64670 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

the Secretary on the sale of U.S.-made

automotive parts in Japanese and other

Asian markets, as well as any other

issues with respect to which the

Committee provides advice pursuant to

its authorizing legislation.

At the meeting, committee members

will discuss specific trade and sales

expansion programs related to

automotive parts trade policy between

the United States and Japan and other

Asian markets.

The Assistant Secretary for

Administration, with the concurrence of

the General Counsel formally

determined on October 23, 2000,

pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, as amended,

that the November 13 meeting of the

Committee and of any subcommittee

thereof, dealing with privileged or

confidential commercial information

may be exempt from the provisions of

the Act relating to open meeting and

public participation therein because

these items are concerned with matters

that are within the purview of 5 U.S.C.

552b(c)(4) and (9)(B). A copy of the

Notice of Determination is available for

public inspection and copying in the

Department of Commerce Records

Inspection Facility, Room 6020, Main

Commerce.

Dated: October 25, 2000.

Robert O. Reck,

Acting Director, Office of Automotive Affairs.

[FR Doc. 00–27806 Filed 10–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 050500F]

Taking of Threatened or Endangered

Marine Mammals Incidental to

Commercial Fishing Operations;

Issuance of Permit

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of permit.

SUMMARY: NMFS hereby issues a permit

for a period of 3 years, to authorize the

incidental, but not intentional, taking of

four stocks of threatened or endangered

marine mammals by the California/

Oregon (CA/OR) drift gillnet fishery.

The four stocks are: fin whale,

California/Oregon/Washington stock;

humpback whale, California/Oregon/

Washington-Mexico stock; Steller sea

lion, eastern stock; and sperm whale,

California/Oregon/Washington stock.

This authorization is based on a

determination that this incidental take

will have a negligible impact on the

affected marine mammal stocks.

DATES: This permit is was issued on

October 24, 2000, and is effective

through October 24, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the reference

materials and Environmental

Assessment (EA) may be obtained from

Protected Resources Division, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest

Region, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite

4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.

Attention: Tim Price.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Price, NMFS, Southwest Region,

Protected Resources Division, (562) 980-

4029.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

101(a)(5)(E) of the Marine Mammal

Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C.

1371(a)(5)(E)) requires the authorization

of the incidental taking of individuals

from marine mammal stocks listed as

threatened or endangered under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the

course of commercial fishing operations

if NMFS determines that (1) the

incidental mortality and serious injury

will have a negligible impact on the

affected species or stock; (2) a recovery

plan has been developed or is being

developed for such species or stock

under the ESA; and (3) where required

under section 118 of the MMPA, a

monitoring program has been

established, vessels engaged in such

fisheries are registered in accordance

with section 118 of the MMPA, and a

take reduction plan has been developed

or is being developed for such species

or stock.

On June 6, 2000 (65 FR 35904), NMFS

proposed the issuance of a permit, for a

period of 3 years, to authorize the

incidental, but not intentional, taking of

four stocks of threatened or endangered

marine mammals by the CA/OR drift

gillnet fishery under section 101(a)(5)(E)

of the MMPA.

Four letters of comment were received

concerning the proposal for issuance of

a permit. All of these letters were in

opposition to the issuance of a permit.

Comment 1: Two commenters

requested that the comment period be

extended to provide additional time to

prepare a detailed response.

Response: NMFS believes that a 45-

day comment period was sufficient time

for public comment and is consistent

with the process established at 50 CFR

229.20 for issuance of a permit to

authorize the incidental take of

threatened or endangered marine

mammals species under section

101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA.

Comment 2: One commenter felt that

a permit should not be issued if the

permit would allow the incidental

taking of threatened or endangered

species under the ESA.

Response: Under section 101(a)(5)(E)

of the MMPA, the Secretary of

Commerce (Secretary) must allow the

incidental, but not intentional, taking of

marine mammals from a species or stock

designated as depleted because of its

listing as an endangered or threatened

species under the ESA if the Secretary

determines that the incidental mortality

and serious injury from commercial

fisheries will have a negligible impact

on such species or stock, that a recovery

plan has been developed or is being

developed, and that the provisions of

section 118 are being met. The Secretary

cannot refuse to issue a permit under

section 101(a)(5)(E) if the conditions set

forth in the MMPA have been met.

