[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 13 (Thursday, January 21, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3280-3286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1308]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Record of Decision for Shock Testing the Seawolf Submarine
SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy (Navy), pursuant to Section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; the regulations implementing NEPA issued by the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Parts 1500-1508; Navy regulations implementing NEPA procedures
(31 CFR 775); and Executive Order 12114, ``Environmental Effects Abroad
of Major Federal Actions''; hereby announces its selection of the area
of the Atlantic Ocean offshore of Mayport Naval Station, Jacksonville,
Florida for the SEAWOLF submarine shock test. NEPA sets out the
procedures Federal agencies must follow in analyzing environmental
impacts of major Federal actions within U.S. territory. Executive Order
12114 sets out the procedures Federal agencies must follow in analyzing
environmental impacts of major Federal actions occurring outside U.S.
territory in the global commons or within the territory of another
nation. The Department of the Navy was the lead agency and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was a cooperating agency for the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The SEAWOLF submarine would be shock tested in a manner consistent
with the alternative ``Shock Testing The SEAWOLF At An Offshore
Location'', described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) as the proposed action. The FEIS analyzed in detail two
alternative areas offshore of Mayport, Florida and Norfolk, Virginia.
The submarine would be subjected to a series of five 10,000 pound
explosive charge detonations sometime between April 1, 2000 and
September 30, 2000. Testing offshore of Mayport would be conducted
between May 1 and September 30, 2000 to minimize the risk to sea
turtles which may be more abundant in the Mayport area during April.
The series of five detonations would be conducted at a rate of one
detonation per week to allow time to perform detailed inspections of
the submarine's systems prior to the next detonation.
The two areas were evaluated with respect to operational criteria
and environmental impacts. Both were determined to meet all of the
Navy's operational requirements. In choosing the Mayport area, Navy
determined that while most environmental impacts of shock testing would
be similar at both locations, the risk of mortality and injury to
marine mammals is about five to seven times lower at Mayport.
The Navy has determined that shock testing in the Mayport area will
have the least environmental impact. This Record of Decision leaves the
selection of a single primary and two secondary test sites within the
Mayport test area to be made based on aerial surveys of marine mammals
and turtles done three weeks prior to the shock test. One of these
three sites will be selected as the final test site based on marine
mammal and turtle surveys performed two to three days before each
detonation.
Background
The USS SEAWOLF is the first of a new class of submarines being
acquired by the Navy. The class consists of three submarines, with the
second and third currently under construction. SEAWOLF class submarines
are the largest and most capable fast attack submarines in the fleet.
Features include reduced acoustic and electromagnetic signatures,
improved speed, greater maximum operating depth, greater ordnance
capacity, and other technological improvements reflecting the state-of-
the-art in submarine design.
[[Page 3281]]
Section 2366, Title 10, United States Code (10 U.S.C. 2366),
provides that a covered system, such as a submarine, cannot proceed
beyond initial production until realistic survivability testing for the
system is complete. Realistic survivability testing means testing of
the vulnerability of the system in combat by firing munitions likely to
be encountered in combat with the system configured for combat. This
testing is commonly referred to as ``Live Fire Test & Evaluation''
(LFT&E). Consistent with 10 U.S.C. 2366, the Navy has established a
LFT&E program to complete the survivability testing of SEAWOLF Class
submarines. The SEAWOLF LFT&E program includes a ship shock test. A
ship shock test is a series of underwater detonations that propagate a
shock wave through a ship's hull under deliberate and controlled
conditions. Shock tests simulate near misses from underwater explosions
similar to those encountered in combat.
The purpose of the project is to shock test the SEAWOLF so that the
resultant data can be used to assess the survivability of the
submarine. Computer modeling and component testing on machines or in
surrogates does not provide adequate information to fully assess the
survivability of the submarine. Testing the manned submarine with the
appropriate systems operating provides the best information to support
an assessment of the survivability of the ship. Shock tests have proven
their value as recently as the Persian Gulf War when ships were able to
survive battle damage and continue their mission because of ship
design, crew training, and survivability lessons learned during
previous shock tests.
The SEAWOLF was christened in June 1995 and delivered to the Navy
in the summer of 1997. Because of the long series of at-sea testing
that must be completed by the lead ship of a class, shock testing did
not occur in 1997 as originally planned. Therefore, the Navy
rescheduled the shock test for the spring/summer of 2000.
The delay of the SEAWOLF shock test from 1997 to 2000 is addressed
in the environmental analysis provided in the FEIS. The impacts
identified and the mitigation developed were based on the time of year
that the test is conducted, and no impacts were identified that were
variable other than seasonally each year. Therefore, the methodology
for determining impacts remained valid and the Navy decided to issue
the FEIS even though the planned year of the test had changed. During
1997, the Navy conducted additional aerial surveys of the Mayport area
to further confirm and validate the marine mammal and sea turtle
population density data obtained during the 1995 aerial surveys. These
additional data were incorporated into the FEIS.
