Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Notices 2375

secret in the interest of foreign policy

under the appropriate executive order (5

U.S.C. 552b.(c)(1)) or would disclose

information the premature disclosure of

which would be likely to significantly

frustrate implementation of a proposed

agency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(9)(B))

In addition, part of the discussion will

relate solely to the internal personnel

and organizational issues of the BBG or

the International Broadcasting Bureau.

(5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(2) and (6))

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Persons interested in obtaining more

information should contact either

Brenda Hardnett or John Lindburg at

(202) 401–3736.

Dated: January 11, 2000.

John A. Lindburg,

Legal Counsel and Acting Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 00–1016 Filed 1–11–00; 4:36 pm]

BILLING CODE 8230–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 1–2000]

Foreign-Trade Zone 22—Chicago, IL;

Application for Expansion

An application has been submitted to

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) by the Illinois International Port

District, grantee of FTZ 22, requesting

authority to expand its zone in the

Chicago, Illinois area, within the

Chicago Customs port of entry. The

application was submitted pursuant to

the provisions of the Foreign-Trade

Zones Act (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the

regulations of the Board (15 CFR part

400). It was formally filed on January 4,

2000.

FTZ 22 was approved on October 29,

1975 (Board Order 108, 40 FR 51242;

11/4/75). The zone was expanded in

1987 (Board Order 353, 52 FR 12217; 4/

15/87) and 1992 (Board Order 614, 57

FR 61044 12/23/92). It currently

consists of four sites in the Chicago,

Illinois, area:

Site 1: (19 acres)—within the Port’s 2,250-

acre Lake Calumet Harbor Terminal facility;

Site 2: (578 acres)—industrial park at One

Diversatech Drive in Manteno, Illinois;

Site 3: (175,000 sq. ft.)—warehouse and

open storage facility located within the

southern portion of a 340,000 square foot

warehouse complex at 703 Foster Avenue,

Bensonville, Illinois, operated by Gotoh

Distribution Services, Inc. (expires 12/31/00);

and

Site 4: (8 acres) at Gerry Drive and Hansen

Court in Wood Dale, Illinois, 6 miles west of

O’Hare International Airport, owned and

operated by Meiko America, Inc.

The applicant is now requesting

authority to expand Site 3 to include the

entire Foster Avenue parcel (8 acres)

within the zone project on a permanent

basis. The facility will continue to be

operated as a FTZ public warehouse

facility by Gotoh Distribution Services,

Inc.

No specific manufacturing requests

are being made at this time. Such

requests would be made to the Board on

a case-by case basis. In accordance with the Board’s

regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff

has been designated examiner to

investigate the application and report to

the Board.

Public comment on the application is

invited from interested parties.

Submissions (original and 3 copies)

shall be addressed to the Board’s

Executive Secretary at the address

below. The closing period for their

receipt is March 14, 2000. Rebuttal

comments in response to material

submitted during the foregoing period

may be submitted during the subsequent

15-day period (to March 29, 2000). A copy of the application and

accompanying exhibits will be available

for public inspection at each of the

following locations:

Office of the Port Director, U.S. Customs

Service, 610 S. Canal Street, Chicago,

Illinois 60607

Office of the Executive Secretary,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Room

4008, 14th & Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20230

Dated: January 5, 2000.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–972 Filed 1–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 011100B]

Submission for OMB Review;

Proposed Infomation Collection;

Request for Comments

The Department of Commerce (DOC)

has submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

clearance the following proposal for

collection of information under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

Agency: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Title: Commercial Harvesters and

Recreational Party and Charter Boat

Socio-cultural and Economic Data

Collection Pilot Study. OMB Approval Number: None.

Agency Form Number: None.

Type of Request: New Collection.

Burden Hours: 793 hours.

Number of Respondents: 323 (but

multiple responses).

Average Hours Per Response: Ranges

between 15 and 20 minutes depending

on the requirement.

Needs and Uses: This information

collection will request social, economic

and cultural information from fishing

enterprises affected by the management

of federal commercial fisheries on the

east coast. This pilot study will

determine the best and most efficient

ways to collect data to ensure that

national goals, objectives and

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens

Act are met. The information is vital in

assessing the economic and social

effects of fishery management decisions

and regulations on fishing enterprises.

Affected Public: Businesses or other

for-profit organizations, individuals.

Frequency: Quarterly, semi-annually.

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker,

(202) 395–3897.

Copies of the above information

collection proposal can be obtained by

calling or writing Linda Engelmeier,

DOC Forms Clearance Officer, (202)

482–3272, Department of Commerce,

Room 5027, 14th and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or

via the Internet at LEngelme@doc.gov).

Written comments and

recommendations for the proposed

information collection should be sent

within 30 days of publication of this

notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk

Officer, Room 10202, New Executive

Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: January 6, 2000.

Linda Engelmeier,

Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office

of the Chief Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–956 Filed 1–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 010599B]

Small Takes of Marine Mammals

Incidental to Specified Activities;

Seismic Retrofit of the Richmond-San

Rafael Bridge, San Francisco Bay, CA

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

2376 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Notices

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an

incidental harassment authorization.

SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions

of the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA) as amended, notification is

hereby given that an Incidental

Harassment Authorization (IHA) has

been issued to the California

Department of Transportation

(CALTRANS) to take small numbers of

Pacific harbor seals and possibly

California sea lions, by harassment,

incidental to seismic retrofit

construction of the Richmond-San

Rafael Bridge (the Bridge), San

Francisco Bay, (the Bay) CA.

DATES: This authorization is effective

from September 1, 2000, through August

31, 2001.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the application

and an Environmental Assessment (EA)

may be obtained by writing to Donna

Wieting, Chief, Marine Mammal

Conservation Division, Office of

Protected Resources, National Marine

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–

3225, or by telephoning one of the

contacts listed here.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth R. Hollingshead, Office of

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–

2055, or Christina Fahy, Southwest

Regional Office, NMFS, (562) 980–4023.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs

the Secretary of Commerce to allow,

upon request, the incidental, but not

intentional, taking of marine mammals

by U.S. citizens who engage in a

specified activity (other than

commercial fishing) within a specified

geographical region if certain findings

are made and either regulations are

issued or, if the taking is limited to

harassment, a notice of a proposed

authorization is provided to the public

for review.

Permission may be granted if NMFS

finds that the taking will have a

negligible impact on the species or

stock(s) and will not have an

unmitigable adverse impact on the

availability of the species or stock(s) for

subsistence uses and that the

permissible methods of taking and

requirements pertaining to the

monitoring and reporting of such

takings are set forth. NMFS has defined

‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103

as ‘‘ ...an impact resulting from the

specified activity that cannot be

reasonably expected to, and is not

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the

species or stock through effects on

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’

Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA

established an expedited process by

which citizens of the United States can

apply for an authorization to

incidentally take small numbers of

marine mammals by harassment. The

MMPA now defines ‘‘harassment’’ as:

...any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance

which (a) has the potential to injure a marine

mammal or marine mammal stock in the

wild; or (b) has the potential to disturb a

marine mammal or marine mammal stock in

the wild by causing disruption of behavioral

patterns, including, but not limited to,

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,

feeding, or sheltering.

Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a

45-day time limit for NMFS review of an

application followed by a 30-day public

notice and comment period on any

proposed authorizations for the

incidental harassment of small numbers

of marine mammals. Within 45 days of

the close of the comment period, NMFS

must either issue or deny issuance of

the authorization.

Summary of Request

On November 9, 1998, NMFS received

an application from CALTRANS,

requesting reauthorization of an IHA

issued on December 16, 1997 (62 FR

6704, December 23, 1997). This

authorization would be for the possible

harassment of small numbers of Pacific

harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) and

possibly some California sea lions

(Zalophus californianus) incidental to

seismic retrofit construction of the

Bridge.

The Bridge is being seismically

retrofitted to withstand a future severe

earthquake. Construction is scheduled

to extend through December 2003. A

detailed description of the work

planned is contained in the Final

Natural Environmental Study/Biological

Assessment for the Richmond-San

Rafael Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project.

(CALTRANS, 1996). Among other

things, seismic retrofit work will

include excavation around pier bases,

hydro-jet cleaning, installation of steel

casings around the piers with a crane,

installation of micro-piles, and

installation of precast concrete jackets.

Foundation construction will require

approximately 2 months per pier, with

construction occurring on more than

one pier at a time. In addition to pier

retrofit, superstructure construction and

tower retrofit work will also be carried

out. Because seismic retrofit

construction between piers 52 and 57

has the potential to disturb harbor seals

hauled out on Castro Rocks, a

reauthorization of the IHA is warranted.

The duration for the seismic retrofit of

foundation and towers on piers 52

through 57, which did not take place as

planned during 1998, will be

approximately 7 to 8 months.

Comments and Responses

A notice of receipt of the application

and proposed authorization was

published on February 16, 1999 (64 FR

7627), and a 30-day public comment

period was provided on the application

and proposed authorization. Comments

were received from two environmental

organizations, two research scientists,

and one Federal agency.

On May 19, 1999, CALTRANS

requested a delay in the issuance of the

IHA with an effective date of September

1, 1999. On July 7, 1999, CALTRANS

requested a modification of condition

5(d) that was contained in its 1997 IHA

to allow pile installation during the

night for construction of the Concrete

Trestle Section (CTS) of the Bridge,

provided the noise does not exceed 86

dBA at the edge of the work exclusion

zone at Castro Rocks. NMFS review of

this request is also contained in this

section. Finally, in December, 1999,

CALTRANS informed NMFS that work

on the Bridge would not begin until

September, 2000.

Comment 1: Earthwatch provided

detailed scientific evidence and

information that the stock of Pacific

harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsii)

should be considered by NMFS as a

separate population stock, including

reduced gene flow with other

populations, and geographic and

demographic isolation.

Response: The scientific evidence and

information provided by Earthwatch has

been forwarded to NMFS scientists for

review and evaluation. If experts on

harbor seal genetics agree that the data

support the conclusion, NMFS will

present the case to the Pacific Scientific

Review Group before revising the stock

assessment reports to change Pacific

harbor seal stock structure.

