Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Authorization for Commercial Fisheries; Proposed List of Fisheries

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 216 and 229

[Docket No. 950605147-5147-01; I.D. 052395C]

RIN 0648-AH33

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing

Operations; Authorization for Commercial Fisheries; Proposed List of

Fisheries

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement the new management

regime for the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial

fishing operations established by certain provisions of the Marine

Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) as added to that Act by certain

amendments in 1994. The regulations would implement requirements to

authorize vessels engaged in commercial fishing to incidentally, but

not intentionally, take species and stocks of marine mammals upon the

receipt of specified information and that require commercial fishers to

report to NMFS the incidental mortality and injury of marine mammals in

the course of commercial fishing and comply with certain other

requirements. The intended effect of this rule is to provide for a

limited exemption of commercial fisheries from the MMPA's moratorium on

the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing

activities. NMFS issues a proposed list of fisheries (LOF), categorized

according to frequency of incidental serious injury and mortality of

marine mammals. Comments are invited on the proposed rule and the

proposed LOF.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by July 31,

1995. Comments on the proposed LOF must be received by September 14,

1995.

cidental to commercial fishing

activities. NMFS issues a proposed list of fisheries (LOF), categorized

according to frequency of incidental serious injury and mortality of

marine mammals. Comments are invited on the proposed rule and the

proposed LOF.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by July 31,

1995. Comments on the proposed LOF must be received by September 14,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Chief, Marine Mammal Division, Office of

Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. A copy of the Environmental

Assessment (EA) may be obtained by writing to this address, by

telephoning one of the contacts listed below, or by accessing the NMFS

``Home Page'' on the World Wide Web at http://kingfish.ssp.nmfs.gov:80/

home-page.html which will be available by June 19, 1995. Comments

regarding the burden-hour estimate or any other aspects of the

collection of information requirements contained in this rule should be

sent to the above individual and to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Attention:

NOAA Desk Officer, Washington, D.C. 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Thomas Eagle or Robyn Angliss,

Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-2322; Douglas Beach, Northeast

Region, 508-281-9254; Charles Oravetz, Southeast Region, 813-570-5301;

James Lecky, Southwest Region, 310-980-4015; Brent Norberg, Northwest

Region, 206-526-6140; Dr. Steve Zimmerman, Alaska Region, 907-586-7235.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legislative and Regulatory History

ATION CONTACT: Dr. Thomas Eagle or Robyn Angliss,

Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-2322; Douglas Beach, Northeast

Region, 508-281-9254; Charles Oravetz, Southeast Region, 813-570-5301;

James Lecky, Southwest Region, 310-980-4015; Brent Norberg, Northwest

Region, 206-526-6140; Dr. Steve Zimmerman, Alaska Region, 907-586-7235.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legislative and Regulatory History

Prior to passage of the 1988 amendments to the MMPA (Public Law 92-

522), commercial fishers could receive an exemption from the MMPA's

general moratorium on the taking of marine mammals by applying for a

general permit and certificates of inclusion. The 1988 amendments to

the MMPA (Public Law 100-711), added a section 114 to the MMPA that

exempts, on an interim basis, commercial fishers who comply with

certain registration

and reporting requirements from the general prohibition on taking

marine mammals (Interim Exemption for Commercial Fisheries). The

purpose of this exemption was to allow NMFS to collect data to be used

in setting up a comprehensive management regime governing fisheries

interactions with marine mammals. The 1988 amendments did not allow for

the taking of California sea otters or the intentional lethal taking of

Steller sea lions, cetaceans, or marine mammals from a population stock

designated as depleted.

Section 11 of the MMPA Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-278)

added a new section 118 to the MMPA establishing a new management

regime for the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial

fishing operations. In order to provide time for development and

implementation, section 15 of the MMPA Amendments of 1994 amended

section 114, the interim exemption, to extend it until September 1,

1995, or until superseded by regulations prescribed under section 118,

whichever is earlier

the MMPA establishing a new management

regime for the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial

fishing operations. In order to provide time for development and

implementation, section 15 of the MMPA Amendments of 1994 amended

section 114, the interim exemption, to extend it until September 1,

1995, or until superseded by regulations prescribed under section 118,

whichever is earlier.

Since it was first passed in 1972, one of the underlying goals of

the MMPA has been that the incidental kill or incidental serious injury

of marine mammals permitted in the course of commercial fishing

operations be reduced to insignificant levels approaching a zero

mortality and serious injury rate (section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA).

Section 11 of the 1994 amendments to the MMPA reaffirmed this Zero

Mortality Rate Goal (ZMRG)(new section 118(b)(1)) and requires NMFS to

begin review of each fishery's progress toward the ZMRG within 3 years

of enactment (April 30, 1997), and report the results of this review to

Congress within 4 years of enactment (April 30, 1998)(new section

118(b)(3)). The amendments specify that all fisheries must attain this

goal within 7 years of enactment (April 30, 2001)(new section

118(b)(2)).

Section 10 of the 1994 Amendments adds a new section 117 to the

MMPA that requires NMFS to complete stock assessments for every

population or stock of marine mammals that occur in the waters under

U.S. jurisdiction and to designate strategic stocks based on the level

of human-caused mortality likely to reduce or keep the stock below its

optimum sustainable population level. Strategic stocks are also those

that are listed as endangered or threatened species under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA), depleted under the MMPA, or that are

declining and likely to be listed as a threatened species under the

ESA

and to designate strategic stocks based on the level

of human-caused mortality likely to reduce or keep the stock below its

optimum sustainable population level. Strategic stocks are also those

that are listed as endangered or threatened species under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA), depleted under the MMPA, or that are

declining and likely to be listed as a threatened species under the

ESA. Stock assessments must include an analysis of whether the

incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals from

commercial fishing operations is insignificant and is approaching a

zero mortality and serious injury rate (e.g., ZMRG). Draft stock

assessment reports (SARs) were published in August, 1994 (59 FR 40527).

Final SARs are in preparation.

Section 118 of the MMPA requires NMFS to authorize commercial

fishers to incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals

during the course of commercial fishing operations upon the receipt of

specified information and provided certain conditions are met. The

regulations being proposed by this notice would implement section 118.

Section 118(a)(5) of the MMPA prohibits the intentional lethal take

of any marine mammal in the course of commercial fishing operations

except as provided by section 101(c) which authorizes takings,

including intentional lethal takings if imminently necessary in self-

defense or to save the life of a person in immediate danger and as long

as such taking is reported to NMFS within 48 hours (see 60 FR 6036).

The 1994 amendments to the MMPA amended section 101(a)(4) of the MMPA

to authorize fishers to deter marine mammals from damaging fishing

gear, catch or other private property or from endangering personal

safety provided such measures do not result in the serious injury or

mortality of a marine mammal

iate danger and as long

as such taking is reported to NMFS within 48 hours (see 60 FR 6036).

The 1994 amendments to the MMPA amended section 101(a)(4) of the MMPA

to authorize fishers to deter marine mammals from damaging fishing

gear, catch or other private property or from endangering personal

safety provided such measures do not result in the serious injury or

mortality of a marine mammal. Section 101(a)(4) directs NMFS to develop

and publish guidelines for use in safely deterring marine mammals and

to prohibit the use of deterrence measures determined to have a

significant adverse effect on marine mammals. On May 5, 1995, NMFS

published proposed guidelines and prohibited measures (60 FR 22345).

Section 4 of the MMPA Amendments of 1994 amended section 101(a)(5)

of the MMPA to authorize NMFS to issue permits for the take of marine

mammals listed as a threatened species or endangered species under the

ESA incidental to commercial fishing operations.

The 1994 Amendments retained the concept of categorizing commercial

fisheries into three groups based on the frequency of incidental

mortality and serious injury of marine mammals from section 114--the

Interim Exemption for Commercial Fisheries. On September 1, 1994, NMFS

published a notice of proposed changes to the LOF (59 FR 45263). As

required by section 118, that notice classified commercial fisheries by

frequency of incidental serious injury and mortality of marine mammals.

This classification differed from the classifications under the Interim

Exemption in that non-injurious takes, incidental or intentional, such

as harassment, were not included in the revised classification

criteria. Only incidental serious injuries and mortalities were

considered. Also, since intentional lethal takes are prohibited by

section 118(a)(5), those fisheries previously classified based only on

intentional takes were proposed for reclassification

terim

Exemption in that non-injurious takes, incidental or intentional, such

as harassment, were not included in the revised classification

criteria. Only incidental serious injuries and mortalities were

considered. Also, since intentional lethal takes are prohibited by

section 118(a)(5), those fisheries previously classified based only on

intentional takes were proposed for reclassification.

Additional information on the regulatory and legislative history of

the MMPA prior to the 1994 Amendments appears in the Environmental

Assessment prepared for this rule.

Comments and Responses to the Notice of Proposed Changes to the List of

Fisheries

Ten comments were received in response to the September 1, 1994,

notice of proposed changes to the LOF (59 FR 45263). Comments and

information were received from State agencies, commercial fishing

organizations, Indian tribes, conservation groups, and other interested

parties. Comments on the proposed reclassification of fisheries,

classification criteria, treaty Indian fisheries, and related topics

are summarized below along with NMFS' responses. These comments were

considered in developing this proposed rule.

Comments on the Proposed Changes to the Criteria

Two commenters agreed with the proposed reclassifications, because

of the assumption that the prohibition on intentional serious injuries

and mortalities would result in a reduced taking of marine mammals.

However, three commenters believed that it was inappropriate to

reclassify any fisheries based on this assumption until the prohibition

was implemented by regulations. One commenter suggested that any

attempt to factor unknown levels of illegal activities when classifying

fisheries was inappropriate and would be unfair to law-abiding fishers.

On March 3, 1995, the prohibition in section 118(a)(5) on intentionally

seriously injuring or killing a marine mammal during commercial fishing

operations became effective by regulation (60 FR 6036)

ted by regulations. One commenter suggested that any

attempt to factor unknown levels of illegal activities when classifying

fisheries was inappropriate and would be unfair to law-abiding fishers.

On March 3, 1995, the prohibition in section 118(a)(5) on intentionally

seriously injuring or killing a marine mammal during commercial fishing

operations became effective by regulation (60 FR 6036). Previously,

under regulations implementing section 114, lethal deterrence measures

could be used to protect fishing gear or catch during commercial

fishing operations. NMFS has informed owners of vessels currently

registered in a Category I or II fishery (respectively, frequent or

occasional incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals)

of this prohibition by mail. Furthermore, NMFS conducted a public

outreach campaign to inform other affected parties (e.g., vessel owners

participating in a Category III fishery (a remote likelihood of

incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals)) through

tradepapers, newsletters, and other media. For these reasons, the

proposed classification of fisheries in this proposed rule (see List of

Fisheries) is based on the assumption that the prohibition on

intentional serious injury and mortality will result in a reduced

taking of marine mammals. The proposed LOF is also based on the new

proposed definitions of ``frequent,'' ``occasional,'' and ``remote''

incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals (proposed

Sec. 229.2).

Comments on the Definition of a Fishery

List of

Fisheries) is based on the assumption that the prohibition on

intentional serious injury and mortality will result in a reduced

taking of marine mammals. The proposed LOF is also based on the new

proposed definitions of ``frequent,'' ``occasional,'' and ``remote''

incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals (proposed

Sec. 229.2).

Comments on the Definition of a Fishery

For purposes of section 114, NMFS defined fisheries by gear type,

geographical area, and target species, in accordance with existing

state or Federal management designations. However, for some fisheries

this information is unavailable or only partially available. In the

notice of proposed changes to the LOF, NMFS suggested that fisheries

could be partitioned as necessary to reflect concentrations of marine

mammals in certain areas within a fishery, or at certain times of the

year in order to address management actions on fishery hot spots, or

seasons. Gear type (e.g., mesh size) could also be used to help define

a fishery to allow flexibility. Three commenters supported these

approaches.

The proposed LOF in this notice would define fisheries based on

state or Federal management designations where these designations exist

and where practicable. When this information was not available,

fisheries are defined based on the 1994 LOF. The 1994 LOF based fishery

definitions on the location of the fishery, the gear type used, and

sometimes the fish species that are targeted by the fishery. A fishery

may be proposed to be grouped with other fisheries if the general

location and gear type are similar and if the rates of incidental

marine mammal mortality and serious injury are known or suspected to be

similar. For instance, the U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery in

the 1994 LOF is composed of many small fisheries that target different

fish species seasonally but use the same general type of gear, fish in

the same general location, and have a marine mammal take that is

suspected to be similar

rates of incidental

marine mammal mortality and serious injury are known or suspected to be

similar. For instance, the U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery in

the 1994 LOF is composed of many small fisheries that target different

fish species seasonally but use the same general type of gear, fish in

the same general location, and have a marine mammal take that is

suspected to be similar. When additional information on either marine

mammal incidental mortality and serious injury or on the fishery are

available, fisheries in the proposed LOF may be grouped together or

split apart in order to better manage the incidental mortality and

serious injury of marine mammals in those fisheries.

New fisheries or fisheries that were new to the proposed LOF were

defined based on general location, gear type, and, when applicable,

target species.

Comments on Take Estimates

The classification criteria developed to implement the Interim

Exemption (expiring section 114) were based on an interaction rate of

marine mammals with a randomly selected vessel in a fishery during a

20-day period. In the September 1, 1994 notice of proposed changes to

the LOF, NMFS solicited comments and/or suggestions on classification

criteria based on the relative impact of a fishery on marine mammal

stocks (e.g., percentage of a stock's potential biological removal

level (PBR)) or other alternative criteria. Four commenters supported

classifying fisheries based on the impact of the annual incidental take

of marine mammals from a marine mammal stock relative to the stock's

PBR. Two of these commenters suggested that a fishery should be

considered to have a frequent taking of marine mammals if the

incidental take is 30 percent of a stock's PBR per year, instead of 50

percent of a stock's PBR as was suggested in the notice. They believed

that this would be a more conservative approach

ntal take

of marine mammals from a marine mammal stock relative to the stock's

PBR. Two of these commenters suggested that a fishery should be

considered to have a frequent taking of marine mammals if the

incidental take is 30 percent of a stock's PBR per year, instead of 50

percent of a stock's PBR as was suggested in the notice. They believed

that this would be a more conservative approach. One of these

commenters suggested that a Category III fishery should be considered

to have a remote likelihood of taking if the incidental take from a

marine mammal stock is less than or equal to 10 percent of a stock's

PBR, instead of the one percent of a stock's PBR as was suggested in

the notice. Two commenters supported an approach that categorizes

fisheries based on either the number of takes per 20 days or impact of

an annual take relative to the stock's PBR.

Commercial fisheries were classified in this proposed LOF based on

new definitions of ``frequent,'' ``occasional'', and ``remote''

incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals (proposed

Sec. 229.2). These new definitions would take into account the relative

impact of incidental serious injury and mortality by commercial

fisheries on marine mammal stocks. The development and justification

for these proposed new definitions are discussed in the ``Comments and

Responses to Draft Regulations to Implement Section 118 from Working

Sessions and Written Comments'' section of this preamble.

Comments on Treaty Indian Fisheries

e into account the relative

impact of incidental serious injury and mortality by commercial

fisheries on marine mammal stocks. The development and justification

for these proposed new definitions are discussed in the ``Comments and

Responses to Draft Regulations to Implement Section 118 from Working

Sessions and Written Comments'' section of this preamble.

Comments on Treaty Indian Fisheries

In the notice of proposed changes to the LOF, NMFS considered

whether the Pacific Northwest treaty Indian tribal fisheries should be

excluded from the LOF. Seven commenters objected to the omission of

Pacific Northwest Indian tribal fisheries from the LOF. Commenters

believed that the requirement to register Treaty Indian Fisheries and

categorize them in the LOF provided NMFS with a mechanism to evaluate

the impact of these fisheries on marine mammals. Some of the commenters

believed that while traditional hunting and fishing rights are covered

by native treaty agreement, commercial enterprises are not covered and

should be regulated under the MMPA. One commenter believed that the

exclusion of the Pacific Northwest treaty Indian tribal fisheries from

the LOF was appropriate and also objected to the solicitation of public

opinion on this topic.