To begin the NEPA process, Navy published a Notice of Intent in
March 1995 in the Federal Register (60 FR 12748) and five newspapers
(Washington Post, Virginian Pilot, Florida Times Union, Beaches Leader,
and Southeast Georgian), announcing that Navy would prepare an EIS. A
30-day public scoping period was established for identifying issues to
be addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Navy
held scoping meetings jointly with NMFS on March 23, 1995 in Silver
Spring, Maryland; on March 28, 1995 in Norfolk, Virginia; and on March
29, 1995 in Atlantic Beach, Florida. Written and oral comments were
received during the public meetings. All comments were reviewed to
ensure that all issues were addressed in the DEIS.
The notice of availability for the DEIS was published in the
Federal Register (61 FR 30232) on June 14, 1996. Navy distributed the
DEIS to Federal, State, and local agencies, elected officials, special
interest groups, and interested persons. Navy held public hearings
jointly with NMFS to receive written and oral comments on the DEIS on
August 19, 1996 in Silver Spring, Maryland; August 20, 1996 in Norfolk,
Virginia; and August 21, 1996 in Atlantic Beach, Florida. The public
comment period on the DEIS ended on September 17, 1996. Federal, State,
and local agencies, and the general public commented on the DEIS. These
comments and Navy's responses were incorporated in the FEIS, which was
distributed to the public on June 5, 1998, for a review period that
concluded on July 6, 1998.
Coordination and Consultation With the NMFS
The NMFS has two regulatory roles in the SEAWOLF project. First,
the NMFS is responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act as
it applies to sea turtles and most marine mammals. The DEIS served as
the Biological Assessment which the Navy submitted to the NMFS,
requesting formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The NMFS subsequently
issued a Biological Opinion, dated December 12, 1996, which completed
the consultation process under ESA.
The NMFS also has a regulatory role under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.). When the DEIS was
published, the Navy submitted a separate application to the NMFS for an
``incidental take authorization'' under section 101(a) (5) (A) of the
MMPA. The NMFS published a Proposed Rule in the Federal Register on
August 2, 1996 (61 FR 40377) and participated in joint public hearings
with the Navy (see dates above) to receive comments. The Proposed Rule
specified mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the
shock test. A Final Rule must be issued by NMFS before shock testing
can proceed.
The NMFS was also a cooperating agency with the Navy in preparing
the EIS. Because of its regulatory responsibilities under the ESA and
the MMPA, the NMFS limited its role in preparation of the EIS to
providing review and comment.
Alternatives
NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives
for implementing a proposed Federal Action. The alternatives evaluated
in the FEIS were no-action and shock testing the SEAWOLF at an offshore
location. Alternative offshore areas for shock testing were compared
from operational and environmental perspectives. A preferred
alternative was identified based on these comparisons.
Under the ``No Action'' alternative, no new activities affecting
the physical environment would be conducted to predict the response of
SEAWOLF class submarines to underwater detonations. This alternative
would avoid all environmental impacts of shock testing. Navy has
established an LFT&E program to demonstrate the survivability of
SEAWOLF class submarines. The program consists of three major areas
that together provide the data necessary to assess the SEAWOLF's
survivability: computer modeling and analysis, component and surrogate
testing, and a shock test of the entire ship. The SEAWOLF LFT&E program
already includes the maximum reasonable amount of computer modeling and
component testing. Testing the manned submarine with the appropriate
systems operating provides the best information to support an
assessment of the survivability of the ship. The ``No Action''
alternative would prevent the Navy from being able to make the best
survivability assessment.
The remaining alternative discussed in the FEIS was the proposed
action, to shock test the SEAWOLF at an offshore location. The
submarine would be subjected to a series of five 10,000-pound explosive
charge detonations. The series of five detonations would be
[[Page 3282]]
conducted at a rate of one detonation per week to allow time to perform
detailed inspections of the submarine's systems prior to the next
detonation. The series of detonations would occur sometime between
April 1, and September 30, based on the Navy's operational
requirements.
A location on the east coast best meets operational needs as that
is where the SEAWOLF will be homeported and where all sea trials will
occur. Scheduling the test on the West Coast or in the Gulf of Mexico
would increase the time the ship is away from the homeport, complicate
or prolong repairs, and further delay deployment. Under Navy Personnel
Tempo (PERSTEMPO) regulations, a ship is required to spend a day in
homeport for every day it is away from homeport for purposes of crew
quality of life and efficiency (OPNAVINST 3000.13A, 21 December 1990).
