Attachment 12_USCG AS Borinquen Final EA (09-14-2021).pdf

Final Environmental Assessment for Repair and Replacement of Hurricane Damaged Facilities and for Increased Resiliency U.S. Coast Guard Base Detachment Borinquen and Air Station Borinquen Aguadilla, Puerto Rico

United States Coast Guard Facilities Design and Construction Center, Norfolk

September 2021 i

The

This Final EA serves as a concise public document to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining the need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). This Final EA concisely describes the Proposed Action, the need for the Proposed Action, alternatives, and the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives. This Final EA also contains a comparative analysis of the action and alternatives, a statement of the environmental significance of the preferred alternative, and a list of the agencies and persons consulted during the Final EA preparation.

Environmental Engineer Level II

Richard D. Hylton, P.E. Title/Position NEPA Warrant Program Document Preparer

I reviewed the Final EA and submitted my comments to the Proponent.

Dean Amundson Title/Position NEPA Warrant Program Environmental Reviewer & Senior Environmental Professional

In reaching my decision/recommendation for the USCG’s Proposed Action, I considered the information contained in this Final EA and considered the written comments submitted to me from the Environmental Reviewer(s).

Commanding Officer Facilities Design and Construction Center

Captain John D. Berry, P.E. Title/Position Proponent

Environmental Protection Specialist Level III

HYLTON.RICHARD

.D.JR.1229466069

Digitally signed by

HYLTON.RICHARD.D.JR.122946

Date: 2021.09.20 13:12:36 -04'00'

Digitally signed by

AMUNDSON.DEAN.JAY.127401186

Date: 2021.09.20 10:20:00 -07'00'

Digitally signed by

BERRY.JOHN.1013996373

Date: 2021.09.20 16:43:07 -04'00' ii

Summary of the results of the environmental impact evaluation:

Mitigation commitments that will be implemented to reduce otherwise significant impacts:

This FONSI is based on the attached contractor-prepared Final EA that has been independently evaluated by the USCG and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the Proposed Action and its alternatives, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. USCG takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the attached contractor-prepared Final EA.

I reviewed the Final EA, which is the basis for this FONSI, and submitted my comments to the Proponent.

Environmental Engineer Level II

Title/Position NEPA Warrant Program Richard D. Hylton, P.E.

HYLTON.RICHARD

.D.JR.1229466069

Digitally signed by

HYLTON.RICHARD.D.JR.122946

Date: 2021.09.20 13:12:20 -04'00' iii

I reviewed the Final EA, which is the basis for this FONSI, and submitted my comments to the Proponent.

Dean Amundson Title/Position NEPA Warrant Program Senior Environmental Professional

In reaching my decision/recommendation for USCG’s Proposed Action, I considered the information contained in this Final EA/FONSI and considered the written comments submitted to me from the Environmental Reviewer(s). Based on the information in the Final EA and this FONSI document, I agree that the Proposed Action as described above, and in the Final EA, will have no significant impact on the environment.

Commanding Officer Facilities Design and Construction Center

Captain John D. Berry, P.E. Title/Position Proponent

Environmental Protection Specialist Level III Digitally signed by

AMUNDSON.DEAN.JAY.12740118

Date: 2021.09.20 10:20:29 -07'00'

Digitally signed by

BERRY.JOHN.1013996373

Date: 2021.09.20 16:44:36 -04'00'

Final Environmental Assessment for Repair and Replacement of Hurricane Damaged

Facilities and for Increased Resiliency U.S. Coast Guard Base Detachment Borinquen and Air Station Borinquen Aguadilla, Puerto Rico

Contract Number: 70Z05018DTRANSY01

Delivery Order Number: 70Z04721FASBRFP00

Prepared for:

U.S. Coast Guard

FDCC

5505 Robin Hood Rd. Suite K Norfolk, VA 23613-2431

Prepared by:

(This page intentionally left blank.)

i Final Environmental Assessment for Repair and Replacement of Hurricane Damaged Facilities and for Increased Resiliency U.S. Coast Guard Base Detachment Borinquen and Air Station Borinquen

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Contents 1

Contents ................................................................................................................................................. i 2 Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ vi 3 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1 4 Chapter 1 Purpose and Need.................................................................................................... 1-1 5

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1-1 6

1.2 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................... 1-4 7

1.3 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................ 1-4 8

1.3.1 Clean Air Act ..................................................................................... 1-5 9

1.3.2 Clean Water Act ................................................................................ 1-5 10

1.3.3 Coastal Zone Management Act ...................................................... 1-5 11

1.3.4 Endangered Species Act .................................................................. 1-6 12

1.3.5 Energy Independence and Security Act ........................................ 1-6 13

1.3.6 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 .............. 1-6 14

1.3.7 National Historic Preservation Act ................................................ 1-7 15

1.3.8 Noise Control Act ............................................................................. 1-7 16

1.3.9 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act .................................... 1-7 17

