[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55-60]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34145]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 120497B]
Marine Mammals; Environmental Assessment on Preventing California
Sea Lion Foraging and Predation on Salmonids at the Willamette Falls,
Oregon
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability and finding of no significant impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces the availability of an Environmental Assessment
(EA) that examines the
[[Page 56]]
environmental consequences of preventing California sea lion foraging
and predation on salmonids at the Willamette Falls in Oregon. The
proposed action consists of non-lethal measures that are authorized
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). NMFS has evaluated the
environmental consequences of the proposed action and has concluded
that it is unlikely to result in any significant impacts on the human
environment and, therefore, has made a finding of no significant impact
(FONSI).
ADDRESSES: A copy of the final EA may be obtained by writing to William
Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand
Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Scordino (206)526-6143, or Tom
Eagle (301)713-2322.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Marine Fisheries Service, in
cooperation with the Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW), prepared an EA that examines the environmental consequences of
three alternatives for preventing sea lion foraging and predation on
returning adult salmonids and outmigrating smolts at Willamette Falls:
(1) No action; (2) non-lethal removal of California sea lions (proposed
action); and (3) lethal removal of sea lions foraging at the Falls. The
proposed action is to implement a program of non-lethal measures to
prevent sea lion predation at the Willamette Falls while continuing to
monitor the resource conflict at this site. The proposed action is
authorized under section 109(h)(1)(C) of the MMPA, which allows the
non-lethal removal of nuisance marine mammals by local, state, and
Federal officials.
A draft EA was made available for a 30-day public comment period.
NMFS published a notice in the Federal Register on March 13, 1997 (62
FR 11845), that announced the availability of the draft EA and
requested public comments. Seven public comments were received, and the
EA was revised in response to the comments. A summary of the comments
received and responses to the comments are given here:
Comment 1: The situation at the Willamette Falls does not warrant
lethal removal.
Response: Lethal removal of sea lions at Willamette Falls is not
proposed because it has not been authorized under section 120 of the
MMPA. Section 120 provides a process for a state to obtain authority
for lethal removal, but Oregon has not applied for this authority.
Comment 2: The proposed action does not address all of the
potential factors causing depletion of salmonids in the system. One
commenter suggested that causes of salmonid population decline should
be investigated, and another recommended that NMFS and ODFW evaluate
and assess predation in comparison to other factors.
Response: The State is addressing other factors that may be
affecting the decline of salmonids in the Willamette River basin;
however, the principal cause for decline appears to be the reduced
ocean survival. The scope of the EA and the proposed action, which
complements State efforts to address other factors affecting salmonids,
is limited to addressing the increasing presence of California sea
lions foraging at the Falls and the prevention of predation from
escalating to a point where it may impact salmonids, especially if the
salmonid stocks remain low or decline further.
Comment 3: The proposed action is consistent with general state
fish and wildlife authorities.
Response: NMFS agrees.
Comment 4: The EA does not show that predation has caused the
decline of the runs or is likely to have caused a negative effect on
the run. Commenters noted that the decline of steelhead and spring
chinook salmon occurred before sea lions could have had any noticeable
effect, and, therefore, actions to reduce sea lion predation are
unwarranted. One commenter supported the no-action alternative because
sea lions are not the cause of the decline.
Response: NMFS agrees that sea lion predation is not the cause of
the decline; however, if action is not taken to address increasing
foraging by sea lions, predation may increase to a point where
predation is impacting salmonid stocks in the Willamette River,
especially if the number of returning adults remains low or declines
further.
Comment 5: An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be
prepared in order to provide a more comprehensive appraisal of this
action.
Response: An EIS is not required for this action because the
environmental consequences of non-lethally removing a few sea lions
from the Willamette Falls area will not result in any significant
impact to the environment.
Comment 6: The removal (lethal or non-lethal) of sea lions could
result in increased predation. Commenters were concerned that the
removed sea lions will be quickly replaced by other animals. One
commenter also was opposing the use of underwater firecrackers or other
methods which may inadvertently result in an increase of predation in
the long term because these methods have not been shown to have lasting
effectiveness in other applications.