In a September, 1994 letter to the Northwest Indian Fish

Commission, NMFS stated that it had reviewed the relationship of

Northwest Indian treaties to the MMPA, and did not find clear evidence

that Congress intended to abrogate Indian treaty rights with respect to

marine mammals. The letter concluded that proposed tribal harvests of

seals and sea lions did not violate the MMPA, noting that neither

species was subject to the ESA, and that the healthy status of the

stocks would not be affected. The letter urged the tribes to continue

to consult with NMFS, and to observe adequate conservation measures

ended to abrogate Indian treaty rights with respect to

marine mammals. The letter concluded that proposed tribal harvests of

seals and sea lions did not violate the MMPA, noting that neither

species was subject to the ESA, and that the healthy status of the

stocks would not be affected. The letter urged the tribes to continue

to consult with NMFS, and to observe adequate conservation measures.

With respect to the LOF and in keeping with its September, 1994

letter, NMFS has determined that Category I and II treaty Indian tribal

fisheries are conducted pursuant to the tribes' treaty rights. For the

reasons discussed above, NMFS proposes to not require treaty tribes to

register, report or comply with take reduction plans under section 118

of the MMPA. In addition, NMFS has removed treaty fisheries from the

LOF proposed in this notice.

Comments on Applicability to Zero Mortality Rate Goal

In the Federal Register notice of proposed changes to the LOF, NMFS

solicited comments on the development of criteria that could be used in

the assessment of a fishery's progress in achieving the ZMRG, and

whether the criteria used to classify fisheries may be used to make

that assessment. In the June 1994 workshop to develop

standards for SARs, workshop participants suggested that a marine

mammal stock that experienced a removal level equal to or less than 10

percent of its PBR could be considered to have an insignificant level

of incidental mortality and serious injury approaching zero mortality

and serious injury rate because the biological impacts would be

negligible (see PBR Workshop Report). Several comments were received on

the proposed definition set forth in the workshop report. One commenter

agreed that a fishery would have achieved the ZMRG if it took 10

percent or less of a stock's PBR. However, three commenters did not

agree because for stocks with a large population size, 10 percent

removal could still be a very large number of marine mammals

le (see PBR Workshop Report). Several comments were received on

the proposed definition set forth in the workshop report. One commenter

agreed that a fishery would have achieved the ZMRG if it took 10

percent or less of a stock's PBR. However, three commenters did not

agree because for stocks with a large population size, 10 percent

removal could still be a very large number of marine mammals. Even if a

fishery achieved this 10 percent goal, these commenters believed the

fishery should still try to reduce marine mammal bycatch when possible,

regardless of whether the reduction would be necessary to mitigate a

biological impact on the stock.

NMFS believes that the ZMRG would be met for a marine mammal stock

when the incidental mortality and serious injury from commercial

fishing operations are at levels significantly below such stock's PBR

so that the incidental mortality and serious injury has a negligible

effect on the status of the affected stock. In other words, when the

total incidental mortality and serious injury from fisheries has no

biological impact, the ZMRG will have been met. NMFS believes that

fishers should make every reasonable effort to reduce incidental take

below this level. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the MMPA, NMFS is

proposing to consider a fishery as having achieved the ZMRG if,

collectively with other fisheries, it is responsible for the annual

removal of 10 percent or less of any marine mammal stock's PBR level

(proposed Sec. 229.2).

Comments and Responses to Draft Regulations To Implement Section 118

From Working Sessions and Written Comments

level. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the MMPA, NMFS is

proposing to consider a fishery as having achieved the ZMRG if,

collectively with other fisheries, it is responsible for the annual

removal of 10 percent or less of any marine mammal stock's PBR level

(proposed Sec. 229.2).

Comments and Responses to Draft Regulations To Implement Section 118

From Working Sessions and Written Comments

Informal working sessions to discuss the draft proposed regulations

to implement section 118 of the MMPA were held in Silver Spring, MD, on

November 30, 1994, and Seattle, WA, on December 2, 1994. Attendees at

both sessions included Congressional staff (Silver Spring session

only), representatives of conservation groups, members of the fishing

community, representatives of state governments, a representative of

the Alaska subsistence community (Seattle session only) and NMFS staff.

Written comments were also received on the draft proposed regulations

to implement section 118. Comments on fishery classification criteria,

options for classifying fisheries, and related topics are summarized

below along with NMFS' responses. These comments were considered in

developing this proposed rule.

Comments on Logbook Data

Some commenters believed that logbook data should be used to

classify fisheries. Although logbook information is not and probably

will not be reliable enough to determine reliable mortality estimates,

the information can be used to determine the minimum mortality of

marine mammals in a particular fishery. In addition, qualitative

information provided in reports by fishers, such as areas of operation,

number of fishers, and relative number of incidental takes, is useful

in determining which fisheries need more intensive monitoring programs

e enough to determine reliable mortality estimates,

the information can be used to determine the minimum mortality of

marine mammals in a particular fishery. In addition, qualitative

information provided in reports by fishers, such as areas of operation,

number of fishers, and relative number of incidental takes, is useful

in determining which fisheries need more intensive monitoring programs.

When no other information is available for a particular fishery, NMFS

will continue to use logbook information collected during the Interim

Exemption program to supplement information from the monitoring program

(e.g., observer program), and to better understand interactions in

those commercial fisheries that are not being observed. Under the

proposed rule, fishers will no longer be required to submit logbooks;

thus, reports of incidental takes made by fishers will be used to

classify fisheries when other information is lacking.

Comments on Criteria When Stock Status or Fishery Take Information Are

Lacking

Some commenters believed that fishery classification criteria

should not be based on annual takes relative to PBR because in the

draft SARs many PBRs were zero (no potential removal level estimated)

due to a lack of information on the marine mammal stock in question

(e.g., stock size) and this would subject certain fisheries to be

classified arbitrarily. Some commenters believed that guidelines must

be developed to allow categorization of new fisheries, or fisheries

about which little is known. Most commenters supported defaulting new

fisheries into Category II.

1. In contrast to the number of zero PBRs in the draft SARs, there

are relatively few zero PBRs in the final SARs. Furthermore, fisheries

that have annual takes of marine mammals from such stocks generally

take more than one species of marine mammal; thus, the fishery can be

classified based on a stock with a known PBR.

2

Most commenters supported defaulting new

fisheries into Category II.

1. In contrast to the number of zero PBRs in the draft SARs, there

are relatively few zero PBRs in the final SARs. Furthermore, fisheries

that have annual takes of marine mammals from such stocks generally

take more than one species of marine mammal; thus, the fishery can be

classified based on a stock with a known PBR.

2. New fisheries for which no information is available on its level

of interaction with marine mammals, and where the frequency of

interaction can not be determined by analogy (e.g., gear used), would

be deemed to be a Category II fishery until the next annual LOF is

published which may recategorize them based on new information. NMFS

believes that this would provide for the necessary safeguards to ensure

that potentially high levels of incidental mortality and serious injury

of marine mammals in new fisheries is appropriately monitored.

Comments on Options for Fishery Classification Criteria

Under section 118 of the MMPA, commercial fisheries must be

classified in one of the following three categories:

Category I: Frequent incidental mortality and serious injury of

marine mammals;

Category II: Occasional incidental mortality and serious injury of

marine mammals;

Category III: A remote likelihood of or no known incidental

mortality or serious injury of marine mammals.

Because the 1994 amendments to the MMPA did not define

``frequent'', ``occasional'' or ``remote likelihood'', definitions for

these terms must be developed in order to classify fisheries. Several

options for criteria to classify fisheries were considered and

discussed during the working sessions, and are summarized below.

Option 1: Status Quo. This option would retain the definitions of

``frequent'', ``occasional'', and ``remote likelihood'' contained in

the regulations to implementing section 114 (54 CFR 219.3)

or

these terms must be developed in order to classify fisheries. Several

options for criteria to classify fisheries were considered and

discussed during the working sessions, and are summarized below.

Option 1: Status Quo. This option would retain the definitions of

``frequent'', ``occasional'', and ``remote likelihood'' contained in

the regulations to implementing section 114 (54 CFR 219.3). Under this

option, ``frequent'' means that it is highly likely that more than one

marine mammal will be incidentally taken by a randomly selected vessel

in the fishery during a 20-day period. ``Occasional'' means that there

is some likelihood that one marine mammal will be incidentally taken by

a randomly selected vessel in the fishery during a 20-day period.

``Remote likelihood'' means that it is highly unlikely that any marine

mammal will be incidentally taken by a randomly selected vessel in the

fishery during a 20-day period.

Comments on Option 1. Some commenters stated that the criteria for

classifying fisheries under section 118 of the MMPA should be identical

to the criteria under section 114. They argued that changing the

criteria was not the intent of Congress and might place additional

regulatory burden on commercial fishers by increasing the number of

fisheries placed in Categories I and II. Furthermore, they were

concerned about what process would be followed for classifying

fisheries under a new set of criteria when little or no data exists

from which to estimate fishing mortality or PBR. The majority of the

commenters however, supported modification of fishery classification

criteria to better reflect the effect of commercial fisheries on

individual marine mammal stocks. This approach would allow NMFS to

place management emphasis on stocks of particular concern. Attendees at

the Seattle session constructed a new set of criteria, which is

discussed below under Option 2.

Assumptions of Option 1

commenters however, supported modification of fishery classification

criteria to better reflect the effect of commercial fisheries on

individual marine mammal stocks. This approach would allow NMFS to

place management emphasis on stocks of particular concern. Attendees at

the Seattle session constructed a new set of criteria, which is

discussed below under Option 2.

Assumptions of Option 1. This approach assumes that NMFS has fairly

reliable estimates of rates of serious injuries and mortalities for

vessels per 20 days of fishing in each fishery. For fisheries in which

NMFS has placed observers, these rates may vary in accuracy, depending

on the level of observer coverage applied. For other fisheries, only

information submitted in fishers' logbooks are available. Take rates

obtained from fishers' logbooks have been found to vary from those

reported by observers for the same fishery, with the general tendency

to have observed take rates higher than fisher-reported take rates.

Strengths of Option 1. This criteria scheme is useful in

identifying fisheries that have relatively high rates of incidental

serious injuries and mortalities across a number of marine mammal

stocks, regardless of the status of the stocks involved. These

fisheries would be classified as Category I or II fisheries.

Weaknesses of Option 1. This approach is problematic in that it

does not account for the size of the fishery as a whole (i.e., the

number of vessels participating in the fishery), as it relates to

impacts on stocks. For instance, two fisheries may have the same

serious injury and mortality rate per 20 days of fishing, yet one

fishery may have 20 vessels participating and the other may have 3,000

vessels participating. These two fisheries would have significantly

different impacts on a particular stock or stocks of marine mammals.

Also, reporting requirements under section 118 require that fishers

report only incidents of serious injury and mortality, and not

information on fishing effort

days of fishing, yet one

fishery may have 20 vessels participating and the other may have 3,000

vessels participating. These two fisheries would have significantly

different impacts on a particular stock or stocks of marine mammals.

Also, reporting requirements under section 118 require that fishers

report only incidents of serious injury and mortality, and not

information on fishing effort. This significantly reduces the

information available to calculate takes rates per 20 days of fishing.

This information would only be accurate for fisheries in which there

are observers.

Option 1 could unnecessarily focus management and resources on

fisheries (e.g., monitoring programs, take reduction plans, etc.) that

do not have a significant impact on marine mammal stocks. It may

subject more vessel owners to registration, fees, and observer

coverage. Finally, NMFS is concerned that option 1 may be inconsistent

with the new section 118 because it does not consider the status of or

impact to the marine mammal stocks.

Option 2: Base Criteria on Proportions of the Stock Size and PBR.

Under this option, proportions of the best estimated stock size and the

PBR for a particular marine mammal stock would be used to classify

fisheries in the following manner:

Category I: Annual mortality and serious injury exceeds 0.005 of

the best population estimate for cetaceans or 0.01 of the best

population estimate for pinnipeds.

Category II: Annual mortality and serious injury is greater than

0.005 of the best population estimate but is greater than 0.01 of the

PBR for cetaceans or is less than 0.01 of the best population estimate

but greater than 0.1 of the PBR for pinnipeds.

Category III: Annual mortality and serious injury is less than 0.1

of PBR.

Comments on Option 2. There was no support for this option.

Option 3: Proportions of PBR

tality and serious injury is greater than

0.005 of the best population estimate but is greater than 0.01 of the

PBR for cetaceans or is less than 0.01 of the best population estimate

but greater than 0.1 of the PBR for pinnipeds.

Category III: Annual mortality and serious injury is less than 0.1

of PBR.

Comments on Option 2. There was no support for this option.

Option 3: Proportions of PBR. Under Option 3, a proportion of the

PBR for a particular marine mammal would be used to classify fisheries

in the following manner:

Category I: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a

given fishery is less than or equal to 50 percent of PBR.

Category II: Annual mortality and serious injury is greater than 1

percent and less than 50 percent of PBR.

Category III: Annual mortality and serious injury is less than 1

percent of PBR.

Comments on Option 3. Although there was general support for this

type of approach, working session participants were concerned that

Option 3 did not account for the collective impacts of all fisheries

that interact with a marine mammal stock. Working session attendees

also recognized that Option 3 did not account for marine mammal stocks

that are subjected to a low level of incidental mortality and injury

across a number of fisheries.

Option 4: Proportions of PBR--Two-tiered Approach. This approach is

a two-tiered scheme that first addresses the total impacts of all

fisheries on each marine mammal stock and then addresses the impacts of

individual fisheries on each stock. This approach is based on the

annual number of serious injuries and mortalities due to commercial

fishing relative to a stock's PBR.

Tier 1: If the annual mortality and serious injury across all

fisheries that interact with a stock is less than or equal to 10

percent of the PBR of such a stock, then all fisheries interacting with

this stock (and no other stocks that do not fit this criteria) would be

placed in Category III

nual number of serious injuries and mortalities due to commercial

fishing relative to a stock's PBR.

Tier 1: If the annual mortality and serious injury across all

fisheries that interact with a stock is less than or equal to 10

percent of the PBR of such a stock, then all fisheries interacting with

this stock (and no other stocks that do not fit this criteria) would be

placed in Category III. Otherwise, these fisheries are subject to the

next tier to determine their classification.

Tier 2--Category I: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock

in a given fishery is greater than some percentage of PBR.

Category II: Annual mortality and serious injury is between some

percentage and some percentage of PBR.

Category III: Annual mortality and serious injury is less than or

equal to some percentage of PBR.

This approach is modeled after the recommendations from the NMFS

PBR Workshop held in June 1994 and the working sessions on the draft

proposed regulations. The most critical classification threshold is the

one between Category II and Category III fisheries because Category III

fisheries only have a ``remote likelihood'' of incidental serious

injury or mortality of a marine mammal and would not be subject to the

more stringent requirements of Category I or II fisheries. The PBR

Workshop participants agreed that serious injury and mortality

incidental to commercial fishing operations would be insignificant to a

stock if such removals were only a small portion (i.e., 10 percent of

the PBR) of the stock. Using this rationale, all fisheries which impact

a stock would be considered in the determination of whether impacts to

that stock are significant (Tier 1). If the total removals from a stock

across all fisheries were greater than 10 percent of the PBR for that

stock, the fishery would then be categorized according to the criteria

in Tier 2.

The term ``some percentage'' under Tier 2 is used, because NMFS

considered a number of different percentage options under Option 4 (see

EA)

ination of whether impacts to

that stock are significant (Tier 1). If the total removals from a stock

across all fisheries were greater than 10 percent of the PBR for that

stock, the fishery would then be categorized according to the criteria

in Tier 2.

The term ``some percentage'' under Tier 2 is used, because NMFS

considered a number of different percentage options under Option 4 (see

EA). The threshold between Category I and II fisheries was set at 50

percent of PBR in this proposed rule. NMFS believes that this is a

conservative approach, and in its analysis there were few additional

fisheries added to Category I as a result of lowering the dividing line

from exceeding PBR to 50 percent of PBR (see EA).

Comments on Option 4. Attendees at the Seattle working session

supported the concept of basing fishery classification on takes

relative to PBR, and the two-tier system that is presented

here as Option 4 resulted from that session. At the Silver Spring

working session, there was also some support for this approach, but

others believed that the criteria should remain as they were under

section 114.