Comment 2: Earth Island Institute

(EII)/Earthlaw letters contend that the

Boat Exclusion Zone (BEZ), which is a

mitigation requirement in the prior IHA,

has no scientific basis and does little to

eliminate seal disturbance due to boat

traffic. Scientific information from

Bolinas Lagoon indicates that harbor

seals often flush into the water when

boats or other craft come within 200 m

(656.2 ft) of a haulout site, and using

that example, Earthlaw contends that

boats will come close enough to Castro

Rocks to flush harbor seals

approximately 95 percent of the time.

Data summarized by EII suggest that an

exclusion zone of 200 m (656.2 ft) will

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Notices 2377

still result in at least a partial flush of

seals of between 24 and 63 percent of

the time.

Response: The requirement of the

MMPA is that, through mitigation,

impacts on marine mammals be reduced

to the lowest level practicable; it is not

a requirement to eliminate those

impacts. The 1997 IHA required the

northern boundary of the exclusion

zone to be located 76 m (250 ft) from the

most northern tip of Castro Rocks and

the southern boundary to be located 76

m (250 ft) from the most southern tip of

Castro Rocks. The eastern boundary was

located 91 m (300 ft) from the most

eastern tip of Castro Rocks and the

western boundary was located 91 m

(300 ft) from the most western tip of

Castro Rocks. These distances were

greater than initially proposed (see 62

FR 46480, September 3, 1997). In

actuality, the BEZ is a rectangle with

minimum distances set at 109 m (357.6

ft) to the west of the haulout site, 182

m (597 ft) to the east, 80 m (262.5 ft) to

the north and 48 m (157.5 ft) to the

south.

Data collected by the harbor seal

survey team at Castro Rocks indicate

that watercraft passing within 100 m

(328 ft) of the haul-out site caused at

least a partial flush 30 percent of the

time. Watercraft passing between 100

and 200 m (328 and 656.2 ft) from the

rocks caused at least a partial flush 20

percent of the time. Combined,

watercraft passing within 200 m (656.2

ft) of the rocks caused at least a partial

flush 27 percent of the time. While

Earthlaw references Bolinas Lagoon to

justify a minimum BEZ for Castro

Rocks, harbor seal responses to

disturbance vary depending upon

location. Bolinas Lagoon is a different

situation and may not be comparable to

Castro Rocks (Sarah Allen, pers

commun. to the harbor seal survey

team). For example, at Castro Rocks,

harbor seals located on the rocks closest

to the shipping channel to the west of

the haulout appear to have habituated to

the presence of boats within the

channel. However, the behavior of the

watercraft, in conjunction with the

distance, often dictates whether seals

are disturbed (Green and Grigg, 1999;

see Suryan and Harvey, 1999).

As a result of the comment however,

NMFS reviewed the dimensions of the

BEZ and determined that the northern

and southern boundaries do not

conform with NMFS guidelines for

California that boats must remain at

least 91 m (300 ft) from seals and

sealions that are on land or rocks. As a

result the northern and southern

boundaries of the BEZ have been

extended in the IHA from 76 m (250 ft)

to 91 m (300 ft). Nevertheless, it should

be noted neither the extension of the

northern edge of the BEZ, nor the

previous BEZ will prohibit work boats

from accessing the Bridge from the

north side for scheduled work on the

Bridge.

Comment 3: The IHA requires that the

BEZ will be restricted as a controlled

access area and will be marked off with

buoys and warning signs for the entire

year (2–5(b)). Although construction

activities have been ongoing for many

months now, no warning buoys or signs

identifying the BEZ have been installed.

NMFS should ensure that buoys and

signs are in place before it issues any

new IHA.

Response: According to CALTRANS,

seismic retrofit construction has not

begun on the Richmond-San Rafael

Bridge. Once construction begins, the

buoys and warning signs will be

installed and the BEZ will become a

controlled access area in accordance

with the IHA.

Comment 4: The sources of

disturbance and the distance between

the haul-out and the disturbance event

are critical pieces of information since

they may be used to evaluate the

effectiveness of mitigation. This

information should be recorded and

provided in the weekly reports. In

addition, disturbance events caused by

workmen should not be grouped with

disturbance caused by natural events.

Workman disturbances are directly

relevant to potential future impacts and

mitigation.

Response: Because seismic retrofit

work has not yet begun on the Bridge,

the instances of recorded ‘‘other

construction’’ disturbances (e.g., routine

bridge maintenance) in the area of the

haul out site are very rare, and were

therefore combined with other

miscellaneous categories for the

purposes of the interim report. Once

seismic retrofit work begins, the

monitoring protocol will enable

CALTRANS observers to distinguish

between disturbance which may be

caused by the CALTRANS retrofit

construction, and those due to all other

causes.

Comment 5: The monitoring program

currently makes no provision for

enforcing noise restrictions contained in

the IHA. The IHA includes a year-round

limit on construction noise of 86 dBA at

50 ft (15 m) between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.

It also includes an unquantified limit on

construction noise levels for 24 hours

per day in the vicinity of Castro Rocks

during the work closure period

(pupping/molting season). The limit on

construction noise levels during the

pupping season needs to be quantified

by NMFS. In addition, for both the

nighttime and work closure noise

restriction periods, noise levels should

be defined in term of dBA at the haulout

site.

