USCG Base Honolulu Preliminary Draft EA_013024.pdf

Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment for Seagoing Buoy Tender Mooring and Structural Pier Upgrades at U.S. Coast Guard Base Honolulu, Hawaii Contract No. 70Z05019DWEAISI0 Task Order No. 70Z05023F43000002

Prepared for:

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Facilities Design & Construction Center 5505 Robin Hood Road, Suite K Norfolk, VA 23513-2431

Prepared by:

WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc.

104 West Anapamu Street, Suite 204A Santa Barbara, CA 93101

January 2024

Seagoing Buoy Tender Mooring and Structural Pier Upgrades – USCG Base Honolulu Preliminary Draft EA – January 2024 i

CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................. vi

SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................................ 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 HOMEPORTING OVERVIEW .................................................................... 1-4

1.3.1 USCG Mission ................................................................................... 1-4

1.3.2 USCG District 14 ............................................................................... 1-5

1.3.3 Base Honolulu ................................................................................... 1-6

1.4 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................. 1-6

1.5 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................. 1-7

1.6 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS .............................................. 1-7

1.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REQUIREMENTS ................................ 1-8

1.7.1 National Environmental Policy Act................................................. 1-8

1.7.2 Endangered Species Act ................................................................... 1-9

1.7.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management

Act ...................................................................................................... 1-9

1.7.4 Clean Air Act and Conformity Requirements .............................. 1-10

1.7.5 Wetland and Water Resources Regulatory Requirements .......... 1-11

1.7.6 Coastal Zone Consistency Determination .................................... 1-11

1.7.7 Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343 ................................ 1-12

1.7.8 Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), Chapter 205 ............................... 1-12

1.7.9 Cultural Resources Regulatory Requirements ............................. 1-13

1.7.10 Sustainability and Greening ........................................................... 1-14

1.7.11 City and County of Honolulu General Plan ................................. 1-14

1.8 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................. 1-15

SECTION 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .............................. 2-1

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 ALTERNATIVE 1: PRECAST CONCRETE FLOATING DOCK ................................. 2-2

2.3 ALTERNATIVE 2: LATERAL PIER EXTENSION ................................................... 2-4

2.4 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................. 2-4

SECTION 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................... 3-1

3.1 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ............................................................ 3-1

3.1.1 Definition of Resource ...................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1.1 Criteria Pollutants............................................................... 3-2

3.1.1.2 Clean Air Act Amendments .............................................. 3-3

3.1.1.3 NEPA Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse

Gas Emissions and Climate Change ................................. 3-3

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

SECTION TITLE PAGE

ii

3.1.1.4 Hawaii Climate Adaptation Initiative Act ....................... 3-4

3.1.2 Existing Conditions........................................................................... 3-4

3.1.2.1 Climate ................................................................................ 3-4

3.1.2.2 Local Air Quality ................................................................ 3-5

3.1.2.3 Emissions at Base Honolulu .............................................. 3-6

3.1.2.4 Climate Change Issues for Honolulu Harbor .................. 3-6

3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 3-8

3.2.1 Definition of Resource ...................................................................... 3-8

3.2.2 Existing Conditions........................................................................... 3-8

3.2.2.1 Terrestrial Biological Resources ........................................ 3-8 Aquatic Biological Resources ......................................................... 3-10

3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 3-22

3.3.1 Definition of Resource .................................................................... 3-22

3.3.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................... 3-24

3.3.2.1 Regional History ............................................................... 3-24

3.4 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................. 3-25

3.4.1 Definition of Resource .................................................................... 3-25

3.4.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................... 3-26

3.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES ........................................................ 3-29

3.5.1 Definition of Resource .................................................................... 3-29

3.5.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................... 3-30

3.5.2.1 Hazardous Materials and Wastes in the Vicinity of

Base Honolulu................................................................... 3-30

3.5.2.2 Hazardous Materials and Wastes at Base Honolulu ..... 3-30

3.6 SAFETY .......................................................................................................... 3-31

3.6.1 Definition of Resource .................................................................... 3-31

3.6.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................... 3-32

3.7 VISUAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 3-34

3.7.1 Definition of Resource .................................................................... 3-34

3.7.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................... 3-34

3.8 WATER RESOURCES....................................................................................... 3-35

3.8.1 Definition of Resource .................................................................... 3-35

3.8.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................... 3-37

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................ 4-1

4.1 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ............................................................ 4-2

4.1.1 Approach to Analysis ....................................................................... 4-2

4.1.2 Impacts ............................................................................................... 4-2

4.1.2.1 Proposed Action: Berth G Extension and Removal

of Existing Floating Dock ................................................... 4-2

