|
A Cryptome DVD is offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for a DVD of the Cryptome 11.5-years archives of 43,000 files from June 1996 to January 2008 (~4.5 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. Archives include all files of cryptome.org, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org. Cryptome offers with the Cryptome DVD an INSCOM DVD of about 18,000 pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985. No additional contribution required -- $25 for both. The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost. |
10 January 2008
[Federal Register: January 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 6)]
[Notices]
[Page 1602-1609]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09ja08-31]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Record of Decision for Kilo Wharf Extension (MILCON P-502) at
Apra Harbor Naval Complex, Guam, Mariana Islands
AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy announces its decision to extend
Kilo Wharf by 400 feet (122 meters) to the west at Apra Harbor Naval
Complex, Guam, Mariana Islands. The project includes dredging of reef
flat and other marine habitats, construction of an additional mooring
island, and improvements to the existing wharf. Improvements to the
existing wharf include upgrades to the primary and secondary electrical
power supply; upgraded lightning protection and grounding system; new
electrical substation building, perimeter fencing, and floodlighting
system; and seismic upgrades.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nora Macariola-See, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (Code EV2 NM), 258 Makalapa
Drive, Suite 100, Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-3134, telephone 808-472-1402.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the entire Record of Decision
(ROD) is provided as follows: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. Section
4332(2)(c), and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality
that implement NEPA procedures (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts
1500-1508), the Department of the Navy (Navy) announces its decision to
extend Kilo Wharf by 400 feet (ft) (122 meters [m]) to the west at Apra
Harbor Naval Complex (AHNC), Guam, Mariana Islands. The proposed wharf
extension will be accomplished as set out in the West Extension
Alternative, described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) as the preferred alternative.
Kilo Wharf is located within the AHNC in Outer Apra Harbor, and is
the Department of Defense's (DoD's) only dedicated ammunition wharf in
the Western Pacific Region. The Navy proposes to extend Kilo Wharf to
provide adequate berthing facilities (including shore utilities and
wharf-side handling area) to support a new class of ammunition ship
that will replace existing ammunition ships currently forward deployed
to the AHNC. The DoD is developing a new class of multi-purpose dry
cargo/ammunition ship (designated as ``T-AKE''), scheduled to be in
service in Guam in fiscal year 2010.
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to ensure that Commander,
Navy Region Marianas (COMNAVREGMARIANAS) continues to provide
ammunition on and off loading capability in direct support of DoD
strategic forward power projection and maintain the readiness of the
Navy's operating forces in the Western Pacific region.
COMNAVREGMARIANAS provides operational, fuel re-supply, ordnance, and
other logistic support to Fleet units of the Pacific Region and
operating forces of the Navy's Fifth and Seventh Fleets. The Proposed
Action will enable COMNAVREGMARIANAS to provide adequate facilities for
the new T-AKE vessels forward deployed to Guam in accordance with DoD
technical design standards for safe and efficient ordnance loading/
offloading, in order to maintain its current support mission. The need
for the Proposed Action is to ensure Kilo Wharf meets Facility Planning
Criteria for Navy and Marine Corps Shore Installations (P-80) and
Military Handbook 1025/1, Piers and Wharves criteria for berthing the
T-AKE. There are no other suitable facilities on Guam available to
accommodate this class of ammunition ship.
Public Involvement: Public involvement is discussed in Section 1.6
of the FEIS and summarized here. A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS
for the Proposed Action was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 70,
No. 145, Page 43848) on 29 July 2005. Two public scoping meetings were
held on Guam 30 August 2005 and 2 September 2005. The Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was filed with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on 2 March 2007. A Notice of
Availability of the DEIS was published in the Federal Register on 9
March 2007 (Vol. 72, No. 46, Page 10749), initiating a 45-day public
comment period which ended on 23 April 2007.
A Notice of Public Hearing for the DEIS was published in the
Federal Register (Vol. 72, No. 46, Page 10721) on 9 March 2007. A
public hearing was held on Guam 28 March 2007 to provide Federal,
Territorial, and local agencies and interested parties the opportunity
to provide oral and written comments on the DEIS. The Navy considered
relevant issues raised during the 45-day public comment period for the
DEIS. The Navy received 11 written comment letters by agencies,
organizations and interested individuals during the DEIS public comment
period. Issues raised during the DEIS public comment period are
summarized in Section 1.6 of the FEIS.
The FEIS was filed with the USEPA on 11 October 2007. A Notice of
Availability of the FEIS was published in the Federal Register on 19
October 2007 (Vol. 72, No. 202, Page 59287), initiating a 30-day wait
period (no action period) which ended on 19 November 2007. The FEIS
included identification of the Preferred Alternative, best management
practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures to reduce environmental
consequences, and public and agency comments on the DEIS as well as
responses to those comments.
[[Page 1603]]
Alternatives Analyzed: The Navy initially evaluated a range of
alternatives that would meet the purpose and need of the action and
applied preliminary screening criteria to identify those that were
``reasonable'' (i.e., practical and feasible from a military mission,
operations, technical, and economic standpoint). The screening process
and criteria were set out in the DEIS. A range of alternatives were
initially considered, but not all were carried through the EIS analysis
because they did not satisfy the screening criteria.
Of the alternatives considered, the Navy determined that only two
alternatives involving extension of the existing Kilo Wharf met the
purpose and need and the preliminary screening criteria and were
carried through the EIS analysis, in addition to the No Action
Alternative. They are the ``West Extension Alternative'' and the
``East-West Extension Alternative.'' Both alternatives would provide
adequate berthing for the T-AKE in accordance with DoD technical design
standards for safe and efficient ordnance loading/offloading. Rationale
for elimination of the other alternatives considered are discussed in
Section 2.2.3 of the FEIS.
