Navy Submarine EM/TEMPEST Falsification Facility

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Construction and Operation of an Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System in Hood Canal North
of Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington
Draft
February 2013
Prepared by:
United States Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest
Silverdale, Washington
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Draft Environmental Assessment for the Construction and Operation of an Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System in Hood Canal North of Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington
February 2013
Prepared by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest Silverdale, Washington
Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Lead Agency: United States Department of the Navy DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN ELECTROMAGNETIC MEASUREMENT RANGING SYSTEM IN HOOD CANAL NORTH OF NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR SILVERDALE, WASHINGTON FEBRUARY 2013
ABSTRACT
This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates potential environmental effects of constructing and operating an electromagnetic measurement ranging (EMMR) system in Hood Canal north of Naval Base Kitsap Bangor. The EMMR system involves installation of a sensor array system, offshore platform, cable, and aid to navigation. During operations, a submarine utilizing the EMMR system would detour from the existing submarine transit route in Hood Canal to the sensor array; the sensor array would measure the electromagnetic signature of the submarine in order to re-calibrate onboard equipment. The Proposed Action would construct and operate an EMMR system on Naval Base Kitsap Bangor lands and adjacent waters in Hood Canal. This EA analyzes two action alternatives and the no-action alternative. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide the Navy with the capability to measure the electromagnetic signatures of submarines in the northwestern continental United States. The Proposed Action is needed to ensure that submarines meet their magnetic signature requirements. Resource areas reviewed in the document include: marine physical environment; noise; terrestrial and marine biological resources; land use, recreation and aesthetics; socioeconomics, environmental justice, and childrens health and safety; cultural resources; American Indian traditional resources; air quality; marine navigation; and public health and safety. With implementation of standard operating procedures, best management practices, and mitigation measures, the environmental impacts on these resource areas would be less than significant. For further information, please contact: Navy EMMR System EA Team NAVFAC Northwest 1101 Tautog Circle, Room 203 Silverdale, WA 98315
iii
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
iv
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with constructing and operating an electromagnetic measurement ranging (EMMR) system in Hood Canal north of Naval Base (NAVBASE) Kitsap Bangor. This EA was prepared by the United States Department of the Navy (Navy) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code 4321, et seq.), as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1500-1508), Navy regulations implementing NEPA (32 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 775), and the office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST) 5090.1C CH-1, Navy Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual, of 18 July 2011. The Navy is the lead agency for the Proposed Action. PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide the Navy with the capability to measure the electromagnetic signatures of submarines in the northwestern continental United States. The Proposed Action is needed to ensure that submarines meet the magnetic signature requirements of OPNAVINST C8950.2(x), which requires submarines to perform certain actions to decrease risk from threats. The Proposed Action would provide the Navy with the capability to measure the electromagnetic signatures of its submarines homeported at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor and provide submarines the ability to conduct on-board electromagnetic system calibrations. PUBLIC REVIEW In order to facilitate public participation in the NEPA process for this EA, the Navy made a Draft Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA) available for public review and comment and conducted a public meeting in August 2012. Comments received on the DOPAA were considered by the Navy in the preparation of the Draft EA. Further information is available electronically at www.emmrea.com and on the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest website at: https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/navfac/navfac_ww_pp/navfac_efanw_pp. PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION The Proposed Action is located at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, which is located on Hood Canal approximately 20 miles (32.2 kilometers [km]) west of Seattle, Washington. The Proposed Action would construct and operate an EMMR system on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor lands and adjacent waters in Hood Canal. The in-water components would occur in the Hood Canal Military Operating Area North, both within and outside the existing Navy Restricted Area (NRA) of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor (see Figure ES-1). The Proposed Actions in-water components include a sensor array system (400 by 10 feet [122 by 3 meters (m)]), an offshore platform (15 by 15 feet [4.5 x 4.5 m]), a cable bundle (1,325 total linear feet [404 m]) connecting the sensor array to the offshore platform (including 400 feet [122 m] of the cable bundle that is contained within the sensor array), and a cable (8,118 feet [2,474 m]) connecting the offshore platform to Building 7801 (located on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor; see Figure ES-2). Approximately 9,254 feet (2,821 m) of the total cable and cable bundle length would be in-water.
v February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
The onshore component would consist of the Aid to Navigation (ATN) light and its associated corridor and cable (210 feet [64 m]) located on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor north of Building 7801. During operation, a submarine utilizing the EMMR system would travel along the standard, existing submarine transit route in Hood Canal and would briefly detour over the sensor array system. Prior to the submarines transit over the sensor array, personnel at the onshore facility would power on the sensor array system and activate the camera mounted on the offshore platform. During transit over the sensor array, the sensor array would measure the electromagnetic signature of the submarine, the camera would record data used to support the measurements, and the data from the sensor array and camera would be transmitted to the onshore facility at Building 7801 via the cable. The data received by the EMMR system would be transmitted to instruments on the submarine to re-calibrate onboard equipment. The submarine would then re-enter the standard transit route and proceed toward its destination. This variance from the existing route would take approximately 5 minutes. The EMMR system would have a combined average monthly use time of 25 minutes (i.e., the EMMR system would be used on average approximately five times per month). ALTERNATIVES This EA considers two action alternatives and a no-action alternative. Both action alternatives would include cables, an offshore platform junction box, and an in-water sensor array. Seven additional alternatives were considered but eliminated from further analysis because they did not fulfill one or more of the screening criteria. Alternatives 1 and 2 feature different cable installation methods, each of which is summarized below. If the Navy ultimately selects one of the action alternatives for implementation, regardless of which action alternative is selected, standard operating procedures, best management practices, and mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts. Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Buried Sensor Array. Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), the approximately 400-foot (122-m)-long sensor array and corresponding cable bundle would be buried beneath the canal floor/substrate. The seafloor would be dredged, and 21 sensors would be buried such that the top of each sensor would be at a minimum depth of approximately 4 feet (1.2 m) below the seafloor. The dredged material would be replaced by both nonmagnetic gravel and backfill with a sediment grain size to match existing seafloor conditions for the top 3 feet (0.9 m). Offshore Platform. Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), construction would include a 15- by 15-foot (4.5- by 4.5-m) offshore platform with utilities, requiring installation of five 24-inch (61-centimeter [cm]) square, batter pre-cast concrete piles (one pile for each corner and one in the center of the platform). The center pile would be vertical/plumb, and the four corner piles would be installed at a 1:12 (horizontal: vertical) slope toward the center pile. The offshore platform would be located approximately 0.20 mile (0.32 km) from the shoreline. The five piles would be impact driven.
vi
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Buried Cable. Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), approximately 1,148 linear feet (350 m) of the composite cable would be installed by horizontal directional drilling (HDD) from the onshore launch pit in a gravel parking lot adjacent to the offshore HDD exit point, where approximately 6,970 linear feet (2,124 m) of cable would be laid to the offshore platform using a jet plow to bury the cable. Approximately 925 linear feet (282 m) of cable bundle from the platform to the sensor array would not be buried but would instead be laid on the seafloor and protected with concrete armoring. Concrete armoring would consist of semi-conical-shaped concrete segments, each with a length of 12 feet (3.7 m) and average width of approximately 6 feet (1.8 m). Aid to Navigation. Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), a sector light would be installed as an ATN for submarines utilizing the EMMR system. The ATN would be located off Northern Boundary Road, at an elevation of approximately 32 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW), and would be approximately 6 feet (1.8 m) in height. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), except cable armoring would not be used for the 925-linear-foot (282-m) cable bundle from the offshore platform to the sensor array. Instead, the cable bundle along this length would be installed by jet plow in an approximately 12-foot-wide (3.7-m) corridor and 4 feet (1.2 m) below the seafloor. Alternative 3: No Action Under the no-action alternative, an EMMR system would not be installed. Submarines, including those homeported at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, would continue to use EMMR system facilities located at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, or San Diego, California, and operational inefficiencies would persist. The Navy has determined that the no-action alternative would not fulfill the purpose and need for the Proposed Action to provide electromagnetic measurement capability in the northwest continental United States. This alternative would not comply with the Navys OPNAVINST C8950.2 (x) magnetic signature periodicity requirements and would not provide submarines the means to accomplish their on-board electromagnetic system calibrations. The noaction alternative is carried forward for analysis because it is required by NEPA and constitutes baseline conditions for environmental analysis of the Proposed Action. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures would be implemented under both action alternatives in order to minimize environmental impacts. Mitigation measures were developed specifically to address environmental effects associated with this Proposed Action. Mitigation measures resulted from consideration of the Proposed Action and input received from the public, Native American tribes, and agencies. Mitigation measures include the following: Marine mammal monitoring during pile-driving; Vegetation clearing and re-vegetation plan for the ATN corridor; Bird-proofing the ATN and platform to prevent nesting and perching;
vii
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Purchase of credits from Hood Canal In-Lieu Fee Program for compensation of aquatic resources; Use of HDD cable installation method through the nearshore and intertidal area to avoid sensitive resources, including eelgrass; Shielding of the navigation hazard light (on platform) in coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard; and Backfill with a sediment grain size similar to that of existing seafloor conditions. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This EA evaluates the environmental impacts, both adverse and beneficial, on the quality of the human environment. This EA describes impacts on the marine physical environment; noise; terrestrial biological resources; marine biological resources; land use, recreation, and aesthetics; socioeconomics, environmental justice, and childrens health and safety; cultural resources; American Indian traditional resources; air quality; marine navigation; and public health and safety that could result from implementation of the action alternatives. The potential environmental impacts are summarized below. Marine Physical Environment Bathymetry Seafloor topography within the Proposed Action area consists of a steep-sided fjord-like waterbody with an irregular, soft seafloor bottom. Installation of the Proposed Action sensor array under Alternatives 1 or 2 would temporarily create a depression in the seafloor bottom. After construction, the depression would be filled with both non-magnetic gravel and backfill with sediment for the top 3 feet. In addition, installation of the buried cable using a jet plow would temporarily disturb an approximately 1-foot-wide corridor on the seafloor; in this area, disturbed sediment would immediately slough back into the plowed trench, leaving a small linear depression in the seafloor substrate. The seafloor would return to its natural topographic surface after several tidal cycles. Installation of the semi-conical concrete cable armoring over the cable bundle for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would permanently change the bathymetry of the seafloor. Under Alternative 2, the jet plow would be used to install the cable bundle, and approximately 822 cubic yards (629 m3) of bottom material would be displaced in the vicinity of the cable bundle trench. Neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on bathymetry or water circulation patterns. Geology and Sediments The Proposed Action area includes benthic sediment, a low-gradient beach consisting of cobbles and gravels, as well as upland areas. Vessel wakes during construction of the Proposed Action and operation of the EMMR system for either action alternative would reach the eastern shore of Hood Canal and could contribute to erosion of the toe of bluffs along the shoreline in areas that have not been armored with riprap. Construction-vessel wakes are anticipated to be less than the height of wind-driven waves in Hood Canal at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. The incremental
viii February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
increase in bluff toe erosion from vessel wakes during construction and operation would be negligible when compared to existing conditions, including existing recreational and commercial vessel traffic wakes in Hood Canal and naturally occurring storm-generated waves. Sediment transport patterns would be changed under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), where the use of cable armoring would disrupt the predominantly northward seafloor sediment transport. This disruption would be temporary, ceasing when the concrete armoring eventually subsides into the seafloor bottom. Alternative 2 would not disrupt sediment transport patterns. Neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on geology and sediments. Water Resources Water quality in Hood Canal offshore of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is generally good and meets applicable water quality standards. If Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) or Alterative 2 is implemented, pollutants could potentially be released to Hood Canal that could affect turbidity and dissolved oxygen and aqueous chemical contaminant concentrations. Potential pollutant release mechanisms include accidental releases of petroleum products or chemicals, inadvertent releases or discharges of construction-related materials or waste, and accidental releases of drilling fluid during HDD drilling operations. Jet-plowing would release suspended solids (sediment material) into the water column that could spread up to an estimated 500 feet (152 m), which would temporarily affect turbidity levels and would be likely to exceed Washington State marine water quality standards. Sediment plumes would be expected to dissipate within one tidal cycle (12 hours). To a lesser extent, dredging and HDD operations would also release suspended solids into the water column. Alternative 2 would result in increased turbidity during construction due to the use of the jet plow to install the cable bundle. Neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on water resources because water quality impacts would be temporary. Noise Noise levels on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor range from 60 to 80 A-weighted decibels (dBA); however, the Proposed Action area is more rural in character and would be expected to have existing ambient noise levels of approximately 55 to 60 decibels (dB). Construction equipment used to implement either action alternative would generate airborne noise. Construction would occur during daylight hours. During construction the impact pile-driver would be the loudest equipment used. Airborne noise generated at the construction site (specifically, the offshore platform) would attenuate to approximately 70 to 75 dBA at 2,000 feet (610 m), which is the approximate distance to the nearest residence. This noise level would exceed Washington State noise regulations; however, Washington State noise regulations exempt noise from construction during daylight hours. All other construction-related noise would not exceed Washington State noise regulations. Neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term noise impacts.
ix
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Terrestrial Biological Resources Terrestrial Vegetation NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is dominated by forests, wetlands, and disturbed lands where native terrestrial vegetation has been removed. Implementation of either action alternative would require clearing vegetation from a corridor around the ATN light on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. This area is primarily disturbed land and forest land. Additional vegetation may also be removed during construction due to installation of a new guardrail along the southeastern edge of Northern Boundary Road and clearing of an access to the pullbox site adjacent to Building 7801. During operation of the EMMR system, disturbed and forest land vegetation would be permanently removed due to installation of new impervious surfaces and ongoing clearing of obstructive vegetation around the ATN light. In total, vegetation on approximately 0.31 acre (0.12 ha) of forest land and disturbed land would be impacted during construction of the Proposed Action. Neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on terrestrial vegetation because removal of vegetation and conversion of forest vegetation to disturbed grass and shrubland accounts for less than a 1 percent increase or decrease in these vegetation types on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Terrestrial Wildlife Terrestrial vegetation on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor provides suitable habitat for reptiles and amphibians, as well as upland mammals and bats. Construction-related airborne noise would temporarily displace wildlife from the Proposed Action footprint; however, the impact of construction-related noise would vary by species. If suitable habitat is available, those wildlife species displaced by noise or increased human activity would return once construction is complete. During operation, upland successional forest habitat would decrease by less than 1 percent, and disturbed grassland and shrub land habitat would increase by less than 1 percent on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. This would provide an overall lower quality habitat for wildlife, although some species would benefit from this conversion. Neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on terrestrial wildlife. Marine Biological Resources Marine Vegetation Marine vegetation within the Proposed Action area includes macroalgae, such as red seaweeds, sea lettuce, seaweeds, and kelp, as well as eelgrass typically found from the upper intertidal zone to water depths of 30 feet, depending on species. If implemented, Alternatives 1 and 2 could indirectly impact marine vegetation due to a deterioration of water quality from jet-plowing and dredging activities that would suspend fine silt and clay in a sediment plume during construction. Due to the composition the sediments and the nature of the water currents in the Proposed Action area, it would be anticipated that the majority of the sediment particles would fall out of suspension within 20 feet of the cable trench construction site, which would temporarily increase turbidity and, consequently, decrease the light available for marine vegetation for a short period of time. No direct impacts would occur to eelgrass during construction. An area of approximately 1.22 acres (0.49 ha) at depths shallower than 70 feet (21 m) below MLLW would be affected by construction of the EMMR system; any macroalgae affected is likely to repopulate.
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Turbidity impacts would be greater under Alternative 2 due to the use of the jet plow for cable bundle installation. Marine algae habitat can recover from such indirect impacts within one growing season; however, depending on the extent of the impact, eelgrass beds may require an additional growing season to fully recover (Austin et al. 2004). In addition to indirect impacts, releases from construction vessels and machinery could potentially occur during construction, which could result in the loss of eelgrass. Neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on marine vegetation. Benthic Community The benthic community found within the Proposed Action area includes benthic infaunal and epifaunal species along with invertebrates such as crustaceans, echinoderms, and mollusks (including the geoduck). Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), benthic organisms would be vulnerable to burial or crushing from jet-plowing and dredging activities. An area of approximately 2.04 acres (0.83 ha) would be designated for dredging or would be within the jetplow path. Immobile species, particularly geoducks, would not survive if their burrows were in the path of the trenching. Additionally, geoducks may not survive if their siphons were covered from side-cast sediment. Since recruitment of geoduck populations is low, recovery to preimpact conditions may take decades. Under the Proposed Action, concrete armoring over an unburied cable bundle would potentially crush juvenile or newly settled geoduck larvae and would prevent settled juvenile and adult geoducks from filter-feeding. No significant long-term impacts on benthic communities would occur because the disturbance to the seafloor would be short-term (with the exception of the concrete armored cable bundle), and the dredged areas would be backfilled with sediment of a grain size to match the existing seafloor conditions (top 3 feet [0.9 m]). Sediment displaced during jet-plowing would likely slough back into the trenched corridor. Therefore, the disturbed areas would be expected to repopulate with species from the surrounding benthic communities. The concrete armoring could increase the available in-water surface area and create colonization sites for hard-bottom species. This reduction of available soft-bottom habitat would not result in substantial loss of biological productivity in the area due to the large amount of available habitat in the surrounding area. Impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to those under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), except impacts to the benthic communities would be greater because 2.17 acres (0.88 ha) would be within the jet-plow path or designated for dredging. Indirect impacts to benthic communities from turbidity would also be greater under Alternative 2 due to use of the jet plow for cable bundle installation. Neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on the benthic community. Fish Hood Canal is known to support at least 250 species of fish, including salmonids, pacific herring, surf smelt, sand lance, and groups of fish including rockfish, perch, gunnel, pipefish, stickleback, tubesnout, and flatfish. Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), impacts to fish include behavioral responses from increased underwater noise or turbidity, such as temporary feeding disruption, changes in migratory and foraging behavior, not rising to the surface to feed, shortterm reduction in prey location, and avoidance of areas with increased levels of suspended sediment. Large increases in turbidity have the potential to damage fish gill tissue. Fish would most likely sense vibrations of the slowly moving cable-burial and dredging equipment and
xi February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
would leave the area. Due to the small size of the Proposed Action footprint, impact to prey would not have a significant long-term adverse impact to fish populations in the greater area. Similarly, fish exposed to underwater noise associated with pile-driving, trenching, and dredging that exceeds disturbance thresholds may display a startle response during the initial stages of construction (Fiest et al. 1992, NRC 2008, and Hastings & Popper 2005). The peak underwater noise level from pile-driving would exceed the underwater peak noise threshold for fish injury within approximately 3.3 feet (1 m) radius of the pile. Cumulative underwater noise thresholds would be exceeded within 92 feet (28 m) and 171 feet (52 m) of pile-driving for fish greater than or equal to 2 grams and greater than 2 grams in weight, respectively. Once the source of increased underwater noise stops, fish would likely return to the area. Overall impacts to fish under Alternatives 2 would be similar to those of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), with a slight increase in the degree of the impact due to the increased turbidity associated with installation of the cable bundle under Alternative 2. Both alternatives may affect, not likely to adversely affect Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed salmonids and rockfish. Construction may adversely affect essential fish habitat; however, impacts would be temporary. Therefore, neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on fish. Birds Shorebirds, wading birds, marine waterfowl, raptors, and seabirds occur within the Proposed Action area. Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), birds may exhibit behavioral responses from a temporary increase in airborne and underwater noise, construction vessel traffic, visual disturbance, or turbidity that may include feeding disruption, avoidance behavior, alarm/startle response, or temporary abandonment of resting sites. Additionally, construction of the action alternatives would result in a short-term reduction in prey availability. Increases in turbidity would temporarily diminish the ability of pursuit-diving birds, including the ESA-listed marbled murrelet, to find prey along the cable route and at the dredge locations. Pile-driving would expose marine birds to high sound levels, which may result in barotrauma, or physical injury caused by a change in peak sound pressure levels, usually occurring in the ear, including hemorrhage and rupture of internal organs. Some foraging marine birds may habituate to construction noise and continue to forage close to the construction area while being exposed to noise. Conversely, some birds may exhibit an annoyance reaction and flee from the Proposed Action area upon commencement of construction. Birds resting or foraging on the surface of the water, the shoreline, or manmade structures would also be exposed to construction-related visual disturbance. The increased boat traffic associated with in-water construction activities may prevent some birds from foraging and resting in the construction area over the short term (i.e., the period of boat movement). Similarly to marine birds, birds in upland areas may be impacted by loss of habitat and prey, noise disturbance, and visual disturbance during construction of the Proposed Action. However, due to the large size of Hood Canal, alternative foraging areas would be readily available during this short-term displacement. Overall, the action alternatives may affect but would not be likely to adversely affect the ESA-listed marbled murrelet and would not result in a "take" of bald eagles or a
xii
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
significant adverse or disruptive impact to migratory birds. Therefore, neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on birds. Marine Mammals Within Hood Canal, the California sea lion, Dalls porpoise, harbor porpoise, harbor seal, west coast transient killer whale, and ESA-listed Steller sea lion and humpback whale may occur. Under either action alternative, short-term impacts associated with elevated noise due to dredging, jet-plowing, impact pile-driving and construction-vessel traffic would occur. Underwater noise would exceed thresholds for injury within 3.3 feet (1 m) for pinnipeds and 16 feet (5 m) for cetaceans. However due to the small size of these zones and the proposed marine mammal monitoring procedures during pile-driving, injury is not expected to occur. Behavioral harassment thresholds would be exceeded for a larger area, potentially resulting in changes in behavioral patterns or displacement from the construction area. However, due to the implementation of the mitigation measures, no marine mammals would be exposed to Level B harassment noise levels as defined by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Increased turbidity would also temporarily displace the prey available to fish-eating marine mammals, including ESA-listed species. Vessel movements could induce avoidance reactions and alarm/startle responses; alter swimming speed, direction of travel, vocalizations, and diving activity; or result in collisions with marine mammals. Overall, the action alternatives may affect but would not be likely to adversely affect the ESA-listed Steller sea lion and humpback whale. Therefore, neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on marine mammals. Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics Land Use Construction of the Proposed Action, both in-water and onshore, would be consistent with the current naval operation support land uses and the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor 1975 Final Master Plan. Portions of the Proposed Action including the cable installation, offshore platform, and sensor array, located offshore and outside of the NRA, and would not conflict with existing onshore land uses or land use laws and policies. The offshore components of the Proposed Action would have long-term impacts to land use due to the establishment of the anchoring and geoduck harvesting restriction areas, 0.52 acre (0.21 ha) and 0.26 acre (0.10 ha), respectively. However, neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on land use. For a summary of impacts to recreation; socioeconomics, environmental justice, and childrens health and safety; American Indian traditional resources; marine navigation; and public health and safety, please see the sections below. Recreation Offshore recreation activities within the Proposed Action area include recreational boating, fishing, and other water-related recreation, and birding. Either action alternative would prohibit fishing and boating in the vicinity of the construction area. Recreational (i.e., individual) geoduck harvesting would not be impacted because this activity generally occurs in shallow water at low tide. After construction is complete, boating and fishing activities could resume except during use of the EMMR system when vessel traffic would be prohibited in the area.
xiii February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on recreation. Aesthetics The character of the Proposed Action area is rural, with natural coniferous and deciduous forested areas bound by expansive water features (i.e., Hood Canal). Implementation of either action alternative would modify the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding area. Construction equipment, including barges, cranes, and other large equipment, would temporarily contrast with the surrounding scenery, including the shoreline, by introducing multi-colored vertical and horizontal features. Clearing vegetation around the ATN would diminish the natural appearance of the shoreline within NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Additionally, once constructed, the offshore platform would contrast with the surrounding scenery by introducing horizontal and vertical gray and stainless steel features. Views of the offshore platform towards the shore (i.e., from recreational boating) would be consistent with the current modified conditions of the shoreline. These changes to aesthetic qualities would be relatively minor within the context of the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor area. Neither of the action alternatives would have significant shortor long-term impacts on aesthetics. For a summary of impacts to socioeconomics, environmental justice, and childrens health and safety; American Indian traditional resources; marine navigation; and public health and safety, please see the sections below. Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Childrens Health and Safety The Proposed Action area is located in Kitsap County; the population of the areas immediately adjacent to the Proposed Action was 4,573 in 2010. The Proposed Action would generate very few temporary jobs and would contribute minimally to local spending. There would not be an increased demand on housing, schools, or other social services. Construction would result in geoduck mortality and the loss of up to approximately 23,972 pounds (10,896 kilograms [kg]) of commercial or tribal harvested geoduck under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Under Alternative 2, construction would result in geoduck mortality and the loss of up to approximately 26,867 pounds (12,212 kg) of commercial or tribal harvested geoduck. During operation, there would be a permanent loss of geoduck harvesting area within the Vinland Tract due to the geoduck harvesting restriction area established around the sensor array system. WDNR, in conjunction with the Native American tribes, allocates tracts (including the Vinland Tract and Vinland Tract 4) for commercial and/or subsistence harvest. While currently not in use, Vinland Tract 4 has historically been used for tribal harvesting. In recent years geoduck has become increasingly important as part of tribal diets as other seafood has become more limited in availability (Suquamish Tribe, 2000). The economic costs associated with these impacts would vary based on the current geoduck market value at the time of construction. Since the area of impact represents a small portion of the total harvestable area for geoduck, neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on socioeconomics. Under either action alternative, minority and low-income populations and children would not be exposed to noise, safety hazards, pollutants, or hazardous materials. Therefore, no disproportionately high and adverse environmental, human health, or socioeconomic affects would occur to minority, low income populations or children, and no significant short- or longterm environmental justice impacts would occur.
xiv
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Cultural Resources Cultural resources include archeological items, culturally significant tribal resources, and the built environment, such as buildings, structures, and landscapes. No archaeological resources listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are located within the Proposed Action footprint of either action alternative, and no historic properties have been located in the marine, shoreline, or upland Proposed Action areas. Building 7801 has achieved exceptional importance from its association with the Navys Cold War context of strategic deterrence. The Navy will consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on its defining of the APE, determination of eligibility, and finding of effect. It is anticipated that either of the action alternatives would result in no effect to Building 7801 because the proposed cable connection can be made without altering characteristics relevant to its eligibility for listing in the NRHP. While unlikely, construction of the Proposed Action could inadvertently disturb unknown archaeological resources. The Navy will consult with the SHPO and affected American Indian tribes in the event of inadvertent discovery of unknown archaeological resources, American Indian human remains, funerary items, sacred objects, or items of cultural patrimony. Neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on cultural resources. American Indian Traditional Resources American Indian traditional resources are those resources that embody the beliefs, customs, and practices of the living community of American Indians. The Proposed Action would impact access to Usual and Accustomed fishing grounds and stations and may impact access to marine resources such as geoduck, crab, and fish (including salmon). The Navy has initiated consultation with the Skokomish, Port Gamble SKlallam Tribe, Jamestown SKlallam Tribe, Lower Elwha Klallam, and Suquamish Tribes regarding impacts to treaty-reserved resources. Marine Navigation The Proposed Action is located in Hood Canal, an elongated natural embayment that connects to Admiralty Inlet within Puget Sound. During construction of either action alternative, small areas of Hood Canal (up to 23.1 acres [9.3 ha]) would be restricted from marine vessel traffic. Hood Canal is between 1.5 and 2.5 miles (2.4 and 4 km) wide at the site of the proposed marine construction. In-water construction would occur over two seasons (July 16 to February 15). During operation, the action alternatives would result in temporary restrictions on marine navigation while the EMMR system would be in use and long-term anchoring restrictions in the vicinity of the sensor array. Either action alternative would have no significant short- or longterm impacts on marine navigation. Air Quality The Proposed Action area has good air quality (the Air Quality Index for Kitsap County was rated as good for approximately 88 percent of 2010). Potential air emissions associated with either action alternative would not be expected to exceed any of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) thresholds or greenhouse gas reporting thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, air emissions associated with construction of the Proposed Action (estimated at 101 total tons of emissions) would be minimal and temporary in
xv February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
nature, and no permanent operational air emissions would be anticipated. Reasonable precautions would be implemented to minimize fugitive dust emissions from construction, and no temporary construction permit from the PSCAA would be required. Therefore, no significant short- or longterm impacts would be anticipated as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action. Public Health and Safety The Proposed Action has been evaluated for site access, airborne noise, the potential release of hazardous materials, and the emission of electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation aspects of public health and safety. Under either action alternative, the nearest residence would be temporarily exposed to construction noise. Occupational Safety and Health Administration noise standards would protect the health and safety of workers associated with the action alternatives. The EMMR system operates passively, receiving electromagnetic signals, not emitting them, and operating between 36 and 48 volts at 0.5 amperes, which is equivalent to approximately 24 watts or less power than a common household light bulb consumes, and would be powered on for approximately 25 minutes per month. Due to the design of the EMMR system, the intermittent EMF radiation emitted during operations would be negligible. Neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on public health and safety. Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Analysis Based on the existing environmental conditions and analysis of potential impacts to the environment, the Navy designed the preferred alternative to avoid and minimize impacts to the aquatic ecosystem to the greatest extent practicable. Design features include horizontal directional drilling for establishing cable in the nearshore environment and backfilling dredged areas in the top several feet with sediment of a grain size similar to that of existing seafloor conditions. Additionally, under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), the utilization of concrete armoring to protect the 925-foot (282 m) length of cable bundle would result in the least seafloor impact of the alternatives analyzed. As the Proposed Action is a water-dependent use, Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would result in impacts to non-wetland waters. There is no practicable alternative that would avoid or have less impact on the aquatic environment. Compensatory mitigation compensates for unavoidable permanent impacts to Waters of the U.S. The Proposed Action design has been adjusted, to the greatest extent possible, to minimize impacts and fill in non-wetland Waters of the U.S. SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Proposed Action would not make a substantial contribution to cumulative impacts for any resource area; therefore, no significant cumulative impact would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. CONCLUSION Implementation of the action alternatives or the no-action alternative would not result in significant impacts to any resource area when considered individually or cumulatively in the context of NEPA, including both direct and indirect impacts. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
xvi February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4
human environment. Therefore, this EA supports a Finding of No Significant Impact for all action alternatives, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not warranted or required.
xvii
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
xviii
February 2013
101
Jefferson
N or th A
Figure ES1 Proposed Action Location Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington Legend
Military Installation Boundary Interstate Highway
Ca
na lM O
County Boundary
oo
Kitsap
Approximate Submarine Route Navy Restricted Area Military Operations Area (MOA) Proposed Action Location
Com plex
MO A
NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor

Pou ls b o
Jefferson County
ange
Bay R
Dabo b
Ho
101
od
Ca
nal
So
uth
na
oo
Ca
xix
Po u l s b o
Silv er da le
c onne Interc
aters tin g W
Kitsap County
WA
0 0
1.5 2.5
Miles Kilometers 5
Silv erd a le
Source: Esri, 2012; NAVFAC, 2012; Dept.of Defense - Navy, 2011; Finlayson, 2005.
-1
70
Sensor Array System Dredge Area: 1.64 acres (0.66 ha) Dredge Volume: 17,500 cubic yards (13,380 m3) Backfill Volume: 19,250 cubic yards (14,718 m3)
-15
0 13
Platform to Cable Transition Area Dredge Area: 0.07 acre (0.03 ha) Dredge Volume: 250 cubic yards (191 m3) Backfill Volume: 275 cubic yards (210 m3)
Figure ES2 Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington
Military Installation Boundary Navy Restricted Area Streets
Legend
Bathymetry Contours
10 ft Interval Contour 50 ft Index Contour
Hood Canal
EMMR System Components / Construction Method

Sensor Array (400 ft / 122 m) / Buried Cable Route (925 ft / 282 m) / Concrete Armor Cable Route (6,970 ft / 2,124 m) / Jet-Plow Cable Route (1,148 ft / 350 m) / HDD Cable Route (210 ft / 64 m) / HDD Offshore Platform / Pile Driving (15 ft x 15 ft / 4.5 m x 4.5 m) Aid to Navigation Sensor Array Dredge Area
-80
-7
-40
-20
0
xx
-100
Jefferson County
HDD Cable Transition Area Dredge Area: 0.05 acre (0.02 ha) Dredge Volume: 220 cubic yards (168 m3) Backfill Volume: 242 cubic yards (185 m3)
Po u l s b o
Magnetic Silencing Facility Pier (existing)

-13
0 -11
-3
-10
Silv er da le
Kitsap County
WA
Aid to Navigation
60 -1 -140 0 -12 -90 -60
-5
Building 7801 (existing)
NAVBASE Kitsap Ban gor
0 0
1,000 300
2,000 Feet Meters 600
Draft EA
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................v 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ......................................... 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 PROPOSED ACTION AREA DESCRIPTION .................................................. 1-2 1.4.1 Naval Base Kitsap Bangor .................................................................... 1-2 1.4.2 Hood Canal Military Operating Area North ......................................... 1-2 1.5 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .................................... 1-3 1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ........................................................ 1-4 National Environmental Policy Act ...................................................... 1-4 1.6.1 1.6.2 Agency Coordination and Permit Requirements .................................. 1-4 1.7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS ............................................................... 1-5 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES......................................................... 2-1 2.1 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING CRITERIA ..................................................... 2-1 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1 Construction .......................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.1.1 Anticipated Construction Schedule........................................ 2-5 2.2.2 Operation .............................................................................................. 2-5 2.2.3 Maintenance .......................................................................................... 2-6 2.2.4 Standard Operating Procedures and Best Management Practices ........ 2-7 2.2.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 2-11 2.3 ACTION ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 2-13 2.3.1 Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative).................................. 2-13 2.3.2 Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle........................................................................... 2-14 2.3.3 Alternative 3: No Action..................................................................... 2-14 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS..................................................................................... 2-19 2.4.1 Location Alternative: Re-Activate Deepwater EMMR System off NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor ................................................................. 2-19 2.4.2 Location Alternative: Existing Navy Restricted Area of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor ................................................................. 2-19 2.4.3 Location Alternative: Naval Magazine Indian Island ......................... 2-20 2.4.4 Alternative: Update/Repair Existing Magnetic Silencing Facility ..... 2-21 2.4.5 Alternative EMMR System Designs .................................................. 2-21 2.4.5.1 Vertical Sensor Array .......................................................... 2-21 2.4.5.2 Floating Platform Structure.................................................. 2-22
xxi February 2013
Draft EA
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) 2.4.5.3 Wireless Data Transmission ................................................ 2-22 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 MARINE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Bathymetry............................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1.1 Affected Environment ............................................................ 3-1 3.1.1.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................ 3-1 3.1.2 Geology and Sediments ........................................................................ 3-2 3.1.2.1 Affected Environment ............................................................ 3-3 3.1.2.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................ 3-6 3.1.2.3 Permits and Consultation ..................................................... 3-10 3.1.3 Water Resources ................................................................................. 3-10 3.1.3.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-10 3.1.3.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-12 3.1.3.3 Permits and Consultation ..................................................... 3-15 3.2 NOISE ................................................................................................................ 3-15 3.2.1 Underwater Noise ............................................................................... 3-16 3.2.2 Airborne Noise .................................................................................... 3-16 3.2.2.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-16 3.2.2.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-17 3.3 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................... 3-18 3.3.1 Terrestrial Vegetation ......................................................................... 3-18 3.3.1.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-18 3.3.1.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-20 3.3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................. 3-21 3.3.2.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-21 3.3.2.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-22 3.4 MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................... 3-24 Marine Vegetation .............................................................................. 3-24 3.4.1 3.4.1.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-24 3.4.1.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-26 3.4.2 Benthic Community ............................................................................ 3-28 3.4.2.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-28 3.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-29 3.4.2.3 Permits and Consultation ..................................................... 3-35 3.4.3 Fish ..................................................................................................... 3-35 3.4.3.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-35 3.4.3.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-40 3.4.3.3 Permits and Consultation ..................................................... 3-50 Birds .................................................................................................... 3-50 3.4.4 3.4.4.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-51 3.4.4.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-54 3.4.4.3 Permits and Consultation ..................................................... 3-59 3.4.5 Marine Mammals ................................................................................ 3-59
xxii
February 2013
Draft EA
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) 3.4.5.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-59 3.4.5.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-63 3.4.5.3 Permits and Consultation ..................................................... 3-66 LAND USE, RECREATION, AND AESTHETICS ......................................... 3-67 3.5.1 Land Use ............................................................................................. 3-67 3.5.1.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-67 3.5.1.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-68 3.5.1.3 Permits and Consultation ..................................................... 3-69 3.5.2 Recreation ........................................................................................... 3-69 3.5.2.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-69 3.5.2.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-70 3.5.3 Aesthetics ............................................................................................ 3-71 3.5.3.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-71 3.5.3.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-71 SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDRENS HEALTH AND SAFETY ......................................................... 3-75 3.6.1 Affected Environment......................................................................... 3-76 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 3-77 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 3-80 3.7.1 Affected Environment......................................................................... 3-81 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 3-83 3.7.3 Permits and Consultation .................................................................... 3-85 AMERICAN INDIAN TRADITIONAL RESOURCES .................................. 3-86 American Indian Use of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor .......................... 3-88 3.8.1 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 3-88 3.8.3 Permits and Consultation .................................................................... 3-90 MARINE NAVIGATION ................................................................................. 3-90 3.9.1 Affected Environment......................................................................... 3-90 Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 3-93 3.9.2 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................. 3-98 3.10.1 Affected Environment......................................................................... 3-98 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-101 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY................................................................. 3-103 3.11.1 Affected Environment....................................................................... 3-103 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-104 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES........................... 3-107
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 4
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 IDENTIFYING THE REGION OF INFLUENCE OR GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANAYLYSIS ........................ 4-2 4.2 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS ANALYZED FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................... 4-2 4.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS .............................................................. 4-9 4.3.1 Marine Physical Environment .............................................................. 4-9 4.3.1.1 Bathymetry ............................................................................. 4-9
xxiii
February 2013
Draft EA
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) 4.3.1.2 Geology and Sediments ......................................................... 4-9 4.3.1.3 Water Resources .................................................................. 4-10 Noise ................................................................................................... 4-10 Terrestrial Biological Resources ......................................................... 4-11 4.3.3.1 Terrestrial Vegetation .......................................................... 4-11 4.3.3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife............................................................... 4-11 Marine Biological Resources .............................................................. 4-12 4.3.4.1 Marine Vegetation ............................................................... 4-12 4.3.4.2 Benthic Community ............................................................. 4-13 4.3.4.3 Fish....................................................................................... 4-14 4.3.4.4 Birds ..................................................................................... 4-17 4.3.4.5 Marine Mammals ................................................................. 4-18 Land Use and Aesthetics..................................................................... 4-19 4.3.5.1 Land Use .............................................................................. 4-19 4.3.5.2 Recreation ............................................................................ 4-20 4.3.5.3 Aesthetics ............................................................................. 4-20 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Childrens Health and Safety ........................................................................................... 4-20 Cultural Resources .............................................................................. 4-21 American Indian Traditional Resources ............................................. 4-22 Marine Navigation .............................................................................. 4-22 Air Quality .......................................................................................... 4-23 Public Health and Safety..................................................................... 4-24
4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.6 4.3.7 4.3.8 4.3.9 4.3.10 4.3.11 5
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT ........................................................................... 5-1 5.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS ........................................................... 5-1 5.2 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ................................................................................................ 5-1 5.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... 5-2 5.4 COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS ...................... 5-2 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................. 6-1 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................. 7-1
6 7
APPENDIX A PUBLIC NOTICES ........................................................................................ A-1 APPENDIX B MONITORING PLAN ....................................................................................B-1 APPENDIX C UNDERWATER NOISE ............................................................................... C-1 APPENDIX D ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT .......................................... D-1
xxiv February 2013
Draft EA
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) APPENDIX E BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT .....................................................................E-1 APPENDIX F AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS ........................................ F-1 APPENDIX G TRIBAL CONSULTATION ......................................................................... G-1 APPENDIX H AGENCY CONSULTATION ....................................................................... H-1
xxv
February 2013
Draft EA
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
xxvi
February 2013
Draft EA
LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES-1 Figure ES-2 Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5 Figure 2-6 Figure 2-7 Figure 2-8 Figure 2-9 Figure 2-10 Figure 3.1-1 Figure 3.1-2 Figure 3.4-1 Figure 3.4-2 Figure 3.4-3 Figure 3.5-1 Figure 3.5-2 Figure 3.7-1 Proposed Action Location.................................................................................... xix Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) ..............................................................................xx Proposed Action Vicinity ..................................................................................... 1-7 Proposed Action Location.................................................................................... 1-8 Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) .......................................................................... 2-23 Sensor Array Profile .......................................................................................... 2-24 Anchoring and Geoduck Harvesting Restriction Area ...................................... 2-25 Offshore Platform .............................................................................................. 2-26 Building 7801 and HDD Launch Site Plan ........................................................ 2-27 Aid to Navigation Site Plan ............................................................................... 2-29 Cable Armoring ................................................................................................. 2-31 Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle ................................................................................................................ 2-32 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ............................................................ 2-33 Navy Restricted Area Alternative Considered but Eliminated .......................... 2-34 Generalized Shoreline Geomorphology in Proposed Action Area ...................... 3-4 Ohio/Trident Class Submarine Wake .................................................................. 3-8 Marine Biological Resources ............................................................................. 3-25 Vinland Tract (Geoduck) ................................................................................... 3-30 Distances to Underwater Thresholds for Marine Mammals and Fish ............... 3-43 Observation Point............................................................................................... 3-73 Graphic Representation ...................................................................................... 3-74 Cultural Resources Area of Potential Effect ...................................................... 3-84
xxvii
February 2013
Draft EA
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.) Figure 3.9-1 Marine Navigation ............................................................................................. 3-95
xxviii
February 2013
Draft EA
LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Table 2-2 Table 2-3 Table 3.1-1 Table 3.1-2 Table 3.2-1 Table 3.4-1 Table 3.4-2 Table 3.6-1 Table 3.6-2 SOPs and BMPs ................................................................................................... 2-7 Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Plans ....................................................... 2-12 Summary of the Design, Construction, and Area of Impact by Alternative ...... 2-15 Seafloor Sediment Characteristics ....................................................................... 3-3 Summary of Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program Station SP-152 Sediment Sample Results ..................................................................................... 3-5 Common Acoustical Terms ............................................................................... 3-15 ESA-Listed Fish that May Occur in and around the Proposed Action .............. 3-36 Marine Bird Groupings and Families in and around the Proposed Action Area .................................................................................................................... 3-52 Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................. 3-76 2010 Employment Characteristics ..................................................................... 3-77
Table 3.10-1 National and Washington State Ambient Air Quality Standards....................... 3-99 Table 3.10-2 EMMR System Construction Emissions, Action Alternatives for 2-Year Duration of Construction ................................................................................. 3-102 Table 3.12-1 Summary of Environmental Consequences ..................................................... 3-107 Table 4-1 Table 5-1 Summary of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ....................... 4-3 Compliance of the Proposed Action with the Objectives of Federal, State, and Local Plans, Policies, and Controls ............................................................... 5-3
xxix
February 2013
Draft EA
LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)
xxx
February 2013
Draft EA
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

APE AQI ATN BMP CAA CEQ CFR cm CONUS CWA CZMA dB dB rms dB re: 1 Pa dBA DBRC dB SEL DMMP DO DOD DOPAA DPS EA Ecology EFH EHW EIS EMF EMMR system EO ESA area of potential effects Air Quality Index Aid to Navigation best management practice Clean Air Act Council on Environmental Quality Code of Federal Regulations centimeter Continental United States Clean Water Act Coastal Zone Management Act decibels root mean square sound pressure level in decibels decibels referenced to a pressure of 1 micropascal A-weighted decibels Dabob Bay Range Complex decibel sound exposure levels Washington Dredged Materials Management Program dissolved oxygen U.S. Department of Defense Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives distinct population segment Environmental Assessment Washington Department of Ecology Essential Fish Habitat Explosives Handling Wharf Environmental Impact Statement electromagnetic field Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging system Executive Order Endangered Species Act MSF NAAQS NAVBASE Navy NEPA NHPA NMFS NOAA NRA NRHP NTU OPNAVINST Pa, Pa PCE ESU FMC FMP FR ha HCCC HDD Hz kg km, km
2 2 3
evolutionarily significant unit Fishery Management Councils fishery management plans Federal Register hectare Hood Canal Coordinating Council horizontal directional drilling Hertz kilogram kilometer, square kilometer meter, square meter, cubic meter Migratory Bird Treaty Act mean lower low water Marine Mammal Protection Act Military Operating Area Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Magnetic Silencing Facility National Ambient Air Quality Standards Naval Base U.S. Department of the Navy National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 National Historic Preservation Act National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Navy Restricted Area National Register of Historic Places nephelometric turbidity unit Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction Pascals, micropascal Primary constituent elements
m, m , m MBTA MLLW MMPA MOA MSA
xxxi
February 2013
Draft EA
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont.)

PM, PM2.5, PM10 Particulate matter, Particulate matter 2.5 microns in size, Particulate matter 10 microns in size PNPTC Point No Point Treaty Council Proposed Action EMMR system proposed for construction and operation at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor PSAMP PSCAA rms RNA ROI SECNAVINST SEL SHPO SIP Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Plan Puget Sound Clean Air Agency root mean square regulated navigation area region of influence Secretary of the Navy Instruction Sound Exposure Level State Historic Preservation Officer State Implementation Plan SOP Standard operating procedure SPCC SPL TOC U&A USACE USC USCG USEPA USFWS VTS WDFW WDNR Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure sound pressure level total organic carbon Usual and Accustomed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Code U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Vessel Traffic Services Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Natural Resources
xxxii
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Naval Base (NAVBASE) Kitsap is located on Hood Canal, approximately 20 miles (32.2 kilometers [km]) west of Seattle, Washington (Figure 1-1). NAVBASE Kitsap is the largest naval organization in the Navy Region Northwest and is composed of installations in Silverdale, Bremerton, and Keyport, Washington. NAVBASE Kitsap serves as the host command for the Navys fleet throughout western Puget Sound and provides base operating services, including support for surface ships and submarines homeported at NAVBASE Kitsap Bremerton and NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. NAVBASE Kitsap also provides world-class service, programs, and facilities that meet the needs of hosted war-fighting commands, tenant activities, crew, and employees. This Environmental Assessment (EA), prepared by the United States Department of the Navy (Navy), analyzes the potential effects of the Navys proposal to build and operate an electromagnetic measurement ranging (EMMR) system (the Proposed Action) in Hood Canal north of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. The EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 15001508); Navy regulations for implementing NEPA (32 CFR 775); and the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST) 5090.1C, as revised July 2011. 1.2 PROPOSED ACTION
The Proposed Action would construct and operate an EMMR system on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor lands and adjacent waters in Hood Canal. Specifically, the in-water component would occur in the Hood Canal Military Operating Area (MOA) North, both within and outside the existing Navy Restricted Area (NRA) of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor (Figure 1-2). The Proposed Action is described in more detail in Section 2.2. 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide the Navy with the capability to measure the electromagnetic signatures of submarines in the northwestern continental United States (CONUS). The Proposed Action is needed to ensure that submarines meet the magnetic signature requirements of OPNAVINST C8950.2(x), which requires all classes of submarines to perform certain actions to decrease risk from threats. Historically, an EMMR system provided this capability in deeper waters, approximately 150 feet (45.7 m) of Hood Canal off the existing Magnetic Silencing Facility (MSF) pier on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. This system ceased operations in the 1990s. The Navy established a temporary EMMR system in waters north of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor that ceased operation after likely being damaged by the anchor of a commercial fishing vessel in 2008. These historic EMMR system locations are discussed in more detail in Section 2.4.1. Submarines in the Pacific Fleet, including those homeported at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, must use facilities located at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, or San Diego, California, in order to fulfill electromagnetic signature requirements, which results in unacceptable operational inefficiencies for submarines
1-1 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
homeported or otherwise operating in waters off the northwestern CONUS. Approximately two weeks of transit time are needed to access facilities at Pearl Harbor or San Diego from NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. The Proposed Action would provide the Navy with the capability to measure the electromagnetic signatures of its submarines homeported at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor and provide submarines the ability to conduct on-board electromagnetic systems calibrations. 1.4 PROPOSED ACTION AREA DESCRIPTION
The Proposed Action would occur on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor lands and adjacent waters in Hood Canal, specifically the Hood Canal MOA North. 1.4.1 Naval Base Kitsap Bangor
NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is approximately 7,186 acres (2,908 hectares [ha]) in size and encompasses a mix of industrial, residential, and undisturbed natural vegetation, with 6.5 miles (10.5 km) of waterfront along the eastern shoreline of Hood Canal. NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is a multi-mission base with major tenants and facilities. The base provides housing, retail shopping, and dining and recreational facilities for Navy personnel and dependents. NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is the Pacific homeport and main support facility for the Navys Trident submarine fleet. The Trident program consists of submarine-launched ballistic missiles, which are key to the Navys strategic deterrence mission since 1956. These submarines are an integral component of the Navys ability to defend the nation. A total of 13 submarines are homeported at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. In addition, NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor serves as a refit/repair site and training facility for Navy personnel who operate and maintain these submarines. 1.4.2 Hood Canal Military Operating Area North
NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is located on the eastern shoreline of Hood Canal. Waters adjacent to the base are located within the Hood Canal MOA North and South and the Dabob Bay Range Complex (DBRC; Figure 1-2). The Hood Canal MOA North is approximately 7.9 square nautical miles (27 km2) and is used for vessel sensor accuracy testing and launch recovery of test systems. The MOA is charted as a Naval Operating Area on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Navigation Chart 18458 (NOAA 2010). The DBRC is a site within the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Keyport Range Complex. The Navy has conducted underwater testing at the DBRC since 1956. The DBRC is the Navys premier location within the U.S. for research, development, testing, and evaluation of underwater systems, such as torpedoes, countermeasures, targets, and ship systems. The DBRC supports proofing of underwater systems, research and development testing, and fleet training and tactical evaluations involving aircraft, submarines, and surface ships. The DBRC also supports acoustic/measurement programs. These programs consist of underwater vehicle/ship noise measurement programs, including signature recording, radiated sound investigations, and sonar evaluations. No explosive warheads are tested or placed on test units. During research, testing, and training, various combinations of aircraft, submarines, and surface ships are used as launch platforms. Test equipment may also be launched or deployed from shore or off a pier.
1-2
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
1.5
SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This EA presents alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Action, describes existing baseline environmental conditions, and evaluates the construction and operation (onland and in-water) potential effects of the alternatives (including the no-action alternative) for the following resources: Marine Physical Environment; Noise; Terrestrial Biological Resources; Marine Biological Resources; Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics; Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Childrens Health and Safety; Cultural Resources; American Indian Traditional Resources; Marine Navigation; Air Quality; and Public Health and Safety. These resources were identified based on their potential to be affected by the Proposed Action and on their potential for public interest. The cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future federal and non-federal actions, are also analyzed. The following resources are not addressed in detail in this EA because construction and operation of the Proposed Action and alternatives would have negligible or no effects on them: Terrestrial Traffic and Circulation. The Proposed Action is located on Navy restricted lands or waters of Hood Canal and does not directly impact terrestrial traffic circulation. The Navy would schedule in-water construction vessel movements through Hood Canal to avoid closures of the Hood Canal Bridge during peak vehicle commuting hours. Floodplains. No floodplains are located within the area of the Proposed Action. Energy Consumption. The operation of the EMMR system would require minimal energy consumption. The EMMR system operates at between 36 and 48 volts at 0.5 amperes, which is equivalent to approximately 24 watts, or less power than a common household light bulb consumes, and would be powered on for approximately 25 minutes per month. Solid and Hazardous Waste. Except for the temporary generation of construction-related solid waste, operation of the EMMR system would not generate solid or hazardous waste.
1-3 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
1.6 1.6.1
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA requires the consideration of potential environmental consequences of federal actions. Regulations for federal agency implementation of NEPA were established by the presidents CEQ. Under NEPA, federal agencies must prepare an EA or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any major federal action, except those actions that are determined to be categorically excluded from further analysis. 1.6.2 Agency Coordination and Permit Requirements
NEPA requires federal agencies to provide environmental information to decision makers and the public before decisions are made and actions are taken (Public Law 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, as amended by Public Law 94-52, 94-83, 97-238 4(b), 40 CFR 1502.14, 1505.1[e]). The Navy is the lead agency for NEPA compliance for the Proposed Action as defined in NEPA regulations 40 CFR 1501.5, Navy regulations 32 CFR Part 775, and OPNAVINST 5090.1C, Change 1, 5-1.3.18. This EA is being prepared to meet NEPA and OPNAVINST requirements. In addition to NEPA, the Navy must comply with a variety of other federal environmental laws, regulations, and Executive Orders (EOs). Please refer to Section 6.1 for a complete description of each of the following: Clean Air Act (CAA); Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act [CWA]); Rivers and Harbors Act; Endangered Species Act (ESA); Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA); Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA); Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA); Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA); National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); Energy Independence and Security Act, Section 438; The U.S. Department of Defenses (DODs) Native American and Alaska Native Policy including Usual and Accustomed (U&A) Treaty Harvest Rights; Navy Policy for Consultation with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes, Secretary of the Navy Instruction (SECNAVINST) 11010.14A; EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment;
1-4
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1.7
EO 12898, Environmental Justice; EO 13045, Childrens Health and Safety; and EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS
In order to facilitate public participation in the NEPA process for this EA, the Navy made a Draft Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA) available for public review and comment and conducted a public meeting in August 2012 (see Appendix A, Public Notices). Further information is available electronically at www.emmrea.com and on the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest website at: https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/navfac/navfac_ww_pp/navfac_efanw_pp. Comments on the Draft DOPAA were provided by members of the public, Native American tribes, Kitsap and Jefferson counties, and state and federal agencies. Comments were provided in meetings, online, and by mail. All comments received were considered in the preparation of this Draft EA. Issues raised in comments included, but were not limited to, the following: Fisheries; Tribal treaty rights; Effects on geoduck (Panopea generosa) harvesting; Erosion from submarine wakes; Restricted navigational areas; Visual impact of the offshore platform; and Sediment quality due to dredge and fill activities.
1-5
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1-6
February 2013
Oa k Har bo r
Skagit
Figure 1-1 Proposed Action Vicinity Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington Legend
Military Installation Boundary
5
Proposed Action Location County Boundary Hood Canal Bridge
Snohomish
Clallam
Island
Everett
nal

Pou l s bo
Pu get So un d
Ho
od
Ca
1-7
101
Jefferson
Hood Canal Bridge
Oa k Ha rbo r
Everett
Pou l s bo Sil ve rdal e S e a t tl e
Sil ve rdal e
Keyport NUWC
Puget Sound
5 405
King
Ol y m pia
WA
Kitsap Mason NAVBASE Kitsap Bremerton

S e a t tl e
90
0 0
6 10
12 Miles Kilometers 20
Source: Esri, 2012; Dept.of Defense - Navy, 2011; Finlayson, 2005.
101
Jefferson
N or th A
Figure 1-2 Proposed Action Location Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington Legend
Military Installation Boundary Interstate Highway
Ca
na lM O
County Boundary
oo
Kitsap
Approximate Submarine Route Navy Restricted Area Military Operations Area (MOA) Proposed Action Location
Com plex
MO A

Pou ls b o
Jefferson County
ange
Bay R
Dabo b
Ho
101
od
Ca
nal
So
uth
na
oo
Ca
1-8
Po u l s b o
Silv er da le
c onne Interc
aters tin g W
Kitsap County
WA
0 0
1.5 2.5
Miles Kilometers 5
Silv erd a le
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

