DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 75/Wednesday, April 21, 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

21082 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 21, 2021 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Network, and the Wishtoyo Foundation Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected filed a complaint seeking court-ordered National Oceanic and Atmospheric Resources, 301–427–8466. deadlines for the issuance of proposed Administration SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and final rules to designate critical habitat for the CAM, MX, and WNP 50 CFR Parts 223, 224, and 226 Background DPSs of humpback whales. See Center Under the ESA, we are responsible for for Biological Diversity et al. v. National [Docket No. 210415–0080] determining whether certain species are Marine Fisheries Service, et al., No. threatened or endangered, and, to the 3:18–cv–01628–EDL (N.D. Cal.). The RIN 0648–BI06 maximum extent prudent and parties entered into a settlement determinable, designating critical agreement with the approval and Endangered and Threatened Wildlife habitat for endangered and threatened oversight of the court, and subsequently and Plants: Designating Critical species at the time of listing (16 U.S.C. amended the dates specified in the Habitat for the Central America, 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)). On September 8, 2016, original order. The amended settlement Mexico, and Western North Pacific we published a final rule that revised agreement stipulated that NMFS submit Distinct Population Segments of the listing of humpback whales under a proposed determination concerning Humpback Whales the ESA by removing the original, the designation of critical habitat for taxonomic-level species listing, and in these three DPSs to the Federal Register AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries its place listing four DPSs as endangered by September 26, 2019. This deadline Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and and one DPS as threatened (81 FR was met and a proposed rule was Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 62260). We also determined that nine published on October 9, 2019 (84 FR Commerce. additional DPSs did not warrant listing. 54354). The parties recently agreed to ACTION: Final rule. Prior to this revision, the humpback extend the date for submission of the whale had been listed as an endangered final rule to the Federal Register to SUMMARY: We, the NMFS, issue this April 15, 2021. final rule to designate critical habitat for species in 1970 under the precursor to the endangered Western North Pacific the ESA (the Endangered Species In 2018, a critical habitat review team distinct population segment (DPS), the Conservation Act of 1969), and then (CHRT), consisting of biologists from endangered Central America DPS, and transferred to the list of endangered NMFS and NOS, was convened to assess the threatened Mexico DPS of species under the ESA. Although the and evaluate information in support of humpback whales (Megaptera ESA was later amended to require the a critical habitat designation for the novaeangliae) pursuant to section 4 of designation of critical habitat for listed CAM, MX, and WNP DPSs of humpback the Endangered Species Act (ESA). species, when humpback whales were whales. Based on the Draft Biological Specific areas designated as critical originally listed, there was no statutory Report (NMFS 2019a), the Draft habitat for the Western North Pacific requirement to designate critical habitat Economic Analysis (IEc 2019), and the DPS of humpback whales contain for this species. Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) of initial Draft Section 4(b)(2) Report approximately 59,411 square nautical the ESA now requires that, to the (NMFS 2019b), we published a miles (nmi2) of marine habitat in the maximum extent prudent and proposed rule (84 FR 54354, October 9, North Pacific Ocean, including areas determinable, critical habitat be 2019) to designate critical habitat for all within the eastern Bering Sea and Gulf designated at the time of listing (16 three DPSs. All of the areas proposed for of Alaska. Specific areas designated as U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)). Pursuant to designation serve as feeding habitat for critical habitat for the Central America implementing regulations at 50 CFR the relevant listed DPSs and contain the 424.12(g), critical habitat is not essential biological feature of humpback DPS of humpback whales contain 2 approximately 48,521 nmi2 of marine designated within foreign countries or whale prey. Approximately 78,690 nmi habitat in the North Pacific Ocean in areas outside the jurisdiction of the of marine habitat within the eastern within the portions of the California United States. Thus, the listing of DPSs Bering Sea, around the eastern Aleutian Current Ecosystem off the coasts of of humpback whales under the ESA in Islands, and in the western Gulf of Washington, Oregon, and California. 