1.3.10 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 18

Liability Act ....................................................................................... 1-8 19

1.3.11 Toxic Substances Control Act ......................................................... 1-8 20

1.3.12 EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands .................................................. 1-8 21

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives ....................................................................... 2-1 22

2.1 Identification of Site Planning Elements ............................................................... 2-1 23

2.2 Identification of Preliminary Alternatives ............................................................ 2-4 24

2.3 Preliminary Alternative Screening Process .......................................................... 2-7 25

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration .......... 2-10 26

2.5 Alternatives Brought Forward for Detailed Analysis ....................................... 2-10 27

2.5.1 Alternative A (Figure 2.5-1) ......................................................................... 2-10 28

2.5.2 Proposed Action (Alternative G) (Figure 2.5-2) ........................................ 2-12 29

2.5.3 No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 2-12 30

2.6 Project Design Features ......................................................................................... 2-14 31

2.6.1 Biological Resources ...................................................................................... 2-14 32

2.6.2 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 2-14 33

2.6.3 Hydrology and Water Resources ................................................................ 2-14 34

2.6.4 Hazardous Materials and Waste ................................................................. 2-15 35

2.6.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ............................................................ 2-15 36

2.6.6 Noise ................................................................................................................ 2-16 37

2.6.7 Transportation ................................................................................................ 2-16 38

2.7 Resource Analysis................................................................................................... 2-16 39 Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ............................. 3-1 40

3.1 Biological Resources ................................................................................................. 3-2 41

3.1.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................... 3-2 42

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................ 3-6 43 ii Final Environmental Assessment for Repair and

3.2 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 3-9 1

3.2.1 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3-10 2

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 3-22 3

3.2.3 Development of Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic 4

Agreement ....................................................................................... 3-25 5

3.3 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................... 3-25 6

3.3.1 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3-25 7

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 3-26 8

3.4 Hydrology and Water Resources ......................................................................... 3-27 9

3.4.1 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3-27 10

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 3-28 11

3.5 Hazardous Materials and Waste .......................................................................... 3-29 12

3.5.1 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3-29 13

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 3-30 14

3.6 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ..................................................................... 3-31 15

3.6.1 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3-32 16

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 3-32 17

3.7 Noise ......................................................................................................................... 3-34 18

3.7.1 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3-35 19

3.8 Transportation......................................................................................................... 3-39 20

3.8.1 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3-39 21

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 3-40 22

3.9 Utilities ..................................................................................................................... 3-40 23

3.9.1 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3-40 24

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 3-41 25

3.10 Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency ...................................................... 3-42 26

3.10.1 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3-42 27

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 3-43 28

3.11 Socioeconomics ....................................................................................................... 3-44 29

3.11.1 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3-44 30

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 3-45 31

3.11.3 Environmental Justice .................................................................... 3-46 32

3.12 Visual Resources ..................................................................................................... 3-47 33

3.12.1 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3-47 34

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 3-51 35

Chapter 4 Comparison of Alternatives and Conclusion ................................................... 4-56 36

4.1 Comparison of the Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives .......... 4-56 37

4.1.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................. 4-56 38

4.1.2 Alternative A ................................................................................... 4-56 39

4.1.3 No Action Alternative .................................................................... 4-57 40

4.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 4-57 41 Chapter 5 Agency and Public Coordination ......................................................................... 5-1 42

5.1 Agency Coordination ............................................................................................... 5-1 43

5.2 Stakeholder and Public Outreach .......................................................................... 5-2 44 iii Final Environmental Assessment for Repair and

5.2.1 Agency Consultations ...................................................................... 5-2 1

5.2.2 Public Outreach................................................................................. 5-2 2

Chapter 6 Preparers of the Document .................................................................................... 6-1 3 Chapter 7 References ................................................................................................................. 7-1 4

Figures 5 Figure 1.1-1. Project Location ......................................................................................................... 1-2 6 Figure 1.1-2. Project Areas .............................................................................................................. 1-3 7 Figure 2.5-1. Alternative A Site Plan ........................................................................................... 2-11 8 Figure 2.5-2. Proposed Action (Alternative G) Site Plan ......................................................... 2-13 9 Figure 3.1-1. Typical Landscape Vegetation including Royal Palms ....................................... 3-3 10 Figure 3.1-2. View of Native Vegetation Area in the Proposed Water Tank Vicinity ........... 3-3 11 Figure 3.1-3. Typical Cliffside View .............................................................................................. 3-4 12 Figure 3.1-4. Drainage Worn Down to Limestone with Limited Vegetation ......................... 3-7 13 Figure 3.2-1. Flight Hangar No. 2 ................................................................................................ 3-14 14 Figure 3.2-2. Type A Housing Unit ............................................................................................. 3-15 15 Figure 3.2-3. Type B Housing Unit ............................................................................................. 3-15 16 Figure 3.2-4. Type C Housing Unit ............................................................................................. 3-16 17 Figure 3.2-5. Type D Housing Unit ............................................................................................. 3-16 18 Figure 3.2-6. Type F Housing Unit .............................................................................................. 3-17 19 Figure 3.2-7. Type G Housing Unit ............................................................................................. 3-17 20 Figure 3.2-8. North Side of La Plaza ........................................................................................... 3-18 21 Figure 3.12-1. Base Detachment Borinquen – Housing Area .................................................... 3-49 22 Figure 3.12-2. Housing Unit with Landscaping .......................................................................... 3-50 23 Figure 3.12-3. Street View of Housing Unit with Landscaping ................................................ 3-50 24 Figure 3.12-4. North Side of La Plaza Facing South ................................................................... 3-51 25 Figure 3.12-5. Open Green Space North of Cliff Road Looking South .................................... 3-52 26 Figure 3.12-6. Open Green Space North of Cliff Road Looking East ....................................... 3-52 27 Figure 3.12-7. Flight Hangar No. 2 Looking West ...................................................................... 3-53 28