This section describes the screening criteria for alternatives and the action alternatives carried forward for detailed analysis. Standard operating procedures (SOPs), best management practices (BMPs), and mitigation measures that would be implemented as part of the action alternatives are also presented. This section also describes the alternatives eliminated from further analysis and the no-action alternative. Regulations for the implementation of NEPA provide guidance for the consideration of alternatives in the NEPA environmental review process. These regulations require that environmental effects of the Proposed Action and a range of alternatives be considered (40 CFR 1502.14). The range of alternatives includes reasonable alternatives, which must be rigorously and objectively explored, as well as other alternatives that are eliminated from detailed analysis. To be considered reasonable, an alternative must include actions that are practical or feasible from a technical and economic standpoint (CEQ 1981). 2.1 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING CRITERIA
The Navy developed criteria to evaluate alternatives to the Proposed Action. The selection criteria consist of the following technical, operational, and environmental requirements: Requirement to Minimize Shallow Water Transit: Proximity to Existing Submarine Transit Routes. The EMMR system must be located along an existing transit route so that submarines utilizing the EMMR system take either no or minimal detour from their normal transit to and from existing submarine homeport at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Establishment of the EMMR system close to (within approximately 0.5 mile [0.8 km]) an existing submarine transit route is needed for mission readiness and operational effectiveness of the submarine fleet and also to minimize effects on non-military (e.g., public, commercial, or recreational) vessel navigation. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) must escort submarines transiting within Puget Sound for safety and security. The escort ensures the submarine route is clear of marine vessels to prevent collisions and provides security for the submarine during surface transit. Within waters of Puget Sound and with USCG escort, submarines operate at low speeds and spend substantial time in transit. Existing submarine transit routes are established along the safest and shortest navigable distances to minimize transit time within the sound, and time away from mission, and to avoid or minimize associated disruption of other watercraft navigation in Puget Sound. Requirement for Shore Infrastructure and Facilities: Utilization of Existing DOD Lands for Shore Building. The EMMR system must be located within approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 km) of existing DOD lands. Operation of the EMMR system requires a dedicated shore building located in the vicinity of the sensor array. Proximity to existing DOD lands ensures that the EMMR system and associated instrumentation can be properly operated, maintained, and staffed. Additionally, establishment of the EMMR system close to existing federally owned land with adequate existing utilities is necessary to ensure the availability of shore infrastructure, such as power and data cable connections, and it eliminates the need for real estate acquisition. The shore site must be suitable for the establishment of a global positioning system base station. The global
2-1 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 2.2
positioning system antenna location should permit full visibility of the sky without obstruction from hills, buildings, or trees. The shore building must be close to a boat ramp and dock for launching and use of small boats. Ideally, the DOD lands would contain an existing shore facility, with adequate infrastructure, that could be utilized for the proposed EMMR system, which would eliminate the need for new onshore construction and associated costs and environmental impacts. Maneuvering Safety and Navigation Requirements: Avoidance of Shipping Routes and Strong Tidal Currents. The EMMR system must be sited away from heavily used inbound and outbound shipping lanes for safety, security, minimization of effects on nonmilitary watercraft navigation, and maintenance of the structural integrity of the EMMR system (i.e., prevention of damage to submerged equipment by large anchors associated with large commercial vessels). Additionally, the EMMR system must be located along a substrate subject to minimal tidal currents and rip tides that could damage the EMMR system equipment, preclude safe and effective navigation by the submarines utilizing the EMMR system, and reduce the timeframes when the EMMR system would be available for use (i.e., specific tidal conditions/windows), thus affecting the reliability and usefulness of the EMMR system. Technical Requirements: Seafloor and Seawater Conditions. The EMMR sensor array must be located no greater than 1 mile (1.6 km) offshore in a water depth of at or about 70 feet (21.3 m). The seawater at the array site should have a conductivity of between 4 and 6 siemens per meter and be at a sufficient distance from metals (i.e., existing structures) to support accurate measurement from the electric field sensors. The sensor array must be installed along a magnetic compass inter-cardinal line (i.e., southwest to northeast or southeast to northwest magnetic). Computer programming can correct for only minor deviation from this orientation. The array location should allow submarines to transit across the array with enough navigable water on each side of the array line to allow the submarine being measured to maintain a constant speed and heading for a distance equal to two times the submarines length overall, plus enough navigational freedom to come up to speed and course for effective navigation over the sensors. Requirements for Avoidance and Minimization of Environmental Impacts. Included in this criterion are: Avoiding or minimizing conflicts with existing public, tribal, and commercial land and water uses, including harvesting/fishing and recreational uses. This selection criterion was added after Navy review of public comments during the initial public comment period, in which concerns were expressed regarding effects on shellfish harvesting and fishing at the Proposed Action location. PROPOSED ACTION
The Proposed Action would construct and operate an EMMR system on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor lands and adjacent waters in Hood Canal. Specifically, the in-water component would occur in the Hood MOA North, both within and outside the existing NRA of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. For the Proposed Action, two action alternatives and the no-action alternative are carried forward for detailed analysis in this document. The following section describes the components of the
2-2 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Proposed Action that are common to both action alternatives; the similar aspects of their construction, operation, and maintenance; and their associated SOPs, BMPs, and mitigation measures. The two action alternatives differ in terms of their construction approaches, as further described in Section 2.3. Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) has been selected as the preferred alternative (Figure 2-1). 2.2.1 Construction
The Navy would complete construction of the Proposed Action within two years. In-water construction would occur between July 16, 2013, and February 15, 2014, and July 16, 2014, and February 15, 2015, to reduce impacts to ESA-listed species (see Section 3.4.3 and 3.4.4). Under each action alternative, the EMMR system would consist of the following four components: (1) a sensor array, (2) an offshore platform, (3) a cable, and (4) an aid to navigation: Buried Sensor Array System. This component would include installation of a 400-linear-foot (122-m) sensor array system consisting of eight triaxial magnetometer sensors and 13 electromagnetic triaxial sensors (21 sensors total) and corresponding cable along this length that would be buried beneath the seafloor/substrate. The sensors would be spaced approximately 20 feet (6 m) apart. The seafloor would be dredged, and the 21 sensors would be buried from approximately 64 feet (19.5 m) to 76 feet (23.2 m) below mean lower low water (MLLW), such that the top of each sensor would be at a minimum depth of approximately 4 feet (1.2 m) below the seafloor. The sensor array would be oriented approximately northwest/southeast (Figure 2-2). The nearest point of the sensor array system would be located at the following approximate distances from the following reference features: o 5.95 miles (9.58 km) from the Hood Canal Bridge; o 1.17 miles (1.88 km) from the nearest NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor fence line; and o 0.38 mile (0.61 km) from the shoreline. Approximately 17,500 cubic yards (13,380 cubic meters [m3]) of material would be dredged for installation of the sensor array. The dredged material would be replaced by 19,250 cubic yards (14,718 m3) of both non-magnetic gravel and backfill with a sediment grain size to match existing seafloor conditions for the top 3 feet (0.9 m). The total area of temporary disturbance to the marine substrate would be approximately 1.64 acres (0.66 ha). Refer to Table 2-3 for complete calculations. An anchoring restriction around the 400-linear-foot (122-m) sensor array would be designated on the next NOAA navigational charts, restricting anchoring for 150-foot (45.7-m) or greater vessels and anchors weighing 800 pounds (363 kilograms [kg]) or more. The anchoring restriction would apply to a 50-foot (15.2-m)-wide corridor along the 400-foot (122-m) sensor array, plus 25 feet (7.6 m) on each end of the array, for a maximum total area of 0.52 acre (0.21 ha; Figure 2-3). The Navy would coordinate with the USCG to update the navigational chart, and the anchoring restriction would be visually displayed as a standard navigation chart polygon on the revised NOAA navigational chart. Additionally, due to the nature of geoduck harvesting and its potential to disturb sediment and affect the proposed sensor array, geoduck harvesting would be
2-3
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
prohibited within the 0.52-acre (0.21-ha) area. However, approximately half of this 0.52 acre (0.21 ha) is considered to be restricted due to geoduck harvesting regulations that prohibit harvesting at depths greater than 70 feet (21.3 m). Therefore, the geoduck harvest restriction area would be 0.26 acre (0.10 ha). Offshore Platform. This component would include construction of a 15- by 15-foot (4.5- by 4.5-m) offshore platform with utilities, requiring installation of five 24-inch (61-centimeter [cm]) square, pre-cast concrete piles (the center pile would be vertical/plumb, and the four corner piles would be installed at a 1:12 [horizontal: vertical] slope toward the center pile (see Figure 2-4). The offshore platform would be located approximately 0.20 mile (0.32 km) from the shoreline. The five piles would be impact driven. Where the jet-plow cable trench meets the offshore platform, the transition area would have a total surface area impact of 2,827 square feet (263 square meters; m2) and would require excavation of approximately 250 cubic yards (191 m3) of dredged material. The transition area would be backfilled with both non-magnetic gravel and backfill with a sediment grain size to match existing seafloor conditions for the top 3 feet (0.9 m) and would encompass the offshore platform and the five supporting piles. The platform would function as a cable junction that maximizes the efficiency of system maintenance and repairs by providing a cable/system access point. The platform would also support a camera oriented seaward toward Hood Canal, to be activated only during submarine use of the EMMR system for the purposes of instrumentation calibration and EMMR operations. A stainless steel security shield at the access ladder of the platform would prevent trespassing and vandalism. The platform would contain No Trespassing and No Anchoring (High Voltage Cable) signs. The platform would also contain a utility stand with a stainless steel junction box and Hazard to Navigation light consistent with USCG navigation requirements. The platform would be located where the seafloor is approximately 44 feet (13.4 m) below MLLW. Cable. Installation of approximately 9,653 linear feet (2,942 m) of composite cable would connect the sensors on the sensor array system, via the platform junction box, to the existing shore building (Building 7801). Approximately 210 linear feet (64 m) of cable would be laid underground onshore via horizontal directional drilling (HDD) from an onshore HDD launch pit, construction staging area, and electrical manhole at an existing gravel parking lot to a MSF Building pullbox at Building 7801 (Figure 2-5). Approximately 1,148 linear feet (350 m) of cable would be installed by HDD from the onshore HDD launch pit, under Amberjack Avenue and nearshore habitat, to the offshore HDD exit point; this would avoid impacts to nearshore habitat, such as eelgrass. From the HDD exit point, the cable would then be laid to the offshore platform using a jet plow to bury the cable. Cable laid and buried with a jet plow would be approximately 6 feet (1.8 m) below the mudline, and cable installed by HDD would be more than 6 feet (1.8 m) below the mudline. At the HDD to jet-plowed transition area, material would be dredged to approximately 6 feet (1.8 m) below the substrate mudline in a circle with a diameter of approximately 10 feet (3 m). The total seafloor surface area of disturbance at the transition area would be 2,123 square feet (197 m2). Dredged material to be excavated at the transition area would total approximately 220 cubic yards (168 m3). The area would be backfilled with 242 cubic yards (185 m3) of both non-magnetic gravel and backfill with a sediment grain size to match existing seafloor conditions for the top 3 feet
2-4
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 2.2.2
(0.9 m), and the area would be backfilled at 10 percent greater volume to account for settling. The total length of cable buried with a jet plow would be approximately 6,970 linear feet (2,124 m). The disturbance area from the jet plow would be an approximately 1-foot-wide trench (30 cm). The 925 linear feet (282 m) of cable bundle from the platform to the sensor array would vary in construction method between Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 2 and is described in Section 2.3. The cable bundle would also run along the 400-foot (122-m) length of the sensor array. Aid to Navigation. A sector light would be installed as an Aid to Navigation (ATN) for submarines utilizing the EMMR system. The ATN would be located on the shoreline of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, just off Northern Boundary Road (Figure 2-6). The ATN would be located just inland at an elevation of approximately 32 feet above MLLW and would be approximately 6 feet (1.8 m) in height. The ATN would require vegetation be cleared from approximately 0.64 acre (0.26 ha) so that the ATN would be visible to submarines from Hood Canal. To maintain line of site, regular vegetation clearing would be required during operation. 2.2.1.1 Anticipated Construction Schedule
The anticipated construction schedule would be spread over two years, with the approximate inwater construction and upland construction sequencing described below. Upland/Overwater Work: September 2013 to March 2014 o Shore cable connection/Building 7801 (4 weeks); o ATN upland construction: clearing, grading, ATN installation, and utility connection (4 weeks); and o Offshore platform overwater construction and equipment installation (4 weeks). In-Water Work: July 2013 to February 2014 o Platform/HDD transition dredging: dredge approximately 470 cubic yards at the platform and transition area (1 day); o Installation of platform piles: platform pile installation complete (2 weeks); o HDD: HDD and transition area complete (1 week); and o Cable installation using jet plow: jet-plow cable-laying (2 weeks). In-Water Work: July 2014 to February 2015 o Sensor array installation: dredging (8 weeks) and sensor geotextile and array installation (4 weeks); and
o
Armored cable installation: cable-laying (1 day) and armoring installation (8 weeks).
Operation
A submarine utilizing the EMMR system would travel at a constant speed of approximately 10 knots and constant heading at the water surface, accompanied by escort boats operated by the
2-5
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
USCG, on the approximate submarine transit route in Hood Canal (Figure 1-2). Using the ATN as a guide, the submarine and USCG escort would briefly detour by less than 0.5 mile (0.8 km) from the existing transit route so the submarine could traverse over the sensor array system. The travel depth at surface and speed of the submarine would remain unchanged while passing over the sensor array. The submarine would then re-enter the standard transit route and proceed toward its destination. A submarines use of the EMMR system would represent a variance from the existing route of approximately 5 minutes. Prior to the submarines transit over the sensor array, personnel at the onshore facility would power on the sensor array system and activate the camera mounted on the offshore platform. During transit over the sensor array, the sensor array would measure the electromagnetic signature of the submarine, the camera would record data used to support the measurements, and the data from the sensor array and camera would be transmitted to the onshore facility at Building 7801, via the cable. The EMMR system would operate passively (receiving electromagnetic signals, not producing them). The system operates at between 36 and 48 volts at 0.5 amperes, which is approximately equivalent to 24 watts, or less power than a common household light bulb consumes and would not result in an adverse impact to public health and safety. The system is purposely designed to emit as little electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation as possible so as not to interfere with the submarine signatures being measured. The data received by the EMMR system would be transmitted to instruments on the submarine to recalibrate onboard equipment. The EMMR system would be used for approximately 25 minutes per month. When not in use, the EMMR system would remain inactive. Frequency of the EMMR system use would be contingent upon national security needs. However, data for past submarine transits in Hood Canal to and from NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor can be applied to estimate future anticipated frequency of use. From June 1, 2011, to May 31, 2012, there were 29 submarine transits from and 30 transits to NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Assuming that submarines would utilize the proposed EMMR system for all transits from and to NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, and that future transit frequencies are consistent with historical transit frequencies, the EMMR system would be used on average approximately five times per month, with a combined average use time of approximately 25 minutes per month. During submarine surface transit for use of the EMMR system, local vessel traffic in Hood Canal would need to adhere to a security zone of 1,000 yards (914 m) surrounding any Navy submarine being escorted by the USCG, according to 33 CFR 165.1327. The EMMR system would be operational year-round, including at low tide. 2.2.3 Maintenance
With the construction components identified above, maintenance requirements for the EMMR system would be anticipated to be minimal, and the system would remain permanently in place. In addition to housing the camera used for operations, a primary function of the offshore platform would be to ensure access of most EMMR system components via conduits connected to the platform. This would enable maintenance of the majority of EMMR system cable without the need for dredging or further subsurface disturbance.
2-6
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
2.2.4
Standard Operating Procedures and Best Management Practices
For the purposes of this EA, SOPs and BMPs are existing policies, practices, and measures required by law, regulation, or DOD policies that reduce the environmental impacts of designated activities, functions, or processes. As such, SOPs and BMPs are physical, structural, or operational/managerial practices that decrease the potential for impacts. BMPs are required to ensure compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) general permit for stormwater discharges from construction sites. Although SOPs and BMPs mitigate potential impacts by avoiding, minimizing, or reducing/eliminating impacts, SOPs and BMPs are distinguished from mitigation measures in this EA because they are 1) existing requirements for the Proposed Action, 2) ongoing, regularly occurring practices, and 3) not specific to this Proposed Action. The SOPs and BMPs identified in this EA are inherently part of the Proposed Action and are not additional mitigation measures proposed as a result of the NEPA environmental review process for the Proposed Action. An exhaustive list of SOPs and BMPs is not provided in this EA; only those specifically considered or referred to in the analysis presented in this EA are identified (Table 2-1).
Table 2-1 SOPs and BMPs
Resource Marine Biological Resources American Indian Traditional Resources
Land Use, Recreation, & Aesthetics Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Childrens Health & Safety
Marine Physical Resources
Cultural Resources
Marine Navigation
Description
Terrestrial Biological Resources
SOPs and BMPs
Use of Cushion Blocks Length and height minimizing
Use of cushion blocks to reduce inwater and airborne noise during piledriving The length and height of the offshore platform are the minimum needed to meet security and technical requirements. Prior to dredging, bottom sediments would be tested to document their suitability for unconfined aquatic disposal and/or beneficial reuse.
Sediment beneficial reuse
2-7
February 2013
Public Health & Safety

X X X
Air Quality
Activity
Noise
Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System Table 2-1 SOPs and BMPs

Draft EA
Cultural Resources
Marine Navigation
SOPs and BMPs
Description
Scheduling of in-water work
In-water construction would occur between July 16, 2013, and February 15, 2014, and July 16, 2014, and February 15, 2015, to reduce impacts to ESA-listed species. In-water construction would occur from two hours after sunrise until two hours before sunset to reduce impact to the marbled murrelet. The construction contractor will be required to prepare and implement a spill response plan (e.g., SPCC plan). Areas of in-water and above-water work will be surrounded by floating barriers (combined debris barrier and oil-absorbent booms). The construction contractor will comply with the terms of the dredging permit, including conducting a monitoring and reporting program if specified in the dredging permit. The construction contractor will deploy silt curtains during placement of fill materials for the cable-laying to reduce dispersion of turbidity plumes.
Timing of inwater work
SPCC Plan
Floating barriers
Dredging permit terms
Silt curtains
2-8
February 2013

X X
Air Quality
Activity
Noise

Draft EA
Cultural Resources
Marine Navigation
SOPs and BMPs
Description
Shallow draft tugboats
The construction contractor will use shallow draft, lower horsepower tugboats in the nearshore area and for extended operations in areas shallower than 40 feet (12.2 m) below MLLW, where feasible, to reduce impacts to the seafloor. The Navy would schedule in-water construction vessel movement through Hood Canal to avoid closures of the Hood Canal Bridge during peak vehicle commuting hours. The Navy will require the construction contractor to prepare and implement a Debris Management Plan with procedures for retrieving and cleaning up any accidental releases. Contractors will be required to avoid underwater anchor and line drag. Construction operations will be conducted from barges in deep waters, during high tides, to minimize disturbance to seafloor. Vessel operators will be required to avoid bottoming out (running aground) in shallow areas. Barge operators will use spuds to prevent barges from grounding in shallow areas, including eelgrass beds.
Barge Transit
Debris Management Plan
Anchor and line drag avoidance
Seafloor disturbance
Avoiding bottoming out Spuds for preventing running aground
2-9
February 2013

X
Air Quality
Activity
Noise

Draft EA
Cultural Resources
Marine Navigation
SOPs and BMPs
Description
Barge avoidance of eelgrass
Barges used for in-water construction will be repositioned at the construction site as often as necessary to avoid shading existing eelgrass beds for extended periods of time (more than one day). Previously shaded eelgrass beds must remain unshaded for at least one day before a barge can be positioned again above that habitat.
Vessel traffic will be excluded from the shallow areas outside of the 150foot (46-m) construction zone, which Vessel will be demarcated with clearly avoidance of visible markers. Vessel operators eelgrass beds will be provided maps of the Proposed Action site with eelgrass beds clearly marked. During clearing, grading, and maintenance, the following will be employed as needed to control erosion and sedimentation: possible use of benched surfaces, downdrain channels, diversion berms and ditches, erosion control blankets or turf reinforcement mats, plastic coverings, silt fences and check dams, and straw bales. Gravel will be installed at construction area access points to prevent tracking of soil onto paved roads. Water-spraying on soil will be used to control dust generation during earthmoving and hauling activities.
Erosion and sediment controls
C O
Gravel for prevention of soil tracking Waterspraying on loose soils
2-10
February 2013

X
Air Quality
Activity
Noise

Draft EA
Cultural Resources
Marine Navigation
SOPs and BMPs
Description
Following construction, areas Re-vegetation disturbed by construction and not of disturbed occupied by new impervious surface soils will be re-vegetated with native species.
Key: BMP C D ESA M MLLW O SOP SPCC = = = = = = = = = Best Management Practice Construction Design Endangered Species Act meter mean lower low water Operation Standard Operating Procedure Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
2.2.5
Mitigation Measures
In addition to the SOPs and BMPs identified above, the Navy will utilize the following mitigation measures (see Table 2-2) during construction to minimize construction-related impacts (see also Appendix B, Mitigation Plans). Similar to SOPs and BMPs, mitigation measures are part of the Proposed Action. Mitigation measures differ from SOPs and BMPs in that they resulted from the environmental review process, and were further developed specifically to address potential environmental effects associated with this Proposed Action. Mitigation measures resulted from consideration of the Proposed Action and input received from public, Native American tribes, and agencies. Marine mammal monitoring during pile-driving. The Navy proposes to deploy marine mammal monitors during pile-driving operations. If a marine mammal approaches or enters the disturbance zone during the course of pile-driving operations, pile-driving would be halted and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 30 minutes has passed without re-detection of the animal.
2-11
February 2013
Air Quality
Activity
Noise
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Vegetation clearing and re-vegetation of the ATN corridor. The Navy would implement a vegetation clearing and re-vegetation plan to minimize the potential for slope erosion at the ATN corridor. Bird-proofing the ATN and offshore platform to prevent nesting and perching. The Navy would install a bird-nesting deterrent to ensure that the ATN and offshore platform would not provide suitable habitat or act as an attractant for birds. In-Lieu Fee Program to compensate for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. The Navy would purchase credits from the Hood Canal In-Lieu Fee Program to compensate for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. Horizontal directional drilling cable installation method through nearshore and intertidal area. The Navy would use an HDD cable installation method (as opposed to the standard jet-plowing and trenching method) to avoid impacting the sensitive nearshore and intertidal areas. During construction, the Navy would use a containment area to reduce mud discharge volumes and forward HDD reamings and cuttings to it during the HDD cable installation. The Navy would ensure that the contractor develops a HDD site-specific construction and monitoring plan. Shielding of the navigation hazard light (on offshore platform) in coordination with USCG. The Navy, in consultation with USCG, would shield the navigation hazard light such that it would not be visible from the eastern shore of Hood Canal. Backfill with a sediment grain size similar to that of existing seafloor conditions. The Navy would backfill three dredge areas (sensor array, platform transition area, and HDD/jet-plow transition area) with both non-magnetic gravel and backfill with a sediment grain size to match that of existing seafloor conditions for the top 3 feet (0.9 m).
Table 2-2 Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Plans
Timing and Method(s)
Implemented during pile-driving
Mitigation Measure
Marine mammal monitoring during pile-driving
Responsible Parties
Navy
Performance & Enforcement

Navy will submit monitoring plan to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for approval and implement approved plan Navy oversight of construction and maintenance contractors Navy oversight of construction contractor Mitigation must comply with the Compensatory Mitigation For Losses of Aquatic Resources, Final Rule (USACE & USEPA 2008)
Vegetation clearing and revegetation of the Aid to Navigation (ATN) corridor
Construction and ongoing postconstruction maintenance
Navy
Bird-proofing the ATN and Construction of ATN and offshore platform to prevent platform nesting and perching In-Lieu Fee Program to compensate for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources
Navy
Appropriate credits will be Navy/HCCC/ purchased from the Hood Canal USACE Coordinating Council (HCCC) In-Lieu Fee Program in accordance with the USACE permit terms and conditions
2-12
February 2013
Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System Table 2-2 Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Plans
Timing and Method(s)
Construction: Cable-laying
Draft EA
Mitigation Measure
Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) cable installation method through nearshore and intertidal area Shielding of the navigation hazard light (on offshore platform) in coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Backfill with sediment of a grain size similar to that of existing seafloor conditions
Key: ATN HCCC HDD NMFS USACE USCG USEPA = = = = = = =
Responsible Parties
Navy
Performance & Enforcement

Navy oversight of construction contractor
Construction: Platform
Navy
Navy oversight of construction contractor in coordination with USCG
Construction: Cable-laying (except for Alternative 2 925foot [282 m] cable bundle trench), array, and platform
Navy
Navy oversight of construction contractor
Aid to Navigation Hood Canal Coordinating Council Horizontal directional drilling National Marine Fisheries Service United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Coast Guard United States Environmental Protection Agency
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
2.3
ACTION ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
As noted above, both action alternatives differ from each other in terms of their construction techniques. Specifically, Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would consist of burying the majority of the cable using HDD and jet-plowing. The portion of the cable bundle from the offshore platform to the EMMR system sensor array would not be buried but would be laid on the seafloor and protected with concrete armoring. Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) except the cable bundle would be buried instead of armored. 2.3.1 Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative)
Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would include the components described in Section 2.2.1 (buried sensor array system, offshore platform, and aid to navigation) and a buried cable with armored cable bundle: Buried Cable. Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), the cable from the platform to the sensor array would not be buried but would instead be laid on the seafloor and protected with concrete armoring. A length of 925 linear feet (282 m) of armored cable would run from the platform to the sensor array. Over this length from the array to the platform, there would be 21 cables (one cable for each of the 21 sensors). Concrete armoring would consist of semi-conical-shaped concrete segments, each with a length of 12 feet (3.7 m) and average width of approximately 6 feet (1.8 m; Figure 2-7). While it is assumed that the concrete armoring may settle into the seafloor for a few inches, most of
2-13 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2.3.2
it would protrude above the seafloor (Figure 2-7). Therefore, cable armoring under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would result in a total of approximately 0.13 acre (0.05 ha) of hard bottom structure from concrete armoring. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle
Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), except that cable armoring would not be used for the 925-linear-foot (282-m) cable route from the sensor array to the offshore platform. Instead, the cable along this length would be buried by jet plow approximately 4 feet (1.2 m) below the mudline and backfilled with clean, non-magnetic gravel. The cable bundle would be buried in a trench 12 feet (3.7 m) wide and at a depth of 4 feet on centerline. The jet-plow trench would be backfilled with approximately 904 cubic yards (691 m3) of clean, non-magnetic gravel. This action alternative is carried forward for detailed analysis in order to compare impacts of cable armoring versus cable burying (Figure 2-8). 2.3.3 Alternative 3: No Action
Under the no-action alternative, an EMMR system would not be installed. Submarines, including those homeported at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, would continue to use EMMR system facilities located at Pearl Harbor or San Diego, and operational inefficiencies would persist. The Navy has determined that the no-action alternative would not fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action to provide electromagnetic measurement capability for submarines in the northwest United States. This alternative would not support compliance with the Navys OPNAVINST C8950.2 magnetic signature periodicity requirements and would not provide submarines the means to accomplish their on-board electromagnetic systems calibrations in the Pacific Northwest. However, the no-action alternative is carried forward for analysis as required by 40 CFR 1502.14(d) and constitutes baseline conditions for environmental analysis of the Proposed Action. Table 2-3 summarizes the design, construction, and area of impact for each of the alternatives.
2-14
February 2013
Draft EA
Table 2-3
Summary of the Design, Construction, and Area of Impact by Alternative

Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative; Figure 2-1) Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle (Figure 2-8) Alternative 3: No Action
Construction and Area of Impact Overview Sensor Array System: installation of a 400-foot (122-m) linear sensor array system consisting of 21 sensors total: eight triaxial magnetometer sensors and 13 electromagnetic triaxial sensors. Offshore Platform: construction of a 15- by 15-foot (4.5- by 4.5-m) offshore platform with utilities, requiring installation of five 24-inch (61-cm) square, pre-cast concrete piles. The platform serves as a cable junction that provides a cable/system access point (along with conduits), thereby maximizing the efficiency of system maintenance and reducing the need for dredging for most potential maintenance and repairs. Cable: installation of approximately 9,653 linear feet (2,942 m) of composite cable connecting the sensor array system, via the platform junction box, to the existing Building 7801. Approximately, 9,254 feet (2,821 m) of the total cable length is in-water and 399 feet (122 m) is onshore. Approximately 210 linear feet (64 m) of cable would be laid underground onshore via HDD from an HDD launch pit and electrical manhole at an existing gravel parking lot to Building 7801. Cable length from the onshore launch pit to the offshore platform would be approximately 8,118 linear feet (2,474 m), and cable from the offshore platform to the sensor array would be approximately 925 linear feet (282 m). The cable would also run along the 400-foot (122-m) length of the sensor array. Aid to Navigation: establishing a sector light as an ATN for submarines utilizing the EMMR system. The ATN would be located on the shoreline of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, approximately 6 feet (1.8 m) off Northern Boundary Road and would be approximately 6 feet (1.8 m) high. Construction and Area of Impact Overview Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred 71,394 square feet; 1.64 acres (0.66 ha) = Alternative). 400 feet (122 m; sensor array length) x 140 feet (70 feet [21.3 m] on each side of array center line) + x 702 feet (21.3 m2; dredge area at each end of array is approximately a semicircle with radius of 70 feet [21.3m]). The dredge area is approximately 14 feet [4.3 m] deep vertically with a 5:1 (horizontal: vertical) slope. Therefore, horizontal distance is 70 feet (21.3 m) = 14 feet (4.3 m) x 5 (1.5 m) from center of dredge area. 17,500 cubic yards (13,380 m3) dredged None. An EMMR system would not be established in proximity to NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Submarines, including those homeported at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, would continue utilizing facilities located at Pearl Harbor or San Diego, and substantial operational inefficiencies would persist.
EMMR System Components
Sensor Array System Area of Impact
2-15
February 2013
Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System Table 2-3 Summary of the Design, Construction, and Area of Impact by Alternative
Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative; Figure 2-1) material. Dredged area would be backfilled with 19,250 cubic yards (14,718 m3) of both non-magnetic gravel and backfill with a sediment grain size to match existing seafloor conditions for the top 3 feet (0.9 m). Cable Routes (see Figure 2-1): Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred None. Alternative), except: 400 feet (122 m) of cable bundle contained within the length of the sensor array system (purple segment) 925 feet (282 m) of cable installed by jet plow instead of laid on the 925 feet (282 m) of cable bundle installed on seafloor and armored with concrete seafloor, with concrete armoring from offshore (yellow segment) platform to sensor array system (yellow segment) 6,970 feet (2,124 m) of composite cable installed by jet plow from offshore platform to HDD cable transition area (green segment) 1,148 feet (350 m) of composite cable installed by HDD from HDD cable transition area to HDD launch pit (blue segment) to avoid disturbance to nearshore habitat, such as eelgrass 210 (64 m) of cable installed by HDD from Building 7801 to HDD launch point onshore (orange segment) None. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle (Figure 2-8)
Draft EA
Alternative 3: No Action
Construction
Cable Area of Impact
Cable Route Sensor Cable would be contained within the length of the Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Array (400 feet; 122 m; sensor array system discussed in the Cable Alternative). purple segment) Routes description above. 5,550 square feet; 0.13 acre (0.05 ha) = 6 feet (1.8 m; width of armoring) x 925 feet (282 m; cable length). Cable Bundle (925 feet; 282 m; yellow segment)
11,100 square feet; 0.26 acre (0.10 None. ha) = 12 feet (3.7 m; trench width) x 925 feet (282 m; cable length). 822 cubic yards (629 m3) jetplowed material = 925 feet (282 m; length of cable) x 12 feet (3.7 m; width of trench) x 4 feet (1.2 m; average depth of trench) / 2. The trench will have a 1.5:1 (horizontal:
2-16
February 2013
Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative; Figure 2-1) Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle (Figure 2-8) vertical) slope at a depth of 4 feet (1.2 m), resulting in 6 feet (1.8 m) of jet-plow area on each side of the center line. The trench would be backfilled with 904 cubic yards (691 m3) of gravel in order to protect the cable bundle from damage. Conduit would not be used. 2,827 square feet; 0.07 acre (0.03 ha) 250 cubic yards (191 m3) of dredged material. The transition area would be backfilled with 275 cubic yards (210 m3) of both gravel and backfill with a sediment grain size to match existing seafloor conditions for the top 3 feet (0.9 m). 6,970 square feet; 0.16 acre (0.06 ha) = 1 foot (0.3 m; width of jet-plow channel) x 6,970 feet (2,124 m; cable length). Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). None.
Draft EA
Platform to Cable Transition Area
Cable Route from Cable Transition Area to Offshore Platform (6,970 feet; 2,124 m; green segment)
Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative).
None.
Cable Route from HDD Horizontally/directionally drilled and avoids Launch Point to HDD seafloor. Cable Transition Area (1,148 feet (350 m; blue segment)
Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative).
None.
HDD Cable Transition Area
Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred 2,123 square feet; 0.05 acre (0.02 ha) 220 cubic yards (168 m3) of dredged material Alternative). that would be backfilled with 242 cubic yards (185 m3) of both gravel and backfill with a sediment grain size to match existing seafloor conditions for the top 3 feet (0.9 m). Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative).
None.
Cable Route from Horizontally/directionally drilled and avoids Building 7801 to HDD surface. Launch Point (210 feet; 64 m; orange segment)
None.
2-17
February 2013
Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative; Figure 2-1) Offshore Platform Area of Impact 20 square feet; 0 acre (0 ha) = 2 x 2 feet (24inch [61-cm] piles) x 5 (number of piles). Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle (Figure 2-8) Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative).
Draft EA
Alternative 3: No Action None. None.
Aid to Navigation (ATN) Area of Impact
Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred 28,000 square feet; 0.64 acre (0.26 ha) = 560 by 50 feet (171 by 15 m) of vegetation in Alternative). front of the ATN would be cleared to ensure the ATN is visible to submarines from Hood Canal. Light from the onshore and offshore ATNs would not be visible from the eastern shore of Hood Canal due to light mitigation (screen on light) and barely visible from the western shore of Hood Canal, similar to the existing shoreline lights. >22,500 square feet ; >0.52 acre (>0.21 ha) Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred = 450 feet (137.2 m; sensor array length plus Alternative). 25 feet [7.6 m] on each end) x 50 feet (15.2 m; 25 feet [7.6 m] on each side). Note that on the NOAA navigational chart, the 800-lb-anchor-restricted area would appear larger (as a triangle or circle); therefore, the area is indicated as >0.52 acre (>0.21 ha). See Figure 2-3. Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred 11,250 square feet; 0.26 acre (0.10 ha) = 450 feet (137.2 m; sensor array length plus 25 Alternative). feet [7.6 m] on each end) x 50 feet (15.2 m; 25 feet [7.6 m] on each side) / 2 because half of the area is in waters too deep for authorized geoduck harvest and therefore already excluded. See Figure 2-3. 88,884 square feet; 2.04 acres (0.83 ha) 116,884 square feet; 2.68 acres (1.09 ha) 94,434 square feet; 2.17 acres (0.88 ha) 122,434 square feet; 2.81 acres (1.14 ha)
None.
Anchor Restricted Area
None.
Geoduck Harvesting Restriction Area
Total Area of Impact (In-Water) Total Area of Impact (In-Water and Onshore)
None. None.
2-18
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
2.4
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS
Seven action alternatives were considered for the proposed EMMR system but were eliminated from further analysis because they did not fulfill one or more of the screening criteria indicated previously (Figure 2-9). These action alternatives include: 1) re-activation of a deepwater EMMR system off NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, 2) locating the proposed EMMR system in the existing NRA of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, 3) locating the proposed EMMR system in waters off Naval Magazine Indian Island, 4) updating/repairing the existing Magnetic Silencing Facility, 5) installing a vertical sensor array at the proposed EMMR system location, 6) installing a floating platform structure at the proposed EMMR system location, and 7) utilizing wireless data transmission at the proposed EMMR system location instead of a wired connection. Each of these seven eliminated action alternatives is described below. 2.4.1 Location Alternative: Re-Activate Deepwater EMMR System off NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor
An EMMR system was historically located and utilized in deeper waters of Hood Canal off the existing MSF pier on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. However, non-military watercraft navigation in Hood Canal increased, and the EMMR system was de-activated in the 1990s due to safety concerns and effects of the EMMR system on local non-military watercraft navigation. Specifically, the former sensor array was located at a depth of approximately 150 feet (45.7 m), and submarines utilizing the EMMR system had to dive to periscope depths to effectively pass over the EMMR sensors. Descent to these depths required USCG escorts to clear and exclude a large area of water from surface vessels, consistent with Navy and USCG protocol to ensure safe surfacing of the submarines, and to keep the area clear of surface watercraft for relatively long periods of time. Although the Navy considered re-activation of this EMMR system to fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration for the same reasons that the EMMR system was deactivated. This action alternative location would not enable establishment of the sensor array at a depth of approximately 70 feet (21.3 m). Therefore, this action alternative location would not fulfill the screening criteria identified above and was eliminated from further consideration. 2.4.2 Location Alternative: Existing Navy Restricted Area of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor
The shoreline of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor and the entirety of its existing NRA were considered for the siting of the proposed EMMR system. The existing NRA does not have the necessary combination of navigation room and water depth to support the EMMR system. Due to both the inadequate bathymetry of the shoreline (see Technical Requirements: Seafloor and Seawater Conditions in Section 2.1 above) and the presence of heavily used existing facilities critical to national defense that could interfere with the proper functioning of the EMMR system, no location within the existing NRA could feasibly be utilized without substantial engineering measures, such as the use of trusses, that would make placement of the sensor equipment impractical. The Navy considered the construction of underwater structures that could make possible the establishment of the proposed EMMR system over the seafloor shelf in deeper waters (i.e., construction of railroad trusses); however, this would be infeasible due to both
2-19
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
engineering constraints and the potential for entanglement with anchors and crab pots that could impact the structure and/or pose entanglement safety hazards. For example, a temporary EMMR system was installed in 2008 near the former MSF and was removed by an incident believed to have involved an anchor. In addition, the construction of the EMMR system on an elevated structure would also make it susceptible to potential damage from other material in the water column. In response to public comments received during the initial public involvement period, the Navy re-examined the possibility of locating the EMMR system within the NRA. A location within the northern boundary of the NRA was identified as the best potential location given system requirements, operational requirements, and local conditions (bathymetry, water depth, and magnetic conditions; Figure 2-10). The first two selection criteria, minimizing shallow water transit and utilization of existing homeports, would be fulfilled by establishing the EMMR system at this location. Due to the steep slope of the seafloor, this alternative would require the construction of five or more pilings (one for each sensor where water depth exceeds 70 to 75 feet) and likely grading of the seafloor for level installation of the sensor array. The sensors mounted on the stanchions would be elevated off the seafloor, a setting in which they would be more likely to be damaged. The relatively short distance of the system to the shoreline would likely preclude the need for an offshore platform for cable connections. The cable bundle from the array to shoreline would traverse the nearshore environment where eelgrass has been known to exist, and the cable bundle would also traverse the intertidal zone. The existing decommissioned MSF pier is located within the submarine path for operation of the array, so the pier would need to be demolished. Due to the bathymetry of the location, the array would need to be oriented substantially off an east/west magnetic alignment in order for submarines to maintain speed and heading over the array without colliding with the steeply sloping seafloor. It is unknown whether technology exists that could correct for the discrepancies in both the arrays horizontal and magnetic alignments and enable sufficient EMMR system functionality at this location. When adjusting the arrays orientation for best navigation and maneuverability, the resulting submarine paths proximity to the steeply sloping seafloor was considered an unacceptable risk for safe navigation. This condition becomes more pronounced at periods of low tide, strong winds, and other adverse weather and tidal conditions. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration because it does not fulfill the third and fourth selection criteria: Maneuvering Safety and Navigational Requirements and Technical Requirements (Section 2.1). 2.4.3 Location Alternative: Naval Magazine Indian Island
This alternative location was considered because it offers a sheltered location for the EMMR system and has an existing Navy facility proximal to the EMMR system sites. Additionally, its cable routes would be easily accessible and could be brought to the existing pier, and the existing building on the pier could house EMMR system instrumentation. Adequate depth also appears to be present. However, this alternative site location was eliminated from further analysis because the EMMR system would not be located close to existing submarine transit routes. Submarines utilizing an EMMR system at this location would need to make a detour from existing transit routes, a minimum of nine miles (14.5 km), which would affect both naval operations and nonmilitary watercraft navigation. Additionally, the presence of strong tidal currents would require
2-20 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
that the EMMR system be located more than one mile offshore. Therefore, this action alternative location would not fulfill the screening criteria identified above and was eliminated from further consideration. 2.4.4 Alternative: Update/Repair Existing Magnetic Silencing Facility
This alternative consists of upgrades and repairs to the existing MSF and associated pier at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. This alternative was considered because the MSF has historically provided capability to perform magnetic treatment and measurement of submarines. Over time, equipment at the pier has become obsolete, and much of it has been removed. Due to tidal influences and currents in Hood Canal and at the MSF pier, submarines are only able to arrive and depart the pier on high slack tides. For this reason, safely measuring the magnetic signatures of submarines at the MSF pier has historically required removing a submarine from operation for approximately 24 hours, representing substantial constraints on operations. Therefore, this alternative did not meet the selection criteria because the submarine would have to detour from the existing transit route, and tide conditions would affect the reliability and usefulness of the EMMR system. Upgrades and repairs to the MSF and associated pier would not fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. A submarine must be in motion in order to make electromagnetic measurements, and technology does not currently exist to conduct electric measurement on a docked submarine. Subsequently the MSF was decommissioned in the winter of 2011/2012. Therefore, this action alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 2.4.5 2.4.5.1 Alternative EMMR System Designs Vertical Sensor Array
Under this alternative, the HDD and jet-plow approach from Alternatives 1 and 2 would not be implemented to bury the cable, and dredging would not be performed to bury the sensor array. Instead, the sensor array would be established on a built structure above the seafloor, and the cable would be laid on the seafloor. Under this alternative, the sensor array and cable would be installed as described below. Vertical Sensor Array. The sensor array would stand vertically on the seafloor on a built structure. The 400-foot (122-m) sensor array structure would stand at a height of more than 5 feet (1.5 m) above the seafloor. Due to the exposure of sensitive equipment above the seafloor and the anchoring hazard it would pose, a new NRA would be designated on the NOAA navigational charts, for both the area directly above the sensor array and the areas surrounding it. A new NRA of 4.24 acres (1.72 ha) would be created to form a corridor around the sensor array. This area would likely need to be actively patrolled to restrict all unauthorized access within the NRA. Cable. The underwater cable would not be buried, and the entire length of the proposed cable would instead be installed with concrete armoring. Under this alternative, approximately 9,043 linear feet (2,406 m) of composite cable, between the onshore launch site, platform, and cable array, would be laid on top of the seafloor and covered with concrete armoring consisting of semi-conical-shaped concrete segments, each with a length of 12 feet (3.7 m) and average width of approximately 6 feet (1.8 m). Cable armoring under this alternative would result in a total of approximately 1.1 acres (0.5 ha) of hard structure on the seafloor.
2-21 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
This alternative was eliminated from further consideration because it did not meet the avoidance and minimization of adverse environmental impacts screening criteria. Specifically, this alternative would result in unacceptable conflicts with existing shellfish harvesting and fishing, navigation, and recreation activities resulting from the establishment of a new NRA of approximately 4.24 acres (1.72 ha) in Hood Canal that would be needed to adequately protect an EMMR system with a vertical array. 2.4.5.2 Floating Platform Structure
This alternative was considered in response to public comment received during the initial public involvement period. This alternative considered a lower profile structure, similar to a floating dock. This approach would require pilings to hold the structure at the location; smaller pilings can typically be used for floating structures. However, due to the nature of the platform function, a floating platform would not be practical. Specifically, the cabling to the junction box would be subject to entanglement and damage from tidal movements. Additionally, a stand-alone floating platform structure, and corresponding system components, at this depth would be subject to major damage in storm events. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration because it was not technically feasible. 2.4.5.3 Wireless Data Transmission
This alternative was considered in response to public comment received during the initial public involvement period. This alternative would consider transmitting data wirelessly from the EMMR system to the existing onshore building to measure electromagnetic signatures. At this time, the technologies do not exist to reliably transmit the quantities of data under local conditions and over the distances needed to operate the EMMR system. Additionally, a power cable is still needed to supply power to the EMMR system during operation, so wireless data transmission would not eliminate the need for cabling altogether. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration because it was not technically feasible.
2-22
February 2013
-1
70
-15
0 13
Figure 2-1 Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington
Legend
Bathymetry Contours
Hood Canal

Sensor Array (400 ft / 122 m) / Buried Cable Route (925 ft / 282 m) / Concrete Armor Cable Route (6,970 ft / 2,124 m) / Jet-Plow Cable Route (1,148 ft / 350 m) / HDD Cable Route (210 ft / 64 m) / HDD Offshore Platform / Pile Driving (15 ft x 15 ft / 4.5 m x 4.5 m) Aid to Navigation Sensor Array Dredge Area
-80
-7
-40
-20
0
2-23
-100
Jefferson County
Po u l s b o

-13
0 -11
-3
-10
Silv er da le
Kitsap County
WA
Aid to Navigation
60 -1 -140 0 -12 -90 -60
-5
0 0
1,000 300
Figure 2-2 Sensor Array Profile Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington Legend
Note: This figure provides information for Alternatives 1 and 2.
2-24
Jefferson County
! Pou l s bo
Sil ve rdal e
Kitsap County
WA
Source: ESRI, 2012; NAVFAC, 2012; Dept.of Defense - Navy, 2011; Finlayson, 2005.
0 -8
Anchoring Restriction Area for Vessels > 150 ft and Anchors > 800 lbs
-140
-1
70
>0.26 acre (>0.10 ha)

-60
Figure 2-3 Anchoring and Geoduck Harvesting Restricted Areas Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington
>0.52 acre (>0.21 ha)

-7
0 0
-1
30
Legend
Anchoring Restriction Area (50 ft Buffer) Geoduck Harvesting Restricted Area Navy Restricted Area Streets
-15
Bathymetry Contours
25
-5
Johnso n Rd NW
100
200 Feet Meters 50
Sensor Array (400 ft / 122 m)
Cable Route (925 ft / 282 m)
Cable Route (6,970 ft / 2,124 m) Cable Route (1,148 ft / 350 m) Cable Route (210 ft / 64 m)
Hood Canal
-80
-90
-60
Weed Ln
Baylor Ct
Aldo Rd NW
Cl e ar Cr e e
kR
dN
-50
-40
-20
0
Offshore Platform (15 ft x 15 ft / 4.5 m x 4.5 m) Aid to Navigation
Carmella Rd NW
Lorinda Rd NW
-12 0 -11
0
N orth ern
Brandon P l
NW
30 -1 00 -1 0 -7
60 -1 40 -1
Am
c rja be
Pintado Rd
2-25
Jefferson County
Po u l s b o
-30
-10
Loma St
L ak enes
s Rd
Silv er da le
Aid to Navigation
kA
ve
Orilla St Bo un da ry Rd
Kitsap County
WA
Parris Rd
0 0 1,000 300 2,000 Feet Meters 600
Source: Source: Esri, 2012; NAVFAC, 2012; Dept.of Defense - Navy, 2011; Finlayson, 2005.
Figure 2-4 Offshore Platform Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington Legend
2-26
Jefferson County
! Pou l s bo
Sil ve rdal e
Kitsap County
WA
Figure 2-5 Building 7801 and HDD Launch Site Plan Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington Legend
Jefferson County
! Pou l s bo
Sil ve rdal e
Kitsap County
WA
2-27
2-28
Figure 2-6 Aid to Navigation Site Plan Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington
Legend
AID TO NAVIGATION
Jefferson County
! Pou l s bo
AID TO NAVIGATION
Sil ve rdal e
Kitsap County
WA
2-29
2-30
Figure 2-7 Cable Armoring Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington Legend
Note: This figure provides information for Alternative 1.
2-31
Jefferson County
! Pou l s bo
Sil ve rdal e
Kitsap County
WA
-140
Jet-Plow Volume: 822 cubic yards (629 m3) Backfill Volume: 904 cubic yards (691 m3)
-1
70
-15 0
-1 30
-7
Figure 2-8 Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington
Legend
Bathymetry Contours
Hood Canal
Sensor Array (400 ft / 122 m) / Buried
Cable Route (925 ft / 282 m) / Jet-Plow Cable Route (1,148 ft / 350 m) / HDD Cable Route (210 ft / 64 m) / HDD Offshore Platform / Pile Driving (15 ft x 15 ft / 4.5 m x 4.5 m)
Cable Route (6,970 ft / 2,124 m) / Jet-Plow
-40
-20
0
Aid to Navigation
2-32
-100
Sensor Array Dredge Area
Jefferson County
Po u l s b o

-13
0 -11
-3
-10
Silv er da le
Kitsap County
WA
Aid to Navigation
60 -1 -140 0 -12 -90 -60 -80
-5
0 0
1,000 300
NAVMAG Indian Island (Approximately 9 mile Detour)
Figure 2-9 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington Legend
Military Installation Boundary Navy Restricted Area County Boundary Interstate Highway
NAVMAG Indian Island Clallam
Island
Deep Water EMMR Historical Location
Approximate Submarine Route
Detour to/from Indian Island
na
Sil ve rdal e
405
Ho
Re-Activate Deep Water EMMR off NBK-Bangor
od
Ca
Vertical Sensor Array Upgrade/Repair to Existing MSF of NBK-Bangor

Pou l s bo
Snohomish
Ol y m pia
Pu get So un d
2-33
101
Jefferson
Oa k Ha rbo r
Everett
Pou l s bo S e a t tl e
Existing Near Shore Water Restricted Area of NBK-Bangor
WA

Sil ve rdal e
Puget Sound Keyport NUWC King

5
0 0 7
10 Miles Kilometers 14
Kitsap
Figure 2-10 Navy Restricted Area Alternative Previously Considered but Eliminated Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington Legend
Military Installation Boundary Approximate Location of the Sensor Array System Approximate Location of the Submarine Path
2-34
Jefferson County
! Pou l s bo
Sil ve rdal e
Kitsap County
WA
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 3.1.1 MARINE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Bathymetry
Bathymetry refers to the topography of the seafloor. Bathymetric conditions in Hood Canal affect seawater movement due to tides and currents and play a key role in providing suitable habitat for benthic organisms and eelgrass in this area. 3.1.1.1 Affected Environment
Hood Canal is a fjord-like body of water with steep sides and an irregular seafloor bottom. In Northern Hood Canal, maximum water depths vary between 300 and 420 feet (91 to 128 m); however, the typical depths at the centerline of the waterway are between 150 and 300 feet (45 and 91 m). Figure 1-1 illustrates the bathymetry in the northern portion of Hood Canal. In the vicinity of the proposed EMMR sensor array, the seafloor drops from the shoreline relatively gently (a 2.3-percent grade) to a depth of 130 feet (40 m), where the mid-canal seafloor flattens out. In the area of the proposed HDD hole, the seafloor drops to mid-canal depths much more steeply (a 7-percent grade). Figure 2-1 illustrates the nearshore bathymetry in the Proposed Action area. 3.1.1.2 Environmental Consequences
The evaluation of impacts to the bathymetric setting of Hood Canal considers whether substantial changes would occur to the seafloor topography due to construction and operation of the EMMR system. Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts At the sensor array, a temporary depression in the seafloor would be created before installation of the sensor array. Following installation, the sensor array would be buried, and the seafloor would be returned to its natural topographic surface. A short-term impact would occur to bathymetry at the sensor array area from dredging, but this impact would be less than significant. Installation of the buried cable would disturb a relatively narrow (approximately 1-foot-wide [0.3 m]) corridor on the seafloor. During jet-plow operations, disturbed sediment would immediately slough back into the plowed trench, leaving a small, linear depression in the seafloor substrate. The seafloor along this corridor would return to its natural topographic surface after several tidal cycles level the bottom substrate along the plowed corridor. As a result, the impact to bathymetry from construction would be short-term, localized, and less than significant.
3-1
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
At the time of installation, the cable bundle armoring between the platform and the sensor array would protrude a maximum of approximately 3 feet (0.9 m) above the seafloor surface. Over time it is likely that tide-induced sediment movement would also accrete along the armoring edges. The presence of the cable bundle armoring would change the seafloor surface along the 925 foot (282 m) corridor between the off-shore platform and the sensor array. This change would impact bathymetry in Hood Canal; however, the impact would not be significant because the area of impact is localized, and the bathymetric change of a maximum of 3 feet (0.9 m) is negligible when compared to other natural and man-made bathymetric anomalies such as current-induced pits and shoals, buoy and dock anchors, and other in-water infrastructure in Hood Canal. Operation Impacts When the EMMR system would be used, there would be a minimum of 30 feet (9 m) of clearance between the seafloor and the bottom of submarines passing over the EMMR system at low tide. Propeller wash effects on seafloor conditions have been evaluated in a study involving large vessels, which showed that in waters greater than 7.5 m deep, changes to seafloor conditions from propeller wash are negligible (AMOG Consulting 2010). Therefore, submarine propeller wash would not affect seafloor topography in the Proposed Action area during operation of the EMMR system. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Construction Impacts Construction impacts to the seafloor bottom would be the same under Alternative 2 as for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), except for those associated with the cable bundle corridor between the platform and the sensor array. In this corridor, the seafloor would be disturbed more than it would under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) due to the jet-plowed trench installation of the cable bundle. The impact would be short-term because the excavation would be backfilled; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Operation Impacts Impacts to bathymetry from operations of Alternative 2 would be the same as described for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 3: No Action No changes to bathymetry would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. 3.1.2 Geology and Sediments
This section addresses geologic materials, including shoreline and nearshore bluff deposits, and sediment transport and quality on the seafloor of Hood Canal in and near the Proposed Action area. The integrity of shoreline and nearshore bluff deposits is a factor in providing important habitat for certain bird and animal species, and erosion of these deposits could affect adjacent private property. Sediment transport and sediment quality contribute to the provision of suitable habitat for marine organisms.
3-2 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3.1.2.1
Affected Environment
The nearshore setting in the Proposed Action area includes a generally low-gradient beach consisting of cobbles and gravels on the surface and finer sandy materials underlying these coarse surface materials. The beach is backed by a steep bluff, with the bluff crest ranging in height from approximately 50 to 150 feet (15.3 to 45.7 m) above the beach. The bluff is composed of Vashon Till, a gravelly sandy soil unit that is moderately resistant to erosion (Johannessen and MacLennan 2007). The bluff slopes are generally heavily vegetated. Some localized areas of bluff erosion and slumping have occurred along the shoreline, forming a zone of colluvium that buffers wave erosion of the bluff toe. Private residences are situated along the bluff crest adjacent to most of the Proposed Action area. Shoreline armoring with riprap along the bluff toe has been installed adjacent to some of the upland properties. Riprap has been installed to protect these upland properties from natural erosion induced by wind-driven waves and from wakes caused by existing vessel traffic in Hood Canal (see Section 3.9.1). The mean significant wave height (highest one-third of wind-driven waves) in Hood Canal at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is 1.65 feet (0.5 m; WSDOT 2008). At high tide, the waters of Hood Canal reach nearly to the bluff toe (E&E 2012). Figure 3.1-1 illustrates a generalized cross-section of the nearshore geomorphology in the Proposed Action area. Marine sediments in Hood Canal are derived from recessional glacial deposits from the last ice age and from more recent alluvial deposits originating from erosion and transport of soil materials from adjacent beaches, bluffs, and uplands. Exploratory seafloor bottom borings were drilled in the Proposed Action area in 2010 (Shannon and Wilson 2010). Table 3.1-1 summarizes the sediment characteristics at the seafloor surface in the Proposed Action area.
Table 3.1-1
Sensor Array Offshore Platform HDD Exit Hole Cable Route From HDD Exit Hole to Offshore Platform
Source: Shannon and Wilson 2010 Key: HDD = horizontal directional drilling
Seafloor Sediment Characteristics

Location Sediment Characteristics
Clayey, fine sandy silt with trace organics and shell fragments Gravelly, silty sand with trace organics and shell fragments Silty, fine sand with scattered organics and shell fragments Silty sand with scattered organics and shell fragments
26 27 28 29 30 31
Sediment transport is caused by wind, waves, and tidal currents. In the Proposed Action area, a net northward long-shore drift occurs, which would transport surface sediments to the north (Navy 2012a). This drift is likely less evident in deeper waters than in nearshore areas.
3-3
February 2013
Figure 3.1-1 Generalized Shoreline Geomorphology in Proposed Action Area Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington
Residence
Bluff Crest
Note: This image is applicable to low tide. During high tide, the water level would be up to the rip rap.
Bluff Toe Colluvium Rip Rap Shoreline Armoring
Sandy Gravelly Vashon Till
3-4
Cobbly Sandy Beach Hood Canal Mean High Tide Line
Source: ESRI, 2012; NAVFAC, 2012; Dept. of Defense - Navy, 2011; Finlayson, 2005.
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Sediment quality testing has not been conducted within the Proposed Action area; therefore, there is no current baseline for establishing the presence of any chemical contaminants. However, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) conducts routine monitoring of bottom sediments in Puget Sound, including Hood Canal, as part of its Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP). One PSAMP sample station (station number SP-152) is located approximately 1,800 linear feet west of the proposed sensor array area, near the mid-channel of Hood Canal. Sediment samples were collected from this station in 2004 and were analyzed for a wide range of chemicals. Chemicals detected in the sediment samples included inorganic elements and several organic compounds (Ecology 2012a). However, none of the contaminant concentrations detected in the sediment samples exceeded Washington Marine Sediment Quality Standards (WAC 173-204-320). Table 3.1-2 summarizes these data.
Table 3.1-2 Summary of Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program Station SP-152 Sediment Sample Results
Maximum Detected Concentration (mg/kg)
4.03 0.26 30.2 14.1 6.8 0.038 50 0.086 0.078 0.112 0.129 0.110 0.082 0.494 0.033 0.043 0.111 0.052 0.020 0.104 0.0096 0.122
Chemical
Inorganic Elements Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Zinc Organic Compounds Acenaphthene Acenaphthalene Anthracene Benz(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzoic Acid Benzyl Alcohol Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-N-butylphthalate Di-N-octylphthalate Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Dibenzofuran Fluoranthene
Washington Marine Sediment Quality Standard (mg/kg)
57 5.1 260 390 450 0.41 410 16 66 220 110 99 31 650 57 47 110 220 58 12 15 160
3-5
February 2013
Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System Table 3.1-2
Draft EA
Summary of Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program Station SP-152 Sediment Sample Results
Maximum Detected Concentration (mg/kg)
0.067 0.111 0.082 0.072 0.103 2.30 0.084
Chemical
Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-C,D)pyrene 2-Methylnaphthalene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene
Source: Ecology 2012a Key: mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
Washington Marine Sediment Quality Standard (mg/kg)