Comment 3: One commenter stated

that NMFS should not issue a

101(a)(5)(E) permit to the CA/OR drift

gillnet fishery because there is

incidental take of sperm whales, marlin,

skipjack tuna, and blue sharks.

Response: The potential biological

removal (PBR) level for the California/

Oregon/Washington sperm whale stock

is 2.0 whales per year. The CA/OR drift

gillnet fishery is the only fishery likely

to incidentally take a sperm whale from

this stock. Using a 3-year average (1997-

1999), the mean annual mortality and

serious injury rate from the CA/OR drift

gillnet fishery is estimated to be 1.7

sperm whales. In 1998, one sperm

whale was observed killed in a net that

was not in compliance with the Pacific

Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan

(Plan) developed for the CA/OR drift

gillnet fishery. The Pacific Offshore

Cetacean Take Reduction Team (Team)

recommended no further strategies to

reduce sperm whale entanglements be

implemented until the effectiveness of

pingers is better understood. The

estimated annual mortality using a 3-

year average is less than PBR and would

cause no more than a 10-percent

increase in the time needed to achieve

recovery. NMFS has determined that an

activity that slows the rate of recovery

of depleted marine mammals to preexploitation levels by no more than 10-

percent delay is considered a

‘‘negligible impact’’ for purposes of

issuing a permit under section

101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA. The

incidental taking of marlin, skipjack

tunas, and blue shark is not relevant to

the determination about issuing a

permit under section 101(a)(5)(E) of the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64671

MMPA, which addresses only marine

mammals listed under the ESA.

Comment 4: One commenter

indicated that NMFS is abandoning its

current formula for determining the

‘‘negligible impact’’ threshold in favor

of a calculation that substantially

decreases protection and increases risks

for listed species.

Response: The new approach for

determining negligible impact is

consistent with the guidelines prepared

by the Marine Mammal Commission

(Commission), and submitted to NMFS

in 1990 to be used in its development

of a regime to govern the mortality and

serious injury of marine mammals

incidental to commercial fishing

operations. In the guidelines, the

Commission stated that a negligible

impact would cause no more than a 10-

percent delay in a severely depleted

stock’s recovery. This commenter

correctly notes that the criterion the

determination used as an initial

estimate of the negligible impact

threshold is different than that used in

1995 when permits under MMPA

section 101(a)(5)(E) were issued for the

first time. While this new approach may

be slightly less conservative than the

approach used in 1995, the approach

does not significantly affect the recovery

rate of the stock.

Comment 5: By allowing fisheries

related mortality up to 100 percent of

the PBR level, the proposal essentially

renders the margin of safety created by

the recovery factor meaningless and,

thereby, reduces protection for listed

species.

Response: The approach used in this

negligible impact determination could

authorize the mortality and serious

injury to equal the PBR level of some

stocks of marine mammals (i.e., those

stocks with a recovery factor of 0.1 in

the PBR equation) and does reduce

protection as compared to the extremely

conservative approach previously used.

The protection, although reduced from

the former approach (10 percent of

PBR), is appropriate for the stocks

involved and is consistent with the

Commission’s recommendation to

NMFS for a quantitative estimate for

negligible impact. The legislative

proposal that NMFS submitted to

Congress in 1992 adopted the

Commission’s recommendation of 10

percent delay in recovery in a statement

that 90 percent of an endangered marine

mammal stock’s annual production

should be reserved for recovery and that

only 10 percent should be authorized

for removal incidental to human

activity. Intensive simulation modeling

of marine mammal populations showed

no more than a 10-percent delay in

recovery would result when humancaused mortality was below a threshold

defined by one-tenth of the product of

the stock’s minimum population

estimate (Nmin) and one-half of its

maximum net productivity rate (1/2

Rmax) (i.e., 0.1 * Nmin * 1/2 Rmax).

Such a threshold is the equivalent of a

stock’s PBR when calculated with a

recovery factor of 0.1. When applying

the former criterion (10 percent of PBR)

to a stock with a recovery factor of 0.1

in the PBR equation, the result could be

an order of magnitude more restrictive

than is necessary to achieve the stated

goal of negligible impact. As in the

determinations for the 1995 permit,

NMFS uses this threshold as a starting

point in the determination, rather than

a mechanical application of a general

formula, to ensure that the incidental

mortality and serious injury would

cause no more than a negligible impact.

Comment 6: One commenter

suggested that it was inappropriate and

scientifically unsound to issue permits

for increased takings of federally listed

marine mammal species based on such

a small sample size and limited amount

of monitoring data (low observer

coverage) obtained since

implementation of the Plan.