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

SECTION TITLE PAGE

iii

4.1.2.2 Alternative 1: Precast Concrete Floating Dock ................ 4-4

4.1.2.3 Alternative 2: Lateral Pier Extension ................................ 4-4

4.1.2.4 No-Action Alternative........................................................ 4-5

4.1.3 Special Procedures ............................................................................ 4-5

4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 4-5

4.2.1 Approach to Analysis ....................................................................... 4-5

4.2.2 Impacts ............................................................................................... 4-6

4.2.2.1 Proposed Action: Berth G Extension and Removal

of Existing Floating Dock ................................................... 4-6

4.2.2.2 Alternative 1: Precast Floating Dock ............................... 4-16

4.2.2.3 Alternative 2: Lateral Pier Extension .............................. 4-17

4.2.2.4 No-Action Alternative...................................................... 4-18

4.2.3 Special Procedures .......................................................................... 4-18

4.2.4 Proposed Minimization and Offset Measures .............................. 4-23

4.2.4.1 Minimization Measures ................................................... 4-23

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 4-24

4.3.1 Approach to Analysis ..................................................................... 4-24

4.3.2 Impacts ............................................................................................. 4-25

4.3.2.1 Proposed Action: Berth G Extension and Removal

of Existing Floating Dock ................................................. 4-25

4.3.2.2 Alternative 1: Precast Floating Dock .............................. 4-26

4.3.2.3 Alternative 2: Lateral Pier Extension .............................. 4-26

4.3.2.4 No-Action Alternative...................................................... 4-26

4.3.3 Special Procedures .......................................................................... 4-27

4.4 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................. 4-27

4.4.1 Approach to Analysis ..................................................................... 4-27

4.4.2 Impacts ............................................................................................. 4-28

4.4.2.1 Proposed Action: Berth G Extension and Removal

of Existing Floating Dock ................................................. 4-28

4.4.2.2 Alternative 1: Precast Floating Dock ............................... 4-28

4.4.2.3 Alternative 2: Lateral Pier Extension .............................. 4-29

4.4.2.4 No-Action Alternative...................................................... 4-29

4.4.3 Special Procedures .......................................................................... 4-29

4.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES ........................................................ 4-29

4.5.1 Approach to Analysis ..................................................................... 4-29

4.5.2 Impacts ............................................................................................. 4-30

4.5.2.1 Proposed Action: Berth G Extension and Removal

of Existing Floating Dock ................................................. 4-30

4.5.2.2 Alternative 1: Precast Floating Dock .............................. 4-31

4.5.2.3 Alternative 2: Lateral Pier Extension .............................. 4-31

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

SECTION TITLE PAGE

iv

4.5.2.4 No-Action Alternative...................................................... 4-31

4.5.3 Special Procedures .......................................................................... 4-32

4.6 SAFETY .......................................................................................................... 4-32

4.6.1 Approach to Analysis ..................................................................... 4-32

4.6.2 Impacts ............................................................................................. 4-32

4.6.2.1 Proposed Action: Berth G Extension and Removal

of Existing Floating Dock ................................................. 4-32

4.6.2.2 Alternative 1: Precast Floating Dock .............................. 4-33

4.6.2.3 Alternative 2: Lateral Pier Extension .............................. 4-33

4.6.2.4 No-Action Alternative...................................................... 4-34

4.6.3 Special Procedures .......................................................................... 4-34

4.7 VISUAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 4-34

4.7.1 Approach to Analysis ..................................................................... 4-34

4.7.2 Impacts ............................................................................................. 4-34

4.7.2.1 Proposed Action: Berth G Extension and Removal

of Existing Floating Dock ................................................. 4-34

4.7.2.2 Alternative 1: Precast Floating Dock .............................. 4-35

4.7.2.3 Alternative 2: Lateral Pier Extension .............................. 4-35

4.7.2.4 No-Action Alternative...................................................... 4-36

4.7.3 Special Procedures .......................................................................... 4-36

4.8 WATER RESOURCES....................................................................................... 4-36

4.8.1 Approach to Analysis ..................................................................... 4-36

4.8.2 Impacts ............................................................................................. 4-37

4.8.2.1 Proposed Action: Berth G Extension and Removal

of Existing Floating Dock ................................................. 4-37

4.8.2.2 Alternative 1: Precast Floating Dock ............................... 4-39

4.8.2.3 Alternative 2: Lateral Pier Extension .............................. 4-39

4.8.2.4 No-Action Alternative...................................................... 4-40

4.8.3 Special Procedures .......................................................................... 4-40

SECTION 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................ 5-1

5.1 PROJECTS CONSIDERED ................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 EVALUATION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ......................................................... 5-1