Tables 29 Table 2.3-1. Preliminary Alternative Screening Parameters .................................................... 2-8 30 Table 2.3-2. Results of Screening of Preliminary Alternatives ................................................ 2-9 31 Table 2.7-1. Resources Eliminated from Analysis ................................................................... 2-17 32 Table 3.1-1. NOAA Threatened and Endangered Species List ............................................... 3-5 33 Table 3.1-2. Birds of USFWS Conservation Concern (2008) .................................................... 3-5 34 Table 3.2-1. Structures Potentially Affected by the Proposed Action and Alternative ..... 3-20 35 Table 3.2-2. Proposed Retained Structure Type by Address ................................................. 3-23 36 Table 3.6-1 Annual Backup Generator Emissions (tons/year) ............................................ 3-33 37 Table 3.7-1. Typical Sound Levels ............................................................................................. 3-34 38 Table 3.7-2. Noise Levels for Typical Construction Equipment ........................................... 3-36 39 Table 3.7-3. Emergency Generator Noise Emission Levels ................................................... 3-38 40 iv Final Environmental Assessment for Repair and

Table 3.8-1. AADT for Selected Road Segments in Project Area .......................................... 3-39 1 Table 3.11-1 Census Data ............................................................................................................. 3-45 2 Table 3.11-2 Estimated Construction Costs and Jobs for the Proposed Action and 3

Alternative A ........................................................................................................... 3-45 4 Table 5-1. Consultation and Coordination List ...................................................................... 5-1 5

Appendices 6 Appendix A: Alternatives Plan Sheets 7 Appendix B: Biological Resources Information 8 Appendix C: Cultural Resources Regional Historic Context 9 Appendix D: Generators Emission Calculations 10 Appendix E: Agency and Public Coordination 11 v Final Environmental Assessment for Repair and vi Final Environmental Assessment for Repair and

Acronyms and Abbreviations 1

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic 2 ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 3 ACM Asbestos Containing Materials 4 AFB Air Force Base 5 APE Area of Potential Effects 6 ASB Air Station Borinquen 7 ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers 8 AST Above Ground Storage Tank 9 ATON Aids to Navigation 10 BDB Base Detachment Borinquen 11 BMP Best Management Practices 12 CAA Clean Air Act 13 CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 14 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 15 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 16 CG Coast Guard 17 CGP Construction General Permit 18 COMDTINST Commandant Instruction 19 CWA Clean Water Act 20 CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 21 dB Decibels 22 dBA A-weighted decibels 23 DHS Department of Homeland Security 24 DNER Department of Natural and Environmental Resources 25 DoD Department of Defense 26 EA Environmental Assessment 27 EIS Environmental Impact Statement 28 EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 29 EO Executive Order 30 EOC Energy Operations Center 31 EPA Environmental Protection Agency 32 EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act 33 EQD Environmental Quality Board 34 ESA Endangered Species Act 35 FFDOCKET Federal Facility Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket 36 FHWA Federal Highway Administration 37 FTA Federal Transit Administration 38 FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 39 GDP Gross Domestic Product 40 GHG Greenhouse Gas 41 GIS Geographic Information System 42 ICP Institute of Puerto Rican Culture 43 HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 44 HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 45 IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation 46 KM Kilometer 47 vii Final Environmental Assessment for Repair and

