73 



3. The system of conservation teams, as proposed, is likely to be expensive, duplica- 

 tive, and may not adequately protect marine mammals. While their role is proposed 

 to be advisory, conservation teams have authority to adjust recovery factors for criti- 

 cal stocks and take other actions which may duplicate or supplant NMFS or Marine 

 Mammal Commission functions. Providing separate conservation teams for each 

 "critical" stock is likely to be expensive and still leaves 40 or more marine mammal 

 stocks without on-going oversi^t. Furthermore, the composition of the conservation 

 teams (based on the participant pool which was suggested) is likely to be weighted 

 with managers and user groups and contain minimal representation from conserva- 

 tion interests. This approach is analogous to Fishery Management Councils manag- 

 ing marine mammals. 



4. There is no specific quantifiable mechanism to achieve the commitment to re- 

 duce marine mammal mortality and serious injury to a rate approaching zero within 

 10 years. While it is laudable that the fishing mdustry agreed to uphold the commit- 

 ment to the zero mortality rate goal and to reduce takes to an insignificant level 

 within 10 years, it is necessary to provide a means to achieve this goal and a meth- 

 od for analyzing its accomplishment. This proposal does neither. The negotiated doc- 

 ument does contain a specific goal of 10 years for reducing takes, and is thus more 

 specific than the NMFS proposal. However, with an inadequate and unreliable sys- 

 tem for monitoring lethal takes, it is doubtful whether anyone can reliably assess 

 whether any reductions have really taken place. 



5. The proposed interface with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is likely to result 

 in a process that allows excessive take and would delay recovery of threatened and 

 endangered stocks. The negotiated document does not address the problem inherent 

 in the NMFS proposal of allowing takes of endangered and threatened species. Fur- 

 thermore, it removes the oversiwit of NMFS in managing these species. Allowing 

 management of threatened and endangered species to default to ESA recovery 

 teams, and removing the oversight of the MMPA is likely to result in the taking 

 of marine mammals from fragile stocks. The MMPA and the ESA each offer distinct 

 types of legal protection for endangered and threatened marine manmials. In a re- 

 port to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by its own biologists, it was stated that 

 roughly 60 percent of vertebrate species listed under the ESA have recovery goals 

 which could lead to the species extinction. This raises the concern that it may be 

 impossible for the negotiated document to assert that takings allowed under the 

 "reasonable and prudent measures" provision of Section 7 of the ESA meet a stand- 

 ard of protection sufficient to protect and recover marine mammal papulations. En- 

 dangered and threatened species should continue to enjoy the protection of both the 

 MMPA and the ESA. 



6. The issue of funding this regime is not adequately addressed. While the NMFS 

 proposal, with its centralized registration system, allowed imposition of a registra- 

 tion fee which would pay for the costs of administering the program and analyzing 

 monitoring data, the negotiated document lacks even this basic funding mechanism. 

 Because the negotiated document lacks a centralized registration system, it would 

 be difficult to identify individual vessels within fisheries that have a critical level 

 of marine mammal mortality. Only if vessels can be identified, is it possible to as- 

 sess them (or their fishery as a whole) additional fees to help offset any additional 

 observer coverage which might be necessary to monitor interactions. Additional op- 

 tions for raising funds, such as imposition of user or landing fees, would also be dif- 

 ficult without a centralized data base. 



In fact, many of the proposals contained in the negotiated document were origi- 

 nally made to NMFS as comments by the fishing industry on the initial NMFS pro- 

 posals. According to NMFS records, the fishing industry proposed that NMFS: "focus 

 on hot spots, then reduce fishery takes (by unspecified methods) ♦ * * They [fisher- 

 men] were * * * concerned that * * * factors allowing marine mammal species to 

 recover were overly conservative and unnecessarily restrictive ♦ ♦ * Almost all fish- 

 ermen were concerned that only fisheries seriously interacting with marine mam- 

 mals should be the focus of monitoring ♦ * ♦ They were concerned that an MMPA 

 authorization to fish be required only in those fisheries where significant impacts 

 on at-risk stocks [their term] are occurring." NMFS rejected these proposals, but 

 they have re-emerged at the heart of the negotiated document. In their reply reject- 

 ing the proposals, NMFS stated that the impact of adopting these proposals would 

 be "* * * httle control over the incidental take of most marine mammals" under 

 this de facto extension of the exemption program. NMFS further stated that: "* ♦ * 

 several populations of marine mammals could be disadvantaged, some significantly 

 under this sub-alternative before corrective steps could be implemented, and that 

 "impact to other marine wildlife * * * is likely to be similar to the level being expe- 

 rienced presently". NMFS commented that under the fisheries proposal "* * * no 

 limits would be established for commercial fishing unless it was determined that 