A shock test conducted away from the homeport is typically a 3.5 to 4
month deployment, including time spent having special equipment
installed at the shore support facility, completing test runs and
training, and conducting the actual shock testing. Scheduling the test
away from the East Coast would maximize time spent away from the
homeport and minimize the SEAWOLF's availability for deployment as part
of fleet resources.
The Navy screened possible East Coast shock testing areas according
to operational criteria. Potential areas were first defined as
locations having a water depth of 152 m (500 ft) that are within 185 km
(100 nmi) of a naval station support facility and a submarine repair
facility. This water depth is sufficient to minimize the effect of a
bottom reflected pressure wave on the submarine and shallow enough to
allow mooring of the operational vessel with the test array. This depth
would also permit recovery of the crew and submarine in the unlikely
event of a control failure. Other criteria include proximity to an
ordnance storage/loading facility and Navy assets (ships and aircraft)
necessary to support test needs. There must also be little or no
shipping traffic in the area. Finally, calm seas and good visibility
are needed for the test.
Five east coast areas were identified that could potentially meet
the Navy's operational requirements: Mayport, Florida; Norfolk,
Virginia; Groton, Connecticut; Charleston, South Carolina; and Key
West, Florida. Charleston was eliminated because of the closure of the
Charleston Naval Base under the Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC)
process (i.e., facilities and vessels to support the test would not be
available). The water depth of 275 m (900 ft) at the Key West area is
too great for the planned shock testing. In addition, the Key West area
lacks the industrial base to support submarine repairs or drydocking,
and there is no surface vessel homeport nearby that could provide Navy
assets (ships and planes) to support the test. Key West was, therefore,
eliminated from further consideration.
The FEIS further analyzed Mayport, Norfolk, and Groton according to
the operational criteria. The areas were scored against the operational
criterion, with Mayport and Norfolk having nearly identical scores,
whereas Groton scored substantially lower. Groton scored poorly on
criteria for incidence of fog, visibility, and proximity to Navy
assets. Mayport, Florida and Norfolk, Virginia were the areas
determined to meet all of the Navy's operational criteria and therefore
were the focus of detailed environmental analysis in the FEIS.
The FEIS evaluated the Mayport and Norfolk areas with respect to
environmental considerations. Possible test sites were first defined as
any point along the 152 m (500 ft depth contour within 185 km (100 nmi)
of a naval station support facility and a submarine repair facility.
Environmental features near each area were mapped, including marine
sancturaries, artificial reefs, hard-bottom areas, shipwrecks, ocean
disposal sites, and critical habitat for endangered or threatened
species. Buffer zones were then developed to avoid impacts to these
areas and associated biota, excluding portions of the 152 m depth
contour. Features such as several shipwrecks, potential hard bottom,
and the proposed Norfolk Canyon Marine Sanctuary were excluded from the
area of consideration at Norfolk. All points along the 152 m depth
contour off Mayport were considered potential shock testing sites.
To supplement historical information and better understand the
potential impacts the SEAWOLF shock test might have on marine mammals
and turtles, Navy conducted monthly aerial surveys during the six-month
period from April through September 1995. These surveys, for both
Mayport and Norfolk, were done to assist in determining density and
distribution of marine mammals and turtles. Significantly higher
numbers of marine mammals were sited off Norfolk. A total of 4,438
individuals representing at least 14 species of marine mammals were
seen at the Norfolk area during the 1995 aerial surveys while a total
of 1,303 individuals representing at least seven species were seen at
Mayport. The total number of sea turtles seen in the two areas was 48
at Norfolk and 138 at Mayport. During the month of April, 61 turtles
were seen at Mayport while 0 were seen at Norfolk, accounting for a
large portion of the difference between the two areas. Additional
aerial surveys were conducted at Mayport during the five-month period
May through September 1997. During the 1997 surveys 1,485 individuals
representing at least eight species of marine mammals and 240 sea
turtles were seen.
Most environmental impacts of shock testing were determined to be
similar at Mayport or Norfolk. However, the two areas differ
significantly with respect to potential impacts on marine mammals and
sea turtles. The most significant environmental difference between the
areas is the much lower risk of impacts to marine mammals at the
Mayport area. Using the 1995 survey data from both areas as the most
appropriate basis for comparison, the risk of mortality and injury of
marine mammals is about 5 to 7 times lower at Mayport than at Norfolk,
whereas the risk to sea turtles is about the same at the two areas.
This comparison strongly favors Mayport as the preferred alternative.
If the 1997 Mayport survey data are compared with the Norfolk 1995
data, the risk of marine mammal mortality and injury would be 3.5 to 5
times lower at Mayport, but the risk to sea turtles would be 2 times
lower at Norfolk. This comparison also indicates that Mayport has the
lowest overall risk of significant environmental impacts. Considering
all components of the physical, biological, and socioeconomic
environment, potential impacts would be less at the Mayport area.
Based on the evaluation of criteria, the preferred alternative is
to shock test the SEAWOLF submarine offshore of Mayport, Florida.