LBP Lead Based Paint 1 MAC Military Airlift Command 2 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 3 MWR Morale, Welfare, and Recreation 4 NCA Noise Control Act of 1972 5 NCO Non-commissioned Officer 6 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 7 NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 8 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 9 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 10 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 11 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 12 NRHP National Register of Historic Places 13 NWI National Wetlands Inventory 14 OECH Oficina Estatal de Conservación Historica 15 PA Programmatic Agreement 16 PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls 17 PM10 Particulate matter less than less than 10 microns in diameter 18 PM2.5 Particulate matter less than less than 2.5 microns in diameter 19 PMZCPR Coastal Zone Management Program of Puerto Rico 20 PPA Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 21 Ppm Parts per million 22 PR Puerto Rico 23 PRASA Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority 24 PRB Puerto Rican Boa 25 PREPA Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority 26 PVC Polyvinyl chloride 27 RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model 28 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 29 SAC Strategic Air Command 30 SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 31 SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 32 TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 33 UPH Unaccompanied Personnel Housing 34 UPS Uninterrupted Power Supply 35 USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 36 USC United States Code 37 USCG United States Coast Guard 38 USCGX United States Coast Guard Exhange 39 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 40

ES-1 Final Environmental Assessment for Repair and Replacement of Hurricane Damaged Facilities and for Increased Resiliency U.S. Coast Guard Base

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 2 This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with the National 3 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 United States Code [USC] §§ 4321 et seq.); the 4 President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations Implementing the Procedural 5 Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508); Department of 6 Homeland Security (DHS) Management Directive 023-01, Implementation of NEPA; and Coast 7 Guard Commandant Instruction (COMDTINST) 5090.1, U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning 8 Policy. 9

This EA evaluates the environmental effects of the United States Coast Guard’s (USCG) proposal to 10 restore hurricane damaged facilities, bring buildings and infrastructure up to current standards, and 11 increase the resiliency of facilities and infrastructure to withstand future storm events at Base 12 Detachment Borinquen (BDB) and Air Station Borinquen (ASB). The information and analysis 13 contained within this EA will determine whether implementation of the Proposed Action would 14 have a significant impact on the environment, requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact 15 Statement (EIS). If no significant impacts would occur, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 16 would be appropriate. 17

Purpose and Need for Action 18

In September 2017, BDB and ASB suffered extensive damage to many of its facilities from 19 Hurricanes Irma and Maria. This damage severely affected the Coast Guard’s ability to efficiently 20 perform its mission, which is search and rescue as well as law enforcement, aerial support for aids to 21 navigation, and logistic support. In addition, many structures and utilities at BDB are dated and no 22 longer adequately serve their intended purpose or remain properly functioning after a major event, 23 such as a hurricane. The purpose of the project is to upgrade existing housing, community services, 24 and utilities on BDB and ASB to current Coast Guard standards and to include increased resiliency. 25

The project is needed to ensure that BDB and ASB are able to meet their missions by remaining fully 26 operational during a storm event or unscheduled utility outage, independent of local utility 27 providers. In addition, the project is needed to provide the appropriate number of safe and 28 adequately sized housing units to meet current and projected future BDB and ASB needs. 29

Proposed Action and Alternatives 30

The Coast Guard identified a suite of six elements that needed to be addressed by any alternative 31 considered to meet the project’s purpose and need. The elements identified are listed below 32 followed by their descriptions. 33

1. Construct a new Community Services/Personnel Support building; 34

2. Upgrade the resiliency of the electrical distribution system serving both the BDB 35

Housing and ASB Areas; 36

3. Rebuild and/or repair housing units to meet resiliency thresholds; 37

4. Upgrade the water resiliency storage systems to meet resiliency thresholds; 38

5. Design a stormwater drainage solution for the BDB Housing Area to meet resiliency 39

ES-2 Final Environmental Assessment for Repair and thresholds; and 1

6. Rebuild and/or construct a new sanitary sewer system at BDB Housing Area. 2

Six preliminary alternatives were developed to address the purpose and need. The primary 3 differences among the alternatives are in the way they address providing a new Community 4 Services/Personnel Support Building and providing Housing that meets the current needs of BDB 5 while also increasing resiliency in electrical power, water supply, sanitary sewer, and stormwater 6 drainage. 7

The Coast Guard assigned parameters within each element that would assist in ranking of each 8 alternative for further consideration. Using these parameters, the Coast Guard evaluated each 9 alternative to determine if it resulted in a preferred or non-preferred approach to the project 10 elements. This approach enabled the Coast Guard to screen the preliminary set of alternatives in a 11 quantitative manner and rank each alternative based on its ability to provide the best solution for 12 each project element. Screening of preliminary alternatives resulted in the identification of 13 Alternative A and Alternative G (Proposed Action) being carried forward for detailed analysis in 14 this EA. 15

Alternative A is a “Main Street” approach, with a cluster of new community center buildings and 16 parking located on the current Sixth Street. This alternative retains most existing housing and 17 minimizes new construction and new streets. Under Alternative A, 98 housing units would be 18 repaired, 88 housing units would be demolished, 38 existing housing units would remain with no 19 renovation, and 50 new housing units would be constructed. The entirety of La Plaza would be 20 demolished. 21

Alternative G (Proposed Action) is a “Town Square” approach, with four new L shaped community 22 center buildings creating a town square along the current Sixth Street. It features a new recreational 23 field and parking. This alternative also features some retained existing housing units and a number 24 of new housing units and maximizes space for future development. Under Alternative G, 97 25 housing units would be repaired, 86 housing units would be demolished, 41 housing units would 26 remain with no renovation, and 24 new housing units in 12 duplexes and a 34-room UPH would be 27 constructed. 28

Final Environmental Assessment for Repair and

September 2021 ES-0

Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences 1

Table ES-1: Summary of Potential Impacts to Affected Environmental Resources

Technical Resource Area

Proposed Action (Alternative G)

Alternative A No Action

Biological Resources

Disturbance of local birds and small mammals is not anticipated to be significant due to the presence of greater natural habitat areas near the project area.

Pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, the USCG has determined that the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the PRB with the implementation of Project Design Feature BIO-1: Puerto Rican Boa Avoidance Measures. This determination is pending coordination and concurrence with the USFWS. Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action will have no significant impact on threatened and endangered species.

Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the USCG has determined that the Proposed Action would not result in take of migratory birds or the parts, nests, or eggs of such birds with the implementation of Project Design Feature BIO-2: Migratory Bird Avoidance. Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action will have no significant impact on migratory birds.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the USCG has determined there would be no impacts to wetlands as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action. Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action will have no significant impact on wetlands.

Impacts to biological resources are not substantially different under Alternative A as compared to the Proposed Action.

No impact

Cultural Resources Pursuant to the NHPA, the Proposed Action will have an adverse effect to the housing units. The USCG will continue to consult with the SHPO and other consulting parties to resolve adverse effects through avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation, resulting in the execution and implementation of a memorandum of agreement. Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action will have no significant impact on the housing units.

Pursuant to the NHPA, the Proposed Action will have no adverse effect to Hangar 402. Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action will have no significant impact on Hangar 402.

Impacts to historic resources with implementation of Alternative A would be similar to those under the Proposed Action. However, under Alternative A, two more historic housing structures would be demolished under

No impact

September 2021 ES-1

Technical Resource Area

Proposed Action (Alternative G)

Alternative A No Action

Pursuant to the NHPA, the Proposed Action will have an adverse effect on La Plaza. The USCG continued to consult with the SHPO and other consulting parties to resolve adverse effects through avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation, resulting in the execution and implementation of a memorandum of agreement (MOA). An MOA was signed by the U.S. Coast Guard and Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Officer on August 17, 2021. Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action will have no significant impact on La Plaza.

If archaeological resources are encountered during construction activities, Project Design Feature CUL-1: Unanticipated Archaeological Discoveries will be implemented. If the archaeological resource is determined to be eligible, the USCG would reinitiate consultation with the SHPO and other consulting parties to determine a way forward.

Pursuant to the NHPA, the Proposed Action will have no effect on archaeological resources. Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action will have no significant impact on archaeological resources.

With implementation of Project Design Feature CUL-1: Unanticipated Archaeological Discoveries pursuant to the NHPA, the Proposed Action will have no effect on archaeological resources. Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action will have no significant impact on archaeological resources.

Alternative A than under the Proposed Action.

Geology and Soils Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action would have no significant impact on geology and soils.

Impacts would be the same as for the Proposed Action.

No impact

Hydrology and Water Resources

Pursuant to NEPA, development and operation of a new well would have no significant impact on hydrology and water quality. With implementation of Project Design Features WAT-1: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, WAT-2: Construction Equipment Maintenance, and WAT-3: Stormwater Outfall Design pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action would have no significant impact on hydrology and water quality.

Impacts would be the same as for the Proposed Action.

No impact

Hazardous Materials and

Project Design Features HAZ-1: Regulatory agency file review, HAZ-2:

Asbestos and Lead based paint removal, and HAZ-3: Aboveground

Impacts would be the same as for the Proposed Action.

September 2021 ES-2

Area

Proposed Action (Alternative G)

Alternative A No Action

Waste Storage Tanks will be implemented to reduce the potential of adverse impacts associated with Hazardous Materials and Waste. Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action would have no significant hazardous materials or wastes impacts.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

Through implementation of Project Design Feature AQ-1 Air Quality Best Management Practices, construction air quality impacts would be minimized. Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action would have no significant impact on air quality and greenhouse gases during construction.

Operational emissions would occur from backup generators. The impact of the generators would be temporary because they would only be used during power outages and for testing. Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the Proposed Action is exempt from the General Conformity Rule, as there would be no reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect emissions in nonattainment or maintenance areas. Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action would have no significant impact on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions from the backup generators.

Impacts would be the same as for the Proposed Action.

No impact

Noise Project Design Feature NOI-1: Noise Reduction Measure will be implemented to minimize construction noise impacts. Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action would have no significant impact as a result of noise during construction.

Project Design Feature NOI-2: Noise Reduction Measure will be implemented to reduce noise impacts from emergency generators at the Housing Area. Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action would have no significant impacts as a result of noise from operation of the emergency backup generators.

Impacts would be the same as for the Proposed Action.