23 34 38 99 100 420 1,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Bottom sediments in the Proposed Action area would be expected to be similar in quality to the sediments sampled for PSAMP as summarized in Table 3.1-2 and; therefore, would not be contaminated. This assumption is further supported by the lack of historical industrial activity in the immediate area and by the Washington Department of Healths authorization for commercial harvesting of geoducks from beds within and near the Proposed Action area (WDNR 2011). The Navy will sample sediments in the sensor array area prior to construction. This sampling will be conducted to determine the materials suitability for in-water disposal under the Washington Dredged Materials Management Program (DMMP) and to support the CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certificate. 3.1.2.2 Environmental Consequences
The evaluation of impacts to geology and sediments considers whether changes would occur to the shoreline geomorphology from increased erosion, to bottom sediment transport patterns, and to sediment quality from construction and operation of the EMMR system. Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts Shoreline erosion from the wake-wash of vessels is a factor of the following conditions (WSDOT 1993): Vessel speed, length, and displacement; Distance of the vessel from the shoreline; and Existing currents and waves of the waterway.
3-6
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
In addition to these factors, the frequency of vessels passing a shoreline contributes to the amount of cumulative shoreline erosion. Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), construction would involve surface vessels transiting the Proposed Action area during up to two separate, approximately six-month-long, construction periods. Surface vessels anticipated to be deployed for construction include barges, tugs, and small work boats. These vessels would be operating at relatively low speeds (less than 10 knots) or would be stationary during construction of the EMMR system. With the exception of small watercraft used to transport workers to the construction area, all construction-related watercraft would operate no closer than 0.2 mile (320 m) to the eastern Hood Canal shoreline. Based on expected maximum wake heights and energies generated by construction vessels operating at low speeds, it is possible that wakes from construction vessels would reach the eastern shore of Hood Canal in the Proposed Action area. Vessel wakes reaching the shoreline could contribute to erosion of the toe of bluffs along the shoreline in areas that have not been armored with riprap but only at high-tide levels because of the gravelly beach substrate exposed at low and mid-tide levels. The incremental increase in bluff toe erosion from construction vessel wakes would be negligible when compared to existing sources of beach and bluff erosion, including recreational and commercial vessel traffic wakes in Hood Canal and naturally occurring storm-generated waves. Dredging operations at the HDD exit hole, the off-shore platform, and at the sensor array would disturb the seafloor bottom temporarily. However, there would be no changes to sediment transport patterns in the Proposed Action area from construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) due to the short duration of bottom-disturbing activities or use of in-water equipment that would be deployed during construction. The Navy will require the construction contractor(s) to implement the following BMPs during construction to minimize or eliminate the potential for effects to sediment quality in the Proposed Action area: Development and implementation of a construction Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan; Development and implementation of a construction Debris Management Plan; and Compliance with terms of the dredging permit. With implementation of these BMPs, contaminant introduction from potential spills/releases during construction would be minimized, and sediment quality would continue to meet Washington Marine Sediment Quality Standards. Therefore, no significant long-term adverse construction-related impacts to geology and sediments in the Proposed Action area would be expected from constructing the EMMR system under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative).
3-7
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Operation Impacts Operation of the EMMR system would involve a submarine and its USCG escort vessels transiting the Proposed Action area approximately five times per month. This level of submarine activity is the same as current conditions; however, operation of the EMMR system would result in submarines and escort vessels using transit routes that are closer to the eastern shoreline of Hood Canal than are currently used. The largest wakes during operation of the EMMR system would be generated by the Ohio/Trident class submarines, with an approximate displacement of 16,764 tons (17,033 metric tons; Navy 2012b), traveling at a maximum of 10 knots in the Proposed Action area. The submarines would operate at a minimum distance of 0.38 mile (0.61 km) from the eastern Hood Canal shoreline in the Proposed Action area. Figure 3.1-2 includes a photograph of an Ohio/Trident class submarine wake generated at a transit speed similar to those that would occur in the Proposed Action area.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Figure 3.1-2 Ohio/Trident Class Submarine Wake
The USCG escort vessels would operate in the Proposed Action area at speeds between 0 and 10 knots and would transit the area at approximately the same distance from the shoreline as the submarines. However, the USCG escort vessels would continue to be capable of intercepting other vessels potentially closer to the shoreline. Little information is available to estimate the exact size and nature of wake wash that a specific vessel will generate (WSDOT 1993). However, it is known that vessels with a high length-tobeam ratio, such as a submarine, will create less wake wash than those with a low length-tobeam ratio, such as a commercial shipping or fishing vessel (WSDOT 1993). A tanker vessel of similar length and displacement to an Ohio-class submarine but with a lower length-to-beam ratio, traveling at 14 knots, generates an estimated maximum wake height of 1.1 feet (0.3 m) in open water at a distance of 1,000 feet (305 m) from the vessel sailing line (WSDOT 1993). With a higher length-to-beam ratio, lower speed (10 knots), and at twice the distance (greater than 2,000 feet [610 m] from center of array to shoreline), the largest submarine (Ohio-class) using the EMMR system would be expected to generate an open water wake with a height less than
3-8
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
1.1 feet before the wake reaches the eastern shoreline of Hood Canal. This wake height is less than the mean significant wave height (i.e., wind-driven waves) in Hood Canal at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Vessel wakes reaching the Hood Canal shoreline during high tides can contribute to erosion of the toe of bluffs along the shoreline in areas that have not been armored with riprap. Contribution to bluff erosion from operation of the EMMR system would occur from submarines and escort vessels transiting the Proposed Action area, potentially closer to the eastern Hood Canal shoreline than they currently transit, and particularly during the highest tidal levels. For the purposes of analysis, the highest tidal levels are conservatively estimated to occur within one hour before and after the highest daily high tide (approximately 8.3 percent of the time the EMMR system would be used). Therefore, it is conservatively estimated that vessels utilizing the EMMR system would generate wakes no higher than 1.1 feet at the base of bluffs on the eastern Hood Canal shoreline for a maximum total duration of approximately 2 minutes per month (8.3 percent of the 25-minute average monthly operating time). This contribution to bluff toe erosion would be negligible when compared to existing sources of bluff erosion. Operation of the EMMR system would include the presence of pilings associated with the platform structure. The five pilings supporting the platform would have a cross-section of 24 inches (61 cm) each. The pilings would be spaced approximately 10 feet apart on the seafloor surface. Given the piling spacing and the minimal combined surface area of the pilings at the seafloor surface, significant changes to sediment transport processes would be unlikely. The concrete cable bundle armoring between the platform and sensor array would protrude a maximum of approximately 3 feet (0.9 m) above the seafloor surface. The protruding cable bundle armoring would cause a disruption of the predominantly long-term northward transport of seafloor sediment. Sediments could accumulate on the southern side of the armoring, and sediment deposition could be reduced immediately to the north of the armoring. This would create a long-term impact to sediment transport in this area; however, the impact would not be significant because sediment transport at the depths where the armoring would be placed is expected to be less dynamic than in areas closer to shore with less cross-canal seafloor gradient. All other in-water infrastructure associated with operation of the EMMR system would be buried in the seafloor sediments; therefore, no changes would occur to sediment transport patterns from this infrastructure. No changes would occur to sediment quality from operation of the EMMR system because none of the operational activities would involve disturbance to or introduction of contaminants to the seafloor sediments in the Proposed Action area. Therefore, no significant, long-term, operationsrelated adverse impacts to geology and sediments would be expected from operating the EMMR system under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Similarly to Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), wakes from construction vessels and submarines using the EMMR system under Alternative 2 would reach the eastern Hood Canal shoreline in the Proposed Action area. Sediment transport patterns would be changed in areas
3-9 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
where above-bottom structures would be built. With the implementation of BMPs, sediment quality would not be affected by construction or operation of the EMMR system. Construction Impacts Construction impacts to shoreline geomorphology, sediment transport patterns, and sediment quality would be the same under Alternative 2 as under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Operation Impacts Operation impacts would be the same under Alternative 2 as under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), except for changes to sediment transport patterns expected along the cable bundle corridor between the platform and the sensor array. Under Alternative 2, the absence of cable armoring would eliminate anticipated localized impacts to sediment transport patterns. No significant, long-term adverse impacts to geology and sediments would be anticipated from operating the EMMR system under Alternative 2. Alternative 3: No Action No changes to geology and sediments would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. 3.1.2.3 Permits and Consultation
The Navy will obtain a 401 CWA water quality certification from Ecology and a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Navy will also obtain a suitability determination for in-water disposal of dredged materials from the Washington DMMP. 3.1.3 Water Resources
This section addresses marine water quality, as well as water circulation and stratification conditions in Hood Canal. 3.1.3.1 Affected Environment
Washington surface water quality standards are the basis for protecting and regulating the quality of surface waters in Washington State. The standards implement portions of the federal CWA by specifying the designated and potential uses of waterbodies in the state. They set water quality criteria to protect those uses and acknowledge limitations. The standards also contain policies to protect high-quality waters (antidegradation) and specify how criteria are to be implemented. Water quality criteria for marine waters are developed to provide protection for designated uses. Criteria may be numeric (i.e., not to exceed some concentration) or narrative. Water quality criteria are applied alongside the designated use associated with every waterbody in the state. Individual numeric criteria are based on specific data and scientific assessment of adverse effects. The numeric criteria specify limits and/or ranges of chemical concentrations, such as oxygen, or physical conditions, (e.g., water temperature). Numeric water quality criteria are specified in WAC-173-210A.
3-10
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Water quality in Hood Canal offshore of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is generally good and meets applicable water quality standards (Hafner and Dolan 2009). Water quality has also been deemed suitable for commercial geoduck harvesting by the Washington Department of Health (WDNR 2011). A portion of the waters in the Proposed Action area; however, are included on Washington States list of impaired waterways under the CWA (Section 303(d) list). This listing is due to low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels and includes waters in the area of the proposed sensor array, platform, cable, and cable bundle (Ecology 2012b). Water quality has been monitored in Hood Canal along the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront as part of several studies conducted between 2005 and 2008. Water quality parameters in Hood Canal, including DO and turbidity, were measured during the studies noted above, and the results are summarized below. Dissolved Oxygen Low DO levels have been detected in Hood Canal. Low DO levels are harmful to aquatic organisms and can result from increased nutrient availability (from fertilizers or septic systems), changes in ocean conditions, changes in river water quality flowing into Hood Canal, and weather conditions. The low DO levels observed in Hood Canal are most common in the southern portion of the canal. In Northern Hood Canal, low DO is less pronounced. Based on measurements collected between 2005 and 2008, DO concentrations in nearshore waters have typically met water quality standards for DO. The listing of waters adjacent to the Proposed Action area as impaired is due to DO concentrations measured during the late 1990s (HCDOP 2009). Turbidity and Water Circulation Turbidity is a measure of the amount of suspended solids in water. High turbidity levels can raise water temperatures and reduce the light available for marine plant photosynthesis. Mean turbidity measurements taken during the 2005 to 2008 water quality studies ranged from 0 to 9.9 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs). All but one water quality monitoring event showed turbidity levels to be within water quality standards for extraordinary water quality (Phillips et. al. 2009; Hafner and Dolan 2009). Tidal currents and the resulting water circulation patterns in Hood Canal is complex due to the bathymetric setting of the basin as well as the tidal regime. Seawater that enters Hood Canal from Puget Sound on incoming tidal cycles tends to be cooler, more saline, and more oxygenated relative to the Hood Canal waters. As a result, this incoming Puget Sound water tends to sink to the bottom of Hood Canal as it moves south during incoming tides, while the lower density Hood Canal water tends to remain in the upper water column. This results in a net inward flow at depths greater than 160 feet (49 m) and a net outward flow at depths less than 160 feet (49 m). Flow rates in the center of the canal have been measured at 0.07 foot (0.02 m) per second in the deeper stratified water layer, and 0.11 foot (0.03 m) per second in the surface layer (EvansHamilton, Inc. and DR Systems, Inc. 1987).
3-11
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
3.1.3.2
Environmental Consequences
The evaluation of impacts to water resources considers whether changes would occur to water quality or to water circulation patterns from construction and operation of the EMMR system. Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts Construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) could potentially release pollutants to Hood Canal that could affect DO, turbidity, and aqueous chemical contaminant concentrations. Potential pollutant release mechanisms include accidental spills of petroleum products or chemicals, inadvertent releases or discharges of construction-related materials or waste, and accidental releases of drilling fluid during HDD drilling operations. The Navy will require the construction contractor(s) to implement BMPs during construction to minimize or eliminate the potential for adverse effects on water quality from accidental releases of drilling fluid during HDD drilling operations. These include: Development and implementation of a construction SPCC Plan; Development and implementation of a construction Debris Management Plan; Compliance with terms of the dredging permit; Development and implementation of a construction Stormwater Management Plan for all upland construction; and Development and implementation of an HDD Drilling Plan, which would include specific procedures to prevent accidental releases of drilling fluid and procedures to protect water quality if accidental releases occur during drilling operations. With implementation of these BMPs, spills/releases of construction-related materials would be minimized, and no significant long-term adverse impacts would occur to water quality (DO, turbidity, chemical contamination). Jet-plow operations along the cable corridor between the HDD exit hole and the off-shore platform would release suspended solids (sediment material) into the water column. This would affect turbidity levels in the immediate vicinity of the jet-plow operations and could result in localized, temporary exceedances of Washington State marine water quality standards for turbidity. Suspended-solid plumes could spread up to an estimated 500 feet (152 m) from jetplowing, though most sediment (80 to 90 percent) would be expected to settle out within 20 feet of the cable trench corridor within several hours following completion of jet-plowing operations (BPA 2007). Dredging operations at the sensor array, off-shore platform, and HDD exit hole would result in temporarily increased turbidity in waters within the Proposed Action area, as described below.
3-12
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Dredged material would be placed into an in-water disposal site in accordance with the Washington DMMP. At the sensor array, 17,500 cubic yards (13,380 m3) of material would be dredged. This material has been characterized by near-surface sediment sampling (top 10 feet; 3 m) conducted in 2010. The sediment samples contained fine-grained materials (fines, less than 0.08 mm) at levels of 77.9 percent and 82.8 percent (Shannon and Wilson 2010). The relatively high percentage of fines in these sediments indicate the likelihood that sediment resuspension would occur during dredging operations. This resuspension of fines would result in a plume with turbidity levels that would likely exceed the Washington State marine water quality standard for extraordinary water quality (increase of 5 NTUs above background). At the offshore platform cable transition area, 250 cubic yards (191 m3) of material would be dredged. This material has been characterized by collection and testing of near-surface sediment samples (top 11.5 feet; 3.5 m) and found to contain fines ranging from 11.6 percent to 13.3 percent (Shannon and Wilson 2010). Dredging at the offshore platform would be expected to result in resuspension of fines and would generate a turbidity plume that would exceed marine water quality standards. However, this plume would be smaller than the plume generated by the dredging operation at the sensor array because of the lower percentage of fines and smaller quantity of dredged material offshore. At the HDD exit hole (cable transition area), 220 cubic yards (168 m3) of material would be dredged. This material has been characterized by near-surface sediment sampling (top 7.5 feet; 2.3 m) and found to contain fines ranging from 18.1 to 20.4 percent (Shannon and Wilson 2010). Dredging at the HDD exit hole would be expected to result in resuspension of fines and generate a turbidity plume that would exceed marine water quality standards. However, similar to the plume of the offshore platform dredging operation, this plume would be smaller than the plume generated by the dredging operation at the sensor array because of the lower percentage of fines and smaller quantity of dredged material. All of the resuspended sediment plumes would be expected to dissipate within one tidal cycle (12 hours) following the completion of dredging operations and settle on the seafloor adjacent to the dredged areas. Following the completion of all dredging operations, turbidity levels would return to background levels within the Proposed Action area. The dredged areas would be partially backfilled with gravel material that is certified contaminant free. The gravel placement would not be anticipated to generate significant suspended solids in the water column or affect turbidity levels. The placement of sediment with grain size to match seafloor conditions on top of gravel in the dredged areas would be expected to release suspended solids into the water column. This release would temporarily increase turbidity levels in the immediate vicinity; however, similar to the sediment plumes generated from dredging, these plumes would be expected to dissipate within one tidal cycle following completion of sediment placement. In summary, there would be short-term and localized adverse impacts to water quality from increased turbidity associated with jet-plowing, dredging, and backfilling operations under
3-13
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). These impacts would be temporary (during and immediately following jet-plowing, dredging, and backfilling operations) and partially offset by adherence to dredging permit conditions and a dredging operations plan to reduce sediment resuspension. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. There would be no impacts on water circulation patterns from construction due to the short duration that in-water equipment would be deployed. Operation Impacts The EMMR system would not change water quality conditions in Hood Canal. The in-water infrastructure would not contain any materials or substances that could leak, spill, or leach into the water column and affect existing DO, turbidity, or aqueous chemical contaminant concentrations. The in-water infrastructure associated with the EMMR system would not modify water circulation patterns in Hood Canal because most of the infrastructure would be buried beneath the seafloor. Permanent in-water components of the EMMR system that would be located above the seafloor, including the pilings supporting the platform, would be small, thus would not affect the overall water circulation patterns in Hood Canal. As a result, there would be no long-term significant impacts to water resources from operation of the EMMR system under this alternative. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Similarly to Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), water quality could be affected by release of pollutants during construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 2. Water circulation patterns would not be substantially modified by new in-water structures. Construction Impacts Construction impacts to water circulation patterns would be the same under Alternative 2 as under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Impacts to water quality would be greater under Alternative 2 than Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Additional jet-plowing for the cable bundle between the platform and the sensor array under Alternative 2 would release suspended solids into the water column. This would affect turbidity levels in the immediate vicinity of the jet-plow operations and could result in localized exceedances of Washington State marine water quality standards for turbidity. The suspended solids from jet-plowing and backfilling operations would be expected to dissipate within one tidal cycle and settle locally to the seafloor. As a result, construction impacts would be localized and short term and, therefore, not significant. Operation Impacts Operation impacts to water quality and water circulation patterns under Alternative 2 would be the same as those under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative).
3-14
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Alternative 3: No Action No changes to water resources would occur due to construction or operation of an EMMR system. 3.1.3.3 Permits and Consultation
The Navy will consult with Ecology and obtain a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the CWA. 3.2 NOISE
The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON 1992) defines noise as unwanted sound. More specifically, Federal Interagency Committee on Noise defines noise as any sound that is undesirable because it interferes with communication, is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. Human response to sound can vary depending on several factors, including the type and characteristics of the noise source, distance between the noise source and the receptor, sensitivity of the receptor, and time of day. Due to wide variations in sound levels, measurements are reported in decibels (dB), which is a unit of measure based on a logarithmic scale (e.g., a 10-dB increase corresponds to a 100-percent increase in perceived sound). Noise impacts to humans are commonly assessed by quantifying sound levels. As a result, sound levels are weighted to correspond to the same frequency range that humans hear (approximately 20 Hertz [Hz] to 20 kilohertz)this is referred to as Aweighted and often measured in dBA. To make comparisons between sound levels, dB sound levels are always referenced to a standard intensity at a standard distance from the source. Humans, under most conditions, can detect changes in noise in 5-dB increments (USEPA 1974). In many cases, sound levels are not corrected for standard distance and reflect levels as measured at the receivers location. Table 3.2-1 summarizes commonly used terms to describe underwater sounds. Two common descriptors are the instantaneous peak SPL and the root mean square (rms) SPL (dB rms) during the pulse or over a defined averaging period. The peak pressure is the instantaneous maximum or minimum overpressure observed during each pulse or sound event and is presented in Pascals (Pa) or dB referenced to a pressure of one micropascal (dB re: 1 Pa). The rms level is the square root of the energy divided by a defined time period. All underwater sound levels throughout the remainder of this document are presented in dB re: 1 Pa unless otherwise noted.
Table 3.2-1
Term
Decibel, dB
Common Acoustical Terms

Definition
A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for water is 1 micropascal (Pa) and for air is 20 Pa (approximate threshold of human audibility). Sound pressure is the force per unit area, usually expressed in micropascals (or 20 microNewtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The SPL is expressed in decibels and is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter.
Sound Pressure Level, SPL
3-15
February 2013

Term
Frequency, Hz Peak Sound Pressure (unweighted), dB re: 1 Pa
Draft EA
Common Acoustical Terms

Definition
Frequency is expressed in terms of oscillations, or cycles, per second. Cycles per second are commonly referred to as hertz. Typical human hearing ranges from 20 to 20,000 Hz. Peak sound pressure level is based on the largest absolute value of the instantaneous sound pressure over the frequency range from 20 to 20,000 Hz. This pressure is expressed in this application as dB re: 1 Pa.
The rms level is the square root of the energy divided by a defined time period. rms has Root-Mean-Square (rms), been defined as the average of the squared pressures over the time that comprises that dB re: 1 Pa portion of waveform containing 90 percent of the sound energy for one impact of piledriving. Sound Exposure Level (SEL), dB re: 1 Pa2-sec Sound exposure level is a measure of energy. Specifically, it is the dB level of the time integral of the squared-instantaneous sound pressure, normalized to a 1-second period. It can be an extremely useful metric for assessing cumulative exposure because it enables sounds of differing duration to be compared in terms of total energy.
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A- or A-Weighted Sound Level, C-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the low and high dBA frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective human reactions to noise. Ambient Noise Level
Source: Navy 2011
The background sound level, which is a composite of noise from all sources near and far, that constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
3.2.1
Underwater Noise
Marine species could be affected by underwater noise associated with in-water construction. Underwater noise sources from the Proposed Action would result from pile-driving, dredging and filling, jet-plowing, and associated boat operations. However, the proposed pile-driving operations represent the greatest potential for underwater noise impacts. A technical discussion on underwater noise due to pile-driving operations is included in Appendix C. Impacts analysis of noise on marine species is discussed in the representative subsections in Section 3.4, Marine Biological Resources. 3.2.2 3.2.2.1 Airborne Noise Affected Environment
Ambient noise levels are made up of natural and manmade sounds. Natural sound sources include the wind, rain, thunder, water movement such as surf, and wildlife. Sound levels from these sources are typically low but can be pronounced during violent weather events. Sounds from natural sources are not considered undesirable. Ambient background noise in urbanized areas typically varies from 60 to 70 dBA but can be higher; suburban neighborhoods experience ambient noise levels of approximately 45 to 50 dBA (USEPA 1974). The closest residences are located approximately 2,000 feet (610 m) to the east of the proposed concrete-pile platform. In the open water environment of Hood Canal, natural factors such as wind and surf produce some of the existing ambient noise. However, near the upland area, the sound environment is also influenced by military activities such as waterfront operations and
3-16
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
movement of people and military vehicles at the base. Consequently, human activity is responsible for the majority of the daily ambient noise generated within the confines of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Noise levels at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor vary based on location but are estimated to average around 65 dBA in the residential and office park areas, with traffic noise ranging from 60 to 80 dBA during daytime hours (Navy 2011). The highest levels of noise are generated along the waterfront and at the ordnance handling areas, where estimated noise levels range from 70 to 90 dBA. The HDD staging area, the location of the ATN, and the area near Building 7801 are more rural in character and would be expected to have ambient noise levels of approximately 55 to 60 dBA. Ambient noise levels in Washington State are regulated by Washington Administrative Code 173-60-040. 3.2.2.2 Environmental Consequences
This section considers the intensity and duration of noise that would be generated by the Proposed Action and whether it would exceed established noise standards. Dredging activities and pile-driving noise would be generated during regular work hours (work would occur during daylight hours from July 16, 2013, to February 15, 2014, and from July 16, 2014, to February 15, 2015). Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), including HDD, cable jet-plowing, dredging, and pile-driving activities, would result in a temporary increase in noise in the vicinity of the Proposed Action area. Noise levels decrease with distance from the source. For a point source, noise levels generally decrease between 6 and 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance from the source (WSDOT 2007). The type of terrain and the elevation of the receiver relative to the noise source can also affect the propagation of noise. Level ground is the simplest scenario: sound travels in a straight line-of-sight path between the source and receiver. Vegetation and terrain can add another 10 dB of noise attenuation. The impact pile-driver would be the loudest piece of construction equipment used on site. It is estimated to generate a maximum peak sound level of 105 dBA re: 20Pa at a distance of 50 feet (15.2 m) from the pile (WSDOT 2008). Other construction equipment such as cranes, generators, and any other necessary equipment would also generate noise; however, this noise would be much lower in level compared to noise generated by the impact pile-driver. The closest residences are located approximately 2,000 feet (610 m) to the east of the proposed concrete-pile platform. Given the above parameters, it is anticipated that the pile-driving-related noise from the Proposed Action would attenuate to approximately 70 to 75 dBA at a distance of 2,000 feet (610 m), which is the approximate distance to the nearest residence. All other temporary construction noise would be expected to attenuate below the Washington noise regulation (WAC 173-60-040) guidelines for residential land uses of 60 dBA. Washington State noise regulations allow an exemption to exceed the 60-dBA threshold for temporary construction noise if it occurs during daylight hours. It is anticipated that pile-driving would occur for five days
3-17
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
between July 16, 2013, and February 15, 2014. Therefore, no long-term significant adverse impact from noise would be anticipated by implementing Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Operation Impacts Operation of the EMMR system would not cause any audible noise for noise-sensitive receptors on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor or for the residences to the north of the installation. The system does not emit any sound. Passage of the submarines over the sensor array would not cause any additional sound not normally associated with vessel operations on Hood Canal. Therefore, operation of the EMMR system under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would not cause any significant adverse noise impacts. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Impacts from noise associated with constructing and operating the EMMR system under Alternative 2 would be the same as those described for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Therefore, no significant adverse noise impacts would be anticipated under Alternative 2. Alternative 3: No Action No changes to noise levels would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. 3.3 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Terrestrial biological resources include vegetation (land cover) and wildlife resources within NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Vegetated land cover types include forest land, wetlands, and disturbed lands. Wildlife resources discussed in this section include upland mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. Both marine and terrestrial birds are discussed under marine biological resources (Section 3.4.4) because most bird species and special status bird species that occur within the Proposed Action area forage in the marine environment. 3.3.1 3.3.1.1 Terrestrial Vegetation Affected Environment
NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is dominated by forests (3,754 acres [1519.2 ha], 61 percent), wetlands (254 acres [102.8 ha], 4 percent), and disturbed lands where native plantings have been removed (593 acres [240.0 ha], 10 percent). Forests are composed of both evergreen and deciduous species. Evergreen stands including Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), western white pine (Pinus monticola), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and grand fir (Abies grandis) are more common in dryer soils and older growth stands. Deciduous stands are usually found on the mesic soils and are predominantly red alder (Alnus rubra) and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum). Common understory vegetation includes salal (Gaultheria shallon) on drier soils and swordfern (Polystechum munitum) and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) on mesic soils. Other common species include hemlock and cedar seedlings, rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.), and evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum).
3-18
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Estuarine ecological system wetlands are deep-water tidal habitats and adjacent tidal lands that are occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), bulrushes (Schoenoplectus spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), and seaside arrowgrass (Triglochin maritime) are common species associated with mid to low estuarine wetlands. Eelgrass beds may also be present in deeper tidal water. Wetland environments associated with Cattail Lake include shrub-dominated wetlands containing hardhack (Spirea douglasii), serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), skunk cabbage (Lysichiton spp.), and cattails (Typha spp.). Disturbed lands are typically grassland and shrub land habitats; these areas contain a variety of native and non-native grasses. NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor manages terrestrial vegetation resources in compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations, EOs, and DOD and Navy guidance. Navy guidance includes the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor Pest Management Plan, which specifies integrated pest management practices of weeds and invasive species (Navy 2012c). Based on a review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Program list revised March 2012, no federally listed or candidate plant species are in Kitsap County, including NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor (USFWS 2012). The affected environment associated with the Proposed Action includes areas within and directly adjacent to locations where the MSF building pullbox, electrical manhole, and ATN would be installed. The vegetated areas in the Proposed Action area includes the forested lands adjacent to either side of Northern Boundary Road north of its intersection with Amberjack Avenue, Building 7801, and a gravel parking lot adjacent to Building 7808. Vegetation has been identified during a site visit by Navy personnel (Nabors 2012). Vegetated areas adjacent to Northern Boundary Road include developed land containing no vegetation (Northern Boundary Road); disturbed land containing grasses and scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) adjacent to the roadway; and early to middle successional upland forest, including Douglas fir, cedar (Thuja spp.) and big leaf maple. Areas near the roadway and between the roadway and Hood Canal contain vegetation of early to middle successional stages with a dense understory consisting of scotch broom, salal, and ferns. Farther from the roadway, the understory becomes less dense. Along Hood Canal, wetlands contain estuarine intertidal habitats (WDFW 2012a). The area adjacent to Building 7801 contains developed land with no vegetation (Building 7801) and disturbed land with grasses and shrubs, as well as landscaped fir (Abies spp.), birch (Betula spp.), and hemlock (Tsuga spp.). The gravel parking lot near Building 7808 is developed land containing no vegetation (the gravel parking lot) and a small buffer of disturbed land (approximately 5 to 20 feet [1.5 to 6.5 m]) with shrub vegetation and grasses. Areas adjacent to Building 7801, the gravel parking lot, and Northern Boundary Road are likely to contain invasive species. Invasive non-native species found at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor include spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii), thistle species (Cirsium spp.), Scotch broom, common teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris), St. Johns wort (Hypericum perforatum), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), and common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris).
3-19
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
3.3.1.2
The evaluation of impacts to terrestrial vegetation associated with the Proposed Action considers both the direct removal of vegetation and indirect impacts such as the potential introduction of non-native plants into areas temporarily disturbed by construction. Vegetation would be removed during development of the following upland features of the Proposed Action: installation of the ATN and pullbox 6 adjacent to Northern Boundary Road, clearing and maintenance of obstructive vegetation in the ATN corridor from the ATN to Hood Canal, installation of the MSF Building 7801 pullbox, and installation of the HDD launch pit and electrical manhole at the gravel parking lot adjacent to Building 7808 (refer to Figure 2-5). Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), construction of the MSF building pullbox, electrical manhole, and ATN, as well as the clearing of vegetation from the ATN corridor from the ATN to Hood Canal, would require removal of vegetation. The ATN construction would require removal of vegetation from approximately 430 square feet (0.01 acre; 40 m2) of primarily disturbed land and forest land. Removal of obstructive vegetation in the ATN corridor would require clearing of approximately 2,620 square feet (0.06 acre; 243 m2) of disturbed land and 10,780 square feet (0.25 acre; 0.1 ha) of forest land, for a total of 0.31acre (0.12 ha). A portion of the ATN corridor includes Northern Boundary Road; no vegetation would be removed from Northern Boundary Road because it is currently un-vegetated. No vegetation removal would be required in estuarine intertidal areas within the northern portions of the ATN corridor; likewise, wetland areas, including estuarine intertidal areas, would not be disturbed during Proposed Action construction. Additionally, the Navy would develop a vegetation removal and maintenance plan for clearing of obstructive vegetation in the ATN corridor. This plan would establish clear benchmarks and procedures for control of invasive, non-native plant species in the corridor; restrict the use of heavy equipment off road during maintenance operations in order to limit disturbance to soils and vegetation; and prohibit the disturbance of estuarine intertidal areas during maintenance operations. Construction of the MSF Building 7801 pullbox and access to the pullbox site may require clearing of vegetation from disturbed land adjacent to Building 7801. Landscaped trees would not be removed from the pullbox site during construction of the EMMR system, and the construction footprint would be minimized wherever practicable. The construction contractor would only disturb areas necessary for Proposed Action construction. Similarly, construction of the HDD launch pit and electrical manhole at the gravel parking lot may require clearing of vegetation from disturbed land located adjacent to the lot. In total, vegetation from approximately 0.31 acre (0.12 ha) of forest land and disturbed land would be impacted during MSF building pullbox, electrical manhole, and ATN construction and associated vegetation clearing. Following construction, disturbed areas would be re-vegetated with native species. There would be no significant long-term adverse impacts to terrestrial vegetation from the implementation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative).
3-20
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Operation Impacts There would be 430 square feet (0.01 acre; 40 m2) of forest vegetation and disturbed land permanently cleared due to construction of new impervious surfaces. Approximately 10,780 square feet (0.25 acre; 0.1 ha) of forest land would become disturbed land due to ongoing clearing of obstructive vegetation in the ATN corridor during the EMMR system operation. This represents a less than 1 percent decrease in forest land and a less than 1 percent increase in disturbed land at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Due to the loss or conversion of vegetation, the introduction or long-term spread of invasive plants to re-vegetated areas could be possible but would be managed by implementation of mitigation measures such as the vegetation clearing and re-vegetation plan for the ATN corridor. There would be no significant long-term adverse impacts to terrestrial vegetation from the implementation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Impacts to terrestrial vegetation from constructing Alternative 2 would be the same as described for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 3: No Action No changes to terrestrial vegetation would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. 3.3.2 3.3.2.1 Terrestrial Wildlife Affected Environment
The main land cover types provide suitable habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Species described in this section include terrestrial reptiles and amphibians, as well as upland mammals, including bats. Marine and terrestrial birds are discussed under marine biological resources (Section 3.4.4). Typical reptile and amphibian species occurring at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor include native species such as the northwest salamander (Ambystoma gracile), long-toed salamander (A. macrodactylum), rough-skinned newt (Taricha granulosa), red-legged frog (Rana aurora), Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla), western toad (Bufo boreas), tailed frog (Ascaphus truei), and the introduced bullfrog (R. catesbeiana). Terrestrial mammals that have been observed at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor include the blacktailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), black bear (Ursus americanus), cougar (Puma concolor), beaver (Castor canadensis), river otter (Lutra canadensis), short-tailed weasel (Mustela erminea), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), fox (Vulpes vulpes), and bobcat (Lynx rufus). Other species include bats (i.e., Lasionycteris spp., Lasurus spp., and Myotis spp.), Townsends big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii), long-tailed vole (Microtus longicaudus), Pacific mole (Scapanus orarius), brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani), and deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus; Navy 2012c). NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor manages these wildlife resources in compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations, EOs, and DOD and Navy guidance. Navy guidance includes the
3-21
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor Pest Management Plan, which specifies integrated pest management practices of vertebrate, invertebrate, and invasive wildlife species (Navy 2012c). No upland ESA-listed species occur at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor (Navy 2012c; USFWS 2012). As noted in Section 3.3.1.2, upland successional forest habitats, as well as grassland and shrub land habitats in disturbed areas, would be located within the Proposed Action footprint. Adjacent habitats also include upland successional forest and grassland and shrub land habitats, as well as Cattail Lake, associated wetland habitats, and estuarine intertidal wetland habitats. Cattail Lake provides habitat for the cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia) and spined stickleback (Gasterosteus spp.) fish species and the osprey (Pandion haliaetus), with a known nest location. This lake offers high-quality habitat for the river otter, raccoon, beaver, mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos), American widgeon (Anas americana), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), cormorants (Phalacrocoracidae spp.), merganser (Mergus merganser), and great blue heron (Ardea herodias). Similarly, wetlands located near Cattail Lake provide high-quality habitat for amphibian and reptile species, as well as nesting waterfowl. Estuarine intertidal wetlands at the mouth of Cattail Lake transfer nutrients from upland areas to the marine system; they are also used for transferring reproductive material (i.e., seeds and eggs from various marine invertebrates). 3.3.2.2 Environmental Consequences
The evaluation of impacts related to the Proposed Action on terrestrial wildlife considers the direct impact of the removal of upland vegetation and the conversion of 0.25 acre (0.1 ha) of forest land to disturbed land, as well as the indirect impacts of light and noise disturbance to surrounding habitat during construction of upland and offshore Proposed Action components. The assessment of impacts to upland wildlife was based on the importance of the habitat resource, as well as the proportion of the resource affected relative to its occurrence at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, the sensitivity of upland wildlife to construction- and operationrelated activities, and the duration of the environmental impact. Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), construction of the EMMR system would result in the clearing of 0.31 acre (0.12 ha) of forest and disturbed land and the temporary displacement of wildlife from the Proposed Action construction footprint. It is anticipated that constructionrelated noise would temporarily displace most wildlife from the Proposed Action footprint. Loss of individuals would be discountable when considering these populations on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor; therefore, there would be no long-term impact. Noise due to construction of upland EMMR system components and offshore dredging and piledriving, as identified in Section 3.2.1, could temporarily impact wildlife use of habitats within and adjacent to these areas. Habitats within the MSF building pullbox, electrical manhole, and the ATN construction footprint and the ATN corridor would include upland successional forest habitat in forested areas and grassland and shrub land habitat in disturbed areas. High-quality
3-22
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
habitats adjacent to the Proposed Action footprint include Cattail Lake and associated wetlands and estuarine intertidal wetlands. Noise might displace some wildlife during construction, whereas other species may become habituated to noise and visual disturbances. If suitable habitat is available, those wildlife species displaced by noise or increased human activity would return once construction is complete. Construction would occur during daytime hours, and upland construction sites would be un-lit at night. Disturbances would have a short-term, non-significant adverse impact to local terrestrial wildlife populations at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor from the implementation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Operation Impacts Construction of the EMMR system would require the long-term removal of 430 square feet (0.01 acre; 40 m2) of forested land and conversion of 0.25 acre (0.1 ha) of forested land to disturbed land, resulting in a decrease in upland successional forest habitat and a corresponding increase in grassland and shrub land habitat. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that vegetation clearing of the ATN corridor would result in disturbed grassland and shrub land habitat. The replacement of forest land with disturbed land would result in lower quality habitat for wildlife. However, these changes represent a small proportional change to these habitats within NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor (less than a 1 percent decrease of forest land and less than a 1 percent increase of disturbed grassland and shrub land). In addition to the loss and conversion of habitat, upland wildlife would be impacted by reduced habitat connectivity with the forest stand directly south of the cleared corridor and west of Northern Boundary Road; this small stand of forest land would become unconnected to surrounding habitats during the EMMR system operation. These impacts would not be anticipated to affect the ability of species to acquire resources or impact regional species populations during the EMMR system operation because the unconnected forest stand represents far less than 1 percent of habitat on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Light from the ATN may disturb and displace wildlife from the ATN corridor during the EMMR system operation. Disturbances from the light would be infrequent and of short duration because the light would only be on during operation of the EMMR system (i.e., approximately 25 minutes per month). Light disturbance would not impact the ability of species to forage or acquire prey during the EMMR system operation because the disturbance would be infrequent and of short duration. Implementation of mitigation measures, such as the vegetation clearing and re-vegetation plan for the ATN corridor and the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor Pest Management Plan, would reduce the localized impacts to terrestrial wildlife during Proposed Action operation. In addition, regional species populations would not be adversely impacted; therefore, there would be no significant adverse impact from the implementation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Impacts to terrestrial wildlife from constructing Alternative 2 would be the same as those described for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative).
3-23
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Alternative 3: No Action No changes to terrestrial wildlife would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. 3.4 3.4.1 MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Marine Vegetation
This section addresses marine vegetation, including macroalgae and eelgrass. 3.4.1.1 Affected Environment
Macroalgae Macroalgae typically found in Northern Hood Canal includes red algae (red seaweeds), green algae (sea lettuce), and brown algae (algae, seaweeds, and kelp; Mumford 2007, Garono et al. 2008). Red algae of the genera Ceramium, Endocladia, Gracilaria, Mastocarpus, Mazzaella, Porphyra, and other unidentified red algae are typically found along the intertidal and nearshore areas. Red algae, particularly Gracilaria, are most abundant at water depths between 10 feet (3 m) and 25 feet (7.6 m) below MLLW. Sparse macroalgae coverage was observed in a nearby survey south of the Proposed Action area at depths up to 70 feet (21 m; Navy 2009). Among green algae, sea lettuce (Ulva spp.) is found in sheltered or partially exposed lowerintertidal and nearshore marine subtidal zones in Hood Canal from 2 feet (0.6 m) above MLLW to 20 feet (6.1 m) below MLLW. Brown algae occur in a variety of forms along Hood Canal, including encrusting, branching, leafy, and filamentous, or hair-like, algae. Several leafy species (e.g., Egregia spp.) and branching species (e.g., Fucus spp.) are commonly found attached to rocks in upper intertidal zones. Also, the non-floating kelp (Laminaria saccharina) is common in the low-energy environment of Hood Canal. Eelgrass Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is prevalent in low-energy areas, occurring in lower intertidal and nearshore marine subtidal zones (Mumford 2007). Eelgrass beds provide habitat for fish and shellfish species by providing vital three-dimensional structures (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001). The beds are also important in maintaining migratory corridors and as foraging areas for juvenile salmonids, other fish, and invertebrates (Simenstad and Cordell 2000). In the area south of the proposed HDD exit hole, eelgrass beds are present along a narrow, shallowdepth band roughly parallel to the shore from 2 feet (0.6 m) to 20 feet (6.1 m) below MLLW (Figure 3.4-1).
3-24
February 2013
-1
70
-14
0
0
-1 00
-13
-120 0 -11
0 -90 15 -
-70 -60
40
0
Am
0
-1
rj be
Figure 3.4-1 Biological Resources Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington
Legend
30
ve
-80
0 -5 0 -3
-10
-2
kA ac
Aid to Navigation
Tin os a
Rd
Navy Restricted Area
Vinland Tract (Geoduck)
Eelgrass Density (NAVFAC, 2007)

Sparse >10% Dense >50% Moderate 10-50%
Johnso n Rd NW
Vinland Tract 4 (Geoduck) (boundary is approximate)
Bathymetry Contours
Hood Canal
Cable Route (6,970 ft / 2,124 m) Cable Route (1,148 ft / 350 m) Cable Route (210 ft / 64 m) Offshore Platform (15 ft x 15 ft / 4.5 m x 4.5 m) Aid to Navigation
-90
Weed Ln

Loma St
Baylor Ct
Aldo Rd NW
-10
Cle ar C
ree
-7
-30
kR dN W
Carmella Rd NW
-12 0 -11
Brandon P
-140
Lorinda Rd NW
lN
-5
-

0
b Am
Pintado Rd
3-25
-4 0
Jefferson County
Po u l s b o
Rd L aken ess
Silv er da le
N orth ern
Aid to Navigation
50 -1 0 3 -1 0 -10 -80 -60
er
ve kA jac
Kitsap County
WA
Parris Rd
0 0 1,000 300 2,000 Feet Meters 600
20
Fin
n H ill Rd
Source: Esri, 2012; NAVFAC, 2012, 2007; Dept.of Defense - Navy, 2011; Finlayson, 2005; WA DNR, 2005.
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
3.4.1.2
Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts Marine surveys at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor have shown that eelgrass is only present in water depths to 20 feet (6.1 m) below MLLW (Navy 2009; Figure 3.4-1). No eelgrass would be expected to be present within the EMMR system area because all the system components are located at least 30 feet (9.1 m) below MLLW. To avoid impacts to nearshore habitat, specifically eelgrass, 1,148 feet (350 m) of cable would be installed using HDD from an onshore launch site to an HDD exit hole located 800 feet (244 m) from the shoreline, in water approximately 30 feet (9.1 m) deep. Because the required depth of the EMMR system components would be located entirely outside of eelgrass and kelp bed areas, no direct impacts would occur to eelgrass during construction. An area of approximately 1.22 acres (0.49 ha) at depths shallower than 70 feet (21 m) below MLLW would be affected by construction of the EMMR system. Based on a survey of adjacent areas (Navy 2009), this area is likely to have sparse macroalgae. The area affected is likely to repopulate. Construction activities that could temporarily suspend sediments include propeller wash from construction vessels, jet-plowing, dredging, cable-armoring, and pile-driving. During jetplowing, sediment within the cable corridor would be temporarily suspended as it is displaced. Because of the narrow jet-plow corridor (1 foot [0.3 m]), the majority of this sediment would be expected to redeposit back into the trench. However, some of the silt and sand would be temporarily suspended as a sediment plume. As discussed in Section 3.1.3, Water Resources, this sediment suspension would have a short-term and localized adverse impact to water quality. However, suspended sediment plumes could spread up to an estimated 500 feet (152 m) from the jet-plowing activities, though most sediment (80 to 90 percent) would be expected to settle out within 20 feet (6 m) of the cable trench corridor (BPA 2007). Turbidity levels would be higher near the trench, with lower turbidity levels occurring farther from the disturbance area. Fine sediment plumes generated during construction could settle on the eelgrass beds nearest to the trench and exit hole (at least 180 feet [55 m] south). Marine algae species have been shown to recover from such impacts within one growing season; however, depending on the extent of the impact, eelgrass beds may require additional seasons to fully recover (Austin et al. 2004). Dredging at the sensor array and offshore platform, cable armoring, and pile-driving, would occur more than 200 yards (183 m) from the 25-foot (7.6-m) depth contourthe deeper limits where eelgrass and macroalgae growtherefore, these activities would be far enough from nearby beds to avoid any indirect impacts. The accidental release of oil or other hazardous materials, which could result in the loss or degradation of eelgrass and macroalgae habitat, could occur during construction. The contractor would be required to prepare and implement a spill response plan to clean up any fuel, solid waste, or fluid releases. In the event of an accidental release, response measures would be implemented immediately to reduce the potential for exposure within the environment.
3-26
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Therefore, accidental releases would not be expected to adversely impact marine water quality or marine vegetation in the Proposed Action area. No direct impact would occur to marine vegetation from construction. Due to the depth and distance of construction from marine vegetation and the temporary nature of any potential indirect impacts, construction of the EMMR system would have no significant short- or longterm adverse impacts to marine vegetation under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Operation Impacts Based on the analysis in Section 3.1.1.2, the seafloor would not be affected by operation of the EMMR system; therefore, submarine movement over the array would not impact marine vegetation. Any maintenance of the EMMR system, which would likely be conducted from the offshore platform, would not impact marine vegetation. For these reasons, operations under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would have no significant short- or long-term adverse impact to marine vegetation. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Construction Impacts Construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 2 would be similar to that of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), except that the cable bundle between the offshore platform and the sensor array system would be buried by jet-plow and not armored. The jet-plow corridor would be double the area of the cable-armoring area and would potentially displace up to 822 cubic yards (629 m3) of material (see Table 2-3). Because the corridor is more than 40 feet below MLLW, no direct impact from jet-plowing would be expected to marine vegetation. Compared to Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), an additional 0.13 acre (0.05 ha) of seafloor potentially containing sparse macroalgae populations would be directly impacted. The area affected is likely to repopulate. Use of the jet plow would result in a sediment plume that could have short-term indirect impacts on marine vegetation, depending on the velocity and direction of the current at the time of construction. If suspended sediments would be transported and deposited in shallower waters containing eelgrass and macroalgae beds, these sediments could impact eelgrass and macroalgae. As discussed under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), marine algae habitat can recover from such indirect impacts within one growing season; however, depending on the extent of the impact, eelgrass beds may require additional seasons to fully recover (Austin et al. 2004). Even if this would occur, significant short- or long-term adverse impacts would not likely occur to marine vegetation under Alternative 2. Operation Impacts Alternative 2 would have the same operation impacts to marine vegetation as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 3: No Action No changes to marine vegetation would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system.
3-27
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
3.4.2 3.4.2.1
Benthic Community Affected Environment
The benthic community found within Hood Canal is comprised of benthic infaunal and epifaunal species, along with benthic macroinvertebrates such as crustaceans, echinoderms, and mollusks. Benthic invertebrates are aquatic bottom-dwelling animals that burrow or bury themselves within soft sediments (infauna) or attach to hard bottom substrates (epifauna). The types and numbers of benthic infaunal organisms in a given location are closely linked to sediment grain size (i.e., gravel, sand, silt, or clay); levels of DO; and the amount of total organic carbon (TOC) present. TOC content is itself strongly correlated with sediment grain size, being higher in more fine-grained sediments and lower in coarse sediments. See Section 3.1.2, Geology and Sediments, for a more detailed discussion of sediments. Hood Canal has been divided into nine biotic subregions based on soft-bottom benthic community structure, dominant taxa, percent fines (i.e., the percent of silt or clay material), percent TOC, and depth (Long et al. 2007). The Proposed Action is within the north Hood Canal biotic subregion. Crustaceans are associated with all soft-bottom and hard-substrate habitats (e.g., rocky outcrops, manmade structures) and also occur in the water column. Examples include shrimp, crabs, barnacles, and amphipods. The Dungeness crab (Metacarcinus magister), shrimp (spot [Pandalus platyceros], coonstripe [P. danae and P. hypsinotus], and pink [P. eous and P. jordani]) are regulated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and are subject to commercial and sport harvests in Hood Canal. Crustaceans such as the Dungeness crab, red rock crab (Cancer productus), hermit crab (Pagurus species), decorator crab (Oregonia gracilis), ghost shrimp (Callianassa californiensis), and shrimp (Pandalus spp.); echinoderms such as the burrowing sea cucumber (Leptosynapta clarki), sunflower starfish (Pycnopodia helianthoides), short-spined starfish (Pisaster brevispinus), blood starfish (Henricia leviuscula), and sand dollar (Dendraster excentricus); cnidarians such as the sea pen (Ptilosarcus gurneyi), burrowing anemone (Anthopleura artemisia), striped anemone (Anthothoe chilensis), and crimson anemone (Cribinopsis fernaldi); polychaetes; molluscs such as the moon snail (Lunatia heros), nudibranchs, and horse clams (Tresus spp.); and the heart cockle (Clinocardium nuttallii) are all likely to occur in the subregion. This portion of Hood Canal is identified as a major Dungeness crab resource area by the WDFW Priority Habitat and Species Program (WDFW 2012a). The crab fishery is important to tribal, commercial, and recreational groups. Annual harvest of Dungeness crab in Puget Sound, including Hood Canal, has increased 24 percent from 1995 to 2005, to over 7.7 million pounds (3.49 million kg; Fish and Velasquez 2008). The Dungeness crab ranges from intertidal to subtidal depths in sandy habitats and may use eelgrass beds as nursery areas (Kozloff 1996). However, they are tolerant to variable salinities and can be found in estuarine environments. They generally inhabit waters shallower than 90 feet (27.4 m), but they have been found at depths up to 600 feet (183 m). The Dungeness crab scavenges along the seafloor for organisms
3-28
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
that live partly or completely buried in the sand. They are carnivores, and their diet may include shrimp, mussels, small crabs, clams, and worms (Fish and Velasquez 2008). While technically not a benthic species, shrimp inhabit varying depths and habitat types of the benthic marine environment. Spot and coonstripe shrimp are generally associated with rock piles, coral, and debris-covered bottoms. Coonstripe shrimp usually inhabit shallower waters but can be found deeper, between 18 and 1,200 feet (5 and 366 m). Spot shrimp congregate around 360 feet (110 m) depth but can occur at depths from 12 to 1,500 feet (4 to 457 m). Most shrimp migrate seasonally from deep to shallow waters and also vertically in the water column. Pandalid shrimp are opportunistic bottom feeders that eat a wide variety of items, such as worms, diatoms, detritus (dead organic material), algae, and various invertebrates. Echinoderms are a group of marine invertebrates that usually have a symmetry of five segments and are often covered in spines. Examples of echinoderms that likely inhabit sandy areas include sea stars (starfish), sea urchins, sand dollars, and sea cucumbers. These species live on or within a few inches of the substrate surface. Molluscs occurring within Hood Canal include two major classes: gastropods (slugs and snails) and bivalves (having two-part shells, such as clams, oysters, and mussels). In contrast to mussels and oysters, which attach to hard substrate, clams live partially buried in the substrate, and gastropods live on the substrate surface. Common species on hard substrates include multiple blue mussels (Mytilus spp.), the Olympia oyster (Ostreola conchaphila), and Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas; WDFW 2012b). The Proposed Action area contains the commercially harvested geoduck (Navy 2012d). Geoducks occur throughout Puget Sound (Bradbury et al. 2000; WDNR 2002) and Hood Canal (Figure 3.4-2). Burying themselves up to 36 inches (90 cm) into the sediment, geoducks prefer to live buried in soft mud, sand, and pea gravel or gravel substrates, or mixtures of these materials from the lower intertidal zone to depths of up to 358 feet (109 m) below mean low tides (Goodwin and Pease 1987, 1989). As a commercial fishery, geoduck is considered the most valuable commercial clam harvest on the Pacific Coast of North America. As recently as 2010, 4,327,000 pounds (1,962,694 kg) were commercially harvested in Washington (WDFW 2012b). Polychaetes are also a major component of the benthic community and occupy intertidal and subtidal soft- and hard-bottom habitats (Weston 2006). Sessile polychaetes are often tubebuilding, while other species may be active burrowers into the soft sediment (Kozloff 1996). These worms are typically more abundant in the nearshore subtidal zone than in the intertidal zone (Weston 2006; Long et al. 2007). 3.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences
The evaluation of impacts to benthic communities and shellfish considers whether the Proposed Action would cause decreases in benthic invertebrate populations, significant loss of benthic habitat, or decreases in habitat value for benthic invertebrates.
3-29
February 2013
-1
70
0 -8
Anchoring Restriction Area for Vessels > 150 ft and Anchors > 800 lbs
>0.26 acre (>0.10 ha)

-60
0 -15 >0.52 acre (>0.21 ha)
0 0
Figure 3.4-2 Vinland Tract (Geoduck) Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington
Military Installation Boundary Navy Restricted Area Vinland Tract (Geoduck)
Legend
-1
30
70
Johnso n Rd NW
Vinland Tract 4 (Geoduck) (boundary is approximate)
Anchoring Restriction Area (50 ft Buffer)
100 25
200 Feet Meters 50
Bathymetry Contours
Geoduck Harvesting Restricted Area 10 ft Interval Contour 50 ft Index Contour
-5
Hood Canal
Cable Route (6,970 ft / 2,124 m) Cable Route (1,148 ft / 350 m) Cable Route (210 ft / 64 m) Offshore Platform (15 ft x 15 ft / 4.5 m x 4.5 m)
-90
Weed Ln

Loma St
Baylor Ct
Aldo Rd NW
-10
Cle ar C
ree
-7
-30
kR dN W
Aid to Navigation
Carmella Rd NW
-12 0 -11
Brandon P
-140
Lorinda Rd NW
lN
-5
-

