Navy Submarine EM/TEMPEST Falsification Facility

7/29/2019 Navy Submarine EM/TEMPEST Falsification Facility

1/274

Draft Environmental Assessmentfor the Construction and Operationof an Electromagnetic Measurement

Ranging System in Hood Canal

Silverdale, WashingtonNorth of Naval Base Kitsap Bangor

February 2013Draft

Prepared by:

United States Department of the NavyNaval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest

Silverdale, Washington


2/274

Page Intentionally Left Blank


3/274

Draft Environmental Assessment for the

Construction and Operation of an Electromagnetic MeasurementRanging System in Hood Canal North of Naval Base Kitsap Bangor


February 2013

Prepared by

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Naval Facilities Engineering Command NorthwestSilverdale, Washington


4/274



5/274

Electromagnetic Measurement Ranging System Draft EA

iii February 2013

123

Lead Agency: United States Department of the Navy456

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR7CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN ELECTROMAGNETIC MEASUREMENT8

RANGING SYSTEM IN HOOD CANAL NORTH OF9NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR10SILVERDALE, WASHINGTON11

12FEBRUARY 201313

1415

ABSTRACT16

This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates potential environmental effects of constructing17

and operating an electromagnetic measurement ranging (EMMR) system in Hood Canal north of18Naval Base Kitsap Bangor. The EMMR system involves installation of a sensor array system,19offshore platform, cable, and aid to navigation. During operations, a submarine utilizing the20EMMR system would detour from the existing submarine transit route in Hood Canal to the21sensor array; the sensor array would measure the electromagnetic signature of the submarine in22order to re-calibrate onboard equipment. The Proposed Action would construct and operate an23EMMR system on Naval Base Kitsap Bangor lands and adjacent waters in Hood Canal. This EA24analyzes two action alternatives and the no-action alternative. The purpose of the Proposed25Action is to provide the Navy with the capability to measure the electromagnetic signatures of26submarines in the northwestern continental United States. The Proposed Action is needed to27ensure that submarines meet their magnetic signature requirements.28

29Resource areas reviewed in the document include: marine physical environment; noise;30terrestrial and marine biological resources; land use, recreation and aesthetics; socioeconomics,31environmental justice, and childrens health and safety; cultural resources; American Indian32traditional resources; air quality; marine navigation; and public health and safety. With33implementation of standard operating procedures, best management practices, and mitigation34measures, the environmental impacts on these resource areas would be less than significant.35

For further information, please contact:3637

Navy EMMR System EA Team38NAVFAC Northwest39

1101 Tautog Circle, Room 20340Silverdale, WA 9831541

42


6/274


iv February 2013

12345

6789

1011121314

Page Intentionally Left Blank15


7/274


v February 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1

2This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated3with constructing and operating an electromagnetic measurement ranging (EMMR) system in4Hood Canal north of Naval Base (NAVBASE) Kitsap Bangor. This EA was prepared by the5

United States Department of the Navy (Navy) in accordance with the National Environmental6Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code 4321, et seq.), as implemented by the7Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts81500-1508), Navy regulations implementing NEPA (32 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]9775), and the office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST) 5090.1C CH-1,10Navy Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual, of 18 July 2011. The Navy is the11lead agency for the Proposed Action.12

13PURPOSE AND NEED14

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide the Navy with the capability to measure the15

electromagnetic signatures of submarines in the northwestern continental United States. The16 Proposed Action is needed to ensure that submarines meet the magnetic signature requirements17of OPNAVINST C8950.2(x), which requires submarines to perform certain actions to decrease18risk from threats. The Proposed Action would provide the Navy with the capability to measure19the electromagnetic signatures of its submarines homeported at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor and20provide submarines the ability to conduct on-board electromagnetic system calibrations.21

22PUBLIC REVIEW23

In order to facilitate public participation in the NEPA process for this EA, the Navy made a Draft24Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA) available for public review and25comment and conducted a public meeting in August 2012. Comments received on the DOPAA26

were considered by the Navy in the preparation of the Draft EA.2728

Further information is available electronically atwww.emmrea.comand on the Naval Facilities29Engineering Command Northwest website at:30https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/navfac/navfac_ww_pp/navfac_efanw_pp.31

32PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION33

The Proposed Action is located at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, which is located on Hood Canal34approximately 20 miles (32.2 kilometers [km]) west of Seattle, Washington. The Proposed35Action would construct and operate an EMMR system on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor lands and36adjacent waters in Hood Canal. The in-water components would occur in the Hood Canal37

Military Operating Area North, both within and outside the existing Navy Restricted Area38(NRA) of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor (see Figure ES-1). The Proposed Actions in-water39components include a sensor array system (400 by 10 feet [122 by 3 meters (m)]), an offshore40platform (15 by 15 feet [4.5 x 4.5 m]), a cable bundle (1,325 total linear feet [404 m]) connecting41the sensor array to the offshore platform (including 400 feet [122 m] of the cable bundle that is42contained within the sensor array), and a cable (8,118 feet [2,474 m]) connecting the offshore43platform to Building 7801 (located on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor; see Figure ES-2).44Approximately 9,254 feet (2,821 m) of the total cable and cable bundle length would be in-water.45
http://www.emmrea.com/http://www.emmrea.com/http://www.emmrea.com/https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/navfac/navfac_ww_pp/navfac_efanw_pphttps://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/navfac/navfac_ww_pp/navfac_efanw_pphttp://www.emmrea.com/


8/274


vi February 2013

The onshore component would consist of the Aid to Navigation (ATN) light and its associated1corridor and cable (210 feet [64 m]) located on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor north of2Building 7801.3

4During operation, a submarine utilizing the EMMR system would travel along the standard,5

existing submarine transit route in Hood Canal and would briefly detour over the sensor array6 system. Prior to the submarines transit over the sensor array, personnel at the onshore facility7would power on the sensor array system and activate the camera mounted on the offshore8platform. During transit over the sensor array, the sensor array would measure the9electromagnetic signature of the submarine, the camera would record data used to support the10measurements, and the data from the sensor array and camera would be transmitted to the11onshore facility at Building 7801 via the cable. The data received by the EMMR system would12be transmitted to instruments on the submarine to re-calibrate onboard equipment. The13submarine would then re-enter the standard transit route and proceed toward its destination. This14variance from the existing route would take approximately 5 minutes. The EMMR system would15have a combined average monthly use time of 25 minutes (i.e., the EMMR system would be used16

on average approximately five times per month).1718ALTERNATIVES19

This EA considers two action alternatives and a no-action alternative. Both action alternatives20would include cables, an offshore platform junction box, and an in-water sensor array. Seven21additional alternatives were considered but eliminated from further analysis because they did not22fulfill one or more of the screening criteria. Alternatives 1 and 2 feature different cable23installation methods, each of which is summarized below. If the Navy ultimately selects one of24the action alternatives for implementation, regardless of which action alternative is selected,25standard operating procedures, best management practices, and mitigation measures would be26implemented to reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts.27

28Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable Bundle29(Preferred Alternative)30

Buried Sensor Array.Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), the approximately31400-foot (122-m)-long sensor array and corresponding cable bundle would be buried32beneath the canal floor/substrate. The seafloor would be dredged, and 21 sensors would33be buried such that the top of each sensor would be at a minimum depth of approximately344 feet (1.2 m) below the seafloor. The dredged material would be replaced by both non-35magnetic gravel and backfill with a sediment grain size to match existing seafloor36conditions for the top 3 feet (0.9 m).37

