10 



influenced the key features of the alternative proposals. I would like to discuss our 

 views on the critical elements distilled from these proposals. 



Available resources must be focused where they are needed most. The NMFS pro- 

 posal focuses resources on those fisheries with the greatest interaction with marine 

 mammal stocks of most concern. The negotiated proposal Umits the focus to marine 

 mammal stocks of most concern. 



A successfial management regime must also contain recpirements for assessing 

 the status of marine mammal stocks, obtaining accurate scientific data, and provid- 

 ing funding for such activities. While all proposals set forth requirements for stock 

 assessments to determine management priorities, there must also be a legally bind- 

 ing mandate to assure that research would be undertaken if funds are limited. The 

 f)rotection proposal stressed the importance of dedicating funds to monitor popu- 

 ation trenas in order to make OSP determinations and to ascertain stocks in need 

 of the greatest attention, and indicated that without a legislative mandate to pro- 

 vide for long range stock assessment, vital goals of the MMPA may not be attained. 



Priorities must be established under any plan, and under the NMFS proposal, 

 management priorities would be determined by assessing the status of each marine 

 manmial stock with respect to OSP and affording highest priority to the most criti- 

 cal populations. A workable approach must also consider snort- and long-term data 

 needs through a long-term research plan coordinated with annual research efforts 

 according to a rational schedule for completion of all stock assessments. All research 

 plans and reports describing research activities should be made available for peer 

 and public review. The stock assessments should be conducted in accordance with 

 sound scientific principles and adequately funded so that there would be no doubt 

 that the research would be completed in a thorough and timely manner. 



Another vital element for a successful management regime is a mechanism for 

 using the scientific data collected through the stock assessment program to deter- 

 mine potential take levels. Such determinations need to be made by qu£ilified ma- 

 rine mammal scientists in accordance with sound scientific principles. Any respon- 

 sible management approach must have a frameworii for calculating the total num- 

 ber of animals that may be removed from marine manunal populations while allow- 

 ing the stock to remain within, or recover to, OSP. This allowaole number, whatever 

 it IS called, must be calculated using reliable data where available, or conservative 

 default values. For stocks of uncertain status or which are below OSP levels, the 

 calculations should include a recovery factor so that a portion of the net annual pro- 

 duction will be protected, thus enhancing the recovery of depleted stocks. The cal- 

 culations should be subjected to rigorous peer and scientific review before becoming 

 final, to ensure accountability and fairness. 



Any regime needs to provide for observer monitoring of takes to verify the level 

 of interaction between vessels and marine mammals, ensure that quotas are not ex- 

 ceeded, and confirm that management efforts are focused on priority interactions. 

 However, to be successful, the observer program must be effectively deployed, ade- 

 quately funded, and legally mandated under the MMPA. For example, tne observer 

 program could be a limited, stock-based monitoring program in which advisory 

 groups could recommend the use of observers for critical stocks and NMFS would 

 have the discretion to monitor others. At the other extreme, a more extensive, fish- 

 ery-based program that would institute mandatory observer coverage of all fisheries 

 could be required. The most efficient approach is probably observer coverage that 

 is fishery-based rather than stock-based, and that potentially subjects all fisheries 

 to monitoring but that focuses on those fisheries with significant interactions with 

 marine mammals. Monitoring all fisheries would be prohibitively expensive and an 

 unwise use of resources. For example, NMFS believes that resources would be best 

 allocated by providing a higher level of observer coverage on those fisheries with 

 known high levels of marine mammal interactions, and occasional monitoring of 

 other fisheries. 



Although the regime would apply only to commercial fishing, the impact of fish- 

 ery-related removals of marine mammals cannot be evaluated and managed prop- 

 erly unless done in concert with removals from all other sources of human-related 

 mortality or serious injury, such as subsistence harvest and vessel traffic. In addi- 

 tion, the indirect effects of^ human activity in the marine environment should also 

 be considered because exploitation of marine resources mav degrade marine mam- 

 mal habitat and prey availability. All proposals recognize the importance of consid- 

 ering these interactions in developing a viable management regime. 



The regime must be consistent with requirements of the MMPA, the ESA and 

 other statutes related to the conservation and management of marine resources 

 such as the Coastal Zone Management Act. Ideally, the regime would establish a 

 reasonable administrative framework to permit some removals from disadvantaged 

 stocks, yet preserve the special protections provided by each statute in order to pro- 



