Overview
Title
Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service said it's okay for the U.S. Navy to keep doing exercises in the ocean near Hawaii and California, even if they accidentally bump into some whales. They have some rules to try and keep whales safe, like telling everyone if they see one, but they need to be careful because whales are important.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has issued regulations to allow the U.S. Navy to take marine mammals in the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area. This modification permits additional takes of large whales due to vessel strikes. These regulations, effective from January 2025 to December 2025, mandate specific mitigation measures, like whale sighting notifications and limits on sonar use, to minimize impacts on marine mammals. The regulations were made after a thorough analysis and discussions with the Navy regarding potential impacts on marine mammal species, ensuring the activities have the least practicable adverse impact on these animals.
Abstract
NMFS, upon request from the U.S. Navy (Navy), issues these regulations pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to the training and testing activities conducted in the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Study Area between 2018 and 2025. In 2021, two separate U.S. Navy vessels struck unidentified large whales on two separate occasions, one whale in June 2021 and one whale in July 2021, in waters off Southern California. The takes by vessel strike of the two whales by the U.S. Navy were covered by the existing regulations and Letters of Authorization (LOAs), which authorize the U.S. Navy to take up to three large whales by serious injury or mortality by vessel strike between 2018 and 2025. The Navy reanalyzed the potential of vessel strike in the HSTT Study Area, including the recent strikes, and as a result, requested two additional takes of large whales by serious injury or mortality by vessel strike for the remainder of the current regulatory period. In May 2023, a U.S. Navy vessel struck a large whale in waters off Southern California. NMFS reanalyzed the potential for vessel strike based on new information, including the three strikes, and authorizes two additional takes of large whales by serious injury or mortality by vessel strike for the remainder of the current regulatory period (two takes in addition to the three takes authorized in the current regulations). The Navy's activities qualify as military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 NDAA).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The document discusses new regulations issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which allow the U.S. Navy to incidentally take marine mammals during training activities in the Hawaii-Southern California training area. These regulations are effective from January 2025 to December 2025 and are designed to permit additional incidental takes of large whales, particularly due to vessel strikes. To minimize harm, the regulations include specific mitigation measures, such as whale sighting notifications and limitations on sonar use. The regulations result from extensive analysis and discussions between NMFS and the Navy about the impact of these activities on marine mammals.
Significant Issues or Concerns
A prominent concern is the complexity and length of the document, which could make it difficult for readers without technical or legal expertise to fully understand. The document relies on references to previous rules and regulations, which forces readers to consult multiple sources to garner a complete picture of the issue.
Another significant issue is the assumption that a negligible impact determination can be made even when the potential biological removal (PBR) is exceeded. This may raise eyebrows among conservation groups concerned about marine mammal populations.
There is also a perceived ambiguity over when reinitiating consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is necessary. This lack of clarity can potentially confuse stakeholders about the criteria and process for such consultations.
Additionally, the document lacks detailed information about the costs or financial impacts of implementing the regulatory measures and the new technologies, like thermal detection systems. This omission could lead to concerns about the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of these measures.
Impact on the Public
The public's primary impact is the assurance that the Navy’s operations are being conducted with consideration for marine life, thus balancing national security needs with environmental protection. However, the general public may find the document difficult to engage with due to its technical nature and the complexity of the issues discussed, potentially leading to a lack of understanding about the decision-making process and its rationale.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For environmental stakeholders and marine conservation advocates, the document and its allowances—especially regarding exceeding PBR—might be viewed negatively, as they may perceive these regulations as potentially easing protections for vulnerable species.
On the other hand, for the Navy and stakeholders focused on national security and military readiness, these regulations represent a positive development. They provide requisite flexibility for conducting essential military training while also ensuring compliance with environmental protection laws. The revised regulations appear to be a compromise that addresses both operational needs and environmental concerns.
Overall, the document emphasizes the importance of adaptive management by the Navy, implying a willingness to adjust practices based on new information, which could positively influence the Navy's relationship with environmental regulators and advocates, provided this adaptive approach is transparent and effectively communicated.
Financial Assessment
The Federal Register document detailing regulations on the taking of marine mammals includes a notable reference to the costs associated with certain mitigation technologies. The document mentions that sensor elements can cost upward of $300,000 to $500,000 per device, implying a significant financial commitment for the U.S. Navy in terms of implementing advanced detection systems. This cost could reflect the high degree of technical sophistication required for these systems, which are deemed essential due to specific military needs.
Financial Considerations
The financial reference in the document underscores the potential economic burden on the Navy when it comes to acquiring and deploying advanced technological systems for marine mammal protection. This mention suggests that cost considerations are integral to decision-making around the implementation of new technologies. It highlights the Navy's focus on balancing operational effectiveness with environmental responsibilities, given the financial implications of deploying such high-cost equipment.
Relation to Identified Issues
The issue of insufficient detail on how the Navy plans to implement new technologies, such as thermal detection systems, ties directly to the financial aspect raised. While the document specifies the high cost of sensor elements, it lacks comprehensive information on how these financial resources will be managed or integrated into broader mitigation efforts. This gap in discussion could lead to questions about whether the financial investment adequately addresses the technology’s practical implementation and its effectiveness in reducing impacts on marine life.
Moreover, the absence of detailed discussion on monetary allocations for implementing regulatory measures and ongoing monitoring might raise concerns about the sufficiency of funding to meet the stated environmental objectives. Stakeholders may question whether the existing resources are proportionate to the regulatory requirements or whether additional appropriations might be necessary.
Overall, the financial reference within the document highlights a critical intersection between military operational needs and environmental stewardship, emphasizing the substantial investments required to achieve both. However, without explicit financial planning details, stakeholders may remain cautious about the Navy's ability to effectively implement these technologies within existing budget constraints.
Issues
• The document is lengthy and complex, potentially making it difficult for individuals without specific technical or legal expertise to understand.
• The document relies heavily on references to previous rules and other documents, which may require readers to access multiple sources to fully understand the context.
• There is a potential issue related to the assumption that the negligible impact determination can be made even when potential biological removal (PBR) is exceeded, which may concern stakeholders focused on marine mammal conservation.
• The document does not clearly describe the criteria used to determine when reinitiating consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is necessary, which could be seen as ambiguous.
• The discussion of monetary costs or funding allocations for implementing the regulatory measures and monitoring appears to be missing, which may raise questions about the potential financial impact on the Navy or NOAA.
• There is a lack of detailed information on how the Navy plans to implement new technologies, like thermal detection systems, which might affect the overall effectiveness and cost-efficiency of mitigation efforts.
• The waiver of the 30-day delay in effective date is justified broadly but could be perceived as lacking sufficient detailed reasoning for immediate implementation.
• The document does not provide clear details about how the proposed adaptive management measures will be practically implemented, potentially limiting transparency.
• Potential bias or favoritism is not directly apparent from the text, but there is an emphasis on the U.S. Navy's operational needs potentially outweighing certain environmental concerns, which may not satisfy all environmental stakeholders.
• The decision-making process and justifications for allowing two additional takes by vessel strikes are complex and may benefit from clearer, more concise summarization for public comprehension.