Offshore Platform. Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), construction would38include a 15- by 15-foot (4.5- by 4.5-m) offshore platform with utilities, requiring39installation of five 24-inch (61-centimeter [cm]) square, batter pre-cast concrete piles40(one pile for each corner and one in the center of the platform). The center pile would be41vertical/plumb, and the four corner piles would be installed at a 1:12 (horizontal: vertical)42slope toward the center pile. The offshore platform would be located approximately 0.2043mile (0.32 km) from the shoreline. The five piles would be impact driven.44


9/274


vii February 2013

Buried Cable. Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), approximately 1,148 linear1feet (350 m) of the composite cable would be installed by horizontal directional drilling2(HDD) from the onshore launch pit in a gravel parking lot adjacent to the offshore HDD3exit point, where approximately 6,970 linear feet (2,124 m) of cable would be laid to the4offshore platform using a jet plow to bury the cable. Approximately 925 linear feet5

(282 m) of cable bundle from the platform to the sensor array would not be buried but6 would instead be laid on the seafloor and protected with concrete armoring. Concrete7armoring would consist of semi-conical-shaped concrete segments, each with a length of812 feet (3.7 m) and average width of approximately 6 feet (1.8 m).9

Aid to Navigation.Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative),a sector light would be10installed as an ATN for submarines utilizing the EMMR system. The ATN would be11located off Northern Boundary Road, at an elevation of approximately 32 feet above12mean lower low water (MLLW), and would be approximately 6 feet (1.8 m) in height.13

14Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable Bundle15

Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), except cable armoring16would not be used for the 925-linear-foot (282-m) cable bundle from the offshore platform to the17sensor array. Instead, the cable bundle along this length would be installed by jet plow in an18approximately 12-foot-wide (3.7-m) corridor and 4 feet (1.2 m) below the seafloor.19

20Alternative 3: No Action21

Under the no-action alternative, an EMMR system would not be installed. Submarines, including22those homeported at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor, would continue to use EMMR system facilities23located at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, or San Diego, California, and operational inefficiencies would24persist. The Navy has determined that the no-action alternative would not fulfill the purpose and25need for the Proposed Action to provide electromagnetic measurement capability in the26northwest continental United States. This alternative would not comply with the Navys27OPNAVINST C8950.2 (x) magnetic signature periodicity requirements and would not provide28submarines the means to accomplish their on-board electromagnetic system calibrations. The no-29action alternative is carried forward for analysis because it is required by NEPA and constitutes30baseline conditions for environmental analysis of the Proposed Action.31

32Mitigation Measures33

Mitigation measures would be implemented under both action alternatives in order to minimize34environmental impacts. Mitigation measures were developed specifically to address35environmental effects associated with this Proposed Action. Mitigation measures resulted from36

consideration of the Proposed Action and input received from the public, Native American37 tribes, and agencies. Mitigation measures include the following:3839

Marine mammal monitoring during pile-driving;40

Vegetation clearing and re-vegetation plan for the ATN corridor;41

Bird-proofing the ATN and platform to prevent nesting and perching;42


10/274


viii February 2013

Purchase of credits from Hood Canal In-Lieu Fee Program for compensation of aquatic1resources;2

Use of HDD cable installation method through the nearshore and intertidal area to avoid3sensitive resources, including eelgrass;4

Shielding of the navigation hazard light (on platform) in coordination with the U.S. Coast5 Guard; and6

Backfill with a sediment grain size similar to that of existing seafloor conditions.7

8SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS9

This EA evaluates the environmental impacts, both adverse and beneficial, on the quality of the10human environment. This EA describes impacts on the marine physical environment; noise;11terrestrial biological resources; marine biological resources; land use, recreation, and aesthetics;12socioeconomics, environmental justice, and childrens health and safety; cultural resources;13American Indian traditional resources; air quality; marine navigation; and public health and14

safety that could result from implementation of the action alternatives. The potential15environmental impacts are summarized below.16

17Marine Physical Environment18

Bathymetry19

Seafloor topography within the Proposed Action area consists of a steep-sided fjord-like20waterbody with an irregular, soft seafloor bottom. Installation of the Proposed Action sensor21array under Alternatives 1 or 2 would temporarily create a depression in the seafloor bottom.22After construction, the depression would be filled with both non-magnetic gravel and backfill23with sediment for the top 3 feet. In addition, installation of the buried cable using a jet plow24

would temporarily disturb an approximately 1-foot-wide corridor on the seafloor; in this area,25disturbed sediment would immediately slough back into the plowed trench, leaving a small linear26depression in the seafloor substrate. The seafloor would return to its natural topographic surface27after several tidal cycles.28

29Installation of the semi-conical concrete cable armoring over the cable bundle for Alternative 130(Preferred Alternative) would permanently change the bathymetry of the seafloor. Under31Alternative 2, the jet plow would be used to install the cable bundle, and approximately 82232cubic yards (629 m3) of bottom material would be displaced in the vicinity of the cable bundle33trench. Neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on34bathymetry or water circulation patterns.35

36Geology and Sediments37

The Proposed Action area includes benthic sediment, a low-gradient beach consisting of cobbles38and gravels, as well as upland areas. Vessel wakes during construction of the Proposed Action39and operation of the EMMR system for either action alternative would reach the eastern shore of40Hood Canal and could contribute to erosion of the toe of bluffs along the shoreline in areas that41have not been armored with riprap. Construction-vessel wakes are anticipated to be less than the42height of wind-driven waves in Hood Canal at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. The incremental43


11/274


ix February 2013

increase in bluff toe erosion from vessel wakes during construction and operation would be1negligible when compared to existing conditions, including existing recreational and commercial2vessel traffic wakes in Hood Canal and naturally occurring storm-generated waves.3

4Sediment transport patterns would be changed under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), where5

the use of cable armoring would disrupt the predominantly northward seafloor sediment6 transport. This disruption would be temporary, ceasing when the concrete armoring eventually7subsides into the seafloor bottom. Alternative 2 would not disrupt sediment transport patterns.8Neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on geology9and sediments.10

11Water Resources12

Water quality in Hood Canal offshore of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is generally good and meets13applicable water quality standards. If Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) or Alterative 2 is14implemented, pollutants could potentially be released to Hood Canal that could affect turbidity15and dissolved oxygen and aqueous chemical contaminant concentrations. Potential pollutant16

release mechanisms include accidental releases of petroleum products or chemicals, inadvertent17releases or discharges of construction-related materials or waste, and accidental releases of18drilling fluid during HDD drilling operations. Jet-plowing would release suspended solids19(sediment material) into the water column that could spread up to an estimated 500 feet (152 m),20which would temporarily affect turbidity levels and would be likely to exceed Washington State21marine water quality standards. Sediment plumes would be expected to dissipate within one tidal22cycle (12 hours). To a lesser extent, dredging and HDD operations would also release suspended23solids into the water column. Alternative 2 would result in increased turbidity during24construction due to the use of the jet plow to install the cable bundle. Neither of the action25alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on water resources because water26quality impacts would be temporary.27

28Noise29

Noise levels on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor range from 60 to 80 A-weighted decibels (dBA);30however, the Proposed Action area is more rural in character and would be expected to have31existing ambient noise levels of approximately 55 to 60 decibels (dB). Construction equipment32used to implement either action alternative would generate airborne noise. Construction would33occur during daylight hours. During construction the impact pile-driver would be the loudest34equipment used. Airborne noise generated at the construction site (specifically, the offshore35platform) would attenuate to approximately 70 to 75 dBA at 2,000 feet (610 m), which is the36approximate distance to the nearest residence. This noise level would exceed Washington State37noise regulations; however, Washington State noise regulations exempt noise from construction38

during daylight hours. All other construction-related noise would not exceed Washington State39noise regulations. Neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term40noise impacts.41

