scientific peer review and provide opportunity for public participa- 

 tion. Further, it will ensure that available funding and personnel 

 are focused on the most critical problems. 



Although the Commission believes that the Service's proposal is 

 both practical and conceptually sound, it is not sure how several 

 aspects of the proposed regime would, in fact, work in practice. It is 

 not clear, for example, how the Service would identify or in status 

 of stocks reports take into account habitat degradation or destruc- 

 tion resulting from such things as coastal development, offshore oil 

 and gas development, or fishery caused declines in important 

 marine mammal prey species. Also, it is not clear how the stock 

 assessments would consider possible subtle decreases in survival or 

 productivity that could result from repeated disturbance from envi- 

 ronmental pollution or other factors that may have sublethal ef- 

 fects. 



Further, it is not clear whether the formula proposed to be used 

 to calculate the potential biological removal level would in all cases 

 prohibit authorizing take levels that could cause a population's 

 stock to be reduced or to be maintained below its maximum net 

 productivity level. If, for example, the growth potential for a popu- 

 lation is being affected by habitat degradation, repeated disturb- 

 ance, or some type of direct mortality not identified and included 

 in the estimation and allocation of total allowable take, use of the 

 default values proposed to be used to calculate the potential biolog- 

 ical removal when the population growth rate is unknown could 

 result in authorizing take levels which cannot be sustained and 

 which would not prevent the affected population from being re- 

 duced or maintained below its maximum net productivity level. 



In summary, the Commission believes that the Service's proposal 

 is both practical and conceptually sound but that several aspects 

 could usefully be clarified. Mr. Chairman, members of the commit- 

 tee, if there are any questions, I would be happy to try to answer 

 them. Thank you. 



[The prepared statement of Dr. Hofman may be found at the end 

 of the hearing.] 



Mr. Studds. Thank you very much, sir. Ms. Josephson, the 

 NMFS proposal states that "intentional lethal takes will be author- 

 ized to alleviate a demonstrated significant negative impact on a 

 fishery." Now, that seems contradictory to U.S. policy on commer- 

 cial whaling and to the provisions of the International Dolphin 

 Conservation Act which was passed last year. It also seems to be in 

 conflict with the goals of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, nor 

 are there any intentional lethal take provisions, as I am sure you 

 know, in the Endangered Species Act. 



On the other hand, the question of how best to manage the 

 marine mammal stocks that are reaching or have reached OSP and 

 are having detrimental impact on native fisheries or on endan- 

 gered fish stocks, as I understand it, is not addressed or remains 

 unanswered by the NMFS proposal. Can you give us an example of 

 an instance in which an intentional lethal take would be allowed 

 and the process by which the take would be authorized? 



Dr. Foster. The proposal states that we would allow intentional 

 lethal takes for personal safety in the case of cetaceans and inten- 

 tional lethal takes in the case of personal safety and the phrase 