0
b Am
Pintado Rd
3-30
-4 0
Jefferson County
Po u l s b o
Rd L aken ess
Silv er da le
N orth ern
Aid to Navigation
50 -1 0 3 -1 0 -10 -80 -60
er
ve kA jac
Kitsap County
WA
Parris Rd
0 0 1,000 300 2,000 Feet Meters 600
20
Fin
n H ill Rd
Source: Esri, 2012; NAVFAC, 2012, 2007; Dept.of Defense - Navy, 2011; Finlayson, 2005; WA DNR, 2005.
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts The primary impacts to benthic communities would include burial or crushing from jet-plowing, dredging, and cable-armoring, and benthic community habitat change or loss from backfilling and cable-armoring. Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), a total of 2.04 acres (0.83 ha) would be impacted by construction of the Proposed Action (see Table 2-3). Within the jet-plow corridor, there would be the potential to impact 0.16 acre (0.06 ha) of bottom habitat. Because jet-plow equipment would move slowly, up to 2 knots (3.7 km per hour) along the seafloor, benthic organisms, especially slow-moving, fixed, or sediment-dwelling organisms (such as clams, small crustaceans, marine snails, sea cucumbers, worms, urchins, and sea stars), would be most vulnerable to burial or crushing if in the path of the trenching equipment. Larger or more mobile, benthic species such as the Dungeness crab, shrimp, or ground fish would likely sense the movement of the jet plow or the jetting action and would move out of the disturbance area. Nevertheless, it is possible that these species may not sense which direction to move to avoid the plow path or would become disoriented and could be struck directly by the trenching equipment or cable. Immobile species, such as the geoduck and sea pen, in the path of the plow would be directly impacted. The adult geoduck is a poor digger and becomes completely sedentary at maturity; therefore, it would not survive if its burrow is in the trenching path or if its siphon were to be covered from the side-cast sediment. The density of geoduck varies along the cable route; areas south of the Vinland Tract have an average density of 0.09 geoducks per square foot. An estimated 1,685 geoducks could potentially be impacted by jet-plowing associated with installation of the cable. However, within a few hours of the trenching equipment passing, mobile benthic scavenger species such as crab, shrimp, and sea stars would typically migrate to the impact area to feed on benthic organisms that had been crushed or injured. Other sessile species attached to or embedded in the seafloor adjacent to the cable corridor and beyond the side-cast area may also be temporarily buried by smaller amounts of the sediment. Organisms buried would have varying success resurfacing or surviving in the newly-deposited sediments, depending on the type of organism. Additional species could be struck by the force of the propeller wash of the trenching vessel along approximately 3,000 feet (914 m) of the cable route, where water depth is 55 feet (17 m) below MLLW or shallower. Recovery of the community of immobile benthic organisms would depend on species life histories. For example, since recruitment of geoduck populations is low (Goodwin and Pease 1989), recovery to preimpact conditions may take decades. The estimated average time to regenerate a new crop of geoducks after removal of 100 percent of the original stock is 39 years, with the longest regeneration time 87 years and the shortest regeneration time 12 years (WDNR 2011). The cable route would be narrow (1-foot [30-cm]-wide by 6,970-foot [2,124-m]); therefore, the potential impact to benthic organisms within the corridor would be relatively low, and the probability of impacting entire colonies of benthic organisms would not be high.
3-31
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Impacts to benthic species from the HDD cable transition area would be similar to impacts caused by trenching (crushing or injuring benthic species). Approximately 220 cubic yards (168 m3) of sediment would be excavated from approximately 2,123 square feet (197 m2). Once the manhole protecting the cable transition is in place, the excavated area would be backfilled with sediment with a grain size matching the existing seafloor. As the area of impact would be small compared with the overall area of Hood Canal and would be backfilled with like sediment, there would not be a significant reduction in population numbers. Furthermore, benthic communities would be able to re-colonize this area immediately after construction is completed. Cables from the offshore platform to the sensor array would be laid on the seafloor, not trenched; as such, no direct impacts to benthic species would be anticipated. However, armoring would be placed over these cables, covering approximately 0.13 acre (0.05 ha) of the seafloor. This armoring would directly impact benthic species and, in particular, immobile species such as the geoduck. Mobile benthic species, such as crabs and shrimp, would likely vacate the area during construction. Armoring under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would occur in the Vinland commercial geoduck harvest tract. Direct impacts to the geoduck from the armoring would likely include crushing and burying individual geoducks within the armoring footprint. Given the average density of 0.32 geoduck per square foot in the Vinland Tract, an estimated 1,776 geoducks (2,895 lbs.) could be impacted from cable-armoring (Navy2012b). However, if this portion of the tract was harvested in the 12 months prior to construction, impacts to existing geoduck populations within the armoring footprint would be reduced to removing the available habitat (0.13 acre [0.05 ha]) from future geoduck recruitment. The decrease in soft-bottom habitat and increase in hard-substrate habitat from the armoring would result in a localized change in species composition over the long term and permanent loss of infaunal benthic habitat. Benthic species that burrow into a substrate, such as clams and worms, thrive in particular types of materials. For example, the geoduck lives in substrates of soft mud, sand, and pea gravel or gravel substrates, or mixtures of these materials (Goodwin and Pease 1989). By placing armoring over the cables from the platform to the array, this area would not support the same pre-construction benthic communities over the life of the Proposed Action but instead convert the area from soft-bottom to hard-bottom habitat. This conversion would increase the available in-water surface area and create colonization sites for hard-bottom species such as mussels (Mytilus spp.), barnacles (Balanus spp.), and sea anemones (the fouling community). The new community also would support other species such as copepods, amphipods, annelids, gastropods, and sea stars that would feed and take refuge in the newly created environment (Kozloff 1996). The decrease in soft-bottom habitat and increase in hardsubstrate habitat would result in a localized change in species composition. However, this reduction of available soft-bottom habitat would not result in substantial loss of biological productivity for the geoduck (and other similar species) in the Proposed Action area due to the large amount of ubiquitous soft-bottom habitat available throughout Hood Canal. For example, the total permanent loss of habitat in the Vinland Tract from the Proposed Action is estimated to be approximately 0.09 percent of the geoduck habitat (Navy 2012d).
3-32
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
The platform would increase shading in the immediate area by 300 square feet (28 m2). Regional studies have shown that light-blocking overwater structures can directly impact benthic productivity in underlying substrates (Simenstad et al. 1999). However, due to the small size of the platform and a water depth of over 40 feet (12.2 m), overshading would not significantly impact the benthic community in Hood Canal. Similarly, short-term impacts to benthic communities would occur from dredging associated with burial of the sensor array and in the offshore platform transition area as immobile benthic species would be crushed or injured. Approximately 1.64 acres (0.66 ha) would be impacted by the dredging of 17,500 cubic yards (13,380 m3) of material for burial of the sensor array (see Table 2-3). Half of the sensor array area (0.26 acre [0.10 ha]) would be in the Vinland Tract, with the remaining section outside the tract in deeper water. A smaller area of 2,827 square feet (263 m2) would be impacted by the dredging of 250 cubic yards (191 m3) of material and pile installation at the offshore platform transition area. Given the average density of 0.32 geoduck per square foot in the Vinland Tract, an estimated 11,423 geoducks (18,620 lbs.) could be impacted by installation of the sensor array, and 905 geoducks (1,475 lbs.) could be impacted by installation of the offshore platform (Navy 2012d). Filter- and suspension-feeding invertebrates (e.g., bivalves, tunicates, crustaceans, and some polychaetes) may close their shells, suspend feeding, or increase feeding rates in response to turbidity increases (LaSalle et al. 1991; CruzRodriguez and Chu 2002). Marine invertebrates have been shown to be tolerant of relatively high suspended solid concentrations over periods of hours to days, with adverse impacts limited to prolonged exposures (e.g., continuously up to 21 days) and/or to high concentrations (e.g., fluid mud; reviews in LaSalle et al. 1991; OConnor 1991; Clarke and Wilber 2000). However, the length of time for dredging and cable-laying (up to 215 days per construction season) and the increased turbidity levels would likely result in an estimated short-term loss of localized areas of the benthic community within the Proposed Action area. The area of impact would be small compared with the overall area of Hood Canal and temporary as the dredged areas would be backfilled with sediment of a grain size to match existing seafloor conditions. Backfilling would allow benthic species to re-colonize areas immediately after construction is completed. As such, this construction activity would have a localized impact on the species composition over the short term, but it would not result in a permanent loss of habitat. Benthic species that burrow into a substrate, such as clams and worms, thrive in particular types of materials. For example, the geoduck lives in substrates of soft mud, sand, and pea gravel or gravel substrates, or mixtures of these materials (Goodwin and Pease 1989). By backfilling dredged areas with sediment of a grain size matching the existing seafloor (at the sensor array, offshore platform, and HDD transition area), impacted areas would support the same pre-construction benthic communities over the life of the Proposed Action. This short-term reduction (i.e., during construction) of available soft-bottom habitat would not result in substantial loss of biological productivity for benthic communities in the Proposed Action area due to the large amount of ubiquitous soft-bottom habitat available throughout Hood Canal. Over the long term, infaunal species would re-colonize the dredged areas at the sensor array, offshore platform, and HDD exit hole.
3-33
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
In summary, short- and long-term impacts would occur to benthic communities, such as loss of individuals within a total of 2.04 acres (0.83 ha). Impacts from construction could result in a loss of up to 0.69 percent of geoduck biomass over the short term and 0.09 percent permanent loss of geoduck habitat within the Vinland Tract over the long term from the placement of the concrete armoring. However, given the small area of impact, consistency of material used for backfilling dredged areas, and the adjacent populations available to repopulate, construction of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would not have significant impacts to benthic communities. Operation Impacts The EMMR system would operate passively, receiving electromagnetic signals, not emitting them, and would use between 36 and 48 volts at 0.5 ampere; this is the equivalent to 24 watts, which is less energy than used to power a common household light bulb. This system is purposely designed to emit as little EMF radiation as possible, and the amount it would emit is magnitudes less than that of a standard utility/power cable. There is no direct evidence of impacts to invertebrates from undersea cable EMFs (Normandeau et al. 2011). Therefore, based on the Proposed Action design and the lack of relationship between invertebrates and EMF impacts, it is anticipated that benthic species would not be impacted by EMF radiation from operation of the EMMR system. Therefore, the operation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would not have significant short- or long-term impacts to the benthic community. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Construction Impacts Construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 2, and any associated environmental consequences, would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). The only difference would be that the 925-foot (282-m) cable bundle between the offshore platform and sensor array would be buried but not armored. The jet-plow corridor would be double the area of the cable-armoring area and would potentially displace up to 822 cubic yards (629 m3) of material (see Table 2-3), creating additional turbidity during construction. For benthic communities, especially slow-moving, fixed, or sediment-dwelling organisms (such as clams, small crustaceans, marine snails, sea cucumbers, worms, urchins, and sea stars) and immobile species (such as the geoduck), this wider corridor would result in double the area of impact. In addition, there is the potential for this volume of material to be displaced as it is likely to slough and backfill into the cable trench. Depending on the area of the side-cast or if the material travels in a sediment plume, a larger area of the nearby benthic communities could be buried. Organisms buried would have varying success resurfacing or surviving in the newlydeposited sediments, depending on the type of organism. Under Alternative 2, the cable bundle between the sensor array and offshore platform is in a wider (12-foot [3.7 m]) corridor than discussed under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative); this would result in an increased permanent impact on infaunal benthic species and their habitat. Because the corridor would be backfilled with gravel, the substrate habitat for benthic species would change. For example, given the average density of 0.32 geoduck per square foot in the Vinland Tract, replacing 0.25 acre (0.1 ha) of native material with gravel in this tract would
3-34
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
impact an estimated 3,552 geoducks (5,790 lbs. [2,632 kg]) by installation of the cable bundle under Alternative 2. In summary, short- and long-term impacts would occur to benthic communities, such as loss of individuals within a total of 2.17 acres (0.88 ha) of the Proposed Action area. This represents a short-term loss of approximately 0.78 percent of geoduck biomass and a long-term loss of approximately 0.18 percent of geoduck habitat within the Vinland Tract. Once construction is completed, benthic species would re-colonize dredged areas; however, the gravel backfill on top of the cable bundle from the offshore platform to the sensor array would be a permanent impact to the benthic community. Even though Alternative 2 would have a larger impact than Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) on benthic communities, the impact would still not be significant, given the small area impacted and the available adjacent populations and habitat in Hood Canal. Operation Impacts Alternative 2 would have the same operation impacts to benthic communities as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 3: No Action No changes to benthic invertebrates would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. 3.4.2.3 Permits and Consultation
The Navy will obtain a permit from USACE under Section 404 of the CWA and will mitigate for impacts to aquatic resources via the In-Lieu Fee Program with the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. 3.4.3 3.4.3.1 Fish Affected Environment
Hood Canal is known to support at least 250 species of marine fish, including anadromous species (salmonids), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), and groups of fish including perch, gunnel, pipefish, stickleback, tubesnout, and flatfish (Prinslow et al. 1980; Salo 1991; Bhuthimethee et al. 2009; Burke Museum 2012). Species more prevalent in Hood Canals deeper habitats include a variety of rockfish species, such as the Pacific hake (Merluccius productus), walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma), wolf eel (Anarrhichthys ocellatus), skates, sharks, and flatfish. Seven species of Pacific salmonids are found in Hood Canal: Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Coho salmon (O. kisutch), pink salmon (O. gorbuscha), chum salmon (O. keta), steelhead trout (O. mykiss), cutthroat trout, and bull trout (Confluentus salvelinus). Salmonids use Hood Canal as a passageway between spawning streams flowing into Hood Canal and marine rearing areas in Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the North Pacific Ocean. Hood Canal also provides important estuarine and nearshore rearing and refuge habitat for juvenile salmonids (Bhuthimethee et al. 2009). Two small estuaries are located at NAVBASE
3-35
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Kitsap Bangor: Devils Hole and Cattail Lake. Both estuaries create small deltas seaward of their entry into Hood Canal. In the summer months, the outflows contribute nutrient-rich freshwater that is warmer than the surrounding saltwater (Phillips et al. 2008). In both the Devils Hole and Cattail Lake outflows, the shallow deltas support dense marine vegetation and benthic invertebrate communities, which provide food and refuge for juvenile salmonids (Phillips et al. 2008). Forage fish, including herring, surf smelt, and sand lance, use portions of the Hood Canal shoreline for spawning. These species are key prey sources for salmonids, rockfish, and other predatory fishes in the area, as well as birds and marine mammals (Salo 1991; Love et al. 2002). Previous fish surveys in nearshore habitats along the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor shoreline have documented the occurrence of juvenile salmonids and forage fish, as well as a variety of other species, including perches, gunnels, pricklebacks, sculpins, pipefish, sticklebacks, tubesnouts, and juvenile flatfish (Bhuthimethee et al. 2009). The only fish observed during the field surveys near the proposed offshore platform and sensor array are various unidentified flatfish, the starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus), English sole (Parophrys vetulus), sand dabs, skates, and sculpins (WDNR 2011). ESA-Listed Fish Seven species of fish that have been listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA occur in Northern Hood Canal, near the Proposed Action (Table 3.4-1; see also Appendix D, Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, and Appendix E, Biological Assessment).
Table 3.4-1 ESA-Listed Fish that May Occur in and around the Proposed Action
Scientific Name
Salvelinus confluentus Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Common Name
Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout DPS Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU
Status
T T
Critical Habitat
No Yes: designated along the shoreline to a depth of 98 feet (30 m), except not along NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront Yes: designated along the shoreline to a depth of 98 feet (30 m,) except not along NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront No No No
Hood Canal Chum Salmon Puget Sound Steelhead ESU Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Boccaccio DPS Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Canary Rockfish DPS
Oncorhynchus keta
T T E T
Oncorhynchus mykiss Sebastes paucispinis Sebastes pinniger
3-36
February 2013
Draft EA
ESA-Listed Fish that May Occur in and around the Proposed Action
Scientific Name
Sebastes ruberrimus
Common Name
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Yelloweye Rockfish DPS
Status
T
Critical Habitat
No
Source: NMFS 2012a, b, c, d, e, f; USFWS 2012. Key: DPS E ESU m T = = = = = Distinct Population Segment Endangered Evolutionarily Significant Unit meters Threatened
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Four of the seven salmonid species (Chinook and chum salmon, and steelhead and bull trout) have populations that have been listed as threatened under the ESA within the vicinity of Hood Canal. Neither the pink salmon nor the cutthroat trout has been listed under ESA; the coho salmon has one evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) listed as endangered and three ESUs listed as threatened, but none of these ESUs utilize Hood Canal. An ESU is a population or group of populations that represent an important component of the evolutionary legacy of a species as a result of being substantially isolated reproductively from other populations of the same species. Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout Distinct Population Segment The closest known population of bull trout is in the Skokomish River, approximately 35 miles (56 km) south of the Proposed Action area. Based on recent tagging information, bull trout in the South Fork of the Skokomish River appear to be largely freshwater residents (there is currently no documentation of sea-run populations, based on tagged fish; USFWS 2011). Cushman Dam currently blocks all upstream access and most downstream access to the marine environment for bull trout in the North Fork of the Skokomish River. No records exist of bull trout in the Hood Canal marine environment or freshwater systems on the Kitsap Peninsula (USFWS 2011). No critical habitat is present in the Proposed Action area. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit The Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU includes all naturally spawned populations from all rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound. Average adult Chinook escapement (number of fish surviving to reach spawning grounds or hatcheries) in recent years is relatively low, particularly for the mid-Hood Canal stock, for which average escapements were typically below the low escapement threshold of 400 Chinook fish (WDFW 2002). Past and recent surveys have found that Chinook salmon migrating from southern Hood Canal streams and hatcheries occur most frequently along the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront from late May to early July; smolts usually migrate to estuarine areas between April and July (Salo 1991; Bhuthimethee et al. 2009). During spawning season, adult Chinook salmon enter Hood Canal waters between August and October to begin spawning in their natal streams in September, with peak spawning occurring in October. Hood Canal is included in the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU critical habitat (NMFS 2012a). Although critical habitat occurs in Northern Hood Canal waters adjacent to the base, NAVBASE
3-37
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Kitsap Bangor is excluded from the critical habitat designation for ESA-listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon by federal law (70 Federal Register [FR] 52630). As a result, no Puget Sound Chinook salmon critical habitat occurs in the immediate vicinity of the cable exit hole and a portion of the cable route within the NRA, although the marine waters of Northern Hood Canal, immediately beyond the bases northern boundary and those that include the sensor array and offshore platform, are considered critical habitat. Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit Naturally spawned chum salmon populations occur in Hood Canal and its tributaries; this anadromous fish thus is likely to be present in the marine waters adjacent to NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Juvenile summer-run chum typically occur in this portion of Hood Canal from January through early April, with a peak in late March, while adult summer-run chum return to Hood Canal from early August through to the first week in October. Additionally, areas of Hood Canal within the Proposed Action area are included in the Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon ESU critical habitat (NMFS 2012b). Puget Sound Steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Unit Naturally spawned steelhead populations occur in streams in the river basins of Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Hood Canal (NMFS 2012c); this anadromous fish is likely to be present in the marine waters adjacent to NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. The steelhead occurs most frequently in the late spring and summer months. Juvenile out-migration in Hood Canal typically occurs from March through June, with peak out-migration during April and May. Returning adult steelhead appear between February and June. This species is considered to occur in the Proposed Action area. Currently, no critical habitat designation exists for this distinct population segment (DPS), but it is under development. Rockfish Species Rockfish are a diverse group of mostly bottom-dwelling fish of the genus Sebastes and are especially prevalent in the North Pacific Ocean (Love et al. 2002). Three rockfish species found in Hood Canal are federally listed under the ESA. Boccaccio is the only one of the three listed as endangered, while canary rockfish and Yelloweye rockfish are listed as threatened (75 FR 22276). Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Boccaccio Distinct Population Segment and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Canary Rockfish Distinct Population Segment Adult bocaccio and canary rockfish generally reside in water deeper than 160 feet (49 m), but juveniles and young adults inhabit shallow waters (NMFS 2012d, 2012e), such as those adjacent to NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. They are generally associated with artificial structures. No critical habitat has been designated for these species. Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Yelloweye Rockfish Distinct Population Segment Adult Yelloweye rockfish generally reside in water with a depth greater than 80 feet (24 m), and often greater than 300 feet (91 m), but juveniles and young adults inhabit shallow waters (Palsson et al. 2009) such as those adjacent to NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor and are generally
3-38
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
associated with artificial structures. No critical habitat has been designated for this species at this time. Current patterns play a large role in the recruitment and distribution of rockfish larvae within and between basins (Palsson et al. 2009). As summarized by Drake et al. (2009), onshore currents, eddies, upwelling shadows, and other localized circulation patterns create conditions that retain larvae rather than disperse them. The shallow sill (approximately 164 feet [50 m] deep) at the mouth of Hood Canal further limits the circulation and exchange of water between this basin and the Strait of Juan de Fuca and central Puget Sound (Babson et al. 2006). Therefore, Puget Sound basins, including Hood Canal, have greater retention of, and reliance upon, intra-basin rockfish larvae for recruitment than coastal systems (Drake et al. 2009). Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires that the regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs), through federal fishery management plans (FMPs), describe and identify Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for each federally managed species; minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing; and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitats. Congress defines EFH as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (16 USC 1802[10]). The term fish is defined in the MSA as finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine animals and plant life other than marine mammals and birds. The regulations for implementing EFH clarify that waters include all aquatic areas and their biological, chemical, and physical properties, while substrate includes the associated biological communities that make these areas suitable fish habitats (50 CFR 600.10). Habitats used at any time during a species life cycle (i.e., during at least one of its life stages) must be accounted for when describing and identifying EFH (NMFS 2002). Authority to implement the MSA is given to the secretary of commerce through the NMFS. The MSA requires that EFH be identified and described for each federally managed species. The MSA also requires federal agencies to consult with the NMFS on activities that may adversely affect EFH or when the NMFS independently learns of a federal activity that may adversely affect EFH. The MSA defines an adverse effect as any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of EFH and may include site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 CFR 600.810). Pursuant to the MSA, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for federally managed species within the waters of Washington, Oregon, and California. The waters of the greater Puget Sound are designated EFH for coastal pelagic, Pacific salmon, and groundfish species (PFMC 2011a, b, 2012).
3-39
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
3.4.3.2
This evaluation considers potential impacts of the Proposed Action to marine fish species and the associated marine habitat upon which they are dependent for some portion of their life cycle, including foraging, refuge, migration, and reproduction. This section also includes an analysis of impacts from the Proposed Action to seven ESA-listed marine fish species. Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), approximately 2.04 acres (0.83 ha) of benthic habitat would be impacted by the construction of the EMMR system (see Table 2-3). Marine habitats used by fish species that occur along the cable route, near the offshore platform, and at the sensor array include nearshore habitats (intertidal zone and shallow subtidal zone) and offshore (deeper) habitat. The primary short-term impacts to marine fish from the construction of the EMMR system would be related to changes in turbidity in nearshore and offshore habitats from dredging and jet-plowing; and noise associated with impact pile-driving. The primary short-term (during construction) impacts to marine fish from the construction of the EMMR system would be changes in benthic habitat (e.g., from native material soft-bottom habitat to sediment of similar grain-size soft-bottom habitat). Dredging at the sensor array, offshore platform, and HDD exit hole, as well as jet-plowing along the cable route, would increase short-term turbidity levels and temporarily disturb benthic habitats and fish. The potential effect on fish would result from the resuspension of bottom sediments temporarily having an adverse effect on the water column by increasing turbidity. Increased turbidity has the potential to damage a fishs gill tissue. Although studies investigating impacts to steelhead and coho salmon from larger-scale sediment-dredging operations have shown that increased turbidity levels are insufficient to cause gill damage in salmonids, suspended sediments in high concentrations (e.g., 950 to 2,000 milligrams per liter) have been shown to cause physical stress (Redding et al. 1987; Servizi and Martens 1987). Behavioral responses of salmonids to elevated levels of suspended sediment include feeding disruption and changes in migratory and foraging behavior (Bisson and Bilby 1982; Redding et al. 1987; Servizi 1988). Behavioral changes include not rising to the surface to feed, reduction in prey location, and avoidance of areas of increased suspended sediment. While some degree of localized, short-term turbidity would be expected during dredging and jet-plowing, fish would likely avoid these areas. As such, fish would not be subject to long-term adverse physiological or behavioral stress due to turbidity. The nearest identified forage-fish spawning habitat is an eelgrass bed approximately 180 feet (55 m) to the south of the proposed HDD exit hole (Figure 3.4-1). The Proposed Action is not anticipated to adversely impact eelgrass (see Section 3.4.1, Marine Vegetation). Forage fish in the area during this time would be exposed to increased levels of turbidity, but it would not be high enough to adversely impact the spawning success of forage fish or their spawning habitat. Jet-plowing cables from the HDD exit hole would be installed in a short time period, typically
3-40
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
several days, and any indirect impacts on eelgrass beds would be temporary, short term, and not significant. As discussed in Section 3.2.3, Water Quality, in-water construction, because of the limited impact area of the Proposed Action, would not result in a measurable decrease in existing DO levels in Hood Canal to a level that would adversely impact the health of fish. As discussed in 3.2.1, Geology and Sediments, no data indicate the presence of sediments with contaminants above Washington State marine sediment quality standards within the Proposed Action area. Therefore, impacts to fish from exposure to waterborne contamination during jetplowing and dredging activities would not constitute a significant adverse impact. Fish behavior may also be adversely impacted by cable burial and dredging activities. Fish would likely leave areas where the slow-moving cable-burial equipment and dredging equipment are operating. There is a potential for benthic fish, such as flounder or sole species, to be caught in the dredging equipment or to be struck by trenching equipment. As the dredged areas would be backfilled with both non-magnetic gravel and sediment of a grain size to match existing seafloor conditions for the top 3 feet (0.9 m), there would be no long-term habitat impacts to the benthic habitat in these areas. However, benthic fish species would also experience a reduction of available benthic habitat along the cable bundle route. After installation of the cable bundle from the offshore platform to the sensor array, cable armoring would be laid on top to protect the cable, in turn reducing the available benthic habitat in the area for fish. However, due to the small size of the total footprint of the in-water impacted area (0.25 acre [0.1 ha]) within the greater Hood Canal area, impact to the benthic habitat would not have a long-term adverse impact to fish. Over the short term, fish would likely be attracted to the additional food source due to the suspension of benthic organisms impacted during construction. However, prey may decrease over the long term due to the removal or alteration of the benthic habitat. This would be a localized adverse effect, although many benthic organisms lost due to bottom disturbances would be expected to be re-established after a few months for some species, particularly along the cable corridor and in the dredged areas. Overall, because of the small size of the Proposed Action footprint, the impact to prey would not have a significant long-term adverse impact to fish populations in the greater area. The greatest underwater noise impact to fish would be associated with impact pile-driving, although noise from trenching equipment, small boat traffic and support vessels, as well as dredging, would also likely exceed background levels. These sources of noise could impact fish by the generation of underwater sounds that exceed the thresholds established for both behavior and injury of fish. The underwater noise threshold criteria for fish injury from a single pile-strike occurs at an SPL of 206 dB peak pressure within a circle centered at the location of the driven pile. Installing concrete pilings using impact pile-driving would create a peak noise of 188 dB and 166 decibel sound exposure level (SEL) at 33 feet (10 m; see Appendix C, Underwater Noise). The peak
3-41
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
underwater noise level from pile-driving would exceed the 206 dB underwater peak noise threshold criterion for fish injury within approximately a 3.3-foot (1-m) radius. Fish can also be affected by the cumulative effects of underwater noise. Each of the impacthammer-driven piles for this Proposed Action would likely require a total of approximately 600 strikes per day, and this would occur for five construction days. The applicable criteria for injury from impact pile-driving to fish would be 187 dB cumulative SEL for a fish greater than or equal to 0.07 ounce (2 grams) in weight. A 183 dB cumulative SEL injury threshold would be used for fish less than 0.07 ounce (2 grams) in weight. Using the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) underwater noise calculator, the underwater noise pressure would attenuate to below 187 dB and 183 dB cumulative SEL thresholds for fish within 92 feet (28m) and 171 feet (52 m), respectively (Figure 3.4-3). Fish may display a startle response during initial stages of construction, such as during piledriving or dredging, and would be likely to avoid the immediate vicinity (Feist et al. 1992, Hastings and Popper 2005, NRC 2008). During pile-driving, the associated underwater noise levels would result in behavioral responses, including avoidance of the Proposed Action area, and would have the potential to cause injury. Average underwater baseline noise levels acquired along the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront were measured at a level of 114 dB re: 1 Pa (Navy 2011). Sound during impact pile-driving would be detected above the average background noise levels at any nearby location in Hood Canal with a direct acoustic path (e.g., line-of-sight from the driven pile to the receiver location). During impact pile installation, the 150 dB rms re: 1 Pa behavioral threshold would be exceeded within a circle centered at the location of the impact-driven pile out to a distance of approximately 1,785 feet (544 m). Fish may display a startle response during initial stages of pile-driving and would likely avoid the immediate Proposed Action vicinity during pile-driving. After underwater noise stops, fish would likely return to the area. Various fish species have been found to abandon areas when the sound from human activities surpasses the local ambient noise levels, only to return after the sound source has been removed and ambient noise levels return to normal (Popper and Hastings 2009). Therefore, noise could have a short-term adverse impact to fish. However, because of the short injury-threshold distances of 92 feet (28 m) and 171 feet (52 m) and limited number of time (5 days) pile-driving would occur, it is anticipated that pile-driving would not pose a significant adverse impact to fish over the long term. Underwater noise caused by cable-trenching would be elevated above background noise levels during construction. Since the vessel would be moving slowly (less than 2 knots [3.7 km per hour]), with its engines running at low revolutions per minute and with the lubricated, cable-laying equipment rolling out the cables, the vessel noise and vibration would be similar to or less than that of a slow-moving merchant vessel or submarine. The underwater noise would have a short-term impact but would not have a significantly adverse impact to fish.
3-42
February 2013
-1
30
- 12
10 -1
541 m (150 dB rms Fish) Area=0.78 km2 (193.17 acre)
Ca
n yo
n Rd NW Vaa Rd
-70
-1 00 -90
0 -8
-50
-6 0
117 m (150 dB rms Marine Mammals) Area=0.04 km2 (10.61 acre)
Pioneer Way NW
Figure 3.4-3 Distances to Underwater Thresholds for Marine Mammals and Fish Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington Legend Military Installation Boundary
Navy Restricted Area Bathymetry Contours Offshore Platform (15' x 15' / 4.5 x 4.5 m) 10 ft Interval Contour 50 ft Index Contour
0 0
250 500 Feet Meters 100 200
-2
C le
Johnso n Rd NW
ar Cre ek Rd NW
-40
Distance/Threshold*
Hood Canal
117 m 160 dB rms disturbance threshold for Marine Mammals Area=0.04 km2 (10.61 acre) 541 m 150 dB rms behavioral threshold for Fish Area=0.78 km2 (193.17 acre)
Jefferson County
3-43
Pou l s bo
* Threshold root mean square (rms)
Po u l s b o
Silv er da le
Kitsap County
WA
0 0
1 1.5 3
2 Miles Kilometers
Source: Esri, 2012; NAVFAC, 2012; Dept.of Defense - Navy, 2011; Finlayson, 2005; NAIP, 2011.
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
ESA-Listed Fish Due to the similarity of life histories for species within ESA-listed species groups (salmonids and rockfish), impacts to ESA-listed species are discussed by listed species group rather than as individual species. As a result, the species group ESA-Listed Hood Canal Salmonids includes Puget Sound Chinook, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, and Puget Sound steelhead. No records exist of bull trout in the Hood Canal marine environment or freshwater systems on the Kitsap Peninsula (USFWS 2011); therefore, bull trout are not expected to occur in the Proposed Action area. The species group ESA-Listed Hood Canal Rockfish includes bocaccio, Yelloweye rockfish, and canary rockfish. ESA-Listed Salmonids Some impacts to ESA-listed salmonids would be similar to those described above for other fish species and include the alteration of habitats (e.g., aquatic vegetation disturbance) or their physical presence during the construction period (e.g., avoidance due to increased underwater noise). Similarly to other fish species, ESA-listed salmonids would be able to avoid the slowly moving cable-burial equipment and may experience a loss or reduction of available prey due to the disturbance caused by infrastructure installation. However, any in-water work would be accomplished from July 16 to February 15 (when few juvenile salmonids would be present) in order to reduce potential impacts to ESA-listed fish. Therefore, no significant short-term or longterm adverse effects would occur to these species. Generally, ESA-listed salmonid fry emigrate for estuarine and nearshore habitats from January through April and from April through early July as larger sub-yearlings. However, adult salmonids, such as the Hood Canal summer-run chum, return from early August through mid- to late October. Therefore, while the Proposed Action would adhere to the permitted in-water work window for this portion of Hood Canal (July 16 to February 15) to minimize construction-related impacts to juvenile salmonids, some adult salmonids, including the shoreline-migrating summerrun chum salmon, would be expected to occur during periods of construction. Adherence to the in-water work window generally ensures that effects from the construction of in-water structures would have no more than a minimal direct effect on listed juvenile salmonids. In addition to being present during construction, adult summer-run chum salmon are more dependent on nearshore marine habitats during their in-migration than other adult salmonid species. Therefore, adults of this species may be more affected by construction during their migration to natal streams than adults of other ESA-listed salmonids. Summer-run chum could be exposed to disturbance or injury during construction. Turbidity plumes resulting from dredging and jet-plowing, while likely not sufficient to cause gill damage, could result in chum temporarily avoiding portions of their typical habitat. As a result, Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) may affect but is not likely to adversely affect adult summer-run chum. Mitigation measures listed in Section 2.4; however, would reduce the potential for any adverse effects. The Proposed Action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed salmonid species. There would be a temporary increase in turbidity and decrease in water quality from the
3-44
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
trench installation and dredging; however, this would be limited to within 500 feet (152 m) of the construction area. In determining what areas are critical habitats, NMFS considers the biological or physical constituent elements essential to the conservation of a given species. Primary constituent elements are listed with the critical habitat description. The primary constituent elements of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmons critical habitat are essential for the conservation of these ESUs and include freshwater spawning and rearing sites, water quality and forage support, natural cover such as shade, freshwater migration corridors, and estuarine and nearshore marine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation. As this is a marine-based action, no freshwater-related PCEs would be impacted. With the exception of the offshore platform, all Proposed Action components would be buried and would not result in an obstruction to salmon migration. The platform is also not expected to result in a barrier to migration because it would be placed at a depth where juvenile salmon are not expected. Adult salmon may be present in this area; however, they would not experience the same barrier effect as nearshore-dependent juvenile salmonids. Should they encounter the platform, adult salmon could migrate around the structure with no overall delay in their movement. Water quality would not be significantly degraded. Furthermore, with the upper portions of the dredged areas backfilled with sediment of a grain size that matches the existing seafloor conditions, there would be no long-term or permanent impacts to salmonid habitat. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not affect designated critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon. In summary, no significant shortor long-term adverse impacts would occur to ESA-listed salmonids as a result of the EMMR system construction. ESA-Listed Rockfish Generally, bocaccio, Yelloweye rockfish, and canary rockfish are rare in Hood Canal waters and are expected to be limited in the Proposed Action area because of the lack of suitable habitat. Due to the habitat characteristics of Hood Canal, the closest adult ESA-listed rockfish would likely occur several thousand feet away from the Proposed Action area, in waters deeper than 120 feet (37 m). It is possible that a few larval Yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, and bocaccio may occur within the water column and could be impacted by construction. The number of impacted ESA-listed rockfish would be expected to be undetectable because larval rockfish are readily dispersed by currents after they are born, making the concentration of larvae in any one location extremely small (Love et al. 2002; WDFW 2009). Construction of the EMMR system would result in small-scale changes in current velocity and flow around the inwater structure. However, this effect would be too small and localized to alter existing nearshore and offshore currents or normal rockfish larval recruitment strategies within Hood Canal. Rockfish are known to avoid waters with DO concentrations below 2 milligrams per liter and temperatures greater than 51 degrees Fahrenheit (11 degrees Celsius; Palsson et al. 2009). In 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006, low DO caused fish kills in Southern Hood Canal (Newton et al. 2007; Palsson et al. 2009). Generally, chronic and episodic low DO events are limited to Southern Hood Canal; this pattern is not as prevalent in Northern Hood Canal waters (Newton et al. 2007). Rockfish tend to relocate to depths with more suitable conditions when they encounter
3-45 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
conditions not suitable at depths where they normally occur (Drake et al. 2009; Palsson et al. 2009). Short-term and temporary effects on water quality (localized increased turbidity) are expected to occur primarily during construction, but these conditions would not appreciatively decrease DO concentrations. Limited information is available on the effects of elevated turbidities on rockfish. However, the effects would likely be similar to those described previously for salmonids and other fishes. Although construction would temporarily increase suspended solids over the short term, the concentrations and time would be insufficient to cause severe gill irritation or result in fish mortality. It is predicted that turbidity levels would return to ambient conditions following the completion of in-water construction. If rockfish should encounter turbidity plumes during construction, they would likely avoid them. Juvenile rockfish recruit to nearshore habitats that include algae-covered rocks or sandy areas with eelgrass or drift algae (Johnson et al. 2003). Other studies have found that post-larval juvenile rockfish also recruit to manmade in-water structures (Love et al. 2005, 2006). The installation of the EMMR system would only disturb soft-bottom habitat, and no dredging or removal of marine vegetation or high-relief structured habitat potentially used by juvenile rockfish would occur. Construction of the EMMR system would not decrease food sources for rockfish, such as plankton, or forage fish for larger, older rockfish. However, noise from construction may displace prey species; therefore, older age-classes of rockfish, should they be present, could experience a temporary decrease in their small-fish prey base during construction. However, underwater noise levels would return to levels consistent with current conditions, and these prey species would no longer be expected to avoid the surrounding area. The activity with the greatest potential for adverse effects on ESA-listed rockfish is noise associated with pile-driving. Pile-driving of five concrete piles would increase underwater noise above established thresholds for fish over the five-day construction period. However, because of the short injury threshold distances of 92 feet (28 m) and 171 feet (52 m), and considering that the closest adult ESA-listed rockfish would likely be several thousand feet away from the Proposed Action area and within waters deeper than 120 feet (37 m), it would be anticipated that pile-driving would not significantly impact rockfish. Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) may affect but is not likely to adversely affect bocaccio, Yelloweye rockfish, and canary rockfish. Because the potential impacts to bocaccio, yelloweye rockfish, and canary rockfish from the Proposed Action construction would be below the threshold for harassment and/or injury, no significant short-term or long-term adverse impacts would occur on ESA-listed rockfish as a result of the EMMR system construction. Essential Fish Habitat The Navy has conducted an analysis of the potential effects of the Proposed Action to designated EFH within the Proposed Action area. Effects on EFH would be the same habitat effects as those described for construction impacts for fish, including listed salmonids and rockfish. Additional details can be found in the EFH Assessment (Appendix D). In summary, the Proposed Action
3-46 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
would affect fish habitat through bottom disturbance, localized increases in turbidity, a temporary reduction in water quality, and temporarily elevated noise levels. The Navy will consider implementing conservation measures designed to protect ESA-regulated species that would similarly protect and conserve Pacific Coast groundfish EFH, coastal pelagic species EFH, and Pacific Coast salmon EFH. The addition of the offshore platform is not anticipated to act as a barrier to fish migration or expected to result in overwater shading effects due to the small size of the structure and water depth at that location. The armoring of the cable bundle between the platform and the sensor array system would convert approximately 0.13 acre (0.05 ha) of soft bottom to hard bottom habitat, potentially resulting in a localized change in the species composition along that section of the cable bundle. Based on the EFH analysis, the Navy determined that construction of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) may adversely affect salmonids, groundfish, and coastal pelagic species EFH within the Proposed Action area. However, these are anticipated to be temporary and localized effects. Additionally, areas affected are small in comparison to adjacent available EFH; thus, no significant impacts to EFH would result from construction of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Operation Impacts There would be no increase in vessel activity or nearshore activity relative to existing conditions under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) and thus no increase in vessel-related underwater noise that would impact fish in the area. A potential impact to marine fish from operation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) could result from EMF radiation from the system. However, the EMMR system would operate passively, receiving electromagnetic signals, and would use between 36 and 48 volts at 0.5 ampere. The power to run the EMMR system is the equivalent to 24 watts, less than the power used by an average household light bulb. This system is purposely designed to emit as negligible levels of EMF radiation as possible so as to not interfere with the submarine signatures being measured. The system would be buried approximately 4 to 6 feet (1.2 to 1.8 m) below the seafloor surface; therefore, effects of EMF radiation on fish species would not be anticipated. While a small fraction of marine species have been directly studied for magnetic or electric fields, no studies have described potential effects of anthropogenic EMF radiation associated with submerged power cables on fish populations or distribution (OWET 2010; Normandeau et al. 2011). As the voltage and amperage of the proposed EMMR system would be very low, along with the depth at which the EMMR system would be buried and the infrequency of the sensors use (approximately 25 minutes per month), no significant adverse impacts would occur to fish. Maintenance of the EMMR system would include routine inspections of the system, either onshore or on the offshore platform, as required. Measures would be employed to prevent discharges of contaminants to the marine environment. As a result, maintenance would not affect marine fish.
3-47 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
The operation of the EMMR system as proposed under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would have no significant short- or long-term adverse impacts to fish. ESA-Listed Fish ESA-Listed Salmonids No EMF-related impacts on salmonids would be associated with the EMMR system. The sensor array and cable system would be buried; therefore, the EMMR system would not create a barrier to salmonids migrating through Hood Canal. Juvenile salmonids have been shown to avoid crossing the shade/light line created by an overhead pier/dock (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001). The small size of the offshore platform would not create a shade barrier that would disrupt salmonid migration along the nearshore area. The Navy has determined that operation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, and bull trout or their associated critical habitat. Therefore, no significant short- or long-term adverse impacts would occur to ESA-listed salmonids from operating the EMMR system. ESA-Listed Rockfish Operation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would not result in adverse impacts to water quality. No EMF-related impacts on rockfish would be associated with the EMMR system, and no impacts would occur to marine vegetation. The structure-supporting piles of the offshore platform would convert the existing soft-bottom benthic habitat to hard-bottom habitat and could affect local prey availability as well as increase the potential recruitment of juvenile bocaccio, yelloweye rockfish, and canary rockfish. Previous studies have found that post-larval juvenile rockfish recruit to manmade in-water structures (Love et al. 2005, 2006). The Navy has determined that operation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) may affect but is not likely to adversely affect bocaccio, yelloweye rockfish, and canary rockfish or their associated habitat. Therefore, no significant short- or long-term adverse impacts would occur to ESA-listed rockfish from operating the EMMR system. Essential Fish Habitat Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), the entire EMMR system except the offshore platform would be buried either in the sediment or under concrete armoring. Long-term impacts to physical habitat would include the addition of an overwater structure. However, because of its small size and the water depth in which it would be constructed, this platform would not shade marine vegetation, and no significant corresponding loss would occur in benthic habitat suitability and productivity for some species. Likewise, the offshore platform would not represent a long-term migrational barrier to juvenile salmonids. Based on the lack of operational impacts to salmonids, groundfish, and coastal pelagic species, the Navy has determined that operation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would not
3-48
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
adversely affect managed salmonids, groundfish, and coastal pelagic species or their associated EFH. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Construction Impacts Construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 2 and any associated environmental consequences would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). The only difference would be that the 925-foot (282-m) cable bundle located between the offshore platform and sensor array would be buried but not armored. The jet-plow corridor (0.26 acre [0.1 ha]) would be double the area of the armored cable corridor and would potentially displace up to 822 cubic yards (629 m3) of sediment (see Table 2-3). This would double the potential loss of benthic habitat compared to that of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) and likely cause a greater increase in turbidity due to the larger displaced volume of material during jet-plowing. However, because of the small area of impact relative to available adjacent benthic habitat and the short-term nature of the increased turbidity, Alternative 2 would not have significant short- or long-term impacts to fish. ESA-Listed Fish ESA-Listed Salmonids Construction effects of Alternative 2 on ESA-list salmonids in Northern Hood Canal would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Therefore, the Navy has determined that construction of Alternative 2 may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, and bull trout or their associated critical habitat. Therefore, no significant short- or long-term adverse impacts would occur to ESA-listed salmonids as a result of the EMMR system construction. ESA-Listed Rockfish Impacts to water quality and the soft-bottom habitat during the construction of Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Therefore, the Navy has determined that construction of Alternative 2 may affect but is not likely to adversely affect bocaccio, canary rockfish, or Yelloweye rockfish in Northern Hood Canal or their associated habitat. Therefore, no significant short- or long-term adverse impacts would occur to ESA-listed rockfish as a result of the EMMR system construction. Essential Fish Habitat Impacts to EFH species and their habitats from the construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative); the only difference would be that the 925-foot (282-m) cable bundle between the offshore platform and sensor array system would not be armored but instead buried, creating additional turbidity during construction. This would be a negligible difference that would not substantially increase or decrease Proposed Action-related impacts to managed species or their habitats, and overall effects would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Therefore,
3-49 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
the Navy has determined that construction of Alternative 2 may adversely affect salmonid, groundfish, or coastal pelagic species EFH within the Proposed Action area. However, due to the temporary and localized nature of the effects and the use of minimization measures, no significant impacts to EFH would result. Operation Impacts Alternative 2 would have the same operation impacts to fish as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). ESA-Listed Fish ESA-Listed Salmonids Alternative 2 would have the same operation impacts to ESA-listed salmonids as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). The Navy has determined that operation of Alternative 2 may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, and bull trout or their associated critical habitat. As such, there would be no significant short- or long-term adverse impacts to ESA-listed salmonids from operating the EMMR system. ESA-Listed Rockfish Alternative 2 would have the same operation impacts to ESA-listed rockfish as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Therefore, the Navy has determined that operation of Alternative 2 may affect but is not likely to adversely affect bocaccio, canary rockfish, or Yelloweye rockfish or their associated habitat. As such, no significant short- or long-term adverse impacts would occur to ESA-listed rockfish from operating the EMMR system. Essential Fish Habitat Alternative 2 would have the same operational impacts to managed species and associated EFH as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Therefore, the Navy has determined that operation of Alternative 2 would not adversely affect managed salmonids, groundfish, coastal pelagic species, or their associated EFH. Alternative 3: No Action No changes to fish or their habitat would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. 3.4.3.3 Permits and Consultation
Consultation between the Navy and NMFS for the MSA for impact to ESA-listed fish species and EFH will be completed. 3.4.4 Birds
This section addresses both marine and terrestrial birds because most marine and terrestrial bird species and special status bird species that occur within the Proposed Action area forage in the marine environment.
3-50 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
3.4.4.1
Affected Environment
The main groups of marine birds that occur in Northern Hood Canal are shorebirds, wading birds, marine waterfowl, raptors, and seabirds. These groups occur periodically throughout the year but are more predominant during the winter months and migration periods (Table 3.4-2). Marine birds use manmade structures on the marine waterfront and trees along the shoreline for perching, resting, and (for a few species) nesting, but in general they rely on marine habitats and food resources to meet their needs. The MBTA (16 U.S.C 703 et seq.) and EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, protect migratory birds from harm, except as permitted by the USFWS for purposes such as banding, scientific collecting, taxidermy, falconry, depredation control, and other regulated activities such as game bird hunting. Harm includes actions that result in pursuit, hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, or transportation of any migratory bird, bird part, nest, or egg thereof. Bald eagles (Haliaetus leucocephalus) are protected under both the MBTA and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C 668), which prohibits the taking of bald eagles through pursuit, shooting, poison, killing, trapping, collecting, disturbance, or transportation. Two fish-eating raptor species may be present near the Proposed Action area. The bald eagle is a year-round resident, and the osprey is a summer resident. This species also has been observed feeding, perching or roosting, and bathing at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor and the adjacent shoreline year-round (Agness and Tannenbaum 2009a; Tannenbaum et al. 2009a). An active bald eagle nest is located south of Devils Hole near the waterfront (Leicht 2008), and the closest known nesting territory outside the base, which is approximately 860 feet (262 m) east of the proposed offshore platform, contains two nests (WDFW 2012a). Ospreys nest near water, including marine shorelines, rivers, lakes, and streams where fish are available for foraging (Poole et al. 2002). Their nests are usually located in tall trees near large bodies of water. They have been observed flying, perching, and foraging along the Hood Canal shoreline, including the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor shoreline (Agness and Tannenbaum 2009a; Tannenbaum et al. 2009a). An active nest site at Cattail Lake is located approximately 1,000 feet (305 m) southeast of Building 7801(Navy 2012c, WDFW 2012a). Most of the marine bird species occurring near the Proposed Action area are migratory, including marine waterfowl and seabirds. Shorebirds, present during winter and/or migration, include plover species, sanderlings (Calidris alba), sandpiper species, dowitchers, and the spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia). These birds primarily rely on resources in Hood Canal for foraging during the non-breeding season, when over-wintering, or as a stopover during spring and fall migrations (Buchanan 2004). They forage in intertidal mudflats or on beaches near the shoreline for worms, insect larvae, and aquatic insects (Buchanan 2004). Shorebirds rest or sleep (roost) in a variety of habitats, including salt flats adjacent to intertidal foraging areas, higher elevation sand beaches, and grassy areas near intertidal foraging areas; roost sites occasionally include floating man-made structures such as piles, log rafts, or floating docks (Buchanan 2004).
3-51
February 2013
Draft EA
Table 3.4-2
Marine Bird Groupings and Families in and around the Proposed Action Area
Bird Families
Plovers, sanderlings, dowitchers, sandpipers, yellowlegs, phalaropes, and great blue heron
Bird Group
Shorebirds and Wading Birds
Season(s) of Occurrence
Killdeer: year-round Great blue heron: year-round Spotted sandpiper: summer Phalaropes: during migration All other species: winter and during spring and/or fall migration Canada goose, red-necked and hooded mergansers, and dabbling ducks: year-round Surf and white-winged scoters: winter and in non-breeding flocks during summer All other species: winter and/or during migration (spring and/or fall migration)
Preferred Habitats
Great blue heron: shoreline, shallow marine, and freshwater Shorebirds: Intertidal zone, mudflats, and beaches Canada goose, mergansers, and dabbling ducks: marine and freshwater shorelines, eelgrass beds, and shallow water Scoters, goldeneye: marine nearshore and deeper water, and near pilings Grebes, loons: marine nearshore and deeper water Pursuit divers: marine nearshore and deeper water Surface feeders (gulls, terns): shoreline, marine nearshore, and deeper water Forested shoreline, shoreline, marine nearshore, and freshwater
Preferred Prey
Great blue heron: crustaceans, small fishes Shorebirds: marine worms, insect larvae, and aquatic insects Canada goose: vegetation Mergansers: small fishes Dabbling ducks: marine and freshwater vegetation, freshwater and marine larvae, aquatic and terrestrial insects Scoters, goldeneye: molluscs, barnacles, crustaceans, and other invertebrates, small fishes Grebes, loons: small fishes Pursuit divers: small fishes, invertebrates, and zooplankton Surface feeders: small fishes, molluscs, crustaceans, garbage, and carrion Bald eagle: fishes, waterfowl, shorebirds, carrion Osprey: fishes
Waterfowl
Diving ducks (goldeneye, scoters, bufflehead), mergansers, grebes, loons, dabbling ducks (mallard, wigeon), and geese
Seabirds
Pursuit divers: auklets, murres, murrelets, guillemots, and cormorants Surface feeders: gulls and terns
Gulls: Glaucous-winged gulls: yearround; Ring-billed gull: year-round; mew gull: winter, migrant; Bonapartes gull: fall and spring migrant; other species: winter Terns: Caspian terns: summer; Common tern: fall migrant All other species: year-round Bald eagle: Year-round Osprey: Summer resident
Raptors
Bald eagle, Osprey
Sources: Opperman 2003; Larsen et al. 2004; WDFW 2005
3-52
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Birds occurring near the upland Proposed Action area include waterfowl, such as the mallard duck, widgeon (Mareca spp.), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), green-winged teal (Anas carolinensis), and northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), as well as neotropical migratory songbirds. Species of migratory songbirds that can be found on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor include the Townsends warbler (Dendroica townsendii), varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius), Huttons vireo (Vireo huttoni), and American robin (Turdus migratorius; Navy 2012c). These songbirds include seed-eaters (grainivores) and insectivores that roost in a variety of upland habitats, including upland successional forests, open habitat, grassland and shrub land habitats, wetlands, and Cattail Lake. The great blue heron (Ardea herodias) is a wading bird that is a year-round resident in lowelevation areas of western Washington. This species forages on fish, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates in wetlands, streams, and marine shorelines in Washington (Quinn and Milner 2004). Great blue herons have been observed foraging, resting, and flying along the Hood Canal shoreline throughout the year (Agness and Tannenbaum 2009a; Tannenbaum et al. 2009a, 2011a). In 2008, three new nests were constructed on a lightning tower at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Although at least two nests contained chicks during summer 2008, surveys conducted between November 2009 and May 2010 did not find evidence of use of these areas (Tannenbaum et al. 2009a; Tannenbaum et al. 2011a). Great blue herons are known to use Cattail Lake (Navy 2012c). Seabirds (e.g., gulls and terns) and diving-pursuit birds (e.g., cormorants, murres, and guillemots) also occur year-round. Depending on individual species life history, surface-feeding seabirds may be present in Hood Canal during different seasons. Whereas glaucous-winged gulls occur year round, other gull species only occur during certain times of the year (Hayward and Verbeek 2008). Glaucous-winged gulls breed at established colonies; the closest colony to the Proposed Action area is located approximately 30 miles (48 km) to the northwest on Protection Island, near the mouth of Discovery Bay in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Hayward and Verbeek 2008). Caspian terns (Hydroprogne caspia) disperse from breeding colonies after the breeding season ends in June or July and may occur in Northern Hood Canal from April to August. Gulls and terns typically forage on small schooling fish, visible from the water surface in the nearshore-marine and inland-marine deeper water habitats (e.g., Pacific herring, Pacific sand lance, and juvenile salmonids). Although pursuit-diving seabirds, such as double-crested cormorants, can occur year-round in Northern Hood Canal, numbers of some species are greater during winter months, including the pelagic cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus), common murre (Uria aalge), and pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba). These birds are found in nearshore areas, where they dive to capture prey underwater. Primary forage resources of these seabirds include small schooling fish and other nearshore fish, such as Pacific sand lance and Pacific herring (Vermeer et al. 1987). See Table 3.4-2 for bird groupings and families in and around the Proposed Action area. ESA-Listed Birds Marbled Murrelet The marbled murrelet is the only ESA-listed bird species that may occur in the vicinity of the Proposed Action area.
3-53 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
The marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) was listed in 1992 as threatened in California, Oregon, and Washington under the ESA (57 FR 45328). Primary causes of the species decline include direct mortality from oil spills and by-catch in gill-net fisheries, as well as loss of nesting habitat (61 FR 26256). Critical habitat was designated for the marbled murrelet in 1996 and includes approximately 1.5 million acres (607,029 ha) in Washington State. However, no lands on or near NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor are designated as critical habitat for this species (61 FR 26256; 71 FR 53838). No marine areas have been designated as critical habitat. Designated critical habitat closest to Hood Canal includes forest lands west and south from Dabob Bay, which is within flight distance of the Proposed Action (less than 52 miles [84 km]) for breeding murrelets (61 FR 26256). Marbled murrelets are distributed throughout the inland marine waters of Washington during the summer, with higher concentrations in the San Juan Islands, north Hood Canal, and the south coast of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In the winter, there is a shift in concentration toward the more protected waters of the San Juan Islands, Hood Canal, Discovery Bay, Saratoga Passage, and Port Townsend (Strachan et al. 1995). Marbled murrelet presence in nearshore and deeper waters in Northern Hood Canal has been confirmed during every season from 2007 to 2010 (Agness and Tannenbaum 2009a; Tannenbaum et al. 2009a, 2011a). The Kitsap Audubon Society reported the marbled murrelet in three annual Christmas Bird Count Surveys conducted along the shoreline south of the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront. Murrelets use the marine environment in Hood Canal for courtship, loafing, and foraging (USFWS 2010). The 10-year average density of marbled murrelets in Hood Canal was calculated to be 2.6 birds per square mile (1.0 bird per square km) for the summer months, with densities of approximately 4.8 birds per square mile (1.8 birds per square km) in winter months (USFWS 2011). Marbled murrelets nest solitarily in trees with features typical of coniferous old-growth forest (stand age from 200 to 250 years old; trees with a multi-layered canopy). Although old-growth forest is its preferred habitat for nesting, this species is known to nest in mature second-growth forest with trees as young as 180 years old (Hamer and Nelson 1995). Data does not indicate the presence of marbled murrelet nests in the upland areas surrounding the Proposed Action area (WDFW 2012a). 3.4.4.2 Environmental Consequences
The evaluation of impacts to birds considers the importance of the resource (i.e., legal, recreational, ecological, or scientific); the proportion of the resource affected relative to its occurrence in the region; the particular sensitivity of the resource to Proposed Action activities; and the duration of environmental impacts or disruption. Impacts to resources are based on: The presence of habitats of high concern that would be adversely affected over relatively large areas;
3-54
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Disturbances to small, essential habitats that would lead to regional impacts to a protected species; or Disturbances that harass or impact the ability of species to acquire resources and ultimately impact the abundance or distribution of federally listed threatened or endangered species. Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts The primary impacts to marine birds from construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would be associated with elevated noise levels due to pile-driving and uses of other construction equipment (see Section 3.2, Noise); increased construction vessel traffic (see Section 3.9, Marine Navigation); visual disturbance from the increased presence of construction vessels, equipment, and human activity during two seasons of in-water and upland construction; increased turbidity (see Section 3.1.3, Water Resources); and changes in prey availability (benthic community and forage fish; see Section 3.4.3, Fish). Marine birds would be likely to avoid the construction area due to behavioral disturbance from increased noise, vessel movement, and human presence during the two in-water construction windows. However, some birds may enter the area during breaks in activity to forage or rest. Marine birds would be most susceptible to impacts if foraging underwater during in-water construction and elevated noise levels generated by impact pile-driving and, to a lesser extent, dredging and jet-plowing. Exposure to elevated SPLs can result in barotrauma, or physical injury caused by a change in pressure, usually occurring in the eare.g., internal injuries, including hemorrhage and rupture of internal organs caused by a difference in pressure between an air space inside the body and the surrounding gas or liquid (Hastings and Popper 2005). As a result, diving birds exposed to underwater SPLs from impact pile-driving close to the source could potentially be injured. During construction-period monitoring at the Hood Canal Bridge, observers described a pigeon guillemot that appeared to be distressed and initially unable to fly following underwater exposure to impact pile-driving of steel piles at a distance of approximately 225 feet (169 m; USFWS 2011). However, it should be noted that pile-driving of concrete piles produces underwater sound pressures that are generally less than those generated by driving steel piles (Laughlin 2007). This, combined with the limited pile-driving activity of a single impact hammer being used to drive one pile during an 8-hour day (for five piles in total), would reduce the underwater noise exposure to a less than significant impact to birds in the surrounding area. Although some birds may exhibit an annoyance reaction and flee from the construction area, others may continue to forage close to the construction area and be exposed to associated noise. Prey species, such as fish, could potentially be impacted as a result of pile-driving, which could serve as an attractant and compound underwater noise exposure impacts to birds that forage underwater, as discussed above.
3-55
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Birds resting or foraging on the surface of the water, the shoreline, or manmade structures would also be exposed to increased construction noise, visual disturbance, vessel traffic, and displacement of prey availability. Behavioral changes in response to construction activity include avoidance reactions, alarm/startle responses, temporary abandonment of resting sites, and other behavioral and stress-related changes (such as altered flight, diving, altered direction of travel, and changes in feeding activity, vocalizations, and resting behavior). Furthermore, birds may depart during construction (early morning hours) and return to the area following a decrease in activity (evening hours). Increased turbidity would make it difficult for marine birds to locate prey due to decreased visibility, and the increased turbidity would also displace prey availability within the Proposed Action construction area (see Section 3.4.3, Fish). However, the decrease in prey availability would be short term and within a small area, so it would not be considered a significant impact to marine birds due to the availability of habitat and prey in areas adjacent to Hood Canal. As described for other marine species, the contractor would be required to prepare and implement a spill response plan to clean up any fuel or fluid releases. In the event of an accidental release, response measures would be implemented immediately to reduce the potential for exposure to the environment. Therefore, accidental releases or discharges would not be expected to adversely impact the marine environment or marine birds. Similarly to marine birds, terrestrial birds may be impacted by loss of habitat, noise disturbance, and visual disturbance during construction. For construction of the ATN, the ATN corridor would require vegetation clearing of 0.64 acre (0.26 ha). Within this corridor, 0.31 acre (0.12 ha) of forest and disturbed land would be cleared, and birds would be temporarily displaced from the Proposed Action footprint during construction. Noise and visual disturbance during construction may displace birds from the Proposed Action footprint and surrounding habitat, including Cattail Lake, wetlands associated with Cattail Lake, and intertidal estuarine wetlands. Due to the relatively small amount of habitat conversion (less than 1 percent decrease of forest land and a corresponding less than 1 percent increase of disturbed land), Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would not have a significant long-term adverse impact to terrestrial birds. As part of mitigation measures, the Navy would install bird deterrents on the offshore platform and ATN to prevent birds from using the structures for perching or nesting. The Proposed Action would not result in a take of bald eagles or a significantly adverse or disruptive impact to migratory birds. In summary, no significant short- or long-term adverse impacts would occur to marine or terrestrial birds from the construction of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). ESA-Listed Birds Marbled Murrelet The marbled murrelet is present in Hood Canal year-round but has peak densities in the winter. In-water construction of the Proposed Action would occur from July 16 to February 15 to adhere to an in-water work window designed to avoid impact to ESA-listed fish. Therefore, a portion of the proposed construction would occur when marbled murrelets are at their peak density in Hood
3-56 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Canal. However, due to the short-term nature of pile-driving (over 5 days) and the wide-ranging suitable habitat in Northern Hood Canal, the potential impacts to marbled murrelets would be highly localized. Murrelets resting or foraging on the surface of the water or the shoreline would be exposed to EMMR system construction noise. This noise has the potential to cause injury and behavioral disturbance for the marbled murrelet. Noise associated with pile-driving would be the loudest source of noise to marbled murrelets present in the Proposed Action area. Pile-driving can generate airborne noise that could potentially disturb marbled murrelets. The USFWS has not issued a threshold for marbled murrelet communication masking as a result of pile-driving. The distance to which masking may occur at the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront was calculated during the second Marbled Murrelet Science Panel using the Test Pile Program data. Since the EMMR system would be located along the same section of Hood Canal but would be driving smaller-sized, 24-inch (61-cm) concrete piles, the distance to the masking threshold is expected to be less than that calculated by the panel. The distance to the marbled murrelet airborne threshold was estimated by the panel at 168 meters (551 feet) for impact pile-driving of 36-inch (91 cm) piles at the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront. Airborne construction noise associated with dredging and filling and jet-plow operations would not be expected to exceed the masking zone resulting from pile-driving. Masking of marbled murrelet vocalizations due to airborne pile-driving noise has the potential to affect foraging behavior and efficiency because murrelets forage in pairs (Navy 2012a). However, it is likely that marbled murrelets would continue foraging even if masking occurs (USFWS 2011); therefore, measureable effects on foraging due to potential masking of vocalizations would not be anticipated. The potential for injury and/or mortality of any aquatic organism from pile-driving depends on the type and intensity of the sounds produced. These are influenced by the type of hammer, type of substrate, and depth of the water. The marbled murrelets exposed to elevated underwater noise from impact pile-driving close to the source could potentially be injured. Observation of foraging marbled murrelets during impact pile-driving at one project in Washington revealed that marbled murrelets will come fairly close (within 984 feet [300 m]) to active pile-driving operations and continue to dive and forage despite elevated underwater sound levels (USFWS 2011). Pile-driving of concrete piles produces underwater sound pressures that are generally less than those generated by steel piles (Laughlin 2007). It is assumed that a single impact hammer would be used to drive all five piles, one pile during an 8-hour day, with each pile requiring a maximum of 600 strikes. Pile-driving under this alternative could take up to five days, with a maximum of 3,000 strikes. Exposure to sound that meets the criterion established for the onset of auditory injury (202 dB SEL) would qualify as harm under the ESA. The five 24-inch (61-cm) concrete piles in 40 to 50 feet (12 to 15 m) water depth would generate a peak SPL of 188 dB at 33 feet (10 m) and 166 dB SEL (see Appendix C, Underwater Noise, for more details). Although the injury threshold of 202 dB cumulative SEL would be exceeded for a distance of 9.8 feet (3 m) from the pile, it is highly unlikely that murrelets would occur in this area and be exposed to injurious
3-57
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
noise levels given the small injury zone (9.8 feet [3 m]). Murrelets would be expected to return to the Proposed Action area once construction is completed. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to marbled murrelets in the form of physical injury, behavioral disruption, or temporary displacement from or avoidance of the construction area would be anticipated. Like those impacts discussed above for other marine birds, feeding and foraging behavior of the marbled murrelet may be temporarily impacted during construction. However, this temporary increase in turbidity and displacement of prey availability would be too small to have a significant adverse impact to the marbled murrelet because of the availability of adjacent habitat and prey in Hood Canal. Therefore, the Navy has determined that the construction of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) may affect, not likely to adversely affect the ESA-listed marbled murrelet. Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would have no significant short- or longterm adverse impacts to the marbled murrelet as a result of construction of the EMMR system. The PCEs for marbled murrelets associated with the terrestrial environment include forest stands (greater than 32 inches in diameter) that support nesting, roosting, and other normal behaviors essential to the conservation of the marbled murrelet and require special management considerations, or stands within 0.5 mile of forested stands containing trees with potential nesting platforms. There are no marine areas currently designated as critical habitat. Therefore, the Navy determined the Proposed Action under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would have no effect on the marbled murrelet critical habitat. Operation Impacts There would be no increase in submarine operations or human activity with the operation of the EMMR system under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). For operation of the ATN, the ATN corridor would require maintained vegetation clearing of 0.64 acre (0.26 ha). Within this corridor, 0.25 acre (0.1 ha) would be permanently converted from forest land habitat to disturbed grass and shrub land habitat. Avian species that forage or roost in grass and shrub land habitats may benefit from this conversion, while species that utilize upland forest habitats may be displaced. Due to the relatively small amount of habitat conversion (less than a 1 percent decrease of forest land, and a corresponding less than 1 percent increase of disturbed land), Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would not have a significant long-term adverse impact to terrestrial birds. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in a take of bald eagles. Furthermore, due to re-vegetation of disturbed areas, the Proposed Action would not result in a significant adverse or disruptive impact to migratory birds. ESA-Listed Birds Marbled Murrelet As described above and similarly to other birds, no impact would occur to the ESA-listed marbled murrelet by the operation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Therefore, the Navy has determined that the operation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the marbled murrelet. The operation of the EMMR system under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would have no significant short- or long-term adverse impacts to the marbled murrelet.
3-58
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Construction Impacts Alternative 2 would have the same construction impacts to marine birds as those of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). ESA-Listed Birds Marbled Murrelet Alternative 2 would have the same construction impacts to marbled murrelet as those of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative); therefore, the Navy has determined that the construction of Alternative 2 may affect, not likely to adversely affect the ESA-listed marbled murrelet. Alternative 2, like Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), would have no significant short- or long-term adverse impacts to the marbled murrelet as a result of construction of the EMMR system. Operation Impacts Alternative 2 would have the same operation impacts to marine birds as those of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). ESA-Listed Birds Marbled Murrelet Alternative 2 would have the same operation impacts to the ESA-listed marbled murrelet as those of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). The Navy has determined that operation of Alternative 2 may affect but would not be likely to adversely affect the ESA-listed marbled murrelet. Therefore, the operation of the EMMR system under Alternative 2 would have no significant short- or long-term adverse impacts to the marbled murrelet. Alternative 3: No Action No changes to birds would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. 3.4.4.3 Permits and Consultation
Consultation between the Navy and USFWS under the ESA for impacts to the ESA-listed marbled murrelet will be completed. 3.4.5 3.4.5.1 Marine Mammals Affected Environment
Seven marine mammal species have historically occurred within Hood Canal, all of which are protected by the MMPA. Of these seven species, six may currently be present in Hood Canal: the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus); Dalls porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli); harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); harbor seal (Phoca vitulina); west coast transient killer whale (Orcinus orca); and ESA-listed Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). The seventh species, the
3-59 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), has only been sighted once in Hood Canal in the past 15 years. Beginning in April 2008, Navy personnel have recorded sightings of marine mammals, including California sea lions and harbor seals, during land-based observations at known sea lion haul-outs along the Hood Canal shoreline and, in particular, the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront. In addition, boat-based opportunistic sightings along portions of the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront during the course of beach seine fish surveys during the spring/summer of 2007 detected two marine mammal species (harbor seal and California sea lion; Agness and Tannenbaum 2009b). Boat-based protocol marine wildlife surveys conducted from July through September 2008 (12 surveys) and November through May 2009/2010 (12 surveys) detected four marine mammal species (California sea lion, Dalls porpoise, harbor porpoise, and harbor seal; Tannenbaum et al. 2009b, 2011b). The Navy conducted marine mammal surveys during the Test Pile Program from late August to late October 2011 and during baseline surveys in Northern Hood Canal and Dabob Bay in the absence of pile-driving. These surveys detected the California sea lion, harbor seal, Steller sea lion, and harbor porpoise. California Sea Lion Three geographic regions are used to separate the California sea lion into distinct stocks. Of these, only the United States stock, which begins at the U.S./Mexico border and extends northward into Canada, is expected to occur in Hood Canal. The minimum population size of this stock is 153,337 individuals (Carretta et al. 2012). Although no regular California sea lion haul-outs are located within Hood Canal (Jeffries et al. 2000), the species often hauls out at several opportune areas. In Puget Sound, they are known to utilize manmade structures, hauling out on log booms and Navy submarines, and are often seen rafted off river mouths (Jeffries et al. 2000; Navy 2012a). This species is present at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, south of the Proposed Action area, from August to early June and leaving by mid-June through July. As many as 81 California sea lions were observed in November 2011 at Delta Pier by Navy personnel. Delta Pier is outside of the Proposed Action area. California sea lions have also been observed swimming in Hood Canal in the vicinity of the Proposed Action area on several occasions and likely forage in both nearshore marine and inland deeper marine waters (Navy 2012a). Dalls Porpoise The Dalls porpoise occurs in temperate waters throughout the North Pacific Ocean from the U.S. border with Mexico, north to the Bering and Okhotsk seas, and through the central North Pacific to the Sea of Japan in the east (Reeves et al. 2008). While this species occurs in Puget Sound (Osmek et al. 1995, 1998), it has rarely been observed in Hood Canal. One Dalls porpoise was observed in deeper water along the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor shoreline in summer 2008; no other individuals have been detected (Tannenbaum et al. 2009b). Harbor Porpoise The harbor porpoise is a coastal species found in fjords, bays, estuaries, and harbors from Monterey Bay, California, north to the Aleutian Islands and west to Japan (Reeves et al. 2008).
3-60
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Harbor porpoises are known to occur in Puget Sound year round (Carretta et al. 2012) and may be present anywhere in Hood Canal year round. A harbor porpoise was observed in deeper water along the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor shoreline in late spring 2010 within the NRA (Tannenbaum et al. 2011b), and harbor porpoises were also commonly seen during line transect surveys conducted as part of the Test Pile Program. Navy surveys also observed harbor porpoises frequently within several miles to the north or south of the base and occasionally directly across Hood Canal, adjacent to the Toandos Peninsula. Surveys from 2002 and 2003 for the inland waters stock of harbor porpoises yielded a corrected abundance estimate of 10,682 individuals (Carretta et al. 2012). Similar to the Dalls porpoise, the harbor porpoise can be an opportunistic forager but primarily consumes schooling forage fish (Reeves et al. 2008). Harbor Seal The geographic distribution of the harbor seal includes the U.S. west coast from Baja, California, north to British Columbia and coastal Alaska, including southeast Alaska, the Aleutian Islands, the Bering Sea, and the Pribilof Islands (Carretta et al. 2012). The harbor seal is the only species of marine mammal that is consistently abundant and considered resident in Hood Canal (Jeffries et al. 2003). Their population in Hood Canal is a closed population, meaning they do not have much movement outside of the canal (London 2006). The abundance of harbor seals in Hood Canal has stabilized in recent decades, and the population may have reached its carrying capacity in the mid-1990s, with an approximate abundance of 1,000 (Jeffries et al. 2003). Harbor seals use all marine habitats; the intertidal zone and manmade structures are used for haul-out activities, while subtidal, nearshore marine habitats, inland marine deeper water habitats, and the lower reaches of rivers are used for foraging (Reeves et al. 2008). The main haul-out locations for harbor seals in Hood Canal are located on river delta and tidal exposed areas at the Quilcene, Dosewallips, Duckabush, Hamma Hamma, and Skokomish river mouths, with the closest haul-out area 10 miles (16 km) southwest of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor at the Dosewallips River mouth (London 2006). Harbor seals in Hood Canal are known to feed on returning adult salmon, including threatened summer-run chum (London 2006). West Coast Transient Killer Whale The killer whale is a large marine mammal that occurs in all oceans of the world, though generally concentrates in cold, temperate waters. In the North Pacific, this species occurs from Alaska southward along the North American coast and continental slope. This species is a toplevel predator and uses echolocation to feed on a variety of marine organisms, including fish, squid, and other marine mammal species. Transient killer whales in the eastern North Pacific spend most of their time along the outer coast but visit Hood Canal and the Puget Sound in search of harbor seals, sea lions, and other prey. Transient occurrence in inland waters appears to peak during August and September (Baird and Dill 1995; Ford and Ellis 1999), during harbor-seal pupping, weaning, and post-weaning activity (Baird and Dill 1995). In 2003 and 2005, small groups of transient killer whales (11 and six individuals, respectively) visited Hood Canal to feed on harbor seals and remained in the area for 59 and 172 days, respectively, between the months of January and July.
3-61
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Transient killer whales feed on marine mammals and some seabirds but apparently not on fish (Baird and Dill 1996; Ford et al. 1998; Ford and Ellis 1999; Ford et al. 2005). While present in Hood Canal in 2003 and 2005, transient killer whales preyed on harbor seals in the subtidal zone of the nearshore marine and inland marine deeper water habitats (London 2006). There are approximately 354 individuals of the West Coast transient killer whale stock (Allen and Angliss 2012). However, the number in Washington waters at any given time is probably fewer than 20 individuals (Wiles 2004). ESA-Listed Marine Mammals Humpback Whale This species was classified as endangered under the original ESA listing in 1970 and as Depleted under the MMPA of 1972 (NMFS 2012g). An estimated 90 to 95 percent of the worldwide population was taken during commercial whaling before the humpback was granted protection. As this species is long-lived, slow to mature, and gives birth only biannually on average, recovery has been gradual, and humpbacks remain susceptible to population declines (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2012b). No critical habitat or conservation plans have been published for this species. This large marine mammal feeds on krill and small schooling fishes and is found worldwide in tropical, temperate, and sub-polar waters. Humpbacks may be seen at any time of year, but most winter in temperate or tropical waters near Mexico, Hawaii, and in the western Pacific near Japan. In the North Pacific, this species typically migrates from winter breeding grounds from Japan to Mexico into summer feeding grounds from Washington State to northern Alaska (NMFS 2012g). There are three separate populations of humpbacks: those living in the North Pacific Ocean, those in the North Atlantic Ocean, and those roving the oceans of the Southern Hemisphere. In the North Pacific (which includes Puget Sound/Hood Canal), current population estimates for this stock range from 6,000 to 8,000 individuals (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2012b). Humpback whales from the North Pacific stock are known to be present in the Strait of Juan de Fuca in low numbers and in recent years have been sighted, but only rarely, in Puget Sound and Hood Canal (Falcone et al. 2005). In January and February 2012, one humpback whale was observed for several weeks in Hood Canal (Calambokidis 2012). Prior to this sighting, there were no confirmed reports of humpback whales entering Hood Canal (Calambokidis 2012). Steller Sea Lion The Steller sea lion is a marine mammal that inhabits approximately 300 haul-out and rookery areas in the North Pacific, stretching from southern California and Japan to northern Alaska and Russia (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2012a). Based on genetic differences, this species was designated as two DPSs: western and eastern. The eastern DPS includes those that occur in the Pacific Northwest (NMFS 2008). Steller sea lions do not migrate but will periodically move their principal haul-out to a new location that is more central to the seasonal concentrations of their prey base.
3-62
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
The Steller sea lion was listed as threatened under the ESA in 1990 (55 FR 49204), and critical habitat was designated 3 years later (58 FR 45269). The Steller sea lion was also listed as Depleted by the MMPA of 1972. The eastern DPS remains on the threatened list (62 FR 30772) and includes the species distribution in southeast Alaska and Canada (east of 144 west longitude). There is no designated critical habitat for the species in Washington (Federal Register 1993). When they are not resting on haul-outs, Steller sea lions primarily occur from the shore to the 1,640-foot (500-m) isobath; they occur in waters deeper than this isobath, but their occurrence there is becoming increasingly rare. Steller sea lions also occur in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, around San Juan and Whidbey islands, and through the Strait of Georgia, with some observations recorded in the southern portion of Puget Sound. The only known Steller sea lion rookery in Washington is on the west coast of the Olympic Peninsula, although small groups are often seen foraging in Puget Sound. Steller sea lions are generalist marine predators that feed primarily on fish and cephalopods that are seasonally and regionally available. They will occasionally supplement their diet with birds or seals. All reported observations of Steller sea lions in Hood Canal have been of animals hauled out at the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront (Navy 2010). Since Navy surveys were initiated in April 2008, they have documented Steller sea lions on submarines docked at Delta Pier North and Delta Pier South (Navy 2010). They have been observed at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor from October through May. The maximum Steller sea lion group size seen at any given time was six individuals, in November 2009. 3.4.5.2 Environmental Consequences
The evaluation of impacts to marine mammals considers the proportion of the species impacted relative to its occurrence in the region, the particular sensitivity of the resource to the Proposed Action, and the duration of species disruption. In general, construction in the Proposed Action area could include increased construction vessel and equipment activity; elevated underwater and airborne noise levels from construction vessels, equipment, and installation methods (see Section 3.2, Noise); and changes in prey availability (see Section 3.4.3, Fish). Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts The primary impacts to marine mammals from construction of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would include elevated noise associated with dredging, jet-plowing, and impact pile-driving; construction-vessel traffic; and changes in prey availability. Since harbor seals are resident in Hood Canal, they would be present during the entire proposed construction period for the EMMR system. California sea lions are present from late summer (August) to late spring (June), which would overlap with six of the seven months of in-water construction work. Marine mammals would likely avoid (indicating behavioral disturbance) the immediate vicinity of construction due to the increased human activity.
3-63
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Installing concrete piles using impact pile-driving would create an unmitigated peak noise of 188 dB and 176 dB rms at 33 feet (10 m). For underwater noise, NMFS identified threshold criteria for determining injury exposure as 190 dB rms re: 1 Pa for pinnipeds and 180 dB rms re: 1 Pa for cetaceans (65 FR 16374-16379). As part of the Proposed Action, the injury threshold would be exceeded within 3.3 feet (1m) for pinnipeds and 16 feet (5 m) for cetaceans. However, injury is highly unlikely due to the small size of the injury impact zones, short duration of pile-driving (5 days), and monitoring processes that would be put in place (see Appendix B). For both cetaceans and pinnipeds, the behavioral harassment threshold for impact pile-driving is 160 dB rms re: 1 Pa. The noise from the proposed pile-driving would attenuate to 160 dB SEL in 386 feet (117 m). Individual marine mammals exposed to these SPLs could exhibit a change in behavioral patterns (e.g., swimming speed or foraging habits) or be temporarily displaced from the area of construction. However, the Navy would implement a marine mammal monitoring plan of the 386-foot (117-m) potential disturbance zone and shut down pile-driving if any marine mammal were to enter the zone (see Figure 3.4-3 and Appendix B). Therefore, it is anticipated that no marine mammals would be exposed to SPLs that equal or exceed Level B harassment (behavioral) as defined by MMPA. Increased turbidity could have an indirect impact to marine mammals as it could temporarily displace prey availability (salmonids and other marine fish, such as Pacific hake and Pacific herring) for fish-eating marine mammals from the Proposed Action area to adjacent areas in Hood Canal (see Section 3.4.3, Fish). This impact would be short-term and localized because the impacted area would be too small to represent a significant adverse impact to prey availability or forage habitat in the overall context of Hood Canal for the harbor seal and California sea lion populations. Increased construction-vessel traffic and equipment use (see Section 3.9, Marine Navigation) has the potential to impact marine mammals directly by accidentally striking or disturbing individual animals. Behavioral changes in response to vessel presence may include avoidance reactions, alarm/startle responses, alteration of swimming speed, alteration of direction of travel, vocalizations, or diving activity. Because vessels would operate at low speeds within the relatively limited construction zone and access routes during the in-water construction period, and marine mammals would exhibit avoidance reactions to vessels, the likelihood of a vessel strike to marine mammals would be discountable. In summary, Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would have no significant direct short-term or long-term adverse impact to marine mammals. ESA-Listed Marine Mammals Humpback Whale Construction impacts to humpback whales potentially present in the Proposed Action area would be similar to those described for non-ESA listed marine mammals. However, humpback whales are very rare in Hood Canal. Although several sightings of a humpback whale occurred in January and February of 2012, these sightings were of the same individual whale (Calambokidis 2012). Prior to these sightings, there were no confirmed reports of humpback
3-64 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
whales entering Hood Canal (Calambokidis 2012). No other reports of humpback whales in Hood Canal were found in the Orca Network database, the scientific literature, or agency reports. Due to the absence of any regular occurrence of humpbacks adjacent to or within the vicinity of the Proposed Action site, the short duration (5 days) of pile-driving, the small area exceeding injury and disturbance thresholds, and implementation of marine mammal monitoring, the Navy concludes that the appropriate ESA effects determination for humpback whale is may affect, not likely to adversely affect and that Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would have no significant direct short-term or long-term adverse impact to the humpback whale. Steller Sea Lion Steller sea lions may be present within Hood Canal from October to May. While no haul-out sites are present in the Proposed Action area, Steller sea lions may be present foraging or transiting through the Proposed Action area and could experience effects as described for nonlisted marine mammals. Therefore, the Navy ESA effect determination for Steller sea lions within the Proposed Action area is may affect, not likely to adversely affect. However, due to the short construction timeframe (5 days of pile-driving), the small injury and harassment zones, and the proposed monitoring, exposure to noise levels exceeding thresholds for injury or harassment is discountable. There is a potential for short-term indirect impacts to Steller sea lions due to displacement of prey availability during construction, although these effects would be negligible. Therefore, the Navy has determined that Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would have no significant short-term or long-term adverse impact to the Steller sea lion. Operation Impacts Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), no increase in vessel or human activity or underwater or airborne noise would occur due to operation of the EMMR system. Except for the offshore platform, the EMMR system components would be either buried or armored on the seafloor and would not deter the presence of the prey in the area or present a risk of entanglement to marine mammals. Furthermore, due to security measures incorporated into its design, the offshore platform would not provide a physical opportunistic area, such as haul out, for pinnipeds. Therefore, Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would have no significant shortor long-term adverse impacts to marine mammals. ESA-Listed Marine Mammals Humpback Whale and Steller Sea Lion As described above and similarly to other marine mammals, no impact would occur to the ESAlisted marine mammals by the operation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Therefore, the Navy has determined that the operation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) may affect, not likely to adversely affect the humpback whale and Steller sea lion. The operation of the EMMR system under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would have no significant short- or long-term adverse impacts to either the humpback whale or Steller sea lion.
3-65
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Construction Impacts Construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to those described under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). The only difference would be that the 925-foot (282-m) cable bundle between the offshore platform and sensor array would be buried in gravel but not armored. The jet-plow corridor would be double the area of the cable-armoring and would potentially displace up to 822 cubic yards (629m3) of material (see Table 2-3), creating additional turbidity during construction. However, this would not be a detectable difference to marine mammals. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have the same construction impacts to marine mammals as those listed for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). ESA-Listed Marine Mammals Humpback Whale and Steller Sea Lion Similarly to the discussion above for other marine mammals, Alternative 2 would have the same construction impacts to the ESA-listed humpback whale and Steller sea lion as those listed for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Therefore, the Navy has determined that construction Alternative 2 may affect, not likely adversely affect the humpback whale and Steller sea lion. Alternative 2 would have no significant direct short-term or long-term adverse impact to either the humpback whale or Steller sea lion. Operation Impacts Alternative 2 would have the same operational impacts to marine mammals as those of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). ESA-Listed Marine Mammals Humpback Whale and Steller Sea Lion Alternative 2 would have the same operational impacts to ESA-listed marine mammals as those of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Therefore, the Navy has determined that the operation of Alternative 2 may affect, not likely adversely affect the humpback whale and Steller sea lion. As such, the operation of the EMMR system under Alternative 2 would have no significant short- or long-term adverse impacts to either the humpback whale or Steller sea lion. Alternative 3: No Action No changes to marine mammals would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. 3.4.5.3 Permits and Consultation
Consultation between the Navy and NMFS under the ESA for impact to ESA-listed marine mammals will be completed. With the implementation of mitigation measures, the Navy does not anticipate behavioral impacts to marine mammals as defined by the MMPA.
3-66
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
3.5 3.5.1
LAND USE, RECREATION, AND AESTHETICS Land Use
Land use is the classification of land according to the level and type of development and the type of human activities occurring at a defined location. Natural land use classifications include categories such as undeveloped coastlines, forested areas, and deserts; human-modified land use classifications include categories such as residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational. Land uses are often regulated by management plans, policies, regulations, and ordinances (e.g., zoning) that determine the type and extent of land use allowed in specific areas and protect specially designated or environmentally sensitive areas. 3.5.1.1 Affected Environment
The CZMA of 1972 (16 U.S.C.1451 et seq., as amended) provides assistance to states, in cooperation with federal and local agencies, to develop land- and water-use programs in coastal zones. The State of Washington has developed and implemented a federally approved Coastal Zone Management Program describing current coastal legislation and enforceable policies. The Washington Coastal Zone Management Program provides management of the coastal zone within the 15 counties containing the states coastal resources. It is implemented by Ecology through the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program. Under this program, activities that impact any land use, water use, or natural resource of the coastal zone must comply with the following enforceable policies: the Shoreline Management Act, the State Environmental Policy Act, the CAA, the CWA, the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, and the Ocean Resource Management Act. When a state coastal management program is federally approved, federally proposed actions with the potential to affect the states coastal uses or resources are subject to review under the CZMA Section 307 federal consistency determination requirement. Section 307 mandates that federal actions within a states coastal zone (or outside the coastal zone, if the action affects land or water uses or natural resources within the coastal zone) be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the state coastal management program. Federal agency actions include direct and indirect activities, federal approval activities, and federal financial assistance activities. Accordingly, federal agency activities under NEPA review that could affect the states coastal zone must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the states coastal management program unless compliance is otherwise prohibited by law. Federal lands such as NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, which are lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of the Federal Government, its officers, or agency, are statutorily excluded from the CZMAs definition of the coastal zone (16 U.S.C. Section 1453[1]). If, however, the proposed federal activity affects coastal uses or resources beyond the boundaries of the federal property (i.e., has spillover effects) or is located outside federal property, the CZMA Section 307 federal consistency requirement applies. The Proposed Action is located in waters of Hood Canal, and the Navy must make a determination of consistency with the enforceable policies of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program.
3-67
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Land uses at the southern end of the Proposed Action area, near Building 7801 on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, consist primarily of Navy support operations in natural forested and wetland areas. A gravel parking lot exists approximately 200 feet (61 m) north of Building 7801, adjacent to Building 7808. Predominant land use types north of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor include lowdensity residential and forested land. Hood Canal has been designated a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Kitsap County Code Title 22, Shoreline Management Master Program, establishes three policies with respect to preservation of natural resources in Hood Canal. These policies include: (1) assessing the potential for adverse impacts to water quality, sediment quality, shellfish, finfish, wildlife, boating, recreational and commercial fishing, public access, scenic vistas, and wetlands; (2) prohibiting development within the shorelines of Hood Canal that would degrade these resources; and (3) encouraging development that would improve these resources. Private land north of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is regulated by the Kitsap Zoning Ordinance and Critical Areas Ordinance. Private land is zoned as Rural Residential to promote development consistent with rural character (Kitsap County 1999). The majority of shoreline between NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor and the offshore platform is designated in the Critical Areas Ordinance as High Hazard Area and Moderate Hazard Area. These designations impose additional upland site design requirements for steeply sloped shorelines to minimize property damage, protect human life, and control erosion (Kitsap County 2005). A portion of the Proposed Action (platform, cable bundle, and part of the sensor array) is located within the commercially managed Vinland Geoduck Tract (see Figure 3.4-2 for a detailed location of the Vinland Tract). 3.5.1.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), land uses would be consistent with intended uses as described in the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor 1975 Final Master Plan. The EMMR system would permanently impact less than 1 percent (approximately 0.09 percent) of the available geoduck habitat in the Vinland Tract (see Section 3.6, Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Childrens Health and Safety). No other components of the EMMR system, including the HDD staging area located on a gravel parking lot south of Building 7801, would alter or conflict with existing land uses. Construction of the EMMR system would not conflict with the Kitsap County Shoreline Management Master Program. Construction of the ATN along Northern Boundary Road would involve removing the tree canopy and underbrush along the ATN corridor, resulting in temporary construction-related traffic congestion along Northern Boundary Road. The construction impacts would be short term and would not significantly impact the surrounding land uses.
3-68
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Operation Impacts Once installed, the ATN corridor would be maintained to prevent tall vegetation from reestablishing. The use and maintenance of the ATN corridor would be consistent with naval operation support uses of the immediate area and the adjacent MSF. Long-term impacts would result to land use from the 0.26- acre (0.10 ha) geoduck harvest restriction area required to protect the sensor array system. Operation of the EMMR system would not conflict with the Kitsap County Shoreline Management Master Program. However, because this area is small relative to the available geoduck-harvestable area in Hood Canal, there would be no significant long-term impact. Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would not result in significant long-term adverse impacts or changes to existing land use. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Construction Impacts Short- and long-term changes in land use under Alternative 2 would be the same as those for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) for construction, with the exception that under Alternative 2 the EMMR system would permanently impact less than 1 percent (approximately 0.18 percent) of the available geoduck habitat in the Vinland Tract (see Section 3.6, Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Childrens Health and Safety). It is anticipated that no significant long-term adverse impacts or changes would occur to land use under this alternative. Operation Impacts The operational impacts under Alternative 2 would be the same as those under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 3: No Action No changes to land use would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. 3.5.1.3 Permits and Consultation
The Navy has determined that the Proposed Action would be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program. The Navy will submit a Coastal Consistency Determination to Ecology. 3.5.2 Recreation
Recreation is defined as activities undertaken for leisure, amusement, or enjoyment. The type of recreational activity is most often driven by land use class (i.e., natural or human-modified) or natural features (e.g., water, topography, etc.). 3.5.2.1 Affected Environment
Recreation resources analyzed in this section include those taking place in the immediate footprint of offshore construction activities and marine recreational opportunities within 150 feet of the Proposed Action. Onshore recreational activities are not analyzed because the onshore
3-69
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Proposed Action area is located within an area of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor that is restricted to public access. The EMMR system would be located in Hood Canal, which provides opportunities for recreational boating, fishing, and other water-related recreation, and birding. Recreational fishing, shrimping, and crabbing are managed by the WDFW and are allowed in Hood Canal and its tributaries between the end of April and middle of December, depending on the species being harvested (WDFW 2012c). For more information on aquatic species found in Hood Canal, see Section 3.4, Marine Biological Resources. 3.5.2.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts Recreation activities would be disrupted during construction of the offshore components of the EMMR system under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), including the underground cables, offshore platform, and sensor array. During in-water construction, vessel traffic would be excluded from the 150-foot (46-m)-wide construction area, which would be demarcated with clearly visible markers. Short-term impacts to recreation would occur, as fishing and boating would be prohibited in approximately 23.1 acres (9.3 ha) of Hood Canal outside of the NRA between July 16, 2013, and February 15, 2014, and July 16, 2014, and February 15, 2015; however, these activities could continue outside of the temporary construction zone and NRA. Recreational (i.e., individual) geoduck harvesting would not be impacted because this activity generally occurs in shallow water at low tide. Because the impacts to recreational vessel traffic would be localized and short term, there would be no significant short-term or long-term adverse impacts from the implementation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Operation Impacts Once the EMMR system is installed, boating and fishing activities could resume outside of the existing NRA, except at the offshore platform. Long-term impacts from the EMMR system under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would result at the offshore platform, where it would occupy approximately 225 square feet (21 m2) of Hood Canal; however, boating and fishing activities could continue around the offshore platform. Similar long-term impacts would result around the sensor array system for an area of 0.52 acre (0.21 ha) and 0.26 acre (0.10 ha), where anchoring and geoduck harvesting around the sensor array system would be respectively permanently restricted to protect the sensor array system. However, it is unlikely that the geoduck harvest restriction would impact recreational geoduck harvesting as it usually occurs at shallower depths. Short-term impacts to recreational vessels would occur when submarines navigate over the sensor array, during which time (approximately five minutes) it is anticipated that vessel traffic would be prohibited or escorted from the area. It is anticipated that the array would be used approximately 60 times, or 5 hours total, per year. Therefore, Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would not result in significant short-term or long-term adverse impacts to recreation.
3-70
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Short- and long-term impacts to recreation resulting from the EMMR system under Alternative 2 would be the same as those for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) for both construction and operation; therefore, no significant adverse impacts would occur to recreation under this alternative. Alternative 3: No Action No changes to recreation would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. 3.5.3 Aesthetics
Visual resources are the natural (e.g., water surfaces, land forms, and vegetation) and humancreated (e.g., buildings, fences, piers, and wharves) features that give a particular environment its aesthetic qualities. In undeveloped areas, the natural landscape is more likely to provide a background for more obvious human-constructed features. The size, material, and function of buildings, structures, roadways, and infrastructure will generally define the visual character of the built environment. These features form the overall impression of an area or its landscape character that an observer receives. Attributes used to describe the visual resource value of an area include landscape character, perceived aesthetic value, and uniqueness. 3.5.3.1 Affected Environment
Visual resources considered in this analysis include areas within 1 mile of the EMMR system. As described previously, the character of the Proposed Action area is rural, with natural coniferous and deciduous forested areas bound by expansive water features (i.e., Hood Canal). The shoreline features steep slopes up to 150 feet (45.7 m) high that have been developed in places by human-modified features, such as vegetation clearing, residences, decks, and naval facilities. Sensitive viewers include residents living along the east and west shores of Hood Canal and recreational boaters and fishermen. Given the physical constraints (i.e., slope, vegetation) of the shoreline and the existence of low-density residential properties along the eastern shore of Hood Canal north of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, the public is generally excluded from views of the platform. Looking west from residences on the east shore, viewers can see Hood Canal in the foreground, Toandos Peninsula in the middle ground, and the Olympic Mountains in the background. No federal, state, or local visual or aesthetic management systems exist that regulate or preserve the scenic quality of the Proposed Action area. 3.5.3.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts In-water construction, and specifically the offshore platform, under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would result in a short-term impact to visual resources. Construction equipment, including barges, cranes, and other large equipment, would contrast with the surrounding scenery, including the shoreline, by introducing multi-colored vertical and horizontal features
3-71
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
and would be seen from residences to the east and boaters navigating Hood Canal. These impacts would occur between July 16, 2013 and February 15, 2014, and July 16, 2014 and February 15, 2015. Due to the distance (0.20 mile [0.32 km]), construction of the offshore platform would not be easily discernible by residences on the western shore of Hood Canal. Construction of the onshore ATN and associated ATN corridor on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor would require clearing vegetation, which would diminish the natural appearance of the immediate area near Northern Boundary Road. Even though this would change the natural appearance of the immediate area, it would be consistent with the shoreline within and north of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. The surrounding visual context has already been modified by various human-created features, including vegetation clearing, naval facilities, and residences. The ATN construction or vegetation clearing would not be visible to residents living near NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Boaters navigating Hood Canal would see construction equipment removing vegetation, but their views would be from a distance outside the NRA (approximately 0.4 to 0.5 mile [0.6 to 0.8 km]) and would be short term. Therefore, there would be no significant shortterm or long-term adverse impact to aesthetic resources from the implementation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Operation Impacts Once constructed, the offshore platform would result in a long-term impact to residences along the eastern shore of Hood Canal, although the intensity would vary by location. Boaters navigating Hood Canal would have direct views of the platform within the context of the humanmodified shoreline in the background. The closest public park is Kitsap Memorial State Park, located approximately 2.5 miles north of the Proposed Action area. However, it does not have a direct viewshed of the Proposed Action. At 15 by 15 feet (4.5 by 4.5 m) in size and approximately 32 feet (9.8 m) high to the top of the navigation light above MLLW, the platform would contrast with the surrounding scenery because it would be introducing horizontal and vertical gray and stainless steel features. The size of the platform can be compared to a regular roadside billboard. Figure 3.5-1 illustrates the observation point of Figure 3.5-2, which provides a representation of what the offshore platform could look like from residences northeast of the platform, approximately 2,000 feet (610 m) away1. The relative size of the platform would depend on the distance from which it is viewed. There is a standard navigational hazard light on the offshore platform to prevent collision; however, the Navy is coordinating with the USCG to shield the navigational hazard light to minimize potential impact to residences on the eastern shoreline of Hood Canal. The navigational light would not result in a significant long-term adverse impact due to the relatively small size of the platform and the presence of other navigational features in Hood Canal, including the MSF and buoys demarcating the NRA.
The location of the photograph was selected based on comments received from landowners who expressed concern over aesthetic impacts. The photograph was taken from the property of a landowner who granted the Navy access.
3-72
February 2013
Oberservation Point for Photo Simulation Figure 3.5-1 Observation Point Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington Legend
Photo Observation Point Approximate Viewing Angle Military Installation Boundary Navy Restricted Area
Pioneer Way NW
iewing Angle Observation Point for Graphic Representation Approximate Viewing Angle
Eastwood Rd
Canyon Rd NW
Drivewa y
Can al View Way
Vaa Rd
Parcel Boundary
Current View from Observation Point See Figure 3.5.2 for Graphic Representation
Johnso n Rd NW
Cable Route (6,970 ft / 2,124 m) Cable Route (1,148 ft / 350 m)

