Overview
Title
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Marine and Aviation Operations Research Vessel Relocation at Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Navy wants to keep building at a place where they study the ocean, but sometimes that can bother ocean animals. They asked for permission to keep doing their work, and the government is making sure this won't hurt the animals too much and wants to know what people think about it.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has received a request from the U.S. Navy to renew an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) for the NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO). This renewal allows for the incidental taking of marine mammals during the construction needed for relocating NOAA research vessels at Naval Station Newport in Rhode Island. The activities are nearly identical to those already analyzed in an existing authorization and the renewal will allow continuation for up to another year. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed actions will not have a significant impact on marine mammals and seeks additional public comments before making a final decision.
Abstract
NMFS received a request from the U.S. Navy on behalf of the NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) for the renewal of their currently active incidental harassment authorization (IHA) (hereinafter, the "Project") to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities associated with the relocation of NOAA research vessels at Naval Station Newport (NAVSTA) in Rhode Island. NOAA OMAO activities are nearly identical to those covered in the current authorization. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), prior to issuing the currently active IHA, NMFS requested comments on both the proposed IHA and the potential for renewing the initial authorization if certain requirements were satisfied. The renewal requirements have been satisfied, and NMFS is now providing an additional 15-day comment period to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal not previously provided during the initial 30- day comment period.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register details a request from the U.S. Navy for a renewal of an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) that was initially granted to the NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations. This renewal seeks permission for incidental taking of marine mammals, a process that can occur inadvertently during construction activities needed to relocate NOAA research vessels at Naval Station Newport in Rhode Island. The activities requiring renewal are essentially the same as those covered under the initial authorization. A public comment period is open, and NMFS is evaluating whether to grant continued authorization without expecting significant impacts on marine mammal populations.
General Summary
The notice primarily discusses the regulatory framework under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) that governs the incidental taking of marine mammals. It outlines the procedural steps toward granting renewal, including public input opportunities. The document invites stakeholders to comment, underscoring procedural transparency in renewing the authorization. NMFS assures the public that required mitigation measures are in place to minimize impact and that this renewal addresses activities delayed by unforeseen circumstances.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One of the most prominent issues is the document’s reliance on technical and specialized language, which may hinder public comprehension. Terms like IHA, MMPA, and SARs are used extensively without explanation, potentially alienating readers unfamiliar with such acronyms or environmental regulations.
Moreover, the justification for the IHA renewal addresses delays but less so the potential benefits or risks associated with continuation. While the document acknowledges compliance with broader environmental protection standards, it lacks a discussion on how 'success' of mitigation strategies will be assessed or demonstrated.
Broad Public Impact
For the general public, this document signifies an ongoing government effort to regulate activities that could impact marine mammal populations. The establishment of public comment processes emphasizes accessibility to decision-making; however, the technical nature and complexity can discourage participation by those without advanced understanding of environmental law or marine biology.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Stakeholders such as environmental advocacy groups, local communities, and business entities involved in or affected by maritime activities are central to this discussion. Environmental groups may raise concerns over the adequacy of mitigation measures, whereas local communities might be interested in ensuring such activities do not disrupt marine biodiversity. Additionally, industries involved in construction stand to benefit from consistent regulatory clarity which allows projects to proceed with minimal disruption, subject to complying with prescribed safety measures.
The document accentuates the ongoing efforts to balance infrastructural development with ecological conservation. However, those affected need clarity regarding the execution and monitoring of mitigation strategies to ensure continued protection of marine life without stalling necessary infrastructural activities. Overall, the document reflects necessary caution but would benefit from enhanced clarity and stakeholder engagement to assure all parties are informed and up-to-date with regulatory requirements and potential impacts.
Issues
• The document is highly technical and may be difficult for general public understanding without specialized knowledge in marine biology and environmental regulations.
• Some sections of the document are lengthy and contain complex legal and scientific references, which may make it inaccessible to non-experts.
• The renewal of the Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is not clearly justified in terms of the specific necessity beyond acknowledging unanticipated delays.
• The document assumes knowledge of specific technical terms and acronyms (e.g., IHA, MMPA, SARs) without initial clarification or a glossary.
• The document provides a detailed description of mitigation measures and monitoring, but does not fully elaborate on what constitutes 'success' for these measures and how success is quantitatively measured.
• The process for public comments may discourage participation due to lack of clarity on how comments will be used or considered in the decision-making process.
• There is no discussion or analysis of potential environmental justice implications or how impacted communities are engaged in the decision-making process.
• Potential redundancy in content, such as the repeated explanation of procedures and regulations, which could have been summarized to streamline reading.