Response: Because sea lions are opportunistic predators, predation
patterns develop relative to animal presence, prey availability, and
vulnerability. Based on observations at the Ballard Locks in
Washington, different methods of sea lion removal may be more or less
effective in reducing sea lion presence or in reducing the
vulnerability of fish to predation, depending upon the number of
animals involved and the location or circumstances of the predation.
NMFS believes that the proposed action will prevent sea lion foraging
and predation on salmonids at the Willamette Falls because the number
of sea lions to be removed is still small, the patterns of predation do
not appear well established, and the area is geographically remote from
where sea lions normally occur; thus, inseason replacement is unlikely.
In contrast, the alternative of taking no action to prevent foraging
and predation will likely result in escalation of the problem because
animals already present will become more effective at catching
salmonids at the site, and new animals will learn these effective
strategies as they arrive.
Comment 7: An additional alternative should be added to investigate
the real and primary cause of the fish run declines (e.g., hatchery
fish competition, fish passage problems due to construction and
operation of the fishway and dam, water, and general habitat
degradation) and to implement solutions to mitigate them.
Response: The scope of the proposed action is limited to preventing
sea lion predation; measures to address other causes of salmonid
declines are underway by the State, and a separate alternative on such
actions is unnecessary and outside the scope of this action. Natural
production (wild spawning) of spring chinook is low, owing primarily to
lost spawning habitat. As mitigation for lost wild production, the
majority of the spring chinook are hatchery produced. Hatchery produced
spring chinook originate from native stocks and are virtually
indistinguishable from wild spawners. Hatchery release practices and
harvest regulations for hatchery steelhead are designed to minimize
competition for available wild spawning habitat. Ocean productivity
over the past several years has been influenced by a multi-year
climatic event (El Nino) that has impacted ocean survival of
[[Page 57]]
salmonid stocks, including those returning to the Willamette.
Nonetheless, if numbers remain low or decline further, the potential
for sea lion predation to have a significant impact remains real, and
non-lethal removal actions are warranted.
Comment 8: No actions should be taken with sea lions until the
proposed non-lethal deterrents are tested and an implementation plan is
developed. The commenter recommended that an independent group of
pinniped and fisheries biologists be established to oversee the
development of a monitoring and research plan for evaluating the
effectiveness of various non-lethal deterrents.
Response: NMFS has tested and implemented the non-lethal deterrence
measures in pinniped interactions elsewhere on the Pacific Coast, with
no discernable deleterious affects on California sea lions or serious
injuries to personnel. Implementation of the individual measures will
be dependent on available resources during a given season. NMFS will
continue to request assistance from independent experts when necessary;
however, the formation of an oversight committee is not necessary or
warranted for actions taken under section 109 of the MMPA.
Comment 9: Non-lethal removal should not be authorized under
section 109 (h)(1)(C) because the EA does not specify the numbers of
animals to be taken, specify the exact methods to be used, specify the
risk of injury or mortality to individual animals, provide evidence
that sea lion predation is adversely affecting fish passage, or provide
scientific data on the degree of impact of sea lion predation on the
affected stocks.
Response: Section 109(h)(1)(C) of the MMPA authorizes the taking of
marine mammals by public officials during the performance of their
official duties. This authorization does not require the specification
of the number of animals to be taken, exact methods, degree of risk, or
evidence that the animals to be taken have exceeded some pre-determined
behavioral threshold. However, some of these factors would need to be
considered for authorization for the lethal removal of individually
identifiable pinnipeds under section 120 of the MMPA.
Comment 10: The proposed action does not appear likely to
contribute to the enhancement of Willamette River fish runs. One
commenter stated that non-lethal removal of sea lions can only give a
false hope of salmonid recovery because sea lions have not been
determined to be negatively affecting the fish runs.
Response: The proposed action is to reduce or eliminate sea lion
predation on salmonids and to prevent it from escalating to a point
where it may negatively impact salmonid runs at this site. Predation is
one of the factors affecting survival of adult spawners, and reduction
or elimination of this mortality factor should, therefore, contribute
to the enhancement and recovery of the involved salmonid runs.
