Overview
Title
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Dry Dock 1 Modification and Expansion
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The document is about the U.S. Navy asking for permission to continue building at a shipyard in Maine, and they want to make sure the sea animals nearby are safe. The organization in charge is checking to see if everything is okay and is asking people for their thoughts on this plan.
Summary AI
The U.S. Navy has requested the renewal of an incidental harassment authorization from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to allow for the taking of marine mammals during construction activities at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine. These activities, which have been delayed, involve modifications to Dry Dock 1 and are similar to those previously authorized, with minimal changes. The NMFS ensures these activities have a negligible impact on marine life, and they have opened a 15-day public comment period to gather further input. The Navy is required to follow specific measures to minimize impacts, including monitoring and reporting any interactions with marine mammals during construction.
Abstract
NMFS received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for the renewal of their currently active incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals incidental to Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Dry Dock 1 modification and expansion in Kittery, Maine. These activities are nearly identical to those covered in the current authorization. The project has been delayed and a small portion of the activities covered in the initial IHA have not been completed. The Navy also proposes to drive an additional number of piles for which the installation methods are identical and pile types are nearly identical to those covered in the initial IHA. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, NMFS requested comments on both the proposed IHA and the potential for renewing the initial authorization if certain requirements were satisfied. The renewal requirements have been satisfied, and NMFS is now providing an additional 15-day comment period to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal not previously provided during the initial 30-day comment period.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document under review is a notice from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This notice pertains to the U.S. Navy's request to renew an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) for activities at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. These activities involve modifications and expansions to Dry Dock 1 and have implications for marine mammal safety.
General Summary
The U.S. Navy seeks permission from NMFS to extend an authorization that allows for incidental impacts on marine mammals during construction at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. The project, which initially received approval, has experienced delays. Therefore, the Navy is requesting a renewal of this authorization to complete certain construction activities. NMFS is prioritizing the protection of marine life by ensuring that any potential impacts from these activities remain negligible. The agency has also opened a 15-day period for public comment to gather additional feedback on the proposed renewal.
Significant Issues or Concerns
The document presents several challenges and concerns. It is lengthy and detailed, with technical jargon that might not be readily understood by a general audience. Terms such as "Level A harassment" and "Level B harassment" are used without basic explanations, possibly leading to confusion. The process described for renewal, including comment periods and renewal criteria, might appear daunting to those unfamiliar with governmental regulatory practices. Furthermore, the document repeatedly references past Federal Register notices, requiring readers to cross-reference these documents for a full understanding, which adds complexity.
Broad Public Impact
The broader impact on the public revolves around the environmental and ecological implications of the Navy's activities. The NMFS has instituted protections and monitoring to minimize adverse effects on marine mammal populations. Public engagement through comments allows community input into environmental decisions, potentially influencing how military and construction activities are perceived locally and nationally.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For environmental advocacy groups, this document represents both progress and concern. While the NMFS is diligent in ensuring environmental compliance and protective measures, renewed construction activities still raise worries about potential harm to marine habitats. Conversely, the U.S. Navy and those involved in the construction project may view the document as a necessary legal step to complete vital infrastructure improvements, which are crucial for maintaining operational capabilities. Stakeholders in economic sectors such as construction and local businesses that associate with the shipyard could see positive economic outcomes from continued project activities.
In summary, while the notice serves as a crucial step in balancing national security interests with environmental conservation, its length and technical nature could obscure its implications for the broader public. Clarity and accessibility remain key challenges for documents of this nature, potentially affecting stakeholder engagement and public reception.
Issues
• The document is lengthy and complex, which may make it difficult for the public to understand all details without expert knowledge.
• The use of specific technical terms and regulations, such as 'Level A harassment' and 'Level B harassment', without clear definitions, could lead to confusion for individuals not familiar with these terms.
• The renewal process explained in the document, including the criteria for renewal and the process of public comments, might be too complex for stakeholders unfamiliar with regulatory frameworks.
• There is a lack of specific information about budgetary allocations or the financial aspects of the project, making it difficult to assess if there is any wasteful spending.
• The document has repetitive references to prior Federal Register notices and other documents, which might require additional effort from readers to cross-reference and fully understand the context.
• Comments from the public and responses are addressed in references to previous notices, which might not provide immediate clarity to readers about concerns raised and how they were addressed in the current context.