2016 triggered the requirement to Alaska were proposed for designation designate critical habitat, to the for the WNP DPS. Approximately Specific areas designated as critical 2 habitat for the Mexico DPS of humpback maximum extent prudent and 48,459 nmi of marine habitat within whales contain approximately 116,098 determinable, for those DPSs occurring portions of the California Current nmi2 of marine habitat in the North in areas under U.S. jurisdiction— Ecosystem (CCE) off the coasts of Pacific Ocean, including areas within specifically, the Central America (CAM), Washington, Oregon, and California Mexico (MX), and Western North Pacific were proposed for designation for the portions of the eastern Bering Sea, Gulf 2 of Alaska, and California Current (WNP) DPSs. The statute and our CAM DPS. Approximately 175,812 nmi Ecosystem. regulations presume that designation is of marine habitat within eastern Bering prudent except in relatively rare Sea, around the eastern Aleutian DATES: This rule becomes effective on circumstances where a finding that it is Islands, in the Gulf of Alaska, and May 21, 2021. not prudent may be appropriate (see 50 within CCE were proposed for the MX ADDRESSES: This final rule, critical CFR 424.12(a)(1)). DPS. Based on consideration of habitat maps, as well as documents In the final rule to list five DPSs of economic impacts under section 4(b)(2) supporting this final rule are available humpback whales, we concluded that of the ESA, we proposed to exclude on our website (www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ critical habitat was not yet approximately 44,119 nmi2 of marine species/humpback-whale#conservation- determinable, which had the effect of habitat from the designation for the management), or may be obtained by extending by one year the statutory WNP DPS, approximately 12,966 nmi2 contacting Lisa Manning, Endangered deadline for designating critical habitat of marine habitat from the designation Species Division, Office of Protected (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). On March for the CAM DPS, and approximately Resources, National Marine Fisheries 15, 2018, the Center for Biological 30,527 nmi2 of marine habitat from the Service. Diversity, Turtle Island Restoration designation for the MX DPS. Based on VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Apr 20, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM 21APR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 21, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 21083 consideration of national security biological features (I) essential to the habitat serve to validate that any area impacts under section 4(b)(2) of the conservation of the species and (II) meeting that statutory definition is in ESA, we also proposed to exclude which may require special management fact habitat. approximately 48 nmi2 of marine considerations or protection; and (ii) In determining whether the essential habitat from the critical habitat specific areas outside the geographical physical or biological features ‘‘may designation for the MX DPS in area occupied by the species at the time require’’ special management Southeast Alaska and about 1,522 nmi2 it is listed, upon a determination by the considerations or protection, it is of marine habitat off the coast of Secretary that such areas are essential necessary only to find that there is a Washington from the designations for for the conservation of the species (16 possibility that the features may require the CAM and MX DPSs. U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). Certain areas owned special management considerations or We requested public comment on the or controlled by the Department of protection in the future; it is not proposed designations and supporting Defense are ineligible for designation necessary to find that such management reports (i.e., Draft Biological Report (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i). Section is presently or immediately required. (NMFS 2019a), Draft Economic Analysis 3(5)(C) of the ESA provides that, except Home Builders Ass’n of N. California v. (IEc 2019a), and Draft Section 4(b)(2) in those circumstances determined by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 268 F. Report (NMFS 2019b)) through the Secretary, critical habitat shall not Supp. 2d 1197, 1218 (E.D. Cal. 2003). December 9, 2019, and held five public include the entire geographical area The relevant management need may be hearings (84 FR 55530, October 17, which can be occupied by the ‘‘in the future based on possibility.’’ 2019). In response to requests, we threatened or endangered species. Bear Valley Mut. Water Co. v. Salazar, extended the public comment period Under our implementing regulations, No. SACV 11–01263–JVS, 2012 WL through January 31, 2020 (84 FR 65346, we may consider designating 5353353, at *25 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, November 27, 2019) and held a sixth unoccupied areas that are essential for 2012). See also Cape Hatteras Access public hearing (84 FR 65346, November the conservation of the species only Pres. Alliance v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 27, 2019). For a complete description of where a designation limited to occupied 731 F. Supp. 2d 15, 24 (D.D.C.
Recommended publications
  • Captive Orcas

