participants are discussed in Chapter VI of this Report. As 

 regards harbor porpoise, Workshop participants concluded that 

 priority action should be taken to compile and evaluate 

 available information concerning population discreteness, 

 abundance, productivity, and incidental take in California 

 coastal waters, and that this information should be used to 

 determine what, if any, level of incidental take might be 

 authorized while ensuring that no potentially discrete harbor 

 porpoise population is reduced below its maximum net 

 productivity level. The Workshop participants further 

 concluded that, if available information appears insufficient 

 to make these determinations, additional fishery surveys, 

 demographic studies, and/or taxonomic and genetic studies 

 should be done, as a matter of priority, to determine whether 

 the harbor porpoise population or populations in California 

 have been or are being affected adversely by incidental take 

 in coastal set net fisheries. The Workshop also identified 

 ways by which fishermen might be able to reduce the 

 incidental take of harbor porpoise through use of alternative 

 fishing practices and/or alternative gear. 



Following the Workshop, the Commission reviewed the 

 results of discussions pertaining to harbor porpoise and the 

 Service's 15 January response to its proposed radio-tagging 

 and tracking program for harbor porpoise. Based on its 

 review, the Commission concluded that radio-tagging and 

 tracking may provide information necessary to determine the 

 relative discreteness of harbor porpoise populations in 

 California. Such information might also be useful in identi- 

 fying ways in which interactions between harbor porpoise and 

 fisheries might be avoided. Therefore, the Commission 

 contracted for a study to assess and, as possible, develop 

 and test techniques for capturing, marking, radio-tagging, 

 and tracking harbor porpoise in the waters off central and 

 northern California. This study is discussed in greater 

 detail in Chapter II of this Report. 



By the end of 1986, there had been little apparent 

 progress toward determining and mitigating the impact of the 

 incidental take on the harbor porpoise. Accordingly, on 23 

 December 1986, the Commission wrote to the National Marine 

 Fisheries Service again expressing its concerns. In the 

 letter, the Commission noted that, as of that date, the 

 Service had not: (1) assessed the status of the affected 

 population or populations of harbor porpoise; (2) determined 

 if the incidental take has caused or may be causing any 

 populations to be reduced or maintained below their level of 

 maximum net productivity; or (3) issued a general permit 

 authorizing any incidental take of the species. The 

 Commission pointed out that, in addition to the biological 

 impacts on the populations, the lack of a general permit made 

 all taking of harbor porpoise along the U.S. west coast 



133 



