Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 1998 / Notices 55

right to sell the underlying futures

contract at the strike price on or before

the expiration date.

RMA. Risk Management Agency, an

agency of the United States Department

of Agriculture.

Round turn. The broker’s service in

transacting a single put option

consisting of consultation services and

the purchase and liquidation (sale or

exercise) of a put option, including the

subsequent sale of the underlying

futures position if the put option is

exercised.

Sale. Transfer of title through the

selling of the value of the put option.

Settlement price. The price of a

specific put option as published by the

exchange on which that contract trades

at the end of each day’s trading.

Strike Price. The price at which the

holders of a put option may choose to

sell the underlying futures contract.

2. Eligibility

(a) To be eligible for trade options

under this agreement, a broker must:

(1) Be properly licensed and in good

standing with the National Futures

Association;

(2) Volunteer to participate in this

program; and

(3) Execute this agreement and

comply with all its terms and

conditions.

3. Responsibilities

(a) Brokers who elect to participate in

the program agree to enforce the

following program requirements with

respect to any producer participating in

the program who might use the broker’s

services:

(1) To buy put options on a minimum

of 200,000 pounds of milk on an eligible

market at some time over the first two

months of the program’s six-month

duration beginning on the date the

producer attends a training session

conducted by RMA;

(2) That put options on no more than

200,000 pounds of milk shall be

purchased for any one month under this

program;

(3) That put options will be purchased

at least two months before the put

options expire;

(4) That the put options will be

purchased at a strike price that is at

least 25 cents out of the money; and

(5) No put options will be sold or

exercised before four weeks prior to the

expiration date. The producer may sell

or exercise options purchased under

this program at any time over the four

weeks leading up to the expiration date.

(b) Brokers who participate in the

program must collect from the producer:

(1) A signed copy of the application

(Form CCC–320);

(2) Marketing receipts of the

production history of the producer for at

least the most recent 6 month period;

and

(3) The cash market price for the

producer’s production at the time of

each order and liquidation.

(c) Broker’s should not accept

applications from any producer whose

marketing receipts do not evidence

production of at least 200,000 pounds

over the most recent six months.

(d) The broker must keep detailed

records of each transaction including:

(1) The purchase date and premium

for each put option;

(2) The expiration date and month for

each put option;

(3) The producer’s cash market price

for the production at the time of each

order and liquidation;

(4) The difference between the cash

market price and the BFP over the six

month duration of the program; and

(5) Whether the options are sold or

exercised and, if sold or exercised, the

date and price of the futures contract on

the date of sale or exercise.

(f) The broker must transmit to RMA,

through electronic data transmission,

the information contained on the

application and information specified in

subsection (f). Brokers certify that

systems used to transmit data will be

Year 2000 compliant, i.e., be able to

accurately process date/time data

(including, but not limited to,

calculating, comparing, and sequencing)

from, into, and between the twentieth

and twenty-first centuries, and the years

1999 and 2000 and leap year

calculations, and to properly exchange

date/time data with other information

technology. Data transmission

requirements and Year 2000 compliancy

guidelines are available upon request.

(g) The broker can not conduct any

trades under this program on behalf of

any producer until notified by RMA that

the producer has been accepted into the

program.

4. Costs

(a) The broker will receive a

transaction fee of $30 per round turn

from RMA. Any transactions costs

agreed upon between the broker and a

producer in excess of $30 will be the

sole responsibility of the producer and

not of RMA.

(b) The broker will charge the

producer’s account for 20 percent of the

premium per put option. The 20 percent

of the transaction for which the

producer is responsible is the sole

responsibility of the producer and not of

RMA.

(c) The broker will bill the transaction

costs and the balance of the premium to

RMA.

5. Restrictions and Limitations

(a) If a broker participating in the

program through this agreement is not

in compliance with the provisions of

this agreement, the broker will be

required to repay any transactions costs

on the put options subsidized by RMA

and traded by the broker under the

program, in addition to any damages

suffered by RMA.

(c) No put options purchased through

this program shall be purchased at a

premium that is more than 160 percent

of the previous day’s settlement

premium.

6. Other

(a) To assist in the evaluation of the

program, brokers participating in the

program may be asked to complete entry

and exit surveys by RMA. While

completion of these surveys is

voluntary, brokers are encouraged to do

so in order that an accurate assessment

may be made of this program’s overall

effectiveness.