Assumptions of Option 4. This two-tiered approach assumes that NMFS

has fairly accurate information on both the abundance of a stock (in

order to calculate PBR) and the current level of incidental serious

injury and mortality due to commercial fishing per year. For some

cases, both the estimated fishing mortality and the PBRs of marine

mammal stocks incidentally taken in that fishery are known with some

degree of confidence. In these cases, fishing mortalities and serious

injuries were calculated using data collected by observers. If observer

data were not available, fishers' logbooks were used to estimate

removal levels. However, it is assumed that logbooks provide only a

minimum indication of total removal levels

marine

mammal stocks incidentally taken in that fishery are known with some

degree of confidence. In these cases, fishing mortalities and serious

injuries were calculated using data collected by observers. If observer

data were not available, fishers' logbooks were used to estimate

removal levels. However, it is assumed that logbooks provide only a

minimum indication of total removal levels. In cases where the PBR for

a stock is unknown, any known or inferred level of removal from that

stock by a fishery usually warranted placement of that fishery in

Category II so that better information could be collected.

For some fisheries, NMFS must use its best estimate of fishing

mortality and serious injury based on inferences from similar fishing

techniques, gear used, target species, seasons and areas fished, and

species and distribution of marine mammals in the area. This method of

inferring levels of removals was also used under regulations to

implement section 114. In most of the Category III fisheries for which

NMFS has no updated information to support a change in classification,

the Category III designation was maintained.

Strengths of Option 4. This approach categorizes fisheries based on

their impacts on stocks, thereby prompting take reduction teams to be

formed first for those stocks of greatest concern. Option 4 would

alleviate the burden of the management program for those fisheries that

do not significantly interact with marine mammal stocks (Category III),

because Category III vessel owners would not be required to register,

pay fees, or take aboard an observer. Option 4 would focus management

resources on those commercial fisheries that have impacts to marine

mammals that are more than negligible. Furthermore, this approach would

allow for the classification of fisheries that have only rare

occurrences of serious injuries and mortalities as Category II, if the

stock subject to removal has a very low PBR level and could be greatly

impacted by even a low level of taking

management

resources on those commercial fisheries that have impacts to marine

mammals that are more than negligible. Furthermore, this approach would

allow for the classification of fisheries that have only rare

occurrences of serious injuries and mortalities as Category II, if the

stock subject to removal has a very low PBR level and could be greatly

impacted by even a low level of taking.

Weaknesses of Option 4. This approach does not specifically address

fisheries that have a high frequency of marine mammal serious injuries

and mortalities across several stocks. These could be classified as

either Category I, II, or III depending on the stocks with which they

interact. This may affect the prioritization of take reduction team

formation, although, eventually, take reduction teams must be formed

for marine mammal stocks that have significant incidental interactions

with Category I or II fisheries.

Criteria for Categorizing Fisheries

NMFS believes that the 1994 amendments to the MMPA emphasized

management of the interaction between commercial fisheries and marine

mammals on a stock-specific basis. For this reason, NMFS proposes to

use Option 4 (discussed above) and the proposed definitions of

frequent, occasional, and remote (proposed Sec. 229.2) were used to

classify commercial fisheries. This requires the previous proposed

changes to the LOF to be revised and to be reproposed by this notice.

Zero Mortality Rate Goal

NMFS proposes to consider a fishery as having reached the ZMRG when

collectively with other fisheries, it is responsible for the annual

removal of (1) 10 percent or less of any marine mammal stock's PBR, or

ec. 229.2) were used to

classify commercial fisheries. This requires the previous proposed

changes to the LOF to be revised and to be reproposed by this notice.

Zero Mortality Rate Goal

NMFS proposes to consider a fishery as having reached the ZMRG when

collectively with other fisheries, it is responsible for the annual

removal of (1) 10 percent or less of any marine mammal stock's PBR, or

(2) more than 10 percent of any marine mammal stock's PBR, yet the

fishery by itself is responsible for the annual removal of one percent

or less of that stock's PBR (proposed Sec. 229.2).

It is not possible to determine whether a level of mortality to a

declining stock of marine mammals is insignificant simply by applying a

mechanistic definition such as the one set forth above. Therefore,

fisheries that kill or seriously injure declining, depleted,

threatened, or endangered stocks of marine mammals would have to be

examined separately to determine whether the incidental take is

insignificant.

Another option for defining the ZMRG draws from the 1981 amendments

to the MMPA that addressed reducing mortality of small cetaceans in the

yellow-fin tuna fishery in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). In

1981, Congress expressed it was not its intent to shut down the tuna

fishery via the MMPA and that the ZMRG could be achieved in that

fishery by requiring the use of the best marine mammal safety

techniques and equipment that are economically and technologically

practicable (H.R. Rep. 228, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 13 (Sept. 16, 1981))

tuna fishery in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). In

1981, Congress expressed it was not its intent to shut down the tuna

fishery via the MMPA and that the ZMRG could be achieved in that

fishery by requiring the use of the best marine mammal safety

techniques and equipment that are economically and technologically

practicable (H.R. Rep. 228, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 13 (Sept. 16, 1981)).

If a similar rationale were adopted for other fisheries, the following

might be an option for defining the ZMRG: ``Zero Mortality Rate Goal

means the reduction of the annual number of incidental mortalities and

serious injuries in each fishery to insignificant levels approaching a

zero mortality and serious injury rate; at a minimum, this requires

that the rate of incidental mortality and serious injury is at the

lowest level that is technologically and economically practicable.''

A problem with such an adopting such an approach when implementing

section 118 of the MMPA, however, is that, while Congress adopted a

``technologically and economically practicable'' approach for the ETP

yellowfin tuna fishery in 1981, it effectively abandoned that approach

in 1984 when it established an annual statutory quota of 20,500 for

that fishery. Congress reduced the quota again in 1992 when through the

International Dolphin Conservation Act; there, it added a new section

306 to the MMPA in which the quota was reduced to 1000 for 1992, and

800 from January 1, 1993 to March 1, 1994. It also required that, for

each year after 1992, dolphin mortality must decrease by a

``statistically significant amount.'' Under these new requirements, the

ETP yellowfin tuna fishery was forced to stop fishing in February of

1994 because it was approaching a take of 114 dolphins, which was

statistically significantly less than the 115 it took in 1993

0 from January 1, 1993 to March 1, 1994. It also required that, for

each year after 1992, dolphin mortality must decrease by a

``statistically significant amount.'' Under these new requirements, the

ETP yellowfin tuna fishery was forced to stop fishing in February of

1994 because it was approaching a take of 114 dolphins, which was

statistically significantly less than the 115 it took in 1993. These

statutory limits on dolphin mortality clearly indicate that, even for

the ETP yellowfin tuna fishery, the 1981 approach using

``technologically and economically practicable'' methods a questionable

method of achieving the ZMRG.

Some commenters proposed a definition where ``zero equals zero''

and believed that fisheries should be required to reduce their

incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals to zero.

There are two main problems with this approach: (1) It does not

consider a ``rate'' of take as required by the ZMRG, and (2) this

option could result in severe curtailment or complete cessation of

fishing operations, even for fisheries that had only a remote

likelihood of marine mammal incidental take.

In the proposed rule, the definition of ZMRG is proposed to be

based on 10 percent of PBR. Comments on the preferred definition and

the options presented are specifically encouraged.

Commercial Fishing Authorization

As required by the provisions of section 118(c) of the MMPA, under

the proposed rule, in order for persons to lawfully take a marine

mammal while engaged in a Category I or II fishery, the owner of a

vessel or an authorized representative thereof would have to register

with NMFS for and obtain an Authorization Certificate and decal,

display the decal on the vessel, possess physical evidence of the

authorization on the vessel, and report all incidental mortality and

injury of marine mammals to NMFS. Vessels engaged in a Category I or II

fishery would be required to carry aboard an observer if requested by

NMFS

d representative thereof would have to register

with NMFS for and obtain an Authorization Certificate and decal,

display the decal on the vessel, possess physical evidence of the

authorization on the vessel, and report all incidental mortality and

injury of marine mammals to NMFS. Vessels engaged in a Category I or II

fishery would be required to carry aboard an observer if requested by

NMFS. In the case of a nonvessel fishery, the owner of the fishing

gear, or an authorized representative thereof, would have to register

with NMFS for and obtain an Authorization Certificate and decal and

attach the decal to the Authorization Certificate and the Certificate

or a copy thereof would have to be in the possession of the person in

charge of the fishing operations.

Owners of vessels engaged only in Category III fisheries would not

be required to register with NMFS for or obtain an Authorization

Certificate or decal to incidentally take marine mammals as a result of

their fishing operations; however, they would be required to report all

marine mammals incidentally killed or injured. Owners of vessels in

Category I or II fisheries would be required to comply with any general

regulations, conditions of Authorization Certificates issued to the

vessel owner, and emergency or take reduction plan regulations

published under the authority of section 118; owners of vessels in

Category III fisheries would be required to comply with emergency or

take reduction plan regulations and reporting requirements.

As specified in section 118(c)(2)(B) of the MMPA, the authorization

for commercial fisheries applies only to U.S. commercial fishing

vessels including licensed commercial passenger fishing vessels (e.g.,

charter and party boats) or to those foreign vessels with valid fishing

permits issued under section 204(b) of the Magnuson Fishery

Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) (Magnuson

Act)

in section 118(c)(2)(B) of the MMPA, the authorization

for commercial fisheries applies only to U.S. commercial fishing

vessels including licensed commercial passenger fishing vessels (e.g.,

charter and party boats) or to those foreign vessels with valid fishing

permits issued under section 204(b) of the Magnuson Fishery

Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) (Magnuson

Act). As specified in section 118(a)(3), authorizations under section

118 are not applicable to vessels fishing in the yellowfin tuna purse

seine fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific. Although registration of

vessels in Category I and II fisheries under the MMPA is necessary to

lawfully incidentally take a marine mammal, not registering under the

MMPA would not prevent a fisher from fishing. Fishing is governed by a

variety of mechanisms such as Federal or state laws and their

respective implementing regulations (including regulations implementing

regional fishery management plans).

The authorization for commercial fisheries does not apply to

Northwest Treaty Tribal fishers exercising treaty rights.

Section 118 of the MMPA does not include authority to incidentally

take southern (California) sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis). This

subspecies historically ranged along the west coast of the United

States, but currently is found only along the central California coast

and San Nicolas Island, CA. Section 118 of the MMPA does not supersede

or otherwise affect the provisions of Public Law 99-625, governing the

translocation of southern sea otters to San Nicolas Island for research

and recovery purposes. Within special zones established for this

experimental population, certain restrictions on incidental taking

under the MMPA do not apply. (See 50 CFR 17.84(d) for a description of

these special zones and activities that can be lawfully conducted

within these zones.) Issuance of Authorization Certificates for

Category I and II Fisheries

Registration Process

or research

and recovery purposes. Within special zones established for this

experimental population, certain restrictions on incidental taking

under the MMPA do not apply. (See 50 CFR 17.84(d) for a description of

these special zones and activities that can be lawfully conducted

within these zones.) Issuance of Authorization Certificates for

Category I and II Fisheries

Registration Process

As required by section 118(c) of the MMPA, under the proposed

regulations, a vessel owner (or authorized representative) would have

to register to obtain an Authorization Certificate and decal for each

vessel that will engage in a Category I or II fishery. The initial

registration would cover 1996. After that, registrations to renew

certificates would be required each calendar year. Those owners of

vessels holding valid Exemption Certificates under section 114 would be

deemed to have registered under section 118 through December 31, 1995.

Registration forms, outlining the required information, would be

available from NMFS (proposed Sec. 229.4(c)). However, if the granting

and administration of authorizations is integrated and coordinated with

an existing fishery license, registration, or related program operated

by an entity other than NMFS, registrations forms will be available

from those program offices. A notice will be published in the Federal

Register indicating where to register and other means will also be used

to notify fishers of the change (e.g., MMPA Bulletin, mailings to

previously registered fishers, etc).

One registration per vessel would be required and would cover all

Category I and II fisheries in which the vessel participates during the

calendar year. The registrant would be requested to send the first page

of the registration form to one of the NMFS offices listed in proposed

section Sec. 229.4; the second page should be retained by the

registrant and would serve as an indication of registration until an

Authorization Certificate is issued

ld cover all

Category I and II fisheries in which the vessel participates during the

calendar year. The registrant would be requested to send the first page

of the registration form to one of the NMFS offices listed in proposed

section Sec. 229.4; the second page should be retained by the

registrant and would serve as an indication of registration until an

Authorization Certificate is issued.

For annual renewals, registration forms, containing the information

on file with NMFS, would be sent to existing Authorization Certificate

holders prior to the beginning of the year. Vessel owners would be

required to make any necessary corrections or updates and sign and

return the form to NMFS. A signed registration renewal form would have

to be submitted to NMFS prior to any incidental taking of a marine

mammal by that vessel owner in a Category I or II fishery.

The term ``vessel owners'' (proposed Sec. 229.2), in addition to

owners of commercial fishing vessels, would be defined to include

owners of fixed or other fishing gear that is used in a ``nonvessel

fishery.'' A ``nonvessel fishery'' would mean a commercial fishing

operation that uses fixed or other fishing gear without a vessel, such

as gear used in set gillnet, trap, beach seine, weir, ranch and pen

fisheries. Owners of such gear would be subject to the same

requirements and restrictions as owners of fishing vessels or fish

processing vessels operating in a commercial fishery.

A registration fee may be required to accompany each registration

or request for renewal if NMFS is issuing the Authorization

Certificates.

Under the legislation, NMFS is authorized to establish a fee to

cover the administrative cost of granting Authorization Certificates

and renewals, however, the amount that would be required has not been

determined at this time. ``Vessel owners'' in ``nonvessel fisheries''

may be required to submit one fee to register all gear owned

r renewal if NMFS is issuing the Authorization

Certificates.

Under the legislation, NMFS is authorized to establish a fee to

cover the administrative cost of granting Authorization Certificates

and renewals, however, the amount that would be required has not been

determined at this time. ``Vessel owners'' in ``nonvessel fisheries''

may be required to submit one fee to register all gear owned. The fees

collected in connection with the authorization system would be

available to NMFS to cover the administrative costs and will be

determined annually and published in the LOF.

Issuing Procedures

After submission of a completed registration form and the required

fee, an Authorization Certificate and a vessel decal or other physical

evidence would be issued to the vessel owner for each vessel intending

to engage in a Category I or II fishery. The initial Certificate and

decal would be valid for calendar year 1996. After that, Certificate

renewals and decals would be issued each year after receipt of an

updated registration,

required fee, and statement (yes/no) regarding whether any marine

mammals were incidentally killed or injured during the previous

calendar year covering all registered Category I or II fisheries.

Decals or other physical evidence would be required to be displayed

as proof of current registration. In those instances where NMFS is

successful in incorporating the registration process with existing

licensing systems, fishers will be notified of the accepted ``physical

evidence'' requirements.

A replacement decal would be issued, if requested, to replace a

lost or damaged decal. In nonvessel fisheries, the decal would have to

be affixed to the Certificate. Annual decals would be issued along with

the Certificates in subsequent years

n incorporating the registration process with existing

licensing systems, fishers will be notified of the accepted ``physical

evidence'' requirements.

A replacement decal would be issued, if requested, to replace a

lost or damaged decal. In nonvessel fisheries, the decal would have to

be affixed to the Certificate. Annual decals would be issued along with

the Certificates in subsequent years.

The Authorization Certificate or a copy thereof would have to be on

board the vessel while it is operating in a Category I or II fishery,

or, in the case of a nonvessel fishery, a copy of the Certificate would

have to be in the possession of the person in charge of the fishing

operations. A copy of the Certificate would have to be made available

upon request to any state or Federal government official authorized to

enforce the provisions of the MMPA or to any designated agent of NMFS.

