Overview
Title
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Coast Guard Base Kodiak Homeporting Facility in Kodiak, Alaska
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service wants to let the U.S. Coast Guard build something in Alaska, and they want to make sure no sea animals get hurt a lot. They are asking people what they think first before they decide.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing to allow the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to conduct construction activities in Womens Bay, Kodiak, Alaska, which might incidentally harm marine mammals. Over two years, NMFS plans to issue authorizations for the incidental disturbance (Level B harassment) and minor physical impact (Level A harassment) on marine mammals due to noise from pile driving. The proposed activities are designed to avoid significant harm or death to marine life, and special measures will be in place to minimize any impacts on marine mammals and their habitat. Public comments on these proposals are being requested before final decisions are made.
Abstract
NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to 2 years of construction activities associated with the Base Kodiak Homeporting Facility project in Womens Bay, Kodiak Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue two consecutive 1-year incidental harassment authorizations (IHAs) 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
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to authorize the United States Coast Guard (USCG) to conduct construction activities at the Base Kodiak Homeporting Facility in Womens Bay, Kodiak, Alaska. These activities, set to occur over the course of two years, involve potentially disruptive noise from pile driving, which can incidentally affect marine mammals. The document outlines measures to mitigate these impacts, including special shutdown and monitoring procedures. NMFS requests public commentary before finalizing the authorizations.
General Summary
This extensive document from the Federal Register details the proposed authorization by NMFS for USCG construction activities. It anticipates the incidental disturbance of marine mammals through noise pollution generated primarily by pile driving work. The activities will be subject to various mitigation strategies intended to minimize disruption to wildlife, including marine mammal monitoring and operational shutdowns if animals are detected within sensitive areas. Additionally, it mentions the possibility of renewing the authorization for one more year under specific conditions.
Key Issues and Concerns
Length and Complexity: The document is notably lengthy and filled with technical jargon, which could make it challenging for non-experts to glean essential information. Important terms related to marine mammal protection, such as "Level A and Level B Harassment," "permanent threshold shift," and multiple acronyms like "NMFS" and "USCG," are used without foundational explanations, potentially obscuring understanding.
Technical Language: The technicality within the sections about acoustic impact thresholds and auditory injuries, such as Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS), may be difficult for lay readers to comprehend. Such terms may need further simplification or additional appendices that provide contextual definitions.
Environmental and Economic Impacts: While the document gives detailed descriptions of potential environmental impacts, including water turbidity and noise pollution, there is a lack of financial analysis or cost breakdown of the proposed activities. Readers concerned about public spending may find assessing the project's financial prudence challenging without this information.
Broader Public Impact
The proposal seeks to balance necessary infrastructural development with environmental stewardship, ensuring that the impacts on marine mammal populations are temporary and minimal. The authorization—and any subsequent public comments—will shape how these activities proceed. The public, especially those in coastal and wildlife conservation communities, may have an interest in voicing concerns related to potential environmental impacts.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Local Communities and Indigenous Groups: The proposal pays attention to subsistence uses of marine mammals by Alaska Natives; however, it notes that current subsistence hunting in the area is minimal. Any significant changes to this scenario would need to be carefully monitored and addressed through the continuation of activities conducive to traditional practices.
Environmental Conservation Organizations: The proposed activities and their monitoring plan might be scrutinized by environmental groups concerned with marine habitats. These organizations might perceive the proposal as a necessary evil but could positively impact them by involving them in the reviewing process.
Construction Sector and USCG: For the USCG and associated contractors, the document details necessary compliance measures that align with marine mammal protection laws. Successfully navigating these regulations can affirm the USCG's commitment to environmentally responsible project implementation.
Conclusion
While NMFS' proposal demonstrates a deliberate approach to safeguarding marine life amidst essential construction, this extensive document's breadth and complexity pose challenges for public understanding and engagement. Stakeholder input—encouraged through public commentary—will prove vital in ensuring the proposal's alignment with community interests and environmental considerations.
Issues
• The document is very lengthy and detailed, making it difficult for a reader to quickly grasp the key elements of the proposal. Consider summarizing sections for readability.
• Some of the technical language, particularly regarding acoustic criteria, may be overly complex for lay readers. Simplification or an appendix with explanations could be helpful.
• The description of 'Level A and Level B Harassment' is complex and may confuse readers; it could benefit from clearer definitions or examples.
• The section on 'Auditory Injury and Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)' uses highly technical auditory terms that may not be understood by non-experts.
• The document uses many acronyms without definitions in each section (e.g., NMFS, USCG, DTH), which may be confusing for those not familiar with them.
• The discussion on 'SMALL NUMBERS' section assumes readers have a prior understanding of stock abundance evaluations, which may not be the case.
• No clear breakdown of costs or financial analysis of the project is provided. This could make it difficult to assess potential wasteful spending or financial prudence.
• Sections discussing potential environmental impacts (e.g., turbidity, acoustic effects) are long and may lose reader engagement; consider using visuals or summaries.