Overview
Title
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Marine Geophysical Survey in the Northwest Gulf of Mexico
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The University of Texas got permission to make loud noises in the sea to learn more about what's under the ocean near Texas, but they have to be careful not to bother sea animals like dolphins too much. They promised to watch the animals and tell everyone what happens, to help keep them safe.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the University of Texas at Austin. This authorization allows UT to accidentally disturb certain marine mammals, like dolphins, while conducting a marine geophysical survey off the coast of Texas in the Gulf of Mexico. The survey will use low-energy seismic airguns to gather data, and measures are in place to minimize impact on the animals. The authorization also includes monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure marine mammal protection.
Abstract
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the University of Texas at Austin (UT) to incidentally harass marine mammals during survey activities associated with a marine geophysical survey in coastal waters off Texas in the northwest (NW) Gulf of Mexico (GOM).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register announces the issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to the University of Texas at Austin. This authorization permits the University to incidentally disturb marine mammals, including specific dolphin species, while conducting a marine geophysical survey in the Northwest Gulf of Mexico. The survey involves using low-energy seismic airguns to collect data about the underwater environment. Throughout the document, there are numerous references to regulations and measures intended to minimize the impact on marine mammals and to ensure proper monitoring and reporting of the survey activities.
General Summary
The IHA allows the University of Texas to conduct survey activities that may result in the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. The activities are meticulously regulated to ensure that any potential impacts remain minimal, focusing primarily on behavioral disturbances rather than physical harm such as injuries or fatalities. The authorization includes multiple layers of requirements for mitigation measures and monitoring, which involves employing trained observers to oversee the survey area and undertake various precautionary actions if marine mammals are detected nearby.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One of the primary concerns with the document is its technical complexity, which could make it challenging for laypersons to fully grasp the detailed aspects and implications of the authorization. The text is filled with industry jargon and regulatory references that may not be easily understood without a background in environmental law or marine biology.
Additionally, the document does not provide a detailed financial analysis of the potential costs involved in implementing the prescribed monitoring and mitigation measures. Without this information, it is challenging to evaluate whether the allocated resources are being used efficiently or if the expenditure might be excessive or wasteful.
The document relies on anecdotal evidence to justify some exemptions, such as the small dolphin exception to the shutdown requirement, which allows certain dolphin species to approach the survey vessels without additional mitigation measures being taken. Relying on anecdotal evidence may not offer a sufficiently rigorous scientific basis to justify such exemptions.
Public and Stakeholder Impact
From a broader public perspective, the document reassures that protective measures are in place to minimize harm to marine wildlife during the University’s geophysical survey. This might be comforting to the general population concerned about environmental impacts. However, the lack of clear, simplified information might limit public understanding and engagement regarding the activities and their potential consequences.
Specific stakeholders, such as environmental organizations, might find the reliance on anecdotal evidence and the lack of comprehensive mitigation efficacy assessment troubling. These stakeholders may call for more rigorous scientific justification and detailed reporting to ensure that marine life is adequately protected.
For local communities and industries reliant on marine resources, the potential economic impacts are not thoroughly discussed. This could raise concerns about how the survey might affect local fisheries or tourism, particularly if the survey activities lead to temporary disruptions in these sectors.
Conclusion
The document provides a detailed regulatory framework for minimizing impacts on marine mammals during the planned survey activities. However, the complexity of the language, reliance on anecdotal evidence, and lack of transparent cost and impact assessments could hinder a comprehensive evaluation by the general public and some stakeholders. As such, the issuance of this authorization should be accompanied by efforts to provide clearer, more accessible explanations and more rigorously researched justifications for all aspects of the planned activities.
Issues
• The document's language is technical and complex, which might make it difficult for laypersons to understand all the details and implications of the authorization.
• There is no detailed breakdown of potential costs associated with the implementation of mitigation measures and monitoring, making it difficult to assess if the spending is efficient or wasteful.
• The document lacks clarity on how the effectiveness of the mitigation measures will be quantitatively assessed to ensure compliance and efficacy.
• No specific details are provided about the third-party observer provider, which could raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest or favoritism.
• The justification for certain exemptions, such as the small dolphin exception to the shutdown requirement, is based on anecdotal evidence, which may not be sufficiently rigorous scientifically.
• There is minimal discussion on the economic impact of the survey activities on local communities or industries, which could be important for a comprehensive analysis.
• The requirement for vessel speed reduction is broadly defined, citing 'extraordinary circumstances,' which could be interpreted variably by operators.