National Process for Permit Applications To Retain Releasable Rehabilitated Marine Mammals for Public Display, 20042-20044 [2018-09611]
Download as PDF
20042
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2018 / Notices
produced and artificially propagated
Central Valley spring-run (CVSR).
Steelhead (O. mykiss): threatened,
naturally produced and artificially
propagated California Central Valley
(CCV).
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XG128
Endangered and Threatened Species;
Take of Anadromous Fish
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of a draft
environmental assessment; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
NMFS has prepared a draft
environmental assessment (EA) under
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) describing the potential effects
of the continued operation of one
hatchery program in the San Joaquin
River Basin of California. The Hatchery
and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP)
for the program was prepared and
submitted by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW). All comments and
other information received will become
part of the public record and will be
available for review.
DATES: Comments or requests for a
public hearing on the applications must
be received at the appropriate address or
fax number (see ADDRESSES) no later
than 5 p.m. Pacific standard time on
June 6, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the
draft EA should be addressed to the
NMFS California Central Valley Office,
Attn: San Joaquin Hatchery EA, 650
Capitol Mall, Suite 5–100, Sacramento,
CA 95814. Comments may also be
submitted via fax to 916–930–3629 or by
email to SanJoaquinHatcheryEA.wcr@
noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of
the email comment the following
identifier: Comments on San Joaquin
Hatchery EA. When commenting on the
draft EA, please refer to the specific
page number and line number of the
subject of your comment. The
documents are available on the internet
at www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amanda Cranford, Sacramento, CA, at
phone number: (916) 930–3706, via fax:
(916) 930–3629, or via email:
Amanda.Cranford@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
ESA-Listed Species Covered in This
Notice
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha): threatened, naturally
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 May 04, 2018
Jkt 244001
Background
The USFWS and CDFW, under the
auspices of the San Joaquin River
Restoration Program (SJRRP), are
working to restore a CVSR Chinook
salmon population in the San Joaquin
River. The reintroduced CVSR Chinook
salmon, taken from one or more out-ofbasin stocks, are designated as a nonessential, experimental population
under section 10(j) of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), and have associated
4(d) take provisions (78 FR 79622). The
SJRRP determined that a conservation
hatchery would be the preferred and
primary strategy for reintroducing CVSR
Chinook salmon to the San Joaquin
River. The San Joaquin River Salmon
Conservation and Research Program
(Conservation Program) involves the
operation of two facilities: the Salmon
Conservation and Research Facility
(SCARF) currently under construction,
with completion expected summer of
2018, and an interim SCARF (Interim
Facility) currently in operation. The
Conservation Program is operated as an
Integrated-Recovery hatchery program,
intended to help meet fisheries
management objectives while achieving
restoration and recovery goals.
This CVSR Chinook salmon HGMP
submitted by the USFWS and CDFW,
pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the
ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and
regulations governing listed fish and
wildlife permits (50 CFR part 222),
provides guidance on the management
and operation of the SCARF and Interim
Facility in the San Joaquin River Basin.
The HGMP and the associated section
10(a)(1)(A) enhancement permit
application (20571) were made available
for public review and comment on July
27, 2017 (82 FR 34931). On August 8,
2017, NMFS determined that the
submitted HGMP was sufficient for
consideration under section 10(a)(1)(A)
of the ESA. The draft environmental
assessment available for comment
evaluates the potential effects of
approving the CVSR Chinook salmon
HGMP and issuing an ESA section
10(a)(1)(A) Permit 20571 to the USFWS
and CDFW.
Authority
NEPA requires Federal agencies to
conduct an environmental analysis of
their proposed actions to determine if
the actions may affect the human
environment. Therefore, NMFS is
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
seeking public input on the scope of the
required NEPA analysis, including the
range of reasonable alternatives and
associated impacts of any alternatives.
Dated: May 1, 2018.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office
of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–09570 Filed 5–4–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XF100
National Process for Permit
Applications To Retain Releasable
Rehabilitated Marine Mammals for
Public Display
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; response to comments.
AGENCY:
The National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the
availability of its final Procedural
Directive clarifying the process for
eligible permit applicants to obtain
releasable marine mammals for public
display purposes under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). NMFS
will no longer grant permits for the
specific purpose of retaining releasable
marine mammals for public display.