42


12/274


x February 2013

Terrestrial Biological Resources1

Terrestrial Vegetation2

NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is dominated by forests, wetlands, and disturbed lands where native3terrestrial vegetation has been removed. Implementation of either action alternative would4require clearing vegetation from a corridor around the ATN light on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor.5This area is primarily disturbed land and forest land. Additional vegetation may also be removed6during construction due to installation of a new guardrail along the southeastern edge of7Northern Boundary Road and clearing of an access to the pullbox site adjacent to Building 7801.8During operation of the EMMR system, disturbed and forest land vegetation would be9permanently removed due to installation of new impervious surfaces and ongoing clearing of10obstructive vegetation around the ATN light. In total, vegetation on approximately 0.31 acre11(0.12 ha) of forest land and disturbed land would be impacted during construction of the12Proposed Action. Neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term13impacts on terrestrial vegetation because removal of vegetation and conversion of forest14vegetation to disturbed grass and shrubland accounts for less than a 1 percent increase or15decrease in these vegetation types on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor.16

17Terrestrial Wildlife18

Terrestrial vegetation on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor provides suitable habitat for reptiles and19amphibians, as well as upland mammals and bats. Construction-related airborne noise would20temporarily displace wildlife from the Proposed Action footprint; however, the impact of21construction-related noise would vary by species. If suitable habitat is available, those wildlife22species displaced by noise or increased human activity would return once construction is23complete. During operation, upland successional forest habitat would decrease by less than 124percent, and disturbed grassland and shrub land habitat would increase by less than 1 percent on25NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. This would provide an overall lower quality habitat for wildlife,26

although some species would benefit from this conversion. Neither of the action alternatives27would have significant short- or long-term impacts on terrestrial wildlife.28

29Marine Biological Resources30

Marine Vegetation31

Marine vegetation within the Proposed Action area includes macroalgae, such as red seaweeds,32sea lettuce, seaweeds, and kelp, as well as eelgrass typically found from the upper intertidal zone33to water depths of 30 feet, depending on species. If implemented, Alternatives 1 and 2 could34indirectly impact marine vegetation due to a deterioration of water quality from jet-plowing and35dredging activities that would suspend fine silt and clay in a sediment plume during construction.36

Due to the composition the sediments and the nature of the water currents in the Proposed Action37 area, it would be anticipated that the majority of the sediment particles would fall out of38suspension within 20 feet of the cable trench construction site, which would temporarily increase39turbidity and, consequently, decrease the light available for marine vegetation for a short period40of time. No direct impacts would occur to eelgrass during construction. An area of approximately411.22 acres (0.49 ha) at depths shallower than 70 feet (21 m) below MLLW would be affected by42construction of the EMMR system; any macroalgae affected is likely to repopulate.43

44


13/274


xi February 2013

Turbidity impacts would be greater under Alternative 2 due to the use of the jet plow for cable1bundle installation. Marine algae habitat can recover from such indirect impacts within one2growing season; however, depending on the extent of the impact, eelgrass beds may require an3additional growing season to fully recover (Austin et al. 2004). In addition to indirect impacts,4releases from construction vessels and machinery could potentially occur during construction,5

which could result in the loss of eelgrass. Neither of the action alternatives would have6 significant short- or long-term impacts on marine vegetation.78

Benthic Community9

The benthic community found within the Proposed Action area includes benthic infaunal and10epifaunal species along with invertebrates such as crustaceans, echinoderms, and mollusks11(including the geoduck). Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), benthic organisms would12be vulnerable to burial or crushing from jet-plowing and dredging activities. An area of13approximately 2.04 acres (0.83 ha) would be designated for dredging or would be within the jet-14plow path. Immobile species, particularly geoducks, would not survive if their burrows were in15the path of the trenching. Additionally, geoducks may not survive if their siphons were covered16

from side-cast sediment. Since recruitment of geoduck populations is low, recovery to pre-17impact conditions may take decades. Under the Proposed Action, concrete armoring over an18unburied cable bundle would potentially crush juvenile or newly settled geoduck larvae and19would prevent settled juvenile and adult geoducks from filter-feeding. No significant long-term20impacts on benthic communities would occur because the disturbance to the seafloor would be21short-term (with the exception of the concrete armored cable bundle), and the dredged areas22would be backfilled with sediment of a grain size to match the existing seafloor conditions (top 323feet [0.9 m]). Sediment displaced during jet-plowing would likely slough back into the trenched24corridor. Therefore, the disturbed areas would be expected to repopulate with species from the25surrounding benthic communities.26

27

The concrete armoring could increase the available in-water surface area and create colonization28sites for hard-bottom species. This reduction of available soft-bottom habitat would not result in29substantial loss of biological productivity in the area due to the large amount of available habitat30in the surrounding area. Impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to those under31Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), except impacts to the benthic communities would be32greater because 2.17 acres (0.88 ha) would be within the jet-plow path or designated for33dredging. Indirect impacts to benthic communities from turbidity would also be greater under34Alternative 2 due to use of the jet plow for cable bundle installation. Neither of the action35alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on the benthic community.36

37Fish38

Hood Canal is known to support at least 250 species of fish, including salmonids, pacific herring,39surf smelt, sand lance, and groups of fish including rockfish, perch, gunnel, pipefish, stickleback,40tubesnout, and flatfish. Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), impacts to fish include41behavioral responses from increased underwater noise or turbidity, such as temporary feeding42disruption, changes in migratory and foraging behavior, not rising to the surface to feed, short-43term reduction in prey location, and avoidance of areas with increased levels of suspended44sediment. Large increases in turbidity have the potential to damage fish gill tissue. Fish would45most likely sense vibrations of the slowly moving cable-burial and dredging equipment and46


14/274


xii February 2013

would leave the area. Due to the small size of the Proposed Action footprint, impact to prey1would not have a significant long-term adverse impact to fish populations in the greater area.2

3Similarly, fish exposed to underwater noise associated with pile-driving, trenching, and dredging4that exceeds disturbance thresholds may display a startle response during the initial stages of5

construction (Fiest et al. 1992, NRC 2008, and Hastings & Popper 2005). The peak underwater6 noise level from pile-driving would exceed the underwater peak noise threshold for fish injury7within approximately 3.3 feet (1 m) radius of the pile. Cumulative underwater noise thresholds8would be exceeded within 92 feet (28 m) and 171 feet (52 m) of pile-driving for fish greater than9or equal to 2 grams and greater than 2 grams in weight, respectively. Once the source of10increased underwater noise stops, fish would likely return to the area.11

12Overall impacts to fish under Alternatives 2 would be similar to those of Alternative 1 (Preferred13Alternative), with a slight increase in the degree of the impact due to the increased turbidity14associated with installation of the cable bundle under Alternative 2. Both alternatives may affect,15not likely to adversely affect Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed salmonids and rockfish.16

Construction may adversely affect essential fish habitat; however, impacts would be temporary.17 Therefore, neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts18on fish.19