Suspension or Revocation of Authorization Certificates

Under the proposed regulations, NMFS could suspend or revoke a

Certificate or deny a Certificate renewal for any vessel if the

Certificate holder (1) fails to report as required under proposed

Sec. 229.6, or (2) fails to take aboard an observer in a Category I or

II fishery as required under proposed Sec. 229.7, if requested. In

addition, NMFS could revoke or suspend a Certificate for any vessel

that fails to comply with other terms and conditions of the

Authorization Certificate or the regulations governing the incidental

taking of marine mammals during commercial operations under this

section. NMFS could suspend or revoke a Certificate or could deny a

Certificate renewal for any vessel which fails to comply with a take

reduction plan or emergency regulations under this section. The

suspension, revocation or denial could occur without notice or

opportunity for hearing in the case of failure to submit required

reports. Other actions would be subject to NOAA's civil procedures

contained in subpart D of 15 CFR part 904

ificate or could deny a

Certificate renewal for any vessel which fails to comply with a take

reduction plan or emergency regulations under this section. The

suspension, revocation or denial could occur without notice or

opportunity for hearing in the case of failure to submit required

reports. Other actions would be subject to NOAA's civil procedures

contained in subpart D of 15 CFR part 904. Previous failure to comply

with the requirements of section 114 of the MMPA would not bar

authorization under this section for an owner who complies with the

requirements of this section.

Requirements for Category III Fisheries

Under section 118(c) of the MMPA and these proposed regulations,

owners of vessels engaged only in Category III fisheries are not

required to register with NMFS or to obtain an Authorization

Certificate to legally incidentally take marine mammals during

commercial fishing operations. However, they would be required to

report all incidental mortality and injury and make all reasonable

efforts to release animals unharmed. Where necessary to address

immediate and adverse impacts to marine mammal stocks, NMFS could place

observers aboard Category III vessels if there is reason to believe

that such vessels may be causing the incidental mortality and serious

injury to such a stock.

Reporting Requirements

As required by section 118(e) of the MMPA and the proposed

regulations, vessel owners or operators engaged in Category I, II, or

III fisheries would have to report all incidental mortality and injury

of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations to

NMFS Headquarters or appropriate NMFS Regional Office. NMFS proposes to

define an ``injury'' (proposed Sec. 229.2) as a wound or other physical

harm. Any animal that requires assistance to escape from entanglement

in fishing gear would also be considered injured and would have to be

reported

cidental mortality and injury

of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations to

NMFS Headquarters or appropriate NMFS Regional Office. NMFS proposes to

define an ``injury'' (proposed Sec. 229.2) as a wound or other physical

harm. Any animal that requires assistance to escape from entanglement

in fishing gear would also be considered injured and would have to be

reported.

Reports would have to be submitted by mail or other means such as

FAX within 48 hours after the end of each fishing trip during which the

incidental mortality or injury occurred. The ``end of a fishing trip''

(proposed Sec. 229.2) would mean the time of a vessels' return to port

after a fishing trip. NMFS would provide a standard postage-paid form

and instructions for recording information for this purpose. If a

fisher participates in more than one fishery during a single fishing

trip, a separate report would be required to be submitted for each such

fishery. Report forms would require information on: The fishery, gear

type and fish species involved; the marine mammal species (or

description of the animal(s) if species is not known), number, date,

and location of marine mammal incidental takes and whether an injury or

mortality occurred. Failure to report incidental mortality or injury of

marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations would

result in suspension or revocation of the Authorization Certificate and

denial of Authorization Certificate renewal requests until the vessel

owner complies with reporting requirements of proposed Sec. 229.6 of

this part.

Monitoring Program

njury or

mortality occurred. Failure to report incidental mortality or injury of

marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations would

result in suspension or revocation of the Authorization Certificate and

denial of Authorization Certificate renewal requests until the vessel

owner complies with reporting requirements of proposed Sec. 229.6 of

this part.

Monitoring Program

As required by section 118(d) of the MMPA, NMFS would establish a

program to monitor incidental mortality and serious injury of marine

mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations. A ``serious

injury'' (proposed Sec. 229.2) would be defined as any injury of a

marine mammal during a commercial fishing operation that will likely

result in mortality of that marine mammal. The purposes of the

monitoring program as specified in section 118(d)(1) of the MMPA are

to: (1) Obtain statistically reliable estimates of incidental mortality

and serious injury of marine mammals; (2) determine the reliability of

reports of incidental mortality and injury of marine mammals obtained

from fishers' reports; and (3) identify changes in fishing methods or

technology that may increase or decrease incidental mortality or

serious injury of marine mammals. The monitoring program would use

information from observer programs, fishers' reports, and marine mammal

stranding reports.

Observer Program

Section 118(d)(2) authorizes NMFS to place observers aboard

vessels, as necessary, to monitor incidental mortality and serious

injury of marine mammals during commercial fishing operations for

vessels engaged in Category I or II fisheries. Under the proposed

regulations, the owner of a vessel engaged in a Category I or II

fishery would be required to take aboard an observer if requested by

NMFS or a contractor of NMFS, to do so

place observers aboard

vessels, as necessary, to monitor incidental mortality and serious

injury of marine mammals during commercial fishing operations for

vessels engaged in Category I or II fisheries. Under the proposed

regulations, the owner of a vessel engaged in a Category I or II

fishery would be required to take aboard an observer if requested by

NMFS or a contractor of NMFS, to do so. The extent of observer coverage

would be based on the ability to obtain statistically reliable

estimates of incidental mortality and serious injury in each individual

fishery and could include up to 100 percent observer coverage of a

fishery. The specific design of the observer program, including how

long an observer would be placed on a particular vessel, would vary

among fisheries.

As required by section 118(d)(4), the highest priority for

allocating observers among fisheries would be for those commercial

fisheries that have incidental mortality or serious injury of marine

mammals from stocks listed as endangered or threatened species under

the ESA. To the extent practicable, the next highest priority for

allocation would be for those commercial fisheries that have incidental

mortality and serious injury of marine mammals from strategic stocks. A

``strategic stock'' is a

marine mammal stock (1) for which the level of human-caused mortality

is greater than the potential biological removal, or (2) which is

declining and is likely to be listed under the ESA, or (3) which is

listed under the ESA, or (4) which is designated as depleted under the

MMPA (proposed Sec. 229.2). The ``potential biological removal level''

(proposed Sec. 229.2) would mean the maximum number of animals, not

including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal

stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimal

sustainable population

the ESA, or (3) which is

listed under the ESA, or (4) which is designated as depleted under the

MMPA (proposed Sec. 229.2). The ``potential biological removal level''

(proposed Sec. 229.2) would mean the maximum number of animals, not

including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal

stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimal

sustainable population. To the extent practicable, the third highest

priority for allocation would be for commercial fisheries that have

incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals from stocks

for which the level of incidental mortality and serious injury relative

to the stock size is uncertain.

As required by section 118(d)(3), when determining the distribution

of observers among fisheries and vessels within a fishery, NMFS would

be guided by the following standards: (1) The requirement to obtain

statistically reliable information; (2) the requirement that the

assignment of observers be fair and equitable among fisheries and among

vessels within a fishery; (3) the requirement that no individual person

or vessel, or group of persons or vessels, be subject to excessive or

overly burdensome observer coverage; and (4) to the extent practicable,

the need to minimize costs and avoid duplication.

Under section 118(d)(6) of the MMPA, NMFS is not required to place

an observer on a Category I or II vessel if (1) statistically reliable

information can be obtained from observers on processing vessels to

which Category I or II harvesting vessels deliver a catch that has not

been taken on board the harvesting vessel, (2) the facilities for

housing the observer or for carrying out observer functions are so

inadequate or unsafe that the health or safety of the observer or the

safe operation of the vessel would be jeopardized, or (3) an observer

is not available

bservers on processing vessels to

which Category I or II harvesting vessels deliver a catch that has not

been taken on board the harvesting vessel, (2) the facilities for

housing the observer or for carrying out observer functions are so

inadequate or unsafe that the health or safety of the observer or the

safe operation of the vessel would be jeopardized, or (3) an observer

is not available.

The first exception addresses the situation in which Category I or

II vessel catcher/harvester boats do not bring the catch on board, but

deliver the fish directly to a floating processor on which an observer

is placed. For example, observers on foreign vessels in over-the-side

joint ventures may satisfy the observer requirements, and observers

would not be needed on the catcher/harvester boats.

With respect to whether a vessel is adequate for taking an observer

aboard, NMFS would make the necessary determinations on a case-by-case

basis. Examples of situations in which observers would not be required

or if a vessel is too small to carry (or house) an observer safely, if

an observer would displace a crew member, or if fishing gear or the

vessel could not be operated safely because of the presence of an

observer.

The exception for unavailability of observers would include

situations where NMFS may have inadequate funds to cover a full

observer program or may not be able to employ or contract for

sufficient qualified personnel to fully staff an observer program. To

minimize these situations, NMFS would use observers, to the maximum

extent possible, placed under other authorities, such as the Magnuson

Act, to collect marine mammal interaction information, in addition to

their other duties, to fulfill the observer requirements under the

MMPA.

Vessel owners, operators, and crew members would be required to

cooperate with observers and to provide information, such as vessel

location, needed to meet the observers' responsibilities

possible, placed under other authorities, such as the Magnuson

Act, to collect marine mammal interaction information, in addition to

their other duties, to fulfill the observer requirements under the

MMPA.

Vessel owners, operators, and crew members would be required to

cooperate with observers and to provide information, such as vessel

location, needed to meet the observers' responsibilities. If feasible

and if required by the observer, marine mammals killed during the

fishing operation which are readily accessible to crew members would

have to be brought on board the vessel for biological processing and

could be retained by NMFS. NMFS recognizes that for many smaller

vessels, this will not be feasible and, therefore, would not be

required. As authorized by section 118(d)(2), observers could, among

other tasks (1) record incidental mortality and serious injury, or

bycatch of other nontarget species; (2) record numbers of marine

mammals sighted; and (3) perform other scientific investigations,

including photographing incidental takes.

Although the primary purpose of the observer program is to collect

data on incidental take of marine mammals, observers would not be

limited to this activity. Regional fishery management councils, states

or other Federal agencies could request NMFS to collect other

scientific or biological information needed in their resource

conservation and management programs, such as fishery resource and sea

bird data. NMFS would require the observer to collect the requested

additional information unless NMFS found in writing, and after

opportunity for public comment, that the collection of the requested

information would interfere with the collection of information related

to marine mammals

formation needed in their resource

conservation and management programs, such as fishery resource and sea

bird data. NMFS would require the observer to collect the requested

additional information unless NMFS found in writing, and after

opportunity for public comment, that the collection of the requested

information would interfere with the collection of information related

to marine mammals.

Pursuant to section 118(d)(7) of the MMPA, NMFS could place an

observer aboard a vessel engaged in a Category III fishery with the

consent with the vessel owner or pursuant to section 118(g)(1)(C), if

NMFS believed that the incidental mortality or serious injury of marine

mammals from such fishery may be contributing to the immediate and

significant adverse impact of a species or stock listed under the ESA

and has prescribed emergency regulations under proposed

Sec. 229.9(a)(3). If an observer was placed on a vessel engaged in a

Category III fishery, the vessel owner, operator, and crew members

would have to comply with the requirements under Sec. 229.9(e).

NMFS, in coordination with Federal and state scientists and

personnel experienced in fishery observer programs, is designing its

observer program to obtain statistically reliable information on the

species and number of marine mammals incidentally killed or seriously

injured in as many Category I and II fisheries as possible. The level

of observer coverage and whether an alternative program would be used

would be determined for each Category I and II fishery. These

determinations would be based on the size and nature of each fishery

and on the resources available for these programs. NMFS will try to

make the best use of available resources by using existing research

programs, programs operated by the states or other authorities, or

alternative programs where statistically reliable information can be

obtained at lower cost.

Alternative Observer Program

determinations would be based on the size and nature of each fishery

and on the resources available for these programs. NMFS will try to

make the best use of available resources by using existing research

programs, programs operated by the states or other authorities, or

alternative programs where statistically reliable information can be

obtained at lower cost.

Alternative Observer Program

As authorized by section 118(d)(5) of the MMPA, if observers could

not be placed on Category I or II vessels at the necessary level, NMFS

could establish an alternative observer program to provide

statistically reliable information on the species and number of marine

mammals incidentally killed or seriously injured in the course of

commercial fishing operations. The alternative observer program could

include, but would not be limited to, direct observation of fishing

activities from vessels, airplanes, or points on shore. Provided

sufficient resources were available, an alternative program could also

be established in any fishery for which reliable information was not

otherwise obtainable.

Stranding Information

The NMFS may use marine mammal stranding data to monitor incidental

mortality and serious injury of marine mammals from commercial fishing

operations to supplement the information obtained from the observer

program and fishers' reports. Intentional Taking of Marine Mammals

Section 118(a)(5) of the MMPA prohibits the intentional lethal take

of any marine mammal in the course of commercial fishing operations in

Category I, II, or III fisheries except as proved by section 101(c),

which authorizes takings, including intentional lethal takings, if

imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of a person in

immediate danger and such taking is reported to NMFS within 48 hours.

On February 1, 1995, NMFS published a final rule implementing this

section of the MMPA (60 FR 6036)

ng operations in

Category I, II, or III fisheries except as proved by section 101(c),

which authorizes takings, including intentional lethal takings, if

imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of a person in

immediate danger and such taking is reported to NMFS within 48 hours.

On February 1, 1995, NMFS published a final rule implementing this

section of the MMPA (60 FR 6036). That rule, which became effective on

March 3, 1995, requires that a report be made to the appropriate NMFS

Regional Office within 48 hours if a marine mammal is killed by a

fisher or a member of the general public in self-defense or in order to

save the life of another person. If a report is not submitted, the

person responsible for the take, whether a fisher or a member of the

general public, will be subject to the penalties which have been

authorized by the MMPA for illegal takes. This proposed rule

incorporates the provisions of that final rule and would supersede it.

When necessary to deter a marine mammal from damaging gear, catch,

or private property, or from endangering personal safety, fishers in

Category I, II, or III fisheries may do so provided they follow the

guidelines for safely deterring marine mammals found at proposed 50 CFR

Sec. 216.29(c) and do not use any measures prohibited under proposed 50

CFR 216.29(d). These sections were proposed on May 5, 1995 (60 FR

22345) and are subject to change based on the comments received.

Definitions of Incidental Taking and Incidental Mortality

ory I, II, or III fisheries may do so provided they follow the

guidelines for safely deterring marine mammals found at proposed 50 CFR

Sec. 216.29(c) and do not use any measures prohibited under proposed 50

CFR 216.29(d). These sections were proposed on May 5, 1995 (60 FR

22345) and are subject to change based on the comments received.

Definitions of Incidental Taking and Incidental Mortality

The proposed definition of incidental, but not intentional, take is

the nonintentional or accidental taking of a marine mammal that results

from, but is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful

action. The proposed definition of incidental mortality is the non-

intentional or accidental death of a marine mammal that results from,

but is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful action. The

phrase ``incidental, but not intentional'' is intended to mean

accidental taking. The words 'not intentional' should not be read to

mean that persons who `know' that there is some possibility of taking

marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations or other

specified activities are precluded from doing so.

Prohibition on Discarding Fishing Gear

Proposed section 229.3(f) would prohibit the discarding of fishing

gear at sea. The ingestion of, or entanglement in, discarded fishing

gear by marine mammals often causes them serious injury or mortality.

It is not necessary for the conduct of fishing operations to discard

fishing gear at sea. Gear can be stowed and safely discarded in port.

Accordingly, it is proposed to prohibit the discard of fishing gear at

sea, because such discards are not necessary to fishing operations and

prohibiting such discards would decrease the number of serious injuries

and mortalities to marine mammals caused by fishing operations

consistent with the ZMRG.

Publication of List of Fisheries

r at sea. Gear can be stowed and safely discarded in port.

Accordingly, it is proposed to prohibit the discard of fishing gear at

sea, because such discards are not necessary to fishing operations and

prohibiting such discards would decrease the number of serious injuries

and mortalities to marine mammals caused by fishing operations

consistent with the ZMRG.

Publication of List of Fisheries

Section 118(c) of the MMPA requires NMFS to publish a LOF, along

with the marine mammals and number of vessels or persons involved in

each such fishery, for those fisheries that have:

Category I: A frequent incidental mortality and serious injury of

marine mammals;

Category II: An occasional incidental mortality and serious injury

of marine mammals; or

Category III: A remote likelihood, or no known incidental mortality

or serious injury of marine mammals.