Comment 11: Neither the regulations nor the statute provides a
definition of what constitutes a ``nuisance animal,'' and, lacking a
definition, the commenter found it difficult to evaluate whether sea
lions at Willamette Falls are a nuisance animal.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that neither the statute nor the
implementing regulations provide a specific definition for ``nuisance''
marine mammal. However, the legislative history of the MMPA includes
removal of seals from a fish ladder as an appropriate interpretation of
the nuisance animal provision. Sea lions constitute a nuisance at the
Falls because their foraging and predatory behavior is contrary to the
purpose of the fishway to pass fish upstream, and uncontrolled
predation at freshwater sites outside the normal habitat of sea lions,
especially where fish are congregated and vulnerable to predation, is
contrary to conservation efforts for recovering depressed and declining
fish stocks.
Comment 12: The EA incorrectly states that Willamette Falls is
outside the normal range of California sea lions.
Response: As the California sea lion population has increased since
the early 1970s, reports of animals occurring in areas previously not
documented have also increased. NMFS is not aware of any documented
historical occurrence of California sea lions at the Willamette Falls
other than the sightings noted in the EA and, therefore, considers the
occurrence of sea lions far upriver at the Falls in a freshwater
environment to be beyond the normal range.
Comment 13: The nuisance determination is not appropriate because
the effect of sea lions on fish runs may be only negligible.
Response: Section 109 of the MMPA does not establish a threshold of
damage that must be exceeded in order for a determination to be made on
whether an animal is a nuisance. The non-lethal removal measures
proposed are to reduce or eliminate sea lion predation on salmonids and
to prevent it from escalating to a point where it may negatively impact
the fish runs. If lethal removal were to be used under section 120 of
the MMPA, then it would be necessary to show that individual pinnipeds
are having a significant negative impact on the status or recovery of
salmonid populations that are listed under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) or approaching listing.
Comment 14: To effectively recover the salmonid populations,
additional restrictions should be placed on commercial and recreational
fisheries, barriers to passage should be removed, spawning habitat
should be restored, hatchery operations should be improved, and power
generating operations should be evaluated. The commenter recommended
that the burden to conserve fish stocks should be distributed
proportionately among all human causes before penalizing sea lions for
eating fish.
Response: The State is addressing factors affecting the status of
salmonid populations, including restricting commercial and recreational
fisheries. Reducing or eliminating sea lion predation will be
complementary to other State efforts to enhance and restore salmonid
runs. In regard to barriers to passage, the Willamette Falls is a
natural barrier to fish passage and the fishway was constructed to
enhance adult passage to spawning habitat.
Comment 15: The design and construction of existing fishways should
be re-evaluated to devise ways for salmonid species to avoid sea lion
predation.
Response: Plans are underway to modify the fishway to improve fish
passage. An engineering evaluation of the fishway was completed in
1992, and that report is now referenced in the EA. Fishway design and
alteration information were not included in the draft EA because
contract work and planning processes for fishway maintenance and
modification are proceeding separately and are outside the scope of the
EA. The area of focus for preventing sea lion foraging and predation on
salmonids is outside the fishway in adjacent areas including below the
Falls.
Comment 16: The monitoring program should have been implemented
before an EA was considered, rather than basing the proposed action on
undocumented observations.
Response: The proposed action is based on results of observations
by biologists in 1995 as well as on ODFW-conducted monitoring programs
in 1996 and 1997 (as described in the EA), which documented sea lion
predation on steelhead and spring chinook.
Comment 17: Introduced salmonid runs do not warrant the
conservation protection of native runs.
Response: Introduced salmonid runs in the Willamette basin, such as
summer
[[Page 58]]
steelhead, have been made possible by the improved fish passage
conditions afforded by the construction of the fish passage facility.
These fish have been added to increase and support fishing
opportunities in response to public demand. Sport fishing for salmonids
is a popular and economically significant industry in the Willamette
River basin. The introduced runs have been maintained over several
decades without detrimental effect to native Willamette River basin
salmonid runs because of hatchery release practices and harvest
regulations. Timing of the two steelhead stocks overlap below the
Falls, and sea lions are, therefore, likely to intercept both native
and non-native stocks when foraging.
