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 NOAA is allowed to make noise in the ocean while moving their boats at a base in Rhode Island, and they're trying hard not to scare the sea animals too much. They promise the noise won't hurt the animals living there.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has renewed an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) allowing the NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) to disturb marine mammals during construction at Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island. This renewal, effective for one year, covers unfinished activities related to relocating NOAA research vessels, such as pier and dock work. The renewal follows protocols to minimize impact on marine mammals, ensuring activities have a negligible effect on their populations and habitats. Despite updates in acoustic guidance and minor changes in marine mammal populations, the authorized impact remains minimal.
Abstract
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued a renewal incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) to incidentally harass marine mammals during construction activities associated with the relocation of NOAA research vessels at Naval Station Newport (NAVSTA) in Rhode Island.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document is an official notice from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It details the issuance of a renewal incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to allow the NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) to continue construction activities at Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island. The authorization is valid for one year and is specifically for activities related to the relocation of NOAA research vessels. The document outlines the expected minimal impact on marine mammal populations and describes measures to mitigate such impacts.
General Summary
The notice primarily focuses on the process and permission granted to the NOAA OMAO to disturb marine mammals as they conduct necessary construction at the naval station. The renewal of the IHA is part of compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which governs actions impacting marine mammals. Despite minor updates in guidelines and technical measures, the expected impact on marine mammal populations and habitats remains negligible.
Significant Issues and Concerns
A prominent issue within the document is its reliance on technical jargon and references to specific legislative frameworks. This can be challenging for the general public to understand, as it assumes familiarity with environmental regulatory processes and specific codes such as the MMPA. The document includes extensive procedural details, which, although important for compliance, may be repetitive and difficult to track across the narrative.
Further, the document refers to "small numbers" and "negligible impact" regarding the takings of marine mammals, terms which are not quantitatively defined within the text. This could create ambiguity for readers trying to understand the scale of the potential impact. Moreover, the document does not provide detailed information about the budgetary implications of the proposed activities, which might be relevant to a broader audience concerned with public spending.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the document assures that NOAA's construction activities are being carefully managed to limit disturbances to marine life. However, due to the technical nature of the language used, readers without a background in environmental policies or marine biology may find it challenging to comprehend the full scope of assurances provided. Additionally, the lack of public comments during the proposal phase might suggest either limited public engagement or a potential gap in communication efforts about the project's impacts.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders directly involved, such as environmental groups and agencies focused on marine life conservation, the document provides assurance that rigorous measures are in place to protect marine mammals. The adherence to updated technical guidance and the continuation of the project with minimal expected impact might be seen positively by those balanced between development and conservation interests.
Conversely, for stakeholders with a keen interest in public resource allocation, such as government watchdogs or financial management entities, the absence of explicit discussion around costs and potential economic impacts may be viewed as a shortcoming. Clarity on these aspects could be crucial for evaluating the project's fiscal efficiency.
In summary, while the document adequately outlines the procedural and compliance-related aspects of marine construction activities, its complexity and lack of certain explanatory details might limit its accessibility and reassurance to the broader public.
Issues
• The document contains a significant amount of technical terminology related to marine mammal protection and construction activities, which might be difficult for the general public to understand.
• The text assumes familiarity with regulatory frameworks such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and uses specific legislation and code references without providing simplified summaries for broader audiences.
• Descriptions of mitigation measures and technical guidance updates are detailed but could benefit from a simplified summary to enhance clarity for readers who are not specialists in marine biology or environmental regulations.
• Sections related to monitoring and hydro-acoustic monitoring involve specific technical practices and tools, which might not be easily understood by individuals outside the field of marine construction and environmental monitoring.
• The document lacks a clear executive summary that succinctly outlines the main points, impacts, and outcomes for those who may not read the entire document.
• There are no clear indicators or explanations of potential budgetary implications or cost estimates associated with the activities described, which would be useful for assessing possible wasteful spending.
• There is a detailed procedural guideline under multiple sections, which could benefit from consolidated presentation to avoid repetition and increase cohesiveness.
• While describing the incidental take authorizations, the document does not provide a quantitative scale for what constitutes 'small numbers' or 'negligible impact,' which could lead to ambiguity in interpretation.
• Specific stakeholder engagement efforts or public consultation outcomes are not detailed, other than stating that no public comments were received, which could be expanded for transparency purposes.