet beluga recovery.
Response: Priorities for research and management projects were
updated in the final conservation plan. Costs for various activities
have been estimated, but identifying funding sources is outside the
scope of this document. Current NMFS funding supports annual abundance
surveys and co-management activities. The conservation plan takes a
comprehensive look at identifying funding needs and will be used
(adaptively) to set regional management and research priorities.
Comment 3: The draft conservation plan failed to address non-
hunting impacts on belugas and their important habitats, including
pollution, noise, oil and gas development, aviation impacts, sewage,
military activities, coastal development, and food supplies, among
other things.
Response: Subsistence hunting was a major contributing factor in
the Cook Inlet beluga decline during the 1990s. The long-term harvest
regulatory process will be finalized in 2008. NMFS agrees that research
and management should address non-hunting impacts and expanded these
aspects in the conservation plan. The threats discussion has been
updated in the final conservation plan to address the concerns from
these commenters.
Comment 4: More detail is needed on the overview of Cook Inlet
beluga whales.
Response: NMFS has updated and expanded the background information
on Cook Inlet beluga whales. NMFS will continue to use and gather the
best available information on Cook Inlet belugas and provide that
information to the public through updates to the conservation plan.
Comment 5: Discrete action thresholds need to be provided which
describe specific management steps should the beluga population
continue to decline.
[[Page 62963]]
Response: NMFS has revised the Conservation Action section of the
conservation plan to include more specific actions necessary for the
conservation and management of the Cook Inlet beluga whales.
Comment 6: More outreach and development of a broader stakeholder
group is necessary.
Response: NMFS conducted significant outreach to the public and
interested groups when the draft conservation plan was published (e.g.,
notice in the Federal Register, public meetings, mailings, press
release, NMFS website). The comment period for the draft conservation
plan was extended 30 additional days to enable all interested parties
to formulate their comments. Consequently, NMFS' address list for
interested parties on Cook Inlet beluga whales has been expanded.
Specific outreach on stranding response was conducted in local area
communities to improve the capacity for stranding Response: Homer in
2003, Anchorage in 2006 and 2007, and Seward in 2008.
Comment 7: Some commenters opposed NMFS' restrictions in Cook Inlet
on coastal development, oil and gas, National pollutant discharge
elimination system (NPDES) permits, vessel traffic, etc. unless
objective scientific research supports the conclusion that restrictions
would aid in Cook Inlet beluga whale recovery. Some commenters said the
draft conservation plan was inaccurate if it implied development had
significantly impacted the beluga population or their recovery.
Commenters supported additional research for Cook Inlet belugas and
their habitat.
Response: NMFS agrees that more research should be done for the
Cook Inlet belugas. The habitat research and monitoring sections have
been expanded in the final conservation plan. Although the Cook Inlet
beluga population decline in the 1990s was attributed primarily to
Native subsistence harvests, since 1999 the harvest has been severely
restricted (only five belugas taken from 1999-2008) and the population
has not increased as expected. It is probable that other factors are
keeping the beluga population from recovering, and it is prudent to
protect their habitat. Important habitat has been characterized in this
conservation plan and will be reassessed periodically when new data are
available, the population recovers, or as habitat changes over time.
With so few belugas remaining (estimated abundance of 375 belugas in
2008), failure to protect important habitats could rapidly reduce the
Cook Inlet beluga population to a level where recovery is impossible.
The conservation plan develops a strategy based on what is known
about these whales and what can be done to understand them better,
prevent further declines, and aid the stock to recover its population
to the OSP. NMFS pursued a scientifically-based conservation plan,
while using a precautionary approach to management. We believe this
plan is (1) appropriate given our current knowledge of Cook Inlet
belugas and their low population abundance, (2) comprehensive in nature
by combining management and applied research for many different issues,
and (3) adaptive through subsequent revisions and updates. The
conservation plan has used the best available scientific, commercial,
and traditional ecological knowledge available at this time.
Comment 8: Commenters expressed concern about pollutants from
sewage, industry, aircraft, storm drains, Eagle River Flats, and
ballast water. Stronger environmental standards and monitoring were
recommended.
