![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Shock Trial of WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG 81)
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: May 4, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 22536-22538]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04my01-63]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement
for Shock Trial of WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG 81)
SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy (Navy), pursuant to Section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 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 WINSTON S. CHURCHILL shock trial. 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 Navy was the lead agency and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) was a cooperating agency for the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
The WINSTON S. CHURCHILL will be shock tested in a manner
consistent with the alternative ``Shock Trial At An Offshore
Location,'' described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) as the proposed action. The FEIS analyzed in detail three
alternative offshore areas--Mayport, Florida; Norfolk, Virginia; and
Pascagoula, Mississippi. The WINSTON S. CHURCHILL will be subjected to
a series of up to four 10,000-pound explosive charge detonations
sometime between May 1, 2001 and September 30, 2001, conducted at a
rate of one per week to allow time to perform detailed inspections of
the ship's systems.
The preferred alternative is to conduct a shock trial offshore of
Mayport with mitigation to minimize risk to marine mammals and turtles.
Although all three test areas meet minimum operational requirements,
the Norfolk and Mayport test areas rank higher operationally, whereas
the Pascagoula test area is significantly less suitable for supporting
the shock trial. Environmentally, the risk of impacts to marine mammals
and turtles is higher in the Norfolk test area,
[[Page 22537]]
and is lower, and about equal, at Mayport and Pascagoula. Therefore,
considering all other aspects of the three candidate test areas to be
about the same, conducting the shock trial at Mayport would meet the
project purpose and need, satisfy operational requirements, and
minimize environmental impacts. 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 one to two days prior to the first detonation. This
will ensure that the final test site selected for the shock trial poses
the least possible risk to the marine environment.
Background
WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG 81) is the third ship in a new flight of
23 ARLEIGH BURKE (DDG 51) class guided missile destroyers referred to
as the Flight IIA ships. Each new class of ship or major upgrade must
be tested to assess the survivability of the hull and the ship's
systems and the capability of the ship to protect the crew after a near
miss from an underwater explosion.
Section 2366 of title 10, United States Code (10 USC 2366) requires
realistic survivability testing of a covered weapon system to ensure
the vulnerability of that system under combat conditions is known.
Realistic survivability testing means testing for the vulnerability of
the ship in combat by firing munitions likely to be encountered in
combat with the ship configured for combat, commonly referred to as
``Live Fire Test and Evaluation'' (LFT&E). The Flight IIA destroyer is
a covered system because it is a major weapon system upgrade and the
Navy established an approved LFT&E program to complete the
vulnerability assessment of Flight IIA ships as required by 10 USC
2366. The LFT&E program includes three major areas that together
provide for a complete and comprehensive evaluation of the
survivability of Flight IIA ships in a near miss, underwater explosion
environment. These areas are computer modeling and analysis, component
testing, and an at-sea ship shock trial. Computer modeling and
component tests provide valuable information regarding the
survivability of the ship. However, only the at-sea shock trial would
provide the real-time data necessary to fully assess ship
survivability. A shock trial is a series of underwater detonations that
propagate a shock wave through the ship's hull under deliberate and
controlled conditions. A shock trial assesses a ship's survivability
and vulnerability in combat situations by simulating near misses from
underwater explosions. The Navy can then measure the effect of the
shock wave on the hull, equipment, and personal safety features. This
information is used to improve the shock resistance of the ship and
follow-on ships of the class, thereby reducing the risk of crew injury.
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 conducting a shock trial at one of three
potential offshore locations. 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 only the computer modeling and
component testing already completed under the LFT&E would be used to
evaluate survivability. The no action alternative was determined to not
be a reasonable alternative because it would not provide the
information and data necessary to assess the survivability of the ship
as required by 10 USC 2366. Therefore the ``no action'' alternative was
not included in the comparative analysis of alternatives.
The EIS analysis focused on alternative offshore locations for a
shock trial. The WINSTON S. CHURCHILL will be homeported on the East
coast. Therefore, based on PERSTEMPO (Navy personnel tempo regulations
requiring a ship to spend a day in homeport for every day away from
homeport for crew quality of life and efficiency) considerations,
offshore areas other than the East and Gulf coasts were eliminated from
consideration. The Navy screened possible East Coast and Gulf of Mexico
shock testing areas according to the following operational criteria:
PERSTEMPO; proximity to a Naval Station with homeported ships;
proximity to a Naval Air Station or other military airbase for aircraft
and helicopters; proximity to a Naval Station support facility;
proximity to a ship repair facility; proximity to an ordnance loading
station; ship traffic; and weather and sea state. A detailed analysis
concluded that three test areas could operationally support the shock
trial--Mayport, Florida; Norfolk, Virginia; and Pascagoula,
Mississippi. Operationally, the Norfolk and Mayport test areas rank
higher and are about equal, whereas the Pascagoula test area ranks
lower and is significantly less suitable for supporting the shock
trial.
Potential environmental impacts of conducting a shock trial at the
Mayport, Norfolk, and Pascagoula test areas were analyzed in the
Environmental Consequences section of the FEIS. Most environmental
impacts of the shock trial would be similar at Mayport, Norfolk, or
Pascagoula. However, the three areas differ significantly with respect
to potential impacts on marine mammals and sea turtles. Overall, based
on the best available scientific data, the risk of mortality and injury
to marine mammals and turtles would be higher at Norfolk and lower, and
about equal, at Mayport and Pascagoula. Considering all components of
the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environment, potential
impacts would be less at Mayport or Pascagoula than at Norfolk.
