[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51782-51785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24502]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Record of Decision for the Homeporting of Seawolf Class
Submarines on the East Coast of the United States
Pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations
implementing NEPA procedures (40 CFR 1500-1508), the Department of the
Navy announces its decision to homeport the SEAWOLF class submarine at
the Naval Submarine Base (SUBASE) New London, Groton, CT and to
implement required dredging of the Thames River to provide safe access.
Up to three SEAWOLF class submarines will be homeported at the
SUBASE replacing three existing homeported submarines resulting in no
net increase in submarine or personnel loading at the SUBASE. Dredging
will deepen the access channel from 35 ft to 39 ft below mean low water
(MLW) in the Thames River from the Gold Star (I-95 Highway) Bridge to
pier 17 at the SUBASE. Dredging will also occur from the channel to
piers 8 and 10, which are designated as the SEAWOLF home port piers,
and for access to pier 17 (located up-river from piers 8 and 10) to
provide for submarine maintenance. Up to three berths at piers 8 and 10
will be deepened to 42 feet below MLW. The entire existing width of the
navigation channel will be dredged from the I-95 bridge to the south
end of the SUBASE. This area has been determined to contain marine
sediments which are suitable for unconfined open water disposal.
Dredging of the section of the river where sediments contain elevated
levels of contaminates will be minimized by limiting the width of the
channel to allow only a one way passage of the SEAWOLF class submarine
for this short stretch. This 300 foot width will reduce significantly
the volume of contaminated sediment being removed. Disposal of a total
of 1.1 million cubic yards (CY) of dredged sediment will be at the New
London Disposal Site (NLDS) in Long Island Sound.
In 1991, the Navy issued a draft environmental impact statement
addressing a proposal to dredge the Thames River to allow access for
the
[[Page 51783]]
lead SEAWOLF submarine (SSN 21) to conduct preacceptance trial
operations from piers 32 and 33 at the SUBASE. At that time, no
proposal was made concerning a home port for SEAWOLF Class submarines.
In 1994, President Clinton announced SUBASE New London as the
preferred home port for SEAWOLF submarines. This preferred homeporting
announcement modified the initial proposed action such that the NEPA
process had to be re-initiated. A notice of intent was published in the
Federal Register in June 1994, indicating the Navy would prepare a DEIS
analyzing the impacts of homeporting SEAWOLF Class submarines at one of
three alternative locations: SUBASE New London, Naval Submarine Base
Kings Bay, GA, and Naval Station Norfolk, VA. Scoping meetings were
held in August 1994 at each alternative home port location.
In February 1995, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
SEAWOLF Homeporting was distributed to federal, state, and local
agencies and elected officials, special interest groups, and interested
individuals. Public hearings were held in each alternative home port
location in March 1995. Oral and written public comments and Navy
responses to those comments were incorporated into a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) which was distributed to the
public for a review period that ended on 25 September 1995.
The primary consequence of implementing the proposed homeporting
action is the effect of the removal of approximately 1.1 million CY of
sediment from the Thames River and disposal of that material at the
NLDS. Some of the sediment (350,000 CY) within the material to be
dredged is moderately contaminated with metals and polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). These sediments require covering with non-
contaminated sediment.
Sediments within the project area were tested to determine
suitability for open water disposal. Metals, PAHs, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides were tested. Test results indicate
that there are varying amounts of metals and PAHs in the sediments. No
PCBs or pesticides were detected in any of the sediment samples.
Bioaccumulation studies revealed that channel sediments from pier
17 south to the south end of the SUBASE caused statistically
significant bioaccumulation of several PAH compounds, zinc, and lead.
None of the sediments tested, however, were significantly toxic to
sensitive organisms. These sediments are, therefore, suitable for open
water disposal provided that adequate capping with clean sediment is
done.
Channel sediments from the I-95 bridge to the south end of SUBASE
did not exhibit any bioaccumulation or toxicity. Therefore, these
sediments are suitable for unconfined open water disposal and will be
used as capping material for the contaminated sediments of this
project. There is more than enough clean sediment to cover the 350,000
CY of contaminated sediment to guarantee the 50 centimeter cap required
by the Army Corps of Engineers and the CT Department of Environmental
Protection.
Impacts to water quality, air quality, benthic organisms, and
aquatic habitat will briefly occur during dredging and disposal
activities. These impacts, however, are not considered significant
within the context of the project location and with implementation of
specific mitigation measures described herein.