5.2.1 Short-term Cumulative Impacts ...................................................... 5-5

5.2.2 Long-term Cumulative Impacts ...................................................... 5-6

SECTION 6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .............................................................. 6-1

SECTION 7 SPECIAL PROCEDURES .................................................................. 7-1

SECTION 8 REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 8-1

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

SECTION TITLE PAGE

v

SECTION 9 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................ 9-1

APPENDICES

A List of Agencies Contacted B Scoping Letter and Responses C Agency Consultation Materials D Notice of Availability E Intergovernmental Review Letter and Responses

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. USCG Base Honolulu ......................................................................... 1-3 Figure 2. Proposfied WLB Mooring and Structural Pier Upgrades ............... 2-3 Figure 3. Level A (Injury) and Level B (Behavioral) Zones For Green and Hawksbill Sea Turtles ............................................................... 4-14 Figure 4. Level A (Injury) and Level B (Behavioral) Zones For the

Hawaiian Monk Seal ........................................................................ 4-15

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 3-1. Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles Known to Occur off of the Hawaiian Islands .............................................................................. 3-19

Table 3-2. Local Hazardous Waste Sites: Sand Island .................................... 3-30 Table 4-1. Noise Generating Project Activities and Associated Noise

Levels ................................................................................................... 4-8 Table 5-1. Cumulative Projects and Plans.......................................................... 5-2 Table 6-1. Summary of Potential Impacts to Affected and Non-Affected

Environmental Resources .................................................................. 6-1 vi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

µPa micropascal μPa2s micropascal squared per second ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act BA Biological Assessment BMP best management practice CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations cm centimeter CO carbon monoxide COMDTINST Coast Guard Commandant Instruction CPB Coastal Patrol Boat CWA Clean Water Act CZM Coastal Zone Management CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act D14 Fourteenth Coast Guard District dB decibel DHS Department of Homeland Security DLNR Department of Land and Natural Resources DLNR-DAR Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of

Aquatic Resources DO dissolved oxygen DTH down-the-hole EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FEP Fishery Ecosystem Plan FMP Fishery Management Plan FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FR Federal Register FRC Fast Response Cutter HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern HAR Hawaii Administrative Rules HDOT Hawaii Department of Transportation HIDOH Hawaii Department of Health HIDOH-CAB Hawaii Department of Health, Clean Air Branch

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)

vii

HRS Hawaii Revised Statutes kHz kilohertz LOS Level of Service m2 square meter MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MRCI Marine Research Consultants, Inc.

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act MUS Management Unit Species NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NH4 ammonium NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NO2 nitrogen dioxide NO3 nitrate NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOx nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSC National Security Cutter O3 ozone OCCL Office of Conservation and Coastal Planning OEQC Office of Environmental Quality Control OPSD Office of Planning and Sustainable Development ORMP Ocean Resources Management Plan P.L. Public Law Pb lead PIFSC Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center PIRO Pacific Islands Regional Office PM particulate matter PM10 particulate matter 10 microns or less PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns or less ppm parts per million PSO Protected Species Observer PTS permanent threshold shift RHA Rivers and Harbors Act RMS root mean square

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)

viii

ROG reactive organic gases SELcum cumulative sound exposure level sf2 square foot SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act SHPD State Historic Preservation Division SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIP State Implementation Plan SMA Special Management Areas SO2 sulfur dioxide SOx sulfur oxides SPL sound pressure level SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TN Total Nitrogen TP Total Phosphorus TSS total suspended solids USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC U.S. Code USCG U.S. Coast Guard USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WLB Seagoing Buoy Tender WPB Island-Class Patrol Boat WPFMC Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council

1-1

SECTION 11

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION2

1.1 INTRODUCTION3

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with the4 requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S. Code5

[USC] §4321 et seq.); Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for6

Implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508);7

Department of Homeland (DHS) Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev 01;8

DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev 01; and Coast Guard Commandant9

Instruction (COMDTINST) 5090.1, Environmental Planning Policy. This section10 specifies the purpose and need for the proposed in-water pier and fendering and11 overwater decking upgrades at U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Base Honolulu, Hawaii.12

1.2 BACKGROUND13

The USCG is proposing the extension of an existing berth at Base Honolulu to14 accommodate the anticipated return of a second 225-foot Seagoing Buoy Tender15

(WLB) from its off-site mid-cycle assessment. Additionally, the USCG is16 considering a new floating dock to better accommodate each of the existing Fast17

Response Cutters (FRCs) at Base Honolulu.18

In 2015, the USCG completed an EA19 and Biological Assessment (BA) for20 the proposed homeporting of two21 new National Security Cutters22

(NSCs) and associated infrastructure23 improvements at Base Honolulu24

(USCG 2015). The EA and BA25 analyzed the potential impacts of26 proposed shore-side facility27 development and mooring28 configurations for the new NSCs.29

This included an analysis of other30 ongoing vessel assignment actions including decommissioning of Island-Class31

Two NSCs were homeported at Base Honolulu in 2019 following implementation of required shoreside and in-water improvements evaluated in the 2015 EA and 2016 Supplemental EA.