Instead, applicants will now need to
apply for a permit to take (collect)
animals from the wild pursuant to the
MMPA.
DATES: This final Procedural Directive
will be applicable as of May 7, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The Procedural Directive is
available in electronic form via the
internet at https://www.fisheries.noaa.
gov/national/laws-and-policies/
protected-resources-policy-directives.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jaclyn Taylor, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources, (301) 427–8402,
Jaclyn.Taylor@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS
developed a national Procedural
Directive clarifying the process for
eligible permit applicants to obtain
releasable marine mammals for public
display purposes under the MMPA.
NMFS will no longer accept
applications for MMPA section 104
permits that specifically seek to obtain
releasable rehabilitated marine
mammals for public display purposes.
NMFS will instead require prospective
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2018 / Notices
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
applicants to apply for a permit
authorizing actual take (collect) from the
wild. In the event NMFS grants a permit
for take from the wild, the NMFS OPR
Director may then, at his or her
discretion, require that a releasable
rehabilitated marine mammal be
substituted for the authorized capture
from the wild, in accordance with 50
CFR 216.27.
On November 15, 2017, NMFS
published the draft national Procedure
for Permit Applications to Retain
Releasable Rehabilitated Marine
Mammals for Public Display for a 30day public comment period (82 FR
52880). Comments received are
available on regulations.gov at https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAANMFS-2017-0096. Substantive and
relevant comments and NMFS’
responses are included below.
General Comments
Comment 1: Several commenters
expressed support for the draft
Procedural Directive, stating that it
provides clarity and reflects concerns
offered during public comment periods
in 2010 and 2015 regarding the Office of
Protected Resource’s issuance of permits
authorizing the acquisition of stranded,
releasable California sea lions (Zalophus
californianus) from the National Marine
Mammal Health and Stranding
Response Program for the purposes of
public display. The commenters opined
that the directive aligns more clearly
with the stated goals of the Marine
Mammal Health and Stranding
Response Program by requiring the
application for a permit to ‘‘take’’
marine mammals from the wild, leaving
potential sourcing of releasable marine
mammals from rehabilitation facilities,
appropriately, to the discretion of the
Director of the Office of Protected
Resources.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this
comment and has finalized the
Procedural Directive as proposed.
Comment 2: One commenter
recommended NMFS provide additional
explanation and rationale for finding
that either its existing practice or the
procedural directive is consistent with
MMPA section 109(h)(3).
Response: NMFS’s rationale for both
the existing practice and this Procedural
Directive is described in the Additional
Background and Rationale section in the
Directive. The rationale outlines each of
the following, which contribute to the
rationale: the preamble to the 1993
proposed rule (58 FR 53320) for 50 CFR
216.27, the implementing regulations
allowing the Office Director broad
discretion to direct a releasable animal
to be used for a MMPA section 104
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 May 04, 2018
Jkt 244001
purpose in lieu of being released, and
the three relevant permit decisions.
Comment 3: One commenter stated
that it is incumbent on NOAA to
provide a certification that a
rehabilitated animal will not carry back
into the wild any communicable
disease. Additionally, NOAA should
ensure the released marine mammal
will become part of the stock or group
that it originally came from.
Response: The Standards for Release,
as described in this Directive, provide
an evaluative process to determine if a
stranded marine mammal is suitable for
release back to the wild in accordance
with MMPA implementing regulations
at 50 CFR 216.27. As part of this process
the attending veterinarian reviews the
animal’s complete history including all
stranding information, diagnostic test
results required by NMFS, and medical
and husbandry records. The goal of
required diagnostic testing is to
safeguard the health of wild marine
mammal populations by testing for
diseases that pose a significant
morbidity or mortality risk to wild
populations. With regards to the
released animal becoming part of the
stock or group that it originally came
from, the Standards for Release specify
that rehabilitated animals should be
released in a location and at a time of
year to maintain stock fidelity and
ensure proximity to conspecifics.
Comment 4: One commenter objected
to the draft Directive, suggesting NMFS
instead propose a new process that is
compatible with the principles of the
MMPA and is reasonably targeted to and
appropriate for rehabilitated marine
mammals deemed releasable.