Shore facilities and infrastructure impacts associated with SEAWOLF
homeporting at the SUBASE will be minimal because the three SEAWOLF
submarines will replace existing fast attack submarines as the older
submarines are decommissioned. It is projected that by 1999 there will
be 17 submarines homeported at the SUBASE, including 2 of the 3 SEAWOLF
class submarines, compared to 24 submarines currently homeported there.
Consequently, no change or addition in submarine support services,
ordnance storage, supply facilities, magnetic signature measurement
facilities, or intermediate maintenance facilities will be required at
the SUBASE to support SEAWOLF homeporting. The declining submarine
loading will allow SEAWOLF personnel and their dependents to occupy
existing bachelor and family housing. Personnel support services are
adequate to support the SEAWOLF crews. Training facilities already
exist at SUBASE. Selection of another home port location would require
replication of these facilities. Utility consumption is expected to
decline corresponding to a reduction in the total number of submarines
homeported at the SUBASE.
Considering all factors, the preferred and selected alternative is
homeporting at SUBASE New London. In the narrower context of
environmental factors only, the alternative that would incur marginally
fewer impacts would be that of homeporting at Naval Station Norfolk
where minimal dredging would be required and where dredged material
disposal occurs at Craney Island. That alternative was not selected
because it would cost substantially more and does not provide for the
operational readiness, training, and synergy of compatible functions
provided at SUBASE New London. This conclusion is also supported by the
Navy's ability to mitigate impacts at New London to below the level of
significance.
Comments Received on the FEIS
Ten comment letters were received following publication of the
FEIS. Several of these letters simply indicated the writer's
preferences. Others presented substantive comments dealing with
mitigation measures, storm effects on the NLDS, and potential
alternatives for either homeporting the SEAWOLF or for the disposal of
the dredged sediment that the commenters believed had not been
adequately addressed in the FEIS.
Studies of major storm events have been conducted at the NLDS. A
comparison of bottom topography from 1985 to 1992, a period that
included two hurricanes, demonstrated that little, if any, change in
topography occurred at the NLDS.
Four alternatives for homeporting or disposal of dredged material
were addressed in comment letters: (1) Use of the Naval Undersea
Warfare Center (NUWC) New London for SEAWOLF homeporting; (2) in-
channel ``borrow pit'' disposal of dredged sediment; (3) ``washing'' of
dredged material to remove contaminates; and (4) sediment dewatering to
reduce the overall volume of dredged material requiring disposal. All
of these suggested alternatives were specifically addressed in the EIS,
with the exception of in-channel borrow pit disposal. The latter is a
variation of capping, a process that was thoroughly addressed in the
EIS. While addressed in the EIS, none of these suggested alternatives
were considered reasonable alternatives and therefore were not
discussed in great detail. The comment letters did not identify any
substantive environmental information concerning the proposed action or
suggested alternatives that had not already been considered during the
EIS process. Consequently, as discussed below, it was determined that
none of the suggested alternatives warranted additional discussion in
the EIS.
The NUWC alternative was discounted as a practicable long-term
SEAWOLF home port because of incompatible existing functions and land
use and because the facility has been considered for closure as part of
the Base Closure and Realignment Act process. In fact, after careful
analysis the Department of Defense recommended closure of the NUWC
facility at New London except for existing piers. Although
Congressional direction for
[[Page 51784]]
closure will not be final until 28 September 1995, there is no
scheduled Congressional action that would reject the BRAC-95 Commission
recommendations and such an action is extraordinarily remote. The Navy
will retain the pier where the SEAWOLF submarine could be berthed. The
necessary shore facilities including ordnance loading capability,
public works, administration, security and personnel support, are not
available on site nor will sufficient land be retained to construct
them. None of the existing submarine maintenance facilities would be
accessible unless the Thames River channel was dredged as proposed in
the preferred alternative. Consequently, construction of new submarine
maintenance facilities would also be required. Special legislation
would be required to reopen the closed NUWC facility and to develop
facilities and infrastructure to support homeporting. Locating the
SEAWOLF home port at the NUWC facility would, therefore, require the
Navy to maintain duplicate submarine support facilities within three
miles of each other.
This duplication is not only inefficient but would result in
increased environmental impacts. Duplicate facilities would increase
air emissions, water discharges, and require another temporary storage
facility for hazardous waste. The cost of providing these duplicate
support facilities at NUWC and maintaining those facilities over the 30
year life of the SEAWOLF submarine would clearly be excessive. As
described in the EIS, the use of NUWC as a home port is not a
reasonable alternative.