20Birds21

Shorebirds, wading birds, marine waterfowl, raptors, and seabirds occur within the Proposed22Action area. Under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), birds may exhibit behavioral responses23from a temporary increase in airborne and underwater noise, construction vessel traffic, visual24disturbance, or turbidity that may include feeding disruption, avoidance behavior, alarm/startle25response, or temporary abandonment of resting sites. Additionally, construction of the action26alternatives would result in a short-term reduction in prey availability. Increases in turbidity27

would temporarily diminish the ability of pursuit-diving birds, including the ESA-listed marbled28murrelet, to find prey along the cable route and at the dredge locations. Pile-driving would29expose marine birds to high sound levels, which may result in barotrauma, or physical injury30caused by a change in peak sound pressure levels, usually occurring in the ear, including31hemorrhage and rupture of internal organs. Some foraging marine birds may habituate to32construction noise and continue to forage close to the construction area while being exposed to33noise. Conversely, some birds may exhibit an annoyance reaction and flee from the Proposed34Action area upon commencement of construction.35

36Birds resting or foraging on the surface of the water, the shoreline, or manmade structures would37also be exposed to construction-related visual disturbance. The increased boat traffic associated38

with in-water construction activities may prevent some birds from foraging and resting in the39construction area over the short term (i.e., the period of boat movement). Similarly to marine40birds, birds in upland areas may be impacted by loss of habitat and prey, noise disturbance, and41visual disturbance during construction of the Proposed Action. However, due to the large size of42Hood Canal, alternative foraging areas would be readily available during this short-term43displacement. Overall, the action alternatives may affect but would not be likely to adversely44affect the ESA-listed marbled murrelet and would not result in a "take" of bald eagles or a45


15/274


xiii February 2013

significant adverse or disruptive impact to migratory birds. Therefore, neither of the action1alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on birds.2

3Marine Mammals4

Within Hood Canal, the California sea lion, Dalls porpoise, harbor porpoise, harbor seal, west5

coast transient killer whale, and ESA-listed Steller sea lion and humpback whale may occur.6Under either action alternative, short-term impacts associated with elevated noise due to7dredging, jet-plowing, impact pile-driving and construction-vessel traffic would occur.8Underwater noise would exceed thresholds for injury within 3.3 feet (1 m) for pinnipeds and916 feet (5 m) for cetaceans. However due to the small size of these zones and the proposed10marine mammal monitoring procedures during pile-driving, injury is not expected to occur.11Behavioral harassment thresholds would be exceeded for a larger area, potentially resulting in12changes in behavioral patterns or displacement from the construction area. However, due to the13implementation of the mitigation measures, no marine mammals would be exposed to Level B14harassment noise levels as defined by the Marine Mammal Protection Act.15

16

Increased turbidity would also temporarily displace the prey available to fish-eating marine17mammals, including ESA-listed species. Vessel movements could induce avoidance reactions18and alarm/startle responses; alter swimming speed, direction of travel, vocalizations, and diving19activity; or result in collisions with marine mammals. Overall, the action alternatives may affect20but would not be likely to adversely affect the ESA-listed Steller sea lion and humpback whale.21Therefore, neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts22on marine mammals.23

24Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics25

Land Use26

Construction of the Proposed Action, both in-water and onshore, would be consistent with the27current naval operation support land uses and the NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor 1975 Final Master28Plan. Portions of the Proposed Action including the cable installation, offshore platform, and29sensor array, located offshore and outside of the NRA, and would not conflict with existing30onshore land uses or land use laws and policies. The offshore components of the Proposed31Action would have long-term impacts to land use due to the establishment of the anchoring and32geoduck harvesting restriction areas, 0.52 acre (0.21 ha) and 0.26 acre (0.10 ha), respectively.33However, neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on34land use. For a summary of impacts to recreation; socioeconomics, environmental justice, and35childrens health and safety; American Indian traditional resources; marine navigation; and36public health and safety, please see the sections below.37

38Recreation39

Offshore recreation activities within the Proposed Action area include recreational boating,40fishing, and other water-related recreation, and birding. Either action alternative would prohibit41fishing and boating in the vicinity of the construction area. Recreational (i.e., individual)42geoduck harvesting would not be impacted because this activity generally occurs in shallow43water at low tide. After construction is complete, boating and fishing activities could resume44except during use of the EMMR system when vessel traffic would be prohibited in the area.45


16/274


xiv February 2013

Neither of the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on1recreation.2

3Aesthetics4

The character of the Proposed Action area is rural, with natural coniferous and deciduous5

forested areas bound by expansive water features (i.e., Hood Canal). Implementation of either6action alternative would modify the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding area. Construction7equipment, including barges, cranes, and other large equipment, would temporarily contrast with8the surrounding scenery, including the shoreline, by introducing multi-colored vertical and9horizontal features. Clearing vegetation around the ATN would diminish the natural appearance10of the shoreline within NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Additionally, once constructed, the offshore11platform would contrast with the surrounding scenery by introducing horizontal and vertical gray12and stainless steel features. Views of the offshore platform towards the shore (i.e., from13recreational boating) would be consistent with the current modified conditions of the shoreline.14These changes to aesthetic qualities would be relatively minor within the context of the15NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor area. Neither of the action alternatives would have significant short-16

or long-term impacts on aesthetics. For a summary of impacts to socioeconomics, environmental17justice, and childrens health and safety; American Indian traditional resources; marine18navigation; and public health and safety, please see the sections below.19

20Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Childrens Health and Safety21

The Proposed Action area is located in Kitsap County; the population of the areas immediately22adjacent to the Proposed Action was 4,573 in 2010. The Proposed Action would generate very23few temporary jobs and would contribute minimally to local spending. There would not be an24increased demand on housing, schools, or other social services. Construction would result in25geoduck mortality and the loss of up to approximately 23,972 pounds (10,896 kilograms [kg]) of26commercial or tribal harvested geoduck under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative). Under27Alternative 2, construction would result in geoduck mortality and the loss of up to approximately2826,867 pounds (12,212 kg) of commercial or tribal harvested geoduck. During operation, there29would be a permanent loss of geoduck harvesting area within the Vinland Tract due to the30geoduck harvesting restriction area established around the sensor array system. WDNR, in31conjunction with the Native American tribes, allocates tracts (including the Vinland Tract and32Vinland Tract 4) for commercial and/or subsistence harvest. While currently not in use, Vinland33Tract 4 has historically been used for tribal harvesting. In recent years geoduck has become34increasingly important as part of tribal diets as other seafood has become more limited in35availability (Suquamish Tribe, 2000). The economic costs associated with these impacts would36vary based on the current geoduck market value at the time of construction. Since the area of37impact represents a small portion of the total harvestable area for geoduck, neither of the action38

alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on socioeconomics.3940

Under either action alternative, minority and low-income populations and children would not be41exposed to noise, safety hazards, pollutants, or hazardous materials. Therefore, no42disproportionately high and adverse environmental, human health, or socioeconomic affects43would occur to minority, low income populations or children, and no significant short- or long-44term environmental justice impacts would occur.45

46


17/274


xv February 2013

Cultural Resources1

Cultural resources include archeological items, culturally significant tribal resources, and the2built environment, such as buildings, structures, and landscapes. No archaeological resources3listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are located within4the Proposed Action footprint of either action alternative, and no historic properties have been5

located in the marine, shoreline, or upland Proposed Action areas. Building 7801 has achieved6exceptional importance from its association with the Navys Cold War context of strategic7deterrence. The Navy will consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on its8defining of the APE, determination of eligibility, and finding of effect. It is anticipated that either9of the action alternatives would result in no effect to Building 7801 because the proposed cable10connection can be made without altering characteristics relevant to its eligibility for listing in the11NRHP.12