    Captive Orcas

    Captive Orcas ‘Dying to Entertain You’ The Full Story A report for Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) Chippenham, UK Produced by Vanessa Williams Contents Introduction Section 1 The showbiz orca Section 2 Life in the wild FINgerprinting techniques. Community living. Social behaviour. Intelligence. Communication. Orca studies in other parts of the world. Fact file. Latest news on northern/southern residents. Section 3 The world orca trade Capture sites and methods. Legislation. Holding areas [USA/Canada /Iceland/Japan]. Effects of capture upon remaining animals. Potential future capture sites. Transport from the wild. Transport from tank to tank. “Orca laundering”. Breeding loan. Special deals. Section 4 Life in the tank Standards and regulations for captive display [USA/Canada/UK/Japan]. Conditions in captivity: Pool size. Pool design and water quality. Feeding. Acoustics and ambient noise. Social composition and companionship. Solitary confinement. Health of captive orcas: Survival rates and longevity. Causes of death. Stress. Aggressive behaviour towards other orcas. Aggression towards trainers. Section 5 Marine park myths Education. Conservation. Captive breeding. Research. Section 6 The display industry makes a killing Marketing the image. Lobbying. Dubious bedfellows. Drive fisheries. Over-capturing. Section 7 The times they are a-changing The future of marine parks. Changing climate of public opinion. Ethics. Alternatives to display. Whale watching. Cetacean-free facilities. Future of current captives. Release programmes. Section 8 Conclusions and recommendations Appendix: Location of current captives, and details of wild-caught orcas References The information contained in this report is believed to be correct at the time of last publication: 30th April 2001. Some information is inevitably date-sensitive: please notify the author with any comments or updated information.
  • Page 1297 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 917B

    Page 1297 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 917B

    Page 1297 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 917b 1923, as amended’’ on authority of Pub. L. 89–554, § 7(b), classified principally to chapter 38 (§ 1801 et seq.) of this Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 631 (the first section of which en- title. For complete classification of this Act to the acted Title 5, Government Organization and Employ- Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1801 of ees), and of section 1106(a) of act Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, this title and Tables. title XI, 63 Stat. 972, which provided that references in MENDMENTS other laws to the Classification Act of 1923 shall be con- A sidered to mean the Classification Act of 1949. 1996—Par. (3). Pub. L. 104–208 substituted ‘‘Magnuson- In cl. (b), ‘‘subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5 and Stevens Fishery’’ for ‘‘Magnuson Fishery’’. section 5731(a) of title 5’’ substituted for ‘‘the Travel 1980—Par. (3). Pub. L. 96–561 substituted ‘‘Magnuson Expense Act of 1949 and section 10 of the Act of March Fishery Conservation and Management Act’’ for ‘‘Fish- 3, 1933 (U.S.C., title 5, sec. 73b)’’ on authority of Pub. L. ery Conservation and Management Act of 1976’’. 89–554, § 7(b), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 631, the first section of which enacted Title 5. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1996 AMENDMENT In cl. (e), ‘‘section 501 of title 44’’ substituted for Section 101(a) [title II, § 211(b)] of div. A of Pub. L. ‘‘section 11 of the Act of March 1, 1919 (U.S.C., title 44, 104–208 provided that the amendment made by that sec- sec.
  • Whale Conservation in Coastal Ecuador : Environmentalism of the Poor Or Neoliberal Conservation ?*

    Whale Conservation in Coastal Ecuador : Environmentalism of the Poor Or Neoliberal Conservation ?*