Response: NMFS believes that this
Procedural Directive is compatible with
the principles of the MMPA. The
purpose of this Procedural Directive is
to explain that NMFS will no longer
accept applications that specifically
seek to obtain releasable rehabilitated
marine mammals, which, as described
in the Directive, is consistent with the
goals of both the MMPA’s stranding
response mandate and the public
display permit provisions.
Procedural Directive Scope
Comment 5: One commenter
recommended that NMFS clarify how it
is defining the term ‘‘feasible’’ in the
context of section 109(h)(3) of the
MMPA—e.g., does it mean that release
can be accomplished, or that release is
reasonable or sensible given the entirety
of the facts of the particular situation?
Specifically, NMFS should explain the
basis for concluding that the issuance of
a permit under section 104(c) somehow
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20043
overrides the release mandate under
section 109(h).
Response: The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.27 allow the
Office Director broad discretion to direct
that a rehabilitated animal to be used for
a MMPA section 104 purpose in lieu of
being released. As described in the
Directive, the preamble to the 1993
proposed rule addressed the
‘‘feasibility’’ determination. Contrary to
the commenter’s suggestion, NMFS has
not concluded in this Directive that
issuance of a permit under section 104
‘‘overrides’’ the release mandate under
section 109(h). In fact, this directive is
intended to separate ‘‘takes’’ for public
display purposes (which are permitted
under section 104) from the
rehabilitation-and-release objectives of
section 109(h), while still retaining the
Office Director’s discretion, as provided
by the regulations, to direct a
substitution in certain circumstances
not enumerated in this directive.
As for the commenter’s other
questions regarding the releasability
determination, as noted above, NMFS
has established an evaluative process
(the Standards for Release) to determine
if a marine mammal is suitable for
release back to the wild.
Comment 6: One commenter
expressed support for NMFS’s proposal
to strengthen its analysis of population
effects of retaining a releasable marine
mammal as part of its permit
application review. The commenter
questioned whether similar scrutiny
needs to be given to all aspects of a
permit authorizing the removal of a
marine mammal from the wild, if what
the applicant is seeking or what NMFS
plans to grant is authority to retain a
releasable animal and not to remove
animals from the wild population. The
commenter recommended that NMFS
clarify whether all of the information
identified in the application
instructions must be provided if the
applicant is seeking a removal permit
only as a means to obtain releasable
rehabilitated animals and whether all of
those details will be reflected in the
requirements of the permit.
Response: The purpose of this
Procedural Directive is to explain that
NMFS will no longer accept
applications that specifically seek to
obtain releasable rehabilitated marine
mammals. Applicants will be instructed
to submit ‘‘take from the wild’’ permit
applications with all required
information for that take activity
included in the permit application. If
such permit is issued, the Office
Director, in his or her sole discretion,
will be responsible for the decision as
to whether a releasable rehabilitated
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
20044
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2018 / Notices
animal be substituted for a take from the
wild, depending on the circumstances
before the Office Director at the time.
This Procedural Directive is not
intended to prescribe the situations, if
any, in which the Office Director would
in fact choose to exercise that
discretion.
Comment 7: One commenter
recommended that NMFS provide
additional guidance on what releasable
marine mammals can be used in place
of animals authorized to be removed
from the wild under the associated
public display permit.
Response: As noted above and in the
Procedural Directive itself, the purpose
of this Directive is to explain that NMFS
will no longer accept permit
applications seeking to obtain releasable
marine mammals from the stranding
network. The Directive is not intended
to prescribe criteria for what situations,
if any, the Office Director would in fact
exercise their discretion to direct a
releasable rehabilitated animal be used
for a MMPA section 104 purpose in lieu
of being released.
Comment 8: One commenter
recommended that the procedural
directive be expanded to address the
roles, rights, and responsibilities of
rehabilitation facilities in implementing
this policy. The district court in IMMS
v. NMFS, No. 1:11CV318–LG–JMR
(S.D.Miss.2014) found that NMFS could
not delegate its authority to the
rehabilitation facility to determine when
releasable marine mammals are sent to
a public display facility under NMFS’
regulations. However, the court did not
go so far as to say that the rehabilitation
facility has no role in this process,
provided that NMFS retains the ultimate
decision-making authority.
