Overview
Title
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of the Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas Project in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. government is thinking about letting a company make some noise in the ocean while building a special gas project in Alaska, but they want to make sure it doesn't bother the whales and seals too much, so they're asking for people's thoughts on it.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) received a request from the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) to authorize the incidental harassment of marine mammals during the construction of the Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas Project in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. This authorization, proposed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), permits minimal impact on marine mammals like seals and whales, primarily through noise disturbance during pile driving activities. Measures to protect marine life include specific monitoring and mitigation strategies, such as designated shutdown zones to minimize disturbance. Public comments on the proposal are requested, with a potential 1-year renewal under certain conditions.
Abstract
NMFS has received a request from the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to construction of the Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas (AK LNG) Project in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting 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 prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register outlines the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)'s proposal to authorize incidental harassment of marine mammals by the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) for the construction of the Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Project in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Incidental harassment authorization (IHA) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) would allow for minimal disturbance to marine life, such as seals and whales, primarily through noise associated with pile driving activities. Importantly, the proposal includes a variety of mitigation measures designed to protect these marine mammals, including monitoring by protected species observers and designated shutdown zones to minimize noise disturbances.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One major concern with the document is its overwhelming length and complexity, which might make it difficult for the public to digest and understand fully. The extensive use of technical jargon relating to marine biology and legal regulations could pose a barrier to those unfamiliar with such terminology. Despite providing detailed analyses and proposals, the intricate layers of information might obscure the direct impacts on marine mammals, questioning the effectiveness of the mitigation strategies described.
Moreover, while the document does address the impact on subsistence hunting by local communities, the technical language employed may not be easily accessible to those who rely on these resources and who are not versed in environmental policy. The coordination with these communities through various organizations might come off as convoluted, with timelines potentially leading to confusion about when and how their needs will be considered.
The reliance on predictive models and previous survey data could also raise questions about the accuracy of the take estimates and the genuine efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures. Additionally, while there is mention of a one-time, 1-year renewal of the IHA under specific conditions, the criteria and process for this renewal are not clearly communicated, potentially causing concern among stakeholders.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broadly, this document may affect public awareness and understanding of environmental regulations and their implications for marine and community life in Alaska. The complexity may discourage engagement or raise skepticism about the transparency and accountability of environmental regulation and protection actions.
For specific stakeholders, particularly Alaska Native communities depending on marine mammals for subsistence hunting, there may be negative impacts if the LNG project's mitigation measures prove ineffective. However, the proposal includes coordination and communications plans with these communities, intended to minimize impacts on their traditional activities. If effectively implemented, these plans could serve to ensure that subsistence needs are met while advancing industrial activities.
In conclusion, while the document is well-structured and detailed, simplifying the language, clarifying the renewal process, and ensuring transparent communication with stakeholder communities are essential for ensuring that the public and affected stakeholders are adequately informed and prepared for the project's potential impacts.
Issues
• The document is quite lengthy and dense, which may make it challenging for the general public to fully engage with or understand the proposed actions and their implications.
• The description of the project's impact on subsistence hunting for local communities is detailed, but the language may be too technical for stakeholders who are not experts in environmental policy or marine biology.
• There is potential for confusion regarding the timing and coordination of the activity with subsistence communities, as the timelines and communication plans rely on multiple organizations and might not be straightforward.
• The document's use of technical jargon, especially concerning specific marine mammals and legal regulations, could be simplified for better public comprehension.
• While the document goes into great detail about mitigation measures and analysis, the complexity of these sections might obscure clear understanding of the direct impacts on marine mammal populations and whether the mitigation will be effective.
• The proposals for mitigation rely heavily on predictive models and previous survey data, which could lead to concerns about the accuracy of take estimates and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.
• The potential overlap and interaction between this project and other industrial activities in the area are mentioned but could be clarified further to assure that cumulative impacts are being appropriately considered.
• There is mention of a one-time, 1-year renewal under certain conditions, but the process and rationale for such a renewal may not be entirely clear to the public or stakeholders.
• The document frequently references external data sources and previous studies, which assumes readers have access to or familiarity with these documents to fully understand the context.
• Discussion of the impacts on specific stakeholders and their subsistence practices could be improved by presenting key points in a more reader-friendly summary or table.