13While unlikely, construction of the Proposed Action could inadvertently disturb unknown14archaeological resources. The Navy will consult with the SHPO and affected American Indian15tribes in the event of inadvertent discovery of unknown archaeological resources, American16

Indian human remains, funerary items, sacred objects, or items of cultural patrimony. Neither of17the action alternatives would have significant short- or long-term impacts on cultural resources.18

19American Indian Traditional Resources20

American Indian traditional resources are those resources that embody the beliefs, customs, and21practices of the living community of American Indians. The Proposed Action would impact22access to Usual and Accustomed fishing grounds and stations and may impact access to marine23resources such as geoduck, crab, and fish (including salmon). The Navy has initiated24consultation with the Skokomish, Port Gamble SKlallam Tribe, Jamestown SKlallam Tribe,25Lower Elwha Klallam, and Suquamish Tribes regarding impacts to treaty-reserved resources.26

27Marine Navigation28

The Proposed Action is located in Hood Canal, an elongated natural embayment that connects to29Admiralty Inlet within Puget Sound. During construction of either action alternative, small areas30of Hood Canal (up to 23.1 acres [9.3 ha]) would be restricted from marine vessel traffic. Hood31Canal is between 1.5 and 2.5 miles (2.4 and 4 km) wide at the site of the proposed marine32construction. In-water construction would occur over two seasons (July 16 to February 15).33During operation, the action alternatives would result in temporary restrictions on marine34navigation while the EMMR system would be in use and long-term anchoring restrictions in the35vicinity of the sensor array. Either action alternative would have no significant short- or long-36term impacts on marine navigation.37

38 Air Quality39

The Proposed Action area has good air quality (the Air Quality Index for Kitsap County was40rated as good for approximately 88 percent of 2010). Potential air emissions associated with41either action alternative would not be expected to exceed any of the Puget Sound Clean Air42Agency (PSCAA) thresholds or greenhouse gas reporting thresholds established by the U.S.43Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, air emissions associated with construction of the44Proposed Action (estimated at 101 total tons of emissions) would be minimal and temporary in45


18/274


xvi February 2013

nature, and no permanent operational air emissions would be anticipated. Reasonable precautions1would be implemented to minimize fugitive dust emissions from construction, and no temporary2construction permit from the PSCAA would be required. Therefore, no significant short- or long-3term impacts would be anticipated as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action.4

5

Public Health and Safety6The Proposed Action has been evaluated for site access, airborne noise, the potential release of7hazardous materials, and the emission of electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation aspects of public8health and safety. Under either action alternative, the nearest residence would be temporarily9exposed to construction noise. Occupational Safety and Health Administration noise standards10would protect the health and safety of workers associated with the action alternatives. The11EMMR system operates passively, receiving electromagnetic signals, not emitting them, and12operating between 36 and 48 volts at 0.5 amperes, which is equivalent to approximately 24 watts13or less power than a common household light bulb consumes, and would be powered on for14approximately 25 minutes per month. Due to the design of the EMMR system, the intermittent15EMF radiation emitted during operations would be negligible. Neither of the action alternatives16

would have significant short- or long-term impacts on public health and safety.1718

Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Analysis19

Based on the existing environmental conditions and analysis of potential impacts to the20environment, the Navy designed the preferred alternative to avoid and minimize impacts to the21aquatic ecosystem to the greatest extent practicable. Design features include horizontal22directional drilling for establishing cable in the nearshore environment and backfilling dredged23areas in the top several feet with sediment of a grain size similar to that of existing seafloor24conditions. Additionally, under Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative), the utilization of concrete25armoring to protect the 925-foot (282 m) length of cable bundle would result in the least seafloor26impact of the alternatives analyzed.27

28As the Proposed Action is a water-dependent use, Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) would29result in impacts to non-wetland waters. There is no practicable alternative that would avoid or30have less impact on the aquatic environment. Compensatory mitigation compensates for31unavoidable permanent impacts to Waters of the U.S. The Proposed Action design has been32adjusted, to the greatest extent possible, to minimize impacts and fill in non-wetland Waters of33the U.S.34

35SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS36

The Proposed Action would not make a substantial contribution to cumulative impacts for any37

resource area; therefore, no significant cumulative impact would occur as a result of the38 Proposed Action.3940

CONCLUSION41

Implementation of the action alternatives or the no-action alternative would not result in42significant impacts to any resource area when considered individually or cumulatively in the43context of NEPA, including both direct and indirect impacts. Implementation of the Proposed44Action would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the45


19/274


xvii February 2013

human environment. Therefore, this EA supports a Finding of No Significant Impact for all1action alternatives, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not2warranted or required.3

4


20/274


xviii February 2013

12345

6789

1011121314



21/274

HoodCa

nal

HoodCanal

MOA

South

Hood

Canal

MOA

North

NAVBASE

KitsapBangor

Kitsap

J e ffe rso n

DabobB

ayR

angeC

omplex

Interconnec

tingWaters

101

101

Poulsbo

Silverda le

Figure ES-1Proposed Action Location

Electromagnetic Measurement

Ranging (EMMR) SystemNaval Base Kitsap Bangor


Military Installation Bounda ry

Interstate

Highway

County Bounda ry

Approximate Submarine

RouteNavy Restricted Area

Military Operations Area (MO A)

Proposed Ac tion Location

Source: Esri, 2012; NAVFA C , 2012;Dep t.of Defe nse - Navy, 2011; Finlayson, 2005.

Legend

Poulsbo

Si lverdale

Kitsap

County

Jefferson

County

WA

0 2.5 5

Kilometers

0 1.5 3Miles

xi x


22/274

NAVBASE

Kitsap

Bangor

Magnetic SilencingFacility Pier (existing)

Building 7801(existing)

H o o d C a nal

Sensor Array SystemDredge Area: 1.64 acres (0.66 ha)

Dredge Volume: 17,500 cubic yards (13,380 m3)

Backfill Volume: 19,250 cubic ya rds (14,718 m3)

Platform to Cable Transition AreaDredg e Area: 0.07 ac re (0.03 ha)

Dredg e Vo lume: 250 cub ic yards (191 m3)

Backfill Volume: 275 cub ic ya rds (210 m3)

Aid to Navigation

HDD Cable Transition AreaDredg e A rea: 0.05 ac re (0.02 ha)

Dredg e Volume: 220 cubic yards (168 m3)

Backfill Volume: 242 cub ic ya rds (185 m3)

-160

-140

-120

-90

-60-50

-40

-70

-30

-20

-10

-110

-130

-170

-80

-150

-100

-130

0

0

Figure ES-2Alternative 1: Buried Sensor

Array and Buried Cable with

Armored C able Bundle(Preferred Alternative)

Electromagnetic Measurement

Ranging System (EMMR) System

Naval Base Kitsap BangorSilverdale, Washington

0 300 600

Meters

Military Installation Bound ary

Navy Restricted Area

Stree ts

Bathymetry Contours

10 ft Interval C ontour

50 ft Index Contour

EMMR System Components / ConstructionMethod

Sensor Array (400 ft / 122 m) / Buried

Ca ble Route (925 ft / 282 m) / C onc rete Armor

Ca ble Route (6,970 ft / 2,124 m) / J et-Plow

Ca ble Route (1,148 ft / 350 m) / HDD

Ca ble Route (210 ft / 64 m) / HDD

Offshore Platfo rm / Pile Driving

(15 ft x 15 ft / 4.5 m x 4.5 m)

Aid to Navigation

Sensor Array Dredge Area

Source: Esri, 2012; NAVFA C , 2012;Dep t.of Defe nse - Navy, 2011; Finlayson, 2005.