West Extension Alternative. Under this alternative, the existing
wharf would be extended by 400 ft (122 m) to the west. This alternative
would take about 26 months to construct, including approximately six
months of dredging. In-water work would be limited to the west side of
the existing wharf. An additional mooring island would be constructed
on the reef flat to the west of the existing mooring island for
construction period vessel mooring.
The Navy selected the West Extension Alternative as its preferred
alternative in large part because it best avoided and/or minimized
potential environmental impacts, when compared with the other
alternative considered that met the project objectives (i.e., the East-
West Extension Alternative). Furthermore, the West Extension
Alternative would meet all technical and operational requirements for
the project at a lower cost and shorter construction period than the
East-West Extension Alternative.
East-West Extension Alternative. This alternative would extend Kilo
Wharf by 115 ft (35 m) to the east and 285 ft (87 m) to the west. This
alternative would take about 28 months to construct including
approximately eight months of dredging. In-water work would be
necessary on both the west and east ends of the wharf, leading to a
longer construction period with greater impacts on wharf operations.
Two additional mooring islands would be constructed on the reef flat to
the east and west of the existing mooring islands for construction
period vessel mooring.
No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the T-AKE
would replace the current ammunition ships forward-deployed to AHNC as
planned, but would berth at the existing, substandard Kilo Wharf. The
No Action Alternative assumes that the existing explosives safety
quantity distance (ESQD) arcs originating from Kilo Wharf would be
revised to meet current Navy standards, with or without extension of
the wharf. The No Action Alternative provides the least environmental
impacts because it would not involve any change to the physical
environment. However, this alternative does not meet the purpose and
need and is not operationally acceptable because it does not conform
with Navy design criteria for ammunition wharves, would adversely
impact ordnance operations efficiency, would not adequately provide
electrical power, fire protection, lighting, telecommunications, and
security surveillance for the T-AKE, and presents substantial
challenges to properly secure the larger ship during rough sea
conditions.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative. Through the EIS analysis,
the West Extension Alternative was found to be the environmentally
preferable alternative of the alternatives that met the purpose and
need of the proposed action and operational requirements. As described
in the FEIS, the West Extension Alternative would have the same or
similar impacts as the East-West Extension Alternative in most
environmental resource areas analyzed in the EIS, with the following
exceptions. The West Extension Alternative would result in fewer
adverse impacts than the East-West Extension Alternative on: (1) Marine
benthic habitats, specifically coral reef resources (smaller structural
and sedimentation impact footprints, resulting in fewer ecological
services lost); (2) Essential Fish Habitat (shorter duration of
construction period impacts); and (3) land or water use constraints
resulting from the variations in the wharf's ESQD arcs (East-West
Extension Alternative ESQD arcs encumber 17 additional Navy family
housing units and one additional dive/marine recreational site compared
to the West Extension Alternative).
Decision: After considering the potential environmental
consequences of the operationally viable alternatives (West Extension
Alternative and East-West Extension Alternative), and the No Action
Alternative, the Navy has decided to implement the preferred
alternative (West Extension Alternative) and extend Kilo Wharf 400 ft
[122 m] to the west.
Environmental Impacts. In the EIS, the Navy analyzed the
environmental impacts that could occur as a result of implementing each
of the alternatives, as well as the No-Action Alternative. Chapter 4 of
the FEIS provides a detailed discussion of impacts and mitigation
measures. This ROD, however, focuses on the impacts associated with the
West Extension Alternative.
Physical Environment: Construction period dredging associated with
the West Extension Alternative would generate total suspended sediment
loads that temporarily exceed Guam Water Quality Standards for marine
waters, but are anticipated to return to background levels rapidly
after cessation of dredging. BMPs to avoid or minimize water quality
impacts as described in Section 4.2.6.4 of the FEIS will be
implemented. BMPs will include appropriate use of silt curtains,
disposal of dredged materials at approved disposal sites, and water
quality monitoring.
The construction contractor will prepare a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Storm Water Notice of Intent before work
commences. The SWPPP will meet the Guam Environmental Protection Agency
(GEPA) general permit requirements for storm water discharges from
construction sites and select applicable BMPs. During the operational
period, Kilo Wharf will be covered under a multi-sector general permit,
which controls industrial discharges.
No adverse operational period impacts to marine water quality are
expected.
Biological Resources: The West Extension Alternative would have
unavoidable adverse impacts to approximately 4.75 acres (ac) (1.92
hectares [ha]) of benthic habitat, including about 0.39 ac (0.16 ha) of
high density live coral cover (i.e., ``coral reef communities''). This
area of marine benthic habitat provides ecological services that would
unavoidably be affected due to structural impacts from construction
dredging and fill. Dredging-related sediment plumes have the potential
to adversely affect marine habitats. The affected areas would be
localized around the dredging site and primarily affect marine habitats
with low coral cover. Sediment transport computer modeling indicated
that the West Extension Alternative could generate adverse
sedimentation levels potentially affecting about 1.69 ac (0.68
[[Page 1604]]
ha) to 14.88 ac (6.02 ha) of benthic habitat, including about 0.14 ac
(0.06 ha) to 0.72 ac (0.29 ha) of coral reef communities, over the
course of the dredging period, depending on dredging rate and
environmental conditions present.
There would be adverse impacts to coral reef biota due to the
general loss of ecological services, including non-motile species
within the construction impact area. The West Extension Alternative
would pose low potential for adverse effects on overall coral
reproduction in the region of influence, since the Navy will comply
with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit conditions requiring
that it avoid dredging activities during the peak spawning event on
Guam, which is seven to ten days after the full moon in July, in
consultation with Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources.
Construction BMPs described in Section 4.3.1.1 of the FEIS will be
implemented to minimize impacts on the coral reef communities.
No adverse impacts on Federal- or Territory-listed protected
species or sensitive environments are expected during construction or
operation. The Navy conducted informal consultation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries
Service (NOAA Fisheries) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). The Navy determined that although threatened or endangered
species (i.e., sea turtles) may be affected by the West Extension
Alternative, they are not likely to be adversely affected. By letter
dated 29 June 2007, NOAA Fisheries concurred with the Navy's
determination (Appendix N of FEIS). The Navy will implement
construction period BMPs to minimize the potential for adverse effects
on sea turtles, as described in Section 4.3.3.1 of the FEIS.