Response: NMFS disagrees. The

issuance of a permit to allow for the

taking of marine mammal species listed

under the ESA does not authorize an

increase in taking. The issuance of a

permit authorizes the fishery to lawfully

take species listed under the ESA

provided the incidental taking is

negligible. Observer coverage for 1997

(the effective date of the Plan was

October 30, 1997), 1998, and 1999, has

averaged 20 percent. Twenty-percent

observer coverage is considered

adequate for estimating protected

species interactions in the CA/OR drift

gillnet fishery. During this time, there

was only one sperm whale observed

taken, and this take was in a net that

was not equipped with ‘‘pingers’’

(acoustic deterrent devices) and thus

was not deployed in compliance with

the Plan. More importantly, overall

cetacean mortality has decreased for sets

in which pingers are used.

Comment 7: One commenter

indicated that a permit should not be

issued because the sperm whale takes

from the Mexican drift gillnet fishery

were not considered.

Response: NMFS disagrees. The CA/

OR drift gillnet fishery takes sperm

whales from the California/Oregon/

Washington stock. For management

purposes, this stock does not include

animals of the Mexican sperm whale

population. Although large populations

of sperm whales exist in waters south of

the California/Oregon/Washington

region, there is no evidence of sperm

whale movements into this region.

Moreover, NMFS understands that

Mexican fishermen have converted their

drift gillnet fleet along Baja California to

longline vessels.

Comment 8: One commenter noted

that the 1999 Stock Assessment Report

(SAR) for sperm whales calculated an

incidental mortality by the fishery of 4.6

animals per year, using a 5-year average,

and the draft 2000 SAR calculated a

mean annual take of 2.5 whales, using

1997 and 1998 data, which is greater

than the calculated PBR level. The

commenter also stated that the use of

only 2 years of data is problematic,

given the small sample size and the low

level of observer coverage.

Response: NMFS disagrees. To more

accurately reflect entanglement rates

after the implementation of the Plan

(minimum 6-fathom extenders, skipper

education workshops, and the use of

pingers), the Scientific Review Group

(SRG), which consists of independent

(non-Federal) individuals with expertise

in population dynamics and modeling,

recommended that mortality averaging

should use data from 1997 (the year the

Plan was implemented) and beyond (up

to 5 years). The data presented in the

1999 SARs were collected before the

Plan was implemented. Therefore, for

all marine mammal species incidentally

taken in the fishery, mean annual

mortality estimates in the SARs will use

data collected since the implementation

of the Plan. At the time that the draft

2000 SARs were prepared, NMFS had

only 2 years of observer data available

to estimate mean annual mortality

subsequent to the implementation of the

Plan. By including the 1999 observer

data to calculate the mean annual

mortality for the fishery, NMFS is using

the best scientific information available

to estimate mortality under the Plan.

NMFS agrees that 5 years of data

collected under the Plan will provide a

greater precision for the mortality

estimate. In addition, NMFS believes

that a 20-percent observer coverage is

sufficient to provide an appropriate

level of accuracy for calculating overall

mortality estimates.

Comment 9: One commenter

indicated that, because the use of

pingers is one of the primary measures

for reducing take under the Plan, NMFS

should include the observed sperm

whale that was entangled in 1996,

before the implementation of the Plan,

because pingers were attached to the net

during the set.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Although

the sperm whale was taken in a set in

which pingers were attached, the pinger

64672 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

configuration did not comply with the

Plan. Under the Plan, a net 1,000

fathoms long is required to have 41

pingers attached alternating between the

floatline and the leadline, spaced 300

feet (50 fathoms) apart. The sperm

whale observed taken in 1996 was in a

set in which the net had only 33 pingers

attached. Moreover, the SRG

recommended that using 1997 and 1998

data would be most appropriate because

the data would most accurately reflect

entanglement rates after the changes in

the fishery imposed by the Plan, even

though the data are inconclusive about

whether pingers affect sperm whale

entanglement rates. The group agreed

the same 2-year mortality averaging

should be applied consistently in

estimating mean annual mortality for all

species incidentally taken in the CA/OR

drift gillnet fishery when preparing the

2000 Marine Mammal SAR.

Comment 10: One commenter felt that

because calendar year 1996 had 12.4-

percent observer coverage, the estimated

incidental take of sperm whales in 1996

should be 8. Using this assumption, the

commenter calculated the mean annual

take level for calendar years 1997, 1998,

and 1999, to be 3.25, which is greater

than the PBR level of two animals per

year in the 2000 draft U.S. Pacific

Marine Mammal SAR.