Pioneer Hill Rd
Cable Route (210 ft / 64 m) Offshore Platform (15 ft x 15 ft / 4.5 m x 4.5 m) Aid to Navigation
Cle ar C
ree
kR dN W
Wee d L n
Ba ylo
r Ct
Aldo Rd NW
Lorin da Rd NW
Aid to Navigation Building 7801 (existing)
No rth ern
Bo un da ry
Parris Rd
Orilla St
re n
st an
3-73
Ta ng Rd
Hood Canal
Vin la
nd
Jefferson County
lan d
NW Ter
Vin
V ie w
Po u l s b o
Loma St
Rd La kene ss
Silv er da le
Ln
Kitsap County
WA
0 0
1,500 400
Rd
a Va lh
L lla oo p
Meters 800
3,000 Feet
ll R F inn Hi d
Rd
Source: Esri, 2012; NAVFAC, 2012; Dept.of Defense - Navy, 2011; NAIP, 2011.
Ti sa no
Figure 3.5-2 Graphic Representation Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington
Note: This is a graphic representation of the proposed EMMR system offshore platform. It is intended to estimate the approximate platform appearance.
3-74
Source: ESRI, 2012; NAVFAC, 2012; Dept. of Defense - Navy, 2011; Finlayson, 2005.
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Operational impacts from the onshore ATN and maintenance of the ATN corridor would not be expected to be seen from residences near NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor due to the relative position of the ATN and the ATN corridor. However, both the ATN and the associated corridor would be seen by boaters navigating Hood Canal. The ATN would emit a narrow light beam that would be focused on the position of the sensor array and would operate concurrently with the operation of the EMMR system, approximately 25 minutes per month. Once installed, the ATN corridor would be maintained to prevent tall vegetation from reestablishing. Viewers from residences north of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor would be screened from the ATN corridor by existing vegetation. Boaters passing by would have more direct views of the modified tree line. This would not result in a significant long-term impact because views would be at a distance (approximately 0.4 to 0.5 mile [0.6 to 0.8 km]) outside the NRA and would be seen in context with the existing MSF and other human-created features along the shoreline. The modified tree line would not be seen from residences on the western shore of Hood Canal. Therefore, Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would not result in significant adverse impacts to aesthetics. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Short-term and long-term impacts to aesthetics resulting from both construction and operation of the EMMR system under Alternative 2 would be the same as those for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative); therefore, no significant adverse impacts would occur to aesthetics under this alternative. Alternative 3: No Action No changes to aesthetics would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. 3.6 SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDRENS HEALTH AND SAFETY
Socioeconomics is generally known as the interrelation between economics and social behavior. This section analyzes regional demographics, economic activity, socioeconomics, environmental justice, and the protection of children. Regulatory Overview Environmental Justice: EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, was issued by the president on February 11, 1994. This EO directs federal agencies to identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects that their actions may have on minority and low-income populations. It is intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs that affect human health and the environment and provide public information to minority and low-income communities. The order also directs agencies to develop a strategy for implementing environmental justice. Protection of Children: EO 13045, Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risk to Children, was issued by the president on April 21, 1997. A number of scientific studies have demonstrated that children may suffer disproportionately from environmental health risks and safety risks.
3-75 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Therefore, this EO states that federal agencies must make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children and shall...ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children 3.6.1 Affected Environment
Demographics and Employment The Proposed Action is located in Kitsap County. The socioeconomic analysis presented in this section focuses on Census Tract 902.1, an area in Kitsap County located north of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor that borders the eastern shore of Hood Canal. At the time of the 2010 census, Kitsap County had a total population of 251,133. Demographic characteristics of the area are provided in Table 3.6-1.
Table 3.6-1
Location
Census Tract 902.1 Kitsap County State of Washington
Demographic Characteristics
2010 Population
4,573 251,133 6,724,540
Percent Minority (2010)

8.2 18.7 28.8
Percent LowIncome (2010)

4.8 9.4 12.1
Percent Youth (2010)

28.6 25.2 26.3
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
The 2010 census found the following demographic characteristic in Kitsap County residents: 82.6 percent Caucasian; 2.6 percent African American; 6.2 percent Hispanic origin; 4.9 percent Asian and Pacific Islander; 3.4 percent American Indian or Alaskan Native; and 2.1 percent other. The median family income in Kitsap County was $59,549. Approximately 9.4 percent of families in Kitsap County were low income, compared to 4.8 percent in Census Tract 902.1; both these percentages were below the state percentage (12.1 percent). The off-base residence nearest to the Proposed Action is located approximately 2,000 feet (610 m) east of the proposed offshore platform. On the west side of Hood Canal, the residence closest to the Proposed Action is located approximately 2.3 miles (3.7 km) from the offshore platform. Employment characteristics for the region are presented in Table 3.6-2. The civilian labor force in Kitsap County included 119,378 persons in 2010, of which an estimated 109,244 were employed. The unemployment rate was 8.5 percent. The military accounted for 4.1 percent of total employment in Kitsap County overall (U.S. Census Bureau 2010).
3-76
February 2013
Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System Table 3.6-2 2010 Employment Characteristics

Civilian Labor Force
2,321 119,378 3,380,744
Draft EA
Location
Census Tract 902.01 Kitsap County State of Washington
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010.
Employment
2,197 109,244 3,124,821
Unemployment Rate
5.3 8.5 7.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Harvesting of geoduck in the Vinland Tracts along the eastern shore of Hood Canal provides commerce and subsistence resources for American Indians. The commercial geoduck fishery is jointly managed by two state agencies: the WDFW and the WDNR. In addition to these agencies, the treaty Indian tribes with shell-fishing rights are also involved with management of this fishery. The tribes have the right to take up to 50 percent of the harvestable shellfish, including geoduck, on western Washington beaches, excluding shellfish from artificial beds. The 139-acre (56.25-ha) Vinland Tract begins approximately 8,000 yards (7,315 m) south of the Hood Canal Bridge and continues southwesterly for approximately 2,200 yards (2,012 m). Harvesting in this tract is performed at depths between 18 and 70 feet (5.5 and 21m) below MLLW depth contours. As of 2011, it was estimated that the high-density Vinland Tract contained approximately 3,422,000 pounds (1,552,193 kg) of geoducks. The average density in this tract is estimated at 0.32 geoduck per square foot (WDNR 2012). The area south of the Vinland Tract was historically identified as Vinland Tract 4 (Tract No. 21150). The tract covers approximately 142 acres (57.5 ha) and has not been reopened for commercial harvest since 1986 (WDNR 2012). At an average density estimated at 0.09 geoduck per square foot, it was estimated that the high-density Vinland Tract 4 contained approximately 851,746 pounds (386,345 kg) of geoducks (Port Gamble SKlallam Tribe 2012). See Section 3.4.2, Benthic Community, for discussion of geoducks, Figure 3.4-2 showing the Vinland Tract, and Section 3.8, American Indian traditional resources, for discussion of subsistence fishing. 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences
The evaluation of short-term (construction) and long-term (operation) impacts to socioeconomics and environmental justice along Hood Canal, specifically Census Tract 902.1, considers the effects of the Proposed Action on minority and low-income populations (EO 12898) and environmental health risks and safety to children (EO 13045). In general, impacts are considered significant if adverse human health or environmental effects of the Proposed Action are disproportionately high on minority and low-income populations and children. In addition, the evaluation of short-term and long-term impacts on public infrastructure and services is also considered. Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts Socioeconomics Construction of the EMMR system would generate very few (estimated to be fewer than 100) temporary jobs and would contribute minimally to local spending. Regional labor resources
3-77 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
would likely be employed to construct the EMMR system, which would not increase demand on housing, schools, or other social services. Therefore, under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), the Proposed Action would not result in a significant impact to local infrastructure and public facilities in the affected area. During construction activities, sections of a 23.1-acre construction area would be excluded from recreational and fishing/harvesting activities (See Section 3.9, Marine Navigation). Construction would result in an economic loss to both commercial and tribal geoduck harvesters. Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would result in an impact to 1.04 acres (0.42 ha) in the Vinland Tract, which includes construction of the sensor array, offshore platform, armored cable bundle corridor, and the cable length. Based on a geoduck density of 0.32 geoduck per square foot for the entire tract, up to approximately 23,645 pounds (10,748 kg) of geoduck could be impacted, resulting in the removal of less the 1 percent (approximately 0.69 percent) of the Vinland Tract geoduck biomass. The costs associated with these impacts would vary based on the geoduck market value at the time of construction. Permanent impacts from the armoring of the cable bundle would result in a 0.09-percent reduction in geoduck habitat within the Vinland Tract. The cable corridor within Vinland Tract 4 would temporarily impact 2,374 square feet (221 m2). Based on the average geoduck density of 0.09 geoduck per square foot in Vinland Tract 4, up to 327 pounds of geoduck (148 kg) could be impacted, resulting in less than one-tenth of 1 percent (0.04 percent) of geoduck biomass being impacted in Vinland Tract 4. Vinland Tract 4 is not a commercial tract and has been closed to commercial harvest since 1986 (WDNR 2012). While not currently used, it does have the potential for tribal harvesting. Environmental Justice Because all onshore components of the EMMR system would be located within a non-residential area of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, there would be no disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations related to construction of the EMMR system. There is not a significant low-income or minority population in Census Tract 902.1. No populations, including low income and minority populations, would be exposed to any potential adverse human health or environmental effects associated with the Preferred Alternative. Although there are no residences within Hood Canal, the waters are used by low income and minority populations. During construction, these populations would not be disproportionately adversely affected by Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) because: 1. Activities would occur in an existing MOA; and 2. The Proposed Action would have no significant impact to harvestable aquatic resources in Hood Canal. Childrens Health and Safety Because all onshore components of the EMMR system would be located within NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, which is restricted to public access, there would be no disproportionately high or adverse environmental, human health, or safety risks to children related to construction of the
3-78 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
EMMR system. Children would not be adversely exposed to noise, safety hazards, pollutants, or hazardous materials. The off-shore platform would be constructed with a barrier at the access ladder, which would preclude unauthorized access. Operation Impacts Socioeconomics Fishing and harvesting-related vessels would not be restricted in waters around the proposed EMMR system, except when submarines are utilizing the EMMR system (approximately five times a month and 5 minutes for each use). While submarines are utilizing the EMMR system, all vessels, including vessels associated with fishing and harvesting activities, would continue to be excluded from a 1,000-yard (915-m) exclusion zone around the submarine in accordance with 33 CFR 165.1327 (See Section 3.9, Marine Navigation). Due to the potential for damage to the sensor array resulting from geoduck harvesting, an area of 0.26 acre (0.10 ha) around the sensor array would be restricted from geoduck harvesting (see Table 2-3). The geoduck-harvesting restricted area is included within the total 1.04-acre (0.42 ha) construction impact area. This permanent habitat loss would be due to the geoduck harvest restriction area. Based on the relatively low percentage of impacted area in the Vinland Tract, Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would not result in a significant long-term adverse economic impact to geoduck harvesting. No operation impacts would occur to Vinland Tract 4. Environmental Justice No populations, including low income and minority populations, would be exposed to any potential adverse human health or environmental effects associated with operation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) because the activities would occur in an existing MOA; all vessels/users are required to adhere to a 1,000-yard exclusion zone around transiting submarines (33CFR165.1327); and the Proposed Action would have no significant impact to harvestable aquatic resources in Hood Canal. Childrens Health and Safety The implementation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would not result in a disproportionate or adverse risk to childrens health and safety because the off-shore platform would be constructed with a barrier at the access ladder, which would preclude unauthorized access. See Section 3.10, Public Health and Safety, for discussion of EMF. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Construction Impacts Socioeconomics Short-term impacts resulting from construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 2 would be the same as those for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), except for impacts to geoduck harvesting. Alternative 2 would result in an impact to 1.17 acres (0.47 ha) in the Vinland Tract, which includes construction of the sensor array, offshore platform, the buried cable bundle corridor, and the cable length. Based on a geoduck density of 0.32 geoduck per square foot for the entire tract, up to approximately 26,540 pounds (12,064 kg) of geoduck could be impacted,
3-79
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
resulting in the removal of approximately 0.78 percent of the Vinland Tract geoduck biomass. The dollar value associated with these impacts would vary based on the geoduck market value at the time of construction. Permanent impacts from the buried cable bundle corridor would result in a 0.18 percent reduction in geoduck habitat within the Vinland Tract. During construction activities, sections of a 23.1-acre construction area would be temporarily excluded from recreational and fishing/harvesting activities (See Section 3.9, Marine Navigation).The construction impacts to Vinland Tract 4 would be the same under Alternative 2 as those described under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Environmental Justice Short- and long-term impacts to minority and low-income populations resulting from the EMMR system under Alternative 2 would be the same as those for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) for both construction and operation. Therefore, there would be no disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations related to construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 2. Childrens Health and Safety Short- and long-term impacts to children resulting from the EMMR system under Alternative 2 would be the same as those for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) for construction; therefore, there would be no environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children under this alternative. Operation Impacts Long-term impacts to socioeconomics, environmental justice, and childrens health and safety resulting from operation of the EMMR system under Alternative 2 would be the same as those described for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). There would be no significant adverse impacts to socioeconomics, environmental justice, and childrens health and safety under this alternative. Alternative 3: No Action No changes to socioeconomic, environmental justice, or childrens health and safety conditions would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. 3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources are defined as historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects considered important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other purposes. Cultural resources include archaeological items, culturally significant tribal resources, and the built environment such as buildings, structures, and landscapes. The NHPA of 1966, as amended (16 United States Code [USC] 470), requires federal agencies to identify, locate, and inventory historic properties and cultural resources that may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) prior to taking an action that might harm such resources. The intent is to minimize or prevent any harm to cultural resources through appropriate avoidance measures. Section 106 of the NHPA specifically requires federal agencies to identify historic properties within the area of potential effects (APE) of a proposed action,
3-80
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
determine potential effects of the Proposed Action on identified historic properties, and consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the determination of eligibility and finding of effect. The Navy has defined the Proposed Actions APE and compiled background research to determine the potential for the Proposed Action to impact historic properties. Consultation with the SHPO regarding the APE has not occurred at this time. Federal regulations define historic properties as prehistoric and historic sites, buildings, structures, districts, or objects on or eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, as well as artifacts, records, and remains related to such properties (NHPA, as amended [16 USC 470 et seq.]). To be considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, cultural resources must be determined to be significant by meeting one or more of the criteria outlined in 36 CFR 60.4 (NRHP, Criteria for Evaluation). In addition to meeting these criteria, a historic property must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association, and it must be 50 years old or older or have achieved exceptional importance within the past 50 years. 3.7.1 Affected Environment
Archaeological Resources Three archaeological sites associated with the activities of indigenous populations have been documented within one mile of the Proposed Action. American Indian sites 45KP106 and 45KP107 are shell middens2 and are located just to the north of Floral Point; neither is eligible for listing on the NRHP (Grant 2012a). The third site is 45KP227, a shell midden discovered during removal of a road causeway so that Cattail Lake could be opened to tidal flow. When the initial testing was done, insufficient information was available for determining eligibility for listing on the NRHP (Schultze et al. 2012). Subsequently, the Navy has determined that the site is eligible, and formal consultation with the SHPO is pending. These three sites are not within the Proposed Action area and would not be affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives (Lewarch et al. 1997, Schultze et al. 2012). Based on examination of NOAA charts, side-scan sonar images, detailed bathymetric data, and diver surveys of the nearshore, no shipwrecks, submerged aircraft, or features that would be visible above the seabed were identified in the Proposed Action area. The probability for intact Paleo-Indian or Archaic archaeological deposits under the seabed in the Proposed Action area is low, due to the destructive effects of sea level rise on the readily erodible local glacial deposits. Investigations for the EMMR system revealed no prehistoric or ethnohistoric cultural materials or sites within the upland portions of the APE. The Navy performed two archaeological surveys of the Proposed Action (EMMR system, HDD entrance trench and ATN site). These areas have been previously disturbed and are unlikely to yield archaeological sites or materials (Grant 2012a).
A midden is a location where shells and other food debris have accumulated over time, often representing locations of past aboriginal use.
3-81
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Architectural Resources A historic property is a building, structure, site, district, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Properties that may be considered for eligibility must be at least 50 years old, possess integrity, and meet one or more of the following criteria: Criterion A: "Event," indicates the property must make a contribution to the major pattern of American history. Criterion B: "Person" is associated with significant people of the American past. Criterion C: "Design/Construction" concerns the distinctive characteristics of the building by its architecture and construction, including having great artistic value or being the work of a master. Criterion D: "Information potential" is satisfied if the property has yielded or is likely to yield information important to prehistory or history. In addition to meeting one of the eligibility criteria, a property must also retain its integrity for listing in the NRHP. In the historic preservation regulations, the secretary of the interior defines integrity as the ability of a property to convey its significance. Seven factors are generally taken into consideration, including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Three eras of architectural resources are located on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. The first set of resources relates to the period of logging and subsistence farming that preceded Navy ownership of the area in 1942; this set includes cabins, concrete structures, and a well house that were recorded during the 1992 archaeological survey (Lewarch et al. 1993). No resources in this set are considered eligible for listing in the NRHP. The second and third sets of architectural resources relate to the Navys use of the installation during World War II and the Cold War era. These include: Administration Area Buildings 1, 3, and 4; the Industrial Area District; and the original Marginal Wharf. Of these, the original Commanding Officers and Senior Assistants Quarters are NRHP eligible. The Marginal Wharf, Delta Pier, and Explosives Handling Wharf (EHW)-1 are within the vicinity of the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront. The Marginal Wharf was built in 1944 and later was used to load munitions bound for the Vietnam conflict. It is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP. Delta Pier and EHW-1 had prominent roles during the Cold War, providing support for the Trident submarine fleet; both are considered eligible for listing in the NRHP based on their Cold War association (Sackett 2010). Based on a 2012 survey, only the original MSF (Buildings 7044, 7800, 7801) has achieved exceptional importance as defined by the historic regulations because the buildings are associated with the Navys Cold War context of strategic deterrence (E&E 2013). Per Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Acts implementation regulation (36 CFR Part 800), the Navy will consult with the SHPO on its defining of the APE, determination of eligibility, and finding of effect.
3-82
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Area of Potential Effects As defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d), the APE is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alteration in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking. The APE includes a 10-foot buffer around the in-water portion of the Proposed Action and a 20-foot buffer around historic structures and the ATN for the land portion of the Proposed Action to account for a ground disturbance buffer during construction (Figure 3.7-1). This includes the footprint of the staging area and the HDD connection at Building 7801 (part of the original MSF). The APE also includes the base of the ATN, located on the shoreline, just off Northern Boundary Road. The concrete foundation for the ATN would extend approximately 7 feet below surface. The ATN corridor would not require an APE because the vegetation clearing would not require ground-disturbing activity. 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would consist of burying both the sensor array equipment and the majority of cable. The approximately 400-linear-foot sensor array and corresponding cable along this length would be buried beneath the canal floor/substrate. In the event that Proposed Action-related actions encounter unanticipated archaeological resources, work will stop and the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor cultural resources manager will be notified. In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the Navy will consult with the Washington SHPO to determine a course of action. NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor has initiated consultation concerning this Proposed Action with the Washington SHPO and the Skokomish, Port Gamble SKlallam, Jamestown SKlallam, Lower Elwha Klallam, and Suquamish Tribes. No shipwrecks or submerged aircraft have been located in the APE. Although isolated artifacts associated with fishing or marine mammal hunting may exist in the submerged portion of the APE, there is low probability for the presence of intact inundated Paleo-Indian or early Holocene archaeological sites or features owing to destructive processes associated with sea level rise. Evidence of pre-contact and early historic-period occupation and resource-harvesting activities has likely succumbed to heavy disturbance of the shoreline caused by development of the shoreline for NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor facilities, such as the existing EHW (HRA 2011). There are no NRHP-eligible archaeological resources within the Proposed Action footprint, and no historic properties have been located in the marine, shoreline, or upland areas of the Proposed Action. No archaeological resources have been located along the shoreline. Although the saltwater shoreline is sensitive for cultural resources, this shoreline is considered to have a low probability for the presence of significant archaeological resources due to the extent of disturbance (HRA 2011).
3-83
February 2013
0 0
1,000 300
Hood Canal Hood Canal

Clear Cr e ek
Figure 3.7-1 Cultural Resources Area of Potential Effect (APE) Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington Legend
Military Installation Boundary Navy Restricted Area Parcel Boundary Proposed APE 10-20 ft Buffer
Weed Ln
Aid to Navigation NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor
Loma St
Lak ene ss Rd
Rd NW
Pioneer Way NW
Parris Rd
Cable Route (6,970 ft / 2,124 m)
APE (10 ft buffer)
Cable Route (1,148 ft / 350 m) Cable Route (210 ft / 64 m) Offshore Platform (15 ft x 15 ft / 4.5 m x 4.5 m) Aid to Navigation
Jefferson County
oun
dar yR
rn B
Am berjack Av e
N or t he
bB as e
va l
Su
or ng Ba
Na
3-84
APE (20 ft buffer) Aid to Navigation
Ti n osa
Po u l s b o
Silv er da le
Kitsap County
WA
Rd
0 200 50 400 Feet
Building 7801 (existing) APE (20 ft buffer)
Meters 100
Source: Esri, 2012; NAVFAC, 2012; Dept.of Defense - Navy, 2011; Finlayson, 2005; NAIP, 2011.
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
At the location of the proposed ATN, the immediate edge of the shore road consists of the road fill, a slope leading down to a shallow ditch, and a slope/cut bank roughly 1.5 meters in height. Although this area is within the shoreline zone with a general high probability for the presence of archaeological deposits, especially given the proximity of Cattail Creek and the known site there, the depth of the cut bank indicates the Holocene deposits with the highest probability for intact deposits have been removed. A shallow scraping confirmed the dirt in the direct impact area exhibits no soil development and appears to be a mix of road gravels and terminal Pleistocene glacial till. This material has low potential to contain intact archaeological deposits (Grant 2012b). The area around the HDD exit hole was examined for the potential of cultural resources, but none were located. No impacts to cultural resources would be expected in this area. The Proposed Action would not be expected to adversely affect potentially eligible structures because construction would occur in-water and away from the MSF, with the exception of the cable connection to Building 7801. The connection to the building can be made without altering characteristics relevant to its eligibility for the NRHP. Therefore, there would be no effect to the structure. Therefore, no impacts would be anticipated to previously identified cultural resources as a result of construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). If cultural resources are discovered during construction or operation, the Navy will develop appropriate mitigation measures in consultation with the SHPO. Operation Impacts No impacts would be anticipated for cultural resources during operation of the EMMR system. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Construction Impacts Impacts on cultural resources under Alternative 2 would be the same as those described for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). If cultural resources are discovered during construction or operation, the Navy will develop appropriate mitigation measures in consultation with the SHPO. Operation Impacts Operation impacts under Alternative 2 would be the same as those under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 3: No Action No changes to cultural resources would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. 3.7.3 Permits and Consultation
Section 106 consultation between Navy and SHPO will be completed.

