MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1991 



groups and would be made available for public review 

 and comment. The life history and population data 

 contained in the final stock assessment reports would 

 be used to calculate the allowable biological removal 

 level. 



The allowable biological removal level calculated 

 for each stock would be allocated aimually by the 

 Service among the various user groups. The Service 

 proposed to give priority to those takes that it could 

 not control, such as subsistence harvests of non- 

 depleted marine mammals, collisions with ships, and 

 incidental takes by foreign fisheries outside the U.S. 

 Exclusive Economic Zone. All or part of the remain- 

 ing allowable biological removal would be allocated to 

 "controllable" activities such as commercial fishing, 

 public display, and scientific research. Allocations 

 would be based on an assessment of need, economic 

 impacts, historic take levels, and the ability of the 

 user group to reduce its level of take. 



Further division of the portion of the allowable 

 biological removal allocated to commercial fisheries 

 would be made for individual fisheries. The Service 

 proposed to establish Regional Quota Boards com- 

 prised of representatives of the Service, the Fish and 

 Wildlife Service, the Marine Mammal Conunission, 

 Regional Fishery Management Councils, state fishery 

 agencies, and appropriate Indian tribes, to recommend 

 incidental take quotas for each fishery. The Regional 

 Quota Boards would seek the views of fishing industry 

 representatives, enviroiunental groups, and other 

 interested parties before making recommendations to 

 the Service. Based upon the advice of the Regional 

 Quota Boards, the Service would issue final quotas for 

 each fishery. In no case, however, could the sum of 

 the fishery quotas exceed that portion of the allowable 

 biological removal allocated to commercial fisheries. 



By letter of 23 September 1991, the Marine 

 Mammal Commission, in consultation with its Com- 

 mittee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals, 

 provided the Service with detailed comments on the 

 proposed regime and the associated Draft Legislative 

 Environmental Impact Statement. The Commission 

 noted that most parts of the proposal were conceptual- 

 ly sound, but that, in some cases, the proposal was 

 not explained in sufficient detail to allow critical 

 evaluation. For example, determining a stock's status 

 relative to its carrying capacity level would be one of 



the key elements in calculating allowable biological 

 removal levels, yet the criteria, minimum data, or 

 procedures that would be used to make such determi- 

 nations were not presented. These determinations 

 would, in effect, constitute (/e^cro judgments of the 

 stock's status relative to its optimum sustainable 

 population. As such, the Commission reconmiended 

 that they be based upon clearly articulated criteria and 

 be made using procedures that afford an opportunity 

 for full scrutiny of the evidence before the agency, 

 provide for independent review of the data, and 

 require a complete explanation of the rationale for the 

 determinations made. 



The Commission also noted that it was not clear 

 how the proposed regime would deal with situations 

 in which marine mammal carrying capacity has been 

 reduced by overharvesting of prey species or other 

 types of habitat degradation or destruction caused by 

 commercial fisheries, coastal development, offshore 

 oil and gas development, or other activities. In 

 addition, while the Service's proposal addressed 

 mortalities and other removals of animals from wild 

 populations, it did not indicate how noise disturbance 

 and other forms of harassment, which may indirectly 

 result in decreased survival and productivity, would 

 be considered. 



The Commission also noted problems with the 

 proposed formula for calculating allowable biological 

 removal levels. The Service, in calculating the 

 allowable biological removal level, proposed to use 

 the "best estimate of the stock's net production rate at 

 the population level where net productivity is maxi- 

 mized" even in those situations when the population is 

 known to be declining or the actual growth rate is 

 known to be less than the estimated maximum growth 

 rate and when there is uncertainty as to whether the 

 decline or reduced growth rate is due to some factor i 

 other than incidental take by commercial fisheries. 

 Another potential problem with the proposed regime 

 noted by the Commission was its failure to account 

 for the age and sex, as well as the number, of animals 

 that may be taken, when calculating allowable bio- 

 logical removal levels. 



Despite claims that the proposed regime was 

 conservative, it would allow the Service to authorize 

 incidental take for indefinite periods of time, even 

 when there may be substantial uncertainties concem- 



88 