No impact

Transportation Project Design Feature T-1: Traffic Management Plan will be implemented to minimize construction traffic impacts. There would be no additional project-related traffic after the construction has been completed. Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action would have no significant impact on transportation.

Impacts would be the same as for the Proposed Action.

September 2021 ES-3

Area

Proposed Action (Alternative G)

Alternative A No Action

Utilities Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action would have no significant impact on utilities.

Impacts would be the same as for the Proposed Action.

No Impact

Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency

Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action would have no significant impact to the Coastal Zone, however the USCG will obtain a Coastal Zone Management Certification from the Puerto Rico Planning Board.

Pursuant to the CZMA, the Proposed Action will have no reasonably foreseeable effects on coastal uses and resources.

Impacts would be the same as for the Proposed Action.

No Impact

Socioeconomics The Proposed Action would add up to 4,070 job-years to the local economy which would be a substantial economic benefit to the region.

Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action will have a beneficial impact on socioeconomics.

Pursuant to E.O. 12898, the Proposed Action would not result in any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations or low-income populations. Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action would have no significant impact to environmental justice communities.

Impacts would be the same as for the Proposed Action except Alternative A would add 3,522 job years to the local economy during the construction period.

No Impact

Visual Resources Under the Proposed Action there will be a temporary adverse effects to visual resources during construction. The overall visual character of ASB and BDB will not substantially change under the Proposed Action.

Pursuant to NEPA, the Proposed Action would have no significant impact to visual resources.

Impacts would be the same as for the Proposed Action although the proposed layout of the community services facilities would be more of a departure from the existing layout than would the Proposed Action.

Impact

ES-4 Final Environmental Assessment for Repair and

Resumen Ejecutivo 1

Introducción 2 Esta Evaluación Ambiental (EA) ha sido preparada de acuerdo con la Ley de Política Ambiental 3 Nacional de 1969 (NEPA; Código de los Estados Unidos 42 [USC] §§ 4321 et seq.); las Regulaciones 4 del Consejo Presidencial de Calidad Ambiental (CEQ) que Implementan las Disposiciones de 5 Procedimiento de la NEPA (Código 40 de Regulaciones Federales [CFR] Partes 1500-1508); Directiva 6 de gestión del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) 023-01, Implementación de NEPA; y la 7 Instrucción del Comandante de la Guardia Costera (COMDTINST) 5090.1, Política de planificación 8 ambiental de la Guardia Costera de EE. UU. 9

Esta EA evalúa los efectos ambientales de la propuesta de la Guardia Costera de los Estados 10 Unidos (USCG) para restaurar las instalaciones dañadas por el huracán, llevar los edificios y la 11 infraestructura a los estándares actuales y aumentar la capacidad de recuperación de las 12 instalaciones y la infraestructura para resistir tormentas futuras en el Base Detachment Borinquen 13 (BDB) y Air Station Borinquen (ASB). La información y el análisis contenidos en esta EA 14 determinarán si la implementación de la Acción Propuesta tendría un impacto significativo en el 15 medio ambiente, requiriendo la preparación de una Declaración de Impacto Ambiental (DIA). Si no 16 ocurrieran impactos significativos, sería apropiado un Hallazgo de Impacto No Significativo 17 (FONSI, en Ingles). 18

Propósito y Necesidad de Acción 19

En Septiembre de 2017, BDB y ASB sufrieron grandes daños en muchas de sus instalaciones por los 20 huracanes Irma y María. Este daño afectó gravemente la capacidad de la Guardia Costera para 21 realizar de manera eficiente su misión, que es búsqueda y rescate, así como aplicación de la ley, 22 apoyo aéreo para ayudas a la navegación y apoyo logístico. Además, muchas estructuras y servicios 23 públicos en BDB están anticuados y ya no cumplen adecuadamente su propósito previsto o siguen 24 funcionando correctamente después de un evento importante, como un huracán. El propósito de el 25 proyecto es actualizar las viviendas, los servicios comunitarios y los servicios públicos existentes en 26 BDB y ASB a los estándares actuales de la Guardia Costera e incluir una mayor capacidad de 27 recuperación. 28

El proyecto es necesario para garantizar que BDB y ASB puedan cumplir con sus misiones 29 permaneciendo en pleno funcionamiento durante un evento de tormenta o un corte no programado 30 de servicios públicos, independientemente de los proveedores de servicios públicos 31 locales. Además, el proyecto es necesario para proporcionar la cantidad adecuada de unidades de 32 vivienda seguras y de tamaño adecuado para satisfacer las necesidades actuales y futuras 33 proyectadas de BDB y ASB. 34

Acción Propuesta y Alternativas 35

El Guardia Costera identificó un conjunto de seis elementos que deben ser abordados por cualquier 36 alternativa considerada para cumplir con el propósito y la necesidad del proyecto. Los elementos 37 identificados se enumeran a continuación seguidos de sus descripciones. 38