Response: Because NMFS is unaware

of any single noise level that will not

result in adult and/or pup harbor seals

remaining on the beach and still allow

work on the Bridge to proceed, at this

time NMFS has chosen not to establish

sound pressure level (SPL) limits at the

Castro Rocks haulout as recommended

by Earthlaw. NMFS believes, based on

information collected at Vandenberg Air

Force Base, that the noise level

sufficient for harbor seals to leave the

beach is around 80 dBA, but this may

depend upon the type of noise,

intensity, and duration, which could be

different at the Bridge from that

experienced by harbor seals at

Vandenberg. With a limit of 86 dBA at

50 ft (15 m) for work on the Bridge

between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m., NMFS

believes that noise levels have been

mitigated to the greatest extent

practicable. However, NMFS intends to

monitor the activity at the Bridge to

ensure that 86 dBA is the lowest level

practicable. NMFS also believes that the

pupping on Castro Rocks during the

period of this IHA will be protected

from excessive noise levels because

work on the Bridge will not begin until

September, 2000, and proceed from

west to east. CALTRANS does not

expect to begin retrofit work in the

vicinity of Castro Rocks until

approximately August, 2001. This date

will allow CALTRANS’ biological

observers time to assess impacts from

construction on harbor seals prior to

reaching the area affecting Castro Rocks.

NMFS believes that the noise issue is

more likely to be relevant in any IHA

authorized after August 31, 2001, when

work will continue on the portion of the

Bridge nearest to Castro Rocks. As a

result, NMFS believes that a

reassessment of this concern should be

made during the next IHA renewal.

Contrary to the statement, NMFS

enforces mitigation measures contained

in IHAs. Violations of IHAs may result

in suspension or revocation of the IHA;

it may also result in penalties under the

MMPA. However, NMFS does not

believe that biological observers, hired

by CALTRANS and/or NMFS, should be

expected to monitor compliance with

Federal or state regulations or permits.

Generally, if calibrated sound

monitoring equipment is used by an

observer(s) in order to quantify the

sound pressure level as seals leave the

haulout, then that data could later be

used during an enforcement proceeding.

2378 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Notices

Comment 6: On July 7, 1999,

CALTRANS requested a modification to

condition 5(d), that was contained in its

1997 IHA, to allow pile installation

during the night (i.e., during the 9 p.m.

to 7 a.m. time period) for construction

of the CTS of the Bridge, provided the

noise does not exceed 86 dBA at the

edge of the work exclusion zone at

Castro Rocks.

Response: NMFS has reviewed the

request by CALTRANS and has

determined that, because the CTS is

located over 2.5 miles (4.0 km) from

Castro Rocks it should not have an effect

on seals hauled out there. Also, because

the 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. pile driving

prohibition is a mitigation measure

imposed for the welfare of humans, it

should not be required as a mitigation

measure for marine mammal protection

when and where it is not necessary.

Data provided by CALTRANS indicated

that noise levels from the pile driving

equipment planned to be used at the

CTS will exceed the 86 dBA at 50 ft SPL

limitation. The 86 dBA SPL will be

around 200 ft (61 m). Because of the

distance between the CTS and Castro

Rocks, NMFS does not believe that the

noise will be sufficient to flush harbor

seals off Castro Rocks. However,

because sound monitor equipment on

Castro Rocks will monitor noise levels

during this time, if, because pile driving

will continue after 9 p.m. at the CTS,

seals are not able to haul out at night,

NMFS may need to amend the IHA, on

an emergency basis, to provide

additional protection for the harbor

seals at Castro Rocks in order for the

seals to haul out at night in

compensation for disruptions during the

daytime. This haul-out ability is

apparently important for the seals. This

concern was also expressed by two seal

biologists during the comment period.

As a result, NMFS has conditioned the

IHA to limit construction noise levels 86

dBA no greater than 50 ft (15 m) yearround between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. for all

parts of the Bridge other than the CTS.

At this time, NMFS has insufficient

information to waive this restriction for

other sections of the Bridge. Additional

waivers would be considered a request

for a modification of the IHA, and, as

such, would allow the public an

opportunity for comment.

Comment 7: It has been recommended

that monitoring compliance with noise

restrictions be conducted by mounting a

sound monitor on Rock A at Castro

Rocks with a remote recording system.

Response: A monitoring recorder will

be established on Castro Rocks to

correlate SPLs with animal behavior.

Comment 8: Ongoing monitoring of

only two of the alternative haul-out sites

in the Bay is insufficient to determine

whether harbor seals use alternative

haulout sites as a result of disturbance

at Castro Rocks. EII recommends aerial

counts, conducted three times per

season, over the entire Bay to determine

whether seals are using other primary or

secondary haul-out sites in the Bay due

to disturbance at Castro Rocks. Unless

all haulout sites are monitored,

CALTRANS will not be able to

determine whether a decline in numbers

at Castro Rocks due to Project

disturbance is resulting in a decline in

the overall harbor seal population in the

Bay. Given the budget for the Project, 12

aerial surveys per year will not be

unduly burdensome or prohibitively

expensive, and will provide a much

better understanding of Bay harbor seal

movement and status, as well as

increased general knowledge of the

species (see 50 CFR § 216.104) -

monitoring should increase general

knowledge of the species).

