Overview
Title
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental To Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to West Dock Facility Construction Activities Associated With the Alaska LNG Project in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government has allowed a company to do some noisy work where sea animals like whales and seals live, as long as they follow rules to avoid hurting them. People will watch to make sure the animals are safe, and the noisy work will stop when it's important for the animals.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation for their construction activities related to the Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas Project at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. This authorization allows the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals, including whales and seals, during the construction activities, with measures in place to minimize impacts. The authorization requires stopping pile driving activities during the Nuiqsut whaling season and includes several mitigation efforts like mandatory observation by trained professionals to protect these animals. The NMFS concluded that these construction activities would not significantly affect the survival or recovery of endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
Abstract
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) to incidentally harass, by Level A and Level B harassment, marine mammals during a particular activity (West Dock facility construction) associated with construction of the Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas (AK LNG) Project in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document details the issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) for construction activities at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, associated with the Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas (AK LNG) Project. This authorization permits the incidental harassment of a small number of marine mammals, including certain whale and seal species, while the construction activities are underway. Various measures are outlined to mitigate potential impacts on these marine mammals.
General Summary
The document primarily covers the regulatory approval process under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for construction activities that may inadvertently disturb marine life. The NMFS has determined that, with proper mitigation measures like stopping pile driving during specific periods and having observers to monitor the animals, the project would not jeopardize the survival or recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act. The authorization is effective from July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024. The document contains extensive details on the mitigation measures, monitoring requirements, and responses to public comments.
Significant Issues or Concerns
Complex Language: The document's technical and legal nature may pose challenges for those without specialized knowledge. Terms like "Level A and Level B harassment" or "sound exposure levels" are highly specific and may not be easily understood by the general public.
Redundancy and Length: Some sections, particularly those responding to public comments, appear repetitive with overlapping explanations. Streamlining these sections could help in maintaining clarity and conciseness.
Stakeholder Engagement: While the document mentions outreach and coordination with local subsistence groups, it does not clearly outline how ongoing stakeholder engagement will be managed post-authorization.
Access to Additional Resources: The reliance on external links for further information raises concerns about the accessibility and longevity of these resources, which are crucial for public understanding and engagement.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this document signals the federal government's efforts to balance industrial developments with environmental and wildlife protection. The measures and monitoring protocols in place may assure communities that such projects are not proceeding at the expense of ecological systems.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Local Communities and Indigenous Groups: Key stakeholders like the Nuiqsut, who rely on marine mammals for subsistence, may be both positively and negatively impacted. While the agreement ensures some protection of their activities, any disturbance to marine life may affect food security and cultural practices.
Environmental Groups: These groups might view the IHA as a compromise. While the steps taken by NMFS serve to minimize harm, the authorization of harassment in itself can be a contentious issue.
Industry Stakeholders: For AGDC, obtaining the IHA represents a critical step in progressing with the LNG Project. The authorization, however, comes with stringent conditions on monitoring and mitigation, which necessitate a robust compliance mechanism to avoid potential shutdowns or legal challenges.
In summary, the document outlines a regulatory path that attempts to harmonize the environmental and subsistence use concerns with the goals of industrial development. It can have broad implications for community livelihoods, environmental health, and industrial operations in the region.
Issues
• The document is very lengthy and dense, making it difficult for readers to extract key information.
• The language used is technical and legalistic, which could be challenging for individuals without a legal or regulatory background to understand.
• Potential redundancy in the explanations of procedures and regulations, which could be streamlined for clarity.
• The document assumes familiarity with specific acts and regulations (e.g., MMPA, ESA) without providing enough background context for unfamiliar readers.
• There might be unnecessary repetition in answering different public comments, which could make the document longer than needed.
• Some explanations, particularly in response to comments, delve into details that might not be necessary for the overall understanding of the authorization.
• The document does not clearly explain how stakeholders and commenters can further engage in the process after the issuance of this authorization.
• There is an assumption that referenced external links and documents will be consistently available to readers, which may not always be the case.
• The document includes detailed technical terms (e.g., specific sound levels) without simplification or additional explanation for a general audience.