3-85 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
3.8
AMERICAN INDIAN TRADITIONAL RESOURCES
American Indian traditional resources are those resources that embody the beliefs, customs, and practices of a living community of peoplein this case, American Indians. The place of these resources in the culture has been passed down through generations, usually orally or through practice. The traditional cultural significance of a resource arises from the role it plays in a communitys historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices (National Park Service 1998). Not all traditional resources are eligible for listing in the NRHP. Protected tribal resources are those natural resources and properties of traditional or customary religious or cultural importance, either on or off Indian lands, retained by or reserved by or for Indian tribes through treaties, statutes, judicial decisions, or executive orders, including tribal trust resources. DOD and Navy Policies and Instructions The DOD has a federal trust responsibility to American Indian tribes. In October 1998, the DOD promulgated its Native American and Alaska Native Policy, emphasizing the importance of respecting and consulting with tribal governments on a government-to-government basis (explanatory text was added on November 21, 1999). The policy requires an assessment, through consultation, of the effects of proposed DOD actions that may have the potential to significantly affect protected tribal resources (including traditional subsistence resources such as shellfish), tribal rights (such as fisheries), and American Indian lands before decisions are made by the agencies. In 2005, the Navy updated its policy for consultation with federally recognized Indian tribes. The SECNAVINST 11010, Department of the Navy Policy for Consultation with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes, implements DOD policy within the Navy and encourages ongoing consultation. Commander, Naval Region Northwest Instruction 11010.14 sets forth policy, procedures, and responsibilities for consultations with federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. The goal of the policy is to establish permanent working relationships built upon respect, trust, and openness with tribal governments. Other laws and executive orders requiring consultation include: EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; the presidential memorandum dated November 5, 2009, emphasizing agencies need to comply with EO 13175; and the presidential memorandum dated April 29, 1994, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Governments. Tribal Usual and Accustomed Fishing Rights The Skokomish, Port Gamble SKlallam Tribe, Jamestown SKlallam Tribe, Lower Elwha Klallam, and Suquamish Tribes are signatories to treaties with the United States. Treaties between American Indians and the United States are part of the supreme law of the land that the states and their officials are bound to observe. The Skokomish and SKlallam Tribes are
3-86
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
signatories to the Treaty of Point No Point signed on January 26, 1855. The Suquamish Tribe is a signatory to the Treaty of Point Elliot, signed on January 22, 1855. Both treaties provide: The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the purposes of curing, together with the privilege of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands. Provided, however, that they shall not take shell-fish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens.
UNITED STATES V. WASHINGTON STATE
Known as the Boldt Decision, after the presiding United States District Court Judge George Boldt, United States v. Washington (384 F. Supp. 312 [W.D. Wash. 1974], aff'd, 520 F.2d 676 [9th Cir. 1975]) affirmed the rights of Washington tribes that were party to the various treaties to harvest fish in their usual and accustomed (U&A) places, identified the U&A locations of various tribes, and also allocated 50 percent of the salmon and steelhead fishery to treaty tribes. The decision established that the Skokomish, Port Gamble SKlallam Tribe, Jamestown SKlallam Tribe, Lower Elwha Klallam, and Suquamish Tribes have U&A that includes the location of the Preferred Alternative. In a subsequent decision, the court determined that the treaty right also included the right to take shellfish. The primacy of Skokomish fishing rights in the waters of Hood Canal over those of other tribes granted U&A rights under the treaties was affirmed under a 1985 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (United States v. Skokomish Indian Tribe, 764 F.2d 670 [9th Cir. 1985]). As a result of the ruling, the Suquamish Tribe has secondary rights and requires the permission of the Skokomish Tribe to exercise its U&A rights south of the Hood Canal Bridge. Since the 1985 court decision, this permission has not been granted. In 1997, the Skokomish and SKlallam Tribes entered into an agreement with the Navy regarding access to shellfish areas within NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. The purpose of the agreement was to apportion NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor shellfish beaches in accordance with the 50 percent Native American/50 percent Non-Native American ruling of the court. Government-to-Government Consultation In accordance with DOD policy and Navy instructions, in May 2010, the commanding officer of Naval Base Kitsap invited the Skokomish, Port Gamble SKlallam, Jamestown SKlallam, Lower Elwha Klallam, and Suquamish Tribes to consult on the Proposed Action. The Navy has had a number of tribal consultation meetings beginning in the summer of 2010, and the tribes have expressed their opinions and concerns regarding the Proposed Action. These Navy-tribal government-to-government consultations are ongoing.
3-87
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
3.8.1
American Indian Use of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor
Traditional Resources at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor and the Proposed Action Area The Skokomish, Port Gamble SKlallam, Jamestown SKlallam, Lower Elwha Klallam, and Suquamish Tribes have identified shellfish as resources located at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor that are of particular traditional importance. In the cooperative agreement of 1997, signed between the Navy and Skokomish, Port Gamble SKlallam, Jamestown SKlallam, and Lower Elwha Klallam Tribes, the parties agreed the tribes would have exclusive shellfish harvest rights and management of one of five beaches at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. The tribes continue to harvest shellfish at the one beach south of Delta Pier (the Devils Hole beach), and this beach has been identified as an area of traditional tribal resource use. The species composition and timing of the tribal shellfish harvest is managed by the tribes. The Devils Hole beach is approximately 3 miles south of the Proposed Action area. The tribes currently use portions of the commercially harvested Vinland Tract; the area south of this tract (Vinland Tract 4) was historically, but is not currently, harvested for geoducks (see Figure 3.4-2). Tribes may also use the Proposed Action area for crab potting and other types of fishing. 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences
The evaluation of impacts to a traditional resource considers whether the resource itself is affected or if there is a change in access to the resource. Consultation with affected American Indian tribes is necessary to identify and evaluate the extent of any potential adverse effects and to develop appropriate measures to address impacts to protected tribal resources. Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), the in-water construction would occur partially in the actively harvested Vinland Tract, a 139-acre area, and Vinland Tract 4, which is not currently harvested. Harvesting of geoducks in the Vinland Tract, both commercial and tribal, is performed at depths of between 20 feet (6 m) and 70 feet (21 m). Disturbance to the seafloor from construction, including dredging, jet-plowing, and concrete armoring, would result in geoduck mortality, which has the potential to impact tribal fishing and harvesting. Based on a geoduck density of 0.32 and 0.09 geoducks per square foot for the Vinland and Vinland 4 tracts, respectively, up to 43,464 pounds (19,715 kg) of geoduck would be directly impacted by construction activities. A total seafloor area of 2.04 acres (0.83 ha) would be affected by construction activities, of which 1.04 acres (0.42 ha) are inside the Vinland Tract and 0.18 acre (0.07 ha) is within Vinland Tract 4. Approximately 0.75 percent of the actively harvested Vinland Tract would be affected. In the majority of the area affected by construction, the effects on geoduck populations would be temporary because as geoducks would be expected to repopulate these areas over time. Areas where geoduck harvesting would be permanently affected by Alternative 1 are addressed in the Operation Impacts section below.
3-88
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Other types of marine resources harvested by the tribes include crab and certain types of finfish. Restricted harvesting access is expected for all types of tribal and commercial fishing resources during in-water construction windows of July 16, 2013, through February 15, 2014, and July 16, 2014, through February 15, 2015 (See Section 3.9, Marine Navigation, for assessment of effects on marine navigation during construction). Because of the limited time spans and relatively small construction area (a 150-foot [46 m] temporary buffer around the Proposed Action construction area), the Navy anticipates no significant impacts to shellfish or finfish harvest as a result of the construction proposed under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Operation Impacts Due to the potential for damage to the sensor array, geoduck harvesting at the array itself would be restricted, representing the permanent reduction in the harvestable area of the Vinland Tract by approximately 0.26 acre (0.11 ha). Additionally, because approximately 925 linear feet of cable bundle from the sensor array to the platform would be armored under Alternative 1, approximately 0.13 acre (0.05 ha) of the Vinland Tract would not re-populate. Therefore, the harvestable area of the Vinland Tract would be reduced by a total of approximately 0.39 acre (0.16 ha; 0.28 percent of the Vinland Tract). Geoduck harvesting within Vinland Tract 4 would not be permanently affected. Crab potting and other fishing activities would not be restricted, except when submarines are utilizing the EMMR system (See Section 3.9, Marine Navigation, for assessment of effects on marine navigation during operations). Appropriate measures to address impacts on protected tribal resources will be implemented as agreed upon through ongoing consultations between the Navy and affected American Indian tribes. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Construction Impacts Construction impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 1, but the geoduck would be affected by construction across a larger area under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, the inwater construction would occur partially in the actively harvested Vinland Tract and partially in Vinland Tract 4. Based on a geoduck density of 0.32 and 0.09 geoduck per square foot for the Vinland and Vinland 4 Tracts, respectively, up to 46,178 pounds (20,946 kg) of geoduck would be directly impacted by construction activities. A total seafloor area of 2.17 acres (0.88 ha) would be affected by construction activities, of which 1.17 acres (0.47 ha) are inside the Vinland Tract and 0.18 acre (0.07 ha) is within Vinland Tract 4. Approximately 0.84 percent of the actively harvested Vinland Tract would be affected. Similar to Alternative 1, in the majority of the area affected by construction, the effects on geoduck populations would be temporary because geoducks would be expected to re-populate these areas over time. Areas where geoduck harvesting would be permanently affected by Alternative 1 are addressed in the Operation Impacts section below. Restricted harvesting and fishing access is expected for all types of tribal fishing resources during in-water construction windows of July 16, 2013, through February 15, 2014, and July 16, 2014, through February 15, 2015 (See Section 3.9, Marine Navigation, for assessment of effects on marine navigation during construction). Because of the limited timespan and relatively small construction area (a 150-foot [46-m] temporary buffer around the Proposed Action
3-89
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
construction area), the Navy anticipates no significant impacts to shellfish, crabs, or finfish harvest as a result of the construction proposed under Alternative 2. Operation Impacts Impacts to American Indian traditional resources/protected tribal resources under this alternative would be similar to those under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), but geoduck harvesting would be permanently affected across a larger area under Alternative 2. Similar to Alternative 1, geoduck harvesting at the array itself would be restricted, representing the permanent reduction in the harvestable area of the Vinland Tract by approximately 0.26 acre (0.11 ha). Additionally, because approximately 925 linear feet of dredged area for the cable bundle from the sensor array to the platform would be backfilled entirely with gravel, an additional area of approximately 0.26 acre (0.11 ha) of the Vinland Tract would be permanently affected. Although geoducks are capable of growing in gravel, it is unknown if or to what extent they could be expected to repopulate the affected area backfilled with gravel. Therefore, the harvestable area of the Vinland Tract would be reduced by a total of approximately 0.52 acre (0.21 ha; 0.37 percent of the Vinland Tract), resulting from both the 0.26 acre (0.11 ha) harvest restriction at the sensor array and the 0.26 acre (0.11 ha) area permanently affected by the gravel backfill. Geoduck harvesting within Vinland Tract 4 would not be permanently affected. Crab potting and other fishing activities would not be restricted, except when submarines are utilizing the EMMR system (See Section 3.9, Marine Navigation, for assessment of effects on marine navigation during operations). Appropriate measures to address impacts to protected tribal resources would be implemented as determined through ongoing consultations between the Navy and affected American Indian tribes. Alternative 3: No Action With the No Action Alternative, the EMMR system would not be constructed. There would be no changes to American Indian traditional resources in the Vinland Tract and Vinland Tract 4. 3.8.3 Permits and Consultation
Government-to-government consultations between the Navy and the Skokomish, Port Gamble SKlallam, Jamestown SKlallam, Lower Elwha Klallam, and Suquamish Tribes are ongoing. 3.9 MARINE NAVIGATION
Marine navigation is an important issue in Hood Canal due to the canals relatively high level of use by Navy and commercial vessels, and its popularity with recreational boaters. 3.9.1 Affected Environment
Hood Canal is an elongated natural embayment that connects to Admiralty Inlet within Puget Sound. Hood Canal is approximately 60 miles (97 km) in length from its mouth at Admiralty Inlet to its headwaters near Belfair in Mason County. The entrance to Hood Canal is located at the lower end of Admiralty Inlet, between Foulweather Bluff and Tala Point, approximately 10 miles (16 km) south of Marrowstone Point (NOAA 2012). The waterway extends in a general south-southwest direction for about 47 miles (75.6 km) and then bends sharply northeast for
3-90
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
about 13 miles (21 km), terminating in flats that are bare at low water. The water is naturally deep in the northern sections of Hood Canal, with typical depths at the centerline of the waterway of between 150 and 300 feet (45 and 91 m). The tidal range is approximately 7.6 feet (2.3 m) between mean high and mean low water (NOAA 2010). The tidal currents in Hood Canal occasionally exceed 1.5 knots (2.8 km per hour); however, in some places in the canal, the currents are too weak and variable to predict (NOAA 2012). Dabob Bay is the largest inlet within Hood Canal and is separated from it by the Toandos Peninsula. Dabob Bay extends 9 miles (14.5 km) in a northerly direction from the entrance located between Tskutsko Point and Sylopash Point just north of the mouth of the Dosewallips River. The majority of vessel traffic in Hood Canal consists of Navy-related marine traffic, including submarines, escort vessels, tugs, and other vessels transiting to and from NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Other vessel traffic includes tugs with log rafts and numerous small craft consisting primarily of recreational vessels. Hood Canal supports numerous small cottages and vacation homes along both banks. Currently, the primary commercial activities on Hood Canal are logging and commercial oyster and geoduck harvesting (NOAA 2012). Hood Canal has no facilities serving deep-draft commercial ships. Recreational spot shrimp harvesting is allowed for a short time in Hood Canal and Dabob Bay in mid-May each year, which dramatically increases the number of recreational vessels on the water. During the spot shrimp season, fishermen use baited shrimp pots with attached lines and marker floats. At the location of the Proposed Action, Hood Canal is between 1.5 and 2.5 miles (2.4 and 4 km) wide, with the wider segment located north near the proposed platform and sensor array associated with the EMMR system. The water depth increases from the shoreline toward the middle of Hood Canal at this location, with typical depths of 150 feet (46 m) in the center of the waterway (Figure 3.9-1). A number of maritime security zones, restricted areas, MOAs, and navigation safety regulations apply within Hood Canal near the location of the Proposed Action; these can affect marine navigation, and they include the following: 1. NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor Security Zone. A security zone has been established by 33 CFR 165.1302 for the waters adjacent to NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. This security zone runs along more than 4 miles (6.4 km) of the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor shoreline and extends into Hood Canal between 0.4 and 0.5 mile (644 and 805 m). A separate 1,000yard (914-m) security zone anchorage is located at the north end of the security zone centered on latitude 47 46' 26" N., longitude 122 42' 49" W. No vessel may enter the security zone or the security zone anchorage without the permission of the commanding officer of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. The southern end of the cable associated with the Proposed Action would pass through the northern portion of the security zone and security anchorage established by 33 CFR 165.1302 (Figure 3.9-1). 2. NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor Naval Restricted Areas. Two naval restricted areas have been established offshore of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor by the regulations of 33 CFR 334.1220. Area No. 1 defines an area immediately offshore of NAVBASE Kitsap
3-91 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Bangor, while Area No. 2 defines the same 1,000-yard- (914-m-) diameter circle that is now represented by the security zone anchorage described in 33 CFR 165.1302. Vessels are only allowed to enter Area No. 1 with the permission of the commanding officer of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Area No. 2 was originally established to support Navy magnetic silencing operations previously operated at that location. The regulations for Area No. 2 prohibit vessels from anchoring or using other devices that could interfere with underwater installations. The southern end of the cable associated with the EMMR system would pass through Area No. 1 and Area No. 2. 3. Hood Canal Military Operating Areas. Regulations in 33 CFR 334.1190 establish naval non-explosive torpedo testing areas in Hood Canal and Dabob Bay, Washington. The regulations describe the typical military testing activities and the safety precautions and requirements for mariners. Portions of Hood Canal offshore of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor and within Dabob Bay are restricted from unauthorized vessel traffic during nonexplosive torpedo testing activities. Unless otherwise restricted (e.g., a separate security zone), vessels are allowed to navigate within the MOAs when testing is not occurring. The Hood Canal range is divided into Hood Canal MOA North and Hood Canal MOA South. Hood Canal MOA North runs approximately from Bridgehaven (47 50 00 North) on the Toandos Peninsula across to the eastern shore of the canal, south to an area approximately level with the Vinland Transit Station (47 46 00 North). The MOA is charted as a Naval Operating Area on NOAA Navigation Chart 18458 (NOAA 2010). The EMMR system would be located entirely within Hood Canal MOA North (Figure 1-2). 4. 1,000-Yard Security Zone Surrounding Navy Submarines under Escort by the USCG. 33 CFR 165.1327 establishes a security zone of 1,000 yards (914 m) surrounding any Navy submarine being escorted by the USCG within the USCG Sector Puget Sound Captain of the Port Zone. No vessel may enter or remain within the security zone unless authorized by the USCG patrol commander. 5. Regulated Navigation Area for Navy Submarines in Hood Canal under Escort by USCG. 33 CFR 165.1328 establishes a regulated navigation area within the designated waters of Hood Canal whenever a Navy submarine is operating within the waterway and is being escorted by the USCG. All persons and vessels located within the regulated navigation area are required to follow the lawful orders and directions given to them by USCG security escort personnel. 6. 100-Yard Naval Protection Zone Surrounding Large Navy Vessels. 33 CFR 165.2030 establishes a naval protection zone of 100 yards (91 m) surrounding all U.S. naval vessels greater than 100 feet (30.5 m) in length at all times within the navigable waters of the United States in the Pacific area. The naval protection zone applies whether the U.S. naval vessel is underway, moored, or within a floating drydock. No vessel is allowed within 100 yards (91 m) of a large U.S. naval vessel unless authorized by the USCG or the senior naval officer present in command. The USCG and senior naval officer present in command monitor very high frequency radio channel 16 to consider requests for authorization to enter the 100-yard (914-m) naval protection zone. 7. Hood Canal Participation in Vessel Traffic Services Puget Sound. Hood Canal is located within the USCG Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) Puget Sound coverage area,
3-92
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 3.9.2
which requires certain vessels, including naval vessels, to participate in the mandatory Vessel Movement Reporting System. These vessels include power-driven vessels over 131 feet (40 m) in length, towing vessels over 26 feet (8 m) in length, and passenger vessels certified to carry 50 passengers or more engaged in trade. Other vessels are required to maintain passive participation in VTS Puget Sound by monitoring required radio frequencies. These vessels include power-driven vessels of over 65 feet (20 m) in length, vessels of 100 gross tons (102 metric tons) or more carrying at least one passenger for hire, and a dredge or floating plant located near a channel engaged in operations likely to affect the navigation of other vessels (USCG 2007). The VTS Puget Sound system allows the USCG to track vessel movements and provide advice to mariners regarding upcoming vessel traffic and potential waterway hazards. Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts Impacts to marine navigation during construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would include the presence of additional marine construction vessels on the waterway and temporary waterway restrictions surrounding the construction area. Construction under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would involve the use of a number of specialized marine construction vessels, including: A dredge to prepare the sea floor for installation of the sensor array; Materials barges to handle dredge spoil and backfill; Deck barges for cables, sensors, platform pilings, and cable armoring; Tugs to position and handle barges; A crane barge/vessel (for pile-driving, platform deck placement, and placement of cable armoring segments); Tugs or work boats to pull and operate jet plows to bury sensor cables; Small work boats to transport personnel and materials; and Other specialized marine construction and/or cable installation vessels. Two in-water construction periods would extend from July 16, 2013, through February 15, 2014, then again from July 16, 2014, through February 15, 2015 (see Section 2). This represents a construction period of 215 days during each of the two separate in-water construction periods. Construction vessels would likely be deployed simultaneously, which would temporarily increase vessel congestion in the Proposed Action area during construction. Since construction would not occur in May of either year, construction associated with Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would not interfere with the annual spot shrimp season, which brings an increase in vessel traffic to Hood Canal.
3-93 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Hood Canal is between 1.5 and 2.5 miles (2.4 and 4 km) wide at the site of the proposed marine construction under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). The waterway increases in width farther north near the location of the proposed offshore platform. This platform would be located approximately 0.2 mile (322 m) offshore of the eastern shoreline of Hood Canal at position 47 78 67.68 N and 122 69 15.98 W. The distance from the offshore platform included in Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) to the western shoreline of Hood Canal is approximately 2.25 miles (3.6 km), with substantial portions of the route over 100 feet (30 m) deep and suitable for use by existing waterway users, including large naval vessels. Construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would not impede existing marine traffic, which could, without difficultly, avoid the construction area situated close to the eastern shoreline of Hood Canal (see Figure 3.9-1). Commercial, recreational, and large naval vessels stopping at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor would be able to use existing routes and easily pass to the west of the EMMR system proposed as part of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). The following BMPs and SOPs associated with construction of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would reduce impacts to marine navigation: Areas of in-water and above-water work would be surrounded by a 150-foot corridor of floating barriers (combined debris barrier and oil-absorbent booms); and EMMR system construction activities would be announced in the USCG Local Notice to Mariners so that individuals operating vessels in Hood Canal would be aware of the location and timing of marine construction. The installation of floating barriers surrounding in-water and above-water work would provide a clear designation of the construction area and would serve as a mechanism to warn mariners to avoid the site. Construction would only occur during daylight hours, which would maximize visibility and further reduce the potential for conflicts with other waterway users. During construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), small areas of Hood Canal (up to 23.1 acres [9.3 ha], or approximately 0.02 percent of the area of Hood Canal) would not be available for commercial or recreational fishing, recreational boating, or other activities. Only authorized construction vessels and personnel would be allowed within the designated marine areas during active construction. This would be necessary to protect the general public from hazards associated with construction. Impacts from these localized waterway restrictions during construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would be short term.
3-94
February 2013
Figure 3.9-1 Marine Navigation Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging (EMMR) System Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington Legend
Military Installation Boundary Sensor Array (400 ft / 122 m)
Cable Route (6,970 ft / 2,124 m) Cable Route (1,148 ft / 350 m) Cable Route (210 ft / 64 m) Offshore Platform (15 ft x 15 ft / 4.5 m x 4.5 m) Aid to Navigation
Soundings in Fathoms (6 Feet to 1 Fathoms)
3-95
Aid to Natigation
Jefferson County
Po u l s b o
Silv er da le
Kitsap County
WA
0 0 750
3,000
Meters 1,500
6,000 Feet
Source: Esri, 2012; NAVFAC, 2012; Dept.of Defense - Navy, 2011; NOAA, 2011.
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Installing a buried sensor array, buried cable, and cable armoring associated with Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) do not present unique hazards to marine navigation. As stated above, recreational and commercial vessel navigation in the immediate vicinity of construction activities would be disrupted for a potential total period of 215 days per in-water construction period. Because Hood Canal is approximately 2.5 miles (4 km) wide at this point and marine construction activities associated with Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would occur within 0.2 mile (322 m) of the eastern shoreline, marine navigation would not be significantly affected. As a result, construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would not result in significant short- or long-term adverse impacts on marine navigation. Operation Impacts Operation of the EMMR system as proposed in Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would result in several potential impacts to marine navigation, including temporary restrictions on access to the marine area surrounding the sensor array while in use and separate long-term restrictions on anchoring in the vicinity of the sensor array and cable armoring. Based upon past submarine transit frequency data, the EMMR system would be used an average of five times per month, with a combined average use time of approximately 25 minutes per month. The EMMR system would be located entirely within Hood Canal MOA North. The existing regulations (33 CFR 334.1190) permit vessels to operate within Hood Canal MOA North at all times except when naval exercises are in progress. However, the southern portions of the EMMR system cable where it crosses the shoreline would pass through the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor security zone (33 CFR 165.1302) and the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor Naval Restricted Area (33 CFR 334.1220). No vessels would be permitted to access that portion of the Proposed Action area without the permission of the USCG or an authorized Navy official at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Measures taken to reduce the potential impact of operation of the EMMR system on marine navigation include the following: Construction and use of the sector light ATN facilitates precise navigation on an exact course and would minimize the potential that a submarine would stray off its intended track over the EMMR sensor array. The USCG escort includes a moving 1,000-yard (914-m) security zone (33 CFR 165.1327) surrounding the submarine that allows the USCG to restrict other vessels from approaching or otherwise interfering with the submarines transit. The USCG escort and associated security zone would minimize the potential for conflicts with other vessels and waterway users. The location of the EMMR system on the east side of Hood Canal would be outside the traditional inbound and outbound vessel traffic lanes. The location would minimize the effects on non-military watercraft navigation. The location of the EMMR system outside traditional vessel traffic lanes would promote the long-term structural integrity of the EMMR system by reducing the potential for damage to submerged equipment by anchors associated with larger commercial vessels.
3-96
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
The offshore platform would be equipped with a USCG-approved solar-powered hazard to navigation light to clearly mark its location at night. The offshore platform would be marked on NOAA navigation charts so that it could be avoided by mariners. Several measures are proposed that would restrict vessel anchoring in the vicinity of the sensor array system. The following anchoring restrictions would be imposed on marine vessels operating in the vicinity of the Proposed Action to reduce the potential for damage to the sensor array: A 0.52-acre (0.21-ha) no anchoring area would be established around the sensor array to apply to vessels with anchors 800 pounds (363 kg) and larger. The anchoring restriction would apply to a corridor around the sensor array (450 feet [137.2 m] by 50 feet [15.2 m]). This no-anchoring area would be marked on NOAA navigation charts. When naval exercises were not in progress (33 CFR 334.1190) in Hood Canal MOA North and the EMMR system was not in use by a submarine, vessels could navigate in the vicinity of the EMMR system, provided they did not anchor in violation of any established no-anchoring requirements (or enter an area otherwise restricted by regulation). Due to the infrequent and short duration of EMMR system use by Navy submarines, the location of the facility outside traditional vessel transit lanes, employment of USCG vessel escorts and moving security zones, and the other measures described previously, the operation of the EMMR system as described in Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would not result in significant longterm impacts to marine navigation. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Construction Impacts The marine navigation impacts associated with construction of the EMMR system under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). The overall duration of construction-related waterway restrictions is expected to be less under this alternative than under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) because it is likely to take less time to install 925 feet (282 m) of cable bundle by jet plow compared to the section-by-section placement of 12-foot-long concrete cable-armoring segments by crane. Consequently, the effects on marine navigation as a result of the construction of Alternative 2 would not be significant. Operation Impacts The marine navigation impacts associated with operation of the EMMR system under Alternative 2 would be expected to be the same as those described for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative).
3-97 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
The same measures proposed for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) that would restrict vessel anchoring near the sensor array would be included in Alternative 2. The lack of cable armoring under Alternative 2 increases the possibility that inadvertent anchoring over the cable or other vessel or fishing-related operations could snag or otherwise damage the EMMR system cable between the offshore platform and the buried sensor array. Similar incidents have occurred in the past and resulted in damage to the EMMR system at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Alternative 2 would require a larger anchoring restriction area along the cable bundle than Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Due to the infrequent and short duration of EMMR system use by Navy submarines, the location of the facility outside traditional vessel transit lanes, employment of USCG vessel escorts and moving security zones, and the other measures described previously, the operation of the EMMR system as described in Alternative 2 would not result in significant long-term impacts to marine navigation. Alternative 3: No Action No changes to marine navigation would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. 3.10 AIR QUALITY
3.10.1 Affected Environment Regulatory Overview The CAA is the primary federal statute governing air quality. Under authority of the CAA, the USEPA sets the maximum acceptable concentration levels for specific pollutants that may impact the health and welfare of the public. With USEPA oversight, states may set concentration levels for additional pollutants not regulated by the USEPA. The State of Washington administers the provisions of the majority of the CAA. The CAA prohibits federal agencies from engaging in, supporting, providing financial assistance for licensing, permitting, or approving any activity that does not conform to an applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP). Federal agencies must determine that a federal action conforms to the SIP before proceeding with the action. In Washington, Ecology administers the States CAA and implements its regulations (Revised Code of Washington Chapter 70.94 and Washington Administrative Code 173-400). Ecology has, in turn, delegated the responsibility of regulating stationary emission sources to local air agencies. In Kitsap County, Ecology has delegated this responsibility to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA), which serves as the local air agency. In areas that exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the CAA requires preparation of a SIP. The SIP details how the state will attain the standards within mandated time frames. Both the federal CAA and the state CAA identify emission reduction goals and compliance dates based upon the severity of the NAAQS violation within a region. PSCAA has developed rules that regulate stationary sources of air pollution in Kitsap County.
3-98
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Seven criteria pollutants are regulated and include the following: Carbon monoxide; Lead,; Nitrogen oxides; Particulate matter 10 microns in size, or PM10; Particulate matter 2.5 microns in size, or PM2.5; Ground-level ozone; and Sulfur oxides. Attainment, Air Emissions, and Air Quality Index The NAAQS, discussed previously, include primary and secondary standards. The primary standards are limits set to protect human health. The secondary standards set limits intended to protect public welfare, including environmental and property damage (USEPA 2009). A geographic area with air quality that meets the primary standard, because its air is as clean as or cleaner than the standard, is called an "attainment" area. The USEPA designates areas that do not meet the primary standard as nonattainment areas. Areas that were previously designated nonattainment but are now in attainment are designated as maintenance areas. The primary and secondary standards are listed in Table 3.10-1.
Table 3.10-1 National and Washington State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Federal Primary Standards Level
9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) 0.15 g/m3 1.5 g/m
3(note 2)
Washington State Standards Level Averaging Time
Averaging Time
8-hour1 1-hour
1
Carbon Monoxide
Same as Federal Standards
Lead
Rolling 3-month Average Quarterly Average Annual (Arithmetic Mean) 1-hour4 24-hour5 Annual6 (Arithmetic Mean) 24-hour
7
Nitrogen Dioxide Particulate Matter (PM10) Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
0.053 ppm(note 3) (100 g/m3) 0.100 ppm 150 g/m3 15.0 g/m3 35 g/m
3
Same as Federal Standards Same as Federal Standards Same as Federal Standards Same as Federal Standards 0.12 ppm 1-hour (Daily Max)10a
Ozone
0.075 ppm (2008 std) 0.08 ppm (1997 std) 0.12 ppm(10a)
8-hour8,9c 8-hour9a,9b,9c 1-hour (Daily Max)
3-99
February 2013
Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System Table 3.10-1 National and Washington State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Federal Primary Standards Level
0.03 ppm 0.14 ppm Sulfur Dioxide
Draft EA
Washington State Standards Level

0.2 ppm 0.10 ppm 0.40 ppm
Averaging Time
Annual (Arithmetic Mean) 24-hour
1
Averaging Time
Annual (Arithmetic Mean) 24-hour 1-hour more than once per year 1-hour more than twice per 7-day period Annual 24-hour
75 ppb11
1-hour1 0.25 ppm
Total Suspended Particulate
NA NA
NA NA
60 g/m3 150 g/m3
Source: USEPA 2010a, Ecology 2010. Notes: 1 Not to be exceeded more than once per year. 2 Final rule signed October 15, 2008. 3 The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is shown here for the purpose of clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard 4 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 100 ppb (effective January 22, 2010). 5 Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. 6 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple 3 community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 g/m . 7 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor 3 within an area must not exceed 35 g/m (effective December 17, 2006). 8 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm (effective May 27, 2008) 9a To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 9b The 1997 standardand the implementation rules for that standardwill remain in place for implementation purposes as EPA undertakes rulemaking to address the transition from the 1997 ozone standard to the 2008 ozone standard. 9c EPA is in the process of reconsidering these standards (set in March 2008). 10a EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas, although some areas have continuing obligations under that standard ("anti-backsliding"). 10b The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is <1. 11 Final rule signed June 2, 2010. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 75 ppb. Key: 3 g/m Max 3 mg/m PM2.5 NA PM10 ppm ppb std = = = = = = = = = micrograms per cubic meter maximum milligrams per cubic meter particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less Not Applicable particulate matter 10 micrometers or less parts per million parts per billion standard
1 2
3-100
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Kitsap County is presently in attainment of all NAAQS. The regulatory requirements for proposed emission sources in attainment areas are typically less rigorous than those for nonattainment and maintenance areas. In 1999, the PSCAA adopted a local health goal for a daily average of particulate matter never to exceed 25 micrograms per cubic meter. The USEPA has developed a nationwide reporting index for the criteria pollutants, known as the Air Quality Index (AQI), based on a 500-point scale for five major pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, ozone, and particulate matter (PM). The highest pollutant value determines the daily ranking. For example, if carbon monoxide is 152 and other pollutants are below 60, then the AQI for that day is 152. The index is broken down as follows: (1) 050 is good, (2) 51100 is moderate, (3) 101150 is unhealthy for sensitive groups, (4) 151200 is unhealthy, (5) 201300 is very unhealthy, and (6) 301500 is hazardous (PSCAA 2009a). Within the vicinity of the Proposed Action, the AQI indicated that air quality was good for most of 2010 (PSCAA 2010). For approximately 88 percent of that year, air quality was rated as good, and for 12 percent of the year, it was rated as moderate. The highest AQI value for Kitsap County in 2010 was 92; thus, no AQI value within an unhealthy range for sensitive groups occurred. The PSCAA maintains a network of monitoring stations across Washington, with three stations in Kitsap County. These stations are located in Silverdale, Poulsbo, and Bremerton. The PSCAA only monitors PM in the county because so few point sources of air pollutants are present. This includes PM10 and PM2.5, which is used as a measure of regional visibility. For the majority of 2010, visibility was rated as good. A few moderate visibility days occurred in February, May, July, September, November, and December. Average visibility for the Puget Sound area has steadily increased over the last decade, with year-to-year variability caused by weather conditions (PSCAA 2010). Greenhouse Gases While not regulated by PSCAA like other conventional air pollutants, greenhouse gases are reportable in certain scenarios to the USEPA. Greenhouse gases include: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and fluorinated gases such as chlorofluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (USEPA 2010a, b). 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences The evaluation of impacts to air quality considers whether conditions resulting from the Proposed Action during construction and operation could violate federal, state, or local air pollution standards and regulations. Applicable air pollution standards and regulations that are the basis for determinations of environmental consequences are discussed in Section 3.10.1. The amount of emissions generated by the Proposed Action would be expected to be below the thresholds required to conduct a conformity analysis; therefore, a conformity analysis was not conducted as part of this EA. As stated above, Kitsap County is presently in attainment of all NAAQS criteria pollutants. Air emissions were calculated using methodology prescribed in the most recent edition of the USEPAs AP-42 document (USEPA 1996). Emissions were only calculated for NAAQS and greenhouse gas pollutants (specifically carbon dioxide) with known emissions factors. The noaction alternative would not result in the generation of emissions; therefore, calculations were
3-101 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
not performed, and additional analysis was not carried forward. However, construction emissions associated with the Proposed Action were calculated. The construction contractor will follow all rules and regulations, including opacity regulations (PSCAA 2009b). Table 3.10-2 lists the anticipated emissions under the Proposed Action for pollutants that had emissions factors in the AP-42 (USEPA 1996). All calculations and assumptions associated with the calculations are included in Appendix F.
Table 3.10-2 EMMR System Construction Emissions, Action Alternatives for 2Year Duration of Construction
Activity
Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) Construction Equipment Alternative 2 Construction Equipment
Key: CO CO2 NOx PM10 SO2 VOCs = = = = = =
Emissions (lbs.) VOCs

102.3 102.3
CO
533.8 533.8
NOX
1,300.9 1,300.9
SO2
3.9 3.9
PM10
87.9 87.9
CO2
200,024.4 200,024.4
Tons Total
101.0 101.0
carbon monoxide carbon dioxide nitrogen oxides particles10 micrometers or less in diameter sulfur dioxide volatile organic compounds
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The following assumptions were made in calculating total potential emissions: An impact hammer would be used for 8 hours per pile, one pile per day; A pile-driver and dredge would utilize a 600-horsepower diesel engine; One tugboat, with a 600-horsepower diesel engine, would operate at 100 percent of capacity 100 percent of the time during pile installation, dredging activities, and cablelaying and armoring; and Fugitive dust associated with HDD operations, jet-plowing, and pile-driving would be negligible. Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts The potential air emissions associated with the Proposed Action would not be anticipated to exceed any of the PSCAA thresholds or greenhouse gas reporting thresholds established by USEPA. In addition, construction would be temporary, and no permanent emissions would be anticipated. Additionally, reasonable precautions would be implemented to minimize fugitive dust emissions from construction activities, and no temporary construction permit from PSCAA
3-102
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
would be required. Therefore, no significant impacts would be anticipated as a result of constructing the EMMR system. Operation Impacts Operation of the EMMR system would not generate any air emissions. Therefore, no significant short- or long-term adverse impacts would occur to air quality. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Construction Impacts Construction air emissions under Alternative 2 would be identical to those under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative); therefore, no significant impacts to air quality would be anticipated as a result of constructing the EMMR system. Operation Impacts Operation of the EMMR system under Alternative 2, and any associated environmental consequences, would be identical to those described under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Thus, no significant short- or long-term adverse impacts would occur to air quality. Alternative 3: No Action No changes to air quality would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. 3.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
This section addresses aspects of public health and safety including site access, noise, the potential release of hazardous materials, and the emission of EMF radiation during construction and operation of the Proposed Action. Potential impacts specific to noise are discussed in Section 3.2.2, Airborne Noise; potential impacts to marine navigation are discussed in Section 3.9, Marine Navigation. 3.11.1 Affected Environment All onshore components of the EMMR system are located within the NRA of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor and are therefore restricted from public access. Portions of the in-water components are located within the NRA of the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront; however, the majority of the in-water components are located in Hood Canal north of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. With the exception of tribal access, the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront is restricted to the public. Generally, tribes access the shoreline for shellfish harvesting and bark collection three to four times per year. The waters in the vicinity of the Proposed Action are used for recreation, commercial fishing, and other public activities.
3-103
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
3.11.2 Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Construction Impacts During construction, a temporary floating security barrier would prevent recreational and commercial boater access to the construction area of the EMMR system for the duration of the Proposed Action. In-water work would occur between July 16, 2013, and February 15, 2014, and between July 16, 2014, and February 15, 2015. A Notice to Mariners would be issued to alert recreational and commercial vessels of Proposed Action construction. The sources, levels, and duration of noise and potential impacts generated by noise during construction are discussed in Section 3.2.2, Airborne Noise. Equipment operators and other workers would follow Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations regarding personal protection equipment (e.g., earplugs, life vests, and steel-toed boots). A Proposed Action-specific SPCC Plan will be developed, by a Navy contractor, to prevent, control, and respond to any accidental discharge of hazardous materials such as fuel, oil, or HDD drilling mud into the environment. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse long-term impacts to public health and safety from implementation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Operation Impacts Permanent in-water components of the EMMR system would contain the following provisions to ensure public health and safety: A standard navigation light coordinated with USCG to prevent collision with the offshore platform; Secured access and No Trespassing and No Anchoring signs; and An anchoring-restricted area (800-pound anchors or greater) marked on NOAA navigational charts to prevent risk of snagging the EMMR system. During operation, the EMMR system would operate passively, receiving electromagnetic signals, not emitting them, and operating between 36 and 48 volts at 0.5 ampere. This is equivalent to approximately 24 watts, which is less power than a common household light bulb uses. This system is purposely designed to emit negligible EMF radiation. In addition, the system would only be powered on during use, approximately 25 minutes per month. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts would occur to public health and safety from the implementation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative).
3-104
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Construction Impacts Under Alternative 2, the construction impacts would be the same as those for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Operation Impacts Under Alternative 2, the operational impacts would be the same as those for Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 3: No Action No changes to public health and safety would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system.
3-105
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
3-106
February 2013
Draft EA
3.12
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Alternative Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures
Table 3.12-1 Summary of Environmental Consequences

Component
Construction: Short-term and localized impacts to bathymetry. No long-term adverse Alternative 1: Buried impacts to bathymetry or water circulation patterns. Construction impacts would be less Sensor Array and Buried than significant. Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Operation: No adverse impacts to bathymetry or water circulation patterns. Operation Alternative) impacts would be less than significant. Bathymetry Construction: Short-term and localized impacts to bathymetry. Impacts would be greater None. Alternative 2: Buried than Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) due to use of jet plow for cable bundle Sensor Array and Buried installation. No long-term adverse impacts to bathymetry or water circulation patterns. Cable with Buried Cable Construction impacts would be less than significant. Bundle Operation: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 3: No Action No changes to bathymetry would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system.
Geology and Sediments
Construction: Potential for temporary and localized erosion impacts to shoreline at high tides. No change to sediment transport patterns; sediment would continue to meet Alternative 1: Buried quality standards. No significant long-term adverse impact would occur from Sensor Array and Buried construction. Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Operation: Potential for localized erosion impacts to shoreline at high tides. Permanent Alternative) localized impacts to sediment transport along cable bundle corridor between platform and sensor array. No significant long-term adverse impact would occur from operations. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Operation: Potential for localized erosion impacts to shoreline at high tides. No impacts Cable with Buried Cable to sediment transport along cable bundle corridor between platform and sensor array. Bundle No significant long-term adverse impact would occur from operations. Alternative 3: No Action No changes to geology and sediments would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. Construction: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative).
None.
3-107
February 2013
Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System Table 3.12-1 Summary of Environmental Consequences

Component Alternative
Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative)
Draft EA
Environmental Impacts
Construction: Temporary impacts to water quality from resuspension of fine sediments during jet-plowing, dredging, and backfilling at sensor array, offshore platform, and HDD exit hole. Turbidity would be likely to temporarily exceed water quality standards. No long-term adverse impacts. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Operation: No change to water quality. Operation impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Water Resources
Construction: Temporary impacts to water quality from resuspension of fine sediments during jet-plowing, dredging, and backfilling operations at sensor array, offshore Alternative 2: Buried platform, and HDD exit hole. Turbidity impacts would be greater than those for Sensor Array and Buried Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) due to use of jet plow for cable bundle installation Cable with Buried Cable and would be likely to temporarily exceed water quality standards. No long-term Bundle adverse impacts. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Operation: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 3: No Action Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) No changes to water resources would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. Construction: Temporary increase in noise in the vicinity of upland and in-water locations of the Proposed Action area. Construction would occur during daytime hours only. No long-term adverse impacts. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Operation: No audible increases in noise to sensitive receptors. Operation impacts would be less than significant.
HDD plan would be implemented for Alternatives 1 and 2.
None.
Noise
Alternative 2: Buried Construction: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Operation: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Bundle Alternative 3: No Action No changes to noise would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system.
None.
3-108
February 2013

Component Alternative Environmental Impacts
Draft EA
Mitigation Measures
Terrestrial Vegetation
Construction: Approximately 0.31 acre (0.12 ha) of vegetation removal required for ATN, MSF Building 7801, and pullbox construction. Construction impacts would be less Alternative 1: Buried than significant. Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Operation: 430 square feet of vegetation permanently removed from forest and Cable Bundle (Preferred disturbed land; 10,780 square feet of forest land becomes disturbed land; and potential Alternative) spread of invasive species in re-vegetated areas. Operation impacts would be less than significant. Alternative 2: Buried Construction: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Operation: Same as Alternative 1(Preferred Alternative). Bundle Alternative 3: No Action Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) No changes to terrestrial vegetation would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. Construction: Short-term displacement of wildlife from the construction footprint and vicinity due to vegetation clearing and noise. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Operation: Localized long-term conversion of 0.25 acre (0.1 ha) of forest land to lower quality habitat for wildlife. Reduced habitat connectivity and intermittent light disturbance. Operation impacts would be less than significant.
Vegetation clearing and re-vegetation plan for the ATN corridor would be implemented for Alternatives 1 and 2.
None.
Terrestrial Wildlife
Alternative 2: Buried Construction: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Operation: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Bundle Alternative 3: No Action No changes to terrestrial wildlife would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system.
Vegetation clearing and re-vegetation plan for the ATN corridor would be implemented for Alternatives 1 and 2.
None.
3-109
February 2013

Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative)
Draft EA
Construction: No direct impacts to eelgrass; indirect impacts from turbidity would be short term. Approximately 1.22 acres (0.49 ha) at depths shallower than 70 feet (21 m) would be affected; this area is likely to have sparse macroalgae that would repopulate. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Operation: No adverse impacts to eelgrass, macroalgae, or kelp. Operation impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Marine Vegetation
Construction: No direct impacts to eelgrass; indirect impacts from turbidity would be greater than Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) due to use of jet plow for cable bundle Alternative 2: Buried installation. Indirect impacts would be short term and subject to the velocity of the Sensor Array and Buried current at the time of construction. Approximately 1.35 acres (0.55 m) at depths Cable with Buried Cable shallower than 70 feet (21 m) would be affected; this area is likely to have sparse Bundle macroalgae that would repopulate. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Operation: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 3: No Action No changes to marine vegetation would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system.
Purchase credits from Hood Canal In-Lieu Fee Program to compensate for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources from Alternatives 1 or 2.
None.
Benthic Community
Construction: Loss of immobile species within the Proposed Action area footprint (jetplow path, cable armoring, or dredging; 2.04 acres [0.83 ha]). Mobile benthic species would vacate the area. This impact would not result in substantial loss of biological Alternative 1: Buried productivity in the area due to the large amount of available habitat and adjacent Sensor Array and Buried populations available to repopulate disturbed areas. Construction impacts would be Cable with Armored less than significant. Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Operation: No evidence to support adverse impact to benthic communities. The EMMR system would operate passively, receiving electromagnetic signals, not emitting them, and would use between 36 and 48 volts at 0.5 ampere. Operation impacts would be less than significant. Construction: Loss of immobile species within the Proposed Action area footprint (jetplow path or dredging; 2.17 acres [0.88 ha]). Mobile benthic species would vacate the area. This impact would not result in substantial loss of biological productivity in the Alternative 2: Buried area due to the large amount of available habitat and adjacent populations available to Sensor Array and Buried repopulate disturbed areas. Indirect impacts to benthic communities from turbidity Cable with Buried Cable would be greater than Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) due to use of jet plow for Bundle cable bundle installation. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Operation: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative).
Purchase credits from Hood Canal In-Lieu Fee Program to compensate for unavoidable impacts to aquatic habitat from Alternatives 1 or 2.
3-110
February 2013

Draft EA
No changes to benthic communities would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Fish
Construction: Behavioral responses from increased noise or turbidity may include temporary feeding disruption, changes in migratory and foraging behavior, not rising to the surface to feed, short-term reduction in prey location, and avoidance of areas with increased levels of suspended sediment. This may affect, not likely adversely affect Alternative 1: Buried ESA-listed salmonids and rockfish. In addition, construction may adversely affect Sensor Array and Buried Essential Fish Habitat. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Operation: No evidence to support adverse impact to fish. The EMMR system would Alternative) operate passively, receiving electromagnetic signals, not emitting them, and would use between 36 and 48 volts at 0.5 ampere. The EMF radiation would be negligible. The operations may affect, not likely adversely affect ESA-listed salmonids or ESA-listed rockfish. Operations would have no adverse effect to Essential Fish Habitat. Operation impacts would be less than significant. Construction: Behavioral responses from increased noise or turbidity may include temporary feeding disruption, changes in migratory and foraging behavior, not rising to the surface to feed, short-term reduction in prey location, and avoidance of areas with Alternative 2: Buried increased levels of suspended sediment. Indirect impacts to fish from turbidity would be Sensor Array and Buried greater than Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) due to use of jet plow for cable bundle Cable with Buried Cable installation. This may affect, not likely adversely affect ESA-listed salmonids and Bundle rockfish. In addition, construction may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Operation: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 3: No Action No changes to fish would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system.
None.
3-111
February 2013

Draft EA
Mitigation Measures
Birds
Construction: Behavioral responses from temporary increase in noise, construction vessel traffic, visual disturbance, or turbidity that may include feeding disruption, avoidance behavior, alarm/startle response, temporary abandonment of resting sites, and short-term reduction in prey availability. Due to the large size of Hood Canal, Alternative 1: Buried alternative foraging areas are readily available during this short-term displacement. This Sensor Array and Buried may affect, not likely adversely affect the ESA-listed marbled murrelet. Alternative 1 Cable with Armored (Preferred Alternative) would not result in a "take" of bald eagles or a significant Cable Bundle (Preferred adverse or disruptive impact to migratory birds. Construction impacts would be less Alternative) than significant. Bird-proofing the ATN and its platform to Operation: Long-term conversion of 0.25 acre (0.1 ha) forest land habitat to disturbed prevent nesting and grass and shrub land habitat. Operation impacts would be less than significant. perching would be implemented for Construction: Behavioral responses from temporary increase in noise, construction Alternatives 1 and 2. vessel traffic, visual disturbance, or turbidity that may include feeding disruption, avoidance behavior, alarm/startle response, temporary abandonment of resting sites, Alternative 2: Buried and short-term reduction in prey availability. Due to the large size of Hood Canal, Sensor Array and Buried alternative foraging areas are readily available during this short-term displacement. This Cable with Buried Cable may affect, not likely adversely affect the ESA-listed marbled murrelet. Alternative 2 Bundle would not result in a "take" of bald eagles or a significant adverse or disruptive impact to migratory birds. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Operation: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 3: No Action No changes to birds would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. None.
3-112
February 2013

Draft EA
Mitigation Measures
Marine Mammals
Construction: Short-term impacts associated with elevated noise due to dredging, jetplowing, and impact pile-driving; construction-vessel traffic; and changes in prey availability to marine mammals. Underwater noise thresholds for injury would be exceeded at distances of 3.3 feet (1 m) from pile installation for pinnipeds and 16 feet (5 m) for cetaceans. Underwater noise thresholds for disturbance would be exceeded for 384 feet (117 m) from pile-driving. Exposure of marine mammals to these thresholds Alternative 1: Buried would be avoided because the areas exceeding the thresholds would be monitored, Sensor Array and Buried and pile-driving would cease if any marine mammal approached the monitoring zone. Cable with Armored Behavioral changes in response to vessel presence may include avoidance reactions, Cable Bundle (Preferred alarm/startle responses, alteration of swimming speed, and alteration of direction of Alternative) travel, vocalizations, or diving activity. This may affect, not likely adversely affect the ESA-listed Steller sea lion and humpback whale. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Operation: No adverse impact to marine mammals; operations may affect but, likely to adversely affect ESA-listed Steller sea lion and humpback whale. Operation impacts would be less than significant. Alternative 2: Buried Construction: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Operation: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Bundle Alternative 3: No Action No changes to marine mammals would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system.
Marine mammal monitoring during piledriving would be implemented for Alternatives 1 and 2.
None.
Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics
Construction: Short-term exclusion of recreational boat traffic from the offshore construction area. Permanent loss of (0.13 ac) 0.09 percent of geoduck habitat in the Vinland Tract; no impact to recreational geoduck harvesting. Short-term impact to visual resources due to views of construction equipment. Construction impacts would be less Shielding of navigation Alternative 1: Buried than significant. hazard light (on offshore Sensor Array and Buried platform) in coordination Cable with Armored Operation: Installed facilities (i.e., the ATN) would be consistent with adjacent land with USCG would be Cable Bundle (Preferred uses. Long-term impact to vessels due to anchoring and geoduck-harvesting restriction implemented for Alternative) area. Intermittent short-term impacts to recreation when submarines navigate over the Alternatives 1 and 2. EMMR system. No impact to recreational geoduck harvesting. Long-term impact to visual resources due to views of the offshore platform, navigational light, and ATN. Operation impacts would be less than significant.
3-113
February 2013

Draft EA
Mitigation Measures
Construction: Short-term exclusion of recreational boat traffic from the offshore construction area. Permanent loss of (0.26 ac) 0.18 percent of geoduck habitat in the Alternative 2: Buried Vinland Tract; no impact to recreational geoduck harvesting. Short-term impact to visual Sensor Array and Buried resources due to views of construction equipment. Construction impacts would be less Cable with Buried Cable than significant. Bundle Operation: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 3: No Action No changes to land use, recreation, and aesthetics would occur due to construction and None. operation of an EMMR system. Construction: Few temporary jobs and minimal contributions to local spending. Total impact of 1.04 acres of geoduck-harvestable area in the Vinland Tract and 0.05 acre in Vinland Tract 4. Permanent loss of (0.13 ac) 0.09 percent of geoduck habitat in the Vinland Tract. Construction impacts would be less than significant.
Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Childrens Health and Safety
Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Operation: 0.26 acre restricted from geoduck harvesting in the Vinland Tract. Operation Cable Bundle (Preferred impacts would be less than significant. Alternative) There would be no disproportionally high or adverse human health, safety, or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations or children during None. construction or operation. Construction: Few temporary jobs and minimal contributions to local spending. Total Alternative 2: Buried impact of 1.17 acres of geoduck harvestable area in the Vinland Tract and 0.05 acre in Sensor Array and Buried Vinland Tract 4. Permanent loss of (0.26 ac) 0.18 percent of geoduck habitat in the Cable with Buried Cable Vinland Tract. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Bundle Operation: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 3: No Action No changes to socioeconomics, environmental justice, or childrens health and safety would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system.
3-114
February 2013

