[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