Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 1994 Amendments Implementation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission review finds 30% of marine‑mammal stocks lack minimum population estimates, urging targeted data and low‑cost methods
Summary
At a Marine Mammal Commission working meeting, commissioners and scientific advisers reviewed three decades of implementing the 1994 MMPA amendments, identifying persistent data gaps (about 30% of stocks lack minimum population estimates) and mixed outcomes from take‑reduction teams. The commission discussed prioritizing stocks, mining existing data and testing lower‑cost survey tools.
The Marine Mammal Commission opened a working session on the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, with commissioners and scientific advisers urging targeted action to fill persistent data gaps.
"One of the most important parts of the MMPA is incidental take of marine mammals in fisheries," Commissioner Andy Reid said as he reviewed the amendments' shift to the potential biological removal (PBR) paradigm and the introduction of stock assessment reports (SARS) and take‑reduction teams (TRTs). He noted the zero‑mortality rate goal (ZMR) has not been central to implementation despite its statutory presence.
The commission heard repeated assessments from staff and advisers that roughly 30% of stocks currently lack a minimum population estimate (Nmin) and a similar proportion lack reliable mortality and serious injury (MSI) estimates. "If you don't have a minimum population estimate it's very difficult or impossible to calculate PBR," Reid said. Mike Gosliner, the commission's general counsel, underscored that Nmin must be a numerical estimate and that the statutory definition requires both best available science and "reasonable assurance" that the stock size is at least that estimate.
Scientific advisers urged a prioritization exercise to identify which of the stocks missing Nmin or MSI are most likely to be affected by fisheries or other human causes and therefore merit near‑term investment. Jason (scientific adviser) proposed mining the data behind the one‑third statistic to determine which missing estimates most affect conservation outcomes, while Robert Sudam and others suggested classifying stocks by likelihood of fishery interaction and feasibility of low‑cost assessments.
Panelists discussed alternative methods, including passive acoustics as an index or a crude Nmin, electronic monitoring to augment observer programs, improved carcass detection for MSI estimates, and expert elicitation for hard‑to‑survey deep‑diving species. Karen (NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center) and Lori (NOAA) said acoustics and trend indices can be valuable if they meet the "best available science" threshold and can be justified in SARS.
The commission debated the role of TRTs and agency responsibilities when teams fail to reach consensus; several speakers noted that agencies have authority to develop plans if teams cannot. Members also discussed the need to better use SARS beyond fisheries management—pointing to section 112 authorities related to habitat protection and broader ecosystem objectives.
What happens next: commissioners and advisers recommended a coordinated workplan to (1) mine existing SARS and related databases to prioritize stocks missing Nmin/MSI by conservation concern and feasibility; (2) pilot and validate low‑cost survey and monitoring approaches (acoustics, electronic monitoring, carcass detection); and (3) use prioritized results to guide budget and oversight requests to NOAA and USFWS. No formal vote was taken; the session closed with agreement to return these ideas to staff for scoping.