Response: In the 1997/1998 IHA,

NMFS required CALTRANS to monitor

harbor seal behavior on at least one

additional haulout. CALTRANS

established monitoring programs on two

alternative haulouts, at Yerba Buena

Island and Mowry Slough. Yerba Buena

Island is in the central Bay, Mowry

Slough is in the southern part of the

Bay. In addition, seal biologists are

monitoring the haulout at Corte Madera.

Because these four haulouts have the

largest populations of seals, and because

other haul-outs cannot contain large

numbers of seals, if seals abandon

Castro Rocks, it is likely that they will

haul out on one or more of these three

haulouts.

At this time, NMFS scientists do not

believe that aerial surveys will provide

sufficient scientific information on the

impacts from construction at the Bridge

to warrant the expense. Primarily, aerial

surveys will detect only that portion of

the harbor seal population that has

hauled out at the time of the overflight

and at altitudes necessary to avoid

startling seals (1,000 ft (305 m)), pups

would not be detectable. Secondly,

without additional studies, such as a

mark-recapture study, aerial surveys are

unlikely to detect a decline in harbor

seal numbers due to a potential shortterm abandonment of Castro Rocks.

Finally, while aerial surveys would

provide information on the current

status of Bay harbor seals, a cause-andeffect relationship between the

construction work at the Bridge, and a

decline in harbor seals, if one occurs,

would not be apparent.

Comment 9: Earthwatch requests

NMFS to provide to them and to the

public copies of all weekly, interim, and

final reports.

Response: CALTRANS will provide

copies of reports to Earthwatch or an

organization chosen by Earthwatch to

obtain these reports.

Comment 10: The monitoring and

reporting program adopted in the prior

IHA and proposed for the renewal does

not provide any feedback mechanism

for corrective action where the Project

activities are resulting in significant

increased disturbance to harbor seals

using Castro Rocks. Such a corrective

action mechanism is critical to prevent

the permanent loss of this key haulout

site. Once harbor seals abandon a site,

there is a good likelihood that they will

never return to it.

Accordingly, the IHA should contain

a defined and enforceable procedure to

be followed whenever the weekly data

demonstrates a significant reduction in

haulout site use at Castro Rocks. Once

the corrective action provision is

triggered, Earthlaw recommends that

operations in the vicinity of Castro

Rocks be temporarily halted for a period

of at least 48 hours, during which time

survey monitors, NMFS and Caltrans

review the data to determine what is

causing the reduced site use and

develop appropriate mitigating

measures. Such a situation could occur

at any time of the year.

Response: NMFS will not require

CALTRANS to stop work if seal

disturbances are observed because, it

has been informed, certain construction

operations cannot be stopped in

progress without jeopardizing the

structural integrity of the Bridge. In

addition, stopping construction will

simply extend the period for harbor seal

disturbance. While NMFS does not

believe that harbor seals will

permanently abandon Castro Rocks

since disturbance at that location is

already frequent, NMFS does recognize

that seismic retrofit on the portion of the

Bridge closest to Castro Rocks is likely

to result in frequent flushing of seals off

the Rocks, and possibly short-term

abandonment. This period may last 7–

8 months (the period estimated for

retrofit construction) or longer. In part

because of the limited 6-month work

period, CALTRANS expects this work

will take 2 years. With nighttime noise

restrictions, NMFS believes that seals

will be able to remain in the vicinity of

Castro Rocks and haul-out during this

quieter time period. If seals fail to haul

out at night, and do not appear to be

utilizing other nearby haulouts, NMFS

will meet with CALTRANS staff and

marine mammal observers to determine

whether additional mitigation measures

are practicable. Because any new

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Notices 2379

mitigation measures imposed through

the IHA would be on an emergency

basis for the protection of harbor seals,

advance notice and comment will not be

provided.

NMFS does not anticipate long-term

abandonment of Castro Rocks as

existing traffic noise from the Bridge,

commercial activities at the Chevron

Long Wharf, and considerable

recreational boating and commercial

shipping that currently occur within the

area have not caused long-term

abandonment. However, if long-term

abandonment were to occur at Castro

Rocks, which is the haulout location for

approximately 25 percent of the Bay

harbor seals, this should not result in

more than a negligible impact on either

Bay harbor seals, or on the Pacific

harbor seal stock itself. These animals

are likely to either haul-out at other Bay

haulouts or leave the Bay. As a result,

NMFS does not expect the incidental

harassment of harbor seals from

construction activities at the Bridge to

have more than a negligible impact on

the Pacific Coast harbor seal stock.

Furthermore, if any unauthorized

marine mammal taking (e.g., serious

injury or mortality) occurs as a result of

seismic retrofit construction activities,

CALTRANS will be subject to the

penalties of the MMPA and NMFS will

reevaluate the appropriateness of the

IHA before CALTRANS reapplies for a

new IHA next year, based on required

reports (see Reporting section).

Comment 11: In its May 19, 1999, letter

CALTRANS requested that the IHA

reauthorization be delayed until

September, 1999.