A notice proposing revisions to the last LOF would be published in

the Federal Register on or about July 1 of each year for the purpose of

receiving public comment. A final LOF would be published on or about

October 1 of each year which would become effective January 1 of the

next calendar year. The proposed and final LOF would be developed

according to the definitions for Category I, II, and III fisheries

under Sec. 229.2. Each LOF would list the marine mammals that interact

with the fisheries, the approximate number of vessels or persons

actively involved in each fishery, and would set forth the registration

fee. A revised LOF may be published at any time after notice and

opportunity for public comment.

Proposed List of Fisheries

rding to the definitions for Category I, II, and III fisheries

under Sec. 229.2. Each LOF would list the marine mammals that interact

with the fisheries, the approximate number of vessels or persons

actively involved in each fishery, and would set forth the registration

fee. A revised LOF may be published at any time after notice and

opportunity for public comment.

Proposed List of Fisheries

The proposed regulations would establish the following fishery

classification criteria:

Tier 1: If the annual mortality and serious injury across all

fisheries that interact with a stock is less than or equal to 10

percent of the PBR of such a stock, then all fisheries interacting with

this stock (and no other stocks that do not fit this criteria) would be

placed in Category III. Otherwise, these fisheries are subject to the

next tier to determine their classification.

Tier 2--Category I: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock

in a given fishery is greater than or equal to 50 percent of PBR.

Category II: Annual mortality and serious injury is greater than 1

percent and less than 50 percent of PBR.

Category III: Annual mortality and serious injury is less than or

equal to 1 percent of PBR.

These criteria and information on commercial fisheries were used to

develop the proposed LOF contained in this notice based on the

following prioritization scheme:

1. Observer data extrapolated to estimate a total annual kill for

that fishery was used where available, after which the proposed

classification criteria were applied for Category I, II and III

fisheries in order to classify the fisheries. The source of the

observer data is provided in the description of how the fishery was

classified.

2. Logbook data were used if observer data was unavailable. Only

those animals recorded as ``injured in gear'' and ``killed in gear''

were included. Those animals harassed, injured, or killed by deterrence

were not included in the data used to categorize the fisheries

to classify the fisheries. The source of the

observer data is provided in the description of how the fishery was

classified.

2. Logbook data were used if observer data was unavailable. Only

those animals recorded as ``injured in gear'' and ``killed in gear''

were included. Those animals harassed, injured, or killed by deterrence

were not included in the data used to categorize the fisheries. Logbook

data were summarized from the F/PR database. An estimated total annual

kill is not calculated; fisheries are categorized based on the reported

injuries and mortalities. When logbook data were questionable, the NMFS

evaluated the reliability of the data.

3. When neither observer data nor logbook data were available,

fisher's reports of marine mammal takes were used to classify the

fisheries.

4. Evidence of fishery interactions can sometimes be gleaned by

examination of stranded marine mammals. When the cause of death of a

particular stranded marine mammal could be attributed to a specific

fishery, this information was used to classify some fisheries.

5. If no information was available on which to base the

classification of a particular fishery, the fishery was classified

based on analogy with other fisheries occurring in similar locations or

having similar gear types or methods for which observer or logbook

information exists. When classifying fisheries, analogies were not made

to fisheries which were classified based on fisher's reports or

stranding data.

6. If available information is deemed by NMFS to be highly

questionable, the fishery may be categorized based on the best

information available, which includes but is not limited to historical

patterns of marine mammal takes and expected magnitude of takes

resulting from changes in fishery effort.

Justification for Categorization of Commercial Fisheries

fisher's reports or

stranding data.

6. If available information is deemed by NMFS to be highly

questionable, the fishery may be categorized based on the best

information available, which includes but is not limited to historical

patterns of marine mammal takes and expected magnitude of takes

resulting from changes in fishery effort.

Justification for Categorization of Commercial Fisheries

The following are justifications for the proposed categorization of

commercial fisheries into Category I, II, or III based on the proposed

classification scheme. Justifications are presented for only those

fisheries proposed to be placed in Category I or II and those fisheries

in Category III for which observer, logbook, stranding or other

information exist. Unless otherwise specified, fisheries classified

into Category I or II have passed the Tier I criteria; thus, most

justifications for placing fisheries detail only the information used

to classify the fishery under the Tier 2 criteria. Tables 1 and 2

presents the proposed LOF.

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean

Category I

California angel shark/halibut and other species large mesh

(greater than 3.5 in) set gill net fishery. For the purpose of the 1994

LOF, this fishery was included with the California drift gillnet

fishery under the general fishery definition ``California set and drift

gillnet fisheries that use a stretched mesh size of greater than 3.5

inches''. This fishery was renamed in order to remain consistent with

the name under which observer data is collected and because the name is

more descriptive of the fishery.

This fishery is proposed to be placed in Category I, because

observer data averaged across the years 1991 to 1993 indicate that the

annual take of the central Californian stock of harbor porpoise (31

animals) is 91 percent of the PBR for this stock (34 animals).

California, Oregon thresher shark/swordfish/blue shark (blue shark

in Oregon only) drift gill net fishery

scriptive of the fishery.

This fishery is proposed to be placed in Category I, because

observer data averaged across the years 1991 to 1993 indicate that the

annual take of the central Californian stock of harbor porpoise (31

animals) is 91 percent of the PBR for this stock (34 animals).

California, Oregon thresher shark/swordfish/blue shark (blue shark

in Oregon only) drift gill net fishery. This fishery was included with

the California angel shark/halibut set gillnet fishery in the 1994 LOF

and was called the ``California set and drift gillnet fisheries that

use a stretched mesh size of greater than 3.5 inches''. This fishery

was renamed to be more specific and to include the northward expansion

of the fishery into Oregon and a possible future expansion into

Washington. Observer data collected in the fishery both in California

and in Oregon indicates that the incidental take of marine mammals

occurs throughout the fishery. In addition, observer data collected in

the late 1980's during an experimental shark fishery in Oregon and

Washington using comparable gear also showed incidental takes of marine

mammals for the fishery at that time (Stick and Hreha, 1989).

This fishery is proposed to be placed in Category I, because

observer data provided by the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center

averaged across the years 1991 to 1993 indicate that the annual take of

the Pacific sperm whale stock (15 animals) is greater than the PBR for

this stock (1 animal).

Category II

dental takes of marine

mammals for the fishery at that time (Stick and Hreha, 1989).

This fishery is proposed to be placed in Category I, because

observer data provided by the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center

averaged across the years 1991 to 1993 indicate that the annual take of

the Pacific sperm whale stock (15 animals) is greater than the PBR for

this stock (1 animal).

Category II

Alaska Prince William Sound salmon drift gillnet. Categorization of

this fishery is based on observer data. The Prince William Sound drift

gillnet (Eshamy, Coghill and Unawik districts) and Copper River and

Bering River salmon drift gillnet are combined in this fishery. Because

total known harbor porpoise mortality and serious injury levels across

all fisheries exceed 10 percent of the stock's PBR, and the known

harbor porpoise mortality and serious injury level for this fishery is

20 animals per year (8.1 percent of PBR), this fishery is proposed to

be placed in Category II.

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutians salmon drift gillnet fishery.

Categorization of this fishery is based on observer data. The South

Unimak (including False Pass and Unimak Pass) drift gillnet and the

Alaska Peninsula (other than South Unimak) drift gillnet fisheries are

combined in this fishery. Although total known Dall's porpoise

mortality and serious injury levels across all fisheries do not exceed

10 percent of the stock's PBR with currently available information, low

levels of observer coverage across all fisheries have been inadequate

to determine mortality and serious injury levels across all fisheries

for this stock, and available data suggest that levels of mortality and

serious injury may exceed 10 percent of this stock's PBR if observer

information were available. This, combined with the fact that known

Dall's porpoise mortality and serious injury level of 28/year (1.8

percent of PBR) suggests that this fishery should be placed in Category

II.

Southeast Alaska salmon drift gillnet fishery

this stock, and available data suggest that levels of mortality and

serious injury may exceed 10 percent of this stock's PBR if observer

information were available. This, combined with the fact that known

Dall's porpoise mortality and serious injury level of 28/year (1.8

percent of PBR) suggests that this fishery should be placed in Category

II.

Southeast Alaska salmon drift gillnet fishery. Categorization of

this fishery is based on observer and strandings data. Because total

known humpback whale and harbor porpoise mortality and serious injury

levels across all fisheries exceed 10 percent of each stock's PBR, and

the known harbor porpoise mortality and serious injury level for this

fishery is 3 animals per year (1.3 percent of PBR) and humpback

mortality and serious injury level for this fishery is 0.13 animals per

year (4.6 percent of PBR), this fishery is proposed to be placed in

Category II.

Alaska Cook Inlet salmon drift gillnet. Categorization of this

fishery is based on logbook data. Although total known marine mammal

mortality and serious injury levels across all fisheries do not exceed

10 percent of each stock's PBR with currently available information for

those species known to be taken in this fishery, low levels of observer

coverage across all fisheries have been inadequate to determine

mortality and serious injury levels across all fisheries for these

stocks, and available data suggest that levels of mortality and serious

injury may exceed 10 percent of each stock's PBR if observer

information were available. Similarly, low levels of marine mammals

have been documented for this fishery, and available data suggest that

levels of marine mammal mortality and serious injury in this fishery

are expected to be similar to levels of other drift gillnet fisheries

which interact with similar marine mammals species if observer data

were available. Therefore, this fishery is proposed to be placed in

Category II.

Alaska Yakutat salmon set gillnet fishery

een documented for this fishery, and available data suggest that

levels of marine mammal mortality and serious injury in this fishery

are expected to be similar to levels of other drift gillnet fisheries

which interact with similar marine mammals species if observer data

were available. Therefore, this fishery is proposed to be placed in

Category II.

Alaska Yakutat salmon set gillnet fishery. Categorization of this

fishery is based on logbook data. Although total known harbor porpoise

mortality and serious injury levels across all fisheries do not exceed

10 percent of this stock's PBR with currently available information,

low levels of observer coverage across all fisheries have been

inadequate to determine mortality and serious injury levels across all

fisheries for this stock, and available data suggest that levels of

mortality and serious injury may exceed 10 percent of this stock's PBR

if observer information were available. This, combined with the fact

that known harbor seal mortality and serious injury level of 30/year

(1.5 percent of PBR) suggests that this fishery should be placed in

Category II.

Alaska Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet. Categorization of this

fishery is based on logbook data. Although total known marine mammal

mortality and serious injury levels across all fisheries do not exceed

10 percent of each stock's PBR with currently available information for

those species known to be taken in this fishery, low levels of observer

coverage across all fisheries has not been at a level high enough to

accurately determine mortality and serious injury levels across all

fisheries for these stocks, and available data suggest that levels of

mortality and serious injury may exceed 10 percent of each stock's PBR

if observer information were available, especially for harbor porpoise

taken in this fishery, low levels of observer

coverage across all fisheries has not been at a level high enough to

accurately determine mortality and serious injury levels across all

fisheries for these stocks, and available data suggest that levels of

mortality and serious injury may exceed 10 percent of each stock's PBR

if observer information were available, especially for harbor porpoise.

Similarly, low levels of marine mammals have been documented for this

fishery, and available data suggest that levels of marine mammal

mortality and serious injury in this fishery would be expected to be

similar to levels of

other set gillnet fisheries which interact with similar marine mammals

species if observer data were available. Therefore, this fishery is

proposed to be placed in Category II.

Alaska Kodiak salmon set gillnet. Categorization of this fishery is

based on logbook data. Because total known harbor porpoise mortality

and serious injury levels across all fisheries exceed 10 percent of

this stock's PBR, and the known harbor porpoise mortality and serious

injury level for this fishery is 4 animals per year (1.6 percent of

PBR), this fishery is proposed to be placed in Category II.

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutians salmon set gillnet (includes Atka and

Amlia Islands). Categorization of this fishery is based on logbook

data. Although total known marine mammal mortality and serious injury

levels across all fisheries do not exceed 10 percent of each stock's

PBR with currently available information for those species known to be

taken in this fishery, low levels of observer coverage across all

fisheries have been inadequate to determine mortality and serious

injury levels across all fisheries for these stocks, and available data

suggest that levels of mortality and serious injury may exceed 10

percent of each stock's PBR if observer information were available,

especially for harbor porpoise

those species known to be

taken in this fishery, low levels of observer coverage across all

fisheries have been inadequate to determine mortality and serious

injury levels across all fisheries for these stocks, and available data

suggest that levels of mortality and serious injury may exceed 10

percent of each stock's PBR if observer information were available,

especially for harbor porpoise. Similarly, though low levels of marine

mammal mortalities and serious injuries have been documented for this

fishery, available data suggest that levels of mortality and serious

injury in this fishery would be expected to be similar to levels of

other set gillnet fisheries which interact with similar marine mammals

species if observer data were available. Therefore, this fishery is

proposed to be placed in Category II.

Alaska Bristol Bay salmon drift gillnet. Categorization of this

fishery is based on logbook data. Although total known marine mammal

mortality and serious injury levels across all fisheries do not exceed

10 percent of each stock's PBR with currently available information for

those species known to be taken in this fishery, low levels of observer

coverage across all fisheries have been inadequate to determine

mortality and serious injury levels across all fisheries for these

stocks, and available data suggest that levels of mortality and serious

injury may exceed 10 percent of each stock's PBR if observer

information were available, especially for harbor porpoise, harbor

seals and Steller sea lions. Similarly, though low levels of marine

mammal mortalities and serious injuries have been documented for this

fishery, available data suggest that levels of mortality and serious

injury in this fishery would be expected to be similar to levels of

other set gillnet fisheries which interact with similar marine mammals

species if observer data were available. Therefore, this fishery is

proposed to be placed in Category II.

Alaska Bristol Bay salmon set gillnet

ous injuries have been documented for this

fishery, available data suggest that levels of mortality and serious

injury in this fishery would be expected to be similar to levels of

other set gillnet fisheries which interact with similar marine mammals

species if observer data were available. Therefore, this fishery is

proposed to be placed in Category II.

Alaska Bristol Bay salmon set gillnet. Categorization of this

fishery is based on information from logbooks. This fishery is proposed

to be placed in Category II based on an occasional take of marine

mammals (0.5 Bristol Bay stock of beluga whales per year). Because the

take relative to PBR is 2 percent, which is greater than 1 percent and

less than 50 percent, this fishery is proposed to be placed in Category

II.

Alaska Metlakatla/Annette Island salmon drift gillnet. This fishery

is separated from the Southeast drift gillnet fishery only for purposes

of registration. It is a tribal fishery and is thus exempt from the

registration fee. For categorization purposes, it is considered the

same as the Southeast drift gillnet fishery and is thus proposed to be

placed in Category II.

Washington Puget Sound Region salmon drift gillnet fishery

(includes inland waters south of U.S.-Canada border and eastward of the

Bonilla-Tatoosh line--Treaty Indian fishing is excluded). The name of

this fishery has been modified from the name in the 1994 LOF in order

to exclude set gillnet gear and commercial steelhead fishing since

these fisheries are conducted only by treaty Indian fishers. Also, the

name change clarifies that the regulations governing incidental take of

marine mammals in fisheries do not apply to tribal members exercising

treaty Indian fishing rights.

Categorization of this fishery is based on information from

observer programs and logbooks. This fishery experiences an occasional

take of marine mammals (50 harbor seals from the Washington inland

waters stock were reported in logbooks each year)

t the regulations governing incidental take of

marine mammals in fisheries do not apply to tribal members exercising

treaty Indian fishing rights.

Categorization of this fishery is based on information from

observer programs and logbooks. This fishery experiences an occasional

take of marine mammals (50 harbor seals from the Washington inland

waters stock were reported in logbooks each year). Because the take

relative to PBR is 6 percent, which is greater than 1 percent and less

than 50 percent, this fishery is proposed to be placed in Category II.

The observer programs conducted in 1993 and 1994 documented a few

incidental takes of harbor seals, harbor porpoise and Dall's porpoise;

however, the extrapolated estimates of take for the non-Indian fishery

are not yet available.