1-2

Patrol Boats (WPBs), stationing of FRCs, and the return of one or two previously1 assigned WLBs from their off-site mid-cycle assessment. The 2015 EA identified2 three alternatives that addressed shore-side facility and berthing requirements.3

The Preferred Alternative (Alternative A), which was ultimately selected by the4

USCG, focused on NSC mooring at Berths A/B and D on the east side of Base5

Honolulu. The Preferred Alternative also considered three FRCs mooring at Berths6

B and C, one WLB mooring at Berth E, and two WPBs mooring at Berth G and its7 attached floating dock, respectively.8

In 2016, the USCG prepared a9

Supplemental EA to more10 specifically address the in-water11 work associated with12 accommodating the NSCs at Berths13

A/B and D (USCG 2016).14

In 2022, with the anticipated return15 of the second WLB, the USCG has16 identified a new need to extend to17

Berth G. The Coast Guard has also18 identified a need for a new floating19 dock to better accommodate each of20 the existing FRCs at Base Honolulu. These in-water modifications closely match21 an alternative that was previously analyzed in the 2015 EA; however, this22 alternative was neither selected for execution in the 2015 EA nor identified as23 preferred during previous agency consultations. Due to the age of the baseline24 environmental information supporting the 2015 EA, the USCG has prepared this25 new EA and associated BA. While these documents may incorporate elements of26 the 2015 EA and the 2016 Supplemental EA, this new EA and BA focuses on the27 development of Berths E-G at Base Honolulu.28

This EA provides additional environmental analysis related to implementation of29 the Proposed Action and its alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative.30

This information and analysis will serve as the basis for a USCG decision31 regarding the Proposed Action.32

Two 225-foot WLBs are homeported at Base Honolulu. One of these vessels has been undergoing an off-site mid-cycle assessment and will be returning shortly, creating a need for a new berth.

1-3

Figure 1. USCG Base Honolulu1

1-4

If the Proposed Action would result in a significant impact to the environment,1 preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be required. If no2 significant impacts would occur, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)3 would be appropriate.4

1.3 HOMEPORTING OVERVIEW5

1.3.1 USCG Mission6

The USCG is the U.S.’s oldest maritime agency. The USCG area of responsibility7 includes over 95,000 miles of U.S. coastlines, waterways, and harbors; more than8

3.36 million square miles of Exclusive Economic Zone and U.S. territorial seas; and9 international waters or other maritime regions of importance to the U.S. The USCG10 is a multi-missioned military and maritime service within the DHS.11

The USCG’s 11 fundamental missions are ports, waterways, and coastal security;12 drug interdiction; aids to navigation; search and rescue; living marine resources;13 marine safety; defense readiness; migration interdiction; marine environmental14 protection; ice operations; and other law enforcement. Examples of these15 fundamental missions include the following:16

Protect all U.S. ports, inland waterways, harbors, navigable waters, the17 Great Lakes, territorial seas, contiguous waters, customs waters, coastal18 seas, littoral areas, the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, oceanic regions of the19 U.S. national interest, sea lanes to the U.S., U.S. maritime approaches, and20 high seas surrounding the nation;21

Protect the U.S. Marine Transportation System, which is comprised of22 intermodal connections, vessels, vehicles, and system users, as well as all23 federal maritime navigation systems;24

Maintain maritime border security against illegal drugs, illegal aliens,25 firearms, and weapons of mass destruction;26

Ensure that U.S. military assets can be rapidly supplied and deployed by27 keeping USCG units at a high state of readiness, and by keeping marine28 transportation open for the transit of assets and personnel from other29 branches of the armed forces;30

Coordinate efforts and intelligence with federal, state, and local agencies;31

1-5

Respond to calls of distress, whether from commercial or recreational boats1 or downed aircraft;2

Support programs to ensure that boats are safe for public use and contain3 appropriate safety equipment;4

Protect against illegal fishing and destruction of living marine resources;5 and6

Prevent and respond to oil and hazardous material spills – both accidental7 and intentional.8

1.3.2 USCG District 149

In 1939, the Fourteenth Coast Guard District (D14) was established in Honolulu10 with 230 personnel. Today, more than 1,150 active duty, 150 reserve, 80 civilian,11 and 400 auxiliary men and women support D14. The area of responsibility for D1412 includes more than 12.2 million square miles of land and sea, with units on Oahu,13