Legend

0 1,000 2,000Feet

Poulsbo

Si lverdale

Kitsap

County

Jefferson

County

WA

xx


23/274


xxi February 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................v1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ......................................... 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-11.2 PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................................... 1-11.3 PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................................... 1-11.4 PROPOSED ACTION AREA DESCRIPTION .................................................. 1-2

1.4.1 Naval Base Kitsap Bangor .................................................................... 1-21.4.2 Hood Canal Military Operating Area North ......................................... 1-2

1.5 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .................................... 1-31.6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ........................................................ 1-4

1.6.1 National Environmental Policy Act ...................................................... 1-41.6.2 Agency Coordination and Permit Requirements .................................. 1-4

1.7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS ............................................................... 1-52 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES......................................................... 2-1

2.1 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING CRITERIA ..................................................... 2-12.2 PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................................... 2-2

2.2.1 Construction .......................................................................................... 2-32.2.1.1 Anticipated Construction Schedule........................................ 2-5

2.2.2 Operation .............................................................................................. 2-52.2.3 Maintenance .......................................................................................... 2-62.2.4 Standard Operating Procedures and Best Management Practices ........ 2-72.2.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 2-11

2.3 ACTION ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILEDANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 2-132.3.1 Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with

Armored Cable Bundle (Preferred Alternative) .................................. 2-132.3.2 Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with

Buried Cable Bundle ........................................................................... 2-142.3.3 Alternative 3: No Action..................................................................... 2-14

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROMFURTHER ANALYSIS..................................................................................... 2-192.4.1 Location Alternative: Re-Activate Deepwater EMMR System off

NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor ................................................................. 2-192.4.2 Location Alternative: Existing Navy Restricted Area of

NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor ................................................................. 2-192.4.3 Location Alternative: Naval Magazine Indian Island ......................... 2-202.4.4 Alternative: Update/Repair Existing Magnetic Silencing Facility ..... 2-212.4.5 Alternative EMMR System Designs .................................................. 2-21

2.4.5.1 Vertical Sensor Array .......................................................... 2-212.4.5.2 Floating Platform Structure.................................................. 2-22


24/274


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

xxii February 2013

2.4.5.3 Wireless Data Transmission ................................................ 2-223 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................................ 3-13.1 MARINE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................... 3-13.1.1 Bathymetry............................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.1.1 Affected Environment ............................................................ 3-13.1.1.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................ 3-1

3.1.2 Geology and Sediments ........................................................................ 3-23.1.2.1 Affected Environment ............................................................ 3-33.1.2.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................ 3-63.1.2.3 Permits and Consultation ..................................................... 3-10

3.1.3 Water Resources ................................................................................. 3-103.1.3.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-103.1.3.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-123.1.3.3 Permits and Consultation ..................................................... 3-153.2 NOISE ................................................................................................................ 3-15

3.2.1 Underwater Noise ............................................................................... 3-163.2.2 Airborne Noise .................................................................................... 3-16

3.2.2.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-163.2.2.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-17

3.3 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................... 3-183.3.1 Terrestrial Vegetation ......................................................................... 3-18


3.3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................. 3-213.3.2.1

Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-21

3.3.2.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-22

3.4 MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................... 3-243.4.1 Marine Vegetation .............................................................................. 3-24


3.4.2 Benthic Community ............................................................................ 3-283.4.2.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-283.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-293.4.2.3 Permits and Consultation ..................................................... 3-35

3.4.3 Fish ..................................................................................................... 3-353.4.3.1

Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-35

3.4.3.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-403.4.3.3 Permits and Consultation ..................................................... 3-50

3.4.4 Birds .................................................................................................... 3-503.4.4.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-513.4.4.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-543.4.4.3 Permits and Consultation ..................................................... 3-59

3.4.5 Marine Mammals ................................................................................ 3-59


25/274



xxiii February 2013

3.4.5.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-593.4.5.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-633.4.5.3 Permits and Consultation ..................................................... 3-66

3.5 LAND USE, RECREATION, AND AESTHETICS ......................................... 3-673.5.1 Land Use ............................................................................................. 3-67

3.5.1.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-673.5.1.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-683.5.1.3 Permits and Consultation ..................................................... 3-69

3.5.2 Recreation ........................................................................................... 3-693.5.2.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-693.5.2.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-70

3.5.3 Aesthetics ............................................................................................ 3-713.5.3.1 Affected Environment .......................................................... 3-713.5.3.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3-71

3.6 SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, ANDCHILDRENS HEALTH AND SAFETY ......................................................... 3-753.6.1 Affected Environment......................................................................... 3-763.6.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 3-77

3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 3-803.7.1 Affected Environment......................................................................... 3-813.7.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 3-833.7.3 Permits and Consultation .................................................................... 3-85

3.8 AMERICAN INDIAN TRADITIONAL RESOURCES .................................. 3-863.8.1 American Indian Use of NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor .......................... 3-883.8.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 3-883.8.3 Permits and Consultation .................................................................... 3-90

3.9 MARINE NAVIGATION ................................................................................. 3-903.9.1 Affected Environment......................................................................... 3-903.9.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 3-93

3.10 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................. 3-983.10.1 Affected Environment......................................................................... 3-983.10.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-101

3.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY................................................................. 3-1033.11.1 Affected Environment....................................................................... 3-1033.11.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-104

3.12 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES........................... 3-1074

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 IDENTIFYING THE REGION OF INFLUENCE OR GEOGRAPHIC

BOUNDARIES FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANAYLYSIS ........................ 4-24.2 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE

ACTIONS ANALYZED FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................... 4-24.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS .............................................................. 4-9

4.3.1 Marine Physical Environment .............................................................. 4-94.3.1.1 Bathymetry ............................................................................. 4-9


26/274



xxiv February 2013

4.3.1.2 Geology and Sediments ......................................................... 4-94.3.1.3 Water Resources .................................................................. 4-10

4.3.2 Noise ................................................................................................... 4-104.3.3 Terrestrial Biological Resources ......................................................... 4-11

4.3.3.1 Terrestrial Vegetation .......................................................... 4-114.3.3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................... 4-11

4.3.4 Marine Biological Resources .............................................................. 4-124.3.4.1 Marine Vegetation ............................................................... 4-124.3.4.2 Benthic Community ............................................................. 4-134.3.4.3 Fish ....................................................................................... 4-144.3.4.4 Birds ..................................................................................... 4-174.3.4.5 Marine Mammals ................................................................. 4-18

4.3.5 Land Use and Aesthetics..................................................................... 4-194.3.5.1 Land Use .............................................................................. 4-194.3.5.2 Recreation ............................................................................ 4-204.3.5.3 Aesthetics ............................................................................. 4-20

4.3.6 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Childrens Healthand Safety ........................................................................................... 4-20

4.3.7 Cultural Resources .............................................................................. 4-214.3.8 American Indian Traditional Resources ............................................. 4-224.3.9 Marine Navigation .............................................................................. 4-224.3.10 Air Quality .......................................................................................... 4-234.3.11 Public Health and Safety..................................................................... 4-24

5 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY THE NATIONALENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT ........................................................................... 5-15.1

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS ........................................................... 5-1