    Revista Iberoamericana 25.2 (2014 ): 1-33. Whale Conservation in Coastal Ecuador : Environmentalism of the Poor or Neoliberal Conservation ?* Bradley Tatar Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology [UNIST] Tatar, Bradley (2014), Whale Conservation in Coastal Ecuador: Environmentali sm of the Poor or Neoliberal Conservation? In this p aper, I examine the interaction between transnational activist Abstract networks, conservation scientists, government authorities, and artisanal fish ing communities in coastal Ecuador. Focusing on the problem of cetacean bycatch, I employ the concept of the “discourse of nature” to identify contrasting languages of valuation used by the stakeholders for marine coastal environments. NGOs utilize a scientific evaluation to portray artisanal fishing as a hazard to the survival of hum pback whales, but this coincides with the attempt by government and development agencies to portray artisanal fisheries as inefficient and ecologically harmful. In contrast, a survey I carried out in a coastal fishing community shows that local residents contest this portrayal of fishing as ecologically harmful, drawing upon their discourses of livelihood, indigenous identity, territorial claims, and social marginality. Focusing on the social conflict surrounding the marine protected area [MPA] of Machalilla National Park, I argue that additional restrictions on fishing to mitigate the incidence of cetacean bycatch will not have adequate social acceptance by local artisan fishing communities. Hence, the language of whale conservation which appears to be a pro-poor environmentalism at the macro (international) level, appears to local actors as a threat to their livelihoods. To offset this micro/macro discrepancy, whale conservation NGOs should support local aspirations to continue fishing as a livelihood, thereby * This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2012S1A5A8024090).
  • The Regulatory Framework for Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises in European Waters

    The Regulatory Framework for Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises in European Waters

    The Regulatory Framework for Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises in European Waters Andrea Ripol, Seas At Risk, Brussels, Belgium and Mirta Zupan, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences and Ghent University, Belgium No EU citizen wants to eat fish that has been caught at the expense of iconic species like dolphins or whales. The legal framework to prevent the killing of marine mammals exists, now it is just a matter of political will to implement it. Andrea Ripol © Tilen Genov, Morigenos © Tilen Genov, 28 Overview of Cetacean Species in European Waters (including Red List Status) Introduction Interest in whale conservation began in earnest in the late 1940s largely as a response to the unsustainable pressure placed on whale populations by intensified commercial whaling. At first, the aim was to conserve populations in order to continue harvesting them. In the 1970s, as environmental activism heightened, several international agreements for nature protection were signed, including the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). Today, in addition, cetaceans in European Union (EU) waters are strictly protected by the EU‘s Habitats Directive, as well as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which intends to prevent human-induced decline of biodiversity, targets various pressures and threats and tries to achieve a good environmental status in EU waters. Legal framework in Europe Habitats Directive and the Natura 2000 network The protection of cetaceans in the EU is primarily driven by the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC), a cornerstone of EU legislation for nature protection, adopted in 1992 (Council of the European Communities, 1992).
  • SOLUTION: Gathering and Sonic Blasts for Oil Exploration Because These Practices Can Harm and Kill Whales

    SOLUTION: Gathering and Sonic Blasts for Oil Exploration Because These Practices Can Harm and Kill Whales

    ENDANGEREDWHALES © Nolan/Greenpeace WE HAVE A PROBLEM: WHAT YOU CAN DO: • Many whale species still face extinction. • Tell the Bush administration to strongly support whale protection so whaling countries get the • Blue whales, the largest animals ever, may now number as message. few as 400.1 • Ask elected officials to press Iceland, Japan • Rogue nations Japan, Norway and Iceland flout the and Norway to respect the commercial whaling international ban on commercial whaling. moratorium. • Other threats facing whales include global warming, toxic • Demand that the U.S. curb global warming pollution dumping, noise pollution and lethal “bycatch” from fishing. and sign the Stockholm Convention, which bans the most harmful chemicals on the planet. • Tell Congress that you oppose sonar intelligence SOLUTION: gathering and sonic blasts for oil exploration because these practices can harm and kill whales. • Japan, Norway and Iceland must join the rest of the world and respect the moratorium on commercial whaling. • The loophole Japan exploits to carry out whaling for “Tomostpeople,whalingisallnineteenth- “scientific” research should be closed. centurystuff.Theyhavenoideaabout • Fishing operations causing large numbers of whale hugefloatingslaughterhouses,steel-hulled bycatch deaths must be cleaned up or stopped. chaserboatswithsonartostalkwhales, • Concerted international action must be taken to stop andharpoonsfiredfromcannons.” other threats to whales including global warming, noise Bob Hunter, pollution, ship strikes and toxic contamination.
  • Acoustic Tagging of Large Sharks – Potential for Acoustic Interference

