Overview
Title
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Oil and Gas Activities in Cook Inlet, Alaska
Agencies
ELI5 AI
Hilcorp Alaska got special permission to have oil and gas activities in Alaska where they might accidentally bother some ocean animals. They have to be careful and tell the government if anything happens, and they have to stop by next April.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service has granted a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to Hilcorp Alaska LLC. This authorization allows the incidental, unintentional take—or disturbance—of four species of marine mammals during Hilcorp's oil and gas activities in Cook Inlet, Alaska. This LOA is issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and incorporates necessary conditions related to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of any incidents. The authorization is valid until April 21, 2021.
Abstract
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, and implementing regulations, NMFS issued a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to Hilcorp Alaska LLC (Hilcorp) to take marine mammals incidental to oil and gas activities in Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register announces that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has issued a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to Hilcorp Alaska LLC. This authorization allows the company to incidentally take—meaning potentially harass or disturb—four species of marine mammals during its oil and gas activities in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), this authorization is valid until April 21, 2021, and includes a set of conditions related to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of any incidents occurring during the activities.
Key Issues and Concerns
One significant issue with this authorization is the lack of detail provided about the specific mitigation and monitoring measures that Hilcorp must follow. Without these details, it may be challenging for the company to know what is expected of them in terms of compliance, potentially leading to ambiguity and oversight.
Another concern is the document's use of technical terms such as "negligible impact," "Level A harassment," and "Level B harassment" without definitions or explanations within the text. While these terms have specific meanings under the MMPA, their usage without clarification could render the document difficult for a general audience to understand, thus potentially impacting public awareness and understanding.
The document also notes an error in the procedural process when NMFS failed to publish a Federal Register notice upon the issuance of the Year 2 LOA. This oversight points to issues in transparency and adherence to procedural norms, which are critical for maintaining public trust.
Lastly, there is an absence of information about the public comment process or how public input was considered, which limits transparency regarding public engagement and the decision-making process.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broadly, this document impacts the public by highlighting the balancing act between economic development and environmental conservation. Granting an LOA for Hilcorp's oil and gas activities in Cook Inlet underscores the ongoing tension between industrial activity and the protection of marine life, which can be a point of public interest or concern.
For specific stakeholders, such as environmental groups, this document might raise concerns about the protection of marine mammals and the adequacy of mitigation measures. The ambiguity in compliance expectations might lead to calls for more stringent rules or oversight.
Conversely, stakeholders in the oil and gas industry may view the issuance of the LOA as a positive, showing support for their business activities with acknowledged environmental considerations. However, the lack of clear guidelines could also be a drawback, potentially leading to legal or reputational risks if missteps occur.
Overall, this document reflects the complex interplay between regulatory frameworks, industrial activity, and environmental stewardship, requiring careful consideration from all involved parties.
Issues
• The document does not provide details on the specific mitigation and monitoring measures required, which could lead to ambiguity regarding compliance expectations.
• There is no specific information about how the 'negligible impact' finding was determined, leaving room for interpretation.
• The use of technical terms from the MMPA, such as 'negligible impact,' 'Level A harassment,' and 'Level B harassment,' could be difficult for a layperson to understand without definitions within the document itself.
• The document mentions an error where NMFS did not publish a Federal Register notice upon issuance of the Year 2 LOA, indicating a procedural oversight.
• Details about the public comment process or responses to public comments are not provided, limiting transparency about public engagement.