Response: As noted above, the
purpose of this Procedural Directive is
to explain NMFS will no longer accept
permit applications seeking to obtain
releasable marine mammals from the
stranding network. The Directive is not
intended to prescribe criteria for what
situations, if any, the Office Director
would in fact exercise their discretion to
direct a releasable rehabilitated animal
be used for a MMPA section 104
purpose in lieu of being released.
Comment 9: One commenter stated
that allowing a public display facility to
substitute a stranded releasable marine
mammal instead of ‘‘taking’’ from the
wild is consistent with the requirements
of the MMPA and should not be left to
the discretion of the Agency.
Response: As noted above, NMFS’
regulations at 50 CFR 216.27 allow the
Office Director (as opposed to
permittees or rehabilitation facilities)
broad discretion to direct that a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 May 04, 2018
Jkt 244001
rehabilitated animal to be used for a
MMPA section 104 purpose in lieu of
being released.
Comment 10: One commenter
expressed concern that the Proposed
Directive would make it nearly
impossible for a public display facility
to obtain a releasable marine mammal
under any circumstances because it
would expose both the agency and the
facility to the very likely risk of costly
litigation initiated by those who oppose
any animals in human care.
Response: The MMPA section 104
allows for permits to be issued for
‘‘take’’ of marine mammals for public
display purposes provided that the
applicant meets the issuance criteria as
outlined in NMFS implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 216, subpart
D). As noted above, NMFS’ regulations
at 50 CFR 216.27 allow the Office
Director broad discretion to direct that
a rehabilitated animal to be used for a
MMPA section 104 purpose (e.g., a
permitted use) in lieu of being released.
MMPA Permit Application Process
Comment 11: Several commenters
expressed concern that the process set
forth in the Directive (requiring
prospective applicants to submit ‘‘take
from the wild’’ permit applications)
would be burdensome because it would
require preparation of an Environmental
Assessment and/or an Environmental
Impact Statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Response: All MMPA permits require
appropriate analysis under NEPA.
Environmental Assessments were
prepared for the three permits NOAA
issued authorizing the retention of
releasable marine mammals.
Comment 12: A commenter expressed
concern that requiring a zoo, aquarium
or marine park that is only interested in
retaining a releasable marine mammal to
respond to a multitude of capture from
the wild questions that fail to assess the
suitability of the specific request to
retain a releasable marine mammal
would impose a regulatory burden that
is unreasonable and unrelated to the
best interests of the animal or the
environment. The commenter also
commented that requirements, as
described in the Application
Instructions and Supplemental
Information for Public Display Permits
under the MMPA (OMB No. 0648–
0084), do not make sense with respect
to a stranded and rehabilitated animal.
Response: The purpose of this
Procedural Directive is to explain that
NMFS will no longer accept
applications that specifically seek to
obtain releasable rehabilitated marine
mammals. Applicants will be instructed
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
to submit ‘‘take from the wild’’ permit
applications with all required
information for that take activity
included in the permit application, as
described in the Application
Instructions and Supplemental
Information for Public Display Permits
under the MMPA (OMB No. 0648–
0084).
The applications for the three permits
NOAA issued authorizing the retention
of releasable marine mammals followed
the Application Instructions and
Supplemental Information for Public
Display Permits under the MMPA (OMB
No. 0648–0084). These applications
addressed all the applicable questions
including the status of the affected
stocks and the anticipated impacts on
the species or stocks. Given that these
applications did not propose directly
capturing marine mammals from the
wild, the applications referenced the
authority of the stranding network and
their procedures when addressing the
questions specifically related to capture
from the wild. Under this Procedural
Directive, permit applications will
continue to address the status of the
species and the impacts of the removal
of the desired number of animals from
the stock or population.
Non-Releasable Rehabilitated Marine
Mammals
Comment 14: One commenter
recommended NMFS ensure the
wording of this procedural directive
adequately take into account the
practice of declaring healthy ice seals
non-releasable if they are removed from
their home range for rehabilitation per
NOAA’s agreement with comanagement groups.