Response: The final conservation plan included additional pollution
information when available. Information was added on Anchorage
wastewater treatment, Anchorage stormwater, Stevens International
Airport deicing, ballast water discharges, and military testing at
Eagle River Flats. Contaminant analysis has been done on Cook Inlet
belugas since 1992 and results are presented in the conservation plan.
Contaminant analysis will continue to be a priority and funded when
possible. NPDES permits for outfalls and oil and gas development will
be reviewed and appropriate mitigation will be recommended.
Comment 9: The final conservation plan should address acoustic
impacts as related to geophysical operations in Cook Inlet. Some
commenters noted that mitigation measures have been implemented during
seismic surveys to eliminate noise impacts to beluga whales. Other
commenters advocated additional acoustic restrictions on geophysical
operations in Cook Inlet not be included, while yet other commenters
advocated additional noise restrictions and another recommended
additional acoustic studies before restrictive actions are instituted.
Response: NMFS recognizes the cooperation and effort of industry to
eliminate and reduce impacts to the marine environment. NMFS agrees
that additional acoustic studies and monitoring should occur and will
continue to gather acoustic information and update protocols to protect
beluga whales. Recommendations for noise regulation and acoustic
studies have been improved in the final conservation plan.
Comment 10: Some commenters supported a status review under the
ESA.
Response: Even though a status review under the ESA occurs
independently from a conservation plan under the MMPA, NMFS agreed with
commenters that a second status review was necessary for Cook Inlet
belugas. The purpose of a status review is to assemble the best
scientific or commercial data available, in this case on Cook Inlet
beluga whales, within its known historic range. Since publication of
the draft conservation plan in 2005, NMFS released a status review for
the Cook Inlet beluga whales in November 2006, followed by an update in
April 2008. NMFS considered the information presented in, and
conclusions drawn from the status reviews for the conservation plan.
Comment 11: NMFS needs to update the historic Cook Inlet beluga
abundance and carrying capacity.
Response: The conservation plan used the best available scientific
data, both for Cook Inlet beluga whale population status and carrying
capacity determinations. Cook Inlet beluga whale data collected before
1990 have been reviewed and included where appropriate in the
conservation plan. NMFS has also included traditional ecological
knowledge on the population where appropriate.
Historic abundance of Cook Inlet beluga whales was estimated from
an Alaska Department of Fish and Game survey conducted in 1979. The
1979 beluga count was the most comprehensive survey for Cook Inlet
belugas prior to 1993, and by using a conversion factor for missed
belugas, it provides the best scientific method and available data for
a historical abundance estimate. Given that the true number of whales
Cook Inlet could support is unknown, NMFS is using this historical
abundance estimate as the carrying capacity. Edits were incorporated
into the conservation plan to better clarify the historical abundance
estimate and carrying capacity. The beluga population trend analysis
was updated with the most recent abundance surveys.
Comment 12: NMFS should establish guidelines that protect the
whales from undue harassment from tour operators and jet skis.
Response: Harassment of marine mammals under the MMPA is currently
considered as part of the definition of a ``take.'' Takes are
prohibited under the MMPA. NMFS will evaluate the need
[[Page 62964]]
for further guidelines as they might pertain to tour operators and jet
ski operations that may cause takings of Cook Inlet beluga whales.
Comment 13: Some commenters supported tighter controls on oil and
gas activity. Commenters urged NMFS to take a stronger approach to
determine the effects of existing oil and gas activity.
Response: NMFS agrees that monitoring oil and gas activity in Cook
Inlet should be comprehensive and effective. NMFS reviews all
applicable Federal permits for oil and gas development and recommends
appropriate mitigation measures and stipulations as necessary.
Comment 14: NMFS should invoke its statutory authority to implement
various management tools to protect Cook Inlet beluga whales.