    Acoustic Tagging of Large Sharks – Potential for Acoustic Interference

    CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17) Acoustic tagging of large sharks – Potential for acoustic interference (CS 05-11-17) – Kim Allen independent researcher Citizen science overview This paper is one of a series of unfunded, independent research initiatives that question mainstream science, Animal ethics approaches and Governments’ apparent acceptance of “Validated” science in the area of wildlife electronic tracking. Clearly, the Australian shark issue is extremely contentious as well as political and emotionally charged. Over $100 million has been expended by State and Federal governments in an attempt to find answers and make our beaches safer. Unfortunately, at no stage has a strategic approach been taken to identify the key disciplines of science that need to be considered, assessed, and applied. Significant investment has been directed into the construction and support of wide-scale acoustic receiver arrays and individual sensors as well as significant tagging of large sharks off our coastline for research and public safety. Previous satellite archival tagging programs conducted by CSIRO gave us good insight into shark movements, however since this time despite significant investment minimal progress appears to have been made and the potential risks appear to have been ignored. This CSIRO document clearly outlines the types of tags that are used for shark research, it also clearly defines the recommended protocols that should be used for shark tagging operations. From photographic details shared in the public domain it is clear that shark tagging operations undertaken by Fisheries departments don’t follow these stringent protocols. (www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/2009/bradfordrw a.pdf ) It is extremely difficult for “Unqualified” Citizen scientists to challenge mainstream research particularly given the potential erosion of future funding sources if technical criticism is determined as valid.
  • The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans J L Bannister,* C M Kemper,** R M Warneke***

    The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans J L Bannister,* C M Kemper,** R M Warneke***

    The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans J L Bannister,* C M Kemper,** R M Warneke*** *c/- WA Museum, Francis Street, Perth WA 6000 ** SA Museum, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000 ***Blackwood Lodge, RSD 273 Mount Hicks Road, Yolla Tasmania 7325 Australian Nature Conservation Agency September 1996 The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commonwealth Government, the Minister for the Environment, Sport and Territories, or the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. ISBN 0 642 21388 7 Published September 1996 © Copyright The Director of National Parks and Wildlife Australian Nature Conservation Agency GPO Box 636 Canberra ACT 2601 Cover illustration by Lyn Broomhall, Perth Copy edited by Green Words, Canberra Printer on recycled paper by Canberra Printing Services, Canberra Foreword It seems appropriate that Australia, once an active whaling nation, is now playing a leading role in whale conservation. Australia is a vocal member of the International Whaling Commission, and had a key role in the 1994 declaration of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. The last commercial Australian whaling station ceased operations in Albany in 1978, and it is encouraging to see that once heavily exploited species such as the southern right and humpback whales are showing signs of recovery. Apart from the well-known great whales, Australian waters support a rich variety of cetaceans: smaller whales, dolphins, porpoises and killer whales. Forty-three of the world’s 80 or so cetacean species are found in Australia. This diversity is a reflection of our wide range of coastal habitats, and the fact that Australia is on the main migration route of the great whales from their feeding grounds in the south to warmer breeding grounds in northern waters.
  • ASMFC Stock Status Overview