The Navy initiated formal Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation
24 April 2007. The Navy concluded that the West Extension Alternative
would have temporary adverse impacts on motile Fishery Management Plan
species, eggs, and larvae due to dredging and in-water construction.
NOAA Fisheries reviewed the EFH assessment and provided conservation
recommendations dated 4 June 2007. The Navy supports the conservation
recommendations provided 15 June 2007 with the following clarification:
(1) The preferred mitigation is the Cetti Bay watershed reforestation;
(2) success of the preferred mitigation will include performance
measures with input from resource agencies; (3) dredging will be
avoided during the peak coral spawning (seven to ten days after the
July full moon); and (4) BMPs will be utilized to minimize impacts to
corals. NOAA Fisheries conservation recommendations are addressed in
the FEIS. The Navy's EFH assessment and correspondence with NOAA
Fisheries are included in Appendix M of the FEIS.
No adverse operational period impacts to the biological environment
are anticipated from implementation of the West Extension Alternative.
Ship berthing and unberthing procedures would be similar to that of the
No Action Alternative and would continue with or without the wharf
extension.
Social and Economic Environment: The West Extension Alternative
would not increase the number of family housing units or dive sites
encumbered by the ESQD arcs above the No Action Alternative levels.
Cultural Resources: No impacts to cultural resources are expected.
Guam State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with the
Navy's determination of ``no historic properties affected'' (See
Appendix O of FEIS for correspondence with Guam SHPO).
The West Extension Alternative presents no significant impacts to
climate and air quality; geology, seismology, soils and marine
sediments; ambient noise; physical oceanography; groundwater quality;
invasive species; terrestrial flora and fauna; aesthetics/visual
environment; economics; social and demographic factors; infrastructure
and services; and hazardous and regulated materials and waste.
Mitigation Measures. The Navy will implement BMPs during
construction and operation of the West Extension Alternative to avoid
or minimize adverse environmental impacts. Because the West Extension
Alternative will result in unavoidable adverse environmental impacts,
primarily to the marine environment, the Navy will also fund or
implement compensatory mitigation to provide substitute resources or
environments for those ecological services expected to be lost.
In coordination with Federal and Government of Guam (GOVGUAM)
resource agencies, the habitat equivalency analysis (HEA) process was
used to estimate the spatial and temporal ecological service losses to
marine benthic habitats resulting from the West Extension Alternative
and identify appropriate levels of mitigation to compensate for the
losses. Independent but coordinated HEA analyses were conducted by both
the resource agencies and the Navy.
Findings from both HEAs indicated similar levels of ecological
services lost for the West Extension Alternative: the resource agency
HEA estimated losses of 102 acre-years and the Navy estimated 116 acre-
years of lost ecological services in its HEA. The HEA resulted in 102-
116 acre-years.
Selection, scaling and implementation of appropriate compensatory
mitigation actions are being carried out in consultation with USACE,
NOAA Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), USEPA, and
GOVGUAM resource agencies. A USACE permit would be required for the
West Extension Alternative for alteration of navigable waters and
discharge of fill material into the water (caisson and construction
mooring islands). This permit is the vehicle through which compensatory
mitigation would be implemented. The Navy has coordinated with the
resource agencies to develop a Mitigation Plan to satisfactorily meet
the USACE permit requirements. The Navy and resource agencies have
agreed on the general concepts of the Mitigation Plan.
Before, during, and after construction, additional data would be
collected on physical, chemical and biological factors in the vicinity
of the construction project and used in post-construction monitoring
and analysis. The Navy is developing the details of this monitoring
plan, which will be submitted in the USACE permit process.
Preferred Mitigation. The Cetti Bay watershed reforestation project
is the Navy's preferred mitigation action. It was proposed by GOVGUAM
based on HEA principles (i.e., identifying lost ecological services to
be replaced). Although there is no direct correlation between the
number of lost acre years of coral and number of acres to be reforested
as compensatory mitigation, a mutual consensus was reached between Navy
and GOVGUAM that the Cetti Bay watershed reforestation project will
consist of reforestation of up to 500 ac (202 ha) of savanna grasslands
and/or badlands within the Cetti Bay watershed, located on the
southwestern coast of Guam, approximately 9 miles (14.4 kilometers)
south of Apra Harbor. As stated in the Guam Department of Agriculture
(GDOAG) reforestation plan, the bay's coral reef resources have been
heavily degraded over the past few decades. One of the factors is
believed to be upland erosion caused primarily by road construction,
wildland fires, and feral ungulates (unrelated to Navy activities).
Reforestation of the savanna grasslands and/or badlands within the
Cetti Bay Watershed will reduce terrigenous sediment loads entering
Cetti Bay, thereby improving water quality. This may have an indirect
beneficial effect on the coral reef habitat
[[Page 1605]]
in the receiving waters. Reducing sediment flow is intended to support
and enhance the terrestrial and marine ecosystems, including fish and
wildlife habitat within Cetti Bay and the Cetti Bay watershed. The
following provides examples of the actions included in the
reforestation project: (1) Conversion of savanna grasslands and/or
badlands to forest lands around Cetti Bay; (2) reforestation of the
area's badlands; (3) fencing of identified reforested areas to provide
ungulate control; and (4) implementation of erosion BMPs.
Performance standards for the Cetti Bay reforestation projects will
not be tied to coral health improvement. Coral health monitoring
conducted in Cetti Bay will not trigger a requirement for additional
Navy mitigation action.
