To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to change certain requirements regarding certain allowed take of marine mammals, and for other purposes.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 9, 2026
Bottom line
H.R. 10776 substantially loosens environmental protections under the Marine Mammal Protection Act by narrowing definitions of harm, removing quantitative limits on incidental take, and restricting mitigation measures, while mandating a strictly objective scientific standard for decision-making.
What it actually does
This bill significantly amends the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) by redefining key terms and altering requirements for incidental take authorizations. It narrows the definition of "harassment" from actions with the "potential to injure or disturb" to only those that "injure or disturb" marine mammals. It also introduces a new definition for "negligible impact" focused on effects on annual survival rates. Crucially, the bill removes the "small numbers" requirement for incidental take permits and restricts the Secretary's ability to impose mitigation conditions that would alter the basic design, location, scope, duration, or timing of an activity. Finally, it mandates that all decisions under Title I of the MMPA be based solely on objective scientific and commercial data, explicitly excluding precautionary factors or assumptions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the current MMPA regulations are overly burdensome, create unnecessary delays, and impose excessive costs on industries such as energy development, shipping, and fishing. They contend that existing criteria, like 'potential to injure' and 'small numbers,' are too broad and lead to restrictions based on speculative harm. This bill, they would argue, streamlines the permitting process, reduces regulatory uncertainty, and allows economic activities to proceed more efficiently while still protecting marine mammals based on concrete, observed impacts rather than hypothetical ones. They emphasize the importance of objective, unbiased scientific data in decision-making, free from precautionary principles that they believe can stifle economic growth.
Opponents contend
Opponents would argue that this bill drastically weakens the core protections of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, potentially leading to increased harm and population declines for vulnerable marine mammal species. They would contend that changing 'potential to injure' to 'injures' and removing the 'small numbers' requirement would allow for significant, cumulative impacts on marine mammal populations that might not be immediately apparent but could have long-term detrimental effects. Critics would also argue that limiting mitigation conditions to only 'practicable and economically feasible' measures, and preventing them from altering project design, prioritizes industrial activity over conservation, and that removing precautionary factors from scientific assessments ignores the inherent uncertainties in marine science and the need for a buffer to protect endangered species.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward for those familiar with environmental law, but its technical amendments to existing statutes require careful reading to grasp the full implications.
Section 1(a)(1)
Narrowing the Definition of "Harassment"
This provision amends the definition of "harassment" under the MMPA. Previously, harassment included actions with the "potential to injure" or "potential to disturb" marine mammals. This bill changes the definition to only include actions that actually "injure" or "disturb" marine mammals, removing the 'potential' aspect and other similar phrases like 'significant potential to injure' or 'likely to disturb.'
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this change provides greater clarity and reduces regulatory overreach by focusing on actual, observed impacts rather than speculative potential harm. They contend that current definitions are too broad and lead to unnecessary restrictions on legitimate economic activities.
Critics contend
Opponents argue this significantly weakens protections for marine mammals by raising the bar for what constitutes 'harassment.' They contend that by waiting for actual injury or disturbance, it may be too late to prevent irreversible harm to sensitive populations, especially given the difficulty of observing direct injury in marine environments.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for regulatory certainty and reduced burden on industry against the precautionary principle in environmental protection and the difficulty of proving direct harm to marine mammals.
Section 1(a)(2)
Defining "Negligible Impact"
This provision adds a new definition for "negligible impact" to the MMPA. It defines it as "an impact that is not reasonably likely to significantly and adversely affect the applicable species or stock through an effect on the annual rate of survival of the applicable species or stock."
Section 1(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 1(b)(2)(A)(i)
Eliminating "Small Numbers" Criterion for Incidental Take Authorizations
This provision removes the requirement that incidental takes of marine mammals must be of "small numbers" for authorizations to be granted under Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA. This applies to both lethal and non-lethal (harassment) takes.
Section 1(b)(1)(A)(iv)(II) and 1(b)(2)(D)(iv)
Limiting Scope of Mitigation and Monitoring Conditions
This provision amends the MMPA to state that any conditions or requirements imposed by the Secretary to minimize the impact of incidental take (including monitoring and reporting) "shall not alter the basic design, location, scope, duration, or timing of the activity." It also changes the standard for mitigation measures from "least practicable adverse impact" to "appropriate, practicable and economically feasible conditions."
Section 1(c), adding new Section 121 to Title I of the MMPA
Mandating Objective Scientific Data Application
This provision adds a new section to the MMPA, requiring that all decisions, determinations, and findings under Title I (which includes incidental take authorizations) be made "based solely upon the objective application of the best scientific and commercial data available and without application of precautionary factors or assumptions or any other factors or assumptions that bias the objective application of the best scientific and commercial data available." It lists specific areas where this applies, such as marine mammal distribution, population estimates, take occurrence, and exposure to human impacts.
Changes the standard for mitigation measures from 'least practicable adverse impact' to 'appropriate, practicable and economically feasible conditions.'
Section 1(b)(1)(A)(iv)(II)(aa) and 1(b)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Why it matters:This change is a deliberate legislative choice to prioritize economic considerations in mitigation, which might be framed as 'common sense' but could have significant environmental consequences by potentially reducing the stringency of protective measures.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures mitigation measures are realistic and do not impose prohibitive costs on industries, thereby balancing conservation with economic viability and preventing agencies from demanding financially unsustainable solutions.
Case against: Opponents argue that introducing 'economically feasible' as a primary criterion could lead to less effective mitigation measures being adopted, as cost savings might be prioritized over the best available methods for protecting marine mammals, potentially increasing actual impacts.
Estimated impact: Could lead to a reduction in the stringency and effectiveness of mitigation measures across all activities requiring incidental take permits, potentially increasing actual impacts on marine mammals and shifting environmental costs to the public.