Comment 18: The methods of capturing and relocating sea lions are
inadequately described.
Response: The EA has been revised to provide additional information
on capture and translocation of sea lions. More detailed information on
California sea lion captures and relocation is included in prior EAs
prepared by NMFS (referenced in the EA) for non-lethal measures
implemented at the Ballard Locks, and these EAs are available to the
public.
Comment 19: The non-lethal options should not be considered safe
because they have not been adequately tested.
Response: The non-lethal options included in the proposed action
have been used previously in other locations and will be implemented
under protocols to ensure safety to sea lions as well as personnel
involved. The possibility of a sea lion mortality resulting from the
proposed measures is very remote.
Comment 20: The use of underwater firecrackers may deafen sea
lions.
Response: Observations at the Ballard Locks show that individual
sea lions continue to respond to noise stimuli in spite of repeated
exposures to firecrackers. Nonetheless, it is possible that a close
exposure to an exploding firecracker may cause temporary or possibly
permanent deafness, so dispatch of firecrackers should be used with
caution.
Comment 21: Aversive conditioning should not be used because this
technique did not successfully deter sea lions at the Ballard Locks.
Response: Aversive conditioning was previously found to be
ineffective for use at the Ballard Locks because of difficulties in
administering repeat treatments, which are necessary to achieve lasting
effect. This method has been included in the proposed action because
repeat treatment opportunities may be available at Willamette Falls.
Comment 22: The EA incorrectly states that sea lions have
negatively affected steelhead at the Ballard Locks.
Response: Based on extensive studies since 1985, NMFS has
determined that predation by sea lions is a principal factor affecting
the spawning escapement of returning adult winter steelhead in the Lake
Washington basin (migrating through the Ballard Locks). The
determination is well documented in several EAs prepared by NMFS and by
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Comment 23: If sea lions are deterred from the area, it should be
done in a minimally invasive and humane manner. One commenter
recommended that NMFS should limit the study and implementation of sea
lion deterrence measures to those that are humane and realistically
promising (e.g., alternative barrier designs, expanded acoustic
deterrence devices).
Response: Section 109 of the MMPA specifies that the taking of a
marine mammal by public officials during the performance of their
duties shall be accomplished in a humane manner. The non-lethal
measures included in the proposed alternative are not expected to cause
mortality or serious injury and are intended to have the desired effect
of removing foraging sea lions from the area. Additional use of barrier
gates in other entrances to the fish ladder will be considered if
observations indicate that sea lions are entering the fishway through
those entrances. The use of acoustic deterrent devices is included in
the proposed action.
Comment 24: The funds spent on sea lions should be used for such
other factors as fish passage, competition with hatchery fish, and
habitat concerns.
Response: The State is addressing other factors that may be
affecting salmonids in the Willamette River basin, and the removal of
sea lions will complement those efforts. Non-lethal removal measures
will be combined with the NMFS-funded sea lion monitoring program to
minimize costs. Efforts to improve and update the fishway are
proceeding under different funding.
Comment 25: The EA should provide more information on why fish use
fishway entrance 1 so much less than other ladder entrances.
Response: It is difficult to fully assess passage through entrance
1 in comparison with the other three fishway entrances because of
fishway configuration. The different entrances have been constructed to
provide passage opportunities for fish under a wide range of flow
conditions. Passage conditions during the spring result in greater
passage by spring chinook and steelhead through fishway entrance 2,
whereas fall chinook more frequently use fishway entrance 1. The EA has
been modified to provide this clarification.
Comment 26: The goal of resource managers should be the restoration
of native fish runs that have declined rather than reducing sea lion
predation.
Response: NMFS and ODFW agree that the restoration and maintenance
of native fish populations are important goals, and the State is active
in addressing these goals. Prevention of sea lion foraging in locations
where declining runs are concentrated and vulnerable does not conflict
with this goal.
Comment 27: The construction of dams is the single most likely
cause for salmonid declines, not sea lion predation.
