167 



In Reply Refer To: 

 FWS/FWE/DES 



Dr. wnilim W. fox. Jr. 



Assiitint Adtiini5tr«tor for FIsherlai m.'\"3 2 4 ''^? 



National Marine Fisheries Service 



1335 East-Vest Highway. Root) 9334 



Silver Spring. Maryland 20910 



Dear Bill: 



The Department of the Interior rtctntly provided cotments to Dr. Cfcarlei 

 Kantella on the National Marine Fishirlis Scrvlct's (NHFS) revised draft of 

 the Proposed Regime to Govern Incidental Taking of Marine Mannils in 

 Coenerclal Fishing Operations (cop/ enclosed). However. I felt It slight 

 be useful if I wrote to you directly about concerns the Fish and Ulltilife 

 Service (Service) has with the proposal as 1t relates to southern sea oit«r$ 

 and Wc't Indian manatees, both of which are protected under the Endangered 

 Species Act (ESA). If lapltnenttd, we are conccrneo that the rtoliw 

 proposed by NNFS will undermine hard won conservation ncatures already 

 established for these species. 



TTie decline of the California sea otter population from the i)1d-1970's to 

 ■iid-1983's has been largely attributed to accidental drownings In fishing 

 nets. It was only after the 1990 California closure of gill an4 traiMMl 

 net fishino within the 30 fathon contour that soit if not all incidental 

 take was elininated within the sea otter range, effectively achieving the 

 zero mortality goal of the Marine Maiwal Protection Act (♦•IPA) and the draft 

 revised recovery plan. Congress acknowledged the adverse icpact of 

 comercial fisheries on southern sea otter populations when it exprcsslv 

 excluded then froii the 5-ycar connercial fishery exeaiption granted In tne 

 1966 amendments to the MMPA. I suggest that this establishes a precedent 

 for excluding from the proposed regime endangered and threatened sfccies 

 known to be highly vulnerable to incidental take by coanercial fiskerles. 



Further, In 19B6. Congress passed Public Lew 99-fiZS authorizing the 

 establishment of an experlnental population of southern see ortters. This 

 special legislation, which Is independent of the fflPA and ESA. includes 

 zonal nanagenent whereby Incidental take is prohibited In the translvcatlon 

 area around San Nicolas Island. Outside this area In the 'management 

 zone,* Intentional take Is prohibited, but incidental take, such as by 

 connarcial fisheries. Is not a violation of the CSA. We believe tHe 

 proposed regime, were It applicable to southern sea otters, would ^sslbly 

 conflict with the translocation law. 