Maui, Kauai, Island of Hawaii, and in American Samoa, Saipan, Guam, Singapore,14 and Japan. The District Commander oversees 25 operational units ashore and15 afloat throughout the Pacific. These operational units regularly perform missions16 related to maritime safety, protection of natural resources, maritime security,17 homeland security, and national defense (USCG 2022).18

D14 personnel conduct a variety of daily operations in support of the USCG’s19 statutory missions, including search and rescue, coast and Pacific Ocean patrol to20 enforce safety and fisheries regulations, safety and compliance inspections and21 exams on commercial vessels and waterfront facilities, and national strategic22 defense and critical infrastructure protection. D14 personnel enforce federal laws23 on the high seas and navigable waters of the U.S., including the territorial seas, by24 conducting illegal alien and drug interdiction and protecting living marine25 resources by managing a maritime environmental protection program aimed at26 preventing, detecting, and controlling pollution in Hawaii’s waters and27 throughout the Pacific. Personnel also maintain navigation aids such as buoys and28 harbor entrance day boards and administer a boating safety program (in concert29 with the Coast Guard Auxiliary).30

1-6

1.3.3 Base Honolulu1

Base Honolulu is a multi-mission facility currently equipped with the following2 vessel inventory:3

Two 87-foot WPBs;4

Two 225-foot WLBs;5

Three 154-foot FRCs; and6

Two 418-foot NSCs.7

Although the USCG carries out numerous missions from Base Honolulu, its8 primary mission is distress response. Fulfillment of this mission includes training9 personnel, maintaining awareness of emergent distress through lookout activities10 and communications watches, and responding to distress situations. Secondary11 missions include safety inspections, security and law enforcement patrols12

(including fisheries enforcement activities), and providing initial pollution13 response.14

Base Honolulu occupies approximately 40.76 acres on Sand Island in Honolulu15

(USCG 1992). Sand Island is located along the southern border of the Honolulu16

Harbor, south of downtown Honolulu, and is linked to downtown Honolulu by17 the Sand Island Parkway which bridges the Kalihi Channel and Kapalama Basin18

(refer to Figure 1). Mooring facilities are maintained along the entire northeast19 property limit of the Base Honolulu; the harbor opens to Honolulu Channel to the20 east. The wharf design along the northeastern perimeter of Base Honolulu21 includes seven berths.22

1.4 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION23

The two-pronged purpose of the Proposed Action is to accommodate the24 anticipated return of a second 225-foot WLB from its off-site mid-cycle assessment25 and to better accommodate each of the existing FRCs at Base Honolulu.26

1-7

1.5 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION1

As described in Section 1.1, Introduction, the previous homeporting of two NSCs2 at Base Honolulu modified one of the existing WLB berths for NSC use. The3 overarching need for the Proposed Action is to upgrade the existing waterfront4 facilities at Base Honolulu to support both WLBs and NSCs simultaneously.5

The USCG is also considering the construction of a floating pier (connected by a6 small dolphin) that could be used as another berth for one of the three existing7

FRCs at Base Honolulu. The need for this floating pier is to avoid inefficient8 temporary berthing options (i.e., stacked or nested) when all the three FRCs are in9 berth at Base Honolulu. Periods of maintenance and on/offloading would10 otherwise require shifting the berth positions of the FRCs, increasing overall11 downtime of the vessels.12

1.6 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS13

On December 19, 2022, scoping letters were distributed by the USCG to solicit14 input on the project from interested agencies and stakeholders. The notices15 informed recipients of a 30-day period during which comments could be16 submitted on key issues that relevant stakeholders felt should be addressed during17 the environmental review process. Further, a Notice of Intent to prepare an EA18 was published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on January 8, 2023 to solicit19 additional input from the public and other interested stakeholders. A Notice of20

Availability for the Draft EA was published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on21

[Date] announcing the availability of the EA for review and a timeline for22 submitting comments on the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis.23

As part of the project planning process, USCG worked closely with the U.S. Fish24 and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration25

(NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and Hawaii Department of26

Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Division of Aquatic Resources to identify27 opportunities and constraints related to project design. USCG’s goal is to avoid or28 minimize adverse environmental impacts to the extent feasible while maintaining29 the project’s viability and its ability to meet the purpose and need.30

1-8

1.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REQUIREMENTS1

This EA has been prepared in accordance with DHS Management Directive 023-2

01, Rev 01; DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev 01; and COMDTINST3

5090.1, Environmental Planning Policy. This EA complies with NEPA (42 USC §43214 et seq.) and the CEQ Regulations for Implementing NEPA dated May 20, 2022 (405

CFR Parts 1500-1508). This act and other facets of the environmental impact6 assessment process are described below.7