Response: NMFS noted that in its

November, 1998 IHA application that

CALTRANS’ work schedule did not

include seismic retrofit work on the

Bridge until the summer of 1999. In its

May 19, 1999, letter CALTRANS

noted that work would not begin until

February, 2000. That was later amended

to September, 2000. Because

construction work would not begin

prior to this time, and work would

progress from the west to east, marine

mammals would not be subject to

incidental harassment prior to that

month and therefore, an IHA is

unnecessary prior to that time. As a

result, NMFS has made the IHA

effective for 1 year commencing on

September 1, 2000. It should be noted

that this effective date in no way

amends the February 15 through July 31

work restrictions on work in the water

and on retrofit work on the Bridge

between piers 52 through 57; instead, it

authorizes the incidental harassment of

harbor seals and California sea lions

while work proceeds on other portions

of the Bridge.

Description of Habitat and Marine

Mammals Affected by the Activity

A description of the Bay ecosystem

and its associated marine mammals can

be found in the CALTRANS application

(CALTRANS 1997) and CALTRANS

(1996).

Castro Rocks are a small chain of

rocky islands located next to the Bridge

and approximately 1500 ft (460 m) north

of the Chevron Long Wharf. They

extend in a southwesterly direction for

approximately 800 ft (240 m) from pier

55. The rocks start at about 55 ft (17 m)

from pier 55 and end at approximately

250 ft (76 m) from pier 53. The chain of

rocks is exposed during low tides and

inundated during high tide.

Marine Mammals

General information on harbor seals

and other marine mammal species

found in Central California waters can

be found in Barlow et al. (1995). The

marine mammals likely to be found in

the Bridge area are limited to the

California sea lion and harbor seal.

The California sea lion primarily uses

the Central San Francisco Bay area to

feed. California sea lions are

periodically observed at Castro Rocks.

No pupping or regular haulouts occur in

the project area.

The harbor seal is the only marine

mammal species expected to be found

in the Bridge area. A detailed

description of harbor seals was provided

in the 1997 notification of proposed

authorization (62 FR 46480, September

3, 1997) and is not repeated here.

Corrections and clarifications to the

proposed authorization were provided

in the notice of IHA issuance (62 FR

67045, December 23, 1997).

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals

The impact to the harbor seals and

California sea lions is expected to be

disturbance by the presence of workers,

construction noise, and construction

vessel traffic. Disturbance from these

activities is expected to have a shortterm negligible impact to a small

number of harbor seals and sea lions.

These disturbances will be reduced to

the lowest level practicable by

implementation of the proposed work

restrictions and mitigation measures

(see Mitigation).

During the work period, harbor seal

and, on rare occasions, California sea

lion incidental harassment is expected

to occur on a daily basis upon initiation

of the retrofit work. If harbor seals no

longer perceive construction noise and

activity as being threatening, they are

likely to resume their regular hauling

out behavior. The number of seals

disturbed will vary daily depending

upon tidal elevations. It is expected that

disturbance to harbor seals during peak

periods of abundance will not occur

since construction activities will not

take place within the restricted work

area during the peak period (see

Mitigation).

Whether California sea lions will react

to construction noise and move away

from the rocks during construction

activities is unknown. Sea lions are

generally thought to be more tolerant of

human activities than harbor seals and

are, therefore, likely to be less affected.

Potential Effects on Habitat

Short-term impacts of the activities

are expected to result in a temporary

reduction in utilization of the Castro

Rocks haul out site while work is in

progress or until seals acclimate to the

disturbance. This will not likely result

in any permanent reduction in the

number of seals at Castro Rocks. The

abandonment of Castro Rocks as a

harbor seal haul out and rookery is not

anticipated since existing traffic noise

from the Bridge, commercial activities at

the Chevron Long Wharf used for offloading crude oil, and considerable

recreational boating and commercial

shipping that currently occur within the

area have not caused long-term

abandonment. In addition, mitigation

measures and proposed work

restrictions are designed to preclude

abandonment.

Therefore, as described in detail in

CALTRANS (1996), other than the

potential short-term abandonment by

harbor seals of part or all of Castro

Rocks during retrofit construction, no

impact on the habitat or food sources of

marine mammals are likely from this

construction project.

Mitigation

Several mitigation measures to reduce

the potential for general noise will be

implemented by CALTRANS as part of

their activity. General restrictions

include: with the exception of the CTS,

no piles will be driven (i.e., no

repetitive pounding of piles) on the

Bridge between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.; an

imposition of a construction noise limit

of 86 dBA at 50 ft (15 m) between 9 p.m.

and 7 a.m.; and, a limitation on

construction noise levels for 24 hrs/day

in the vicinity of Castro Rocks during

the pupping/molting restriction period.

To minimize potential harassment of

marine mammals, NMFS proposes to

require CALTRANS to comply with the

following mitigation measures: (1) A

February 15 through July 31 restriction

2380 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Notices

on work in the water south of the Bridge

center line and retrofit work on the

Bridge substructure, towers,

superstructure, piers, and pilings from

piers 52 through 57; (2) no watercraft

will be deployed by CALTRANS

employees or contractors, during the

year within the exclusion zone located

between piers 52 and 57, except for

when construction equipment is

required for seismic retrofitting of piers

52 through 57; and (3) minimize vessel

traffic to the greatest extent practicable

in the exclusion zone when conducting

construction activities between piers 52

and 57. The boundary of the exclusion

zone is rectangular in shape (1700 ft

(518 m) by 800 ft (244 m)) and

completely encloses Castro Rocks and

piers 52 through 57, inclusive. The

northern boundary of the exclusion

zone will be located 300 ft (91 m) from

the most northern tip of Castro Rocks,

and the southern boundary will be

located 300 ft (91 m) from the most

southern tip of Castro Rocks. The

eastern boundary will be located 300 ft

(91 m) from the most eastern tip of

Castro Rocks, and the western boundary

will be located 300 ft (91 m) from the

most western tip of Castro Rocks. This

exclusion zone will be restricted as a

controlled access area and will be

marked off with buoys and warning

signs for the entire year.