5.2 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE

ENVIRONMENT AND THE ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERMPRODUCTIVITY ................................................................................................ 5-1

5.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OFRESOURCES ...................................................................................................... 5-2

5.4 COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION WITH FEDERAL,STATE, AND LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS ...................... 5-2

6 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................. 6-17 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................. 7-1APPENDIX A PUBLIC NOTICES ........................................................................................ A-1APPENDIX B MONITORING PLAN ....................................................................................B-1APPENDIX C UNDERWATER NOISE ............................................................................... C-1APPENDIX D ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT .......................................... D-1


27/274



xxv February 2013

APPENDIX E BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT .....................................................................E-1APPENDIX F AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS ........................................ F-1APPENDIX G TRIBAL CONSULTATION ......................................................................... G-1APPENDIX H AGENCY CONSULTATION ....................................................................... H-1


28/274



xxvi February 2013



29/274


xxvii February 2013

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ES-1 Proposed Action Location.................................................................................... xixFigure ES-2 Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable

Bundle (Preferred Alternative) ..............................................................................xxFigure 1-1 Proposed Action Vicinity ..................................................................................... 1-7Figure 1-2 Proposed Action Location.................................................................................... 1-8Figure 2-1 Alternative 1: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Armored Cable

Bundle (Preferred Alternative) .......................................................................... 2-23Figure 2-2 Sensor Array Profile .......................................................................................... 2-24Figure 2-3

Anchoring and Geoduck Harvesting Restriction Area ...................................... 2-25

Figure 2-4 Offshore Platform .............................................................................................. 2-26Figure 2-5 Building 7801 and HDD Launch Site Plan ........................................................ 2-27Figure 2-6 Aid to Navigation Site Plan ............................................................................... 2-29Figure 2-7 Cable Armoring ................................................................................................. 2-31Figure 2-8 Alternative 2: Buried Sensor Array and Buried Cable with Buried Cable

Bundle ................................................................................................................ 2-32Figure 2-9 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ............................................................ 2-33Figure 2-10 Navy Restricted Area Alternative Considered but Eliminated .......................... 2-34Figure 3.1-1 Generalized Shoreline Geomorphology in Proposed Action Area ...................... 3-4Figure 3.1-2 Ohio/Trident Class Submarine Wake .................................................................. 3-8Figure 3.4-1 Marine Biological Resources ............................................................................. 3-25Figure 3.4-2 Vinland Tract (Geoduck) ................................................................................... 3-30Figure 3.4-3 Distances to Underwater Thresholds for Marine Mammals and Fish ............... 3-43Figure 3.5-1 Observation Point............................................................................................... 3-73Figure 3.5-2 Graphic Representation ...................................................................................... 3-74Figure 3.7-1 Cultural Resources Area of Potential Effect ...................................................... 3-84


30/274


LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)

xxviii February 2013

Figure 3.9-1 Marine Navigation ............................................................................................. 3-95


31/274


xxix February 2013

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 SOPs and BMPs ................................................................................................... 2-7Table 2-2 Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Plans ....................................................... 2-12Table 2-3 Summary of the Design, Construction, and Area of Impact by Alternative ...... 2-15Table 3.1-1 Seafloor Sediment Characteristics ....................................................................... 3-3Table 3.1-2 Summary of Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program Station SP-152

Sediment Sample Results ..................................................................................... 3-5Table 3.2-1 Common Acoustical Terms ............................................................................... 3-15Table 3.4-1 ESA-Listed Fish that May Occur in and around the Proposed Action .............. 3-36Table 3.4-2 Marine Bird Groupings and Families in and around the Proposed Action

Area .................................................................................................................... 3-52Table 3.6-1 Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................. 3-76Table 3.6-2 2010 Employment Characteristics ..................................................................... 3-77Table 3.10-1 National and Washington State Ambient Air Quality Standards ....................... 3-99Table 3.10-2 EMMR System Construction Emissions, Action Alternatives for 2-Year

Duration of Construction ................................................................................. 3-102Table 3.12-1 Summary of Environmental Consequences ..................................................... 3-107Table 4-1 Summary of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ....................... 4-3Table 5-1 Compliance of the Proposed Action with the Objectives of Federal, State,

and Local Plans, Policies, and Controls ............................................................... 5-3


32/274


LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)

xxx February 2013



33/274


xxxi February 2013

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

APE area of potential effects

AQI Air Quality Index

ATN Aid to Navigation

BMP best management practice

CAA Clean Air Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cm centimeter

CONUS Continental United States

CWA Clean Water Act

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

dB decibels

dB rms root mean square sound pressurelevel in decibels

dB re: 1 Pa decibels referenced to a pressureof 1 micropascal

dBA A-weighted decibels

DBRC Dabob Bay Range Complex

dB SEL decibel sound exposure levels

DMMP Washington Dredged MaterialsManagement Program

DO dissolved oxygenDOD U.S. Department of Defense

DOPAA Description of Proposed Actionand Alternatives

DPS distinct population segment

EA Environmental Assessment

Ecology Washington Department ofEcology

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EHW Explosives Handling Wharf

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EMF electromagnetic field

EMMR system Electromagnetic MeasurementRanging system

EO Executive Order

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU evolutionarily significant unit

FMC Fishery Management Councils

FMP fishery management plans

FR Federal Register

ha hectare

HCCC Hood Canal Coordinating Council

HDD horizontal directional drilling

Hz Hertz

kg kilogram

km, km2 kilometer, square kilometer

m, m2, m3 meter, square meter, cubic meter

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MLLW mean lower low water

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MOA Military Operating Area

MSA Magnuson-Stevens FisheryConservation and ManagementAct

MSF Magnetic Silencing Facility

NAAQS National Ambient Air QualityStandards

NAVBASE Naval BaseNavy U.S. Department of the Navy

NEPA National Environmental PolicyAct of 1969

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration

NRA Navy Restricted Area

NRHP National Register of Historic

Places

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit

OPNAVINST Office of the Chief of NavalOperations Instruction

Pa, Pa Pascals, micropascal

PCE Primary constituent elements


34/274


LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont.)

xxxii February 2013

PM, PM2.5, PM10 Particulate matter, Particulatematter 2.5 microns in size,Particulate matter 10 microns insize

PNPTC Point No Point Treaty CouncilProposed Action EMMR system proposed for

construction and operation atNaval Base Kitsap Bangor

PSAMP Puget Sound Ambient MonitoringPlan

PSCAA Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

rms root mean square

RNA regulated navigation area

ROI region of influence

SECNAVINST Secretary of the Navy Instruction

SEL Sound Exposure Level

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIP State Implementation Plan

SOP Standard operatingprocedure

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, andCountermeasure

SPL sound pressure level

TOC total organic carbon

U&A Usual and Accustomed

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC U.S. Code

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USEPA U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VTS Vessel Traffic Services

WDFW Washington Department of Fishand Wildlife

WDNR Washington Department ofNatural Resources


35/274


36/274


1-2 February 2013

homeported or otherwise operating in waters off the northwestern CONUS. Approximately two1weeks of transit time are needed to access facilities at Pearl Harbor or San Diego from2NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. The Proposed Action would provide the Navy with the capability to3measure the electromagnetic signatures of its submarines homeported at NAVBASE Kitsap4Bangor and provide submarines the ability to conduct on-board electromagnetic systems5

calibrations.671.4 PROPOSED ACTION AREA DESCRIPTION8

The Proposed Action would occur on NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor lands and adjacent waters in9Hood Canal, specifically the Hood Canal MOA North.10