Response: Dam construction in the Willamette River basin has been
completed for decades, and salmonid stocks have been maintained through
successful hatchery practices and fishery regulation. Low ocean
survival conditions over an extended period have affected returns in
recent years in spite of stable hatchery production.
Comment 28: The capture and relocation of sea lions are unlikely to
be successful and will not significantly benefit salmonids passing
through the Willamette Falls fishway. The commenters suggested new sea
lions would probably replace those that have been removed.
Response: NMFS agrees that previous translocation efforts with
California sea lions from the Ballard Locks have not been totally
successful. However, due to the distance inland to the Falls and the
small numbers of animals found far upriver, other sea lions may not
immediately replace animals that have been deterred or removed from the
area of the Falls.
Comment 29: Because experience with the use of the partially
submerged cage trap is inadequate, raising concerns for the safety of
personnel and the possible drowning of sea lions exist.
Response: The trap design maintains open air space above the
surface of the water to allow a captured animal to surface and breathe,
thereby negating a concern for animals drowning. The trap was
successfully used to capture and handle an adult harbor seal without
mishap or injury.
Comment 30: Active capture techniques will present high risk to sea
lions and humans.
Response: Techniques that involve an elevated level of risk for the
animals, such as tangle nets and anesthetizing
[[Page 59]]
drugs, are not proposed for use at Willamette Falls because protocols
for their implementation in the moving river environment have not been
developed. The final EA has been modified to clarify that active
capture using tangle nets in the river is not proposed.
Comment 31: Non-lethal removal of sea lions should not occur until
the salmonid stocks are threatened with extinction by predation.
Response: Section 109 of the MMPA does not require that salmonid
stocks must be approaching an endangered status before non-lethal
taking of sea lions can occur. The intent of the proposed action is to
be proactive and prevent predation from increasing to a point where it
may have a negative impact on the salmonid stocks.
Comment 32: The EA should provide more detail on the dams,
hatcheries, rivers and tributaries, river flows over time, fluctuations
in salmonid populations, numbers of salmonids using the locks, and
suitable conditions for passage. The commenters also stated that it
would be helpful if the document was expanded to explain the operation
of the locks, the paper mill and power generation, and the allocation
of water between fish passageways, and to provide more information on
genetic relationships of runs, limiting factors on salmonid
populations, water quality or industrial outflows, redd counts, habitat
considerations, harvest regulation, and hatchery surpluses.
Response: The EA has been modified to address additional background
information, and references that provide more details have been
incorporated in the EA.
Comment 33: The information on fish runs and passage should be
presented in a tabular format for clarification.
Response: The EA has been modified to include tables on spring
chinook and steelhead runs and passage.
Comment 34: The EA does not demonstrate that sea lions are having
a significant, deleterious effect on passage.
Response: Non-lethal removal of sea lions from the fish passage
facility are authorized under section 109(h), which does not require a
demonstration that a significant, deleterious effect is occuring;
however, NMFS and ODFW have investigated fish passage at the Willamette
Falls facility. Observations suggested that sea lions were adversely
affecting fish passage by foraging at the entrance to the fish ladder
and preventing access, and consuming and dispersing adult salmonids
that were attempting to enter the fishway to progress upstream. Until a
barrier was installed in entrance 1 to the fish ladder, sea lions were
foraging on salmonids inside the fish ladder, thereby preventing fish
passage.
Comment 35: The EA should describe the possibility that the
California sea lion population, with its population growth, may be
poised for a population crash.
Response: There is no evidence of density dependent signals to
indicate that the sea lion population is approaching carrying capacity.
When that occurs, the population will fluctuate in response to factors
that limit continued growth.
Comment 36: The EA should explain why Willamette River chinook
salmon are candidates for listing under the ESA.
Response: A coastwide status review of chinook salmon on the
Pacific coast is in progress to determine the status of chinook salmon
populations with respect to the ESA; therefore, until the status review
is completed, Willamette River spring chinook are considered candidate
species under the ESA. The EA has been modified to include this
clarification.
Comment 37: The EA does not specify which run of steelhead was
consumed by sea lions.
Response: Winter and summer steelhead are present below the Falls
concurrently, and observers are not able to differentiate steelhead
when predation is observed.