Monitoring

NMFS will require CALTRANS to

monitor the impact of seismic retrofit

construction activities on harbor seals at

Castro Rocks. Monitoring will be

conducted by one or more NMFSapproved monitors. CALTRANS is to

monitor at least one additional harbor

seal haulout within San Francisco Bay

to evaluate whether harbor seals use

alternative hauling-out areas as a result

of seismic retrofit disturbance at Castro

Rocks.

The monitoring protocol will be

divided into the Work Period Phase

(August 1 through February 14) and the

Closure Period Phase (February 15

through July 31). During the Work

Period Phase and Closure Period Phase,

the monitor(s) will conduct observations

of seal behavior at least 3 days/week for

approximately one tidal cycle each day

at Castro Rocks. The following data will

be recorded: (1) Number of seals and sea

lions on site; (2) date; (3) time; (4) tidal

height; (5) number of adults, subadults,

and pups; (6) number of individuals

with red pelage; (7) number of females

and males; (8) number of molting seals;

and (9) details of any observed

disturbances. Concurrently, the

monitor(s) will record general

construction activity, location, duration,

and noise levels. At least 2 nights/week,

the monitor will conduct a harbor seal

census after midnight at Castro Rocks.

In addition, during the Work Period

Phase and prior to any construction

between piers 52 and 57, inclusive, the

monitor(s) will conduct baseline

observations of seal behavior at Castro

Rocks and at the alternative site(s) once

a day for a period of 5 consecutive days

immediately before the initiation of

construction in the area to establish preconstruction behavioral patterns. During

the Work Period and Closure Period

Phases, the monitor(s) will conduct

observations of seal behavior, and

collect appropriate data, at the

alternative Bay harbor seal haulout at

least 3 days/week (Work Period) and 2

days/week (Closure Period), during a

low tide.

In addition, NMFS proposes to

require that, immediately following the

completion of the seismic retrofit

construction of the Bridge, the

monitor(s) will conduct observations of

seal behavior, at Castro Rocks, at least

5 days/week for approximately 1 tidal

cycle (high tide to high tide) each day,

for one week/month during the months

of April, July, October, and January. At

least 2 nights/week during this same

period, the monitor will conduct an

additional harbor seal census after

midnight.

Reporting

CALTRANS will provide weekly

reports to the Southwest Regional

Administrator (Regional Administrator),

NMFS, including a summary of the

previous week’s monitoring activities

and an estimate of the number of harbor

seals that may have been disturbed as a

result of seismic retrofit construction

activities. These reports will provide

dates, time, tidal height, maximum

number of harbor seals ashore, number

of adults, sub-adults and pups, number

of females/males, number of redcoats,

and any observed disturbances. A

description of retrofit activities at the

time of observation and any sound

pressure levels measurements made at

the haulout will also be provided. A

draft interim report must be submitted

to NMFS by April 30, 2001.

Because seismic retrofit activities are

expected to continue beyond the date of

expiration of this IHA (presumably

under a new IHA), a draft final report

must be submitted to the Regional

Administrator within 90 days after the

expiration of this IHA. A final report

must be submitted to the Regional

Administrator within 30 days after

receiving comments from the Regional

Administrator on the draft final report.

If no comments are received from

NMFS, the draft final report will be

considered to be the final report.

CALTRANS will provide NMFS with

a follow-up report on the postconstruction monitoring activities

within 18 months of project completion

in order to evaluate whether haul-out

patterns are similar to the pre-retrofit

haul-out patterns at Castro Rocks.

National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS prepared an EA in 1997 that

concluded that the impacts of

CALTRANS’ seismic retrofit

construction of the Bridge will not have

a significant impact on the human

environment. A copy of that EA, which

includes the Finding of No Significant

Impact is available upon request (see

ADDRESSES).

Conclusions

NMFS has determined that the shortterm impact of the seismic retrofit

construction of the Bridge, as described

in this document, should result, at

worst, in the temporary modification in

behavior by harbor seals and, possibly,

by some California sea lions. While

behavioral modifications, including

temporarily vacating the haul-out, may

be made by these species to avoid the

resultant visual and acoustic

disturbance, this action is expected to

have a negligible impact on the animals.

In addition, no take by injury and/or

death is anticipated, and harassment

takes will be at the lowest level

practicable due to incorporation of the

mitigation measures mentioned above.

Since NMFS is assured that the taking

will not result in more than the

incidental harassment (as defined by the

MMPA) of small numbers of Pacific

harbor seals and, possibly, of California

sea lions, would not have an

unmitigable adverse impact on the

availability of these stocks for

subsistence uses, and would result in

the least practicable impact on the

stocks, NMFS has determined that the

requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D)

have been met and the authorization can

be issued.