Response: NMFS disagrees. During

the last 5 months (August through

December) of 1996, NMFS’s observer

program conducted a pinger

experiment. As part of the experiment,

sets were randomly selected to have

pingers attached to the floatline and

leadline of the net. Because only vessels

that carried an observer participated in

the experiment, mortality estimation for

the fleet was based on the number of

observed sets that did not have pingers

attached to the net. The number of

observed sets without pingers attached

to the net used for estimation was 275,

which represents overall fleet observer

coverage of 8.5 percent. Mortality

observed for sets using pingers was

treated as a constant and added to

estimates of mortality for sets not using

pingers. Estimates were determined in

this way because preliminary results

indicated use of pingers may decrease

cetacean entanglement. If a species was

taken in sets deployed with pingers, but

not in sets without pingers, the resultant

mortality was a constant without an

associated standard error such as the

single sperm whale entanglement. For

this reason, the sperm whale estimated

mortality in 1996 was one, rather than

eight, as suggested by the commenter.

Comment 11: One commenter

questioned whether a permit could be

issued under section 101(a)(5)(E) of the

MMPA because there is insufficient

evidence to support NMFS’

determination that the California/

Oregon/Washington sperm whale stock

is stable because of the uncertainty of

the data.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Although

the draft 2000 U.S. Pacific Marine

Mammal SAR does not explicitly state

that the population is stable or

increasing, the report indicates that the

California/Oregon/Washington sperm

whale population has been variable

possibly because sperm whale

distribution in these waters may vary

annually. This variability does not mean

that the population is decreasing, but

rather the trend is not obvious. In

addition, there is evidence that

indicates the sperm whale population

abundance estimate is an underestimate

of true abundance because recent

studies suggest sperm whale group sizes

may have been underestimated on past

line-transect surveys. Furthermore,

because a recovery factor of 0.1 is used

for the California/Oregon/Washington

sperm whale stock, a proportion of the

expected net production is allocated

towards population growth and

compensates for uncertainties that

might prevent population recovery,

such as biases in the estimation of the

minimum population size and

maximum growth rates, or errors in the

determination of stock structure.

Therefore, the uncertainty in the

abundance estimate is considered when

calculating the PBR value.

Comment 12: One commenter

questioned whether a permit could be

issued before a sperm whale recovery

plan has been circulated for public

review.

Response: Section 101(a)(5)(E) of the

MMPA requires that ‘‘a recovery plan

has been developed or is being

developed.’’ There currently is a

recovery plan being developed for the

sperm whale although the draft has not

been finalized yet or circulated for

public review.

Comment 13: One commenter

questioned the incidental take

calculations derived for the humpback

whale because the calculations do not

include take estimates for the California

salmon troll fishery or for the Mexican

fisheries.

Response: Under section 101(a)(5)(E),

NMFS is required to determine whether

the incidental mortality and serious

injury by commercial fisheries will have

a negligible impact on a species or stock

listed as threatened or endangered

under the ESA. In analyzing the impact

of commercial fisheries on humpback

whales, NMFS did not include the

humpback whale snagged by a central

California salmon troller because the

interaction was classified as an injury,

rather than a serious injury or mortality.

In addition, because the California/

Oregon/Washington - Mexico humpback

whale stock spends approximately half

of its time outside the U.S. EEZ

(Mexican waters), the PBR for U.S.

waters is only half of the overall PBR for

the stock, which is intended to account

for the amount of time the stock spends

outside the U.S. exclusive economic

zone (EEZ). For management purposes,

NMFS calculates PBR values and

mortality estimates for trans-boundary

stocks based on the fraction of time in

U.S. waters and the mortality estimate

based on the calculated estimate of the

stock residing in U.S. waters.

Comment 14: One commenter

questioned whether a permit should be

issued for fin whales because the

estimated mean annual mortality is

greater than the PBR value reported in

the 1996 U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal

SAR.

Response: NMFS did not use the PBR

value reported in the 1996 U.S. Pacific

Marine Mammal SAR because the most

recent PBR information is in the draft

2000 U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal SAR.

Using a 3-year average (1997, 1998,

1999), the mean annual estimated

mortality for fin whales (1.7) is less than

the PBR level (2.1) in the draft 2000 U.S.

