56 



The NMFS proposal sought to channel funds to those fisheries which have the 

 highest known levels of interaction with marine mammal stocks. The Proposal 

 slightly shifts this focus to mammal populations in trouble, for which direct human- 

 caused mortality may be a problem. TTie intent of the Negotiators was to use the 

 conservation program to prevent, to the extent practicable, a listing of the species 

 under the ESA. Hi^ levels of take for mammal populations which are increasing 

 or large should also be addressed (i.e. Matrix Class 3), but the Negotiators agreed 

 that limited Federal funding should be available first to respond to mammal popu- 

 lations with serious problems. 



The Proposal requires the Secretary to publish an initial rule setting forth stock 

 assessments, estimates of take, lists of interacting fisheries and a designation of 

 critical and noncritical stocks. This list is to be based on the best information avail- 

 able and is to be updated on an annual basis as better information is received. The 

 proposal also requires an annual peer review of the data compiled and used by 

 NMFS in the Matrix ranking system, as well as other information provided by 

 NMFS to the conservation teams. This peer review is to be accomplished by a Sci- 

 entific Evaluation Working Group. 



CONSERVATION OF "CRITICAL STOCKS" 



The Proposal does not set forth a comprehensive regime to monitor and observe 

 all interactions between fishermen and marine mammals populations. Rather, it 

 provides a decisionmaking framework and management regime to respond to most 

 critical interaction situations. The Proposal focuses Federal attention and resources 

 where the level of total direct lethal mortality is having a significant impact on ma- 

 rine mammal populations in trouble. 



Statutory Performance Benchmarks 



The Secretary of Commerce is assigned the responsibility to assure that the statu- 

 tory benchmarks are being achieved by the parties in question. The benchmarks are 

 as follows: (1) Total lethal takes must be reduced as quickly as possible to the Cal- 

 culated Removal level; (2) the fishing industry must develop a strate^ to reduce 

 incidental mortality rates to insignificant levels approaching zero withm ten years 

 (referred to as the Zero Rate Mortality (joal). (Conservation Teams, page 10). 



The Secretary is required to monitor the performance of the industry with respect 

 to the Zero Rate Mortality Goa\. Three years from the date of enactment of the leg- 

 islation codifying this proposal, the Secretary must determine whether significant 

 progress has occurred, and must undertake regulatory actions as necessary to force 

 compliance with the statutory benchmark. (Response for All Stocks, pg. 13). 



Involvement of "stakeholders" 



The proposal provides the Secretary with a mechanism to involve the significant 

 stakeholders in the formulation of the strategy to meet these two statutory bench- 

 marks. The stakeholders are considered to be the fishing industry, environmental 

 groups, Alaska Natives and Treaty Tribes, coastal communities and state interests. 

 The intent behind this heightened involvement in the process is to reduce confronta- 

 tion and encourage a cooperative efTort to resolve any problems between marine 

 users and the mammal resource. By involving the stakeholders, the Federal govern- 

 ment is more likely to receive support for conservation efforts within the affected 

 communities and interest groups. 



The intent to foster cooperation of the stakeholders is embodied in the Conserva- 

 tion Team concept. A team comprised of Federal and State officials, academic ex- 

 perts, and stakeholders would be convened by the Secretary of Commerce. The Sec- 

 retary would have the direct authority to identify Team members. The Secretary 

 would have the responsibility to assure balanced representation on the Conservation 

 Team. (Convene the Team, pp. 10-11). 



A number of issues have arisen with respect to administrative, financial and polit- 

 ical restraints in convening such teams. The first centers around limited Federal 

 funding for the implementation of the MMPA Program. If the formation and admin- 

 istration of the conservation teams become too complex and cumbersome, the admin- 

 istrative costs could conceivably dilute the scop)e and breadth of the program. The 

 Gulf Coalition recognizes these concerns as valid. 



We suggest that regional conservation teams be formed when to do so would bring 

 economies of scale to the conservation effort and make it more cost effective. In 

 Alaska the core conservation team might include a fishery manager and biologist 

 from NMFS, a fishery manager and biologist from the State of Alaska, and one ma- 

 rine mammal academic. Subgroups of stakeholders could then be formed for specific 

 mammal populations as part of the discussion with the core group. The participation 