Testing will not occur during the month of April when turtle densities
may be higher. This alternative meets the project purpose and need,
satisfies operational criteria, and minimizes environmental impacts.
The Norfolk area also meets the project purpose and need and satisfies
operational criteria; however the density of marine mammals in the area
could increase the risk of impacts.
Environmental Impacts
In the FEIS Navy analyzed the potential impacts of shock testing
the SEAWOLF at the Mayport, Florida offshore area. Impact discussion
was separated into separate subsections to distinguish between those
aspects of the proposed action evaluated under NEPA and those evaluated
under Executive Order (EO) 12114. NEPA applies to activities and
impacts within U.S. territory, whereas EO 12114 applies to
[[Page 3283]]
impacts outside territorial seas. The proposed action includes
operations that will occur both within and outside U.S. territory.
Shock testing and associated mitigation will occur at least 87 km (47
nmi) offshore at the Mayport area, well outside U.S. territorial seas.
No impacts from the actual test (detonation of explosives) will
occur in U.S. territory. The only operations that will occur within
territorial limits are shore support activities and vessel and aircraft
movements in territorial waters (i.e., transits between the shore base
and the offshore shock-testing site). These shore support activities
and vessel and aircraft movements are not unusual or extraordinary and
are part of the routine operations associated with the existing shore
bases. This Record of Decision focuses on the impacts that will likely
result from implementing the proposed action, detonation of explosives
outside of U.S. territorial seas.
Shore support operations and movement of vessels and aircraft
within territorial limits are not unusual or extraordinary and are part
of the routine operations associated with the existing shore bases.
Under NEPA, impacts of these existing operations on the physical
environment, specifically geology and sediments, air quality, and water
quality are minimal. Impacts of these existing operations on the
biological environment, marine biota, including plankton, pelagic fish,
marine mammals, sea turtles, benthic organisms, and seabirds are
minimal. Impacts of these existing operations on the socioeconomic
environment, commercial and recreational fisheries and ship traffic,
are also minimal.
The impacts of detonation of the explosive charge on the physical
environment are evaluated under EO 12114. Calculations based on the
size of the explosive (4,536 kg or 10,000 lb), the depth of burst (30 m
or 100 ft), and the total water depth (152 m or 500 ft) indicate there
will be no cratering of the seafloor. The shock wave will reach the
seafloor and be reflected from it, but will have no significant impact
on bottom structure or form.
The test area is well offshore in an area not classified for
priority pollutants under the Clean Air Act. It is estimated that 90%
of the gaseous explosion products will become airborne. These products
include carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, ammonia, ethane, propane,
hydrogen cyanide, methane, methyl alcohol, formaldehyde, acetylene, and
phosphine. Because of the low initial concentrations and rapid
dispersion of the explosion products, there will not be any risk to
human health or marine life at the test site. 100% of the solid
explosion products and 10% of the gases will remain in the water. All
products have predicted concentration levels well below permissible
concentrations, indicating no hazard to marine life.
The impacts of detonation of the explosive charge on the biological
environment are also evaluated under EO 12114. The impacts are
evaluated for several categories of marine life. Plankton would be
affected mainly by the physical force of the shock wave from the
detonations. No lasting impacts on plankton communities due to
cavitation or chemical products are expected. The detonations could
have two main effects on pelagic fish. First, fish within a certain
radius will be killed or injured by the resulting shock waves. The
predicted 10% mortality range for fish (i.e., a distance beyond which
at least 90% of fish would survive) ranges from 22 m (73 ft) for non-
swimbladder fish to over 914 m (3,000 ft) for some of the small swim-
bladder fish. A large fish kill is not expected because detonation
would be postponed if large schools are observed within 1.85 km (1 nmi)
of the detonation point. Secondly, fish at greater distances may react
behaviorally to sound impulses from the blast. It is expected that any
behavioral responses to low-frequency sounds from the underwater
explosions would be short term and reversible.
The detonation of the explosive charge on marine mammals may have
two types of potential impacts. First, marine mammals, if they are
present and are not detected during pre-test monitoring within about
1.85 km (1 nmi) of the detonation point, may be killed or injured.
Second, marine mammals at greater distances [up to 15.7 km (8.5 nmi)
for odontocetes and 23.5 km (12.7 nmi) for mysticetes] may experience
auditory effects such as temporary threshold shift (TTS). At still
greater distances, some marine mammals may hear the detonations and
exhibit a momentary, minor behavioral response. Criteria for marine
mammal lethality, injury, and harassment were developed through
extensive literature review and modeling and were fully discussed in
the FEIS.