GDOAG will be responsible for the implementation and long term
management of the reforestation projects. A cooperative agreement
between the Navy and GDOAG will be executed to authorize the transfer
of Navy funds to GDOAG; therefore an appropriate real estate agreement
between the Navy and GOVGUAM is required for the Cetti Bay parcel Lot
No. 275, which is the area that will be reforested. The Navy will fund
a third party contractor to conduct the terrestrial and marine
monitoring at Cetti Bay as prescribed in the Mitigation Plan.
The USACE's Permit mitigation procedures call for identification of
a contingency mitigation project. The USACE permit would identify
specific requirements associated with the preferred mitigation;
however, failure to meet the requirements would trigger implementation
of the contingency mitigation. An example of such a requirement would
be that GOVGUAM provides real estate protection in perpetuity to the
Cetti Bay mitigation site as described in USACE's DEIS comment letter
in Appendix B-4 of the FEIS. Accordingly, the Navy, with USACE support,
identified a contingency mitigation plan.
Contingency Mitigation. The contingency mitigation plan consists of
four components: Ordnance Annex Watershed Afforestation; Outer Apra
Harbor Deep Water Substrate; Coral Reef Ecosystem Protection at Orote
Point Ecological Reserve Area (ERA); and Shallow Water Reef
Enhancement. Should it be required, by the USACE, to implement the
contingency mitigation plan, all four of the components would be
implemented. The deep water substrate component alone would provide
levels of ecological services equivalent to the estimated acre-year
losses. Therefore, the combined actions would provide benefits that
would more than offset the estimated ecological service losses due to
the West Extension Alternative.
Ordnance Annex Watershed Afforestation. The Navy will conduct
watershed afforestation of approximately 150 ac (60 ha) of savanna
grassland vegetation in approximately 50 ac increments over a 3-year
period within the northeastern portion of the Navy's Ordnance Annex.
Afforestation will help reduce excessive terrigenous sediment loads
entering Talofofo Bay, thereby improve water quality and support and
enhance the terrestrial and marine ecosystems. This may have an
indirect beneficial effect on coral reef habitat in the Bay.
Outer Apra Harbor Deep Water Substrate. The Navy will place
concrete or limestone block substrate in specific locations in Outer
Apra Harbor to offset habitat losses from implementation of the West
Extension Alternative. Four sites (Glass Breakwater, Kilo Wharf, San
Luis Beach, and Sasa Bay) have been evaluated as candidate deep water
substrate sites. The substrate will increase overall biomass and
provide new benthic habitat. This mitigation component has been scaled
such that if it were to be the sole mitigation project implemented, it
would fully offset the ecological services lost due to the West
Extension Alternative.
Coral Reef Ecosystem Protection at Orote Point ERA. The Navy will
expand the Orote ERA Area Marine Unit to include approximately 80 ac
(32 ha) of Navy-owned submerged lands around Orote Point to Adotgan
Point area, and approximately 32 acres (13 ha) of the Terrestrial Unit
including the beaches and limestone forest area inland from the Marine
Unit. The expanded Marine Unit would include shallow water benthic
habitat around Orote Point that contains both hard and soft corals. The
Navy will modify the management plan for the Orote ERA to restrict
fishing and other types of consumptive activities that could
potentially adversely affect EFH.
Shallow Water Reef Enhancement. The Navy will transplant corals
that would be directly impacted by the wharf extension to several new
sites on Navy submerged lands in Outer Apra Harbor. Navy will enter
into an agreement with a qualified organization to physically move and
transplant as much live coral as feasible to sites on Navy-owned lands.
Project will focus on transplanting large specimens. A detailed
transplanting plan will be prepared which will include methods for
moving large colonies, techniques for stabilizing colonies at the
transplant sites, and a monitoring protocol.
Since the contingency mitigation projects would take place wholly
within Navy lands (including submerged lands), the Navy would be
responsible for their monitoring and maintenance.
Agency Consultation and Coordination: The Navy consulted and
coordinated with Federal and GOVGUAM resource agencies regarding: (1)
ESA Section 7 consultation with NOAA Fisheries; (2) Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act consultation with NOAA
Fisheries; (3) Section 106 consultation under the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 with the Guam SHPO; and (4) Coastal Zone
Management Act consistency determination with GOVGUAM Bureau of
Statistics and Plans (BSP). Correspondence relating to these
consultations is found in Appendices M, N, O and P of the FEIS. In
addition, the Navy invited three Federal agencies to be cooperating
agencies in the preparation of the EIS: USACE, NOAA Fisheries, and
USFWS. Of the three agencies, only the USACE agreed to be a cooperating
agency. Appendix A of the FEIS contains correspondence with USACE and
the other Federal agencies invited to be cooperating agencies.
The FEIS includes an evaluation of potential impacts of
implementing the preferred and contingency mitigation projects. In
general, the watershed mitigation projects would have a beneficial
effect on the environment by reducing erosion and sediment loading in
surface and nearshore waters, thereby improving water quality. This may
have an indirect beneficial effect on coral reef habitats in the
receiving waters. The contingency mitigation projects would have direct
beneficial effects on the marine environment either through habitat
replacement (Deep Water Substrate and Shallow Water Reef Enhancement)
or conservation (Orote ERA Expansion). The preferred and contingency
mitigation projects would not adversely affect protected species or
historic or cultural sites and, overall, would have beneficial effects
on Guam's coastal management zone. GOVGUAM BSP concurred with the
Navy's consistency determination that the proposed action and
associated mitigation actions would be consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable policies of Guam's approved Coastal
Management Program.
Responses To Comments Received On the FEIS: Four Federal agencies
(USACE, USEPA, NOAA Fisheries, USFWS), three GOVGUAM agencies (GDOAG,
GEPA, BSP), one organization
[[Page 1606]]
(The Nature Conservancy [TNC]) and a single commenter provided comment
letters. Substantive comments are addressed below by topic.
Purpose and Need: Alternatives: NOAA Fisheries recommended
reconciling inconsistencies in justifying the purpose and need for the
proposed action and suggested that the descriptions of the No Action
Alternative were inadequate for full evaluation. USFWS commented that
the project's purpose and need do not support the proposed action.
