16 



monitoring and enforcement programs are adequate to ensure that the authorized 

 levels of take are not exceeded and to detect any unforeseen effects on the size or 



f)roductivity of the afTected species or population; and (4) there is good reason to be- 

 ieve that the incidental take has been or will be reduced to as near zero as prac- 

 ticable; 



• authorize, on an exp>erimental basis, for periods of three to five years, the inci- 

 dental take from species and population stocks whose status is uncertain when: (1) 

 the authorized level of incidental take clearly would have a negligible effect on pop- 

 ulation size and productivity; and (2) ongoing or planned assessment, monitoring, 

 and enforcement programs are adequate to ensure that the authorized level of take 

 will not be exceeded, the status of the affected species or population stock wiU be 

 determined with reasonable certainty within three to five years, and possible ways 

 to avoid or reduce the level of incidental take will be identified and implemented; 



• streamline and continue the vessel registration and reporting programs initi- 

 ated under the 1988 Marine Mammal Protection Act amendments; 



• grant explicit authority to the Secretaiy of Conmierce to place observers aboard 

 any commercial fishing vessel operating in U.S. waters; and 



• provide necessary funding or authorize the collection of user fees sufficient for 

 observer and other marine mammal monitoring programs. 



The Commission's Recommended Guidelines assumed that, at the end of the five- 

 year exemption period, sufficient information would be available to accurately esti- 

 mate: the level of incidental take in various fisheries; the status of the affected ma- 

 rine mammal stocks; and the level of take that could be permitted without causing 

 the affected populations to be reduced or maintained below their optimum sustain- 

 able population level. When it transmitted the Reconunended Guidelines to the Na- 

 tional Marine Fisheries Service, the Commission noted that this assumption would 

 not be valid unless additional population assessments were undertaken promptly by 

 the Service. 



The Commission's Recommended Guidelines also pointed out that marine mam- 

 mals and fisheries may interact indirectly as well as directly ~ e.g., bv competition 

 for the same prey species. To ensure that marine manmials are not disadvantaged 

 by over-exploitation of important prey species, the Commission recommended that 

 the Service promulgate regulations under the Fishery Conservation and Manage- 

 ment Act requiring fishery management councils to assess and take into account tne 

 food requirements (and uncertainties related thereto) of marine mammals and other 

 non-target species when calculating the optimal yield of fishery resources. To help 

 determine how this might best be done, the Commission recommended that the 

 Service hold a workshop or series of workshops to identify and evaluate possible 

 procedures for assessing interactions and ensuring that fisheries do not directly or 

 indirectly disadvantage marine mammal populations. The Commission suggested, 

 among other things, that the workshops consider the establishment of: thresholds 

 below which exploitation of fish stocks should be prohibited; guidelines and proce- 

 dures for addressing uncertainty with respect to the status of and the functional re- 

 lationships among fisheries resources and other components of the marine eco- 

 system; and research and management programs needed to fill critical gaps in 

 knowledge of the structure and dynamics of marine ecosystems. 



The Commission's Recommended Guidelines were used by the National Marine 

 Fisheries Service as the basis for developing its Proposed Regime to Govern Inter- 

 actions between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fishing Operations. The Service 

 also took into account comments and suggestions provided oy other Federal and 

 state agencies and by the fishing industry and environmental community. The pro- 

 posal was forwarded to Congress in December 1992. 



In June 1993, representatives of the U.S. fishing industry and certain environ- 

 mental groups provided an alternative proposal for a regime to govern marine mam- 

 mal-fisheries interactions after 1 October 1993. Subsequently, other environmental 

 groups — the Marine Mammal Protection Coalition — expressed concern about and 

 proposed alternatives to several of the provisions in the joint industry/environ- 

 mental community proposal. 



COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSALS 



Take of Listed Species: The recommended guidelines provided by the Marine 

 Mammal Commission, the proposed regime provided by the National Marine Fish- 

 eries Service, and the alternative regime proposed jointly by the industry and envi- 

 ronmental community all would allow taking from depleted stocks, including those 

 listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, provided the 

 taking would not significantly delay recovery time. The Commission's guidelines and 

 the National Marine Fishenes Service's proposal define significant delay as more 



