[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 210 (Monday, October 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64670-64674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27822]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 pre-exploitation 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

[[Page 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 human-caused 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

[[Page 64672]]

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)

[[Page 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.

[[Page 64674]]

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 NMFS-SWFSC-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