GDOAG and TNC commented that the proposed action is not economically
justified.
The FEIS states that the No Action Alternative would not achieve
the project objectives and COMNAVREGMARIANAS would not meet its mission
to provide adequate waterfront facilities to replenish U.S. Fifth and
Seventh Fleets. The FEIS explains that the action is needed because
Kilo Wharf is inadequate to support the T-AKE and there are no other
suitable facilities on Guam. The FEIS also states that although the No
Action Alternative does not meet project objectives and is considered
operationally unacceptable (for reasons described in the FEIS and
earlier in this ROD), it provides a baseline to evaluate effects of the
West Extension Alternative and East-West Extension Alternative. The
decision to proceed with a proposed action is not made solely upon
economic justification. Environmental, economic, and other factors were
considered along with the operational need for the wharf extension in
the decision-making process.
Compensatory Mitigation. USACE identified the required contents of
the Navy's mitigation plan, which will be submitted in conjunction with
the project's necessary Department of the Army permit. USEPA commented
that the monitoring would be underfunded and not enable measurements of
success. The Navy is coordinating with the resource agencies to develop
a Mitigation Plan that will satisfy USACE mitigation and monitoring
requirements. The Mitigation Plan will be submitted with the permit
application package.
USEPA, GDOAG, and GEPA expressed concern over the Navy's timetable
for reaching an acceptable agreement with the resource agencies on the
preferred Cetti Bay watershed mitigation and questioned the Navy's
commitment to this project. TNC commented that the Cetti Bay watershed
mitigation is the only acceptable mitigation option. The Navy's
preferred mitigation is the Cetti Watershed reforestation. The Navy and
resource agencies have agreed on the general concepts of the Cetti
Watershed reforestation plan to be submitted during the permitting
process.
USEPA, NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, GDOAG, and BSP expressed concerns
over the adequacy of the Navy's contingency mitigation plan to offset
lost ecological impacts. USFWS requested agency coordination if the
contingency mitigation had to be implemented. Commenters requested that
the Navy implement the Ordnance Annex afforestation (BSP, TNC), Orote
ERA expansion (TNC), and coral transplantation (BSP, TNC) either as
part of its natural resources management stewardship or as a BMP and
not as compensatory mitigation. BSP requested that the Navy discuss the
Orote ERA expansion with resource agencies to resolve concerns about
the imposition of planned fishing restrictions associated with the
expansion.
The contingency mitigation plan is not the Navy's preferred
mitigation, and would only be implemented if the preferred Cetti Bay
watershed reforestation project does not proceed. It was developed in
compliance with the USACE, whose mitigation requirements necessitate a
contingency mitigation plan in the event the preferred plan is not
implementable in accordance with USACE guidelines. The FEIS provides
the rationale for each of the contingency mitigation components and
describes their likely benefits to the environment. The deep water
substrate component has been scaled such that if it were to be the sole
mitigation project implemented, it would fully offset the ecological
services lost due to the West Extension Alternative; the other three
contingency mitigation components would provide additional ecological
benefits. The Navy presented its contingency mitigation plan for
resource agency comment prior to publication of the FEIS. Although the
resource agencies indicated they did not support creation of artificial
substrate, they did not provide alternatives for consideration. In its
DEIS comment letter of 23 April 2007, the USACE stated that introducing
deep water substrate at more than one location within Apra Harbor would
``provide appropriate substrate that would rapidly be colonized by
Porites, macro-algae, and other organisms similar to those found in the
deeper areas on the impacted site, and thereby provide perpetual reef
habitat.'' Access to the Orote ERA is already restricted by its
location within an active Navy base and ordnance handling activities in
Kilo Wharf; therefore, any fishing restriction within the ERA will be
enforced because of security and safety issues.
Marine Biological Environment-Existing Environment. Commenters
questioned the Navy's benthic habitat mapping methodology (NOAA
Fisheries) and its characterization of certain benthic habitats and
resources (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS); claimed that the Navy too narrowly
defined the coral reef community (NOAA Fisheries; GDOAG) and
undervalued the affected marine habitats (NOAA Fisheries); requested
the analysis incorporate more of the resource agencies' survey data in
describing the affected marine resources (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS);
suggested a correction to the table comparing resource agency and Navy
quantitative coral data (USFWS); commented that the FEIS does not
provide an analysis of coral reef resources at Kilo Wharf in terms of
contributions (e.g., reproduction, genetic diversity, future survival)
to other coral reef resources within Apra Harbor (USFWS); and objected
to the representation of the resource agencies' marine biological
assessment in the FEIS (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS).
The Navy's benthic habitat mapping methodologies were derived from
the scientific literature and are described in the relevant studies,
which were provided to the resource agencies prior to their in-water
surveys and prior to inclusion in the DEIS. The EIS discusses the
objectives and limitations of various approaches to assessing and
characterizing benthic habitat data. The result of both methodologies
utilized resulted in very close HEA results in acre-years. While all
details of the technical reports (in the Appendices) are not reiterated
in the FEIS, an adequate amount of information is presented to support
the overall conclusions. The FEIS discussion of the resource agencies'
assessment was not intended to undermine or criticize the data
presented or methods employed. The purpose was to provide a general
summary of the resource agencies' methods and findings, with attention
to similarities and differences between the Navy and resource agency
studies. FEIS reviewers were also encouraged to review the full reports
appended to the FEIS. Despite the different approaches used to gather
and present existing conditions data, the conclusions reached were
similar. The resource agencies' and Navy's HEA projections of lost
ecological services at Kilo Wharf were similar.