Response: Under various authorities, NMFS has implemented
management measures to protect Cook Inlet beluga whales. Among the
protection measures, NMFS enforces the MMPA marine mammal take
moratorium. NMFS has issued regulatory provisions that prevent or
restrict Native subsistence harvests. NMFS is listing the whale as an
endangered species under the ESA. Also, with this conservation plan,
NMFS is describing methods to stop direct population losses and restore
the stock.
Comment 15: The marine mammal stranding plan and network should be
expanded. Commenters indicated that more stranding data in Cook Inlet
should be collected and analyzed.
Response: NMFS agrees. The conservation plan reflects NMFS' efforts
to improve stranding response and agreements. Furthermore, stranding
outreach workshops have been held (with USFWS) in Homer (2003),
Anchorage (2006, 2007), and Seward (2008). NMFS plans to update the
Cook Inlet stranding plan in 2008/2009.
Comment 16: Four commenters indicated that the draft conservation
plan used flawed methodology, flawed population estimates, and
unrealistic recovery rates.
Response: The final conservation plan was updated with the most
recent abundance surveys and trend analysis. The annual abundance
surveys on Cook Inlet beluga whales are a comprehensive and
statistically validated assessment of the Cook Inlet beluga whale
population Aerial survey methodology has been consistent since 1994 and
video analysis has been improved over the years as technology has
advanced. For odontocetes, the typical average growth rate is 4 percent
per year. The Cook Inlet beluga population has seen a 1.5 percent
annual decline since 1999 when the harvest was regulated. This
declining trend since 1999 indicates that factors other than
subsistence hunting may be preventing recovery. A detailed discussion
on population abundance estimates and recovery rates is included in the
conservation plan.
Comment 17: The draft conservation plan failed to adequately
address beluga whale subsistence issues.
Response: The final conservation plan was edited to better clarify
subsistence issues. NMFS recognizes the cultural and nutritional values
of subsistence foods, including beluga whale, for Alaska Natives.
Harvests from this stock have been severely restricted (0 to 2 whales
annually) since 1999. Alaska Native subsistence harvests will continue
at low levels when the five year population average is more than 350
Cook Inlet belugas. The conservation efforts on subsistence harvests
are due to both the voluntary efforts by the Native hunters and
conditions imposed by Federal law.
Since 2000, six annual co-management agreements have been signed
between NMFS and Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council in compliance with
Public Laws 106-31 and 106-553. NMFS has worked extensively with
experts, including Native hunters, to use the best available science
and traditional knowledge in our management and conservation of Cook
Inlet belugas. This includes workshops by NMFS, Cook Inlet Marine
Mammal Council, and Alaska Beluga Whale Committee.
A technical working group was created by an administrative law
judge to develop a Cook Inlet beluga harvest management plan for 2005
and subsequent years that would recover Cook Inlet belugas while
allowing for traditional subsistence use. The long-term harvest
regulations were finalized in 2008. It is probable that other factors,
not subsistence harvest, keep the population from recovering. This is
addressed in the final conservation plan.
Comment 18: NMFS should immediately enter into agreements with
relevant Federal agencies to ensure enhanced protection measures are in
place for Cook Inlet issues, concerns, and development projects that
are outside NMFS direct jurisdiction.
Response: NMFS has good working relationships with other State and
Federal agencies and does not believe additional agreements are
necessary at this time. No changes were made to the conservation plan
to develop agreements with other agencies.
Comment 19: While beluga tagging efforts provide invaluable
information on beluga movements and behavior, the actual tagging
process and subsequent tag conveyance by whales poses heightened risk
(stress) to the tagged whales.
Response: Some research activities may have the potential to
negatively affect the small population of Cook Inlet beluga whales.
NMFS carefully evaluates all marine mammal research permit applications
to ensure that the proposed research is not likely to have a long term
direct or indirect impact on the stock.
Comment 20: A goal of the conservation plan should be to analyze
Cook Inlet salmon and other prey availability more closely.
Response: NMFS agrees. The need for a forage fish analysis research
project was included in the conservation plan.
Comment 21: Reorganize and clarify the conservation strategy and
step-down outline. The step-down outline needs better organization and
specificity.