Draft EA
Mitigation Measures
Construction: SHPO consultation is pending regarding Building 7801. Construction would not be expected to adversely affect potentially eligible structures because construction would occur in-water and away from the MSF, with the exception of the Alternative 1: Buried cable connection to Building 7801. The connection to the building can be made without Sensor Array and Buried altering the characteristics relevant to its eligibility for the NRHP, resulting in no effect to Cable with Armored the structure. Construction impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Operation: No adverse impacts expected. Operation impacts would be less than significant. Cultural Resources None. Alternative 2: Buried Construction: The same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Operation: The same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Bundle Alternative 3: No Action No changes to cultural resources would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. The Navy has initiated consultations with affected Native American Indian tribes. Construction: Short-term impact to tribal U&A geoduck beds and subsistence resources Alternative 1: Buried as well as short-term restricted harvesting during construction windows. Permanent loss Sensor Array and Buried of 0.09 percent of geoduck habitat in the Vinland Tract. Construction impacts would be Cable with Armored less than significant. Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Operations: Long-term impact to tribal U&A geoduck beds. Intermittent restrictions to harvesting during use of the EMMR system. Operation impacts would be less than significant. The Navy has initiated consultations with affected Native American Indian tribes. Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle Construction: Short-term impact to tribal U&A geoduck beds and subsistence resources as well as short-term restricted harvesting during construction windows. Permanent loss of 0.18 percent of geoduck habitat in the Vinland Tract. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Operations: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 3: No Action No changes to Native American Indian traditional resources would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. None.
American Indian Traditional Resources
Appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented as determined through ongoing consultation between the Navy and affected Native American Indian tribes.
3-115
February 2013

Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) Marine Navigation
Draft EA
Construction: Short-term increase in construction vessel traffic and exclusion of commercial and recreational vessels from the construction area. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Operation: Restricted commercial and recreational vessel access to marine area surrounding the sensor array while in use. Creation of 0.52 acre (0.21 ha) permanent 800-lb anchor-restricted area. Operation impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Alternative 2: Buried Construction: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Operation: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Bundle Alternative 3: No Action Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) No changes to marine navigation would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system. Construction: Short-term emissions are not anticipated to exceed PSCAA or USEPA thresholds. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Operation: No adverse impact to air quality. Operation impacts would be less than significant.
None.
Air Quality
Alternative 2: Buried Construction: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Operation: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Bundle Alternative 3: No Action No changes to air quality would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system.
None.
3-116
February 2013

Construction: Short-term construction impacts of the Proposed Action include temporary access restriction and increased noise (within zone of construction). Construction impacts would be less than significant.
Draft EA
Mitigation Measures
Public Health and Safety
Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Operation: The offshore platform would have secured access and signage to prevent Cable with Armored unauthorized public access and a standard navigation hazard light to prevent collisions. Cable Bundle (Preferred An anchoring-restricted area would be marked on NOAA navigational charts to prevent Alternative) risk of snagging the EMMR system. The EMMR system would operate passively, receiving electromagnetic signals, not emitting them, and would use between 36 and 48 None. volts at 0.5 ampere. Operation impacts would be less than significant. Alternative 2: Buried Construction: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Operation: Same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Bundle Alternative 3: No Action No changes to public health and safety would occur due to construction and operation of an EMMR system.
3-117
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
3-118
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The approach used to analyze cumulative effects3 meets the objectives of NEPA, CEQ regulations, and CEQ guidance. CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) provide the implementing procedures for NEPA. The regulations define cumulative effects as: . . . the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. (40 CFR 1508.7) CEQ provides guidance on cumulative impact analysis in Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. This guidance further identifies cumulative effects as those environmental effects resulting from spatial and temporal crowding of environmental disruptions. If additional disruptions occur within a system before that system has recovered from a first disruption, the effects of those disruptions would accumulate. Therefore, an analysis of cumulative impacts normally includes a defined geographic study area based on the context of each resource that would be impacted by the Proposed Action and a time frame, including past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the effects of which may overlap in time with the Proposed Action. For the Proposed Action to have a cumulatively significant impact to an environmental resource, two conditions must be met. First, the combined effects of all identified past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, activities, and processes on a resource, including the effects of the Proposed Action, must be significant. Second, if there is a significant cumulative impact, the Proposed Action must make a substantial contribution to that significant cumulative impact. Finally, if the effects of the Proposed Action alone would have a significant impact to an environmental resource within its region of influence (ROI) or geographic boundaries beyond the immediate area of the Proposed Action, then the impacts of the Proposed Action in combination with all other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would normally be cumulatively significant. In this assessment of cumulative impacts, the impacts of the Proposed Action are represented by those of Alternative 1 (Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle, the Preferred Alternative). It is noted within each resource section whether Alternative 2 (Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle) would differ from Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) in the contribution to cumulative impacts.
CEQ Regulations provide that the terms cumulative impacts and cumulative effects are synonymous (40 CFR 1508.8[b]).
4-1
January 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
4.1
IDENTIFYING THE REGION OF INFLUENCE OR GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANAYLYSIS
The ROI, or geographic boundaries for analyses of cumulative impacts, can vary for different resources. For air quality, the potentially affected air quality regions are the appropriate boundaries for assessment of cumulative impacts from releases of pollutants into the atmosphere. For wide-ranging or migratory wildlife, specifically marine mammals, fish, and birds, any impacts of the Proposed Action might combine with the impacts of other activities or processes within the range of the population. The ROI for the majority of resources analyzed for cumulative impacts in this EA is the eastern shore of Hood Canal in Kitsap County. The cumulative impact analysis for the EMMR system considers known past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions throughout Hood Canal, including NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor and its 6.5-mile (10.6 km) shoreline on the canal. Although some marine organisms occurring at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor move beyond Hood Canal, these organisms are likely to spend the majority of their lives in Hood Canal, and thus cumulative impacts to such organisms are most likely to result from actions within Hood Canal. Hood Canal is the most relevant region for defining populations or communities of marine and coastal resources occurring at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Surrounding communities in which actions at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor are most likely to contribute to cumulative social impacts include Breidablick, which is on the Kitsap Peninsula and within Kitsap County. The ROI for evaluating the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action is defined for each resource in Section 4.3. 4.2 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS ANALYZED FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Table 4-1 identifies the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that have been determined to be relevant to the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Action. The projects listed in the table are limited to those implemented in the past five years or those with ongoing contributions to environmental effects within the ROIs for affected resources as further detailed below.
4-2
January 2013
Draft EA
Table 4-1
Project
Summary of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Project Description Project Timeframe Past
X
Present
X
Future
X
Resources Impacted
Water resources, marine vegetation, and marine navigation Noise, underwater noise, marine vegetation, benthic community, fish, and marine mammals
NAVBASE Kitsap Waterfront operations include the overall integration of all port operations at Bangor Waterfront NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront. Activities include vessel traffic movement Operations and management, personnel clearance and tracking, and ingress/egress within the restricted areas. NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor Waterfront Facilities Maintenance Common maintenance activities include pressure-washing of waterfront piers to remove bird fecal material, marine debris (i.e., clam and mussel shells), and foreign materials (i.e., dirt and algae). The maintenance area includes walkways and approaches to the piers. Other maintenance activities may involve repair and replacement of structures or facilities as needed. Upcoming maintenance actions would include pile-driving for KB Dock repair. This multiyear project involves removal and replacement of 138 deteriorated steel and/or concrete piles. The most recent phase, which began in July 2011 and would continue until July 2013, is installation of 29 30-inch steel piles. Phased repair of this structure is expected to continue until 2024. Construction and Operation. The proposed project would include a new explosives handling wharf; upland road; an abutment where the trestles connect to the shore; and an upland construction staging area. Approximately 20 existing facilities and/or structures in proximity to the proposed structure would be modified or demolished. Four new buildings would be constructed to house the functions of some of the buildings to be demolished or vacated. The primary impacts during project construction include pile-driving noise and its effects on marine biota, turbidity, and air pollutant emissions. Upland construction would result in permanent and temporary vegetation disturbance; loss of 0.20 acre of wetland; wildlife harassment (primarily from construction noise); and disruption of recreational areas during pile-driving. Long-term impacts would include loss and shading of marine habitat, including eelgrass, macroalgae, and the benthic community, and interference with migration of juvenile salmon, some species of which are protected by the ESA. Construction would occur over 4 years, with inwater work subject to timing restrictions. During construction, measures and BMPs will be implemented to avoid or minimize potential impacts to species, marine and upland habitats, cultural resources, land use, recreation, and traffic. A NEPA Record of Decision was signed in 2012. Mitigation. To compensate for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources and ensure no net loss of these resources, the Navy purchased credits from the Hood Canal In-Lieu Fee Program. To restore temporarily disturbed
EHW-1 Maintenance
Noise, underwater noise, marine vegetation, benthic community, fish, and marine mammals
NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor Explosive Handling Wharf-2 EIS (EHW-2)
Bathymetry, geology and sediments, water resources, underwater noise, noise, terrestrial vegetation, terrestrial wildlife, marine vegetation, benthic community, fish, birds, marine mammals, land use, recreation, aesthetics, socioeconomics, cultural resources, American Indian traditional resources, marine navigation, air quality, and environmental health and safety
4-3
February 2013
Draft EA
Table 4-1
Project

Project Description
construction areas, the Navy will implement a re-vegetation plan for construction laydown areas and temporarily disturbed areas. To improve scientific understanding of marine species, the Navy will fund research studies on: 1) ocean acidification, and 2) Hood Canal chum salmon. To improve salmon production and harvest opportunities in Hood Canal, the Navy will fund improvements at three existing fish hatcheries on Hood Canal and replacement of one finfish spawning facility on Hood Canal. To improve shellfish production and harvest opportunities, the Navy will fund: 1) improvements to beach substrate and 3 years of shellfish seeding on 24 acres of beach; 2) 5 years of shellfish seeding on priority shellfish enhancement areas in Hood Canal and adjacent Admiralty Inlet; 3) construction of a shellfish wet lab, education, and training building at Port Gamble; 4) construction of a floating shellfish nursery at Port Gamble; and 5) geoduck surveys and a geoduck pilot research study. In addition, the Navy will fund acquisition and preservation of upland habitat at Port Gamble.
Project Timeframe Past Present Future
Resources Impacted
NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor Test Pile Program
This project involved installation and removal of 29 test and reaction piles at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor to more clearly ascertain the geological and biological conditions along the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront in order to reduce the uncertainty and extrapolations necessary for planning future projects along the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront, including EHW-2. Test piles were removed because their location and the stresses applied to these piles during testing make them unsuitable for use in future projects. The Test Pile Program required a total of 21 days of pile-driving: 10 days had both vibratory and impact hammer pile-driving, 4 days had impact hammer only, and 7 days had vibratory only. Pile-driving was conducted from August through October 2011. A NEPA Finding of No Significant Impact was signed in 2011.
Bathymetry, geology and sediments, water resources, noise, underwater noise, air quality, marine vegetation, benthic community, fish, birds, marine mammals, land use, cultural resources, American Indian traditional resources, air quality, and public health and safety Bathymetry, geology and sediments, marine vegetation, benthic community, and marine navigation X X Water resources, noise, terrestrial vegetation, and
Relocate Nearshore Port Security Barriers
The project relocated four mooring buoys and anchoring systems located between EHW-1 and Marginal Wharf and historically used to moor the nearshore port security barriers when they were not in use. The mooring system was relocated to an area within Naval Restricted Area 1, near the Delta Pier. The project resulted in minor seafloor disturbance when the anchors were lifted from the seafloor and repositioned. This project involves installation and operation of facilities, including 14-foothigh above-water fencing on pontoons along the Waterfront Restricted Area;
Force Protection and Weapons
4-4
February 2013
Draft EA
Table 4-1
Project

Project Description Project Timeframe Past Present Future Resources Impacted
terrestrial wildlife
Security Measures construction of an Auxiliary Reaction Force Facility (14,000 square feet) and an Armored Fighting Vehicle Operational Storage Facility (16,146 square feet); alteration of two buildings for a new armory (2,500 square feet); and replacement of an Alert Force Garage (2,530 square feet), including a new paved access road. Road Improvements CSDS-5 Support Facilities Road clearing and grading are continuous. Loss of vegetation and habitat can be expected from road improvements, including those for the D5 Road and Transfer Facilities and Missile Haul Road. The Navy implemented upgrades to waterfront and shore-based support facilities for its Submarine Development Squadron Five Detachment at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. These upgrades were completed in July 2005. Anticipated levels of mission support and the operational tempo of assigned submarines require additional shore-side buildings for administration, operations, industrial, and support functions. This project includes the relocation of two submarines from NAVBASE Kitsap Bremerton to NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Security requirements and operational efficiency dictate consolidation of off-base contractor space onto a contiguous site adjacent to the shore-based support facilities. At the existing Service Pier, the Navy plans to improve barge mooring capacity by replacing an existing 4,025-square-foot research barge with a 22,100-square-foot research barge and installing new mooring piles to anchor the larger research barge. This work is planned to occur in summer of 2013 and would involve installation of 18 new piles over a 3-week period. X X X
Water resources, noise, terrestrial vegetation, and terrestrial wildlife Bathymetry, geology and sediments, water resources, underwater noise, noise, terrestrial vegetation, terrestrial wildlife, marine vegetation, benthic community, fish, birds, marine mammals, land use, recreation, aesthetics, socioeconomics, cultural resources, American Indian traditional resources, marine navigation, air quality, and public health and safety Bathymetry, geology and sediments, water resources, underwater noise, noise, terrestrial vegetation, terrestrial wildlife, marine vegetation, benthic community, fish, birds, marine mammals, land use, recreation,
Service Pier Extension
The Navy is adding 18,000 square feet to the existing Service Pier, construct a new waterfront support facility (12,560 square feet), and expand existing shorebased support facilities. Extension of the Service Pier would involve installation of 320 new piles. X X X
4-5
February 2013
Draft EA
Table 4-1
Project

Project Description Project Timeframe Past Present Future Resources Impacted
aesthetics, socioeconomics, cultural resources, American Indian traditional resources, marine navigation, air quality, and public health and safety
Mission Support Facilities
Mission support facilities may include activities or projects such as the addition of power booms, captivated camels (vessel fenders), and piles for support or attachment; installation of emergency power generation capability; and other activities to support facilities or operations. Construction of in-water facilities included a new access pier (8,800 square feet), pontoon (21,600 square feet), vessel overwater footprint (13,623 square feet) and associated mooring components, and 102 new steel piles. Project tasks also included road improvements to Carlson Spit Access Road, a 23,000square-foot building, and the addition of 100 workers.
Water resources, noise, terrestrial vegetation, terrestrial wildlife, and public health and safety Bathymetry, geology and sediments, water resources, underwater noise, noise, terrestrial vegetation, terrestrial wildlife, marine vegetation, benthic community, fish, birds, marine mammals, land use, recreation, aesthetics, socioeconomics, cultural resources, American Indian traditional resources, air quality, and public health and safety
Navy Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division Detachment Bremerton Command Consolidation
Waterfront Security Enclave and Security Barriers Waterfront Restricted Area Land-Water
Construction of fencing for the entire NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor Waterfront Restricted Area and construction of an associated parking area. Mitigation action would restore tidal influence to Cattail Lake, thereby increasing intertidal habitat. The Navy plans to address this proposed project in an EIS. The Navy would provide security upgrades to the existing NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor Waterfront Restricted Area by constructing two Waterfront Restricted Area Land-Water
Water resources, noise, terrestrial vegetation, terrestrial wildlife, and birds Bathymetry, geology and sediments, water resources, noise,
4-6
February 2013
Draft EA
Table 4-1
Project
Interface

Project Description
Interface barriers, which would connect both ends of the Waterfront Restricted Area enclave to the existing floating barriers. The Land-Water Interface barriers would extend from the high water mark to the terminations of the port security barriers and would be capable of moving in the full tide range and providing an anchorage for the floating barriers. The project consists of two separate construction features. The first is the delay system, which connects the high tide termination with the existing Port Security Barrier to prevent entry of unauthorized persons, vehicles, and/or vessels. The second is construction of the sensor equipment that would provide detection. This project would require relocation of existing port security barriers to connect to the end of the new Land-Water Interface structures, as well as installation of an additional string of port security barriers up-coast and down-coast of the new structures. This project is scheduled for FY 2014. The Navy implemented a Swimmer Interdiction Security System to meet security requirements for military installations. The system protects waterside Navy assets and sailors and will remain in operation as long as valuable naval assets are located at the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront. Specially trained marine mammals and their human teammates respond rapidly to security alerts by detecting, classifying, and marking the location of underwater objects or intruders. A NEPA Record of Decision was signed in 2009. This project involves an increase in the underwater Hood Canal Military Operating Area, including areas in and outside Hood Canal. The EIS included the Dabob Bay Range Complex and a proposed expansion of the MOAs both to the north and south of their existing limits. A NEPA Record of Decision was signed in 2011.
Resources Impacted
underwater noise, air quality, marine vegetation, benthic community, fish, birds, marine mammals, and air quality
Swimmer Interdiction Security System In-water Structure and Support Facilities NAVSEA NUWC Keyport Range Complex Extension
Water resources, fish, marine mammals, marine navigation, and public health and safety
Fish, birds, and marine mammals
Port Gamble Dock1 The Olympic Property Group proposes to construct a 165-foot dock at a former mill site in Port Gamble. X
Bathymetry, geology and sediments, water resources, noise, underwater noise, marine vegetation, and benthic community Bathymetry, geology and sediments, water resources, marine vegetation, benthic community, and fish
Kitsap Memorial State Park
Washington State Parks conducted a slope stabilization project for an approximately 1,000-foot-long creosote-treated bulkhead at Kitsap Memorial State Park on Hood Canal. The treated wood bulkhead was removed and the shoreline naturalized to improve nearshore habitats. As part of the project, a portion of the shoreline was left unprotected from wave action in order to
4-7
February 2013
Draft EA
Table 4-1
Project

Project Description
provide sediment to nearshore habitats. The project was completed with the exception of noxious weed removal.
Resources Impacted
Hood Canal Bridge The Washington State Department of Transportation completed upgrades to the Improvements Hood Canal Bridge in 2009. This project involved reconstruction of the east half of the Hood Canal Bridge to current design standards and improvements to the remainder of the structure. The bridge was redesigned to current wind, wave, and seismic standards. To improve safety and mobility, it now features two 12foot traffic lanes and 8-foot shoulders. The resulting dependability of the draw span has reestablished the 600-foot opening it provides for large vessels that pass through the bridge. Geoduck Harvesting As a commercial fishery, geoduck is considered the most valuable commercial clam harvest on the Pacific Coast of North America. The Vinland tract is a commercially harvested 139-acre (56.25-ha) area in Hood Canal. Per the Rafeedie decision, tribes have the right to take up to 50 percent of the harvestable shellfish, including geoduck, on western Washington beaches and commercially harvested areas such as the Vinland Tract.
Water resources, noise, terrestrial vegetation, marine vegetation, fish, birds, marine mammals, and land use
Benthic community, socioeconomics, cultural resources, and American Indian traditional resources
Notes: No other projects are proposed within the ROI in Kitsap County (Oost 2012).
4-8
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
4.3 4.3.1
CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS Marine Physical Environment Bathymetry
4.3.1.1
The ROI for bathymetry is defined as the seafloor of Hood Canal. Since impacts to bathymetry would be localized to the Proposed Action area, the cumulative impacts are addressed in terms of contributions to changes in the bathymetry of Hood Canal. The overall bathymetry of Hood Canal has not changed significantly over time, except for localized changes due to water movement around in-water structures and the introduction of sediments from rivers and streams that enter the canal from adjacent watersheds. Past and present placement of in-water structures (e.g., anchors, pilings, floats, and boat ramps) for Navy actions (see Table 4-1) have caused localized scouring of the seafloor and deposition of seafloor sediments. Navy and non-Navy actions would result in in-water structures that may alter circulation patterns; known past, present, and future Navy actions have or would result in a total of 34 to 36 acres in which in-water structures have affected or would affect bathymetric conditions. An additional unknown area has been affected by past non-Navy actions. The impacts of the Proposed Action would be localized, compared to the circulation and current movement produced by tides, winds, and water-density differences throughout Hood Canal. The jet-plowing and installation of pilings associated with the Proposed Action would create minor and temporary changes to the seafloor topography and suspension of sediments. Alternative 2 would have a greater contribution to cumulative impacts than Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) due to jet-plowing associated with installation of the cable bundle. The Proposed Action combined with other Navy and non-Navy past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would cause impacts to bathymetry within Hood Canal. However, due to the temporary and localized extent of the Proposed Action, it would not make a substantial contribution to cumulative adverse impacts to bathymetry. 4.3.1.2 Geology and Sediments
The ROI for geology and sediments is defined as the seafloor and shorelines, including beaches and bluffs, of Hood Canal. Past and present Navy and non-Navy actions have resulted in erosion of beaches and bluffs along Hood Canal. Upland development has contributed to sloughing of steep shoreline banks and bluffs in some areas. Adverse impacts to geologically hazardous areas, such as steep slopes and shoreline bluffs, have occurred as a result of past non-Navy projects. These projects have increased the stormwater runoff and/or overburdened the tops of slopes with structures, leading to slope failure. However, geologically hazardous areas are now managed by following the guidance or standards of local governments or agencies (e.g., Kitsap County Code for Geologically Hazardous Areas) and through application of construction BMPs for sloped surfaces, such as silt fencing, roughening sloped surfaces, and planting native vegetation. Standard stormwater construction BMPs have also reduced the amount of soil erosion that occurs during land disturbing activities. Many in-water projects, including construction of marinas, boat ramps, and Navy piers, have resulted in an increased use of boats in nearshore areas. Boats that operate in these areas have the potential to contribute to beach and shoreline bluff erosion from the wakes they generate.
4-9 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Past and present actions involving in-water construction (i.e., pile-driving) in Hood Canal have caused or are causing short-term disturbances to sediments and sediment transport/distribution processes. Pier replacement and shoreline armoring projects have resulted in erosion and coarsening of shoreline sediments in some areas of Hood Canal. In-water structures, such as the EHW-1, create accretion of sediments in some locations and erosion of sediments on the downdrift side of these structures. Future shoreline development and placement of in-water structures would likely add to existing erosion and accretion of shoreline sediments in Hood Canal. Sediment quality has also been impacted by development along the shoreline of Hood Canal. In general, levels of chemical contaminants and toxicity in Hood Canal sediments are low, and impacted areas of contaminated sediments are highly localized (Ecology 2007). As described above, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have impacted and will impact geology and sediments in Hood Canal. However, the Proposed Action would not make a substantial contribution to cumulative adverse impacts because marine vessel traffic would be temporary and low speed; the Proposed Actions offshore location (0.2 mile [0.32 km]) from the nearest shoreline) would not affect shoreline sediment-transport processes; current sediment quality in the vicinity of the Proposed Action is generally good (Hammermeister and Hafner 2009; Ecology 2012a); and the Proposed Action would not be expected to contribute to contamination of seafloor sediments. 4.3.1.3 Water Resources
The ROI for water resources is defined as the marine waters of Hood Canal. Water quality in Hood Canal has been, and is being, impacted by past and present in-water and upland actions and would potentially be impacted by future actions. Most impacts result in periodic inputs of pollutants directly to Hood Canal, which can increase turbidity, temperature, and salinity, change pH, and lower DO. As described in Section 3.1.3, the Proposed Action would have a temporary short-term impact associated with increased turbidity; therefore, other water quality parameters are not discussed further in this analysis. Upland development has caused localized deterioration of water quality, including turbidity, in Hood Canal, mainly from uncontrolled stormwater runoff. Most of the future actions would have no impact or a short-term impact during construction, and future actions would be designed to minimize such impacts by including BMPs such as silt curtains to minimize the spread of sediment plumes during in-water construction activities. Even if the construction periods for the proposed projects listed in Table 4-1 overlap, spatial distribution of the projects would reduce the possibility that individual sediment plumes would overlap. Therefore, no significant impact would occur to water quality in Hood Canal from the Proposed Action in combination with Navy and non-Navy past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future events. 4.3.2 Noise
The ROI for evaluating cumulative impacts for airborne noise includes the areas that have the potential to be impacted by noise generated by the Proposed Action during construction. This
4-10 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
ROI was based on an evaluation of pile-driving noise from the Proposed Action as well as the potential for overlap with other noise sources to produce a cumulative impact. It is anticipated that pile-driving-related noise from the Proposed Action would attenuate to at or below 60 dBA (Washington noise regulations) within 1.5 miles (2.4 km) of the offshore platform. Construction of the Proposed Action would not be concurrent with construction of the Waterfront Security Enclave and Security Barriers mitigation project at Cattail Lake. Due to the physical distance (greater than 1.5 miles [2.4 km]) between the Proposed Actions construction and the locations where Navy and non-Navy past, present, and future projects (see Table 4-1) would occur, no cumulative airborne noise impacts would occur. After completion of construction, the Proposed Action would contribute no airborne noise. Therefore, the Proposed Action in combination with Navy and non-Navy past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future events would not have a significant adverse cumulative impact on airborne noise during construction or operations. 4.3.3 4.3.3.1 Terrestrial Biological Resources Terrestrial Vegetation
The ROI for evaluating cumulative impacts to terrestrial vegetation is defined as NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor was selected because of the relatively localized impacts of the Proposed Action on upland vegetation. Past and present development on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor has resulted in the loss of approximately 1,500 acres (607 ha) of natural vegetation to development (approximately 24 percent of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor) and the conversion of 593 acres (240 ha) of natural vegetation to disturbed lands (approximately 10 percent of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor; Navy 2012c). The Proposed Action would result in the permanent removal of approximately 430 square feet (40 m2) of vegetation currently in forest and disturbed land due to installation of new impervious surfaces. Approximately 10,780 square feet (1,001 m2) of forest land would be converted to disturbed land due to ongoing clearing of obstructive vegetation in the ATN corridor during operation. Other present and future Navy actions (see Table 4-1) would also result in a loss or conversion of terrestrial vegetation to disturbed land on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Present and future Navy actions together with implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the loss in approximately 18.4 acres (7.4 ha) of natural vegetation to development and conversion of approximately 14.2 acres (5.7 ha) of natural vegetation to disturbed land. This represents a less than 1 percent decrease in natural vegetation land cover and a less than 2.4-percent increase in disturbed land at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. The Proposed Action in conjunction with other Navy and non-Navy past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not have a significant cumulative impact on terrestrial vegetation at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. 4.3.3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
The ROI for evaluating cumulative impacts to terrestrial wildlife is NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is deemed the most appropriate ROI because of the relatively localized impacts of the Proposed Action on upland wildlife. It is acknowledged that certain species of terrestrial mammals, such as the cougar, have ranges that far exceed the extent of
4-11
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. However, NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is defined as the ROI for this analysis because of the localized range for most terrestrial invertebrates, reptiles, and mammals within the construction footprint of the Proposed Action. Approximately 2,100 acres (850 ha) of native vegetation that serves as potential wildlife habitat has been impacted by past and present development on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. These past and present actions have resulted in the removal of upland successional forest habitat, open land habitat, and wetland habitats and their replacement by buildings, parking lots, or disturbed grassland and shrubland that is not considered optimal wildlife habitat. Over time, this combination of loss of wildlife habitat, increased human activity, and habitat fragmentation due to roads, buildings, fences, and other development has resulted in fewer native species and their occasional replacement by non-native wildlife more adaptive to an urban environment. Implementation of the Proposed Action with other present and future Navy actions on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor would result in the loss of approximately 18.4 acres (7.4 ha) of habitat to development and conversion of approximately 14.2 acres (5.7 ha) of natural vegetation to disturbed land (see Section 4.3.3.1). Additionally, contiguous habitat may become fragmented due to minor development (e.g., fences) associated with the Proposed Action and other Navy actions, thereby reducing wildlife access to areas of isolated habitat. The Proposed Action, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Navy and non-Navy actions, could pose cumulative effects but would not be considered a significant cumulative impact on terrestrial wildlife due to habitat loss or fragmentation because of the minor amount of habitat lost or isolated when compared to available habitat on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Upland wildlife would also be exposed to construction noise from multiple projects on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Sensitive wildlife receptors could be impacted by increases in airborne construction noise. Pile-driving associated with the Proposed Action, and other present and future Navy actions, may overlap and result in increased impact to wildlife species on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, especially if construction activities occur concurrently and during typical breeding seasons (from late February through August). Construction of the Proposed Action would not be concurrent with construction of the Waterfront Security Enclave and Security Barriers mitigation project at Cattail Lake. Due to the physical distance (greater than 1.5 miles [2.4 km]) between the Proposed Actions construction and the locations where Navy and non-Navy past, present, and future projects (see Table 4-1) would occur, no cumulative airborne noise impacts to terrestrial wildlife would occur. 4.3.4 4.3.4.1 Marine Biological Resources Marine Vegetation
The ROI for evaluating cumulative impacts to marine vegetation is defined as Hood Canal. Hood Canal currently supports approximately 550 acres (223 ha) of eelgrass; Northern Hood Canal (north of the tip of Toandos Peninsula) supports approximately 220 acres (89 ha) of eelgrass. Cumulative impacts to eelgrass beds could potentially affect the functions of these habitats, including primary productivity, habitat for invertebrates and epiphytic algae, spawning of forage fish, and feeding and refuge for juvenile fish. Hood Canal also supports various macroalgae found from the upper intertidal zone to water depths of 30 feet (9 m) below MLLW.
4-12
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Marine vegetation in Hood Canal is disturbed by past, present, and future placement of in-water structures such as pilings and anchors, dredging, underwater fills, and construction of overwater structures. These impacts include temporary or permanent loss of vegetation, reduced productivity, and changes in the type or abundance of vegetation. However, these structures also provide a substrate for macroalgae attachment. Trend data indicate that some of the more sensitive and important vegetation for critical habitat in Hood Canal, such as eelgrass, has decreased over time. Eelgrass coverage declined between 8 and 15 percent in every year between 2001/2002 and 2004/2005 (PSAT 2007). This decrease in eelgrass abundance has been primarily attributed to low DO levels in Hood Canal. Currently, approximately 37.7 acres (15.3 ha) of eelgrass forms a strip along the intertidal/ nearshore zone of the waterfront at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Based on the known extent of current eelgrass beds, an estimated 5.2 acres (2.1 ha) of eelgrass may have been lost over time due to placement of in-water structures such as pilings and anchors. To compensate for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources from EHW-2, the Navy purchased credits from the Hood Canal In-Lieu Fee Program. With the use of HDD, the Proposed Action would avoid directly impacting macroalgae and eelgrass beds in the region. Indirect impacts from construction (i.e., increase in turbidity) would be expected to have a temporary impact on marine vegetation including macroalgae and eelgrass. Macroalgae has been shown to recover from impacts similar to the Proposed Action and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions identified in Table 4-1; eelgrass may require two growing seasons to fully recover, depending on the extent of the impact (Austin et al. 2004). Under Alternative 2, turbidity and re-distribution of sediment may have a greater contribution to cumulative impacts on marine vegetation due to the use of a jet plow for installation of the cable bundle. As described above, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have impacted and will impact marine vegetation. However, the Proposed Action would not make a substantial contribution to cumulative adverse impacts to marine vegetation because it would not directly impact eelgrass, would not permanently impact macroalgae, and its indirect impacts are expected to be negligible as described above. 4.3.4.2 Benthic Community
The ROI for evaluating cumulative impacts to benthic communities is defined as Hood Canal. The recent trend for the benthic community based on surveys in Hood Canal is a reduction in abundance and diversity (PSAT 2012). This trend is strongest in southern Hood Canal and in deeper waters and includes decreases in the native Olympia oyster, which occurs in intertidal areas. Stress-sensitive species (i.e., those species that cannot tolerate poor water quality conditions such as low DO levels or high concentrations of contaminants in sediments) are more abundant in Northern Hood Canal, which includes the Proposed Action area, than in southern Hood Canal. Low DO levels are considered a likely cause of this trend, but other contributing factors, such as sediment contamination, are being investigated (PSAT 2012). Past, present, and future Navy and non-Navy actions, including marinas, residential docks, boat ramps, and piers involving placement of pilings and anchors, have resulted or would result in the
4-13 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
direct loss of the natural benthic soft-bottom habitat. This soft habitat has been replaced by the hard surfaces of pilings and anchors; as a result the types of benthic organisms have changed and are changing in these localized areas. Hard surfaces create sites for colonization by species adapted to these surfaces, such as mussels and sea anemones. Thus, the cumulative impact of in-water structures has been to replace native soft-bottom habitat with hard-surface habitat over time. This has adversely impacted some species (including prey species for juvenile salmonids) while benefiting others. In addition, in-water structures at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor have resulted in accretion of sediments in protected areas created by these structures and possibly erosion in areas downdrift of these structures. The areas of accretion would favor benthic species typical of coarse sediments. Areas of erosion typically result in adverse impacts to sediment-dwelling species. These changes also adversely affect foraging by juvenile salmon, which prefer foraging on species typically found in fine-grained sediments and/or eelgrass beds. Future in-water structures would similarly result in a direct loss of benthic habitat and organisms. The conversion of soft-bottom habitat to hard surfaces from past, present, and other foreseeable future actions would include approximately 2.5 acres (1 ha) from Navy actions and an unquantified area from past non-Navy actions. The Navys EHW-2 project includes several measures to mitigate for impacts to benthic species. To improve shellfish production and harvest opportunities, the Navy will fund improvements to beach substrate and 3 years of shellfish seeding on 24 acres of beach; 5 years of shellfish seeding on priority shellfish enhancement areas in Hood Canal and adjacent Admiralty Inlet; construction of a shellfish wet lab, education, and training building at Port Gamble; construction of a floating shellfish nursery at Port Gamble; and surveys of geoduck and a geoduck pilot research study. Although the majority of the Proposed Action would be buried, the installation of five new piles to support the offshore platform would contribute to the conversion of soft-bottom habitat to hard surfaces in Northern Hood Canal. Furthermore, under the Proposed Action, 925 feet (282 m) of concrete armoring between the sensor array and offshore platform would also contribute to the loss of soft-bottom habitat in the region and its replacement by hard-bottom habitat. Alternative 2 would have a greater contribution to cumulative impacts than Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) due to the displacement of sediment over existing benthic communities during jetplowing activities. As described above, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have impacted and will impact the benthic community. The Proposed Action would not make a substantial contribution to cumulative adverse impacts to benthic communities in Hood Canal because the Navy would fully mitigate for the Proposed Actions impacts to aquatic resources to ensure no net loss of functions and benefits to marine species, including benthic communities. 4.3.4.3 Fish
The ROI for evaluating cumulative impacts to marine fish is defined as Hood Canal. Resident species would be unlikely to be affected by actions outside Hood Canal. However, migratory or wide-ranging marine species, such as salmonids, may be affected by such actions. Rockfish
4-14
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
generally occur within deep waters (120 feet [37 m]), several thousand feet away from the Proposed Action, and therefore are not addressed in this analysis. Salmonids Past actions have adversely impacted populations of salmonids (salmon, steelhead, and trout, including threatened and endangered species) in Hood Canal and tributaries through loss of foraging and refuge habitat in shallow areas, reduced function of migratory corridors, loss and degradation of spawning habitat in streams, interference with migration, adverse impacts to forage fish habitat and spawning, contamination of water and sediments, and depletion of DO. Overharvesting has also depleted salmonid abundance, especially native stocks. Practically all chum salmon and most Chinook salmon spawning in Hood Canal stream systems are derived from naturalized hatchery stock. Populations of pink salmon, coho salmon, bull trout, and steelhead are also in decline. The net result is that several Hood Canal salmonid species have been listed as threatened under the ESA. Existing Navy structures have affected salmonid and forage fish habitat and, similarly to in-water structures throughout Puget Sound, have probably impeded and continue to impede juvenile salmon migration to some degree (Simenstad et al. 1999; Nightingale and Simenstad 2001; Southard et al. 2006). The 2007 Puget Sound Update and the 2012 State of the Sound reports describe several trends that indicate cumulative impacts to the growth and development of salmonids (PSAT 2007, 2012). Puget Sound Chinook and coho salmon have been shown to have increased concentrations of contaminants in tissue samples, with two to six times the polychlorinated biphenyls concentrations and five to 17 times the polybrominated diphenyl ether concentrations of other West Coast salmon populations. Additionally, wild salmon stocks declined from 93 to 81 healthy stocks between 1992 and 2002, and seven stocks became extinct during that same period. Future Navy and non-Navy actions could result in habitat loss or alteration and the decreased function of migratory corridors. These impacts could contribute to the overall decline in population trends. However, legislation such as the ESA and NEPA requires federal or federally funded actions to consider environmental impacts to threatened and endangered species, prepare analysis (including a biological assessment), and consult with federal regulatory agencies to minimize impacts. Additionally, regulation of development and efforts to restore fish habitat seek to reverse the decline of fish populations. Numerous salmon preservation and restoration groups have proposed and constructed habitat-restoration projects in Hood Canal. Most of these projects are on the east and south sides of the canal. Efforts to reduce construction impacts to salmonids and other fish have resulted in a schedule of in-water work periods that all projects must adhere to if authorized by the WDFW or USACE. The work windows help minimize adverse impacts to migrating, spawning, and juvenile fish. Future Navy actions would be designed and implemented to minimize impacts to salmonids. Design aspects of nearshore infrastructure include large spacing (e.g., 10 feet [3.1 m]) between piles, increased structure height-over-water in nearshore waters, and building materials (e.g., grating) that allow the transmission of light. The Navys EHW-2 project includes several measures to mitigate for impacts to salmonids. To improve scientific understanding, the Navy will provide funding for research studies on: 1) ocean acidification and 2) Hood Canal chum salmon. To improve salmon production and harvest opportunities in Hood Canal, the Navy will
4-15 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
fund improvements at three existing fish hatcheries on Hood Canal and replacement of one finfish spawning facility on Hood Canal. For the Proposed Action, measures that minimize impacts to salmonids include designing the Proposed Action offshore, away from intertidal and shallow sub-tidal habitats to the maximum extent practicable (e.g., using HDD to avoid the nearshore), limiting in-water work to the maximum extent practicable, observing work windows, and taking measures to reduce construction-related noise. The above processes and actions would help to ensure that the Proposed Action does not contribute to the cumulative long-term degradation of nearshore physical habitats and biological communities and impacts would be below levels that would endanger the continued existence of salmonid species populations. Because the EMMR system offshore platform is approximately 5,000 feet (1,525 m) north of the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor NRA, there is no spatial overlap of other Navy projects with this Proposed Action (see Table 4-1). On a temporal scale, cumulative impacts to salmonids have the greatest potential to occur during simultaneous pile-driving exposure events from EMMR system construction and other construction projects in the region. During simultaneous pile-driving, salmonids would be exposed to increased underwater noise and turbidity levels within a short period and could therefore experience cumulative impacts. Observing the in-water work window would reduce underwater noise-related impacts to juvenile salmonids. The use of a jet plow to install the cable bundle under Alternative 2 would result in increased turbidity levels and greater contribution to cumulative impacts to salmonid habitats (see Section 4.3.4.1, Marine Vegetation, for further information). As described above, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have impacted and will impact salmonids. The Proposed Action would not make a substantial contribution to cumulative adverse impacts on salmonids because the Proposed Action will incorporate mitigation measures that would avoid and minimize potential impacts on salmonids. Other Marine Fish Species As with salmonids, other marine fish species have been impacted by similar past and present actions. Past actions such as in-water construction during forage-fish (i.e., the sand lance , Pacific herring , and surf smelt) spawning seasons; reduced water quality resulting in fish kills (see Section 3.1.3); habitat loss and degradation; hatchery and harvest management issues; and commercial, tribal, and sport fishing have all contributed to declining fish population trends. Trend data have shown a decrease in some fish species such as the spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), and hake (Merluccius productus; PSAT 2007). All construction-related actions at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor and non-Navy projects are designed and implemented to minimize impacts to marine fish species. These measures include protective measures taken to minimize impacts during construction activities (e.g., limiting inwater work to the maximum extent practicable, observing work windows, and taking measures to reduce construction-related noise) and design elements that eliminate long-term impacts to productive intertidal and shallow sub-tidal habitats to the maximum extent practicable (e.g., using HDD).
4-16
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Cumulative impacts to marine fish species and their habitats would be similar to those described for salmonids. There would be similar impacts associated with turbidity and underwater noise. The use of a jet plow to install the cable bundle under Alternative 2 would contribute more to cumulative impacts due to increased turbidity levels and greater impacts to marine fish habitats than Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative; see Section 4.3.4.1, Marine Vegetation, for further information). Increased underwater noise from the Proposed Action as well as concurrent Navy and non-Navy in-water actions could cause fish mortality as well as changes in fish behavior. Underwater construction noise would adversely impact the abundance and occurrence of some fish close to the construction activities. However, the Proposed Action would not make a substantial contribution to cumulative adverse impacts to marine fish species due to implementation of the mitigation measures. 4.3.4.4 Birds
The ROI for evaluating cumulative impacts to marine birds is defined as Hood Canal. Resident species would be unlikely to be affected by actions outside Hood Canal. Migratory or wideranging marine bird species, however, may be affected by such actions. Construction and operation of past and present waterfront projects (see Table 4-1), as well as any future Navy or non-Navy actions, have resulted or would result in increased human presence, noise, boat movement, and other activities, relocating some water-dependent wildlife such as marine birds from these areas. Marine birds typically avoid areas with continuous activity or periodic loud noise; however, they may return to these areas when human presence is lower or there is less activity. Trend data for Hood Canal indicate that marine bird species have been on the decline. Of the 30 most common marine birds, 19 have experienced declining populations of 20 percent or more over the past 20 years. It is unknown what is causing this decline, but possible reasons include increased predation, habitat loss, changing migration patterns, decreases in forage fish populations, hunting, and disturbance to breeding grounds in the Arctic (PSAT 2012). The population of the marbled murrelet, a species listed as threatened under the ESA, declined more than 20 percent in the Puget Sound region between the 1970s and 1990s, with an annual decline of 7.43 percent between 2001 and 2010 (PSAT 2007; Pearson et al. 2011). The principal reason for the decline between the 1970s and 1990s was loss of nesting habitat (old-growth forest). Future Navy and non-Navy waterfront projects may have similar impacts to those of the past and present actions, including increased anthropogenic sound (both airborne and underwater), increased human presence, increased boat movements, and other associated activities. These actions could result in behavioral impacts to local populations of birds, such as temporary avoidance of habitat, decreased time spent foraging, increased or decreased time resting (depending on the activity), and other minor behavioral impacts. Most impacts would be short term and temporary and unlikely to affect the overall fitness of the animals. However, some projects at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor may result in more moderate impacts due to longer construction timelines. Impacts to birds would be expected to primarily result from behavioral disturbance attributable to underwater/airborne construction noise; however, indirect impacts to birds may occur as a result of impacts to their prey base (fish). No operational activities under the Proposed Action would directly impact birds or indirectly impact their prey base.
4-17 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Cumulative impacts to birds, including the marbled murrelet, have the greatest potential to occur during simultaneous construction events from the EMMR system and other projects in the vicinity. During the timeframe of the Proposed Action, several other Navy projects may be constructed (see Table 4-1). The injury zones are not large enough to overlap spatially because the Proposed Action and other projects are more than 3 miles (4.8 km) apart. However, underwater noise would occur during EMMR system construction (i.e., impact pile-driving) and could simultaneously occur with pile-driving from other Navy projects, including construction associated with EHW-2. Pile-driving associated with the Proposed Action would be short term and temporary, with five piles driven over five days during a two-week period. Impacts to the marbled murrelet and other bird species from present and future Navy projects would occur over a longer duration than those of the EMMR system; cumulative impacts from pile-driving related to these projects would be expected to result in behavioral harassment. The Proposed Action, in conjunction with other past, present, and future Navy and non-Navy actions, is not anticipated to result in significant cumulative impacts on bird species, including the marbled murrelet and migratory bird species in Hood Canal, because impacts would be short term and temporary (i.e., overlap of construction noise) and would be anticipated to result in impacts related only to behavioral harassment. 4.3.4.5 Marine Mammals
The ROI for evaluating cumulative impacts to marine mammals is defined as Hood Canal. Resident harbor seals would be unlikely to be affected by actions outside Hood Canal. Other marine mammal species (the humpback whale, porpoises, and sea lion species) are migratory or wide-ranging and may be affected by actions outside of Hood Canal. Construction and operation of past, present, and future shoreline projects involve activities such as pile-driving or dredging, which generate levels of noise above background. While these impacts are usually temporary, they may be of an intensity to cause short-term behavioral impacts to marine mammals (e.g., avoidance or changes in feeding behavior). These higher noise levels can constitute harassment (a type of take) of marine mammals under the ESA and MMPA. In-water facilities themselves tend to have minimal impacts to marine mammals and may provide some benefits. There may be an impact to some species such as the harbor seal, which may avoid areas of human presence and activities on piers and wharfs, but these same facilities may be used as haul outs for other species, such as the California sea lion. Population trend data for Hood Canal indicate that most of the marine mammal species expected to be in the Proposed Action area are either stable or increasing in recent years, based on NMFS stock assessment reports (Allen and Angliss 2012; Carretta et al. 2012). Continued regulation of human-caused disturbance to marine mammals by NMFS under the MMPA, coupled with stock assessments, documentation of mortality causes, and research into acoustic effects, ensures that cumulative effects would be minimized. The regulatory process also ensures that each project proposing a take of marine mammals is assessed in light of the status of the species and other actions affecting it in the same region.
4-18
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Future Navy and non-Navy waterfront projects may have similar impacts to past and present actions, including increased human-caused sound (both airborne and underwater), increased human presence, increased boat movements, and other associated activities. These actions could result in behavioral impacts to local populations of marine mammals, such as temporary avoidance of habitat, decreased time spent foraging, increased or decreased time spent hauled out (depending on the activity), decreased prey availability, and other behavioral impacts. The construction of the EMMR system would be approximately 3 miles (4.8 km) from other Navy construction projects, such as EHW-2 and the KB Dock repair. As such, the main impact of concurrent impact pile-driving from these projects would be to extend the overall area in which marine mammals would be exposed to increased underwater noise. With regard to the Proposed Action, impact pile-driving would be short term and temporary, with five piles driven over five days during a two-week period. The use of mitigation measures such as marine mammal monitoring and shutdown and buffer zones would reduce the potential for the EMMR system contributing to cumulative impacts on marine mammals, including the Steller sea lion and humpback whale. Because marine mammals are highly mobile, the noise impacts of the Proposed Action could be cumulative with underwater and airborne noise impacts to marine mammals from other actions and activities in the Hood Canal region. However, the Proposed Action would not make a substantial contribution to cumulative adverse impacts to marine mammals because most impacts would likely be short term and temporary in nature and unlikely to affect the overall fitness of the animals. 4.3.5 4.3.5.1 Land Use and Aesthetics Land Use
The ROI for evaluating cumulative impacts to land use resources is defined as NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor and the shoreline between the northern boundary of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor and the offshore platform. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Navy actions on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor (see Table 4-1) combined with the Proposed Action would continue the trend of converting the natural environment to land uses ranging from rural to urban and industrial development. These projects, including the Proposed Action, would be consistent with the current naval operation support land uses on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. It is anticipated that onshore land uses adjacent to the Proposed Action would continue to be low-density residential because the area is zoned Rural Residential (Oost 2012). Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Navy actions, with the exception of the Proposed Action, are or would be located entirely within NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor or the NRA and would not conflict with existing land uses or land use laws and policies for lands north of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Portions of the Proposed Action, including the offshore platform and sensor array, would be located offshore and outside of the NRA and would not conflict with existing onshore land uses or land use laws and policies. Therefore, the Proposed Action, in combination with Navy and non-Navy past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future events, would not have a significant cumulative impact to land use resources.
4-19
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
4.3.5.2
Recreation
The ROI for evaluating cumulative impacts to recreation resources is defined as Hood Canal north of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Navy actions at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor (see Table 4-1) combined with the Proposed Action would not cumulatively limit recreation opportunities and activities within the NRA because this area already prohibits recreational activities by the public; however, recreational activities would be temporarily and permanently restricted outside of the NRA (see Section 3.5.2.2). In addition, modifications to the shoreline in Kitsap Memorial State Park and the approval of Port Gamble Dock could enhance recreational opportunities by improving access to the shoreline and increasing boater access to Hood Canal. Therefore, the Proposed Action, in combination with Navy and non-Navy past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future events, would not have a significant cumulative impact on recreation. 4.3.5.3 Aesthetics
The ROI for evaluating cumulative impacts to aesthetics is defined as NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor and the Hood Canal shoreline north of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor within one mile of the offshore platform. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Navy actions on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor (see Table 4-1) combined with the Proposed Action would modify the appearance of the shoreline within NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. These modifications would produce a patchwork of vegetation that would differ from natural patterns; the impact of past modifications is captured in the existing aesthetics environment (see Section 3.5.3.2). Boaters navigating Hood Canal would have a compromised viewshed based on the potential for numerous industrial horizontal and vertical elements introduced into the landscape and large areas cleared of vegetation. These views would be approximately 0.4 to 0.5 mile (0.6 to 0.8 km) outside the NRA. Modifications to the shoreline and upland areas within NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would not be visible from residences to the north. However, the offshore platform would be visible from residences overlooking Hood Canal and boaters navigating Hood Canal. This view is relatively unmodified by past or present actions, with the exception of nearshore development and passing marine traffic. The Proposed Action, in combination with Navy and non-Navy past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future events, would not have a significant cumulative impact to aesthetics because these projects (see Table 4-1) would not result in a significant change to the visual quality or character of the landscape. Although the Proposed Action would introduce a new offshore platform within view of existing residences, the small platform would not make a substantial adverse contribution to cumulative aesthetic impacts. 4.3.6 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Childrens Health and Safety
The ROI for evaluating cumulative impacts to socioeconomics, environmental justice, and childrens health and safety is defined as Census Tract 902.1, which is immediately north of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Socioeconomic and environmental justice conditions have been or are being changed by past and present development. For example, NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor has become one of the primary employers in Kitsap County. Development of the Trident
4-20
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
submarine base and other military installations has increased the population, long-term employment opportunities, and income of Kitsap County, as well as the demand for housing and various public services (e.g., police, fire, emergency and medical services, and schools). Employment and income would be generated from the Proposed Action and other Navy and nonNavy actions. Demand for housing and public and social services would increase as a result of the migration of workers to the surrounding communities; however, these conditions would be spread over time (see Table 4-1). These projects, including the Proposed Action, would likely result in a small increase in staff and dependents and would generate only a localized impact to employment, income, and demand for public services. Past and present actions include the commercial harvesting of geoducks within the Vinland Tract as well as shoreline and in-water structures that have modified habitats for benthic communities. The Proposed Action in conjunction with past and present actions would impact commercial and tribal harvesting of geoducks. Implementation of Alternative 2 would have a greater contribution to cumulative impacts on geoduck harvesting than Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) due to Alternative 2s larger footprint within the Vinland Tract. Additionally, the re-distribution of sediment due to use of the jet plow to install the cable bundle may indirectly negatively impact a larger harvestable area. Future actions that include harvesting management and shoreline and inwater modifications may also impact future geoduck harvest to an unknown degree. The Navy would fully mitigate for the Proposed Actions impacts to aquatic resources to ensure no net loss of functions and benefits to marine species, including the geoduck. In addition, the Navy is in consultation with affected Indian tribes and will implement appropriate mitigation measures for tribal concerns about geoduck resources. The Proposed Action, in combination with Navy and non-Navy past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future events, would not have significant adverse cumulative impacts to socioeconomics, environmental justice, and childrens health and safety, including geoduck harvest. Significant adverse cumulative effects to socioeconomics, environmental justice, and childrens health and safety would not occur because the actions would not displace people or businesses, would not change the economic character of the area, would not adversely affect any minority or low-income populations, and would not expose children to health or safety hazards. 4.3.7 Cultural Resources
The ROI for evaluating cumulative impacts to cultural resources is defined as NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Cultural resources are unique as well as finite in nature, so an adverse effect to a single historic property may affect the context of adjacent historic properties within NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Past, present, and future construction projects and modifications to facilities have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources such as prehistoric and historic archaeological sites and historic districts, buildings, or structures meeting NRHP-eligibility criteria. The Navy would comply with Section 106 of the NHPA for the Proposed Action and other reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI. This includes mitigation of adverse impacts that could not be avoided or minimized, thereby addressing the cumulative impact of those undertakings. No NRHP-eligible archaeological resources are within the footprint of the Proposed Action, and no historic properties have been located in the marine, shoreline, or upland Proposed Action
4-21 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
areas. It is anticipated that there would be no effect to Building 7801 because the connection can be made without altering characteristics relevant to its eligibility for the NRHP. While unlikely, construction of the Proposed Action could inadvertently disturb unknown archaeological resources. The Navy will consult with the SHPO and affected American Indian tribes in the event of inadvertent discovery of unknown archaeological resources, American Indian human remains, funerary items, sacred objects, or items of cultural patrimony. Through compliance with the NHPA, the Proposed Action, in conjunction with other Navy and non-Navy past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not have a significant cumulative impact to cultural resources. 4.3.8 American Indian Traditional Resources
The ROI for evaluating cumulative impacts to American Indian traditional resources consists of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor and the adjacent waters of Hood Canal. The Navy has initiated consultation with the Skokomish, Port Gamble SKlallam Tribe, Jamestown SKlallam Tribe, Lower Elwha Klallam, and Suquamish Tribes regarding impacts to treaty-reserved resources. Past and present actions such as land development and increased use of natural resources have impacted American Indian traditional resources. These resources include traditional use areas, subsistence resources, and special places. Traditional use areas such as U&A fishing grounds and stations are known to occur within the ROI as well as within the Proposed Action footprint. Impacts to cultural resources include loss of access to traditional use areas such as U&A fishing grounds and stations, conversion of a traditional area or special place to another land use, and reduction in the abundance of tribal resources for economic, subsistence, or ceremonial/religious uses. Federal laws and regulations have been established to protect and preserve traditional cultural resources. The Navy promotes the ongoing identification and preservation of resources on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Most American Indian traditional use areas, including subsistence resources and special places, have been identified and will be avoided whenever possible. Access to these resources is also allowed for American Indian tribes with treaty rights. The Navy will continue to consult with affected American Indian tribes regarding the Proposed Action and other future Navy projects at the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront (see Table 4-1). Past, present, and future Navy activities have the potential to significantly affect protected tribal treaty rights and resources on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. These projects could have impacts to tribal treaty rights and traditional resources similar to those identified for the Proposed Action (see Section 3.8). The Proposed Action would impact access to U&A fishing grounds and stations. Significant cumulative impacts to tribal U&A geoduck beds and subsistence resources would not be expected based on appropriate mitigation measures that would be taken as determined through ongoing consultations between the Navy and affected American Indian tribes. 4.3.9 Marine Navigation
The ROI for marine navigation is Northern Hood Canal because impacts to marine traffic during construction would be localized to the Proposed Action area.
4-22
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Marine navigation may be affected by past, present, and future Navy and non-Navy projects within Northern Hood Canal (see Table 4-1). During construction, traffic would increase on marine waterways, including traffic from specialized marine construction vessels similar to those that would be used for construction of the Proposed Action. Most of these projects occur within the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront, where vessel transit routes would not be appreciably altered during construction. Construction vessels would be anticipated to conform to existing marine traffic patterns; therefore, no cumulative impact to marine navigation is anticipated due to increased traffic during concurrent Proposed Action and other project construction. Operation of the Proposed Action would result in the creation of approximately 0.52 acre (0.21 ha) of no anchoring area associated with the EMMR system sensor array and a variance of approximately 5 minutes from existing submarine transit routes for vessels using the EMMR system. Due to the location of the EMMR system, no interference would be anticipated with ongoing marine construction vessels transiting to or from the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront or marine traffic at the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront. The Proposed Action, in combination with Navy and non-Navy past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not have a significant cumulative impact to marine navigation because marine traffic (including construction traffic for present and future Navy actions) would be consistent with existing marine traffic patterns. 4.3.10 Air Quality The ROI for air quality is the PSCAA region because short-term, construction air quality impacts would be localized to the Proposed Action area. Existing air quality is impacted by known past, present, and future actions, which include waterand land-based construction activities along Hood Canal, such as the construction of piers, docks, marinas, homes, and businesses. In addition, Navy projects (see Table 4-1) may also result in air emissions. Currently, Kitsap County is in attainment of all NAAQS criteria pollutants. The AQI within the vicinity of the Proposed Action was rated as good for particulate matter during 88 percent of 2010, and very few point sources of air pollution exist in Kitsap County. The Proposed Action would generate short-term air emissions, such as volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulates, from boats, vehicles, and equipment. The amount of emissions from the Proposed Action would be below the threshold required for a conformity analysis and would not be anticipated to exceed any of the PSCAA thresholds or greenhouse gas reporting thresholds established by the USEPA. Additionally, SOPs and BMPs will be implemented during Proposed Action construction in order to minimize fugitive dust emissions during construction. No permanent emissions would be generated. Combined emissions from the Proposed Action and potential concurrent construction of projects listed in Table 4-1 would be temporary and would not have a significant cumulative impact to air quality.
4-23
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
4.3.11 Public Health and Safety The ROI for evaluating cumulative impacts to public health and safety is defined as NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor and the immediately surrounding area, including the waters of Hood Canal likely to be affected by construction noise from the Proposed Action (areas within 1.5 miles [2.4 km] of the proposed offshore platform). Activities within NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor (see Table 4-1), as well as activities along Hood Canal such as the construction of piers, docks, marinas, and other in-water and shoreline construction, may have cumulative health and safety impacts with the Proposed Action. These actions generate ambient noise, can disturb and release contaminants in the sediments, can affect public safety, and have the potential to contaminate the water from fuel releases and other accidental discharges. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration noise standards would protect the health and safety of workers associated with the Proposed Action as well as other concurrent actions. The Proposed Action, in conjunction with past, present, and future Navy and non-Navy actions, would not have a significant cumulative impact to public health and safety because the Navy would be required to comply with water quality permits and regulations, state and local noise regulations, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards.
4-24
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
5 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