Because the proposed action may result in mortality, injury, or
harassment of marine mammals, the Navy submitted a request for
``incidental take'' authorization from the NMFS concurrently with the
release of the DEIS. The MMPA allows the incidental (but not
intentional) taking of marine mammals upon request if the taking will
(1) have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s); and (2) not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species
or stock(s) for subsistence uses. In response to the Navy's incidental
take request, the NMFS published a Proposed Rule in the Federal
Register on August 2, 1996 (61 FR 40377). A Final Rule must be issued
before shock testing can proceed. In addition, because listed
(endangered and threatened) species of marine mammals and sea turtles
may occur at the Mayport area, formal consultation with the NMFS was
required under the ESA. The DEIS served as the Biological Opinion
submitted to the NMFS. The NMFS issued a Biological Opinion taking into
account the cumulative impacts of all activities potentially affecting
listed marine mammal and turtle populations which concluded that, with
mitigation included in the proposed action, shock testing is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened
species or result in destruction or adverse modification of their
critical habitat.
To provide numbers for the incidental take request submitted to the
NMFS, it was necessary for Navy to estimate numbers of potentially
affected animals. The analysis performed by the Navy deliberately
overestimated numbers of affected animals in order to provide an upper
bound on potential impacts. The number of marine mammals potentially
killed, injured, or harassed as a result of the proposed detonations
was estimated using a series of steps and assumptions described in the
FEIS. Maximum ranges for mortality, injury, and harassment were defined
using criteria developed in the FEIS. The mortality and injury criteria
were based on tests conducted with terrestrial mammals, the harassment
criterion was based on temporary threshold shift (TTS) in bottlenose
dolphins. Mean densities of each species were multiplied by the area of
the mortality, injury, and harassment ranges to estimate the number of
mammals and turtles affected ``without mitigation''. The mitigation
effectiveness was then estimated for each species, taking into account
the probability of detection by aerial and surface observers and
passive acoustic monitoring. For mortality and injury, the ``without
mitigation'' numbers for each species were then multiplied by (1 minus
mitigation effectiveness), which is the probability of not detecting
that species during pre-detonation monitoring. The resulting values are
the expected number of undetected animals of each species within the
mortality and injury range. For harassment, the ``with mitigation''
numbers were assumed to
[[Page 3284]]
be equal to the ``without mitigation'' numbers, because only a small
proportion of the harassment radius is within the Safety Range.
The criterion by which the mortality range was defined in the FEIS
was onset of extensive lung hemorrhage. The range varies depending on
mammal weight, with the smallest mammals having the greatest range. The
maximum predicted range for a small marine mammal (a calf dolphin) was
1.1 km (0.6 nmi). The FEIS analysis assumed that 100% of the marine
mammals within this radius would be killed, even though the probability
of mortality from the onset of extensive lung hemorrhage was estimated
to be only 1% at the outer edge of this range.
The measure of non-lethal injury used in the FEIS to define the
injury range was 50% probability of eardrum rupture. The greatest
range, calculated for a mammal at the bottom, was 1.85 km (1 nmi). The
FEIS assumed that 100% of marine mammals within this radius would be
injured even though the probability of eardrum rupture at the outer
edge of this range is only 50% (and less in near-surface waters).
The 1994 amendments to the MMPA defined harassment, but do not
define threshold sound levels sufficient to cause it. The NMFS has not
formally defined a threshold for harassment, but has cited temporary
threshold shift (TTS) as an example (FR 60[104]:28379-28386, 31 May
1995). TTS is a change in the threshold of hearing (the quietest sound
that an animal can hear), which could temporarily affect an animal's
ability to hear calls, echolocation sounds, and other ambient sounds.
In the FEIS, TTS was used as the criterion for acoustic harassment of
marine mammals. Based on the results of TTS experiments in bottlenose
dolphins, an energy density TTS criterion of 182 dB re
1Pa\2\.sec was used. Separate ranges were calculated for
odontocetes and mysticetes based on their differing sensitivity to low
frequencies. For odontocetes, which are ``high frequency specialists,''
all frequencies greater than or equal to 10 Hz were included. The
harassment range is predicted to be 15.7 km (8.5 nmi) for odontocetes
and 23.5 km (12.7 nmi) for mysticetes.
Detailed calculations of range distances, estimates of marine
mammal densities, and mitigation effectiveness can be found in the
FEIS. While the Navy does not anticipate any lethal or injurious takes
will result from the five-detonation shock test, the theoretical
calculations based on the previously described criteria indicate the
potential for 1 lethal take, 5 injurious takes, and 1,788 harassment
takes of marine mammals. These numbers have several levels of
conservatism built into them. Calculations were done using data from
both the 1995 and 1997 surveys with the largest resulting numbers being
chosen. The numbers were then compared to the results from the DEIS
method of calculation, with the largest numbers again being selected.