Response: NMFS agrees. The entire conservation program, including
the conservation strategy, has been reorganized for clarity and re-
prioritized in the conservation plan.
Comment 22: Improve the enforcement plan by adding specific
information on who will conduct air, boat, and vehicle patrols and
when; and specifically how NMFS will interface with citizens and
community groups to enhance enforcement oversight.
Response: The enforcement section was updated to include the 2008
NOAA Law Enforcement Plan for Cook Inlet belugas (see Appendix D);
however, this plan does not describe specific enforcement methods and
activities which may compromise the effectiveness of the enforcement
plan.
Comment 23: Exploratory drilling should not be limited to November
1 through April 1 of each year. Due to winter ice conditions in Cook
Inlet, this restriction will effectively eliminate all exploratory
drilling in the inlet.
Response: This specific condition has been eliminated in the final
conservation plan. However, NMFS will develop mitigation measures
(including timing) tailored to drilling locations and beluga presence
on a case by case basis as coordinated under the MMPA, ESA, Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, and Magnuson-Stevens Act (as it pertains to
Essential Fish Habitat).
Comment 24: One commenter encouraged NMFS to avoid recommending an
outright prohibition on wastewater discharge permits for Type 1
habitat. Wastewater treatment needs can be tailored to meet even the
[[Page 62965]]
most stringent receiving water requirements identified in a permit.
Response: NMFS has reassessed its position in the conservation
plan. NMFS acknowledges that a lack of sewage treatment in a growing
urban area would have negative impacts. Further, NMFS acknowledges that
wastewater treatment needs can be tailored to meet a permit's
requirements; therefore, this prohibition was removed.
Comment 25: One commenter noted that Type I and II habitat
management measures place severe restrictions on any work that would be
associated with placing and maintaining undersea electrical cables. The
commenter said it is not aware that previous cable circuit installation
and subsequent operation have negative impacts on the beluga whale
population.
Response: NMFS has no evidence that electrical cable operation or
maintenance has had negative impacts on beluga whales. Any cable
installation must go through the Corps of Engineers permitting process,
as required by law. The goal of the conservation plan is not to
restrict development or prohibit maintenance for undersea electrical
cables, but rather to protect beluga habitat and allow the population
to recover and expand to its historic range. Projects in Type I habitat
area (which has been redefined in the conservation plan) should not
adversely affect the beluga habitat.
Comment 26: One commenter says that NMFS must continue to study
belugas to help future preservation and knowledge efforts, and must not
delay actions ensuring the belugas' survival.
Response: With the continued annual decline at 1.5 percent since
harvest was regulated in 1999, we agree that conservation actions need
to occur immediately. The conservation plan develops a strategy based
on: (1) improving our knowledge about the biology of these belugas and
the factors that are limiting their population growth; (2) stopping
direct losses to the population; (3) protecting valuable habitat; and
(4) evaluating the effectiveness of these strategies and the success of
the conservations actions in restoring the Cook Inlet stock to its OSP.
NMFS pursued a scientifically-based conservation plan while using a
precautionary approach to management. As monitoring and studies provide
additional scientific information, management can be adjusted
accordingly. This section was clarified in the final conservation plan.
Comment 27: One commenter is concerned that NMFS plans to re-assess
this stock for possible listing under ESA, and asserts that it is
inappropriate for NMFS to abandon the current co-management agreement
and conservation measures.
Response: Although NMFS is listing Cook Inlet beluga whales as an
endangered species, NMFS will continue to co-manage Cook Inlet belugas
with the Cook Inlet hunters and make use of conservation measures under
the MMPA while a recovery plan under the ESA is being prepared.
Comment 28: NMFS should not manage or authorize fishing operations
that are likely to have an impact on beluga whales. The commenter adds
that the draft conservation plan is unclear as to NMFS' role in Federal
and State fisheries.
Response: The conservation plan has been clarified to differentiate
between managing Federal fisheries and providing input to State
fisheries.
Dated: October 16, 2008.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-25101 Filed 10-17-08; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