Pacific Marine Mammal SAR.

Comment 15: One commenter

questioned whether a permit should be

issued if the mean annual take (1997-

1999) of the fin whales may be greater

than the PBR value reported in the 2000

U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal SAR.

Response: Although the estimated

mortality level in the SAR is near the

PBR level for the fin whale stock, NMFS

had determined that the history of

mortality of fin whales incidental to the

driftnet fishery has had a negligible

impact on the fishery. The other

conditions regarding the issuance of the

permit have been satisfied; therefore,

NMFS must issue the permit.

The negligible impact determination

was based upon the 10-year history of

the observer program in the fishery. The

take observed in 1999 was the only

observed mortality during that period.

Consequently, NMFS determined that

the fishery had a remote likelihood of

taking fin whales on an annual basis,

which would result in a negligible

impact.

The mortality estimate in the SAR

was based upon 3 years of data, which

is the period that the fishery has been

under a take reduction plan. There is no

reason to believe that the conservation

measures included in the plan (lowered

head rope and pinger-equipped nets)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices 64673

would make the nets more likely to take

a fin whale. Therefore, using the 10-year

history of observer data in the fishery

was appropriate for use in the negligible

impact determination.

Comment 16: One commenter stated

that a permit should not be issued to the

CA/OR drift gillnet fishery for the taking

of fin whales because mortality from the

Mexican drift gillnet fishery was not

considered when calculating the

estimated mortality from all commercial

fisheries.

Response: NMFS disagrees. The fin

whale that was taken by the CA/OR drift

gillnet fishery was from the California/

Oregon/Washington fin whale stock. For

management purposes, this stock does

not include animals of the Mexican fin

whale stock because there is insufficient

information at this time to conclude that

the fin whale population that increases

seasonally in winter and spring in the

Gulf of California is part of the

California/Oregon/Washington fin

whale stock.

Comment 17: One commenter stated

that a permit should not be issued to the

CA/OR drift gillnet fishery for the take

of fin whales because mortality from

ship strikes was not considered when

calculating the estimated mortality from

all commercial fisheries.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Under

section 101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA,

NMFS must determine whether the

incidental mortality and serious injury

from commercial fisheries will have a

negligible impact on such species or

stock. For purposes of issuing a permit,

NMFS is not required to consider

mortality caused by ship strikes.

Comment 18: One commenter stated

that a permit may not be issued unless

a full and proper National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

analysis is completed.

Response: NMFS agrees. An EA was

prepared for this permit.

Comment 19: One commenter

requested that NMFS significantly

increase observer coverage levels for the

CA/OR drift gillnet fishery as a

condition of any future federal

authorizations because the incidental

take analysis is highly speculative.

Response: NMFS believes that 20-

percent observer coverage is sufficient

to calculate reliable mortality estimates

for species listed under the MMPA and

the ESA even though entanglement

events are rare. For this reason, NMFS

does not intend to require additional

observer coverage as a condition of

issuing a permit under section

101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA.

Summary of Findings

NMFS has evaluated the best

available information for the four stocks

listed as threatened or endangered

under the ESA addressed by this permit

and has determined, on a stock-by-stock

basis, whether the mortality and serious

injury (using 3-year averages 1997,

1998, 1999) incidental to the CA/OR

drift gillnet fishery is having a negligible

impact on such stocks (NMFS, 2000).

Based on this assessment, NMFS

concludes that the estimated mortality

and serious injury caused by the CA/OR

drift gillnet fishery would cause no

more than a 10-percent increase in the

time to recovery for each of the four

stocks of marine mammals addressed by

this permit and is, therefore, negligible.

These stocks were then reviewed to

confirm that: (1) a recovery plan has

been developed or is being developed,

and (2) where required under section

118 of the MMPA, a monitoring program

has been established, vessels engaged in

such fisheries are registered, and a take

reduction plan has been, or is being,

developed.

For the following stocks with

documented evidence of fishery-related

interactions, NMFS has determined that

the mortality and serious injury

incidental to the CA/OR drift gillnet

fishery will have a negligible impact

and issues a permit for incidental takes

of:

(1) Fin whale, California/Oregon/

Washington stock;

(2) Humpback whale, California/

Oregon/Washington-Mexico stock;

(3) Steller sea lion, eastern stock; and

(4) Sperm whale, California/Oregon/

Washington stock.