There is comparatively little experimental or theoretical data upon
which to base mortality and injury ranges for sea turtles. Therefore,
the FEIS used the corresponding ranges for marine mammals. While these
ranges were based on experiments with mammals, it is reasonable to
assume sea turtle lungs and other gas-containing organs would be
similarly affected by shock waves. Calculations indicate the maximum
potential for 8 mortalities, 30 injuries, and 1,679 harassments.
Calculations in the FEIS were done using data from both the 1995 and
1997 surveys with the largest resulting numbers (1997) being chosen.
The numbers were then compared to the results from the DEIS method of
calculation, with the largest numbers again being selected. Loggerheads
and leatherbacks, listed as threatened and endangered respectively, are
the two species that may potentially be killed or injured. Loggerheads
make up most of the population and are the species most likely to be
killed or injured. The three other sea turtle species (green,
hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley) are also endangered or threatened, but
are primarily inshore species which were not seen during the 1995 or
1997 aerial surveys. Therefore, no mortalities or injuries of these
species are expected.
Navy also analyzed the impacts on minority and low-income
populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, reprinted in 42 U.S.C. 4321. The proposed action would not
have any adverse impacts on the human population and would not have a
disproportionately high effect on any minority or low-income group.
Mitigation
Mitigation, as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality,
includes measures to minimize impacts by limiting the degree or
magnitude of a proposed action and its implementation. The shock test
at Mayport includes the following mitigation measures: (1) A schedule
shift to avoid high densities of sea turtles; (2) a vessel exclusion
zone for operational security; (3) measures to deal with unexploded
ordnance in the unlikely event of a misfire, and (4) a marine mammal
and sea turtle mitigation plan to minimize the risk of impacts to these
animals.
The schedule shift will allow testing at Mayport only between May 1
and September 30. No testing will occur in April when turtle densities
are highest. This mitigation measure is based on the results of aerial
surveys conducted between April and September 1995. Based on the 1995
data and the likely concentration of loggerhead turtles in offshore
waters prior to nesting season, exclusion of April from the test
schedule is considered a reasonable precaution.
An exclusion zone of 9.3 km (5 nmi) radius will be established
around the detonation point to exclude all non-test ship, submarine,
and aircraft traffic. Any traffic within an 18.5 km (10 nmi) radius
will be warned to alter course or will be escorted from the site.
Notices to Airmen and Mariners will be published in advance of each
test. An immediate HOLD on the test will be ordered if any unauthorized
craft enters the exclusion zone and cannot be contacted. The HOLD will
continue until the exclusion zone was clear of unauthorized vessels.
The size of the exclusion zone is necessary to ensure that commercial
ships have no impact on operational security and to allow large vessels
sufficient time to change course.
The probability of a charge not detonating during a test is remote.
Should a charge fail to explode, the Navy will attempt to identify the
problem and detonate the charge (with all marine mammal and sea turtle
mitigation measures in place as described below). If these attempts
fail, the Navy will recover the explosive and disarm it. Only in case
of an extreme emergency or to safeguard human life, will the Navy
dispose of the charge at sea. The possibility of disposing the
explosive charge at sea is very remote. However, if disposal at sea is
necessary, the charge will be disposed in a manner that will not pose a
hazard to the public.
A detailed marine mammal and sea turtle mitigation plan has been
developed to reduce or eliminate the effects of shock testing on these
animals. The plan includes the same type of monitoring and mitigation
efforts successfully used during the shock trial of the USS JOHN PAUL
JONES in 1994 off the coast of southern California where marine mammal
densities are about 25 times higher than at Mayport. The mitigation
plan would build upon previous efforts to avoid or reduce potential
environmental impacts (i.e., choice of Mayport based on the lower
density of marine mammals). The mitigation plan is designed to address
[[Page 3285]]
mitigation requirements specified by the NMFS.
The NMFS Biological Opinion included reasonable and prudent
measures and terms and conditions to minimize the impact of the take on
listed species as a result of the proposed action. The measures
include: (1) aerial surveys must be conducted in sea states having
conditions no greater than 33-50% whitecaps on the surface and wave
height of 2-3 feet; (2) the charge shall not be detonated if visibility
is less than 3 nmi; (3) detonations must not occur within 2 nmi of
large sargassum rafts or aggregations of jellyfish. If sargassum rafts
persist within the safety zone and cannot be avoided, the Navy should
attempt to collect hatchlings from observed rafts; (4) the Navy must
use satellite telemetry images of sea surface temperature and aerial
survey indicators to identify the western wall of the Gulf Stream.
