State data bases, rather than the centralized registry developed by NMFS during 

 the Interim Exemption. The lack of uniform information is a liability of the nego- 

 tiated proposal. The NMFS proposal would require mandatory registration of all 

 fisheries that interact with marine mammals. This would ensure compliance with 

 basic procedures for conservation and would facilitate compilation of a useful and 

 complete database. The protection proposal supports the NMFS approach. 



We believe the negotiated proposal s time frame for publishing preliminary and 

 final stock assessment reports is unrealistic. The negotiated proposal would require 

 preliminary stock assessments within 45 days and final status assessments for all 

 stocks of marine mammals within 90 days of enactment. At a minimum, developing 

 draft status documents and final assessment documents would likely require 90 and 

 180 days, respectively. 



All groups agree tnat draft status assessment reports should be subjected to sci- 

 entific scrutiny, and thorough review by a team of experts. The negotiated proposal 

 would utilize a Scientific Evaluation Working Group. The NMFS proposal called for 

 a similar evaluation group, the Scientific Peer Review Group, to be composed of sci- 

 entists with specialized expertise. The negotiated proposal does not specify any 

 qualifications lor participation on the review group, but NMFS beUeves the group 

 should consist of scientists with experience in marine mammal biology and popu- 

 lation dynamics. 



The negotiated proposal's Conservation Teams would recommend management ac- 

 tions for critical stocks to the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary could then ac- 

 cept or reject these recommendations and publish regulations for notice and com- 

 ment. In the NMFS proposal, input from interested parties would be received during 

 the notice-and-comment period and public hearings consistent with the Administra- 

 tive Procedures Act (APA). The protection proposal would include input from Con- 

 servation Teams, but recommends that such advice be provided on a regional basis 

 and that recommendations be restricted to methods of reducing mortality and injury 

 of marine mammals. 



The major advantage of convening Conservation Teams is that they would encour- 

 age the affected parties to participate in the problem-solving process more than 

 might occur under the APA alone.The major disadvantage is increased costs in time 

 and money. Any investment in these teams may come at the expense of other areas 

 of the management program, such as population assessments, oDserver coverage, or 

 mortality reduction technology. Allowing representatives with vested interests to 

 recommend management actions may not be best for the long-term conservation of 

 marine mammals. Therefore, NMFS recommends that if Conservation Teams are es- 

 tablished, they be regional, they be limited to a small number of members, and their 

 role be limited as suggested by the protection proposal. 



PROTECTION PROPOSAL 



Fifteen environmental groups, several of which were part of the negotiating group, 

 were dissatisfied with the negotiated proposal. The protection proposal cites seven 

 concerns with the negotiated proposal which mi^t reduce its effectiveness. These 

 concerns are very similar to those of NMFS. 



The protection proposal calls for: (1) mandatory registration of all fishing vessels, 

 regardless of level oi interaction with marine mammals; (2) a centralized registra- 

 tion system for more efficient tracking of fishing effort; (3) mandatory observer cov- 

 erage of all fisheries; (4) development of regional Conservation Teams which would 

 have an advisoiy role targeted to developing strategies for reducing interactions 

 within their region; (5) ftinding specifically earmarked for research into development 

 of technology to reduce marine mammal mortality; (6) mandatory long range stock 

 assessment programs; and (7) no permits for the lethal taking of stocks listed as 

 threatened or endangered and a stringent process for permitting takes from de- 

 pleted stocks. 



ELEMENTS OF AN IDEAL PROPOSAL 



Despite the differences among the three proposals, they share essential compo- 

 nents and ofier valuable contributions to the design of a viable regime for managing 

 interactions between marine mammals and commercial fishing. Taken together, the 

 proposals reinforce important concepts that we all agree must be exhibited in a 

 management regime. By differing, they provide constructive criticism of potentially 

 weak or missing elements of a successful regime. This is not surprising since the 

 development of NMFS' proposed regime over the past two years resulted from public 

 notice and comment in addition to numerous consultations with interested parties. 

 This process of give and take has produced a strong workable product, and I believe. 