Response: This Procedural Directive
does not affect NMFS’s process for
making release determinations and the
placement process for non-releasable
marine mammals. Additional text was
added to the Directive to clarify.
Dated: May 1, 2018.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–09611 Filed 5–4–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20042-20044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09611]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XF100
National Process for Permit Applications To Retain Releasable
Rehabilitated Marine Mammals for Public Display
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; response to comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the
availability of its final Procedural Directive clarifying the process
for eligible permit applicants to obtain releasable marine mammals for
public display purposes under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
NMFS will no longer grant permits for the specific purpose of retaining
releasable marine mammals for public display. Instead, applicants will
now need to apply for a permit to take (collect) animals from the wild
pursuant to the MMPA.
DATES: This final Procedural Directive will be applicable as of May 7,
2018.
ADDRESSES: The Procedural Directive is available in electronic form via
the internet at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/laws-and-policies/protected-resources-policy-directives.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaclyn Taylor, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources, (301) 427-8402, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS developed a national Procedural
Directive clarifying the process for eligible permit applicants to
obtain releasable marine mammals for public display purposes under the
MMPA.
NMFS will no longer accept applications for MMPA section 104
permits that specifically seek to obtain releasable rehabilitated
marine mammals for public display purposes. NMFS will instead require
prospective
[[Page 20043]]
applicants to apply for a permit authorizing actual take (collect) from
the wild. In the event NMFS grants a permit for take from the wild, the
NMFS OPR Director may then, at his or her discretion, require that a
releasable rehabilitated marine mammal be substituted for the
authorized capture from the wild, in accordance with 50 CFR 216.27.
On November 15, 2017, NMFS published the draft national Procedure
for Permit Applications to Retain Releasable Rehabilitated Marine
Mammals for Public Display for a 30-day public comment period (82 FR
52880). Comments received are available on regulations.gov at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0096. Substantive and
relevant comments and NMFS' responses are included below.
General Comments
Comment 1: Several commenters expressed support for the draft
Procedural Directive, stating that it provides clarity and reflects
concerns offered during public comment periods in 2010 and 2015
regarding the Office of Protected Resource's issuance of permits
authorizing the acquisition of stranded, releasable California sea
lions (Zalophus californianus) from the National Marine Mammal Health
and Stranding Response Program for the purposes of public display. The
commenters opined that the directive aligns more clearly with the
stated goals of the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program
by requiring the application for a permit to ``take'' marine mammals
from the wild, leaving potential sourcing of releasable marine mammals
from rehabilitation facilities, appropriately, to the discretion of the
Director of the Office of Protected Resources.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment and has finalized the
Procedural Directive as proposed.
Comment 2: One commenter recommended NMFS provide additional
explanation and rationale for finding that either its existing practice
or the procedural directive is consistent with MMPA section 109(h)(3).
Response: NMFS's rationale for both the existing practice and this
Procedural Directive is described in the Additional Background and
Rationale section in the Directive. The rationale outlines each of the
following, which contribute to the rationale: the preamble to the 1993
proposed rule (58 FR 53320) for 50 CFR 216.27, the implementing
regulations allowing the Office Director broad discretion to direct a
releasable animal to be used for a MMPA section 104 purpose in lieu of
being released, and the three relevant permit decisions.
Comment 3: One commenter stated that it is incumbent on NOAA to
provide a certification that a rehabilitated animal will not carry back
into the wild any communicable disease. Additionally, NOAA should
ensure the released marine mammal will become part of the stock or
group that it originally came from.
Response: The Standards for Release, as described in this
Directive, provide an evaluative process to determine if a stranded
marine mammal is suitable for release back to the wild in accordance
with MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.27. As part of this
process the attending veterinarian reviews the animal's complete
history including all stranding information, diagnostic test results
required by NMFS, and medical and husbandry records. The goal of
required diagnostic testing is to safeguard the health of wild marine
mammal populations by testing for diseases that pose a significant
morbidity or mortality risk to wild populations. With regards to the
released animal becoming part of the stock or group that it originally
came from, the Standards for Release specify that rehabilitated animals
should be released in a location and at a time of year to maintain
stock fidelity and ensure proximity to conspecifics.