Detonations must be confined to waters within the Gulf Stream, no
closer than 2 nmi of the western boundary; (5) detonation would be
postponed if a Northern Right Whale is sighted within the safety or
buffer zone; (6) if listed marine mammals (other than the Northern
Right Whale) are detected within the buffer zone and subsequently
cannot be detected, sighting and acoustic teams will search the area
for 2\1/2\ hours before assuming the animal has left the buffer zone;
and (7) if during post-detonation monitoring any sea turtles or marine
mammals are observed in the safety area immediately after detonation,
the Navy must review its pre-detonation monitoring procedures with NMFS
prior to the next detonation. To minimize impacts to endangered marine
mammals, the Navy should implement all mitigation, monitoring and
reporting requirements outlined in the final rule to authorize the
taking of a small number of marine mammals incidental to the underwater
detonation of conventional explosives in the waters off Mayport (50 CFR
216.161-216.166), in compliance with section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA.
Additional requirements may also be specified in a Letter of
Authorization issued under these regulations.
Integral to the mitigation plan is the concept of a Safety Range.
For the SEAWOLF shock test, a 3.7 km (2 nmi) radius Safety Range will
be established around the detonation point. The Safety Range takes into
consideration the estimated ranges for various levels of injury and/or
mortality associated with detonation of a 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)
explosive. Based on analyses presented in the FEIS, the maximum
distance for injury (50% probability of eardrum rupture) to a marine
mammal or turtle is 1.85 km or about 1 nmi from the detonation. The 50%
eardrum rupture range has been doubled to established a 3.7 km (2 nmi)
Safety Range. The probability of eardrum rupture is believed to be less
than 10%.
For mitigation monitoring purposes, a 1.85 km (1 nmi) Buffer Zone
will be added to the 3.7 km (2 nmi) Safety Range to accommodate the
possible movement of marine mammals and turtles toward the Safety
Range. Specifically, the area encompassed within a 5.6 km (3 nmi)
radius from the detonation point would be monitored in an effort to
detect any marine mammals or turtles approaching the 3.7 km (2 nmi)
Safety Range.
The mitigation plan includes three components: (1) aerial surveys
and monitoring; (2) shipboard monitoring from the operations vessel and
the Marine Animal Recovery Team (MART) vessel; and (3) passive acoustic
monitoring using the Marine Mammal Acoustic Tracking System (MMATS).
Aerial and shipboard monitoring teams would identify and locate
cetaceans and turtles on the surface, whereas the acoustic monitoring
team would detect and locate calls from surfaced and submerged
cetaceans. All mitigation team members will be qualified, experienced
professionals. Specific minimum qualifications were outlined in the
FEIS.
The mitigation plan consists of three phases: specific test site
selection surveys, pre-detonation monitoring, and post-detonation
monitoring. The specific test site selection surveys begin three weeks
prior to detonation, when an aerial survey will be flown to select one
primary and two secondary test sites, based primarily on the lowest
relative abundance of marine mammals and turtles. An aerial survey will
be conducted at the three sites two to three days prior to each
detonation in order to rank the sites by scarcity of marine mammals.
Through the comparison of data collected during this survey, the
selection of the primary and two secondary sites will be confirmed.
The pre-detonation monitoring will ensure the site is free of
visually or acoustically detectable marine mammals, as well as visible
sea turtles, large sargassum rafts, large jellyfish concentrations,
large schools of fish, and large flocks of seabirds. The morning of a
test day, a mitigation team comprised of 12-15 observers, experienced
in marine mammal survey or acoustic detection will assist the Lead
Scientist in evaluating test site conditions. The Lead Scientist will
have the flexibility to move the test site should the mitigation team
find unacceptable levels of marine life in the area. Beginning two and
one half hours prior to and up to detonation, the mitigation team will
monitor the safety range for the presence of marine mammals and sea
turtles or large concentrations of sargassum, jellyfish, fish, or
seabirds. The Lead Scientist will have the authority to hold the
detonation or recommend moving to one of the secondary sites if the
presence of marine life persists within the safety range.
Post-detonation monitoring will be conducted by the MART vessel for
48 hours after each detonation where a subsequent detonation is
planned. Aerial and shipboard monitoring are intended to locate and
identify any dead or injured animals. The MART vessel will be assisted
by the aerial mitigation team for up to three hours per day during the
48-hour period. After the last detonation, monitoring by the aerial
team and the MART will continue for seven days to detect any
potentially injured or dead animals moving in the predominant direction
and speed of the Gulf Stream. Coordination with stranding networks and
necropsy specialists will be maintained through the SEAWOLF test period
as well as after.
Comment Received on the FEIS
After the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was
distributed to the public for a 30-day review period ending on July 6,
1998, the Navy received seven comment letters. One letter came from a
regulatory agency, and six from individual citizens. The comments did
not raise any new issues concerning the environmental analysis or
discuss any mitigation measures other than those addressed in the FEIS.
Generally, concern centered on the perception that a better way to
accomplish the objectives of this test must exist. However, all
alternatives offered had been previously considered.