1. Construir un nuevo edificio de Servicios Comunitarios/Apoyo al Personal; 39

ES-5 Final Environmental Assessment for Repair and

2. Mejorar la capacidad de recuperación de el sistema de distribución eléctrica que sirve 1 tanto a las áreas BDB Housing como ASB; 2

3. Reconstruir y/o reparar unidades de vivienda para cumplir con los umbrales de 3 resiliencia; 4

4. Actualizar los sistemas de almacenamiento de resiliencia de el agua para cumplir con 5 los umbrales de resiliencia; 6

5. Diseñar una solución de drenaje de aguas pluviales para el Área de Vivienda de BDB 7 para cumplir con los umbrales de resiliencia; y 8

6. Reconstruir y/o construir un nuevo sistema de alcantarillado sanitario en el Área de 9 Vivienda de BDB. 10

Se desarrollaron seis alternativas preliminares para abordar el propósito y la necesidad. Las 11 principales diferencias entre las alternativas están en la forma en que abordan la provisión de un 12 nuevo edificio de servicios comunitarios/apoyo al personal y la provisión de viviendas que 13 satisfagan las necesidades actuales de BDB al tiempo que aumentan la resistencia en energía 14 eléctrica, suministro de agua, alcantarillado sanitario y drenaje de aguas pluviales. 15

La Guardia Costera asignó parámetros dentro de cada elemento que ayudarían a clasificar cada 16 alternativa para su consideración adicional. Usando estos parámetros, la Guardia Costera evaluó 17 cada alternativa para determinar si resultó en un enfoque preferido o no preferido para los 18 elementos del proyecto. Este enfoque permitió a la Guardia Costera examinar el conjunto preliminar 19 de alternativas de manera cuantitativa y clasificar cada alternativa en función de su capacidad para 20 proporcionar la mejor solución para cada elemento de el proyecto. La selección 21 de alternativas preliminares dio como resultado que la identificación de la Alternativa A y la 22 Alternativa G (Acción propuesta) se llevara adelante para un análisis detallado en esta EA. 23

La Alternativa A es un enfoque de “Main Street”, con un grupo de nuevos edificios de centros 24 comunitarios y estacionamiento ubicado en la actual Sexta Calle. Esta alternativa conserva la 25 mayoría de las viviendas existentes y minimiza las nuevas construcciones y calles nuevas. Bajo la 26 Alternativa A, se repararían 98 unidades de vivienda, se demolerían 88 unidades de vivienda, se 27 construirían 50 nuevas unidades de vivienda y se quedarían 38 unidades de vivienda existentes sin 28 renovación. La totalidad de La Plaza sería demolida. 29

La Alternativa G (Acción propuesta) es un enfoque de “Plaza de la ciudad”, con cuatro nuevos 30 edificios de centros comunitarios en forma de L que crean una plaza de la ciudad a lo largo de la 31 actual Sexta Calle. Cuenta con un nuevo campo recreativo y estacionamiento. Esta alternativa 32 también presenta algunas unidades de vivienda existentes retenidas y una serie de nuevas unidades 33 de vivienda y maximiza el espacio para el desarrollo futuro. Bajo la Alternativa G, 97 unidades de 34 vivienda se pueden reparar, 86 unidades de vivienda serían demolidas, 24 nuevas unidades de 35 vivienda en 12 dúplex serían construidos, una unidad de Vivienda para Personal No Acompañado 36 (UPH) de 34 habitaciones, y quedarían 41 unidades de vivienda existentes sin renovación. 37

September 2021 ES-6

Resumen de las Posibles Consecuencias Ambientales 1

Table ES-1: Resumen de Impactos Potenciales Sobre los Recursos Ambientales Afectados

Área de Recursos Técnicos

Acción Propuesta (Alternative G)

Alternative A Sin Acción

Recursos Biológicos No se prevé que la perturbación de aves locales y pequeños mamíferos sea significativa debido a la presencia de áreas de hábitat natural más grandes cerca de el área del proyecto.

De conformidad con la Sección 7 de la ESA, el USCG ha determinado que la Acción Propuesta puede afectar, pero no es probable que afecte adversamente al PRB con la implementación de la Característica de Diseño del Proyecto BIO-1: Medidas para Evitar la Boa de Puerto Rico. Esta determinación está pendiente de coordinación y concurrencia con el USFWS. De conformidad con la NEPA, la acción propuesta no tendrá un impacto significativo sobre las especies amenazadas y en peligro de extinción.

De conformidad con la Ley del Tratado de Aves Migratorias, el USCG ha determinado que la Acción Propuesta no resultaría en la captura de aves migratorias o las partes, nidos o huevos de dichas aves con la implementación de la Característica de Diseño del Proyecto BIO-2:

Evitación de Aves Migratorias. De conformidad con la NEPA, la acción propuesta no tendrá un impacto significativo en las aves migratorias.

