[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22536-22538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11270]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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