A stock-by-stock summary of the

negligible impact determination follows.

Fin whale, California/Oregon/

Washington stock: The PBR for this

stock is 2.1 whales per year. After the

1997 implementation of the Plan,

overall cetacean entanglement rates in

the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery dropped

considerably. Using a 3-year (1997-

1999) average, the annual mean

mortality and serious injury rate from

the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery is

estimated to be 1.7. In addition, during

the past 10 years, only one fin whale has

been observed taken in this fishery,

indicating a remote likelihood of a fin

whale take in the CA/OR drift gillnet

fishery.

Humpback whale, California/Oregon/

Washington-Mexico stock: The PBR

level for this stock is 1.7 whales per

year. Using a 3-year average (1997-

1999), the mean annual mortality and

serious injury rate from the CA/OR drift

gillnet fishery is estimated to be 0.0

humpback whales. One observed

humpback whale entanglement in 1999

was released alive without any trailing

gear and was not considered a serious

injury or mortality. Since the beginning

of the observer program in 1990, there

have been no reported mortalities or

serious injuries of humpback whales.

Steller sea lion, eastern stock: The

PBR level for this stock is 1,368 animals

per year. Fishery observers monitored

the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery between

1990 and 1999. In both 1992 and 1994,

one Steller sea lion mortality was

observed incidental to this fishery.

Using a 3-year average (1997-1999), the

mean annual mortality and serious

injury rate from the CA/OR drift gillnet

fishery is estimated to be 0.0 animals for

the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery.

Sperm whale, California/Oregon/

Washington stock: The PBR level for

this stock is 2.0 whales per year. In

1998, one sperm whale was observed

killed in a net that was not in

compliance with the Plan. Using a 3-

year average (1997-1999), the mean

annual mortality and serious injury rate

from the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery is

estimated to be 1.7 sperm whales. The

Team recommended no further

strategies to reduce sperm whale

entanglement be taken until the

effectiveness of pingers is better

understood. At the recommendation of

the Team, NMFS conducted workshops

to educate vessel operators on the need

to use the full complement of pingers

required by the Plan. NMFS

enforcement also trained the U.S. Coast

Guard about the requirements of the

Plan and requested their assistance with

at-sea enforcement.

NMFS prepared an EA on the final

rule to implement the Plan (62 FR

51805, October 3, 1997). That EA has

been reissued and modified to include

the effects of: (1) issuance of this permit,

(2) additional species of sea turtles and

marine mammals, (3) minor changes to

the Plan.

Issuance of Permits

Based on requirements of section

101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA, NMFS is

issuing a permit to allow the incidental,

but not intentional, taking of four stocks

of endangered or threatened marine

mammals to the CA/OR drift gillnet

fishery: (1) fin whale, California/

Oregon/Washington stock; (2)

humpback whale, California/Oregon/

Washington-Mexico stock; (3) Steller sea

lion, eastern stock; and (4) sperm whale,

California/Oregon/Washington stock.

These permits may be suspended or

revoked if the level of take is likely to

result in an impact that is more than

negligible.

64674 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Notices

References

Barlow, J., S. Swartz, T. Eagle, and P.

Wade. 1995. U.S. Marine Mammal Stock

Assessments: Guidelines for

Preparation, Background, and a

Summary of the 1995 Assessments. U.S.

Department of Commerce, NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFSSWFSC-219. 162 p.

Cameron, G.A., and K.A. Forney.

2000. Preliminary Estimates of Cetacean

Mortality in California/Oregon Gillnet

Fisheries for 1999. Intl. Whal. Comm.

Working paper. SC/52/024.

National Marine Fisheries Service.

2000. Assessment for Issuing a Permit

Under Section 101(a)(5)(E) of the Marine

Mammal Protection Act to the

California/Oregon Drift Gillnet Fishery.

Southwest Region, Protected Resources

Division.

Dated: October 24, 2000.

Donald R. Knowles,

Director, Office of Protected Resources,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–27822 Filed 10–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[Docket No. 000927276-0276-01; I.D. No.

101000CH]

RIN 0648-ZA94

Coastal Services Center Broad Area

Announcement

AGENCY: National Ocean Service (NOS),

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of Federal

assistance.

