Overview
Title
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the City of Ketchikan's Berth III Mooring Dolphins Project in Ketchikan, Alaska
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service is thinking about letting the City of Ketchikan, Alaska, do some building in the water that might make animals like whales and dolphins a little upset. They want to make sure the animals are okay and want people to share their thoughts on this idea.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is considering an authorization request from the City of Ketchikan, Alaska, to permit incidental harassment of marine mammals during the Berth III Mooring Dolphins Project. This project involves construction activities that might disturb marine mammals, and NMFS is looking for public comments on this proposal as well as a potential 1-year renewal. The main goal is to ensure that the construction does not have a significant negative impact on the marine mammals or their habitat. The proposed measures include monitoring, mitigation efforts, and the use of the specified methods to minimize disturbance to the animals.
Abstract
NMFS has received a request from the City of Ketchikan (COK), Alaska, for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the Berth III Mooring Dolphins Project in the Port of Ketchikan in the Tongass Narrows, Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS requests comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS also requests 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 before making any final decision on issuing the requested MMPA authorization, and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document under review is a proposal from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concerning a request from the City of Ketchikan, Alaska. The request seeks an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to allow construction activities at the Berth III Mooring Dolphins Project, which could lead to incidental harassment of marine mammals. These harassment activities are not intended to cause harm to the animals but might disturb them due to noise or other disruptive construction activities in their natural habitat. While the primary goal is to minimize negative impacts on marine mammals, NMFS is open to public comment on the proposal and a possible one-year extension.
General Overview
The proposal outlines various construction activities planned in the Port of Ketchikan, which include pile driving and other underwater activities that might produce noise or physical disturbances potentially affecting marine mammals. As part of this process, NMFS is considering authorizing incidental, but not intentional, "takes" of marine mammals, meaning they might be disturbed but not directly injured or killed. Additionally, NMFS is considering a potential one-year renewal for this authorization if the initial conditions are met.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One of the significant concerns about this document is the highly technical language, which could be challenging for the general audience to comprehend fully. Terms such as "Level A and Level B harassment zones" and "sound pressure levels" might not be easily understood without clear definitions or visual aids.
Additionally, the effectiveness of these measures in preventing potential cumulative impacts remains uncertain. There is already concern that previous monitoring data may not accurately project site-specific impacts of the proposed project. This is relevant given the document's reliance on past data to assess environmental impacts. Furthermore, very general terms like "negligible impact" and "small numbers" are used without clear quantitative thresholds, making interpretations ambiguous.
Moreover, the document does not provide specific financial details of the proposed activities or mitigation measures, leaving readers unable to assess the costs and financial prudence of the project and its associated mitigation efforts.
Impact on the Public
The broader public might have varied reactions to this proposal. For those interested in wildlife conservation and marine ecosystems, the potential disturbance to marine mammals might be concerning. This extends to potential worries about the possible long-term effects on local marine mammal populations despite assertions of negligible impact by NMFS. On the other hand, if successfully implemented with minimal disruption, the project could enhance Ketchikan's infrastructure and bolster local economic activity by accommodating newer, larger cruise ships.
Specific Stakeholder Impacts
Local stakeholders, including the tourist industry, city planners, and local businesses, might see this project positively as it promises to boost tourism and economic activity in Ketchikan by enabling the port to accommodate larger vessels. However, stakeholders involved in marine conservation, including environmental advocacy groups, may view this proposal with concern due to the disturbances that these construction activities could cause to local marine life.
Alaska Native communities who rely on marine mammals for subsistence could be impacted if the marine animals change their migratory patterns or become less available for harvest because of the project activities. While the proposal suggests there won't be an "unmitigable adverse impact" on subsistence uses, continued monitoring and adaptive measures may be required to ensure these communities maintain access to these resources.
In conclusion, the document has implications for various stakeholders with economic, ecological, and cultural perspectives, and NMFS's request for public comment provides an essential platform for these perspectives to be considered in the final decision-making process.
Issues
• The language used in the document is highly technical and might be difficult for a general audience to understand. Simplifying complex phrases and jargon could make it more accessible.
• There is a concern about whether the broad authorization of incidental takes of marine mammals fully considers the cumulative impact, despite mitigation measures being proposed.
• The document includes references to various zones and distances (e.g., Level A and Level B harassment zones) without clear visual aids, which might not be clear to all readers.
• Potential issues with the reliance on previous monitoring results and existing data to assess impacts, as these may not fully capture site-specific impacts of the proposed project.
• The document does not provide specific cost estimates for proposed activities or the mitigation measures, making it difficult to assess financial prudence.
• Concerns could be raised about the proposed renewal process of the Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) mentioned, as it suggests a simplified review for subsequent activities that might not account for unforeseen impacts.
• The document discusses potential impacts in very general terms without specifying quantitative thresholds or metrics for 'negligible impact' and 'small numbers,' which could lead to ambiguity in interpretations.