    ASMFC Stock Status Overview

    American Eel ASMFC Stock Status Overview American Lobster Atlantic Cobia This document provides an overview of stock status for the Commission’s 27 managed species or species groups. Graphs contain the most recent information available and have been vetted through the relevant species technical committee. Where Atlantic Croaker biomass data is lacking, other fishery indicators are used (i.e., landings, fishing mortality rates). Time frames differ based on Atlantic Herring data availability. October 2020 Atlantic Menhaden Atlantic Striped Bass Atlantic Sturgeon Black Drum Black Sea Bass Bluefish Coastal Sharks Horseshoe Crab Jonah Crab Northern Shrimp Red Drum Scup Shad & River Herring Spanish Mackerel Spiny Dogfish Spot Spotted Seatrout Summer Flounder Tautog Weakfish Vision: Sustainable and Cooperative Management of Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Winter Flounder Quick Guide to ASMFC Species Stock Status (Current as of October 2020) = Rebuilt/Sustainable / = Recovering/Rebuilding = Depleted ? = Unknown *= Concern STATUS/ REBUILDING STATUS & SPECIES OVERFISHED OVERFISHING TRENDS SCHEDULE 2017 stock assessment update American Eel Depleted Unknown indicates resource remains depleted. GOM/GBK stock abundance Gulf of Maine/ has increased since the 1980s. American Georges Bank Not Depleted N 2020 benchmark assessment to Lobster (GOM/GBK) be presented to the Board in October. SNE stock has collapsed and is experiencing recruitment Southern New Depleted N failure. 2020 benchmark England assessment to be presented to the Board in October. Depleted on coastwide basis; Amendment 3 established 2013 moratorium unless river- American Shad Depleted Unknown specific sustainability can be documented; benchmark assessment scheduled for 2020. In 2020, the TLA was updated to incorporate additional fishery-independent surveys, Atlantic age and length information, an Unknown Unknown ? Croaker updated reference period, regional characteristics, and an updated management trigger mechanism.
  • 0251 AES Behavior & Ecology, 552 AB, Friday 9 July 2010 Jeff

    0251 AES Behavior & Ecology, 552 AB, Friday 9 July 2010 Jeff

    0251 AES Behavior & Ecology, 552 AB, Friday 9 July 2010 Jeff Kneebone1, Gregory Skomal2, John Chisholm2 1University of Massachusetts Dartmouth; School for Marine Science and Technology, New Bedford, Massachusetts, United States, 2Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, New Bedford, Massachusetts, United States Spatial and Temporal Habitat Use and Movement Patterns of Neonatal and Juvenile Sand Tiger Sharks, Carcharias taurus, in a Massachusetts Estuary In recent years, an increasing number of neonate and juvenile sand tiger sharks (Carcharias taurus) have been incidentally taken by fishermen in Plymouth, Kingston, Duxbury (PKD) Bay, a 10,200 acre tidal estuary located on the south shore of Massachusetts. There are indications that the strong seasonal presence (late spring to early fall) of sand tigers in this area is a relatively new phenomenon as local fishermen claim that they had never seen this species in large numbers until recently. We utilized passive acoustic telemetry to monitor seasonal residency, habitat use, site fidelity, and fine scale movements of 35 sand tigers (79 – 120 cm fork length; age 0 - 1) in PKD Bay. Sharks were tracked within PKD Bay for periods of 5 – 88 days during September – October, 2008 and June – October, 2009. All movement data are currently being analyzed to quantify spatial and temporal habitat use, however, preliminary analyses suggest that sharks display a high degree of site fidelity to several areas of PKD Bay. Outside PKD Bay, we documented broader regional movements throughout New England. Collectively, these data demonstrate the that both PKD Bay and New England coastal waters serve as nursery and essential fish habitat (EFH) for neonatal and juvenile sand tiger sharks.
  • AJ3 – M Fournet, Karpowership Marine Acoustic Ecology Expert Input