1.7.1 National Environmental Policy Act8

NEPA requires that federal agencies consider potential environmental9 consequences of proposed actions that have a federal nexus. The law’s intent is to10 protect, restore, and enhance the environment through well-informed federal11 decisions. The CEQ was established under NEPA for the purpose of implementing12 and overseeing federal policies as they relate to this process. The CEQ is13 responsible for developing procedures for federal agency implementation of14

NEPA. These procedures were initially promulgated in 1971 as guidelines and15 were then issued as regulations in 1978. In May 2022, the CEQ issued a final rule16 to amend certain provisions of its NEPA implementing regulations. These17 amendments related to addressing the purpose and need of a proposed action,18 agency NEPA procedures for implementing CEQ’s NEPA regulations, and the19 definitions of “effects.” These regulations specify that an EA be prepared to:20

Briefly provide sufficient analysis and evidence for determining whether to21 prepare an EIS or a FONSI;22

Aid in an agency’s compliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary; and23

Facilitate preparation of an EIS if one is necessary.24

Further, to comply with other relevant environmental requirements (e.g., the Safe25

Drinking Water Act, Endangered Species Act [ESA], National Historic26

Preservation Act [NHPA], Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA], etc.) in27 addition to NEPA, the decision-making process for the Proposed Action involves28 a thorough examination of all environmental issues pertinent to the Proposed29

Action.30

1-9

1.7.2 Endangered Species Act1

The federal ESA of 1973 (16 USC §§1531–1544, as amended) established measures2 for the protection of plant and animal species that are federally listed as threatened3 and endangered, and for the conservation of habitats that are critical to the4 continued existence of those species. Federal agencies must evaluate the effects of5 their proposed actions through a set of defined procedures, which can include the6 preparation of a BA and can require formal consultation with USFWS and/or7

NMFS under Section 7 of the ESA.8

On 8 September 2023, the USCG met informally with the NMFS Pacific Islands9

Regional Office (PIRO) to identify concerns regarding project implementation as10 related to federally listed species and federally designated critical habitat.11

Following this discussion, the USCG developed proposed best management12 practices (BMPs) and prepared a BA to describe the potential effects of the13

Proposed Action on federally listed species and federally designated critical14 habitat. In a letter dated January 12, 2024, NMFS concurred that “all effects of the15 proposed action are either discountable or insignificant” (see Appendix C).16

1.7.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act17

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as18 amended (16 USC §1801 et seq.) established: 1) a fishery conservation zone19 between the territorial seas of the U.S. and 200 nautical miles offshore; 2) an20 exclusive U.S. fishery management authority over fish within the fishery21 conservation zone (excluding highly migratory species); 3) regulations for foreign22 fishing within the fishery conservation zone through international fishery23 agreements, permits, and import prohibitions; and, 4) national standards for24 fishery conservation and management and eight regional fishery management25 councils to apply those national standards in fishery management plans.26

Congress enacted the 1996 amendments to the Act, known as the Sustainable27

Fisheries Act (SFA) (Public Law [P.L.] 104-297), to address the substantial decline28 in fish stocks caused by direct and indirect habitat loss. The SFA requires that29 agencies consult with the NMFS concerning actions that may adversely impact30

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). Per the EFH provision, USCG must consult with31 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/mag1.html http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/councils.htm http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/councils.htm http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ297.104.pdf?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ297.104.pdf http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ297.104.pdf?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ297.104.pdf http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Assessment/FCMA/Essential-Fish-Habitat.aspx

1-10

NMFS if there “may be adverse effect to EFH” from implementation of a proposed1 action.2

During the meeting on with the NMFS PIRO Habitat Conservation Division the3

USCG also discussed concerns regarding project implementation as related to4

EFH. Following this discussion, the USCG developed proposed BMPs to protect5 corals in the surrounding area and identified applicant-proposed minimization6 measures to offset any impacts to sensitive EFH resources. An EFH Assessment7 has been prepared to describe the effects of the Proposed Action on EFH.8

1.7.4 Clean Air Act and Conformity Requirements9

The Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 USC §§7401-7671, as amended) provided the10 authority for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to establish11 nationwide air quality standards to protect public health and welfare. These12 federal standards, known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards13

(NAAQS), were developed for six criteria pollutants: ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide14

(NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10 and15

PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The CAA also requires that each state prepare a State16

Implementation Plan (SIP) for maintaining and improving air quality to eliminate17

NAAQS violations. Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, federal agencies are18 required to determine whether their undertakings are in conformance with the19 applicable SIP and demonstrate that their actions will not cause or contribute to a20 new violation of the NAAQS; increase the frequency or severity of any existing21 violation; or delay timely attainment of any standard, emission reduction, or22 milestone contained in the SIP. The USEPA has set forth regulations in 40 CFR Part23

51, Subpart W which require the proponent of a proposed action to perform an24 analysis to determine if implementation of the action would conform to the SIP.25

As described in Section 2.1, Proposed Action, construction activities associated with26 the Proposed Action would not exceed de minimis thresholds for any criteria air27 pollutants (40 CFR §93.153).1 Therefore, pursuant to the CAA, a Conformity28

Determination is not required.29

1 The phrase de minimis means "of minimum impact." The USEPA has defined de minimis thresholds for criteria air pollutants, which indicate that there would be no significant contamination within an airshed.