The in-channel borrow pit alternative would require removing
contaminated sediments from the Thames River channel and placement in a
``borrow pit'' dug in another section of the River. While this
technique would eliminate the disposal of contaminated sediment at the
NLDS, it would result in dredging of substantially more sediments and
at a higher disposal cost. The dredging associated with the SEAWOLF
project is designed to increase the depth of the Thames River channel
and the areas adjacent to the piers. The channel would be dredged to a
depth of 39 feet below MLW. A ``borrow pit'' of sufficient size and
depth would have to be dug to accept the 350,000 CY of contaminated
sediments plus the necessary cap and still allow a minimum depth of 39
feet below MLW. There are no existing borrow pits or depressions in the
Thames River that could be used.
Based upon the Army Corps of Engineers Boston Harbor dredging, it
is estimated that use of a borrow pit would increase the amount of
dredging by 1 million cubic yards. While the borrow pit is being dug,
the sediments that are removed must be stockpiled on land or on barges
in the Thames River. As an average barge can hold approximately 4,000
CY of sediment, there is not enough space to accommodate the large
number of barges that would be needed to hold contaminated sediments
and the sediments removed from the borrow pit; nor is there an adequate
land site nearby to use for stockpiling. Once a borrow pit is placed in
the Thames River, it would preclude any future deepening of the channel
for any use--federal, state, or private. This additional dredging
requirement, commitment of a sizeable in-channel area to initial
(versus maintenance) dredging, and the logistical problems associated
with completing the entire dredging requirement within the four month
dredging season, makes this approach impracticable. Additional impacts
to water quality in the river would result from more disturbance of
sediment. Cumulative impacts to fish and benthos would be magnified
because dredging would occur from October-January in the multiple years
necessary for project completion. Cost of this approach would be
excessive. Assuming similar conditions to the Boston Harbor In-channel
option, the increased volumes, handling, and open water disposal to
create cells, import clean sand and place contaminated sediment, would
escalate the total cost for the SEAWOLF dredging project from
approximately $4 million to approximately $23 million. Finally, given
that there is a permitted in-water disposal site available for this
project, it is not likely that the required permits could be obtained
from the CT Department of Environmental Protection to allow this
project to proceed this year, if at all.
Soil washing utilizes a cleansing process to remove contaminants
from dredge material. The comment letter asserts that the ``cleaned''
sediments could be placed in an upland facility or an open water site
without the need for capping. While this technique eliminates the
disposal of contaminated sediment at the NLDS, it involves the disposal
of contaminants at upland sites. The contaminants would be concentrated
as a result of the washing process, would be subject to regulation
under RCRA, and may not be suitable for land disposal. Mechanical soil
washing is a recognized process, but it has not been effective in
removing petroleum-based contaminants such as polyaromatic
hydrocarbons, especially those in fine sediments. Mechanical washing,
enhanced by use of chemical agents, is a relatively new process. This
enhanced soil washing technique has never been attempted on a project
the size of the SEAWOLF project. Consequently, technical and timing
difficulties must be anticipated which could make completing the
required dredging within the four month dredging season impracticable.
Chemically enhanced soil washing has been used only on smaller projects
at a cost of $35-$45 per cubic yard, excluding the cost for
transportation of treated sediment and landfill fees. As discussed in
the EIS, costs associated with a project could approach $100 per cubic
yard.
Sediment dewatering involves placing sediments in a barge or at an
upland site and allowing water to run off, thereby reducing the overall
volume of sediment. The EIS investigated this process and concluded
that the volume of the sediments to be dredged precludes the use of
barges for sediment dewatering. Time requirements to develop and permit
a suitable near shore upland site to be used for sediment dewatering
were estimated to take as long as three years. CT requires a minimum of
18 months of monitoring at a land site before any materials can be
deposited there. The dredging process is also more time-consuming and
could not be completed during the limited dredge window for the Thames
River, making this alternative impracticable for the SEAWOLF project.
Sediments are double or triple handled as the sediment is moved from
dredge bucket, to barge, to truck, and finally to the land disposal
site. All of these factors make the costs associated with dewatering
significantly greater than disposal at the NLDS.
