133 



2) Under H.R. 2760, the Endangered Species Aot and P.L. 99-625 

 would govern the incidental taking of California sea otters 

 during commercial fishing operations. If at some future time the 

 California Sea Otter is delisted, and is no longer covered under 

 the ESA, would P.L. 99-625 be sufficient to govern this taking? 



It is questionable whether P.L. 99-625 would provide 

 adequate authority to govern incidental taking in commercial 

 fisheries if the California sea otter population was not listed 

 under the Endangered Species Act. This uncertainty could be 

 overcome by changing proposed section 118(a)(4) of H.R. 2760 to 

 read something like — 



"(4) The provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

 and P.L. 99-625 and not this section shall govern the 

 incidental taking of California sea otters during the course 

 of commercial fishing operations, until such time as the 

 California sea otter population is removed from the List of 

 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife." 



3) What are the implications for the shellfish fisheries of 

 California should the U.S. Fish and wildlife service abandon the 

 San Nicolas Island sea otter translocation and the "no sea otter" 

 management zone established by P.L. 99-625 especially if the sea 

 otter is delisted at a future time? 



If the San Nicolas island translocation is abandoned 

 (determined to be a failure) , the Fish and Wildlife Service would 

 be required to use all feasible, non-lethal means to capture any 

 animals remaining at San Nicolas Island and in the management 

 zone, and to return those animals to the parent population. 

 After this is done, management authority would revert to the 

 provisions of the Endangered species Act and the Marine Mammal 

 Protection Act. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, taking 

 from depleted species can be authorized only for purposes of 

 enhancement and scientific research, and incidental to activities 

 other than commercial fishing when the taking involves only small 

 numbers and would have negligible effects. As noted in the 

 response to question 1 above, taking to limit range expansion, 

 south as well as north, would be prohibited until such time as 

 the population is found to be within its optimum sustainable 

 population range, or Congress authorizes taking to limit range 

 expansion as it did in P.L. 99-625. 



Should H.R. 2760 specifically prohibit intentional shooting of 

 marine mammals? 



intent 



At present, the Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibits 

 tionally shooting marine mammals, except (a) by Alaska 