The FEIS describes the other (non-coral) components of coral reef
benthic community and states that all the habitats provide ecological
services. The
[[Page 1607]]
FEIS does explore the affected habitats; the results of the resource
agencies' impact analysis and HEA are referenced and summarized in the
FEIS text and received full evaluation. Complete reports are included
as appendices. Both HEA results included estimates of the range of
ecological services lost on all potentially impacted marine benthic
habitats. The Navy is committed to providing full compensatory
mitigation to offset lost ecological services estimated by the resource
agencies' HEA.
Although it would not affect the analysis or findings of the FEIS,
Table 3-9 should have been entitled ``Comparison of Coral Cover by
Resource Agency and Navy Zones'' to avoid confusion.
The Navy recognizes that more than one approach may be employed to
gather and present existing conditions data and to predict marine
habitat impacts. It is currently working with Federal resource agencies
to establish data gathering and pre- and post-construction monitoring
protocols for future Navy projects (e.g., NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem
Division-sponsored Guam Monitoring Protocols Workshop held in December
2007).
Marine Biological Environment-Environmental Consequences.
Commenters questioned the findings of the sediment transport numerical
model and associated sedimentation impact analysis (NOAA Fisheries,
USFWS) and its threshold values for impacts (USFWS); requested
clarification of BMPs for silt curtains, a definition of ``sensitive
coral habitat'' in a BMP, and modification of a BMP to ensure that
control measures are in place and functioning properly throughout each
work shift (NOAA Fisheries); raised the issue of impacts from the
release of sediment-entrained metals into the water column (NOAA
Fisheries); commented that the construction period (GDOAG) and
operational impacts of tugboats on benthic habitats were not considered
(NOAA Fisheries); recommended use of coral densities and sizes rather
than coral cover in the analysis (NOAA Fisheries); objected to the
analysis of coral spawning and recruitment impacts (NOAA Fisheries,
USFWS, GDOAG, BSP, TNC) and suggested that suspension of dredging
operations should occur over an expanded timeframe (BSP, TNC);
questioned the water chemistry study methodology (NOAA Fisheries;
GEPA); raised the issue of the lack of nighttime surveys for mobile
invertebrates (NOAA Fisheries); disagreed with the impact analysis for
the loss of vertical slope (GEPA); requested reevaluation of indirect
long-term adverse impacts (GDOAG); requested compliance with stormwater
BMPs in CNMI and Guam Stormwater Management Manual (GEPA); expressed
concern that the FEIS minimizes impacts by considering only high coral
cover areas (NOAA Fisheries, TNC); and requested that the impact
analysis should include habitat types with little or no live coral
coverage (TNC).
The water current data sampling period and meter placement provided
the necessary information for the sediment transport model, including
surface water movement. Wave effects are important only in shallow
water and would likely inhibit sediment deposition through increased
water motion. The study adopted a conservative (i.e., ``worst case'')
strategy by not including these effects in the model. Because the
harbor floor, as well as cover of the reef flats, consists of sediment
similar to dredging-related sediments, once the dredging-related
sediment is dispersed by currents, there is likely to be no difference
in the sedimentation impacts compared to the present situation. The
marine ecosystem impact analysis prepared for the EIS included a
thorough review of the existing scientific literature of sedimentation
impacts to coral, and used a conservative threshold value to estimate
impacts. The Navy reviewed an article on ``marine snow'' cited in the
USFWS comments for relevance to the potential sedimentation impacts to
corals. The Navy concluded that because riverine muds and high nutrient
water (which were key factors in the experiment reported in the
article) are not components in the Kilo Wharf setting, the article's
findings do not warrant the examination of lower threshold dredging-
related sedimentation concentrations on coral reefs. In spite of the
diverging views on the Navy's sediment transport modeling and
associated impacts, the FEIS included the conclusions of the resource
agencies' impact assessment and HEA, which included their projections
of sedimentation effects on benthic organisms.
BMPs to avoid or minimize water quality impacts and impacts to
coral reef habitats during construction are discussed in the FEIS. BMPs
that will be required as conditions to the USACE permit will be
addressed in the Mitigation Plan through the permitting process.
The FEIS lists metals that were reported in sediment tested at the
project site, and also reports that they were reported at
concentrations below the ER-L (effects range low). The text further
states that these metals are likely to adhere to sediment which will
resettle with the sediment rather than be released into the water
column. Since the concentrations were below ER-L, these conditions are
not elevated above what would be considered normal levels. In addition,
these sediments presently exist in the harbor, therefore, any effect to
fish or invertebrates would already be occurring. Presently, there are
no documented indications that the metal concentrations would lead to
blooms. As storm events resuspend sediments normally, any effects would
be part of ongoing processes.
The FEIS discusses potential operational period impacts of tug
boats in Section 4.3.1.1. Tug boat operations were not addressed in the
construction period impact analysis because they are not considered a
new activity related to construction. Tug boats already operate on an
ongoing basis at the wharf, supporting ships far larger than a dredging
construction barge.
The FEIS addressed the varying methods and included the resource
agencies' survey in its entirety as an appendix in the interest of full
disclosure.
The FEIS provides rationale for the conclusion that the project
dredging is not likely to have adverse or significant direct or
indirect impacts on the long-term reproductive potential and structure
of the coral community in Apra Harbor. The consideration of the effects
of sedimentation to corals was based on the resource agencies' species
list and not on percent live coral in order to make all corals that
were noted to occur essentially equal in terms of spawning potential.
To further reduce potential adverse impacts, the Navy has committed to
avoid dredging activities during the peak coral spawning period on Guam
(seven to ten days after the full moon in July in consultation with
GDAWR) in accordance with U.S. Coral Reef Task Force guidance and USACE
permit conditions.
While replicate water chemistry sampling would have provided
additional information on seasonal variations, the baseline water
chemistry study results showed that the waters in the vicinity of the
wharf are basically oceanic with a small indication of effect from
draining of inner harbor water seaward, and water moving from land
toward the center of the harbor. The Navy will implement a water
quality monitoring plan, which will include a pre-construction
component, as well as control stations. The Navy will also comply with
the conditions of USACE permits required for the project.