The U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) Region Four letter
commented on the extensive efforts that will be employed by the Navy to
reduce risk to mammals and turtles as well as significant
concentrations of other marine biota. EPA further commented that while
the mitigation appeared impressive, its efficacy will become apparent
only after the first detonation has been evaluated. For that reason,
they continue to have some environmental concerns and await with
interest the outcome of the test.
Six letters from individuals were also received. All six
individuals expressed opposition to the test as currently planned. The
letters recommended that
[[Page 3286]]
alternative methods, location, or time be chosen for the test. Concerns
were also expressed about the impacts to marine life that might occur.
These concerns focused on stress, loss of hearing, and loss of life,
particularly among endangered species. Each of these concerns is
considered and evaluated in the FEIS.
Regulations Governing the Testing Decision
The proposed action, shock testing the SEAWOLF submarine at an
offshore site is consistent with Section 2366, Title 10, United States
Code (10 U.S.C. 2366), which states that a covered system, such as a
submarine, cannot proceed beyond initial production until realistic
survivability testing of the system is completed. Realistic
survivability testing means testing for the vulnerability of the system
in combat by firing munitions likely to be encountered in combat with
the test system configured for combat.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and Executive
Order 12114, ``Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions''
require full evaluation of the impacts resulting from major federal
actions. NEPA applies to federal actions within U.S. territory while
Executive Order 12114 applies to activities and impacts outside
territorial seas. The FEIS was prepared in accordance with NEPA and
Executive Order 12114.
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' is
intended to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on members of minority or low-
income populations. Shock testing and associated mitigation operations
will occur well offshore and would result in minor and/or temporary
impacts to the test site with no significant direct or indirect impacts
on the human population.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 prohibits jeopardizing
endangered and threatened species or adversely modifying critical
habitats essential to their survival. Section 7 of the Act requires
consultation with the NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) to determine whether any endangered or threatened species under
their jurisdiction may be affected by the proposed action. No formal
consultation with USFWS was required because USFWS determined that
there are no species or critical habitat under their jurisdiction that
could be affected. Formal consultation with NMFS was completed when the
NMFS issued a Biological Opinion on December 12, 1996.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 establishes a
national policy designed to protect and conserve marine mammals and
their habitat. Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA allows, upon request, the
incidental (but not intentional) taking of marine mammals if certain
findings are made and regulations issued. Permission may be granted if
the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock and
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the
species or stock for subsistence uses. Concurrent with the release of
the DEIS, the Navy submitted an incidental small take application to
the NMFS. Based on this application, the NMFA published a Proposed Rule
on August 2, 1996 (61 FR 40377) and participated in joint public
hearings. The Proposed Rule specified take limits as well as
mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements. A Final Rule must be
issued before the shock test can proceed.
The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (Ocean Dumping
Act) of 1972 makes it illegal for any person to transport material from
the U.S. for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. The term
``dumping'' as defined under the Act does not include intentional
placement of any device in ocean waters for a purpose other than
disposal.
Conclusion
Shock testing the SEAWOLF submarine in an area offshore of Mayport,
Florida is the alternative that best meets the project purpose and
need, satisfies operational criteria, and minimizes environmental
impacts. Potentially significant direct impacts resulting from the test
include mortality, injury, and acoustic harassment of marine mammals
and sea turtles. While numbers have been calculated to define the
potential lethal, injurious, and harassment take that might occur, it
is expected that the mitigation and monitoring program will minimize
the risk to marine mammals and sea turtles. Therefore, while the Navy
has submitted an application for incidental take as previously
discussed, no mortalities or injuries are expected to occur.
The alternative to performing the shock test at an area offshore of
Mayport, Florida is to perform the test at an area offshore of Norfolk,
Virginia. Most environmental impacts of shock testing were determined
to be similar at Mayport or Norfolk. However, the two areas differ
significantly with respect to potential impacts on marine mammals and
sea turtles. The most significant environmental difference between the
areas is the much lower risk of impacts to marine mammals at the
Mayport area. This comparison also indicates that Mayport has the
lowest overall risk of significant environmental impacts. Considering
all components of the physical, biological, and socioeconomic
environment, potential impacts would be less at the Mayport area.
The ``No Action'' alternative would avoid all environmental impacts
of shock testing. It does not, however, support the development of the
best assessment of the survivability characteristics of the submarine.
For that reason, it was dropped from further consideration.
Accordingly, the Navy selects the area off Mayport, Florida for the
shock test of the SEAWOLF submarine. The SEAWOLF submarine would be
shock tested in a manner consistent with the requirements stated by the
NMFS and the description of the test in the FEIS. However, the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999 (H.R. 4103) deletes the
funding necessary to support shock testing in FY00. In light of this
development, the Navy must reassess when, if ever, the shock test can
be budgeted and conducted.
Dated: January 11, 1999.
H. Lee Buchanan,
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (RD&A).
[FR Doc. 99-1308 Filed 1-20-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M