A Balancing Act for Harbor Seals on Ice: Weighing Long-term Protection for Seals with a Growing Interest in Vessel-based Tourism

NOAA Fisheries published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to consider regulations to protect tidewater-glacier habitats of harbor seals in Alaska, and limit vessel disturbance of seals using floating ice in those habitats. Despite vessels regularly operating within these habitats, the seals receive no specific protection other than voluntary guidelines to help provide a buffer from human activities. The Notice was precipitated by numerous factors:

• stakeholder concern
• the essential role of habitats for seals to rest, birth, nurse, and molt
• a dramatic increase in vessel-based tourism over several decades
• broadly-defined protections in the Marine Mammal Protection Act that are difficult to enforce
• recent findings suggesting that voluntary guidelines were inadequate to prevent disturbance.

The scope of the Notice encompassed activities of any person or vessel that may diminish the value of glacial habitats for harbor seals, result in unauthorized take under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, or cause detrimental individual- or population-level impacts. While the Notice did not propose specific measures, it did solicit public comments as to whether regulations are needed, and if so, what type of measures would be appropriate to protect seals.

During the 60-day comment period, the agency convened public meetings to provide background on this action. NOAA Fisheries received seventy-five comments in response to the Notice, from industry(29), general public(21), Alaska Native seal hunters and/or subsistence users(14), federal, state and municipal agencies(6), and non-profit organizations(5). Thirty-six of the commenters opposed regulatory action, thirty-two favored such action, and seven were neutral/undecided.

Comments opposing regulation expressed the need for further study, as well as a lack of information for adopting regulations. They also expressed confidence in the adequacy of existing protections, and suggested a lack of evidence for population-level impact. Opposing comments also included concern over economic impact and the effectiveness of voluntary guidelines.

Comments favoring regulation mentioned the inadequacy of existing guidelines to protect seals, and mentioned scientific findings that vessel disturbance negatively affects the animals.  These comments also expressed concern over the cumulative impact of repeated disturbance, non-compliance with Marine Mammal Protection take provisions, and a lack of effectiveness of voluntary guidelines. Comments favoring regulation supported recommendations for enhanced enforcement and time-area closures/speed limits/approach distances.

NOAA Fisheries is taking these responses under consideration as it proceeds with its decision-making process.