Environmental Impacts
Potential environmental impacts of conducting a shock trial at the
Mayport, Norfolk, and Pascagoula test areas are analyzed in the FEIS.
The analysis demonstrated that most environmental impacts of the shock
trial would be less than significant and were similar at Mayport,
Norfolk, or Pascagoula. However, the three areas differ with respect to
potential significant impacts on marine mammals and sea turtles.
Potentially significant direct impacts on marine mammals include
mortality, injury, and disruption of hearing-based behaviors. Most
marine mammals would be detected during pre-detonation aerial surveys,
surface observations, and passive acoustic monitoring, minimizing the
risk of death or injury. Application of mitigation measures would
further reduce risk by allowing selection of a test site with low
densities of marine mammals within each of the three test areas. Even
with these mitigation measures, there are differences in risk levels
among the three test areas due to differences in area-wide marine
mammal densities and species composition. Overall, the risk to marine
mammals would be higher at Norfolk and lower and about equal at Mayport
and Pascagoula.
Potential impacts to sea turtles also include mortality, injury,
and disruption of hearing-based behaviors. At Mayport, Norfolk, or
Pascagoula, mitigation methods would result in selection of a test site
with low densities of sea turtles. However, there are differences in
risk among the three areas due to differences in sea turtle densities.
Overall, the results indicate that the risk to turtles would be higher
at Norfolk
[[Page 22538]]
and lower but about equal at Mayport and Pascagoula.
Considering all components of the physical, biological, and
socioeconomic environment, potential impacts would be less at Mayport
or Pascagoula than at Norfolk.
Mitigation
A detailed Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Protection/Mitigation Plan
is presented in the FEIS. The plan includes the same type of mitigation
and monitoring efforts that were used successfully during the shock
trial of USS JOHN PAUL JONES in 1994 off the coast the southern
California where marine mammal population densities are significantly
greater than at the Mayport, Norfolk, or Pascagoula test areas. No
deaths or injuries of marine mammals were detected during the USS JOHN
PAUL JONES shock trial. The mitigation plan for the shock trial would
avoid impacts and minimize risk to marine mammals and sea turtles in
three ways:
Site selection. Initial, general site selection would be based on
operational requirements and surveys. Within the test area selected for
the shock trial, aerial surveys would be conducted and satellite
imagery would be analyzed to select a small test site having low
densities of marine mammals and turtles.
Pre-detonation monitoring. Prior to each detonation, aerial and
shipboard observers would search for marine mammals and turtles at the
selected test site. Passive acoustic surveys would also be used to
detect marine mammal calls. If any marine mammal or sea turtle were
detected within the Safety Range (a 2 nm radius around the detonation
point), testing would be postponed. Testing would also be postponed if
large.
Sargassum rafts, debris lines, or jellyfish concentrations
(indicators that turtles may be present) were detected in the Safety
Range, or if flocks of seabirds or large fish schools were detected
within 1 nm of the detonation point. Postponement would also occur in
certain circumstances when a marine mammal or turtle is detected in a
Buffer Zone extending from 2 to 3 nm from the detonation point.
Detonation would not occur until monitoring indicated that the Safety
Range is clear of detectable marine mammals, sea turtles, large
Sargassum rafts and debris lines, and large concentrations of
jellyfish.
Post-detonation monitoring. After the explosion, aerial and
shipboard observers would survey the test site. A Marine Animal
Recovery Team led by a marine mammal veterinarian would document and
attempt to recover any dead animals and monitor any animals that appear
to be injured. If the survey showed that marine mammals or turtles were
killed or injured or if any marine mammals or turtles are detected in
the Safety Range immediately following a detonation, testing would be
halted until procedures for subsequent detonations could be reviewed
and changed as necessary. Communications with stranding network
personnel would be maintained throughout the shock trial period.
Coordination and Consultation with the NMFS
Because the NMFS has jurisdiction by law with respect to issues
related to endangered species and marine mammals, the NMFS acted as a
cooperating agency on the EIS. In addition to a review and comment
role, the NMFS had two regulatory roles relative to the proposed shock
trail. First, the NMF is responsible for administering the Endangered
Species Act as it applies to listed sea turtles and 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 USC 1531 et seq.). The NMFS
subsequently issued a Biological Opinion, dated October 10, 2000, which
completed the consultation process under ESA. The NMFS also has a
regulatory role under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 USC
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 December 12, 2000
(65 FR 77546). The Proposed Rule specified mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements for the shock trial. A Final Rule must be issued
by NMFS before the shock trial can proceed.
Comments Received on the FEIS
After the FEIS was distributed to the public for a 30-day review
period ending on March 26, 2001, the Navy received one comment letter.
Environmental Protection Agency commented that with properly executed
mitigation as discussed in the EIS, that Mayport represents the best
compromise among the three testing locations.
Conclusion
Shock testing the WINSTON S. CHURCHILL 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.
The ``No Action'' alternative would avoid all environmental impacts
of a shock trial and is the environmentally preferred alternative. It
does not, however, support the development of the best assessment of
the survivability characteristics of the ship.
Dated: April 27, 2001.
Paul A. Schneider,
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, (Research, Development and
Acquisition) (Acting).
[FR Doc. 01-11270 Filed 5-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M