California anchovy, mackerel, tuna purse seine. Categorization of

this fishery is based on information from logbooks. This fishery

experiences an occasional take of marine mammals (0.33 bottlenose

dolphins per year). Because the take relative to PBR is 2 percent,

which is greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent, this fishery

is proposed to be placed in Category II.

Alaska Southeast salmon purse seine. This fishery was included

under the general title ``Alaska salmon/herring beach and purse seine''

in the 1994 LOF. Categorization of this fishery is based on Category

III reports. Because total known humpback whale mortality and serious

injury levels across all fisheries exceed 10 percent of this stock's

PBR, and the known humpback whale mortality and serious injury level

for this fishery is 0.4 animals per year (14.3 percent of PBR), this

fishery is proposed to be placed in Category II.

Alaska Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish trawl.

Categorization of this fishery is based on observer data

le mortality and serious

injury levels across all fisheries exceed 10 percent of this stock's

PBR, and the known humpback whale mortality and serious injury level

for this fishery is 0.4 animals per year (14.3 percent of PBR), this

fishery is proposed to be placed in Category II.

Alaska Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish trawl.

Categorization of this fishery is based on observer data. Because total

known killer whale mortality and serious injury levels across all

fisheries exceed 10 percent of this stock's PBR, and the known killer

whale mortality and serious injury level for this fishery is 1 animal

(0.8 animals) per year (8 percent of PBR), this fishery is proposed to

be placed in Category II.

Alaska pair trawl--new fishery. Because this is a new fishery to

the region, no information is available to make a determination on

expected levels of marine mammal mortalities and serious injuries in

this fishery. Analogy cannot be drawn with the Atlantic tuna swordfish

pair trawl, as target species and marine mammal species it might

interact with are too dissimilar. However, because this is a new

fishery for which no information is available, this fishery is proposed

to be placed in Category II.

Oregon swordfish/blue shark surface longline fishery--new fishery.

Categorization of this fishery is based on analogy with observed

pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean. Based on observer

data, the Atlantic Ocean pelagic longline fishery for swordfish and

tuna have at least an occasional incidental serious injury and

mortality of marine mammals. Accordingly, this fishery is proposed to

be placed in Category II.

Alaska southern Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Western Gulf of

Alaska sablefish longline/set line (federally regulated waters). The

name of this fishery has been modified from the 1994 LOF name to

specify that this fishery occurs in Federal waters. Categorization of

this fishery is based on observer data

of marine mammals. Accordingly, this fishery is proposed to

be placed in Category II.

Alaska southern Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Western Gulf of

Alaska sablefish longline/set line (federally regulated waters). The

name of this fishery has been modified from the 1994 LOF name to

specify that this fishery occurs in Federal waters. Categorization of

this fishery is based on observer data. Because total known killer

whale mortality and serious injury levels across all fisheries exceed

10 percent of this stock's PBR, and the known killer whale mortality

and serious injury level for this fishery is 0.25 animals per year (2.5

percent of PBR), this fishery is proposed to remain in Category II.

Category III

Alaska Kuskokwim, Yukon, Norton Sound, Kotzebue salmon set/drift

gillnet. The name of this fishery has been changed from the 1994 LOF

designation ``Alaska Kuskokwim/Yukon/Norton Sound/Kotzebue salmon

gillnets'' to specify that both set and drift gillnets are used in this

fishery. Although this fishery is expected to have occasional

interactions with marine mammals, interactions usually result in

directed takes for subsistence purposes. Therefore, this fishery is

proposed to remain in Category III.

Alaska state waters sablefish longline/set line. This fishery is

classified based on logbook data from the Alaska Prince William Sound

longline/set line fishery. The fishery description has been expanded

from the 1994 LOF to include all sablefish longline/set line fisheries

in Alaska state waters. There were no records of incidental takes in

logbook reports from this fishery. This fishery is proposed to be

reclassified into Category III from Category II based on the

prohibition of intentional lethal takes.

Alaska Prince William Sound set gill net. Categorization of this

fishery is based on observer data

4 LOF to include all sablefish longline/set line fisheries

in Alaska state waters. There were no records of incidental takes in

logbook reports from this fishery. This fishery is proposed to be

reclassified into Category III from Category II based on the

prohibition of intentional lethal takes.

Alaska Prince William Sound set gill net. Categorization of this

fishery is based on observer data. Because marine mammal mortality and

serious injury levels approaching 1 percent of any stocks' PBR are not

expected, this fishery is proposed to be reclassified from Category II

to Category III.

Washington Willapa Bay salmon drift gillnet. This fishery is

classified based on observer data extrapolated to estimate the total

annual kill. There were no incidental serious injuries or mortalities

in the Willapa Bay fishery in 1991 or 1992; thus, the fishery is

proposed to remain in Category III.

Washington Grays Harbor (includes rivers, estuaries, etc.) drift

gillnet. This fishery is classified based on observer data extrapolated

to estimate the total annual kill. There is a low level of incidental

mortality and serious injury of harbor seals in this fishery (under 1

percent of PBR). This fishery is proposed to be placed in Category III.

Washington, Oregon lower Columbia River (includes tributaries)

drift gillnet. Categorization of this fishery is based on data from

observer programs and current and anticipated future low fishing effort

in the winter fishing season. During 3 years of observations in this

fishery with observer coverage averaging from 3.0 percent to 9.5

percent each year, all but one of the observed harbor seal mortalities

were documented in the winter season. The extrapolated annual mortality

of harbor seals in this fishery from 1991 to 1993 was 233 seals in 1991

(all during the winter season), 192 seals in 1992 (180 in the winter

season and 12 in the fall), and 11 seals in 1993 (all during the winter

season)

raging from 3.0 percent to 9.5

percent each year, all but one of the observed harbor seal mortalities

were documented in the winter season. The extrapolated annual mortality

of harbor seals in this fishery from 1991 to 1993 was 233 seals in 1991

(all during the winter season), 192 seals in 1992 (180 in the winter

season and 12 in the fall), and 11 seals in 1993 (all during the winter

season). Although the estimated annual takes of harbor seals in 1991

and 1992 could justify placing this fishery in Category II, reduced

fishing seasons in recent years and reduced fishing effort (due to

restrictions on the fishery to minimize impacts on ESA listed Snake

River chinook salmon) are unlikely to result in the levels of harbor

seal mortality observed in 1991 and 1992. The winter season of 1993,

when an estimated total of only 11 harbor seals were taken, was

restricted due to ESA considerations and resulted in chinook landings

of 446 fish in 1993 in contrast with landings of 2,692 fish in 1991 and

1,537 landings in 1992. The winter season was closed in 1994.

Therefore, this fishery is proposed to be placed in Category III.

Alaska miscellaneous finfish set gillnet. This fishery description

has been changed from the definition ``Alaska gillnet (except salmon,

herring, and sunken gill nets for groundfish)'' used under the 1994 LOF

to correlate with the State of Alaska name for this fishery. This

fishery is categorized based on logbook data. This fishery is proposed

to be moved from Category II to Category III based on an infrequent

take of marine mammals (under two unidentified pinnipeds and

unidentified species are taken per year).

Alaska salmon purse seine. This fishery used to be called the

``Alaska salmon/herring beach and purse seine'' fishery and the

``Alaska South Unimak (False Pass and Unimak Pass) salmon purse seine''

fishery under the 1994 LOF

o be moved from Category II to Category III based on an infrequent

take of marine mammals (under two unidentified pinnipeds and

unidentified species are taken per year).

Alaska salmon purse seine. This fishery used to be called the

``Alaska salmon/herring beach and purse seine'' fishery and the

``Alaska South Unimak (False Pass and Unimak Pass) salmon purse seine''

fishery under the 1994 LOF. This proposed fishery description includes

all salmon purse seine fisheries in Alaska except for the Alaska

Southeast salmon purse seine fishery. Because mortality and serious

injuries of marine mammals are not expected for this fishery, it is

proposed to be placed in Category III.

California/Oregon/Washington salmon troll. The name of this fishery

has been changed from that used in the 1994 LOF, because it is managed

as one fishery and the intentional lethal take prohibition will reduce

the level of take to very low levels. The previous division of the

fishery into the ``Washington, Oregon north of 45 deg.46' (Cape Falcon)

salmon troll'' and the ``California, Oregon south of 45 deg.46' (Cape

Falcon) salmon troll'' was based on differences in intentional lethal

take rates between the northern and southern portions of the fishery.

In this fishery, lethal deterrence, which is now prohibited, was the

predominant source of mortality to marine mammals. As lethal deterrence

is illegal and expected to no longer be a source of mortality for

marine mammals, it is proposed to reclassify this fishery from Category

II to Category III.

Alaska salmon troll. Categorization of this fishery is based on

logbook data from 1990. Known Steller sea lion mortalities and serious

injuries for this fishery do not exceed 1 percent of the stock's PBR

and current information does not indicate that this level is likely to

exceed 1 percent. Thus, this fishery is proposed to be placed in

Category III.

California herring purse seine. This fishery is categorized based

on logbook data

s fishery is based on

logbook data from 1990. Known Steller sea lion mortalities and serious

injuries for this fishery do not exceed 1 percent of the stock's PBR

and current information does not indicate that this level is likely to

exceed 1 percent. Thus, this fishery is proposed to be placed in

Category III.

California herring purse seine. This fishery is categorized based

on logbook data. This fishery is proposed to be placed in Category III

due to an infrequent take of marine mammals (all marine mammal takes

are at a level less than 1 percent of PBR).

California sardine purse seine. This fishery is categorized based

on logbook data. This fishery is proposed to be placed in Category III

due to an infrequent take of marine mammals (no marine mammal takes

have been recorded in logbooks).

California squid purse seine. This fishery is categorized based on

logbook data. This fishery is proposed to be placed in Category III due

to an infrequent take of marine mammals (California sea lion takes are

at a level less than 1 percent of PBR).

Alaska Metlakatla fish trap. No marine mammal mortalities or

serious injuries have been recorded for this fishery. Therefore, this

fishery is proposed to be placed in Category III. California squid dip

net. This fishery is categorized based on logbook data. This fishery is

proposed to be placed in Category III due to an infrequent take of

marine mammals (no marine mammal takes have been recorded in logbooks).

Washington, Oregon salmon net pens. This fishery is categorized

based on logbook data. This fishery is proposed to be placed in

Category III due to an infrequent take of marine mammals (California

sea lion takes are at a level less than 1 percent of the PBR).

Oregon salmon ranch. This fishery is categorized based on logbook

data. This fishery is proposed to be placed in Category III due to an

infrequent take of marine mammals (no marine mammal takes have been

recorded in logbooks).

Miscellaneous finfish/groundfish longline/set line

e to an infrequent take of marine mammals (California

sea lion takes are at a level less than 1 percent of the PBR).

Oregon salmon ranch. This fishery is categorized based on logbook

data. This fishery is proposed to be placed in Category III due to an

infrequent take of marine mammals (no marine mammal takes have been

recorded in logbooks).

Miscellaneous finfish/groundfish longline/set line. This fishery is

renamed from the 1994 LOF designation ``Alaska groundfish long line/set

line (except sablefish in the Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands/Gulf of

Alaska)'' to correspond with the fishery name as specified in the State

of Alaska records and to include both miscellaneous finfish and

groundfish (rockfish). This

fishery is classified based on observer data. This fishery is proposed

to remain in Category III due to an infrequent take of marine mammals

(all incidental takes are at a level less than 1 percent of the PBR).

Hawaii swordfish, tuna, billfish, mahi mahi, wahoo, oceanic sharks

longline/set line. Categorization of this fishery is based on observer

data. Because there have been no records of incidental serious injury

and mortality of marine mammals, this fishery is proposed to remain in

Category III.

Alaska Gulf of Alaska groundfish trawl. This fishery is classified

based on extrapolations from observer data. This fishery is proposed to

remain in Category III due to an infrequent take of marine mammals (all

incidental takes are at a level less than 1 percent of the PBR).

Alaska roe herring and food/bait herring gillnet. The name of this

fishery has been modified from ``Alaska herring gill net'' in the 1994

LOF to include two different fisheries on herring. Alaska roe herring

and food/bait herring purse seine. This fishery is renamed from the

1994 LOF designation of ``Alaska salmon/herring beach or purse seine''

to separate out the two target species and gear types.

Alaska roe herring and food/bait herring beach seine

f this

fishery has been modified from ``Alaska herring gill net'' in the 1994

LOF to include two different fisheries on herring. Alaska roe herring

and food/bait herring purse seine. This fishery is renamed from the

1994 LOF designation of ``Alaska salmon/herring beach or purse seine''

to separate out the two target species and gear types.

Alaska roe herring and food/bait herring beach seine. This fishery

is renamed from the 1994 LOF designation of ``Alaska salmon/herring

beach or purse seine'' to separate out the two target species and gear

types.

Washington, Oregon, California albacore, groundfish, bottom fish,

California halibut nonsalmonid troll fisheries. This fishery is renamed

from the 1994 LOF designation of ``Alaska North Pacific halibut, Alaska

bottom fish, Washington, Oregon, California albacore, groundfish,

bottom fish, California halibut nonsalmonid troll fisheries'' to

separate the Alaska fisheries from the fisheries of other states.

Alaska halibut longline/set line (state and Federal waters). This

fishery is renamed from the 1994 LOF designation of ``Alaska,

Washington, Oregon North Pacific halibut longline/set line'' to

separate the Alaska fisheries from the fisheries of other states.

Washington, Oregon North Pacific halibut longline/set line. This

fishery is renamed from the 1994 LOF designation of ``Alaska,

Washington, Oregon North Pacific halibut longline/set line'' to

separate the Alaska fisheries from the fisheries of other states.

Alaska miscellaneous finfish purse seine. This fishery is renamed from

the 1994 LOF designation of ``Alaska other finfish beach or purse

seine'' to separate the beach and purse seine fisheries.

Alaska miscellaneous finfish beach seine. This fishery is renamed

from the 1994 LOF designation of ``Alaska other finfish beach or purse

seine'' to separate the beach and purse seine fisheries.

Washington, Oregon, California shrimp trawl

ine. This fishery is renamed from

the 1994 LOF designation of ``Alaska other finfish beach or purse

seine'' to separate the beach and purse seine fisheries.

Alaska miscellaneous finfish beach seine. This fishery is renamed

from the 1994 LOF designation of ``Alaska other finfish beach or purse

seine'' to separate the beach and purse seine fisheries.

Washington, Oregon, California shrimp trawl. This fishery is

renamed from the 1994 LOF designation of ``Alaska, Washington, Oregon

shrimp trawl'' to separate the Alaska fisheries from the fisheries of

other states.

Alaska shrimp otter trawl and beam trawl (statewide; includes Cook

Inlet). This fishery is renamed from the 1994 LOF designation of

``Alaska, Washington, Oregon shrimp trawl'' to separate the Alaska

fisheries from the fisheries of other states.

Alaska miscellaneous finfish otter and beam trawl--new fishery.

This is proposed to be a new fishery to the LOF.

Alaska crustacean/octopus/squid pot. This fishery is renamed from

the 1994 LOF designation of ``Alaska shellfish pot'' to more accurately

describe this fishery. This fishery includes the crab pot fisheries,

the shrimp pot fisheries, and the octopus/squid pot fisheries.

Oregon developmental fishery bottom longline/set line--new fishery.

This fishery is classified based on analogy to other bottom longline/

setline fisheries such as the Alaska sablefish longline fishery. This

fishery is considered separate from the Oregon developmental longline

fishery for shark/swordfish, which is classified into Category II based

on analogy with surface longline fisheries for similar species in the

Atlantic Ocean. Oregon developmental fishery round haul (purse seine

and lampara) beach seine and throw net. This fishery is proposed to be

classified in Category III based on analogy with similar fisheries in

the Pacific Ocean

n developmental longline

fishery for shark/swordfish, which is classified into Category II based

on analogy with surface longline fisheries for similar species in the

Atlantic Ocean. Oregon developmental fishery round haul (purse seine

and lampara) beach seine and throw net. This fishery is proposed to be

classified in Category III based on analogy with similar fisheries in

the Pacific Ocean. This fishery may target any or all of the following:

Pacific sardine or saury, whitebait, eulachon, night smelt, longfin

smelt, surf smelt, sandfish, pomfret, and slender sole.