111.4.1 Naval Base Kitsap Bangor12

NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is approximately 7,186 acres (2,908 hectares [ha]) in size and13encompasses a mix of industrial, residential, and undisturbed natural vegetation, with 6.5 miles14(10.5 km) of waterfront along the eastern shoreline of Hood Canal. NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is15a multi-mission base with major tenants and facilities. The base provides housing, retail16shopping, and dining and recreational facilities for Navy personnel and dependents.17

18NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is the Pacific homeport and main support facility for the Navys19Trident submarine fleet. The Trident program consists of submarine-launched ballistic missiles,20which are key to the Navys strategic deterrence mission since 1956. These submarines are an21integral component of the Navys ability to defend the nation. A total of 13 submarines are22homeported at NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. In addition, NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor serves as a re-23fit/repair site and training facility for Navy personnel who operate and maintain these24submarines.25

261.4.2 Hood Canal Military Operating Area North27

NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor is located on the eastern shoreline of Hood Canal. Waters adjacent to28the base are located within the Hood Canal MOA North and South and the Dabob Bay Range29Complex (DBRC; Figure 1-2). The Hood Canal MOA North is approximately 7.9 square30nautical miles (27 km2) and is used for vessel sensor accuracy testing and launch recovery of test31systems. The MOA is charted as a Naval Operating Area on National Oceanic and Atmospheric32Administration (NOAA) Navigation Chart 18458 (NOAA 2010).33

34The DBRC is a site within the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Keyport Range35Complex. The Navy has conducted underwater testing at the DBRC since 1956. The DBRC is36the Navys premier location within the U.S. for research, development, testing, and evaluation of37

underwater systems, such as torpedoes, countermeasures, targets, and ship systems. The DBRC38 supports proofing of underwater systems, research and development testing, and fleet training39and tactical evaluations involving aircraft, submarines, and surface ships. The DBRC also40supports acoustic/measurement programs. These programs consist of underwater vehicle/ship41noise measurement programs, including signature recording, radiated sound investigations, and42sonar evaluations. No explosive warheads are tested or placed on test units. During research,43testing, and training, various combinations of aircraft, submarines, and surface ships are used as44launch platforms. Test equipment may also be launched or deployed from shore or off a pier.45


37/274


1-3 February 2013

11.5 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT2

This EA presents alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Action, describes3existing baseline environmental conditions, and evaluates the construction and operation (on-4land and in-water) potential effects of the alternatives (including the no-action alternative) for the5

following resources:67

Marine Physical Environment;8

Noise;9

Terrestrial Biological Resources;10

Marine Biological Resources;11

Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics;12

Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Childrens Health and Safety;13

Cultural Resources;14

American Indian Traditional Resources;15

Marine Navigation;16

Air Quality; and17

Public Health and Safety.18

19These resources were identified based on their potential to be affected by the Proposed Action20and on their potential for public interest. The cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action, in21combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future federal and non-federal22actions, are also analyzed.23

24The following resources are not addressed in detail in this EA because construction and25operation of the Proposed Action and alternatives would have negligible or no effects on them:26

27

Terrestrial Traffic and Circulation. The Proposed Action is located on Navy restricted28lands or waters of Hood Canal and does not directly impact terrestrial traffic circulation.29The Navy would schedule in-water construction vessel movements through Hood Canal30to avoid closures of the Hood Canal Bridge during peak vehicle commuting hours.31

Floodplains.No floodplains are located within the area of the Proposed Action.32

Energy Consumption. The operation of the EMMR system would require minimal33energy consumption. The EMMR system operates at between 36 and 48 volts at 0.534amperes, which is equivalent to approximately 24 watts, or less power than a common35household light bulb consumes, and would be powered on for approximately 25 minutes36per month.37

Solid and Hazardous Waste. Except for the temporary generation of construction-related38solid waste, operation of the EMMR system would not generate solid or hazardous waste.39


38/274


1-4 February 2013

11.6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS2

1.6.1 National Environmental Policy Act3

NEPA requires the consideration of potential environmental consequences of federal actions.4Regulations for federal agency implementation of NEPA were established by the presidents5CEQ. Under NEPA, federal agencies must prepare an EA or an Environmental Impact Statement6(EIS) for any major federal action, except those actions that are determined to be categorically7excluded from further analysis.8

91.6.2 Agency Coordination and Permit Requirements10

NEPA requires federal agencies to provide environmental information to decision makers and11the public before decisions are made and actions are taken (Public Law 91-190,1242 U.S.C. 4321-4347, as amended by Public Law 94-52, 94-83, 97-238 4(b), 40 CFR 1502.14,131505.1[e]). The Navy is the lead agency for NEPA compliance for the Proposed Action as14defined in NEPA regulations 40 CFR 1501.5, Navy regulations 32 CFR Part 775, and15

OPNAVINST 5090.1C, Change 1, 5-1.3.18. This EA is being prepared to meet NEPA and16OPNAVINST requirements.17

18In addition to NEPA, the Navy must comply with a variety of other federal environmental laws,19regulations, and Executive Orders (EOs). Please refer to Section 6.1 for a complete description20of each of the following:21

22

Clean Air Act (CAA);23

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act [CWA]);24

Rivers and Harbors Act;25

Endangered Species Act (ESA);26

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA);27

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA);28

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA);29

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA);30

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA);31

Energy Independence and Security Act, Section 438;32

The U.S. Department of Defenses (DODs) Native American and Alaska Native Policy33including Usual and Accustomed (U&A) Treaty Harvest Rights;34

Navy Policy for Consultation with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes, Secretary of the35Navy Instruction (SECNAVINST) 11010.14A;36

EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments;37

EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment;38


39/274


1-5 February 2013

EO 12898, Environmental Justice;1

EO 13045, Childrens Health and Safety; and2

EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards.3

4

1.7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS5

In order to facilitate public participation in the NEPA process for this EA, the Navy made a Draft6Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA) available for public review and7comment and conducted a public meeting in August 2012 (see Appendix A, Public Notices).8

9Further information is available electronically atwww.emmrea.comand on the Naval Facilities10Engineering Command Northwest website at:11https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/navfac/navfac_ww_pp/navfac_efanw_pp.12

13Comments on the Draft DOPAA were provided by members of the public, Native American14tribes, Kitsap and Jefferson counties, and state and federal agencies. Comments were provided in15meetings, online, and by mail. All comments received were considered in the preparation of this16Draft EA. Issues raised in comments included, but were not limited to, the following:17

18

Fisheries;19

Tribal treaty rights;20

Effects on geoduck (Panopea generosa) harvesting;21

Erosion from submarine wakes;22

Restricted navigational areas;23

Visual impact of the offshore platform; and24

Sediment quality due to dredge and fill activities.25

26
http://www.emmrea.com/http://www.emmrea.com/http://www.emmrea.com/https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/navfac/navfac_ww_pp/navfac_efanw_pphttps://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/navfac/navfac_ww_pp/navfac_efanw_pphttp://www.emmrea.com/


40/274


1-6 February 2013

12345

6789

1011121314



41/274

P u g e tS o u n d

HoodCa

nal

Keyport

NUWC

NAVBASE

KitsapBremerton

HoodCanalBridge

NAVBASEKitsap

Bangor

Is land

Snohomish

Skagi t

C la l la m

Kitsa p

M a s o n

J e ff e rso n

Documents

Navy Submarine EM/TEMPEST Falsification Facility