[[Page 1608]]
Nighttime surveys for benthic invertebrates may have produced
higher counts. However, the FEIS summarized the results of the resource
agency-prepared marine benthic impact analysis and levels of
corresponding compensatory mitigation, which the Navy has agreed to
implement or fund. The HEA process, which both the Navy and resource
agencies utilized, accounts for habitat or ecosystem losses which would
include the broad matrix of marine flora and fauna associated with the
underlying coral reef resource.
The FEIS notes that the loss of the vertical wall created by the
original Kilo Wharf construction dredging would be replaced by similar,
hard vertical substrate. The construction mooring island was not
considered as part of the mitigation for ecological services lost,
although it too would provide vertical substrate. Habitat removed or
covered by both the construction mooring island and new shore
protection was factored into the acre-year loss estimates for which the
Navy will implement or fund compensatory mitigation.
The EIS states that should sedimentation effects occur, the
affected habitats are able to recover over time when the stressor is
removed, although species composition may be affected. This is
evidenced by the healthy condition of the coral reefs that were
adversely affected by sedimentation from the original Kilo Wharf
construction (i.e., west and east of the existing wharf). Reevaluation
of indirect long-term adverse impacts is not necessary because the FEIS
reports the results of the resource agencies' impact analysis and HEA.
These results considered the resource agencies' estimated sedimentation
effects west of the project area, extending to Orote Island.
The Navy will consider the recommendations of the CNMI and Guam
Stormwater Management Manual after a final report is issued. The Navy
will comply with its NPDES permit regulations regarding stormwater
runoff at the expanded wharf.
The ecological services lost estimated in both the Navy and
resource agency HEAs accounted for all habitat types impacted and not
only those with high coral cover. The Navy will fund or implement
mitigation commensurate with the total lost ecological services (both
spatial and temporal) identified by the resource agencies. The Cetti
Bay watershed reforestation is the Navy's preferred mitigation. The
Navy is working collaboratively with the resource agencies on the
details of the preferred mitigation plan.
Cumulative Impacts. Commenters requested expanded analysis of
cumulative effects of dredging on coral spawning in Apra Harbor (NOAA
Fisheries); commented on the adequacy of cumulative impact analysis
(NOAA Fisheries; TNC) and quantified data on the historical coral reef
resources in Apra Harbor (NOAA Fisheries); requested the addition of a
table containing the amount of actual direct and indirect impacts on
coral reef communities and land/water use (GDOAG); and commented that
the analysis should be considered in the context of reef decline
worldwide, U.S. and on Guam (BSP).
The FEIS described the likely effects of in-water construction on
coral spawning and subsequent recruitment of planulae to the coral
community within the region of influence (ROI). The analysis included
evaluation of the spatial extent of potentially affected habitat;
likely coral species to be affected, the susceptibility of their
spawning characteristics to the effects of sedimentation, and overall
sedimentation tolerance levels; and, based on analyses of these
factors, concluded that there is little potential for sedimentation
effects (if they occur) to have a negative impact on overall coral
reproduction in Apra Harbor--both for areas that support live coral and
also in those that do not.
The FEIS cumulative impact assessment provides a sound
characterization of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future
actions in accordance with CEQ guidance. The absence of historical
records on coral reef communities makes quantification of coral reef
conditions in the post-WWII era speculative. The FEIS cumulative
impacts analysis describes available pertinent information on past,
present and future projects and therefore addition of a new table would
not increase available data. The FEIS defines the ROI for cumulative
impacts to coral reef communities as Inner and Outer Apra Harbor
because this area represents the likely extent of the Kilo Wharf
project's potential to contribute collective impacts.
Miscellaneous Comments. There were numerous miscellaneous comments,
including, but not limited to: comment that FEIS lacks information to
evaluate finding of ``no adverse impact to geological features'' (NOAA
Fisheries); GDOAG commented that a GDOAG permit is required for removal
of coral; resource agencies requesting involvement in the Navy's ROD
development (USEPA, NOAA Fisheries, USFWS); objections to the adequacy
of the FEIS (USFWS, GDOAG), including its description of the existing
environment/lack of incorporation of resource agency data (USFWS),
environmental consequences (USFWS), and the Navy's lack of commitment
to adequate compensatory mitigation (USFWS, GEPA). GDOAG commented that
the FEIS lacked sufficient information and recommended development of a
supplemental EIS. Commenters stated that the economic value of the Kilo
Wharf coral reefs cited in the FEIS represent an incomplete valuation
of impacted resources and are misleading (USFWS); objected to the
FEIS's characterization of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
consistency concurrence for the contingency mitigation actions (BSP);
requested clarification on impacts to resident seabirds (GEPA);
requested ciguatera sampling of representative fishes (GEPA); requested
discussion of Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (GEPA); stated that
the Navy needs to consult with GDOAG and federal agencies regarding
lighting specifications to help avoid or minimize potential impacts to
threatened/endangered species due to concern with impacts to sea turtle
nesting from dredging operations, fuel spills at night, and ship wakes
from larger vessels (GDOAG); stated that the FEIS does not sufficiently
describe placement of security and perimeter lighting to determine
potential impacts to nesting and hatchling turtles (GDOAG); commented
that FEIS is unclear on how Navy will address potential invasive
species introductions via hull fouling (TNC); requested expanded
discussion of Guam's water resources from a historical perspective
(single commenter); and provided several factual corrections that do
not affect the overall analysis or mitigation levels (GEPA, TNC).
The permanent removal of the coral reef and placement of fill on
the coral reef flat is addressed in Section 4.2.2.1. The FEIS text in
this section states that this substrate is common in the ROI.
Geologically, the reef flat and reef slope are common in the ROI.
5 GCA Sec. 63602 and Sec. 63603 is not applicable to this project
because the Navy is not commercially harvesting or commercially taking
the coral.
By Navy policy, it does not include other agencies in development
of its RODs.