Comment 4: One commenter objected to the draft Directive,
suggesting NMFS instead propose a new process that is compatible with
the principles of the MMPA and is reasonably targeted to and
appropriate for rehabilitated marine mammals deemed releasable.
Response: NMFS believes that this Procedural Directive is
compatible with the principles of the MMPA. The purpose of this
Procedural Directive is to explain that NMFS will no longer accept
applications that specifically seek to obtain releasable rehabilitated
marine mammals, which, as described in the Directive, is consistent
with the goals of both the MMPA's stranding response mandate and the
public display permit provisions.
Procedural Directive Scope
Comment 5: One commenter recommended that NMFS clarify how it is
defining the term ``feasible'' in the context of section 109(h)(3) of
the MMPA--e.g., does it mean that release can be accomplished, or that
release is reasonable or sensible given the entirety of the facts of
the particular situation? Specifically, NMFS should explain the basis
for concluding that the issuance of a permit under section 104(c)
somehow overrides the release mandate under section 109(h).
Response: The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.27 allow
the Office Director broad discretion to direct that a rehabilitated
animal to be used for a MMPA section 104 purpose in lieu of being
released. As described in the Directive, the preamble to the 1993
proposed rule addressed the ``feasibility'' determination. Contrary to
the commenter's suggestion, NMFS has not concluded in this Directive
that issuance of a permit under section 104 ``overrides'' the release
mandate under section 109(h). In fact, this directive is intended to
separate ``takes'' for public display purposes (which are permitted
under section 104) from the rehabilitation-and-release objectives of
section 109(h), while still retaining the Office Director's discretion,
as provided by the regulations, to direct a substitution in certain
circumstances not enumerated in this directive.
As for the commenter's other questions regarding the releasability
determination, as noted above, NMFS has established an evaluative
process (the Standards for Release) to determine if a marine mammal is
suitable for release back to the wild.
Comment 6: One commenter expressed support for NMFS's proposal to
strengthen its analysis of population effects of retaining a releasable
marine mammal as part of its permit application review. The commenter
questioned whether similar scrutiny needs to be given to all aspects of
a permit authorizing the removal of a marine mammal from the wild, if
what the applicant is seeking or what NMFS plans to grant is authority
to retain a releasable animal and not to remove animals from the wild
population. The commenter recommended that NMFS clarify whether all of
the information identified in the application instructions must be
provided if the applicant is seeking a removal permit only as a means
to obtain releasable rehabilitated animals and whether all of those
details will be reflected in the requirements of the permit.
Response: The purpose of this Procedural Directive is to explain
that NMFS will no longer accept applications that specifically seek to
obtain releasable rehabilitated marine mammals. Applicants will be
instructed to submit ``take from the wild'' permit applications with
all required information for that take activity included in the permit
application. If such permit is issued, the Office Director, in his or
her sole discretion, will be responsible for the decision as to whether
a releasable rehabilitated
[[Page 20044]]
animal be substituted for a take from the wild, depending on the
circumstances before the Office Director at the time. This Procedural
Directive is not intended to prescribe the situations, if any, in which
the Office Director would in fact choose to exercise that discretion.
Comment 7: One commenter recommended that NMFS provide additional
guidance on what releasable marine mammals can be used in place of
animals authorized to be removed from the wild under the associated
public display permit.
Response: As noted above and in the Procedural Directive itself,
the purpose of this Directive is to explain that NMFS will no longer
accept permit applications seeking to obtain releasable marine mammals
from the stranding network. The Directive is not intended to prescribe
criteria for what situations, if any, the Office Director would in fact
exercise their discretion to direct a releasable rehabilitated animal
be used for a MMPA section 104 purpose in lieu of being released.
Comment 8: One commenter recommended that the procedural directive
be expanded to address the roles, rights, and responsibilities of
rehabilitation facilities in implementing this policy. The district
court in IMMS v. NMFS, No. 1:11CV318-LG-JMR (S.D.Miss.2014) found that
NMFS could not delegate its authority to the rehabilitation facility to
determine when releasable marine mammals are sent to a public display
facility under NMFS' regulations. However, the court did not go so far
as to say that the rehabilitation facility has no role in this process,
provided that NMFS retains the ultimate decision-making authority.
