17 



than a ten percent increase in the time-it would take a depleted species or popu- 

 lation stock to recover to its maximum net productivity level — the lower limit of the 

 optimum sustainable population range. The joint industry/environmental community 

 proposal would allow conservation teams, constituted to decide what actions must 

 be taken to protect critical stocks (see below), to decide, on a case-by-case basis, 

 what would constitute a significant delay in recovery time. It would not replace or 

 change the provisions of Public Law 99-625 which sets forth conditions for protect- 

 ing and mana^ng the threatened sea otter population in California, including provi- 

 sions for limitmg interactions with fisheries. 



The alternative proposal provided by the Marine Mammal Protection Coalition 

 would prohibit all letnal taking from species and stocks listed as endangered or 

 threatened under the Endangered Species Act. 



Take of Species Whose Status is Unknown or Uncertain: As noted earlier, the Ma- 

 rine Mammal Commission's guidelines recommended that taking be authorized for 

 periods of three to five years from species and population stocks whose status is un- 

 certain when: (1) the authorized level of incidental take clearly would have a neg- 

 ligible effect on population size and productivity; and (2) ongoing or planned assess- 

 ment, monitoring, and enforcement programs are adequate to ensure that the au- 

 thorized level of take would not be exceeded, and the status of the affected species 

 or population stock would be determined with reasonable certainty within three to 

 five years. The intent was to minimize impacts on both the affected fisheries and 

 marine mammal stocks, while providing an incentive to get more reliable informa- 

 tion on the distribution, size, and vital rates of the afiected stocks. 



The regime proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service noted that it could 

 take many years to obtain the information necessary to assess the status of all 

 stocks subject to incidental taking in the course of commercial fishing operations. 

 The Service therefore proposed a system for estimating biologically acceptable take 

 levels — referred to as Potential Biological Removal Levels — using minimum popu- 

 lation estimates, conservative estimates of population growth potential, and a safety 

 factor to ensure that the authorized take level could not cause a depleted species 

 or population stock to be reduced or maintained below its maximum net productivity 

 level, even when that level is unknown. 



Zero Mortality Goal: All of the proposals have as a goal reducing the mortality 

 and serious injury of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations 

 to as near zero as practicable. However, both the recommended guidelines provided 

 by the Marine Mammal Commission and the regime proposed by the National Ma- 

 rine Fisheries Service would afford priority initially to identifying and ensuring that 

 incidental take levels do not exceed the level which would cause the affected species 

 or population stocks to be reduced or maintained for significant periods of^time 

 below their maximum net productivity level. Neither would make reduction of inci- 

 dental take to insignificant levels approaching zero an immediate priority. The joint 

 fishing industry/environmental community proposal would make reduction of inci- 

 dental take to near zero the primary goal. It calls for the reduction of mortality and 

 serious injury incidental to commercial fishing operations to as near zero as prac- 

 ticable within ten years; it proposes that progress be reviewed at the end of three 

 years to determine if the goal is likely to be met and, if not, what should be done 

 differently. 



Authorization to Fish and to Take Marine Mammals: Both the guidelines rec- 

 ommended by the Commission and the regime proposed by the National Marine 

 Fisheries Service would continue the system, mandated in the 1988 Marine Mam- 

 mal Protection Act amendments as part of the interim exemption, which requires 

 that vessels engaged in fisheries with more than a remote possibility of taking ma- 

 rine mammals register with the National Marine Fisheries Service, and which speci- 

 fies that fishing in such a fishery, without registration, constitutes a violation of the 

 Marine Mammal Protection Act. These requirements make it possible to document, 

 with reasonable certainty, the number of vessels engaged in fisheries that take ma- 

 rine mammals. They also provide an effective means for ensuring that vessel owners 

 comply with reporting requirements, since registrations cannot be renewed if any 

 required reports are outstanding. 



The proposal from the fishing industry and environmental community would 

 eliminate both the vessel registration requirement and the provision making it a 

 violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act for a vessel to fish without oeing 

 registered. The proposal would require fishermen to report all lethal taking of ma- 

 rine mammals, and would make such taking a violation of the Marine Mammal Pro- 

 tection Act only if it is not reported, or violates a fishery-specific provision adopted 

 by the Secretary in response to a conservation team recommendation. Thus, except 

 in special cases, a fisherman would not be subject to penalties under the Marine 

 Mammal Protection Act unless he or she were actually observed to take a marine 