Mitigation
The Navy will employ the following mitigation measures to ensure
minimization of environmental impacts associated with dredging and
disposal operations: (1) Use of an enclosed clamshell dredge bucket to
minimize spillage of dredge sediment from dredging operations, (2)
adherence to the ``no barge overflow'' requirement, (3) capping of the
contaminated dredged sediment with clean sediment in accordance with
the Army Corps of Engineers permit requirements [The amount of capping
material available in the project exceeds that necessary to ensure a 50
cm cap and should result in a thicker cap in most locations.], (4)
observance of the seasonal restrictions on dredging in the Thames
River, (5) implementing an intensive series of
[[Page 51785]]
hydrographic monitoring of the disposal site during and after disposal
operations to ensure proper placement of sediments, (6) use of sediment
profile (underwater) photography of the disposal mound to ensure proper
placement of sediments, (7) use of precision navigation equipment and a
taut wire buoy at the disposal site to accurately locate the barge
discharge point at the disposal site, and (8) presence of a barge
inspector, certified by the Army Corps of Engineers, on each and every
barge that takes dredged materials to the disposal site.
With the above mitigation measures, the Navy believes impacts to
the Thames River and Long Island Sound marine environments will be
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
In addition to the specific mitigation measures set out above, the
Navy will: (1) Encourage the Army Corps of Engineers to select a
discharge point where a depression in the bottom already exists; (2)
encourage the Army Corps of Engineers to dispose of clean dredged
materials from future area projects at the NLDS; (3) pursue development
of a post-disposal monitoring program in cooperation with the EPA and
the Army Corps of Engineers; and (4) offer interested environmental
groups the opportunity to cooperatively provide an independent observer
on barges carrying dredged material for disposal.
In accordance with the Clean Air Act and General Conformity Rule
requirements, an air quality review has been conducted for the proposed
dredging. It has been determined that this action is in compliance with
40 CFR Part 63 (Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to
State or Federal Implementation Plans) and satisfies the requirements
of Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7506). Accordingly, the
proposed action in the Thames River conforms to the state
implementation plan's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity
and number of violations of the federal ambient air quality standards
and achieving expeditious attainment of those standards.
Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)
requires authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged material into ``waters of the United States''.
Section 404 regulations prohibit the use of any disposal site in open
water when its use would result in adverse effects on water quality,
shellfish beds, fisheries and wildlife, or recreational areas. The Navy
has determined that the proposed dredging would not have significant
impacts and has applied for a section 404 permit for this project.
Section 401 of the FWPCA requires that any party proposing to
engage in an activity which may affect water quality must obtain state
water quality certification. Certification will not be granted unless
it has been determined that the proposed activity will not violate
state water quality standards. The Navy has received the requisite
Section 401 permit from the CT Department of Environmental Protection
for SEAWOLF homeporting. The NLDS is partially located in the State of
New York, but, under EPA regulations, a water quality certificate is
only required from the state having jurisdiction over the location
where the dredged materials will be discharged. Disposal of dredged
material will take place wholly within waters of the state of
Connecticut and there will be no direct discharge of dredged material
into New York waters, therefore a New York Water Quality Certificate is
not required for this project.
In accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Navy has
requested and received concurrence with its determination of coastal
zone consistency for the SEAWOLF homeporting project from the CT
Department of Environmental Protection. Although the NLDS lies
partially within the waters of the State of New York, the Navy has
determined that the proposed action will not affect the coastal
resources of the State of New York, and included a negative
determination to that effect in the EIS.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice,
potential environmental and economic impacts on minority and low-income
persons and communities were assessed. Any impacts caused by the
SEAWOLF homeporting, particularly the dredging and disposal of dredged
material, will be experienced equally by all groups within the overall
regional population. Because no long-term negative environmental
impacts are expected from the proposed action, no particular minority
or low income segment of the population would be disproportionately
affected. There is not anticipated to be any likelihood for minority or
low income individuals to be subjected to adverse environmental or
health risks.
In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, the Navy
concluded that it is unlikely that there are any submerged ship wrecks
in the area to be affected by the dredging or disposal operations. The
State Historic Preservation Officer has concurred with this finding.
Questions regarding the Final Environmental Impact Statement
prepared for this action may be directed to Mr. Robert Ostermueller,
Head, Environmental Planning, Northern Division Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, 10 Industrial Highway, Lester PA 19113, telephone
(610) 595-0759; fax (610) 595-0778.
Dated: September 27, 1995.
Duncan Holaday,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Facilities).
[FR Doc. 95-24502 Filed 10-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P