1-11

1.7.5 Wetland and Water Resources Regulatory Requirements1

The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 (33 USC §1251 et seq.) regulates pollutant2 discharges that could affect aquatic life forms or human health and safety. Section3

404 of the CWA and Executive Order (EO) 11990, Protection of Wetlands, regulate4 development activities in or near streams or wetlands. Section 404 also regulates5 development in streams and wetlands and requires proponents to obtain a permit6 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for dredging and filling in7 wetlands. The Proposed Action would not include any dredging activities. In-8 water work would be limited to the construction of the pile supported pier9 extensions. EO 11988, Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to take10 action to reduce the risk of flood damage; minimize the impacts of floods on11 human safety, health, and welfare; and to restore and preserve the natural and12 beneficial values served by floodplains. Federal agencies are directed to consider13 the proximity of their actions to floodplains.14

1.7.6 Coastal Zone Consistency Determination15

The federal CZMA of 1972 mandated state-federal partnerships to ensure the16 protection of coastal resources. In compliance with this law and to address and17 resolve coastal problems, the State of Hawaii developed Hawaii’s Coastal Zone18

Management (CZM) Program (Hawaii Revised Statutes [HRS] 205A-2). The CZM19

Program is designed to protect valuable and vulnerable coastal resources by20 reducing coastal hazards and improving the review process for activities proposed21 within the coastal zone. The CZM Program focuses on ten objectives and policies22 related to the following: recreational resources; historic resources; scenic and open23 space resources; coastal ecosystems; economic uses; coastal hazards; managing24 development; public participation; beach protection; and marine resources. The25

CZM Program also requires permits for development within Special Management26

Areas (SMAs), which include lands within 300 feet from the shoreline.27

The Proposed Action site is located within an SMA. The federal regulations28 implementing the CZM Program require the applicable state agency to inform the29 applicable federal agency of its agreement or disagreement with the federal30 agency’s consistency determination. Therefore, the USCG is required to submit a31 consistency determination to the Hawaii Office of Planning and Sustainable32

1-12

Development (OPSD) based on the analysis of the Proposed Action and1 alternatives to the Proposed Action provided in this EA and the State of Hawaii2 must issue either agreement or disagreement with that determination.3

To support the in-water and overwater elements of the Proposed Action, a request4 for a CZMA consistency determination was submitted to the OPSD for5 concurrence. The public notice for the CZM review was published in the6

Environmental Review Program’s The Environmental Notice on [Date]. The public7 review and comment period lasted from [Date] through [Date]. Following the8 review and comment period, OPSD issued its response to the USCG on [Date]9 indicating that the proposed mooring and structural pier upgrades at Base10

Honolulu are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforcement11 policies of the CZM Program, citing that compliance with BMPs and coordination12 with regulatory agencies identified in the EA were followed.13

1.7.7 Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 34314

Compliance with HRS Chapter 343 is required for any one of nine defined actions15 that propose: 1) the use of state or county lands or funds; 2) use of land classified16 as conservation district; 3) use within a shoreline area (as defined in HRS Chapter17

205A); 4) use within any historic site as designated in the National Register of18

Historic Places (NRHP) or Hawaii Register; 5) use of the Waikiki area of Oahu; 6)19 amendments to existing county general plans resulting in specific designation20 impacts; 7) any reclassification of land classified as a conservation district; 8) any21 construction of new or modification of existing helicopter facilities; or22

9) construction of a water treatment unit, waste-to-energy facility, landfill, oil23 refinery, or power-generating facility. All elements of the Proposed Action are24 confined to Base Honolulu and owned in fee simple by the USCG. The Proposed25

Action would not entail the use of state or county lands or funds – or any other26 property outside federal jurisdiction; thus, an environmental assessment under27

HRS Chapter 343 is not required.28

1.7.8 Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), Chapter 20529

Under the State Land Use Law (Act 187), HRS Chapter 205, all lands and waters30 of the state are classified into one of four districts: Agriculture, Rural,31