The FEIS includes the results and full reports of three Navy marine
surveys, a resource agency survey, and a current monitoring/sediment
transport computer modeling study. The FEIS addressed all the comments
provided on the DEIS either in the body of the FEIS
[[Page 1609]]
or in responses included in Appendix B-4 of the FEIS. If there were
topics or conclusions contained in the DEIS that were not commented on
at that time, it was concluded that they were acceptable to the DEIS
reviewers. The FEIS explained that different methods were used in the
resource agency and Navy surveys and analyses and included the resource
agency reports in their entirety for interested readers. The FEIS
summarized the marine habitat impacts prepared by the resource agencies
and their resulting HEA estimates of lost ecological services (i.e.,
acre-year losses). The resource agencies involved in the marine
assessment and impact analysis that formed the basis for the HEA lost
ecological services estimate included both Federal (NOAA Fisheries,
USFWS) and GOVGUAM agencies (GDOAG, GEPA). The Navy has committed to
funding or implementing compensatory mitigation to fully offset the
levels of ecological services calculated by the resource agencies.
Therefore, the Navy considers the level of information and analysis in
the FEIS sufficient and that a supplemental EIS is unwarranted.
The Navy agreed to fund/implement compensatory mitigation to offset
lost ecological services (i.e., a service-to-service approach to
scaling, rather than a valuation approach), commensurate with the HEA
prepared by the resource agencies. The Van Beukering et al. (2007)
study results cited in the FEIS have not been factored into
compensatory mitigation scaling for the Kilo Wharf extension project,
but were included in the EIS to illustrate that there are multiple
approaches to estimating economic impacts of resource losses.
The Navy's completed Guam Coastal Management Program (GCMP)
Assessment (FEIS Appendix P) evaluated the coastal zone consistency of
wharf extension alternatives and the preferred and contingency
mitigation plans. BSP's concurrence letter (5 September 2007) does not
exclude any specific aspects of the Navy's determination or establish
any preconditions for its concurrence.
Orote Island, a recognized habitat for migratory birds, is too far
away and sheltered by Orote Point to be impacted significantly by
existing and proposed activities at Kilo Wharf. Accordingly, the
assessment of Migratory Bird Treaty Act-protected species in the FEIS
is sufficient and additional information on the status of resident
migratory birds at Orote Island is not warranted.
Requests for ciguatera testing were made by GEPA in response to the
DEIS. The Navy responded at that time (response in FEIS Appendix B-4 to
DEIS comment T.4.7), the link between the incidence of reported cases
of ciguatera and the occurrence of ``new'' surfaces underwater (as
occurs with construction) has not been demonstrated, thus the need for
such a monitoring program is not warranted. Furthermore, commercially
available ciguatera test kits yield numerous false positives and could
lead to a very inaccurate picture of conditions in a given area and
whether there were increases in ciguatera incidence with the
construction of the wharf.
The FEIS (Sections 3.3.3, 4.3.2.1) notes that marine mammals are
uncommon in Apra Harbor, including the Kilo Wharf vicinity. Because of
this, the FEIS concludes that there is little potential for adverse
construction noise impacts on these species (Sec. 4.3.2.1). Therefore,
there is little potential for ``taking'' of marine mammals protected
under the MMPA.
The FEIS includes sufficient information to analyze potential
impacts to sea turtles (e.g., description of new security floodlighting
illumination power, general location of new lighting, site plan of the
wharf extension and new access road). As described in both the DEIS and
FEIS, there is no evidence in literature or from field survey that sea
turtles have nested at the beaches at either end of Kilo Wharf, both
recently and at the time of the original wharf construction. FEIS Sec.
4.3.3.1 describes potential construction period impacts on threatened
and endangered species as well as BMPs that will be implemented during
the construction period, which address both noise/light impacts and
fuel spills. FEIS Section 4.3.3.2 concludes that none of the
alternatives would impact threatened, endangered or protected marine
species during the operational period, and that the operational and
security lighting on the wharf will be at a lower illumination level
than what is currently used on the wharf. There is little potential for
wakes from T-AKE ships entering Apra Harbor to impact turtle nesting
beaches since ships preparing to berth at Kilo Wharf enter the harbor
at much slower speeds than ships heading for the commercial port or
Inner Apra Harbor. The FEIS also notes that NOAA Fisheries concurred
with Navy's informal Section 7 consultation determination that effects
on sea turtles would be insignificant and never reach the scale where
take occurs.
The Navy follows much stricter ballast water and hull cleaning
procedures than most, if not all, the commercial and private vessels
that use Apra Harbor. Since ships would berth in Apra Harbor and at
Kilo Wharf with or without the project, the proposed wharf extension
would have no effect on marine introductions related to hull fouling,
and thus, was not specifically addressed in the FEIS.
Because the project does not have the potential to significantly
affect Guam's water resources, a comprehensive discussion of Guam's
water resources history is not warranted in the EIS.
Summary: In determining how to provide adequate berthing for the T-
AKE class of ammunition ship at AHNC, Guam, Mariana Islands, I
considered impacts to the following areas: physical environment, land
and water use, the social and economic environment, infrastructure and
services, cultural resources, hazardous and regulated materials and
waste, and biological resources. I have taken into consideration the
Navy's consultation with the NOAA Fisheries regarding endangered
species and EFH, and the Guam SHPO regarding cultural resources. I have
considered the comments sent to the Navy by Federal and Territorial
resource agencies, other Federal and Territorial government agencies,
and the public. I have considered the preferred and contingency
mitigation projects. After carefully weighing all of these factors, I
have determined that the West Extension Alternative, extension of Kilo
Wharf by 400 ft (122 m) to the west, will best meet the needs of the
Navy while also minimizing the environmental impacts associated with
providing suitable facilities on Guam to accommodate the new class of
ship.
Dated: December 20, 2007.
BJ Penn,
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment).
[FR Doc. E8-103 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P