Chapter IV — Marine Mammal-Fisheries Interactions 



The Commission agreed that the system for catego- 

 rizing fisheries should reflect the impact that a fishery 

 or a combination of fisheries is having on marine 

 mammal stocks. However, the Commission cautioned 

 that the regulations must track the statutory provision, 

 which seems to anticipate that fisheries will be classi- 

 fied based on take rates rather than on absolute 

 numbers of marine mammals taken. The Commission 

 also expressed concern that the rigid, numerically 

 based categorization system proposed by the Service 

 would not provide the flexibility needed to categorize 

 fisheries appropriately in all instances. This would 

 pose particular problems when the potential biological 

 removal level for an affected stock was either very 

 large or relatively small. Depending on the species 

 taken, a fishery could be placed in category I if it 

 took only one or two individuals per year. At the 

 other extreme, a fishery with only a small number of 

 vessels and a limited season could annually take 

 hundreds or even thousands of marine mammals from 

 a large stock and not be placed in category I. 



To address these problems, the Commission 

 recommended that the categorization system be made 

 more flexible by looking not only at the number of 

 mortalities and serious injuries relative to a stock's 

 potential biological removal level, but also by includ- 

 ing some elements of the categorization system under 

 the interim exemption that consider the number of 

 mortalities and serious injuries per vessel-day. In the 

 Commission's view, looking at overall take rates as 

 well as the impacts to individual stocks would be 

 more in keeping with the statutory criteria for classi- 

 fying fisheries. 



The Commission also noted that the proposed rule 

 did not include a reliable means of estimating fishing 

 effort. The Commission noted that if its recommen- 

 dation to consider take rates as well as numbers were 

 adopted, and if reliable effort data were not otherwise 

 available, the proposed rule would need to be revised 

 so that the Service could obtain the information neces- 

 sary to estimate take rates from fishermen's reports 

 and other data-gathering programs under the inciden- 

 tal-take regime. In the Commission's view, reliable 

 effort data also seems necessary in order to extrapo- 

 late the total number of mortalities and serious injuries 

 in a fishery from take rates observed in its monitoring 

 program even if the selected categorization option is 



based entirely on the number of marine mammals 

 killed and seriously injured in a fishery. The Com- 

 mission therefore recommended that the Service 

 explain in the final rule how it will obtain reliable 

 effort data for the covered fisheries. 



The Commission also questioned the proposed 

 demarcation between category I and category II 

 fisheries (50 percent of a stock's potential biological 

 removal level). The analysis of the various alterna- 

 tives in the proposed rule and the accompanying 

 environmental assessment considered only the number 

 of fisheries that would be placed in each category 

 under each alternative, not the possible impacts to 

 marine mammal stocks under the various options. 

 Thus, it was not possible to determine the relative 

 advantages and disadvantages of the various alterna- 

 tives. Absent such an analysis and a more thorough 

 rationale for adopting the 50 percent threshold, the 

 Commission suggested that a more conservative break 

 point be adopted. 



Another potential problem identified by the Com- 

 mission was how fisheries would be defined. Because 

 the proposed classification system looked at the 

 number of marine mammals taken relative to the 

 potential biological removal level for a stock rather 

 than the rate of taking, a fishery could be downgraded 

 merely by subdividing it into two or more fisheries. 

 That is, a category I fishery could be downgraded 

 simply by redefining it into two or more category II 

 fisheries. The Commission therefore cautioned that 

 the classification of fisheries should be based on an 

 objective and logical system that looks at the target 

 species, gear type, affected marine mammal stocks, 

 and the region involved. The effect on marine 

 mammal stocks should be the guiding principle, not 

 other non-biological criteria. 



The Service proposed excluding any intentional 

 lethal taking when classifying fisheries, inasmuch as 

 such taking is prohibited by the 1994 amendments. 

 The Commission agreed with this proposal but recom- 

 mended that, where exclusion of previously document- 

 ed levels of intentional lethal taking resulted in placing 

 a fishery in a lower category than under the interim 

 exemption, the Service should monitor the fishery 

 sufficiently to detect and respond to any illegal 

 intentional taking until such time as there is justifica- 



93 