1-13

Conservation, or Urban. Conservation Districts, under the jurisdiction of DLNR,1 are further divided into five subzones: Protective, Limited, Resource, General, and2

Special. The use of Conservation District lands is regulated by HRS Chapter 183C3 and Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 13-5. All elements of the4

Proposed Action are confined to Base Honolulu (federal property owned in fee5 simple by the USCG) and adjacent submerged lands under federal jurisdiction.6

1.7.9 Cultural Resources Regulatory Requirements7

The NHPA of 1966 (16 USC §470) established the NRHP and the Advisory Council8 on Historic Preservation (ACHP), which outlined procedures for the management9 of cultural resources on federal property. Cultural resources can include10 archaeological remains, architectural structures, and traditional cultural11 properties such as ancestral settlements, historic trails, and places where12 significant historic events occurred. The NHPA requires federal agencies to13 consider the potential impacts of their proposed developments on cultural14 resources that are listed, nominated to, or eligible for listing on the NRHP;15 designated as a National Historic Landmark; or valued by modern Native16

Americans for maintaining their traditional culture. Section 106 of the NHPA17 requires federal agencies to consult with the appropriate State Historic18

Preservation Office (SHPO) if their undertaking might affect such resources.19

Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties (36 CFR Part 800) provides an20 explicit set of procedures for federal agencies to meet their obligations under the21

NHPA, which includes requirements for inventory of resources and consultation22 with the SHPO.23

EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, directs federal land managing agencies to24 accommodate access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian sacred sites on any land or25 interests in land owned by the U.S., including leasehold interests held by the U.S.,26 except Indian trust lands. Indian sacred sites consist of any specific, discrete,27 narrowly delineated location on federal land that is identified by an Indian tribe28

[an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, Pueblo, village, or community that29 the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe pursuant to30

P.L. 103-454, 108 Stat. 4791, an “Indian” refers to a member of such an Indian tribe]31 or Indian individual determined to be an appropriately authoritative32 representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established religious33

1-14 significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion) provided that the tribe or1 appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion has informed the2 agency of the existence of such a site.3

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) (42 USC §1996) established4 federal policy to protect and preserve the rights of Native Americans to believe,5 express, and exercise their traditional religions, including providing access to6 sacred sites. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act7

(NAGPRA) (25 USC §§3001-3013) requires consultation with Native American8 tribes prior to excavation or removal of human remains and certain objects of9 cultural importance.10

1.7.10 Sustainability and Greening11

On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued EO 13990, Protecting Public Health and12 the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, which declared the13

Administration’s policy to listen to the science; to improve public health and14 protect our environment; to ensure access to clean air and water; to reduce15 greenhouse gas emissions; to bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change;16 and to prioritize both environmental justice and the creation of the well-paying17 union jobs necessary to deliver on these goals. EO 13990 directs federal agencies18 to immediately review and take action to address the promulgation of federal19 regulations and other actions during the last 4 years that conflict with these20 important national objectives and to immediately commence work to confront the21 climate crisis.22

1.7.11 City and County of Honolulu General Plan23

The General Plan for the City and County of Honolulu, most recently revised in24

2021, is a comprehensive document with wide-ranging social, economic,25 environmental, and design objectives, as well as broad policies to facilitate the26 attainment of those objectives. The General Plan is divided into 11 subject areas27 including: population; economic activity; the natural environment; housing;28 transportation and utilities; energy; physical development and urban design;29 public safety; health and education; culture and recreation; and government30 operations and fiscal management (City and County of Honolulu 2021).31

1-15

1.8 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT1

This EA considers the Proposed Action and evaluates potential environmental2 impacts to those environmental resources that would likely be affected by3 implementation of the Proposed Action. For this EA, the following environmental4 resources are evaluated:5

Air Quality and Climate Change;6

Biological Resources;7

Cultural Resources;8

Geological Resources;9

Hazardous Materials and Wastes;10

Safety;11

Visual Resources; and12

Water Resources.13

Pursuant to NEPA, environmental resource areas that are anticipated to14 experience either no environmental impacts or negligible environmental impacts15 under implementation of the Proposed Action are not examined in detail.16

Implementation of the Proposed Action evaluated in this EA is not anticipated to17 result in any long-term adverse impacts to airborne noise, transportation,18 socioeconomics and environmental justice, or public services and utilities. A brief19 description of each of these environmental resources is provided below:20

Airborne Noise. Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in21 temporary airborne noise associated with the proposed construction and22 demolition activities at Base Honolulu. Construction activities would23 generally occur during the weekdays within the daytime hours and would24 involve the use of standard construction equipment including, but not25 limited to, heavy haul trucks, crane barges, tugboats, and pile drivers.26

Airborne noise during these construction activities would generally be27 consistent with the existing…