5.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
Temporary air emissions would be generated during construction of the EMMR system. The EMMR system would have an unavoidable adverse impact to geoduck fisheries due to the one-time loss from construction of the EMMR system in the Vinland Tract and Vinland Tract 4. The cost associated with this impact would vary based on the market value of geoduck at the time of harvest. The EMMR system would have an unavoidable permanent adverse impact to geoduck fisheries due to loss of available geoduck habitat and the restriction of geoduck harvest to protect the EMMR system. Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), less than 1 percent (approximately 0.09 percent) of the available geoduck habitat would be removed from harvest in the Vinland Tract, and under Alternative 2, less than 1 percent (approximately 0.18 percent) of the available geoduck habitat in the Vinland Tract would be permanently removed. Under both alternatives, geoduck harvesting would be restricted within 0.26 acre (0.10 ha) around the sensor array system. A short-term increase would occur in underwater and airborne noise associated with construction of the EMMR system, which would create a temporary behavioral disturbance for the ESA-listed marbled murrelet, salmonids, rockfish, and Steller sea lion. Similarly, noise levels would increase due to construction pile-driving, which would temporarily impact nearby residents of Hood Canal and commercial and recreational boaters in the Proposed Action vicinity. The construction of the EMMR system in-water components, including dredging, backfilling, and jet-plowing, would increase turbidity due to disturbance of marine sediments, which would have a short-term localized impact on water quality. Existing vegetation would be cleared near the ATN light and the access area to the pullbox site adjacent to Building 7801. This vegetation would be permanently removed. During construction, the Proposed Action area would not be available for commercial or recreational fishing, recreational boating, or other activities. During operation, the Proposed Action would restrict anchoring in the area of the sensor array in perpetuity. In addition, local vessel traffic would be temporarily impacted approximately five times per month during submarine transit and use of the EMMR system due to the 1,000-yard (914-m) security zone surrounding any Navy submarine being escorted by the USCG. 5.2 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
NEPA requires consideration of the relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the impacts that such use could have on the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. Such impacts include the possibility that choosing one alternative could reduce future flexibility to pursue other alternatives or that choosing a certain use could eliminate the possibility of other uses at the site.
5-1 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in any environmental impacts that would significantly narrow the range of beneficial uses of the Proposed Action site or vicinity. The upland component of the Proposed Action is a developed military base. The in-water component of the EMMR system would result in short- and long-term direct and indirect impacts to biological resources. However, long-term biological productivity would not be affected because implementation of the Proposed Action in conjunction with SOPs, BMPs, and mitigation measures would not result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on any biological resources. 5.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4332 Section 102(2)(C)(v) as implemented by CEQ regulation 40 CFR 1502.16) requires an analysis of irreversible effects resulting from implementation of a proposed action. Resources that are irreversibly or irretrievably committed to a project are those that are typically used on a long-term or permanent basis; however, those used on a short-term basis that cannot be recovered (e.g., non-renewable resources such as metal, wood, fuel, paper, and other natural or cultural resources) also are irretrievable. Human labor is considered an irretrievable resource. All such resources are irretrievable in that they are used for a project and, thus, become unavailable for other purposes. An impact that is an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources is the destruction of natural resources that could limit the range of potential uses of that resource. Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in irreversible commitments of construction materials, vehicles, and equipment used during construction and installation activities, as well as human labor and other resources used for the proposed facilities. Depending on the alternative, the Proposed Action would result in the permanent loss of less than 1 percent (approximately 0.09 or 0.18 percent) of geoduck habitat for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively. 5.4 COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS
Table 5-1 summarizes the laws and implementing regulations applicable to the Proposed Action.
5-2
February 2013
Draft EA
Table 5-1
Compliance of the Proposed Action with the Objectives of Federal, State, and Local Plans, Policies, and Controls
Regulation Agency Status of Compliance
This EA has been prepared in accordance with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA and Navy NEPA procedures. The Proposed Action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program. Consultation with Ecology will be completed.
NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and Navy Navy Procedures for Implementing NEPA (32 CFR 775) CZMA (16 CFR 1451 et seq.) Ecology
CWA, Section 401 ( 401, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Section 404 ( 404, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
Ecology, USEPA, USACE Through the JARPA process, the Navy will apply to USACE for a Section 404 permit for the removal and fill of material below the MHHW tidal level for the shoreline and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from Ecology. USACE Through the JARPA process, the Navy will apply to USACE for a permit under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for the placement of new structures in navigable waters. The Navy will submit an Essential Fish Habitat Assessment to NMFS and complete consultation with NMFS under the MSA. In accordance with CAA regulations, the Proposed Action would not compromise air quality attainment status in Washington or conflict with attainment and maintenance goals established in its state implementation plan. Kitsap County is an attainment area; therefore, a CAA conformity determination is not required. The Proposed Action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species. Consultation pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) will be completed. The Proposed Action would not result in any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Children would not be disproportionately exposed to environmental health risks or safety risks by the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action will have no adverse effect on NRHP-eligible or listed historic and cultural resources. Consultations will be completed. The Navy is conducting government-togovernment consultation with relevant Indian Tribal Governments. Consultations are ongoing.
Rivers and Harbors Act
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
NMFS
CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
USEPA
ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531)
USFWS, NMFS
EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (EO 12898, 59 Federal Register 7629 [Section 1-101]) EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (EO 13045, 62 Federal Register 1985) NHPA ( 106, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
Navy
Navy
SHPO
Navy
5-3
February 2013
Draft EA
Table 5-1
Compliance of the Proposed Action with the Objectives of Federal, State, and Local Plans, Policies, and Controls
Regulation Agency
NMFS
Status of Compliance
The Proposed Action would neither affect nor result in reasonably foreseeable takes of a marine mammal species by harassment, injury, or mortality as defined under the MMPA. The Proposed Action would not adversely affect migratory birds.
MMPA (16 U.S.C Chapter 31) Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712, as amended)
Key: CAA CEQ CFR CWA CZMA EA Ecology EO ESA JARPA MHHW MMPA NEPA NHPA NMFS NRHP SHPO USACE USEPA USFWS U.S.C. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
USFWS
Clean Air Act Council on Environmental Quality Code of Federal Regulations Clean Water Act Coastal Zone Management Act Environmental Assessment Washington Department of Ecology Executive Order Endangered Species Act Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application mean high water mark Marine Mammal Protection Act National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Preservation Act National Marine Fisheries Service National Register of Historic Places State Historic Preservation Officer United States Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service United States Code
5-4
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
6 LIST OF PREPARERS
This EA was prepared for the U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, Silverdale, Washington, by Ecology and Environment, Inc. A list of principal participants in the preparation of the EA is presented below. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest Silverdale, Washington
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, Personnel Name
Wes Miksa
Role
NEPA Project Manager
Education
B.A., Philosophy and Environmental Studies M.P.A., Earth Systems Science, Policy, and Management B.A., Anthropology/Archaeology M.A., Anthropology/Nautical Archaeology B.A., Sociology/Anthropology M.A., Architecture B.S., Environmental Science B.S. and Registered Professional Engineer, Civil Engineering
David Grant Russ Sackett Tiffany Nabors Ellen Brown
Archaeologist Historical Architect Biologist Sediments Subject Matter Expert
9 10 11 12 13 14
Ecology and Environment, Inc. 720 Third Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98104
Ecology and Environment, Inc., Personnel Name
Peggy Farrell, CHMM, QEP Jan Brandt
Role
Contract Manager Project Manager
Education
MS Natural Sciences/ Environmental Studies MS Environmental Planning BA Biology/ Environmental Science MS Marine Science BS Environmental Science MA Environmental Impact Assessment and Management
Years of Experience
33 18
Project Responsibility
Quality control Project management, noise and air quality Task management, document review and management, environmental health and safety Marine biological resources Marine physical environment Terrestrial biological resources, cumulative impacts
Blythe Mackey
Assistant Project Manager Biologist Environmental Scientist Environmental Planner
Cameron Fisher Bill Richards Natalie Seitz
14 26 5
6-1
February 2013
Draft EA
Ecology and Environment, Inc., Personnel Name

Bill Daughdrill
Role
Marine Navigation Specialist
Education
MA Public Administration Former Chief of the Commercial Vessel Safety Branch USCG Ph.D. Anthropology
Years of Experience
34
Project Responsibility
Marine navigation Cultural resources, American Indian traditional resources Land use, aesthetics, visual, recreation, and socioeconomics, environmental justice, and childrens health and safety Graphics and production GIS analysis and figures Technical editing
Tim Gross, Ph.D.
Anthropologist
32
Justin Peterson
Environmental Planner Graphic Artist GIS Analyst Technical Editor
BS Urban Planning
April Showers Jeff Comstock Steve McCabe
AA Graphic Design MS Environmental Science MFA Writing
20 16 23
6-2
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
7 LITERATURE CITED
Agness, A. and B. Tannenbaum. 2009a. Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor Marine Bird Resource Report. SAIC. January 15, 2009. Bothell, Washington. ______. 2009b. Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor Marine Mammal Resource Report. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, Bothell, Washington, for BAE Systems Applied Technologies, Inc. Rockville, Maryland. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2012a. Steller sea lion species profile. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=stellersealion.main. Website accessed November 13, 2012. ______. 2012b. Wildlife Notebook Series: Humpback Whale. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=specialstatus.fedsummary&species=humpba ckwhale Website Accessed October 18, 2012. Allen, B.M., and R.P. Angliss. 2012. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2011. NOAA Technical Memo NMFS AFSC-234. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA/NMFS. Seattle, Washington. AMOG Consulting. 2010. Olympic Dam EIS Project, Assessment of Waves and Propeller Wash Associated with Shipping, Final Report. Prepared for BHP Billiton. Document Number r2010.J017.001.1. Austin, S., S. Wyllie-Echeverria, and M.J. Groom. 2004. A Comparative Analysis of Submarine Cable Installation Methods in Northern Puget Sound, WA. Journal of Marine Environmental Engineering, Volume 7. Babson, A.L., M. Kawase, and P. MacCready. 2006. Seasonal and Interannual Variability in the Circulation of Puget Sound, Washington: A Box Model Study. Atmosphere-Ocean 44(1):29-45. Baird, R.W. and L.M. Dill. 1996. Ecological and Social Determinants of Group Size in Transient Killer Whales. Behavioral Ecology 7(4):408-416. ______. 1995. Occurrence and Behaviour of Transient Killer Whales: Seasonal and Podspecific Variability, Foraging Behaviour, and Prey Handling. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:1300-1311. Bhuthimethee, M., C. Hunt, G. Ruggerone, J. Nuwer, and W. Hafner. 2009. NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor 2007-2008 Fish Presence and Habitat Use Field Survey Report. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). Bothell, Washington. Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of Suspended Sediment by Juvenile Coho Salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2(4):371-374.
7-1
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). 2007. Port Angeles-Juan de Fuca Transmission Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Document No. DOE/EIS-0378 Bradbury, B. Sizemore, D. Rothaus, and M. Ulrich. 2000. Stock Assessment of Subtidal Geoducks (Panopea abrupta) in Washington. Marine Resources Unit, Fish Management Division, Fish Program. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Lacey, Washington. Buchanan, J.R. 2004. Shorebirds: Plovers, Oystercatchers, Avocets and Stilts, Sandpipers, Snipes, and Phalaropes in Larsen, E.M., J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washingtons Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. Burke Museum. 2012. University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences Ichthyology Collection. Retrieved from Ichthyology Collection (Database query: http://biology.burke.washington.edu/ichthyology/database/search.php )Website accessed November 8, 2012. Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture. Seattle, Washington. Calambokidis, J. 2012. Personal communication between John Calambokidis, senior marine mammal biologist and co-founder of Cascadia Research, and Sharon Rainsberry, biologist, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, U.S. Navy. February 16, 2012. CALTRANS. 2009. Final. Technical Guidance for Assessment and Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes and Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. for California Department of Transportation. Sacramento, California. Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, E. Oleson, K. Martien, M.M. Muto, M.S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson, D. Lynch, L. Carswell, R.L. Brownell Jr., J. Robbins, D.K. Mattila, K. Ralls, and Marie C. Hill. 2012. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2011. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-SWFSC-488. Clarke, D.G., and D.H. Wilber. 2000. Assessment of Potential Impacts of Dredging Operations due to Sediment Resuspension. DOER Technical Notes Collection, ERDC TN-DOERE9. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1981. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQs National Environmental Policy Act Regulations. 46 Fed. Reg. 18026. March 23, 1981. As amended. Accessed online http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/G-CEQ40Questions.pdf. January 16, 2013. Cruz-Rodriguez, L.A., and F.L.E. Chu. 2002. Heat-shock Protein (HSP70) Response in the Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea virginica, Exposed to PAHs Sorbed to Suspended Artificial Clay Particles and to Suspended Field Contaminated Sediments. Aquatic Toxicology 60:157-168.
7-2
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Dept. of Defense Navy. 2011. Military Installations, Ranges, and Training Areas (point locations and boundaries) Version 2.0, October 17, 2011. http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/bei/disdi.shtml Data layers: Military Installation boundaries Drake, J., E. Berntson, J. Cope, R. Gustafson, E. Holmes, P. Levin, N. Tolimieri, R. Waples, and S. Sogard. 2009. Preliminary Scientific Conclusions of the Review of the Status of 5 Rockfish: Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), Canary Rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), Greenstriped Rockfish (Sebastes elongatus), and Redstripe Rockfish (Sebastes proriger) in Puget Sound, Washington. National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, Washington. E&E (Ecology and Environment, Inc.). 2013. Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Construction and Operation of an Electromagnetic measurement Ranging System in Waters North of Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington, February 2013, Naval Base Kitsap. ______. 2012. Shoreline observations and photographs collected by Ecology and Environment, Inc., September 27, 2012. Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 2012a. Environmental Information Management (EIM) System, https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/eimreporting/search.asp Accessed October 26, 2012. ______. 2012b. List of Washington Impaired Waterways. www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/index.html Accessed October 22, 2012 ______. 2010. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/Nonattainment/Nonattainment.htm# Areas_that_don't_meet_standards Accessed November 1, 2012. ______. 2007. Relationships between Benthos, Sediment Quality, and Dissolved Oxygen in Hood Canal: Task IV Hood Canal Dissolved Oxygen Program. Prepared by Maggie Dutch, Ed Long, Sandy Aasen, Kathy Welch, and Valerie Partridge. Publication No. 0703-040. Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Assessment Program. Olympia, Washington. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/eap/marinewq/mwdataset.asp Esri. 2012. Maps throughout this document were created using ArcGIS software by Esri. ArcGIS and ArcMap are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under license. Copyright Esri. All rights reserved. For more information about Esri software, please visit www.esri.com. Data layers: County boundaries, state boundaries, water bodies, roads, etc. Evans-Hamilton, Inc., and D.R. Systems, Inc. 1987. Puget Sound Environmental Atlas. Prepared by Evans-Hamilton, Inc., and D. R. Systems, Inc., Seattle, WA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Seattle, Washington.
7-3
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Falcone E., J. Calambokidis, G.H. Steiger, M. Malleson, and J. Ford. 2005. Humpback Whales in the Puget Sound/Georgia Strait Region. Proceedings of the 2005 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON). 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992. Federal Register. 1993. Designated Critical Habitat, Steller Sea Lion. Volume 58, No. 5. August 27, 1993. Fiest, B.E., J.J. Anderson, and R. Myamoto. 1992. Potential Impacts of Pile Driving on Juvenile Pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and Chum (O. keta) Salmon Behavior and Distribution. Puget Sound Final Report. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Finlayson, D.P. 2005. Combined bathymetry and topography of the Puget Lowland, Washington State. University of Washington, (http://www.ocean.washington.edu/data/pugetsound/). Data layers: Elevation data, bathymetry, and derived contours Fish W. and D. Velasquez. 2008. Management Recommendations for Washingtons Priority Habitats and Species. Dungeness Crab. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Lacey, Washington. Ford, J.K.B., and G.M. Ellis. 1999. Transients: Mammal-Hunting Killer Whales of British Columbia, Washington, and Southeastern Alaska. University of British Columbia Press. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Ford, J.K.B., G.M. Ellis, L.G. Barrett-Lennard, A.B. Morton, R.S. Palm, and K.C. Balcomb III. 1998. Dietary Specialization in Two Sympatric Populations of Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in Coastal British Columbia and Adjacent Waters. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:1456-1471. Ford, J.K.B., P.F. Olesiuk, and G.M. Ellis. 2005. Linking Prey and Population Dynamics: Did Food Limitation Cause Recent Declines of Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in British Columbia? Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document 2005/042. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Ottawa, Canada. Garono, R.J., C.A. Simenstad, R. Robinson, C. Weller, and S. Todd. 2008. Chapter 8Mapping Intertidal Eelgrass Landscapes in Hood Canal (WA) Using High Spatial Resolution Compact Airborne Spectrographic Imager (CASI) Imagery. PNAMP Special Session at the 2008 American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Annual Meeting. Seattle, Washington. Goodwin, C.L. and B. Pease. 1987. The Distribution of Geoduck (Panope abrupta) Size, Density, and Quality in Relation to Habitat Characteristics Such as Geographic Area, Water Depth, Sediment Type, and Associated Flora and Fauna in Puget Sound, Washington. Washington Department of Fisheries Technical Report No. 102. Olympia, Washington.
7-4
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
______. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) Pacific Geoduck. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.120). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL82-4. Grant, D. 2012a. Personal communication from David Grant, NAVFAC NW, to Jan Brandt, Ecology and Environment, Inc., June 26, 2012. ______. 2012b. Personal communication from David Grant, NAVFAC NW, to Wes Miksa, NAVFAC NW, November 5, 2012. Hafner, W., and B. Dolan. 2009. Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor Water Quality. Phase I Survey Report for 20072008. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, Bothell, WA. Prepared for BAE Systems Applied Technologies, Inc. Rockville, Maryland. Hamer, T.E. and S.K. Nelson. 1995. Characteristics of Marbled Murrelet Nest Trees and Nesting Stands. in Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, Jr., M.G. Raphael, J.F. Piatt, technical editors. General Technical Report. PSWGTR-152. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Albany, California. Hammermeister, T. and W. Hafner. 2009. Naval Base Kitsap Sediment Quality Investigation: Data Report. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, Bothell, WA. Prepared for BAE Systems Applied Technologies, Inc. Rockville, Maryland. Hastings, M.C. and A.N. Popper. 2005. Effects of Sound on Fish. California Department of Transportation Contract 43A0139. Task Order #1. Hayward, J. L., and N.A. Verbeek. 2008. Glaucous-winged gull (Larus glaucescens). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed). Revised February 29, 2008. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Ithaca, New York. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/059. Accessed November 5, 2012. HCDOP. 2009. What Do We Need to Know? Hood Canal Dissolved Oxygen Program. http://www.hoodcanal.washington.edu/aboutHC/whatdoweneedtoknow.html Accessed January 27, 2009. HRA (Historical Research Associates, Inc.). 2011. Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation for the United States Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor Explosives Handling Wharf II Project, Kitsap County, Washington. Prepared by Historical Research Associates, Inc. Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Seattle, Washington. Jeffries, S.J., P.J. Gearin, H.R. Huber, D.L. Saul, and D.A. Pruett. 2000. Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haul-out Sites in Washington. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division. Olympia, Washington. Jeffries, S.J., H. Huber, J. Calambokidis, J. Laake. 2003. Trends and Status of Harbor Seals in Washington State: 1978-1999. The Journal of Wildlife Management 67(1):208-219.
7-5 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Johannessen, J. and A. MacLennan. 2007. Beaches and Bluffs of Puget Sound. Prepared in Support of the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership, Technical Report 2007-04. Johnson, S.W., M.L. Murphy, D.J. Csepp, P.M. Harris, and J.F. Thedinga. 2003. A Survey of Fish Assemblages in Eelgrass and Kelp Habitats of Southeastern Alaska. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-139. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, Washington. http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS119713. Kitsap County. 2005. Title 19 Critical Areas Ordinance. http://www.codepublishing.com/ WA/kitsapcounty/. Accessed October 29, 2012. ______. 1999. Title 17 Zoning. http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/kitsapcounty/. Accessed October 29, 2012. Kozloff, E.N. 1996. Seashore Life of the Northern Pacific Coast: An Illustrated Guide to Northern California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Larsen, E., J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, eds. 2004. Management Recommendations for Washingtons Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. LaSalle, M., D.G. Clarke, J. Homziak, J.D. Lunz, and T.J. Fredette. 1991. A Framework for Assessing the Need for Seasonal Restrictions on Dredging and Disposal Operations. Technical Report D-91-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Laughlin, J. 2007. Underwater Sound Levels Associated with Driving Steel and Concrete Piles Near the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal. Washington State Department of Transportation. Seattle, Washington. Leicht, G. 2008. Gregory Leicht, Naval Base Kitsap Environmental Director, Bremerton, Washington. July 18, 2008. Personal communication with Ted Turk, Science Applications International Corporation, Bothell, Washington. re: bald eagle nest discovered at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Lewarch, D.E., L. Forsman, and L.L. Larson. 1993. Cultural Resources Overview and Probabilistic Model for Subase Bangor and Camp Wesley Harris, Kitsap County, Washington. Prepared by Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Parametrix, Kirkland, Washington, for submission to Department of the Navy, Naval Submarine Base, Bangor.
7-6
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Lewarch, D.E., L.L. Larson, L. Forsman, and R. Moore. 1997. Cultural Resources Evaluation of Shell Midden Sites 44KP106, 45KP107, and 45KP108, Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, Kitsap County, Washington. Prepared by Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Inca Engineers, Bellevue, Washington, for submission to Department of the Navy, Naval Submarine Base, Bangor. London, J.M. 2006. Harbor Seals in Hood Canal: Predators and Prey. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Long, E.R., M.E. Dutch, S. Aasen, K.I. Welch, V.A. Partridge, and D.H. Shull. 2007. Relationships between Benthos, Sediment Quality, and Dissolved Oxygen in Hood Canal: Task IV Hood Canal Dissolved Oxygen Program. Prepared by Maggie Dutch, Ed Long, Sandy Aasen, Kathy Welch, and Valerie Partridge. Publication No. 07-03-040. Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Assessment Program. Olympia, Washington. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/0703040.html. Love, M.S., M. Yoklavich, and L.K. Thorsteinson. 2002. The Rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. Love, M.S., D.M. Schroeder, and W.H. Lenarz. 2005. Distribution of Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) and Cowcod (Sebastes levis) around Oil Platforms and Natural Outcrops off California with Implications for Larval Production. Bulletin of Marine Science 77(3):397-408. Love, M.S., D.M. Schroeder, W. Lenarz, A. MacCall, A.S. Bull, and L. Thorsteinson. 2006. Potential Use of Offshore Marine Structures in Rebuilding an Overfished Rockfish Species, Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis). Fishery Bulletin 104(3): 383-390. Mumford, T.F. 2007. Kelp and Eelgrass in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007-05. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Seattle, Washington. Nabors, T. 2012. Biologist, NAVFAC Northwest. Personal communication, electronic mail to C. Fisher, Ecology and Environment, Inc., October 22, 2012. NAIP (National Agricultural Imagery Program). 2011. USDA, Farm Service Agency, Aerial Photography Field Office. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/apfoapp?area=home&subject=prog&topic=nai Data layers: Aerial Photo NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2012a Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESA Salmon Listings. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/SalmonPopulations/Chinook/CKPUG.cfm. Website accessed August 21, 2012.
7-7
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
______. 2012b. Hood Canal Summer Run Chum Salmon ESA Salmon Listings. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/SalmonPopulations/Chum/CMHCS.cfm. Website accessed August 21, 2012. ______. 2012c. Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). NMFS: Office of Protected Resources. Available online: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/steelheadtrout.htm. Website accessed August 21, 2012. ______. 2012d. Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis). NMFS: Office of Protected Resources. Available online: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/bocaccio.htm. Website accessed August 21, 2012. ______. 2012e. Canary Rockfish (Sebastes pinniger). NMFS: Office of Protected Resources. Available online: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/canaryrockfish.htm. Website accessed August 21, 2012. ______. 2012f. Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus). NMFS: Office of Protected Resources. Available online: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/yelloweyerockfish.htm. Website accessed August 21, 2012. ______. 2012g. Species Profile: Humpback Whale. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ mammals/cetaceans/humpbackwhale.htm. Website Accessed October 18, 2012. ______. 2008. Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion: Eastern and Western Distinct Population Segments (Eumetopias jubatus) Revision. March 2008. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2002. The Final Rule for Essential Fish Habitat. Federal Register 67(12):2343-2383. National Park Service. 1998. Guidelines for evaluating and documenting traditional cultural properties. National Register Bulletin 38. Prepared by P.L. Parker and T.F. King, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register, History and Education, National Register of Historic Places. Originally published in 1990, revised in 1992 and 1998. Available online: http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb38.pdf. Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. (NRC). 2008. Behavioral Response and Survival of Juvenile Coho Salmon Exposed to Pile Driving Sounds. Prepared for Port of Seattle. Seattle, Washington. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC). 2012. Draft Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives for the Construction and Operation of an Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System in Waters North of Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, Silverdale, Washington. Data layers: Project features, approximate submarine route, detour to/from Indian Island, Military Operations Area (data provided by Navy)
7-8
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
______. 2007. Navy Eel Grass Survey (2007). GIS data provided by Navy. Data layers: Eel Grass Navy (U.S. Department of the Navy). 2012a. Final EIS TRIDENT Support Facilities Explosives Handling Wharf (EHW-2), March 2012. ______. 2012b. United States Navy Fact File. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_ display.asp?cid=4100&tid=200&ct=4. Accessed November 12, 2012. ______. 2012c. Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan, Naval Base Kitsap. Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, Washington. June 2012. ______. 2012d. Desktop Geoduck Study for the Construction and Operation of an Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System in Waters North of Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, Silverdale, Washington. Prepared for the United States Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest. December 2012. ______. 2012e. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for the Construction and Operation of an Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System in Waters North of Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington. Prepared for the United States Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest. December 2012. ______. 2011. Final Environmental Assessment. Test Pile Program, Bangor Waterfront at Naval Base Kitsap. Silverdale, Washington. ______. 2010. Marine Mammal Surveys at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Sighting Reports. Naval Base Kitsap Environmental. Silverdale, Washington. ______. 2009. Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor Comprehensive Eelgrass Survey Field Survey Report. Prepared for BAE Systems Applied Technologies, Inc., by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). February 11, 2009. Newton, J., C. Bassin, A. Devol, M. Kawase, W. Ruef, M. Warner, D. Hannafious, and R. Rose. 2007. Hypoxia in Hood Canal: An Overview of Status and Contributing Factors. Presented at Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference. March 26-29, 2007. Seattle, Washington. Nightingale, B., and C.A Simenstad. 2001. Overwater Structures: Marine Issues White Paper. Prepared by the University of Washington School of Marine Affairs and the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences for the Washington State Department of Transportation. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012. United States Coast Pilot 7, 44th Edition. October 16, 2012. ______. 2011. NOAA Raster Navigational Chart (RNC), 18476. http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/mcd/Raster/index.htm. Data layers: Nautical chart, Navy restricted area
7-9
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
______. 2010. Navigation Chart 18458, 17th Edition. October 2010. Normandeau, Exponent, T. Tricas, and A. Gill. 2011. Effects of EMFs from Undersea Power Cables on Elasmobranchs and Other Marine Species. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Pacific OCS Region, Camarillo, California. OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-09. OConnor, J.M. 1991. Evaluation of Turbidity and Turbidity-related Effects on the Biota of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. Prepared for U.S. Army Engineers, San Francisco District, by The San Francisco Bay-Delta Aquatic Habitat Institute. Richmond, California. Oost, Dennis. 2012. Planner, Kitsap County. Personal communication: Reasonable Foreseeable Actions. November 6, 2012. Phone conversation with Justin Peterson, Planner, Ecology and Environment, Inc. Opperman, H. 2003. A Birders Guide to Washington. American Birding Association. Colorado Springs, Colorado. Osmek, S.D., J. Calambokidis, and J.L. Laake. 1998. Abundance and Distribution of Porpoise and Other Marine Mammals of the Inside Waters of Washington and British Columbia. Pp. 868-880. in Proceedings of the Fourth Puget Sound Research Conference, Strickland, R., ed. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Olympia, Washington. Osmek, S., B. Hanson, J.L. Laake, S. Jeffries, and R.L. DeLong. 1995. Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) Population Assessment Studies for Oregon and Washington in 1994. Pp. 141-171.in Marine Mammal Assessment Program, Status of Stocks and Impacts of Incidental Take. 1994. Annual Reports of Research Carried Out on the Population Biology of Marine Mammals in Alaska, Washington, and Oregon to Meet the 1988 Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. OWET (Oregon Wave Energy Trust). 2010. Electromagnetic Field Study. Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Marine Species: A Literature Review. Prepared by Ecology and Environment, Inc., for Science Applications International Corporation. Seattle, Washington. Palsson, W.A., T.-S. Tsou, G.G. Bargmann, R.M. Buckley, J.E. West, M.L. Mills, Y.W. Cheng, and R.E. Pacunski. 2009. The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. FPT 09-04. Fish Management Division, Fish Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00926/wdfw00926.pdf. Pearson, S.F., M.G. Raphael, M.M. Lance, and T. D. Bloxton, Jr. 2011. Washington 2010 at-Sea Marbled Murrelet Population Monitoring: Research Progress Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division and USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. Olympia, Washington.
7-10
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Phillips, C., B. Dolan, and W. Hafner. 2009. Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor Water Quality 2005 and 2006 Field Survey Report. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, Bothell, WA. Prepared for BAE Systems Applied Technologies, Inc. Rockville, Maryland. ______. 2008. Water Quality along the Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor Shorelines. Phase I Survey Report for 2005 2007. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, Bothell, Washington. Prepared for BAE Systems Applied Technologies, Inc. Rockville, Maryland. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2011a. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish Fishery. ______. 2011b. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan; As Amended Through Amendment 13. ______. 2012. Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan , for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries Off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California as Revised through Amendment 16. PNPTC (Point No Point Treaty Council). 2013. Shellfish management. Available online: http://www.pnptc.org/Shellfish.html. Accessed January 23, 2013. Poole, A.F., R.O. Bierregaard, and M.S. Martell. 2002. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus). The Birds of North America Online, ed. Poole, A. Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Retrieved from The Birds of North America Online database: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna. Accessed November 13, 2012. Popper, A.N. and M.C. Hastings. 2009. Effects of Anthropogenic Sources of Sound on Fishes. Journal of Fisheries Biology 75:455-498. Port Gamble SKlallam Tribe. 2012. Comment letter to the United State Department of the Navy during public comment period of the EMMR DOPAA. Prinslow, T.E., C.J. Whitmus, J.J. Dawson, N.J. Bax, B.P. Snyder, and E.O. Salo. 1980. Final Report: Effects of Wharf Lighting on Outmigrating Salmon, 1979. January to December 1979. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Navy by the Fisheries Research Institute, College of Fisheries, University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. PSCAA (Puget Sound Clean Air Agency). 2010. 2010 Air Quality Data Summary. October 2011. Seattle, Washington. ______. 2009a. 2008 Air Quality Data Summary. October 2009. Seattle, Washington. ______. 2009b. Regulation I of the PSCAA. http://www.pscleanair.org/regulated/reg1/reg1.pdf. Puget Sound Partnership (PSAT). 2012. 2012 State of the Sound: A Biennual Report on the Recovery of Puget Sound. Tacoma, Washington.
7-11 February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
______. 2007. 2007 Puget Sound Update. Puget Sound Assessment and Monitoring Program. Olympia, Washington. Quinn, T. and R. Milner. 2004. Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) in Larsen, E.M., J.M. Azerrad and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washingtons Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. Redding, M.J., C.B. Schreck, and F.H. Everest. 1987. Physiological Effects on Coho Salmon and Steelhead of Exposure to Suspended Solids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:737-744. Reeves, R.R., B.S. Stewart, P.J. Clapham, and P.A. Folkens. 2008. National Audubon Society Guide to Marine Mammals of the World. New York, New York. Sackett, R. 2010 Architectural inventory and evaluation of eligibility of buildings within EHW-2 Area of Potential Effect, Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, Washington. Prepared by Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest (NAVFAC), Silverdale, WA. Salo, E.O. 1991. Life History of Chum Salmon, Oncorhynchus keta In Pacific Salmon Life Histories. K. Groot and L. Margolis, eds. UBC Press. Vancouver, British Columbia. Schultze et. al. 2012. National Register of Historic Places Evaluation of 45KP227, Cattail Lake Wetland Mitigation, Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor Kitsap County, Washington. Submitted to MAKERs Architecture and Urban Design and NAVFAC NW by Historical Research Associates, Inc., April, 16, 2012. Secretary of the Navy Instructions Navy Intelligence and Security Doctrine (SECNAVINST). 2006. SECNAVINST 5090.8a, Policy for Environmental Protection, Natural Resources, and Cultural Resources Programs. Available online: http://doni.daps.dla.mil/Directives/05000%20General%20Management%20Security%20a nd%20Safety%20Services/0500%20General%20Admin%20and%20Management%20Support/5090.8A.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2013. Servizi, J.A. 1988. Sublethal Effects of Dredged Sediments on Juvenile Salmon. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Servizi, J.A. and D.W. Martens. 1987. Some Effects of Suspended Fraser River Sediments on Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). In Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) Population Biology and Future Management. H.D. Smith, L. Margolis, and C.C. Wood, eds. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 96:254-264. Shannon and Wilson. 2010. Geotechnical Data Report, Electro-magnetic Measurement Range, Hood Canal, Bremerton, Washington. Prepared for Collins Engineers, Inc. October 22, 2010.
7-12
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Simenstad, C.A. and J.R. Cordell. 2000. Ecological Assessment Criteria for Restoring Anadromous Salmonid Habitat in Pacific Northwest Estuaries. Ecological Engineering 15:283-302. Simenstad, C.A., B.J. Nightingale, R.M. Thom, and D.K. Shreffler. 1999. Impacts of Ferry Terminals on Juvenile Salmon Migrating along Puget Sound Shorelines. Phase I: Synthesis of State of Knowledge. Prepared for the Washington State Transportation Commission in Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Southard, S.L., G.A. McMichael, R.M. Thom, J.A. Vucelick, G.D. Williams, J.T. Newell, J. D. Toft, J.A. Southard, and C. W. May. 2006. Impacts of Ferry Terminals on Juvenile Salmon Movement along Puget Sound Shorelines. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation by Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Division. Strachan, G., M. McAllister, and C.J. Ralph. 1995. Marbled Murrelet At-sea and Foraging Behavior. pp 247-253. In Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (eds). Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. PSW-GTR-152. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Albany, California. Suquamish, 2000. Fish Consumption Survey Of The Suquamish Indian Tribe Of The Port Madison Indian Reservation, Puget Sound Region. The Suquamish Tribe Fisheries Department, Suquamish, Washington, August 2000. Tannenbaum, B.R. M. Bhuthimethee, L. Delwiche, G. Vedera, and J.M. Wallin. 2009a. Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor 2008 Marine Bird Survey Report. Prepared for BAE Systems Applied Technologies, Inc., Rockville, Maryland, by Science Applications International Corporation. Bothell, Washington. ______. 2009b. Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor 2008 Marine Mammal Survey Report. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, Bothell, Washington, for BAE Systems Applied Technologies, Inc. Rockville, Maryland. Tannenbaum, B.R., W. Hafner, J.M. Wallin, L. Delwiche, and G. Vedera. 2011a. Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor 2009-2010 Marine Bird Survey Report. Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor, Silverdale, Washington, by Science Applications International Corporation. Bothell, Washington. ______. 2011b. Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor 2009-2010 Marine Mammal Survey Report. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, Bothell, Washington, for Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor. Silverdale, Washington. USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers) and USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule. 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332. April 2008.
7-13
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Census and American Community Survey. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml Accessed November 1, 2012. USCG (United States Coast Guard). 2007. Vessel Traffic Services Regulations, Puget Sound Manual, 2007 Edition. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ Accessed November 1, 2012. ______. 2010b. EPA NONROAD Model. http://www.epa.gov/OMS/nonrdmdl.htm Accessed November 5, 2012. ______. 2009. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Available from http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. ______. 1996. Emissions Factors and AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Available from http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ ______. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Washington, DC. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat; Candidate Species; and Species of Concern in Kitsap County. USFWS, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. Revised March 15, 2012. ______. 2011. Second Explosives Handling Wharf at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation - Biological Opinion. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. Lacey, Washington. November 16, 2011. ______. 2010. Biological Opinion for the United States Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet Northwest Training Range Complex in the Northern Pacific Coastal Waters off the States of Washington, Oregon and California and activities in Puget Sound and Airspace over the State of Washington. August 12, 2010. Vermeer, K., S.G. Sealy, and G.A. Sanger. 1987. Feeding Ecology of Alcidae in the Eastern North Pacific Ocean. In Seabirds: Feeding Ecology and Role in Marine Ecosystems. J.P. Croxall, ed. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 9. pp. 189-227. Washington Administrative Code, Annotated. 2013. WAC 173-60-040. Maximum permissible noise levels. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-60-040. Website accessed January 29, 2013. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). ______. 2012a. Priority Habitats and Species Database. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Website Accessed November 5, 2012.
7-14
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
______. 2012b. Puget Sound Clam and Oyster FAQs. Frequently Asked Questions about Clam and Oyster Regulations and Management. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/shelfish/beachreg/faqs.htm. Website Accessed November 5, 2012. ______. 2012c. Fish Washington Sport Fishing Rules. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/ 01384/wdfw01384.pdf Accessed October 30, 2012. ______. 2009. The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. Publication Number FPT 09-04. WDFW Publications. Lacey, Washington. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00926/wdfw00926.pdf. Website accessed January 17, 2013. ______. 2005. Washingtons Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/cwcs/cwcs.html. Website accessed November 5, 2012. ______. 2002. Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI). Maps and stock assessments. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/ WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2012. Personal communication. Electronic communication between Cyrilla Cook of Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Wes Miksa, United States Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest. October 9, 2012. ______. 2011. Environmental Assessment of Continued Geoduck Harvest in Kitsap County, Vinland Geoduck Tract (#20750). Exhibit A. Olympia, Washington. ______. 2005. Geoduck Habitat Survey (Updated 2005 using 2004 WDFW survey, 20 ft MLLW due to eelgrass or 200 yds from OHT, and 70 ft MLLW contours). GIS data provided by Washington Department of Natural Resources. http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/app1/dataweb/dmmatrix.html. Data layers: Geoduck Vinland Tract ______. 2002. The Geoduck Program. Managing a Valuable Natural Resource for All Washington Citizens. FS-02-136, 06-13-02. Weston. 2006. Benthic Community Assessment in the Vicinity of the Bangor Naval Facility, Hood Canal. Draft Report, June 2006. Prepared by Weston Solutions, Inc., Port Gamble, Washington. Prepared for Science Applications International Corporation. Bothell, Washington. Wiles, G.J. 2004. Washington State Status Report for the Killer Whale. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2008. Site and Reach Assessment, Hood Canal Shoreline, SR106, MP 4.2-16.9, Work Order MT0100, by Garrett Jackson, Hydrologist.
7-15
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
______. 2007. Washington State Ferry Mukeltio Test Pile Project, Underwater Sound Levels Associated with Driving Steel and Concrete Piles near the Mukeltio Ferry Terminal. March 2007. ______. 1993. Ferry Wake Study: Final Report. Prepared for the Washington State Transportation Commission and U.S. Department of Transportation, Research Project T9903, Task 3, Subtask 8.
7-16
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3
APPENDIX A PUBLIC NOTICES
A-1
February 2013
Draft EA
A-2
February 2013
This Notice of Availability was published in the Kitsap Sun on August 3, 4, and 5, 2012 and in the Kitsap Sun, Peninsula Daily News, and Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader on September 14, 15, and 16, 2012. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN ELECTROMAGNETIC MEASUREMENT RANGE SYSTEM IN WATERS NORTH OF NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, WASHINGTON.
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR, Parts 1500-1508) implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, the Department of the Navy gives notice that they are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of an Electromagnetic Measurement Range (EMMR) system in waters north of Naval Base Kitsap (NBK) Bangor, Silverdale, Washington. The proposed action would occur on NBK lands and adjacent waters in Hood Canal to the north of NBK Bangor. The purpose of the proposed action is to establish an EMMR system, in close proximity to an existing submarine homeport at NBK, to provide the Navy with the capability in the northwestern Continental United States (CONUS) to measure the electromagnetic signatures of submarines. The proposed action is needed to meet the magnetic signature requirements of OPNAVINST C8950.2(x), which requires all classes of submarines to perform certain actions to decrease their risk from threats. Currently, submarines in the Pacific Fleet, including those home ported at NBK, must utilize facilities located at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii or San Diego, California in order to fulfill their electromagnetic signature requirements, which results in unacceptable operational inefficiencies for submarines home ported or otherwise operating in waters off the northwestern CONUS. A Draft Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA) describes the proposed action and its purpose and need. The DOPAA presents a No-Action Alternative, Alternative 1 (preferred alternative), alternatives 2 and 3, and alternatives considered but eliminated from further analysis in the EA. The EA will analyze environmental impacts of the alternatives on marine biological resources, terrestrial biological resources, tribal treaty resources, cultural resources, water, air, noise, hazardous materials, land and water use, public health and safety, socioeconomics and environmental justice. The Draft DOPAA is available electronically at www.emmrea.com and the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest website at: https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/navfac/navfac_ww_pp/navfac_efanw_pp. The Draft DOPAA is also available in hardcopy for public review at the following repositories: Silverdale Library, 3450 NW Carlton St., Silverdale, WA 98383, and the Poulsbo Library, 700 NE Lincoln Rd., Poulsbo, WA 98370. For additional information about the proposed action and alternatives and opportunity to comment, members of the public are invited to attend a public meeting that will be held on Thursday, August 16, 2012 from 6pm to 8pm at the Silverdale Community Center, located at 9729 Silverdale Way NW, Silverdale, WA 98383. Comments at this initial stage of the environmental review process will be considered in the preparation of the Draft EA. The Navy will seek further public input at a future date upon release of the Draft EA. To be considered in preparation of the Draft EA, comments must be received by Thursday, August 30, 2012. Comments may be submitted in written format via comment sheet at the public meeting, via an online form on the website, or may be mailed to: Mr. Wes Miksa, Environmental Planner, NAVFAC Northwest, 1101 Tautog Circle, Room 203, Silverdale, WA 98315.
A-3
Information on public participation in NEPA environmental review processes is provided in the Council on Environmental Qualitys A Citizens Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard available at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/Citizens_Guide_Dec07.pdf.
A-4
Draft EA
1 2 3
APPENDIX B MONITORING PLAN
B-1
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2
B-2
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
B.1
MARINE MAMMAL MONITORING MEASURES
The Navy proposes to employ a number of monitoring measures, discussed below, in an effort to minimize the number of marine mammals potentially impacted by the proposed construction of the EMMR system. B.1.1 Methods of Monitoring during Cable/Sensor Array Installation and PileDriving The monitoring areas established for the Proposed Action effectively represent the zones that would be established around construction activities to prevent Level A harassment to marine mammals. The Navy proposes to establish zones for pile-driving. The proposed monitoring measures presented below assume that the Proposed Action has been implemented. Disturbance Zone The disturbance zone would include all areas where the underwater SPLs are anticipated to equal or exceed the Level B (disturbance) harassment criteria for marine mammals (160 dB re: 1 Pa for impact pile-driving and 90 dB re 20Pa for airborne noise). The disturbance zone would be monitored throughout the time required to install a pile. If a marine mammal is observed entering the disturbance zone, all pile-driving activities would be halted. Visual Monitoring Monitoring would be conducted by qualified observers. A trained observer would be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable (e.g., on a small boat, the pile-driving barge, on shore, or any other suitable location) to monitor for marine mammals, record any observations, and implement shut-down/delay procedures when applicable. Monitoring for the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after pile-driving activities would be conducted for a 384-foot (117-m) disturbance zone surrounding each pile. Monitoring would take place from 15 minutes prior to initiation through 15 minutes post-completion of pile-driving activities. Pile-driving would only commence after observers have declared the disturbance zone clear of marine mammals. If a marine mammal approaches or enters the disturbance zone during the course of piledriving operations, pile-driving would be halted and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the disturbance zone or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal. B.1.2 Monitoring Effectiveness It should be recognized that although marine mammals would be protected from Level A harassment by the utilization of marine mammal observers (MMOs) monitoring the near-field injury zones (3.3 feet [1 m] for pinnipeds and 16 feet [5 m] for cetaceans), monitoring may not be 100-percent effective at all times in locating marine mammals in the disturbance zone.
B-3
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
All observers utilized for monitoring activities would be experienced biologists with training in marine mammal detection and behavior. Due to their specialized training and small size of the disturbance zone (384 feet [117 m]) around pile-driving, the Navy expects that visual mitigation would be highly effective. Trained observers have specific knowledge of marine mammal physiology, behavior, and life-history, which may improve their ability to detect individuals or help determine whether observed animals are exhibiting behavioral reactions to construction activities. The observers would have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. The Beaufort Wind Scale would be used to determine sea-state during construction activities. The Proposed Action area typically experiences a Beaufort Sea State of between 2 and 4. Visual detection conditions are considered optimal in conditions of 3 or less. Observers would be positioned in locations that provide the best vantage point(s) for monitoring, which would probably be an elevated position as they provide a better range of viewing angles. B.1.3 Data Collection MMOs would use NMFS-approved sighting forms, which require, at a minimum, that the following information be collected on the forms: Date and time that the construction activity begins or ends; Weather parameters identified in the monitoring (e.g., wind, humidity, temperature); Tide state and water currents; Visibility; Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals; Marine mammal behavior patterns observed, including bearing and direction of travel; and Distance from the construction activities to marine mammals and from the marine mammal to the observation point. With the implementation of monitoring and shutdown procedures, it is highly unlikely that a marine mammal would enter the disturbance or injury zones undetected. However, if a marine mammal is observed within the monitoring zone during pile-driving, Navy environmental personnel would notify the National Marine Fisheries Service within 24 hours of the incident.
B-4
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3
APPENDIX C UNDERWATER NOISE
C-1
February 2013
Draft EA
C-2
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Marine species could be affected by underwater noise associated with in-water construction. Underwater noise sources from the Proposed Action would result from pile-driving, dredging and filling, jet-plowing, and associated boat operations. However, the proposed pile-driving operations represent the greatest potential for underwater noise impacts. The intensity of pile-driving sounds is influenced by factors such as the type of piles and hammers and the physical environment in which the activity takes place. Literature regarding SPLs recorded from pile-driving projects was reviewed to determine reasonable SPLs and associated effects on marine species that could result from pile-driving at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. The Navy proposes to install five 24-inch (61-centimeter) concrete piles in water 40 to 50 feet (12 to 15 m) deep. Data from a similar action documented in the 2009 California Department of Transportation Technical Guidance for Assessment and Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish, (CALTRANS 2009) suggests that impact pile-driving using a singleacting diesel impact hammer and 24-inch (61-cm) concrete piles would produce peak underwater noise levels of 188 dB re: 1 Pa peak; an average rms level of 176 dB re: 1 Pa ; and166 dB re: 1 Pa2-sec SEL at a distance of 33 feet (10 m) from the pile and in the absence of any noise attenuation devices. For the pile-driving to support the construction of the offshore platform, the Navy contractor will employ wood cushion blocks during impact pile-driving. Cushion blocks are blocks of material that are used with impact-hammer pile-drivers to minimize the noise generated by the hammer blow to the pile. Materials typically used for cushion blocks include wood, Micarta, and nylon blocks. Other materials also may be used (CALTRANS 2009). Studies conducted by the Washington State Department of Transportation indicate that the following reductions in SPLs with various cushion block types can be expected: Wood: 11 to 26 dB; Micarta: 7 to 8 dB; and Nylon: 4 to 5 dB. Cushion blocks can be used in conjunction with other BMPs, such as use of air bubble curtains, cofferdams, and isolation casings, to provide attenuation that is additive to the noise reduction provided by these systems. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the Navy contractor would use 12-inch (30.5-cm) wooden cushion blocks of layered plywood construction. In order to assess potential impacts of underwater noise on marine species, the decay in sound over distance needs to be calculated. Transmission loss (TL) underwater is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The formula for transmission loss is:
C-3
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
TL = F * log10*R Where: F = logarithmic (predominantly spreading) loss C = linear (scattering and absorption) loss R = range from source in meters Under open ocean conditions, unimpeded underwater noise would spread spherically from the source, with sound waves spreading out equally in all directions. This type of sound transmission assumes a logarithmic spreading loss (F) equal to 20 in the above formula. In shallow-water environments, waves spread out cylindrically. Under these conditions, horizontal sound waves would spread equally, while vertical sound waves would be impeded by the seafloor or waters surface. This type of sound transmission assumes a logarithmic spreading loss (F) equal to 10 in the above formula. The nearshore environment of the Proposed Action site has areas of both shallow bathymetry close to shore and deeper bathymetry farther offshore, resulting in unequal spreading. As a result, to take into account these varied bathymetric conditions, the Navy utilized the practical spreading loss model in the underwater acoustic analyses, which assumes a spreading loss constant (F) of 15, which is between spherical and cylindrical spreading (Navy 2011). Therefore, using practical spreading (F = 15), the revised formula for transmission loss is: TL = 15 log10*R Data from a similar action extracted from 2009 California Department of Transportation Technical Guidance, Assessment and Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish (CALTRANS 2009), indicated an SPL of 188 dBA re: 1 Pa (176 dBA rms re: 1 Pa) for a 24-inch concrete pile-driven in 10 to 15 m of water depth. Table C-1 summarizes the distances for selected sound levels based on an SPL of 188 dBA re: 1 Pa (176 dBA rms re: 1 Pa).
C-4
February 2013
Draft EA
Table C-1 Distance for Selected In-Water Sound Levels Due to the Proposed 24-inch Concrete Pile-Driving
Noise Level dB rms
176 160 150
Key: dB rms = decibels using the root mean square m = meters 2 km = square kilometers
Distance (m) from pile

10 117 541
Area Affected within Hood Canal (km2)

0.0003 0.04 0.78
Note: See Section 3.4 Marine Biology for discussion of noise levels.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Existing underwater ambient noise levels measured along the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor waterfront were measured at 114 B re: 1 Pa (Navy 2011). Therefore, any location in Hood Canal with a direct line of sight to the source of impact pile-driving would experience noise levels above the average background noise. However, locations with an intervening land mass would experience lower noise levels from pile-driving.
C-5
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
C-6
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3
APPENDIX D ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
D-1
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2
D-2
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2
The Essential Fish Habitat Assessment will be included in the final version of this EA.
D-3
February 2013
Draft EA
D-4
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3
APPENDIX E BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
E-1
February 2013
Draft EA
E-2
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2
The Biological Assessment will be included in the final version of this EA.
E-3
February 2013
Draft EA
E-4
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3
APPENDIX F AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS
F-1
February 2013
Draft EA
F-2
February 2013
Table 1 Alternative 1 Avg Size (hp) 91 600 600 600 77 157 489
1
Equipment Type HDD rig (80 hrs) Tug (520 hrs) Pile Driver (40 hrs) Dredge (240 hrs) Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (8 hrs) Crawler Tractor/Dozers (8 hrs) Off-Highway Trucks (8 hrs) Total Notes:
Fuel Type Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel
Load2 0.59 0.59 0.43 0.65 0.21 0.59 0.59
Engine Size Range 75<hp100 300<hp600 300<hp600 300<hp600 75<hp100 100<hp175 300<hp600
VOC 0.337 0.154 0.154 0.154 1.033 0.206 0.154
Emission Factor3 (g/hp-hr) CO SO2 PM10 NOx 3.098 0.783 0.783 0.783 6.128 1.000 0.783 3.599 1.971 1.971 1.971 5.138 2.435 1.971 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.008 0.006 0.006 0.434 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.912 0.241 0.130
CO2 595.102 536.345 536.345 536.345 692.767 536.182 536.345
VOC 3.191 62.496 3.504 31.778 0.295 0.337 0.784 102.384
Equipment Emission Rate4 (lbs-hr) CO SO2 PM10 NOx 29.335 317.757 17.814 161.571 1.748 1.634 3.984 533.844 34.079 799.871 44.843 406.714 1.465 3.978 10.029 1300.980 0.066 2.435 0.137 1.238 0.002 0.010 0.031 3.918 4.110 52.757 2.958 26.825 0.260 0.394 0.661 87.965
CO2 5635.102 33486.090 12202.558 110674.365 1975.669 8759.531 27291.163
Total Emissions lbs total Tons
200024.478 202053.568 101.026784
1. Avg hp from "Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emissions Study Report" EPA 460/3-91-02. Nov 1991. 2. Load from "Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions Modeling" EPA420-P-04-005. April 2004. 3. Emission factors from EPA's NONROAD model (Year 2008) for Kitsap County, Washington. VOC emissions include both Exhaust and Crankcase Emissions 4. Equipment Emission Rate = Average HP x Load x Emission Factor x 453.6 g/lb x hrs of usage
F-3
Table 2 Alternative 2 Avg Size (hp) 91 600 600 600 77 157 489
1
Equipment Type HDD rig (80 hrs) Tug (520 hrs) Pile Driver (40 hrs) Dredge (240 hrs) Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (8 hrs) Crawler Tractor/Dozers (8 hrs) Off-Highway Trucks (8 hrs) Total
Fuel Type Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel
Load2 0.59 0.59 0.43 0.65 0.21 0.59 0.59
Engine Size Range 75<hp100 300<hp600 300<hp600 300<hp600 75<hp100 100<hp175 300<hp600
VOC 0.337 0.154 0.154 0.154 1.033 0.206 0.154
Emission Factor3 (g/hp-hr) CO SO2 PM10 NOx 3.098 0.783 0.783 0.783 6.128 1.000 0.783 3.599 1.971 1.971 1.971 5.138 2.435 1.971 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.008 0.006 0.006 0.434 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.912 0.241 0.130
CO2 595.102 536.345 536.345 536.345 692.767 536.182 536.345
VOC 3.191 62.496 3.504 31.778 0.295 0.337 0.784 102.384
Equipment Emission Rate4 (lbs-hr) CO SO2 PM10 NOx 29.335 317.757 17.814 161.571 1.748 1.634 3.984 533.844 34.079 799.871 44.843 406.714 1.465 3.978 10.029 1300.980 0.066 2.435 0.137 1.238 0.002 0.010 0.031 3.918 4.110 52.757 2.958 26.825 0.260 0.394 0.661 87.965
CO2 5635.102 33486.090 12202.558 110674.365 1975.669 8759.531 27291.163
Total Emissions lbs total Tons
200024.478 202053.568
101.026784
Notes: 1. Avg hp from "Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emissions Study Report" EPA 460/3-91-02. Nov 1991. 2. Load from "Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions Modeling" EPA420-P-04-005. April 2004. 3. Emission factors from EPA's NONROAD model (Year 2008) for Kitsap County, Washington. VOC emissions include both Exhaust and Crankcase Emissions 4. Equipment Emission Rate = Average HP x Load x Emission Factor x 453.6 g/lb x hrs of usage
F-4
Draft EA
1 2 3
APPENDIX G TRIBAL CONSULTATION
G-1
February 2013
Draft EA
G-2
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2
The Tribal Consultation will be included in the final version of this EA.
G-3
February 2013
Draft EA
G-4
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2 3
APPENDIX H AGENCY CONSULTATION
H-1
February 2013
Draft EA
H-2
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2
The Agency Consultation will be included in the final version of this EA.
H-3
February 2013
Draft EA
1 2
H-4
February 2013

Navy Submarine EM/TEMPEST Falsification Facility

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Navy Submarine EM/TEMPEST Falsification Facility

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Construction and Operation of an Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System in Hood Canal North

of Naval Base Kitsap Bangor Silverdale, Washington

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Page Intentionally Left Blank

NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor

10 ft Interval Contour 50 ft Index Contour

EMMR System Components / Construction Method

Magnetic Silencing Facility Pier (existing)

60 -1 -140 0 -12 -90 -60

Building 7801 (existing)

NAVBASE Kitsap Ban gor

2,000 Feet Meters 600

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 4

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4

4.3.6 4.3.7 4.3.8 4.3.9 4.3.10 4.3.11 5

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.) Figure 3.9-1 Marine Navigation ............................................................................................. 3-95

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

m, m , m MBTA MLLW MMPA MOA MSA

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont.)

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS National Environmental Policy Act

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Proposed Action Location County Boundary Hood Canal Bridge