Oregon developmental fishery trawl--new fishery. This fishery is

proposed to be classified in Category III based on analogy with similar

fisheries in the Pacific Ocean. This fishery may target any or all of

the following: Pacific sardine or saury, whitebait, eulachon, night

smelt, longfin smelt, surf smelt, sandfish, pomfret, and slender sole.

Oregon developmental fishery pots, ring nets, and traps--new

fishery. This fishery is proposed to be classified in Category III

based on analogy with similar fisheries in the Pacific Ocean. This

fishery may target any or all of the following: Pacific sardine or

saury, whitebait, eulachon, night smelt, longfin smelt, surf smelt,

sandfish, pomfret, and slender sole.

Oregon developmental fishery handline and jig--new fishery. This

fishery is proposed to be classified in Category III based on analogy

with similar fisheries in the Pacific Ocean. This fishery may target

any or all of the following: Pacific sardine or saury, whitebait,

eulachon, night smelt, longfin smelt, surf smelt, sandfish, pomfret,

and slender sole.

Oregon developmental fishery dive, hand, mechanical collection--new

fishery. This fishery is proposed to be classified in Category III

based on analogy with similar fisheries in the Pacific Ocean. This

fishery may target any or all of the following: Pacific sardine or

saury, whitebait, eulachon, night smelt, longfin smelt, surf smelt,

sandfish, pomfret, and slender sole

t,

and slender sole.

Oregon developmental fishery dive, hand, mechanical collection--new

fishery. This fishery is proposed to be classified in Category III

based on analogy with similar fisheries in the Pacific Ocean. This

fishery may target any or all of the following: Pacific sardine or

saury, whitebait, eulachon, night smelt, longfin smelt, surf smelt,

sandfish, pomfret, and slender sole.

New Pacific Fisheries

The following fisheries are new Pacific fisheries proposed to be

placed in Category III, because they are expected to have a remote

likelihood of incidental serious injury or mortality of marine mammals:

California bait pen

California finfish and shellfish live trap/hook-and-line

Alaska spawn-on-kelp empoundment

California salmon enhancement rearing pen

Oregon shrimp trawl

Alaska octopus/squid purse seine

Alaska octopus/squid handline

Alaska octopus/squid longline

Alaska octopus/squid other gear

Fisheries Removed From the LOF

The following fisheries have been removed from the proposed LOF:

Northern Washington coastal (area 4 and 4A) salmon set gillnet.

This fishery has been removed from the proposed LOF, because it is a

fishery conducted by a Northwest Treaty Tribe. The provisions of 50 CFR

part 229, including the LOF, do not apply to Northwest treaty Indian

tribal members exercising treaty fishing rights.

Washington coastal river set gillnet. This fishery has been removed

from the proposed LOF, because it is a fishery conducted by a Northwest

Treaty Tribe. The provisions of part 229, including the LOF, do not

apply to Northwest treaty Indian tribal members exercising treaty

fishing rights.

Washington tribal ranch. This fishery has been removed from the

proposed LOF, because it is a fishery conducted by a Northwest Treaty

Tribe. The provisions of part 229, including the LOF, do not apply to

Northwest treaty Indian tribal members exercising treaty fishing

rights.

art 229, including the LOF, do not

apply to Northwest treaty Indian tribal members exercising treaty

fishing rights.

Washington tribal ranch. This fishery has been removed from the

proposed LOF, because it is a fishery conducted by a Northwest Treaty

Tribe. The provisions of part 229, including the LOF, do not apply to

Northwest treaty Indian tribal members exercising treaty fishing

rights.

Washington Puget Sound region and inland waters south of the U.S.-

Canada border, including the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal and

estuaries and lower river areas (subject to tidal action) set and drift

gillnet. The name of this fishery has been modified from the name in

the 1994 LOF in order to exclude set gillnet gear and commercial

steelhead fishing since these fisheries are conducted only by treaty

Indian fishers. The provisions of part 229, including the LOF, do not

apply to Northwest treaty Indian tribal members exercising treaty

fishing rights.

California Klamath River gill net. This fishery is proposed for

removal from the LOF, because no commercial fishing has been conducted

in recent years.

Washington, Oregon Upper Columbia River Basin (above Bonneville

Dam) salmon and other finfish gillnet. This fishery is proposed to be

removed from the LOF, because no marine mammals are expected to be

encountered.

Other fisheries. There are many fisheries in Category III that were

not mentioned above. Because no additional information is available

that warrants reclassification for these fisheries, they are proposed

to remain in Category III. Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean

and the Gulf of Mexico

Category I

be

removed from the LOF, because no marine mammals are expected to be

encountered.

Other fisheries. There are many fisheries in Category III that were

not mentioned above. Because no additional information is available

that warrants reclassification for these fisheries, they are proposed

to remain in Category III. Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean

and the Gulf of Mexico

Category I

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico swordfish, tuna, shark

pair trawl. This fishery was classified based on observer data. This

fishery is proposed to be placed in Category I, because the annual

estimated take of common dolphins (an average of 1992 and 1993 data was

used) is equal to the PBR for this stock (PBR = 33). In addition, the

annual estimated take of the offshore stock of bottlenose dolphin (79

animals) is 95 percent of PBR (83).

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico swordfish, tuna, shark

drift gill net. This fishery was classified based on observer data.

This fishery was placed in Category I, because the annual estimated

takes of common dolphins (424 animals), pilot whales (61 animals),

spotted dolphins (23 animals), right whales (1 animal) and sperm whales

(1 animal) exceed the PBRs for these stocks.

New England multispecies sink gill net. This fishery is directed

primarily towards species covered by the Multispecies Fishery

Management Plan and spiny dogfish. It was classified based on observer

data. This fishery is proposed to remain in Category I, because the

annual estimated take of harbor porpoise (an average of 1,300 animals

for 1992 and 1993; average of 1,875 animals for 1990-93) exceeds the

PBR for this stock (403 animals).

Gulf of Maine small pelagics. This fishery has been directed

towards small pelagics including mackerel and herring, primarily for

bait

based on observer

data. This fishery is proposed to remain in Category I, because the

annual estimated take of harbor porpoise (an average of 1,300 animals

for 1992 and 1993; average of 1,875 animals for 1990-93) exceeds the

PBR for this stock (403 animals).

Gulf of Maine small pelagics. This fishery has been directed

towards small pelagics including mackerel and herring, primarily for

bait. Although there has been little or no effort in this fishery in

recent years, this fishery is proposed to be retained in Category I,

because there is no information currently available to place this

fishery in a different category.

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico tuna, shark, swordfish

longline. This fishery was classified based on observer data. In 1994,

this fishery was classified in Category II based on the classification

system in section 114. Based on the proposed fishery classification

criteria, this fishery is proposed to be placed in Category I, because

the annual estimated take of pilot whales (26 animals) is at least 93

percent of the PBR (between 4 and 28 animals), an amount greater than

the lower threshold for classification as a Category I fishery, this

fishery is proposed to be placed in Category I.

Category II

U.S. Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet. This fishery was categorized

based on stranding information curated by the NMFS Northeast and

Southeast Regions. The NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center has been

focusing observer effort on this fishery from 1993 to the present but

has not recorded any interactions. Classification of this fishery is

based on the necropsy results of the harbor porpoise stranded in the

mid-Atlantic in 1993-94. Of the 68 animals examined, 41 (59 percent)

were in good enough condition to be evaluated as to whether or not they

had been involved in a human interaction

been

focusing observer effort on this fishery from 1993 to the present but

has not recorded any interactions. Classification of this fishery is

based on the necropsy results of the harbor porpoise stranded in the

mid-Atlantic in 1993-94. Of the 68 animals examined, 41 (59 percent)

were in good enough condition to be evaluated as to whether or not they

had been involved in a human interaction. Twenty-one of the 41 (51

percent) exhibited no signs of human interaction, and 19 (46 percent)

were evaluated as having been involved in human interaction, based in

each case on the presence of net marks. Therefore, approximately half

of the stranded harbor porpoise in that area showed signs of having

been involved in human interaction believed to be some kind of net

gear. The average annual take of harbor porpoise in this fishery is

then calculated at a minimum of ten animals, which is 2.5 percent of

PBR. Because the annual take is between 1 percent and 50 percent of the

PBR, this fishery is proposed to be placed in Category II.

U.S. South Atlantic shark gillnet fishery. Categorization of this

fishery is based on a Category III report from a limited observer

program. In 1992, one bottlenose dolphin was captured in this fishery.

No takes were observed in 1993. This fishery is proposed to be placed

in Category II, because the annual take of the Western North Atlantic

coastal bottlenose dolphin averaged over 1992 and 1993 is between 1

percent and 50 percent of the PBR (25 animals).

Atlantic mid-water trawl fishery. This fishery is directed towards

species included in the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Fishery

Management Plan and other species. This fishery is proposed to be

renamed and would include the 1994 LOF descriptions ``Mid-Atlantic

squid trawl'' and ``Mid-Atlantic mackerel trawl''. The fishery is

renamed, because the gear type and probability for interactions is

similar for these mid-water trawl fisheries.

Categorization of this fishery is based on logbook data

quid and Butterfish Fishery

Management Plan and other species. This fishery is proposed to be

renamed and would include the 1994 LOF descriptions ``Mid-Atlantic

squid trawl'' and ``Mid-Atlantic mackerel trawl''. The fishery is

renamed, because the gear type and probability for interactions is

similar for these mid-water trawl fisheries.

Categorization of this fishery is based on logbook data. Observer

data exist for this fishery but are not currently available. In 1994,

this fishery was classified in Category III based on the section 114

classification system. Based on the proposed fishery classification

criteria, this fishery is proposed to be placed in Category II, because

the annual take of pilot whales is between 1 percent and 50 percent of

the PBR.

North Carolina roe mullet stop net. Categorization of this fishery

is based on stranding information and visual observations. This is a

new fishery proposed to be added to the LOF; stop nets for other target

species and in other locations are included under Category III. This

fishery is proposed to be placed in Category II, because the take of

bottlenose dolphins (3 animals per year since 1990) is between 1

percent and 50 percent of the PBR for this stock (25 animals).

North Carolina haul seine fishery--new fishery. This fishery has

the potential to take harbor porpoise and U.S. western North Atlantic

coastal bottlenose dolphins. Because it is a new fishery to the LOF,

and because of the high probability of takes of the above two stocks,

this fishery is proposed to be classified in Category II.

Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine. This fishery

is categorized based on Category III reports. This fishery is proposed

to be placed in Category II due to mortality and serious injury of

western North Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins (1.75 animals per

year) that is 6 percent of the PBR for that stock

two stocks,

this fishery is proposed to be classified in Category II.

Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine. This fishery

is categorized based on Category III reports. This fishery is proposed

to be placed in Category II due to mortality and serious injury of

western North Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins (1.75 animals per

year) that is 6 percent of the PBR for that stock. Because western

North Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins do not occur in the Gulf of

Maine, it may be appropriate to separate this fishery into northern and

southern components.

Category III

North Atlantic bottom trawl. This fishery targets species included

in, but

not limited to, all species described in the Multispecies, Summer

Flounder, and Scup and Sea Bass Fishery Management Plans. This fishery

is renamed from the 1994 LOF designation ``Gulf of Maine, Mid-Atlantic

groundfish trawl'' to include a specific list of species targeted. This

fishery was classified based on observer data.

Six takes of marine mammals incidental to this fishery have been

observed from 1989 to 1992. Three of the takes were marine mammals

known or suspected to have been dead prior to being caught in the

bottom trawl gear. Two takes of striped dolphin were observed in

December 1991 along the continental shelf edge off Rhode Island in 50

fathoms of water. Extrapolation of these takes to the entire groundfish

bottom trawl fishery generate an estimated mortality level of 45

animals which is 62 percent of this species' PBR. However, several

complicating factors exist:

The observed coverage in the Category III groundfish

bottom trawl fishery is small (under 1 percent) and was designed to

monitor fishery management related issues. Therefore, the coefficient

of variation of the mortality estimate is very high and is derived from

nonrandom observer effort.

The known distribution of the striped dolphin is along the

shelf edge from Georges Bank to Cape Hatteras and extends further

south

e Category III groundfish

bottom trawl fishery is small (under 1 percent) and was designed to

monitor fishery management related issues. Therefore, the coefficient

of variation of the mortality estimate is very high and is derived from

nonrandom observer effort.

The known distribution of the striped dolphin is along the

shelf edge from Georges Bank to Cape Hatteras and extends further

south.

Since the species only exists in a small portion of the

area fished by North Atlantic Bottom Trawl gear, extrapolation of the

observed mortality to the entire fishery produces a substantial

overestimate of the total mortality.

Fishing effort in this fishery will be reduced by 50

percent in 5 years under Amendment nos. 5 and 7 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Northeast Multispecies Fishery, which may be

implemented as early as next year, may reduce effort by 80 percent in

the first year of implementation.

The mortality estimates derived from two takes of striped dolphin

over 4 years of less than 10 percent observer effort are statistically

weak and, due to the marginal overlap of the fishery with this species

distribution, likely to be an overestimate. The fishery is facing

severe cutbacks in effort under ongoing and proposed Magnuson Act

actions, further reducing the likelihood of interactions. Therefore,

the fishery is proposed to remain in Category III.

U.S. Mid-Atlantic, U.S. South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shrimp

trawl. Categorization of this fishery is based on observer data. There

has been one observed serious injury or mortality in this fishery from

1979 to 1993. Because this is a low level of mortality, this fishery is

proposed to be placed in Category III.

Finfish aquaculture. The name of this fishery is proposed to be

changed from the 1994 LOF designation ``Gulf of Maine Atlantic salmon''

to broaden the definition to include other regions and species

r data. There

has been one observed serious injury or mortality in this fishery from

1979 to 1993. Because this is a low level of mortality, this fishery is

proposed to be placed in Category III.

Finfish aquaculture. The name of this fishery is proposed to be

changed from the 1994 LOF designation ``Gulf of Maine Atlantic salmon''

to broaden the definition to include other regions and species.

Classification of this fishery is based on logbook data and the

proposed reclassification due to the prohibition of intentional lethal

takes. Incidental takes of harbor seals are less than 1 percent of the

PBR. Thus, this fishery is proposed to be placed in Category III.

Shellfish aquaculture. This is a new fishery that is proposed to be

added to the LOF. This fishery is classified by analogy to other

aquaculture fisheries that have a remote likelihood of serious injury

and mortality of marine mammals.

Gulf of Mexico inshore gillnet (black drum, sheepshead). This is a

new fishery proposed to be added to the LOF. This fishery is classified

by analogy to other inshore gillnet fisheries, specifically the inshore

fisheries that occur in the U.S. mid-Atlantic.

U.S. mid-Atlantic hand seine. This is a new fishery proposed to be

added to the LOF. This fishery is placed in Category III by analogy

with other hand seine fisheries.

Offshore monkfish bottom gillnet. This is a new fishery that is

proposed to be added to the LOF. This fishery involves a small number

(under 50) of vessels operating along the shelf edge off Rhode Island.

Because this fishery uses gear that is set very deep and a remote

likelihood of serious injury and mortality of marine mammals is

expected, it is proposed to be placed in Category III.

Georgia, South Carolina, Maryland whelk trawl. This fishery is

renamed from the 1994 LOF designation ``Georgia, South Carolina whelk

trawl'' to include the extended range of the fishery.

U.S. mid-Atlantic offshore surfclam and quahog dredge

that is set very deep and a remote

likelihood of serious injury and mortality of marine mammals is

expected, it is proposed to be placed in Category III.

Georgia, South Carolina, Maryland whelk trawl. This fishery is

renamed from the 1994 LOF designation ``Georgia, South Carolina whelk

trawl'' to include the extended range of the fishery.

U.S. mid-Atlantic offshore surfclam and quahog dredge. This fishery

is renamed from the 1994 LOF designation ``Mid-Atlantic offshore clam''

to include the dredge fishery for quahogs.

U.S. mid-Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico oyster. This fishery is renamed

from the 1994 LOF designation ``Mid-Atlantic oyster'' to include the

Gulf of Mexico oyster fishery.

