Overview
Title
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Site Characterization Surveys Off of Delaware
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government is thinking about letting a company check out the ocean near Delaware to see if they can use it to make energy, but they want to make sure it doesn’t bother whales and dolphins too much. They’re asking people what they think about this plan and how to make it safe for the animals.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is considering Skipjack Offshore Energy, LLC's request to permit the incidental harassment of marine mammals during site surveys off Delaware's coast. The proposed activity is part of the development of renewable energy projects and could impact up to 16 marine mammal species. NMFS plans to issue an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA), which includes measures to minimize and monitor impacts on marine mammals, such as designated exclusion zones and specific actions when mammals are detected. The public has been invited to comment on the proposed authorization and the potential for its renewal.
Abstract
NMFS has received a request from Skipjack Offshore Energy, LLC (Skipjack) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization surveys offshore of Delaware in the area of the Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0519) and along potential submarine cable routes to a landfall location in Delaware. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register outlines the proposal by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to authorize Skipjack Offshore Energy, LLC, for incidental harassment of marine mammals during marine site characterization surveys. These surveys are part of the efforts to develop renewable energy off the coast of Delaware. The plan involves issuing an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA), which includes a series of measures aimed at minimizing impacts on marine life, primarily marine mammals.
General Summary
In essence, the document explains that the NMFS is considering granting permission to Skipjack Offshore Energy for activities that might inadvertently disturb marine mammals. It provides details on the measures to be taken to minimize this impact, such as exclusion zones and monitoring requirements. The public is invited to comment on the proposal and the potential for a renewal, signifying a chance for stakeholders to share their views on whether the activity should be authorized.
Significant Issues or Concerns
The document is laden with technical jargon and legal language, which might be overwhelming to an average reader. The intricate details might obstruct comprehension without additional resources to simplify or summarize complex sections for the public's benefit. Compliance and enforcement mechanisms, while extensively mentioned, lack clarity on how they will be practically enforced, leading to potential gaps. Furthermore, there is an implicit bias favoring Skipjack Offshore Energy without explicit justification, potentially sidelining other competitors.
The proposed mitigation and monitoring methods include specific procedural steps, such as separation distances and exclusion zones, which may seem cumbersome to implement in real life without a substantial amount of training and resources. There is also an overreliance on prior approvals and technical guidance, which raises concerns about their current applicability and the completeness of the information.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the document reveals an insight into how environmental protection measures are considered and enforced during renewable energy development. However, the highly technical language and extensive references could deter meaningful public engagement or understanding. The potential for renewable energy development is positive, but ensuring that public concerns, especially regarding environmental stewardship, are addressed is vital.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For environmental groups, there may be concerns about the "negligible impact" conclusion reached by NMFS, given that the evidence supporting this conclusion is not deeply detailed. Moreover, the numbers concerning incidental takes rely on assumptions or older reports, which could lead stakeholders to question their accuracy. Marine conservationists and those advocating for stricter environmental controls might find the mitigation measures theoretical rather than practical.
On the other side, Skipjack Offshore Energy and similar companies stand to benefit significantly if the IHA is granted, as it clears a path for their renewable energy projects to proceed, suggesting a potentially positive economic impact. Yet, the heavy focus on procedural compliance and reporting may necessitate additional resources or adjustments to their operations to meet NMFS's requirements.
Conclusion
In summary, while the document intends to ensure that renewable energy development proceeds with minimal impact on marine life, the complexity and level of technical detail might hinder effective engagement and transparency with the public and other stakeholders. There is room to improve clarity and accessibility of information to facilitate a robust evaluation from all interested or affected parties.
Issues
• The document has a very large volume of technical and legal language that could be overwhelming for the average reader. Simplifying or summarizing complex sections might improve accessibility.
• There is a significant emphasis on compliance and reporting requirements without clear explanation on how they will be enforced, which could lead to potential compliance gaps.
• Potential bias in favoring certain organizations like Skipjack Offshore Energy and related companies, without detailed justification for their selection over potential competitors.
• The document describes a large number of specific procedural steps and distances for mitigation and monitoring (e.g., distances for vessel separation, exclusion zones), which may be difficult for field workers to practically adhere to without comprehensive training and resources.
• Potential environmental impacts are outlined, but specifics on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures in real-world scenarios remain mostly theoretical, making it challenging to assess their true efficacy.
• The proposed actions appear to rely heavily on prior processes and approvals, which could create a concern if those previous assessments had any inaccuracies or were outdated.
• There is heavy reliance on technical guidance documents and referenced materials, which may not be easily accessible to the public or stakeholders for independent review.
• The 'Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination' section uses conclusory language without deeply illustrated evidence to support the claims of negligible impact, which may raise concerns for stakeholders demanding transparency.
• Some proposed numbers for incidental take are based on assumptions or previous reports without current and direct evidence of their accuracy, potentially leading to challenges from stakeholders.