(b) RMA is required to report all

program payments issued on behalf of

producers to the Internal Revenue

Service (IRS). All premiums that are

earned by producers participating in

this program shall be reported to the IRS

for the year of participation.

Signed in Washington, D.C., on December

29, 1997.

Garland Westmoreland,

Acting Administrator, Risk Management

Agency.

[FR Doc. 97–34189 Filed 12–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–08–P

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
56 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 1998 / Notices

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 nonlethal 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 1998 / Notices 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 predetermined 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 ODFWconducted 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
58 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 1998 / Notices

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 nonlethal 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 1998 / Notices 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
60 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 1998 / Notices

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 122397E]

Marine Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of revised

marine mammal stock assessment

reports.

SUMMARY: NMFS has incorporated

public comments into revisions of

marine mammal stock assessment

reports. The revision, which was

initiated in 1996 is now complete, and

copies of the revised reports are

available to the public.

ADDRESSES: Printed copies may be

obtained by writing to one of the

following: Chief, Marine Mammal

Division, Office of Protected Resources,

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1335

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910–3226, Attn: Stock Assessments;

Douglas P. DeMaster, Alaska Fisheries

Science Center (F/AKC), NMFS, 7600

Sand Point Way, Seattle, WA 98115–

0070 regarding Alaska regional stock

assessments; James Lecky, Southwest

Regional Office, NMFS, 501 West Ocean

Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90802–

4213, regarding Pacific regional stock

assessments; or Gordon Waring,

Northeast Fisheries Science Center,

NMFS, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole,

MA 02543–1097 regarding Atlantic

regional stock assessments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas C. Eagle, (301) 713–2322,

Douglas P. DeMaster, (206) 526–4045

regarding Alaska regional stock

assessments; James Lecky, (562) 980–

4020 regarding Pacific regional stock

assessments; or Gordon Waring, (508)

495–2000 regarding Atlantic regional

stock assessments.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

117 of the Marine Mammal Protection

Act (MMPA) requires NMFS and the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

prepare stock assessment reports for all

marine mammal stocks that occur in

waters under the jurisdiction of the

United States. These reports must

contain information regarding the

distribution and abundance of the stock,

population growth rates and trends,

estimates of annual human-caused

mortality from all sources, descriptions

of the fisheries with which the stock

interacts, and the status of the stocks.

NMFS completed the 1996 draft stock

assessment reports and made them

available for public review and

comment on January 21, 1997 (62 FR

3005). During the public comment

period and subsequent to it, NMFS

consulted extensively with Scientific

Review Groups (SRGs), established also

under the MMPA, to discuss their

comments, as well as the comments

received from the public. The results of

the different SRG discussions and

comments received from the public,

conservation organizations, state, and

other Federal agencies were reviewed

and incorporated into these final reports

as appropriate. The 1996 final marine

mammal stock assessment reports have

now been completed and are available

for distribution.

Dated: December 24, 1997.

Hilda Diaz-Soltero,

Director, Office of Protected Resources,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–34218 Filed 12-31-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 122397G]

Pacific Fishery Management Council;

Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting (work

session).

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery

Management Council’s (Council)

Salmon Technical Team (STT) will hold

a work session which is open to the

public.

DATES: The work session will begin at

10 a.m. on Tuesday, January 20, 1998,

and continue from approximately 8 a.m.

to 5 p.m. each day through Friday,

January 23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The work session will be

held at the Council office, 2130 SW

Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR

97201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

John Coon, Salmon Management

Coordinator; telephone: (503) 326–6352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

purpose of the STT work session is to

draft the ‘‘Review of 1997 Ocean

Salmon Fisheries.’’ The final report will

be distributed to the public and

reviewed by the Council at its March

1998 meeting in Millbrae, CA.

Although other issues not contained

in this agenda may come before this

Team for discussion, in accordance with

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act,

those issues may not be the subject of

formal Team action during this meeting.

Team action will be restricted to those

issues specifically identified in the

agenda listed in this notice.

Special Accommodations

The work session is physically

accessible to people with disabilities.

Requests for sign language

interpretation or other auxiliary aids

should be directed to Mr. Eric Greene at

(503) 326–6352 at least 5 days prior to

the work session date.