11 



tect marine mammal species of concern. All proposals recognize the need to extend 

 special protection to disadvantaged stocks, and to authorize the taking of depleted 

 marine mammals. However, the mechanisms differ. For example, NMFS' procedures 

 for this authorization would adhere to requirements of section 7 of the ESA when 

 appropriate and section 101(aX5) of the MMPA. The negotiated proposal would fore- 

 go NDVEPA mechanisms and use the ESA section 7 consultative process to develop 

 reasonable and prudent measures related to fishing when incidental take of threat- 

 ened or endangered marine mammals occurs. In contrast, the protection proposal 

 would not authorize taking of marine mammals listed under the ESA; however, the 

 Secretary would retain discretion to waive prosecution for accidental takes in fishing 

 operations. 



Study and planning alone will not reduce marine manmial takes. To achieve the 

 goals of the MMPA, the management regime must also provide for developing and 

 implementing actions or technologies designed to reduce incidental mortality of ma- 

 rine mammals in commercial fishing operations. Both the NMFS and negotiated 

 proposals discuss two approaches to reduce bycatch of marine mammals in fishing 

 operations: (1) restrictions to ensure that incidental mortality does not exceed a 

 F^R level; and (2) development of safer fishing gear and methods. Both proposals 

 generally discuss the need for the latter, but diner in approach to the former. NMFS 

 proposed to estimate this PBR and allocate portions of this number among activities 

 that use marine resources. The negotiated proposal included fishery-specific limits 

 for incidental mortality of marine mammals as a tool for the Conservation Teams. 



CONCLUSION 



The Interim Exemption Program provided an opportunity for us to gather crucial 

 information on marine mammal stocks, fishing efforts and interactions. Based on 

 this information, and through exhaustive technical and public review, NMFS devel- 

 oped a proposed regime to govern interactions between marine mammals and com- 

 mercial fishing operations. A group composed of members of the fishing and environ- 

 mental communities negotiated an alternative proposal that included many aspects 

 of the NMFS proposal. Several environmental groups that were part of the negotiat- 

 ing team did not support details of the negotiated proposal and developed specific 

 alternatives to controversial details, most of which supported the NMFS proposal. 



Although many of the elements of the NMFS and negotiated proposals are simi- 

 lar, there are major differences between them. In summary, NMFS is concerned 

 with the following elements of the negotiated proposal: 



(1) The philosophical and practical shift of the burden of proof. The negotiated 

 proposal would authorize taking unless it could be shown that the taking would 

 delay or prohibit recovery. 



(2) The Scientific Evaluation Working Group. This group should be composed only 

 of scientists with expertise in marine mammal population dynamics and who are not 

 employed by organizations with a vested interest in the results of evaluation. 



(3) The Conservation Teams. These teams have the advantage of encouraging the 

 participation of affected parties. However, the role of these groups is too broad and 

 undefined. Allowing representatives of involved groups, without specifying qualifica- 

 tions, to recommend all management actions would not be the best approach for the 

 conservation of marine mammals. If the groups were assigned only review author- 

 ity, then input from interested parties would be appropriate. However, if the groups 

 initiate proposed management actions, then special-interest influence should be re- 

 moved. 



Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for this opportunity to 

 express the views of the Department. I would be pleased to answer any questions 

 you or other Members may have. 



Senator Kerry. Thank you very much, Dr. Foster. 

 Dr. Hofman, you are joined by Michael Gosliner, and we are de- 

 lighted to have you. 



STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT J. HOFMAN, SCIENTIFIC PRO- 

 GRAM DIRECTOR, MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION; ACCOM- 

 PANIED BY MICHAEL GOSLINER, GENERAL COUNSEL, MA- 

 RINE MAMMAL COMMISSION 



Dr. HoFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stevens. 

 Like Dr. Foster, it is a pleasure to be here. Like her, I also know 

 my name. I am Bob Hofman. I am the Scientific Program Director 



