18 



mammal incidentally in the course of fishing and it can reasonably be shown that 

 the taking was not reported. 



Start-up: The regime proposed hv the National Marine Fisheries Service would 

 be phased in over several years. When fully implemented, it would prohibit taking 

 of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations, except when the 

 taking has been explicitly authorized and it has been determined, through appro- 

 priate rulemaking, that the authorized level of take, by itself and in combination 

 with other forms of taking, would not cause the affected-species or population stock 

 to be reduced or maintained below its maximum net productivity level. 



As the Commission understands it, the regime proposed by the fishing industry 

 and the environmental community would authorize fishermen to incidentally take 

 marine mammals not listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered 

 Species' Act, without restriction, provided they report any lethal take, until such 

 time as: conservation teams are constituted by the National Marine Fisheries Serv- 

 ice; the conservation teams agree and recommend to the Secretary that taking 

 should be restricted to prevent the affected stock from becoming endangered or 

 threatened; and the Secretary promulgates regulations to give effect to the conserva- 

 tion team's recommendations. The regime would require that the Secretary (the Na- 

 tional Marine Fisheries Service) complete stock assessments and designate critical 

 stocks within 90 days following enactment; that the Service establish and convene 

 conservation teams for all critical stocks (see below) within 120 days; that draft con- 

 servation plans and proposed regulations for implementing them be published for 

 public review and comment within 60 days after they are submitted by the con- 

 servation teams; and that the final conservation plans and implementing regula- 

 tions must be completed within 120 days after submission. There would Be no re- 

 strictions on the time that the conservation teams have to develop and submit con- 

 servation plans to the Secretary. 



As the Commission understands it, the principal purpose of the conservation 

 teams would be to establish and overview implementation of a long-term strategjy, 

 by fishery, for reducing incidental take to insignificant levels approaching zero with- 

 in ten years. The proposal also calls for conservation teams to recommend priorities 

 for long-term research programs, including research on predator/prey relationships. 

 Although the intent of this proposal is not explained, it suggests that industry and 

 environmental groups, like the Marine Mammal Commission, recognize that marine 

 mammals and fisheries interact indirectly, as well as directly, and that it eventually 

 will be necessary to assess, monitor, ana possibly regulate indirect as well as direct 

 interactions. 



Critical Stocks: Under the regime proposed by the fishing industry and environ- 

 mental community, those stocks that are endangered or threatened and likely to be 

 jeopardized further, or that are likely to become endangered or threatened, as a re- 

 sult of incidental taking in the course of commercial fishing operations would be 

 designated as critical stocks and receive priority attention. As the Commission un- 

 derstands it, there would have to be eviaence that population size is small and/or 

 declining before a stock would be designated critical. If stock size and trend were 

 unknown, a stock could not be designated critical, even if the incidental take rate 

 were known or thou^t to be very high. 



The National Marme Fisheries Service's proposed regime also would focus prioritv 

 attention on stocks that are, or are likely to become, endangered or threatened. 

 However, under the National Marine Fisheries Service's proposal, fisheries also 

 would be classified according to the frequency that they take marine mammals. The 

 level of take as well as the status of the affected marine mammal stocks both would 

 be considered when deciding where research and management efforts should be fo- 

 cused. Thus, the regime proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service is much 

 more likely than the regime proposed by the fishing industry and the environmental 

 community to identify and deal with interactions before tney cause obvious popu- 

 lation declines and require severe remedial measures, possibly including prohibi- 

 tions on fishing. 



Allocation: As noted earlier, the regime proposed by the National Marine Fish- 

 eries Service would establish a straightforward procedure for calculating Potential 

 Biological Removal Levels, taking into account the status, and uncertainties con- 

 cerning the status, of the affected marine mammal stocks. The Service's proposal 

 assumes that in some cases current levels of take would be greater than would be 

 biologically acceptable. It therefore proposes a process for allocating the Potential 

 Biological Removal among all potential user groups. The process would take 8-10 

 months, and would provide opportunity for review and comment by fishery manage- 

 ment councils and state agencies, as well as the public. 



As the Commission understands it, the regime proposed by the fishing industry 

 and the environmental community assumes that there will oe no need to allocate 