Comment 38: Summer steelhead are hatchery-produced fish with no
shortage of availability; management strategies can provide flexibility
for the time being.
Response: The focus of the proposed action is to prevent predation
on winter steelhead and spring chinook, and summer steelhead are
present during the same period. Nonetheless, the summer steelhead
population also has declined in spite of hatchery production due to
reduced ocean survival conditions that are also affecting winter
steelhead and spring chinook salmon. If ocean survival conditions do
not improve and run numbers continue to decline, management options
will continue to erode and hatchery operations could be jeopardized.
Comment 39: The EA incorrectly states that there is no controversy
or uncertainty on the effects of the proposed non-lethal removal
measures.
Response: The proposed action is to use non-lethal measures that
have been used and assessed at the Ballard Locks. These actions have
been demonstrated to have no adverse effect on California sea lions,
and, therefore, there is no scientific controversy or uncertainty on
the effects of the proposed non-lethal removal actions. The final EA
includes a complete description of the finding of no significant impact
of the proposed action.
Comment 40: The decline in winter steelhead from 1995 to 1996 was
reported as 72 percent, but it should be 62 percent.
Response: The steelhead run declined from 4,693 in 1995 to 1,801 in
1996, which is a 62 percent decline. The EA has been corrected.
Comment 41: The total time that sea lions were present in 1995 and
an estimate of total predation are not in the EA.
Response: Observations in 1995 were quite limited and no data were
collected on the total time spent foraging by sea lions that year;
therefore, no extrapolation of predation was attempted. An estimated
kill rate for the limited time observed in 1995 is included in the EA.
Comment 42: The EA mischaracterizes animal protection groups'
support for the no-action alternative because the benefit is that sea
lions would not be disturbed.
Response: NMFS has received comments favoring no action to prevent
sea lion foraging and predation, and the EA has been modified to
reflect this.
Comment 43: The EA incorrectly states that the no-action
alternative will likely result in a negative reaction by a large sector
of the public. The commenter suggested that this applies only to the
opinions of fishers.
Response: NMFS and ODFW have received numerous telephone calls from
members of the public requesting that the resource agencies take some
action to remove sea lions from Willamette Falls. The characterization
of total representation in comparison to general population has been
deleted from the EA.
Comment 44: The EA is not correct that many people would resent
their tax dollars being spent on hatchery production that results in
food only for sea lions. The commenter felt that many people would
resent tax dollars spent on non-lethal removal of sea lions.
Response: NMFS and ODFW have received numerous complaints from
members of the public regarding the past lack of action by resource
agencies to stop sea lions from feeding on salmonids at Willamette
Falls while fisheries are being restricted and fish numbers are low.
The EA has been modified to indicate that comments have been received
favoring no action as well.
Comment 45: The EA should provide more detailed information on the
barrier gate and its effectiveness. One
[[Page 60]]
commenter noted that observations made at fishway entrance 1 indicate
that sea lions commonly forage at the face of the barrier gate, and out
to about 10 feet (3.048 meters) below the barrier. One commenter
questioned whether the barrier gate could be expanded from riverbank to
riverbank to keep sea lions out of area.
Response: The EA has been modified to include additional
observations on the barrier gate. The barrier gate prevents predation
from occurring within the fish ladder at fishway entrance 1, but it has
not stopped sea lions from foraging at the face of the barrier and
areas adjacent to the fish ladder entrance. The installation of barrier
gates at other fish ladder entrances will be assessed if foraging
inside those entrances is noted. A physical barrier across the
Willamette River is not feasible or practical.
ACTION: The EA has been modified as described in the responses to
the comments. NMFS has evaluated the environmental consequences of the
alternatives and has concluded that the proposed action is unlikely to
result in any significant impacts on the human environment and,
therefore, has made a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). The EA
and FONSI have been prepared in accordance with National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and with implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts
1500 through 1508 and NOAA guidelines concerning implementation of NEPA
found in NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.
Copies of the EA and FONSI are available (See ADDRESSES).
Dated: December 22, 1997.
Hilda Diaz-Soltero,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-34145 Filed 12-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