    AJ3 – M Fournet, Karpowership Marine Acoustic Ecology Expert Input

    "AJ3" JUDICIAL REVIEW – ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR THREE PROPOSED GAS TO POWER POWERSHIP PROJECTS LED BY KARPOWERSHIP SA (PTY) LTD – MARINE ACOUSTIC ECOLOGY EXPERT INPUT Michelle Fournet, M.S., PhD OVERVIEW: This report contains an expert opinion assessing the scientific soundness of activities relating to three Gas to Power - Powership Projects led by Karpowership SA (PTY) Ltd. The proposed project locations include: (1) Port of Ngqura (on the Southeastern side of South Africa), (2) Richards Bay (near Durban), and (3) in Saldanha Bay (near Cape Town on the West Coast of South Africa). The projects involve the generation of electricity by means of mobile Powerships to be berthed in the marine environment. Additional components of the projects include Floating Storage Regasification Units (FSRU), gas pipelines, and a Liquid Natural GasCarrier (LNGC), which will all interact with marine ecosystems. Specifically, this report is concerned with whether the marine ecology assessments and noise impact assessments (hereafter ‘the studies’) and the associated environmental impact assessment reports (EIAs) adequately assessed the environmental impact of anthropogenic noise and vibrations associated with the proposed projects and associated activities. Noise and vibrations will be broadly addressed, with specific emphasis on suitability of the EIAs to address impacts to the marine environment. These projects collectively rely on a single technical study to predict possible noise levels emanating from the powership, repeat language and mitigation strategies, and rely on the same scientific and technical references. As such, this report will address the three independent EIAs and the associated studies collectively, noting differences in the ecology of the three regions as needed, since site specific assessments of marine noise impacts were omitted from all three EIAs and associated studies.
  • Kids for Whales Activities

    Kids for Whales Activities

    Defending the Whales whales.greenpeace.org/us Kids for Whales Activities Table of Contents 1. Letter of Introduction 2. What Can We Do? 3. How to Petition 4. How to Write a Letter to the Editor & Sample Letter 5. How to Write a Letter to your Representative and Sample Letter 6. Whale Tale Defending the Whales whales.greenpeace.org/us 1. Letter of Introduction Dear Students and Teachers, It’s amazing to think that it was over thirty years ago that Greenpeace first set out to confront the whalers and save the whales. Three decades later, the image of Greenpeace activists placing themselves in front of the harpoons and putting their bodies on the line to defend the whales remains as powerful as ever. And it remains our most effective technique for shutting down the whalers when we are on the front lines in the Antarctic whaling grounds. Even though most people don’t think so, thousands of whales are hunted each year across our oceans. But as crucial as it is to get between the whalers and their harpoons, there is much more to saving the whales than pounding through the waves in an inflatable boat. Because ultimately, an end to commercial whaling will only come about through political pressure on the countries that support it. And no country is better positioned to apply that pressure than the United States. The US has historically been among the leading voices defending the whales, and this year, with the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in Alaska in May, there are signs that it is rediscovering that voice.
  • River Listening: Acoustic Ecology

    River Listening: Acoustic Ecology

    RIVER LISTENING: ACOUSTIC ECOLOGY adopts an acoustic ecology approach by exploring acoustic AND AQUATIC BIOACOUSTICS IN GLOBAL patterns from a holistic perspective that incorporates the physi- RIVER SYSTEMS cal habitat of the river ecosystem [4]. Leah Barclay, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. The scientific grounding for River Listening is led by fresh- Email: <[email protected]>. water ecologist Dr Simon Linke. Dr Linke’s pioneering work in biomonitoring and river conservation planning has been Toby Gifford, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. used by agencies and NGOs from South East Queensland to Email: <[email protected]>. the Congo and he has recently been investigating aquatic bioa- Simon Linke, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. coustics and real-time ecosystem monitoring in freshwater Email <[email protected]>. environments using passive acoustics. Dr Linke believes that classic techniques for measuring aquatic biodiversity are prob- See <mitpressjournals.org/toc/leon/51/3> for supplemental files associated lematic as they potentially injure the study organism (such as with this issue. electrofishing) and can be bias as they only provide a brief balance-unbalance 2015–2016, part 2 Submitted: 21 October 2016 snapshot at the time of observation. He believes that passive Abstract acoustics presents a noninvasive and unexplored approach to River Listening is an interdisciplinary research project exploring the freshwater ecosystem monitoring. This theory is shared by Dr cultural and biological diversity of global river systems through Toby Gifford, the third collaborator on River Listening who is sound. The project examines the creative possibilities of accessible a music technologist and software programmer active in a wide and noninvasive recording technologies to monitor river health and engage local communities in the conservation of global river systems.