Record of Decision for the Homeporting of Seawolf Class Submarines on the East Coast of the United States

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