U.S. mid-Atlantic mixed species stop/seine/weir (except the North

Carolina roe mullet stop net). This fishery includes all fixed or

staked net fisheries from Nantucket Sound to the Chesapeake Bay. One

bottlenose dolphin was found entangled in a pound net lead during the

five years of data collection under the Exemption Program. This

occurred in a Chesapeake Bay fishery for which bycatch survey

information has been available throughout the 5-year Exemption Program.

Bycatch surveys are also carried out in other regions where this gear

is used. Therefore, we believe that the remote possibility of marine

mammal mortality and serious injury occurring in these fisheries is

verifiable, and the fishery remain in Category III.

Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine. This fishery is proposed to be

defined as separate from the U.S. South Atlantic menhaden purse seine

fishery. This fishery is proposed to be placed in Category III based on

an expectation of low levels of interaction with marine mammals.

U.S. South Atlantic menhaden purse seine. This fishery is proposed

to be defined as separate from the Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine

fishery. This fishery is proposed to be placed in Category III based on

an expectation of low levels of interaction with marine mammals

ishery is proposed to be placed in Category III based on

an expectation of low levels of interaction with marine mammals.

U.S. South Atlantic menhaden purse seine. This fishery is proposed

to be defined as separate from the Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine

fishery. This fishery is proposed to be placed in Category III based on

an expectation of low levels of interaction with marine mammals.

Proposed List of Fisheries

The following two tables list the commercial fisheries of the

United States in their proposed categories. The estimated number of

vessels is expressed in terms of the number of active participants in

the fishery, when possible, and,as the estimated number of vessels or

persons when information on the number of active participants is not

available, these values have been updated from the 1994 LOF when

possible. The information on which marine mammal species/stocks are

involved in interactions with the fishery is based on observer data,

logbook data, stranding reports, fisher's reports, and the 1994 LOF. If

there is no information indicating which stocks of marine mammals might

be involved in fishery interactions, analogy is used to provide a list

of stocks with which interactions may occur, if appropriate. An

asterisk (*) indicates that the stock is a strategic stock; a plus (+)

indicates that the stock is listed as threatened or endangered under

the ESA.

Pursuant to section 101(a)(5)(E), NMFS must determine which

fisheries have a negligible impact on species or stocks of marine

mammals that are listed under the ESA. NMFS is therefore specifically

seeking public comments that address those fisheries in the proposed

LOF (Tables 1 and 2) that interact with species or stocks of marine

mammals listed under the ESA and the information on the magnitude of

the

takes of such species or stocks found in the EA that accompanies this

proposed rule.

species or stocks of marine

mammals that are listed under the ESA. NMFS is therefore specifically

seeking public comments that address those fisheries in the proposed

LOF (Tables 1 and 2) that interact with species or stocks of marine

mammals listed under the ESA and the information on the magnitude of

the

takes of such species or stocks found in the EA that accompanies this

proposed rule.

Table 1.--Proposed List of Fisheries

[Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated

No. of Marine mammal species/

Fishery description vessels/ stocks involved

persons

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Category I:

CA angel shark/halibut and 520 99, 109, 110, 138, 139,

other species large mesh 142.

(>3.5in) set gillnet fishery.

CA/OR/WA thresher shark/ 150 2*+, 92*+, 103, 104, 105,

swordfish/blue shark (blue 107, 109, 110, 111, 113*,

shark OR only) drift gillnet 117*, 142.

fishery.

Category II:

AK Prince William Sound 509 1*+, 5, 19.

salmon drift gillnet.

AK Peninsula/Aleutians salmon 107 3*, 5, 6, 7, 19, 20, 154.

drift gillnet fishery.

Southeast Alaska salmon drift 443 2*+, 4, 18, 19, 20.

gillnet fishery.

AK Cook Inlet drift gillnet.. 554 1*+, 5, 19, 20.

AK Yakutat salmon set gillnet 152 4, 7.

AK Cook Inlet salmon set 633 1*+, 5, 19, 20.

gillnet.

AK Peninsula/Aleutian Island 120 1*+, 19.

salmon set gillnet.

AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet. 162 5, 19.

AK Bristol Bay drift gillnet. 1,741 1*+, 3*, 6, 7, 8, 14, 18,

25.

AK Bristol Bay set gillnet... 888 6, 14.

AK Metlakatla/Annette Island 60 4, 19.

salmon drift gillnet.

WA Puget Sound Region salmon 1,044 2*+, 103, 102, 138, 141.

drift gillnet fishery

(includes all inland waters

south of US-Canada border

and eastward of the Bonilla-

Tatoosh line--Treaty Indian

fishing is excluded).

CA anchovy, mackerel, tuna 150 107, 138, 139.

purse seine.

AK Southeast salmon purse 443 27*+, 19

4.

AK Metlakatla/Annette Island 60 4, 19.

salmon drift gillnet.

WA Puget Sound Region salmon 1,044 2*+, 103, 102, 138, 141.

drift gillnet fishery

(includes all inland waters

south of US-Canada border

and eastward of the Bonilla-

Tatoosh line--Treaty Indian

fishing is excluded).

CA anchovy, mackerel, tuna 150 107, 138, 139.

purse seine.

AK Southeast salmon purse 443 27*+, 19.

seine.

AK Bering Sea and Aleutian 490 1*+, 2*+, 3*, 17, 18, 19,

Islands groundfish trawl. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, 142,

155.

AK pair trawl................ 2 5, 6, 18, 20.

AK southern Bering Sea, 226 16, 142.

Aleutian Islands, and

Western Gulf of Alaska

sablefish longline/set line

(federally regulated waters).

OR swordfish/blue shark 30 unknown.

surface longline fishery.

Category III:

AK Prince William Sound set 29 1*+, 19.

gillnet.

AK Kuskokwim, Yukon, Norton 1,651 7, 12, 13, 14, 19.

Sound, Kotzebue salmon

gillnet.

AK roe herring and food/bait 162 19, 4, 5, 6.

herring gillnet.

WA, OR herring, smelt, shad, 913 138, 140, 141.

sturgeon, bottom fish,

mullet, perch, rockfish

gillnet.

WA Willapa Bay drift gillnet. 82 2*+, 138, 141, 142.

WA Grays Harbor salmon drift 24 2*+, 138, 141.

gillnet (excluding treaty

Tribal fishing).

WA, OR lower Columbia River 40 2*+, 138, 140, 141.

(includes tributaries) drift

gillnet.

CA set and drift gillnet 341 2*+, 25, 99, 100, 103,

fisheries that use a 109, 110, 138, 139.

stretched mesh size of 3.5

in or less.

AK miscellaneous finfish set 9 1*+, 2*+, 19, 4, 5, 6.

gillnet.

Hawaii gillnet............... 115 145*+.

AK salmon purse seine (except 1,053 1*+, 2*+, 3, 19, 155.

Southeast Alaska, which is

in Category II).

AK salmon beach seine........ 34 1*+, 2*+, 4, 5, 6, 19.

AK roe herring and food/bait 866 1*+, 2*+, 4, 5, 6, 19.

herring purse seine.

AK roe herring and food/bait 14 1*+, 2*+, 4, 5, 6, 19.

herring beach seine.

AK octopus/squid purse seine. 3 1*+, 2*+, 4, 5, 6, 19.

CA herring purse seine......

rse seine (except 1,053 1*+, 2*+, 3, 19, 155.

Southeast Alaska, which is

in Category II).

AK salmon beach seine........ 34 1*+, 2*+, 4, 5, 6, 19.

AK roe herring and food/bait 866 1*+, 2*+, 4, 5, 6, 19.

herring purse seine.

AK roe herring and food/bait 14 1*+, 2*+, 4, 5, 6, 19.

herring beach seine.

AK octopus/squid purse seine. 3 1*+, 2*+, 4, 5, 6, 19.

CA herring purse seine....... 100 106, 138, 139.

CA sardine purse seine....... 120 138.

CA squid purse seine......... 145 105, 113, 138.

CA squid dip net............. 115 113, 138.

WA, OR salmon net pens....... 21 2*+, 138, 140, 141.

OR salmon ranch.............. 1 138, 141.

AK salmon troll.............. 1,450 1*+, 2*+, 3*, 5, 6, 33*+.

CA/OR/WA salmon troll........ 4,300 2*+, 138, 139, 141.

AK north Pacific halibut, AK 1,354 4, 5, 6, 139, 140, 141.

bottom fish, WA, OR, CA

albacore, groundfish, bottom

fish, CA halibut non-

salmonid troll fisheries.

HI trolling, rod and reel.... 1,795 127, 131, 132.

Guam tuna troll.............. 50 None documented.

Commonwealth of the Northern 50 None documented.

Mariana Islands tuna troll.

American Samoa tuna troll.... 1 None documented.

pen.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2.--Proposed List of Fisheries

[Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and

Caribbean]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated No.

Fishery description of vessels/ Marine mammal species/

persons stocks involved

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Category I:

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, 7............ 49, 50*, 51*, 54*, 59*.

Gulf of Mexico swordfish,

tuna, shark pair trawl.

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, 75........... 33*+, 37, 38*, 49, 50*,

Gulf of Mexico swordfish, 51*, 52, 54*, 57, 58,

tuna, shark drift gillnet. 59*.

New England multispecies 341.......... 32*, 33*+, 36, 50*, 51*,

sink gillnet. 52, 61, 62.

Gulf of Maine small 133.........

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, 7............ 49, 50*, 51*, 54*, 59*.

Gulf of Mexico swordfish,

tuna, shark pair trawl.

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, 75........... 33*+, 37, 38*, 49, 50*,

Gulf of Mexico swordfish, 51*, 52, 54*, 57, 58,

tuna, shark drift gillnet. 59*.

New England multispecies 341.......... 32*, 33*+, 36, 50*, 51*,

sink gillnet. 52, 61, 62.

Gulf of Maine small 133.......... 33*+, 36, 52, 61*, 62, 63.

pelagics surface gillnet.

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, 830.......... 33*+, 36, 50, 51, 54*.

Gulf of Mexico tuna,

shark, swordfish longline.

Category II:

U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal >655......... 33*+, 36, 60*, 61*.

gillnet fishery.

U.S. South Atlantic shark 10........... 60*.

gillnet fishery.

Gulf of Maine, Mid-Atlantic 10........... 36, 60*.

menhaden purse seine.

Atlantic mid-water trawl... 620.......... 49, 50*, 51*, 52, 54*.

North Carolina haul seine.. unknown...... 60*, 61*.

North Carolina roe mullet 13........... 60*.

stop net.

Category III:

North Atlantic bottom trawl 1,052........ 50*, 51*, 52, 57, 60*.

Mid-Atlantic, U.S. South >18,000...... 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76.

Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico

shrimp trawl.

Finfish aquaculture........ 48........... 62, 63.

Shellfish aquaculture...... unknown...... None documented.

Rhode Island, southern 32........... 33*+, 36, 60*, 61*.

Massachusetts (to Monomoy

Island), and New York

Bight (Raritan and Lower

New York Bays) inshore

gillnet.

Long Island Sound inshore 20........... 33*+, 36, 60*, 61*.

gillnet.

Delaware Bay inshore 60........... 33*+, 36, 60*, 61*.

gillnet.

North Carolina inshore 94........... 33*+, 36, 60*, 61*.

gillnet.

Gulf of Mexico inshore unknown...... None documented.

gillnet (black drum,

sheepshead).

Offshore monkfish bottom 1,000....... None documented.

trawl.

Gulf of Mexico butterfish 2............ 55, 56.

trawl.

Georgia, South Carolina, 25........... None documented.

Maryland whelk trawl.

Calico scallops trawl...... 200.......... None documented

........ 33*+, 36, 60*, 61*.

gillnet.

Gulf of Mexico inshore unknown...... None documented.

gillnet (black drum,

sheepshead).

Offshore monkfish bottom 1,000....... None documented.

trawl.

Gulf of Mexico butterfish 2............ 55, 56.

trawl.

Georgia, South Carolina, 25........... None documented.

Maryland whelk trawl.

Calico scallops trawl...... 200.......... None documented.

Bluefish, croaker, flounder 550.......... None documented.

trawl.

Crab trawl................. 400.......... None documented.

Gulf of Maine Atlantic 30........... 61*, 62, 63.

herring purse seine.

Gulf of Mexico menhaden 51........... 73, 74, 75, 76.

purse seine.

U.S. South Atlantic 51........... 60*.

menhaden purse seine.

Florida west coast sardine 16........... 73.

purse seine.

U.S. mid-Atlantic hand > 250........ None documented.

seine.

Gulf of Maine tub trawl 46........... 62, 63.

groundfish bottom longline/

hook-and-line.

U.S. South Atlantic, Gulf 1,944........ None documented.

of Mexico snapper-grouper

and other reef fish bottom

longline/hook-and-line.

U.S. South Atlantic, Gulf 124.......... None documented.

of Mexico shark bottom

longline/hook-and-line.

Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid- 26,223....... None documented.

Atlantic tuna, shark

swordfish hook-and-line/

harpoon.

U.S. South Atlantic, Gulf 1,446........ None documented.

of Mexico & U.S. mid-

Atlantic pelagic hook-and-

line/harpoon.

Gulf of Maine, U.S. South 1,285........ 36, 61*.

Atlantic coastal shad,

sturgeon gillnet.

U.S. South Atlantic, Gulf 4,000........ 73, 74, 75.

of Mexico coastal gillnet.

Florida east coast, Gulf of 271.......... 71, 72, 73, 74, 75.

Mexico pelagics king and

Spanish mackerel gillnet.

Florida mullet gillnet..... unknown...... None documented.

Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid- 100.......... 33*+, 36, 61*, 62, 63.

Atlantic mixed species

trap/pot.

U.S. mid-Atlantic black sea 30........... None documented.

bass trap/pot.

U.S

4, 75.

of Mexico coastal gillnet.

Florida east coast, Gulf of 271.......... 71, 72, 73, 74, 75.

Mexico pelagics king and

Spanish mackerel gillnet.

Florida mullet gillnet..... unknown...... None documented.

Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid- 100.......... 33*+, 36, 61*, 62, 63.

Atlantic mixed species

trap/pot.

U.S. mid-Atlantic black sea 30........... None documented.

bass trap/pot.

U.S. mid-Atlantic eel trap/ >700......... None documented.

pot.

Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid- 10,613....... 32*, 33*+, 36, 52, 62.

Atlantic inshore lobster

trap/pot.

Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid- 2,902........ None documented.

Atlantic offshore lobster

trap/pot.

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of 20,500....... 73, 74, 75, 153+.

Mexico blue crab trap/pot.

U.S. South Atlantic, Gulf 736.......... 73, 74, 75, 153+.

of Mexico, Caribbean spiny

lobster trap/pot.

Gulf of Maine herring and 50........... 32*, 33*+, 36, 61*, 62,

Atlantic mackerel stop 63.

seine/weir.

U.S. mid-Atlantic mixed 500.......... None documented.

species stop/seine/weir

(except the North Carolina

roe mullet stop net).

U.S. mid-Atlantic crab stop 2,600........ None documented.

seine/weir.

Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid- 233.......... 33*+.

Atlantic sea scallop

dredge.

U.S. mid-Atlantic offshore 100.......... None documented.

surfclam and quahog dredge.

Gulf of Maine mussel....... > 50......... None documented.

U.S. mid-Atlantic/Gulf of 7,000........ None documented.

Mexico oyster.

U.S. South Atlantic, 150.......... None documented.

Caribbean haul seine.

Caribbean beach seine...... 15........... 153+.

Gulf of Maine urchin dive, > 50......... None documented.

hand/mechanical collection.

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of 20,000....... None documented.

Mexico, Caribbean

shellfish dive, hand/

mechanical collection.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ntic, 150.......... None documented.

Caribbean haul seine.

Caribbean beach seine...... 15........... 153+.

Gulf of Maine urchin dive, > 50......... None documented.

hand/mechanical collection.

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of 20,000....... None documented.

Mexico, Caribbean

shellfish dive, hand/

mechanical collection.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Species and Stock Codes for Marine Mammals Occurring in U.S. Waters

[Some, but not all stocks listed are taken in the course of commercial

fishing operations]

------------------

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.