Authorization

For the above reasons, NMFS has

issued an IHA for a 1-year period

beginning September 1, 2000, for the

incidental harassment of harbor seals

and California sea lions by the seismic

retrofit of the Richmond-San Rafael

Bridge, San Francisco Bay, California,

provided the above mentioned

mitigation, monitoring and reporting

requirements mentioned earlier are

incorporated.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Notices 2381

Dated: January 8, 2000.

Donald R. Knowles,

Director, Office of Protected Resources,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–953 Filed 1–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 011100A]

New England Fishery Management

Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery

Management Council (Council) is

scheduling a public meeting of its

Capacity Committee. Recommendations

from the Committee will be brought to

the full Council for formal consideration

and action, if appropriate.

DATES: The meeting will be held on

February 2, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management Foundry

Offices, 235 Promenade Street, 4th Floor,

Room C, Providence, Rhode Island;

telephone: (401) 222–6605 ext. 2412.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

J. Howard, Executive Director,

telephone: (978) 465–04922.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Committee will continue its exploration

of fishing capacity issues. The

Committee will begin to review

available information that may indicate

the status of capacity in New England

fisheries. Committee members will also

begin to prioritize the problems caused

by excess capacity in New England

fisheries, and will begin to identify

possible solutions to identified

problems. The Committee will also

review the number of permits held by

vessels in order to characterize the

amount of flexibility that fishermen

have to move between fisheries.

Although non-emergency issues not

contained in this agenda may come

before the Council for discussion, those

issues may not be the subject of formal

Council action during this meeting.

Council action will be restricted to those

issues specifically listed in this

document and any issues arising after

publication of this document that

require emergency action under section

305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act,

provided the public has been notified of

the Council’s intent to take final action

to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

This meeting is physically accessible

to people with disabilities. Requests for

sign language interpretation or other

auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul

J. Howard, New England Fishery

Management Council, 50 Water Street,

Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950;

telephone: (978) 465–0492 at least 5

days prior to the meeting dates.

Dated: January 11, 2000.

Richard W. Surdi,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–954 Filed 1–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 010400B]

Endangered Species; Permits

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Receipt of applications for

scientific research permits (1229, 1231);

issuance of modifications to existing

permits (895, 900, 946, 1193, 1213).

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the

following actions regarding permits for

takes of endangered and threatened

species for the purposes of scientific

research and/or enhancement:

NMFS has received scientific research

permit applications from Northern

Wasco County People’s Utility District

at The Dalles, OR (NWCPUD)(1229), and

Dr. Llewellyn M. Ehrhart, of the

University of Central Florida (LMEUCF) (1231); and NMFS has issued

modifications to scientific research and/

or enhancement permits to: U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District

at Walla Walla, WA (COE)(895),

Northwest Fisheries Science Center,

National Marine Fisheries Service at

Seattle, WA (NWFSC)(900, 946, 1213),

and the Fish Passage Center at Portland,

OR (FPC)(1193).

DATES: Comments or requests for a

public hearing on either of the new

applications must be received at the

appropriate address or fax number no

later than 5:00pm eastern standard time

on February 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on either

of the new applications should be sent

to the appropriate office as indicated

below. Comments may also be sent via

fax to the number indicated for the

application. Comments will not be

accepted if submitted via e-mail or the

internet. The applications and related

documents are available for review in

the indicated office, by appointment:

For permits 895, 900, 946, 1193, 1213,

and 1229: Protected Resources Division,

F/NWO3, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite

500, Portland, OR 97232–2737 (ph: 503–

230–5400, fax: 503–230–5435).

For permit 1231: Office of Protected

Resources, Endangered Species

Division, F/PR3, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (ph:

301–713–1401, fax: 301–713–0376).

Documents may also be reviewed by

appointment in the Office of Protected

Resources, F/PR3, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910–3226 (301–713–1401).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For permit 1231: Terri Jordan, Silver

Spring, MD (ph: 301–713–1401, fax:

301–713–0376, e-mail:

Terri.Jordan@noaa.gov).

For permits 900, 946, 1193, and 1229:

Leslie Schaeffer, Portland, OR (ph: 503–

230–5433, fax: 503–230–5435, e-mail:

Leslie.Schaeffer@noaa.gov).

For permits 895 and 1213: Robert

Koch, Portland, OR (ph: 503–230–5424,

fax: 503–230–5435, e-mail:

Robert.Koch@noaa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority

Issuance of permits and permit

modifications, as required by the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

U.S.C. 1531–1543) (ESA), is based on a

finding that such permits/modifications:

(1) Are applied for in good faith; (2)

would not operate to the disadvantage

of the listed species which are the

subject of the permits; and (3) are

consistent with the purposes and

policies set forth in section 2 of the

ESA. Authority to take listed species is

subject to conditions set forth in the

permits. Permits and modifications are

issued in accordance with and are

subject to the ESA and NMFS

regulations governing listed fish and

wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222–226).

Those individuals requesting a

hearing on an application listed in this

notice should set out the specific

reasons why a hearing on that

application would be appropriate (see

ADDRESSES). The holding of such

hearing is at the discretion of the

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

NOAA. All statements and opinions

contained in the permit action

summaries are those of the applicant