Overview
Title
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Small Boat Harbor Preconstruction Activities (Geotechnical Surveys) in St. George, Alaska
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government is thinking about letting some people work in the water in Alaska, and they might accidentally bother some sea animals like seals. They're asking people what they think before deciding if it's okay.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has proposed issuing an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) that would allow the United States Army Corps of Engineers to take small numbers of marine mammals during geotechnical surveys in St. George, Alaska. These surveys aim to support the construction of a small boat harbor and may incidentally affect northern fur seals, harbor seals, and possibly other marine mammals. The IHA includes measures to reduce impacts, such as temporarily stopping work if certain marine mammals are nearby and avoiding work during sensitive times, like when northern fur seals are pupping. Public comments on the proposal are being requested.
Abstract
NMFS has received a request from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to geotechnical drilling in St. George, Alaska. 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-time, 1-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 authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Document
The document proposes that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issue an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the United States Army Corps of Engineers. This authorization allows for the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals during geotechnical surveys in St. George, Alaska. These surveys, which are preparatory activities for the construction of a small boat harbor, may affect marine mammals such as northern fur seals and harbor seals. To mitigate these impacts, several measures are suggested, including stopping work when certain marine mammals are detected nearby and avoiding work during sensitive periods like the northern fur seals' pupping season. The NMFS invites public comments on this proposal.
Significant Issues or Concerns
One major concern is the heavy use of technical language and numerous acronyms throughout the document, such as "LPT" (Large Penetration Testing), "PTS" (Permanent Threshold Shift), and "AUD INJ" (Auditory Injury). These terms are often not immediately explained, making the document potentially confusing for readers without a background in marine biology or environmental policy. Additionally, the sections related to mitigation, monitoring, and effects on marine mammals include lengthy and complex sentences, which could benefit from simplification for better clarity.
Another issue is that the document does not clearly outline the financial aspects such as cost implications of implementing the proposed activities and mitigation measures. This lack of information might hinder the assessment of potential wasteful spending and affect the financial planning for involved entities.
Impact on the Public
The document's proposals and their implications could have various impacts on the public. Local communities, especially those engaged in fishing or reliant on marine resources, may be affected by changes in the marine environment resulting from the surveys and subsequent construction. Ensuring that marine mammal populations are not unduly harmed is not only important for ecological reasons but also for maintaining the natural heritage and ensuring that marine-related industries are sustainable.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The proposed activities and mitigation measures might have both positive and negative consequences for different stakeholders:
Local Communities and Indigenous Groups: On one hand, the development of a small boat harbor could improve local infrastructure and economic opportunities. On the other hand, there is a potential risk to subsistence activities, particularly the harvesting of marine mammals, which could be impacted by the surveys.
Environmental Organizations and Conservationists: These groups might view the proposed mitigation measures as crucial steps toward protecting marine mammals, but they may also harbor concerns about whether these measures are adequately stringent or effectively enforceable.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers: For the organization conducting the surveys, obtaining the IHA is crucial for legal compliance and project advancement. However, they may encounter increased costs and project delays due to the mandated mitigation and monitoring requirements.
In conclusion, while the document provides a framework for balancing development with ecological considerations, it highlights the complexity of such endeavors. Ensuring transparent communication and addressing concerns through public comments and engagement are vital for the successful implementation of these activities.
Issues
• The document lacks a clear explanation of the cost implications of the proposed activities and the associated mitigation measures, which could hinder the assessment of potential wasteful spending.
• The language used in the 'Supplementary Information' and 'Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat' sections is highly technical, which could be too complex for a general audience to understand without specialized knowledge.
• The document uses many acronyms and technical terms (e.g., 'LPT', 'PTS', 'TTS', 'AUD INJ', etc.) without providing immediate definitions or explanations, which might confuse readers unfamiliar with these terms.
• The section discussing 'Proposed Mitigation' and 'Proposed Monitoring and Reporting' contains lengthy and complex sentences that might benefit from simplification for clarity and readability.
• The explanation regarding the calculation of take estimates in marine mammals (e.g., methodology, assumptions) could benefit from clearer language to ensure transparency and understandability.
• Details regarding the duration and funding allocations for the proposed monitoring and reporting activities are not clearly outlined, which may hinder financial accountability.