SUMMARY: The NOAA Coastal Services

Center announces the availability of

Federal assistance for Fiscal Year (FY)

2001 in the following areas: Landscape

Characterization and Restoration,

Integration and Development, and

Special Projects. This announcement

provides guidelines for these program

areas and includes details for the

technical program, evaluation criteria,

and selection procedures of each

program. Selected recipients will enter

into either a cooperative agreement with

the Center or receive a grant depending

upon the amount of the Center’s

involvement in the project-- substantial

involvement means a cooperative

agreement, while independent work

requires a grant.

DATES: Each program area has specific

dates for application and proposal

deadlines. Refer directly to that program

area description under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. Applicants are required to

prepare separate packages for each

proposal submitted.

ADDRESSES: Send all proposals to:

NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2234

South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, SC

29405-2413. Landscape Characterization

and Restoration proposals should be

sent to the attention of Pace Wilber.

Integration and Development proposals

should be sent to the attention of Cindy

Fowler. Special Project proposals

should be sent to the attention of Jan

Kucklick. Upon receipt of proposals, the

Center’s Program Managers must ensure

proposals are time stamped.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Administrative questions should be

directed to Violet Legette, (843)-740-

1222 or Violet. Legette@noaa.gov.

Technical point of contact for

Landscape Characterization and

Restoration is Pace Wilber, (843)-740-

1235 or Pace.Wilber@noaa.gov.

Technical point of contact for

Integration and Development is Cindy

Fowler,(843)-740-1249 or

Cindy.Fowler@noaa.gov. Technical

point of contact for Special Projects,

Special Projectsf or the Pacific Islands,

and Technical Assistantship for the

Pacific Islands is Jan Kucklick, (843)-

740-1279 or Janet.Kucklick@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority

Statutory authority for these programs

is provided under 16 U.S.C. 1456c

(Technical Assistance); 15 U.S.C. 1540

(Cooperative Agreements); 33 U.S.C.

1442 (research program respecting

possible long-range effects of pollution,

over fishing, and man-induced changes

of ocean ecosystems); 33 U.S.C. 883a

(surveys and other activities); 33 U.S.C.

883b (dissemination of data); 33 U.S.C.

883c (geomagnetic data collection,

correlation, and dissemination); and 33

U.S.C. 883d (improvement of methods,

instruments, and equipments;

investigations and research).

Compliance

The recipients must comply with

Executive Order 12906 regarding any

and all geospatial data collected or

produced under grants or cooperative

agreements. This includes documenting

all geospatial data in accordance with

the Federal Geographic Data Committee

Content Standard for digital geospatial

data.

Electronic Access

All applicants are required to submit

a NOAA grants application package and

project proposal. The standard NOAA

grants application package (which

includes forms SF-424, SF-424A, SF424B, SF-424C, SF-424D, CD-511, CD512, and SF-LLL) can be obtained from

the NOAA grants Website at http://

www.rdc.noaa.gov/grants/pdf/. Funding

will be subject to the availability of

Federal appropriations.

Minority Serving Institutions

Pursuant to Executive Orders 12876,

12900, and 13021, the Department of

Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (DOC/

NOAA) is strongly committed to

broadening the participation of

Historically Black Colleges and

Universities, Hispanic Serving

Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and

Universities in its educational and

research programs. The DOC/NOAA

vision, mission, and goals are to achieve

full participation by Minority Serving

Institutions in order to advance the

development of human potential, to

strengthen the nation’s capacity to

provide high-quality education, and to

increase opportunities for MSIs to

participate in and benefit from Federal

Financial Assistance programs. DOC/

NOAA encourages all applicants to

include meaningful participation of

MSIs.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The NOAA Coastal Services Center

Program is listed in the Catalog of

Federal Domestic Assistance under

Number 11.473.

General Background

Guiding the conservation and

management of coastal resources is a

primary function of NOAA. NOAA

accomplishes this goal through a variety

of mechanisms, including collaboration

with the coastal resource management

programs of the nation’s states and

territories. The mission of the NOAA

Coastal Services Center (Center) is to

foster and sustain the environmental

and economic well-being of the coast by

linking people, information, and

technology. The goal of the Center is to

build capabilities throughout the nation

to address pressing issues of coastal

health and change by promoting coastal

resource conservation and efficient and

sustainable commercial and residential

development. Landscape

Characterization And Restoration -

Information Resource For A West Coast

United States Watershed

Project Description

NOAA’s Coastal Services Center seeks

proposals from tribal, regional, state, or

local government agencies; academic