20 



tional Marine Fisheries Service for a regime to govern marine mammal-fisheries 

 interactions after the interim exemption expires on 30 September 1993. The Com- 

 mission's recommended guidelines were based upon the guidance provided by Con- 

 gress in Section 114(Z)(1) of the Act. 



The guidelines provided by the Commission were used bv the National Marine 

 Fisheries Service to help develop its Proposed Regime to Govern Interactions Be- 

 tween Marine Mammals and Commercial Fishing Operations. The Service's pro- 

 posal, forwarded to Congress in December 1992, tracks and is generally consistent 

 with the recommended guidelines provided by the Commission. 



The alternative proposal provided by representatives of the U.S. fishing industry 

 and certain environmental groups is similar to the National Marine Fisheries Serv- 

 ice's proposal in many respects. Both, for example, would afford priority attention 

 to stocks that are endangered or threatened and likely to be jeopardized further, or 

 are Ukely to become endangered or threatened, if steps are not taken to limit inci- 

 dental take. Also, both would continue the present Mlarine Mammal Protection Act 

 goal of reducing the mortality and serious injury of marine mammals incidental to 

 commercial fishing operations to insignificant levels approaching zero. Likewise, 

 both proposals would authorize the incidental take of depleted as well as non-de- 

 pleted species in certain situations, and would establish a clear procedure for con- 

 servatively estimating biologically acceptable removal levels when the status of the 

 affected stocks are unknown or uncertain. However, the proposals differ in a num- 

 ber of substantive ways. 



The major differences are that under the joint industry/environmental community 

 proposal: 



1. vessel owners would not be required to register vessels that engage in fisheries 

 which have more than a remote likelihood of taking marine mammals, and would 

 not be in violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act if they engaged in such 

 fisheries without registering; 



2. marine mammal stocks which interact with fisheries would be classified ac- 

 cording to their size and trends. Fisheries would not be classified according to the 

 frequencies that they take marine mammals. Marine mammal stocks that are en- 

 dangered or threatened and likely to be further jeopardized, or are likely to become 

 endangered or threatened, as a result of incidental taking in the course of commer- 

 cial fishing operations would be designated as critical stocks and receive priority at- 

 tention. If the size and trend of the stock are unknown, the stock could not be des- 

 ignated critical, even if the incidental take rate were known or thought to be very 

 high; 



3. conservation teams would be established to develop conservation plans for each 

 stock designated as a critical stock, but not listed as endangered or threatened 

 under the Endangered Species Act. The teams would include representatives of the 

 affected fisheries and interested environmental groups. The principal responsibility 

 of the conservation teams would be to describe and overview implementation of pro- 

 grams to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals in the course of commer- 

 cial fishing operations to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and seri- 

 ous injury rate, within ten years; 



4. fishermen would be authorized to take marine mammals not listed as endan- 

 gered or threatened, without restriction, provided they report anv lethal taking, 

 until such times as conservation teams are constituted and agree that taking must 

 be restricted to prevent the affected stock from becoming endangered or threatened, 

 and the National Marine Fisheries Service promulgates regulations to restrict take; 



5. no consideration is given to the possibility that current levels of take are great- 

 er than the biologically acceptable level and that it therefore may be necessary to 

 establish a process for allocating the allowable take among a number of fisheries 

 and other user groups; 



6. the National Marine Fisheries Service would be given discretionary authority, 

 but would not be required, to develop and implement an observer program or a pro- 

 gram for assessing and monitoring the status of the affected marine mammal stocks; 

 and 



7. the National Marine Fisheries Service would be unable to require maintenance 

 and submission of logbooks or other records that could be used to estimate fishing 

 effort, unless such information cannot be obtained through other presently existing 

 programs — e.g., state licensing programs. 



Tne proposal from the Marine Mammal Protection Coalition calls for continuing 

 the pre-1988 ban on issuing permits authorizing the incidental take of endangered 

 and threatened spjecies. In addition, it calls for mandatory registration of all fishing 

 vessels; continuation of a mandatory observer program; and development of a long- 

 range program to assess and monitor the affected marine mammal stocks. 