De conformidad con la Sección 404 de la Ley de Agua Limpia, el USCG ha determinado que no habrá impactos en los humedales como resultado de la implementación de la Acción propuesta. De conformidad con la NEPA, la acción propuesta no tendrá un impacto significativo en los humedales.

Los impactos a los recursos biológicos no son sustancialmente diferentes bajo la Alternativa A en comparación con la Acción Propuesta.

Sin impacto

Recursos Culturales

De conformidad con la NHPA, la Acción Propuesta tendrá un efecto adverso en las unidades de vivienda. La USCG continuará consultando con la SHPO y otras partes consultoras para resolver los efectos adversos mediante la evitación, minimización y/o mitigación, lo que resultará en la ejecución e implementación de un memorando de acuerdo. De conformidad con la NEPA, la acción propuesta no tendrá un impacto significativo en las unidades de vivienda.

Los impactos a los recursos históricos con la implementación de la Alternativa A serían similares a los de la Acción Propuesta. Sin embargo, bajo la Alternativa A, dos

Sin impacto

September 2021 ES-7

Área de Recursos Técnicos

Acción Propuesta (Alternative G)

Alternative A Sin Acción

De acuerdo con la NHPA, la Acción Propuesta no tendrá ningún efecto adverso en el Hangar 402. De acuerdo con la NEPA, la Acción Propuesta no tendrá un impacto significativo en el Hangar 402.

De acuerdo con la NHPA, la Acción Propuesta tendrá un efecto adverso en La Plaza. La USCG continuará consultando con la SHPO y otras partes consultoras para resolver los efectos adversos mediante la evitación, minimización y/o mitigación, lo que resultará en la ejecución e implementación de un memorando de acuerdo (MOA). Un MOA fue firmado por la Guardia Costera de los Estados Unidos y el Oficial de Preservación Histórica del Estado de Puerto Rico el 17 de agosto de 2021. De acuerdo con la NEPA, la Acción Propuesta no tendrá un impacto significativo en La Plaza.

Si se encuentran recursos arqueológicos durante las actividades de construcción, se implementará la Característica de Diseño del Proyecto CUL-1: Descubrimientos Arqueológicos No Anticipados. Si se determina que el recurso arqueológico es elegible, el USCG reiniciaría la consulta con la SHPO y otras partes consultoras para determinar el camino a seguir. De acuerdo con la NHPA, la Acción Propuesta no tendrá ningún efecto sobre los recursos arqueológicos. De acuerdo con la NEPA, la Acción Propuesta no tendrá un impacto significativo en los recursos arqueológicos.

Con la implementación de la Característica de Diseño del Proyecto CUL- 1: Descubrimientos Arqueológicos No Anticipados de conformidad con la NHPA, la Acción Propuesta no tendrá ningún efecto sobre los recursos arqueológicos. De acuerdo con la NEPA, la Acción Propuesta no tendrá un impacto significativo en los recursos arqueológicos.

estructuras de viviendas históricas más serían demolidas bajo la Alternativa A que bajo la Acción Propuesta.

Geología y Suelos De acuerdo con la NEPA, la Acción Propuesta no tendría un impacto significativo en la geología y los suelos.

Los impactos serían los mismos que para la acción propuesta.

Sin impacto

Hidrología y Recursos Hídricos

De acuerdo con la NEPA, el desarrollo y la operación de un pozo nuevo no tendría un impacto significativo en la hidrología y la calidad de el agua. Con la implementación de las Características del

Los impactos serían los mismos que para la acción propuesta.

September 2021 ES-8

Técnicos

Acción Propuesta (Alternative G)

Alternative A Sin Acción

Diseño del Proyecto WAT-1: Plan de Prevención de la Contaminación de las Aguas Pluviales de la Construcción, WAT-2: Mantenimiento de los Equipos de Construcción, y WAT-3: Diseño del Emisario de las Aguas Pluviales de conformidad con la NEPA, la Acción Propuesta no tendría un impacto significativo en la hidrología y la calidad del agua.

Materiales y Desechos Peligrosos

Características del diseño del proyecto HAZ-1: Revisión de archivos de la agencia reguladora, HAZ-2: Eliminación de pintura a base de asbesto y plomo, y HAZ-3: Se implementarán tanques de almacenamiento sobre el suelo para reducir el potencial de impactos adversos asociados con materiales y desechos peligrosos. De acuerdo con la NEPA, la Acción Propuesta no tendría impactos significativos en materiales peligrosos o desechos.

Los impactos serían los mismos que para la acción propuesta.

Sin impacto

Calidad del Aire y Gases de Efecto Invernadero

A través de la implementación de la Característica de Diseño del Proyecto AQ-1 Mejores Prácticas de Gestión de la Calidad del Aire, se minimizarían los impactos de la calidad del aire de la construcción. De acuerdo con la NEPA, la Acción Propuesta no tendría un impacto significativo en la calidad del aire y los gases de efecto invernadero durante la construcción.

Las emisiones operativas se producirían a partir de generadores de…