Response: As noted above, the purpose of this Procedural Directive
is to explain NMFS will no longer accept permit applications seeking to
obtain releasable marine mammals from the stranding network. The
Directive is not intended to prescribe criteria for what situations, if
any, the Office Director would in fact exercise their discretion to
direct a releasable rehabilitated animal be used for a MMPA section 104
purpose in lieu of being released.
Comment 9: One commenter stated that allowing a public display
facility to substitute a stranded releasable marine mammal instead of
``taking'' from the wild is consistent with the requirements of the
MMPA and should not be left to the discretion of the Agency.
Response: As noted above, NMFS' regulations at 50 CFR 216.27 allow
the Office Director (as opposed to permittees or rehabilitation
facilities) broad discretion to direct that a rehabilitated animal to
be used for a MMPA section 104 purpose in lieu of being released.
Comment 10: One commenter expressed concern that the Proposed
Directive would make it nearly impossible for a public display facility
to obtain a releasable marine mammal under any circumstances because it
would expose both the agency and the facility to the very likely risk
of costly litigation initiated by those who oppose any animals in human
care.
Response: The MMPA section 104 allows for permits to be issued for
``take'' of marine mammals for public display purposes provided that
the applicant meets the issuance criteria as outlined in NMFS
implementing regulations (50 CFR part 216, subpart D). As noted above,
NMFS' regulations at 50 CFR 216.27 allow the Office Director broad
discretion to direct that a rehabilitated animal to be used for a MMPA
section 104 purpose (e.g., a permitted use) in lieu of being released.
MMPA Permit Application Process
Comment 11: Several commenters expressed concern that the process
set forth in the Directive (requiring prospective applicants to submit
``take from the wild'' permit applications) would be burdensome because
it would require preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).
Response: All MMPA permits require appropriate analysis under NEPA.
Environmental Assessments were prepared for the three permits NOAA
issued authorizing the retention of releasable marine mammals.
Comment 12: A commenter expressed concern that requiring a zoo,
aquarium or marine park that is only interested in retaining a
releasable marine mammal to respond to a multitude of capture from the
wild questions that fail to assess the suitability of the specific
request to retain a releasable marine mammal would impose a regulatory
burden that is unreasonable and unrelated to the best interests of the
animal or the environment. The commenter also commented that
requirements, as described in the Application Instructions and
Supplemental Information for Public Display Permits under the MMPA (OMB
No. 0648-0084), do not make sense with respect to a stranded and
rehabilitated animal.
Response: The purpose of this Procedural Directive is to explain
that NMFS will no longer accept applications that specifically seek to
obtain releasable rehabilitated marine mammals. Applicants will be
instructed to submit ``take from the wild'' permit applications with
all required information for that take activity included in the permit
application, as described in the Application Instructions and
Supplemental Information for Public Display Permits under the MMPA (OMB
No. 0648-0084).
The applications for the three permits NOAA issued authorizing the
retention of releasable marine mammals followed the Application
Instructions and Supplemental Information for Public Display Permits
under the MMPA (OMB No. 0648-0084). These applications addressed all
the applicable questions including the status of the affected stocks
and the anticipated impacts on the species or stocks. Given that these
applications did not propose directly capturing marine mammals from the
wild, the applications referenced the authority of the stranding
network and their procedures when addressing the questions specifically
related to capture from the wild. Under this Procedural Directive,
permit applications will continue to address the status of the species
and the impacts of the removal of the desired number of animals from
the stock or population.
Non-Releasable Rehabilitated Marine Mammals
Comment 14: One commenter recommended NMFS ensure the wording of
this procedural directive adequately take into account the practice of
declaring healthy ice seals non-releasable if they are removed from
their home range for rehabilitation per NOAA's agreement with co-
management groups.
Response: This Procedural Directive does not affect NMFS's process
for making release determinations and the placement process for non-
releasable marine mammals. Additional text was added to the Directive
to clarify.
Dated: May 1, 2018.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-09611 Filed 5-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P