Attachment Y - SFO Galveston EA Mar 2017_Final e-signed.pdf

Environmental Assessment for

Fast Response Cutter Homeport at United States Coast Guard Sector Field Office

Galveston, Texas

Prepared by:

United States Coast Guard Civil Engineering Unit Miami

March 2017

U.S. COAST GUARD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR

FAST RESPONSE CUTTER HOMEPORT AND

FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS

U.S. COAST GUARD SFO GALVESTON, TEXAS

This U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Assessment (EA) for commissioning and homeport of three Fast Response Cutters (FRCs) at Coast Sector Field Office Galveston, Galveston, Texas was prepared in accordance with USCG Commandant’s Manual Instruction M16475.1D and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, and is in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) and the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations dated 28 November 1978 (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508).

This EA serves as a concise public document to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining the need to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact.

This EA concisely describes the proposed action, the need for the proposal, the alternatives, and the environmental impacts of the proposal and alternatives. This 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 EA preparation.

Date MITCHELL BARIDO Environmental Preparer

Environmental Protection Specialist CEU Miami, Environmental Branch

Date ANDREW BOBICK Environmental Reviewer

Chief, Environmental Branch CEU Miami

In reaching my decision/recommendation on the Coast Guard’s proposed action, I have considered the information contained in this EA on the potential for environmental impacts.

Date R.A. HUELLER, CDR Responsible Official

Commanding Officer CEU Miami

MLBarido Typewritten Text 24Mar2017

ALBobick Typewritten Text

ALBobick Typewritten Text

ALBobick Typewritten Text 24Mar2017

ALBobick Typewritten Text

USGC SFO Galveston i March 2017 FRC Homeport Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Location and Site Description ......................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Fast Response Cutters ...................................................................................... 1-3

1.3 Purpose and Need............................................................................................. 1-5

1.3.1 Purpose of the Proposed Action ............................................................... 1-5

1.3.2 Need for the Proposed Action .................................................................. 1-5

1.4 Public and Agency Involvement .......................................................................... 1-5

1.5 Document Organization ....................................................................................... 1-5

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

2.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 2-3

2.1.1 Pier Construction .................................................................................. 2-3

2.1.2 MWD/Cutter Support Facility ........................................................... 2-5

2.1.3 Utilities.................................................................................................... 2-6

2.1.4 Ancillary Actions .................................................................................. 2-6

2.1.5 Operational Profiles .............................................................................. 2-6

2.1.6 Best Management Practices and Required Permits and Approvals included in the Proposed Action ............................................................................. 2-7

2.1.7 Required Permits and Approvals ....................................................... 2-9

2.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................ 2-11

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...................... 2-12

2.3.1 Homeport Three FRCs at SFO Galveston and Extend the WMEC/WLM Pier ......................................................................................................... 2-12

2.3.2 Locate Shore Assets on-site at SFO Galveston but Moor FRCs at another Commercial or Government Facility ..................................................... 2-12

2.3.3 Homeport FRCs at another Commercial or Government Facility ......... 2-12

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action .................................................................................................................. 3-1

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

3.1.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................. 3-3

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3-8

3.2 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 3-10

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

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-11

3.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases .............................................................. 3-11

3.3.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................... 3-11

3.3.2 Greenhouse Gases .................................................................................. 3-12

3.3.3 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-12 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Counties .............................................................. 3-13

3.3.4 Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-13

USGC SFO Galveston ii March 2017

3.4 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................... 3-15

3.4.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................ 3-15

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-16

3.5 Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................ 3-16

3.5.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-17

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-17

3.6 Hazardous Materials and Public Safety ...................................................... 3-18

3.6.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-18

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-18

3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................... 3-20

3.7.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-20

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-20

3.8 Coastal Resources ........................................................................................... 3-22

3.8.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................ 3-22

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-23

3.9 Transportation, Navigation, and Access ..................................................... 3-23

3.9.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................ 3-23

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-23

3.10 Utilities.............................................................................................................. 3-24

3.10.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-24

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-24

3.11 Visual Resources ................................................................................................ 3-25

3.11.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-25

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-25

3.12 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................... 3-26

3.12.1 Projects Considered ............................................................................... 3-26

3.12.2 Evaluation of Cumulative Impacts......................................................... 3-26

Chapter 4 Comparative Analysis ............................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 4-1

Chapter 5 Environmental Significance of the Proposed Action ......................................... 5-1

Chapter 6 List of Preparers and Agencies and Persons Contacted ................................... 6-1

Chapter 7 References ................................................................................................................ 7-3

USGC SFO Galveston iii March 2017

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Regional Location Map .......................................................................................... 1-2 Figure 2 - SFO Galveston Existing Site Plan.......................................................................... 1-4 Figure 3 - Proposed Action ...................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 4 - Proposed WLIC Pier Improvements .................................................................... 2-5

List of Tables

Table 1. Managed Fish Species in the Vicinity of SFO Galveston ...................................... 3-7 Table 2 Texas Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status for .................... 3-13 Table 3 Project Operational Emissions of Criteria Pollutants ........................................... 3-15

USGC SFO Galveston iv March 2017

Acronyms and Abbreviations AoR area of responsibility APE Area of Potential Effects BMP Best Management Practices CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGC Coast Guard Cutter CO carbon monoxide CO2e equivalent carbon dioxide COMDTINST Commandant Instruction CWA Clean Water Act DHS Department of Homeland Security EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act FMP Fishery Management Plan FRC Fast Response Cutter GHG greenhouse gas HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern HSWL Health Services and Work-Life IDS Integrated Deepwater System IHA incidental harassment authorization ILSP Integrated Logistics Support Plan IPF Industrial Production Facility µg/m3 microgram per cubic meter MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mg/m3 milligram per cubic meter MLLW mean lower low water MMO marine mammal observer MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act MWD Maintenance and Weapons Division NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

USGC SFO Galveston v March 2017

Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued) NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOX nitrogen oxides NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSC National Security Cutter ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement PM particulate matter PM10 particulate matter less than less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than less than 2.5 microns in diameter POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works SAR search and rescue SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SIP State Implementation Plan USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USCG United States Coast Guard USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USLHS United States Lighthouse Service VOC volatile organic compound WAT Weapons Augmentation Team WHEC High Endurance Cutter WLIC Inland Construction Tenders WLM Coastal Buoy Tender WMEC Medium Endurance Cutter WPB Patrol Boat

USGC SFO Galveston 1-1 March 2017

Chapter 1 Introduction

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) proposes to commission and homeport three Fast Response Cutters (FRCs) at Sector Field Office (SFO) Galveston, Galveston, Texas. The FRCs would arrive at SFO Galveston by 2020 and would require shore-side improvements, including extension of an existing pier and reconfiguration of riprap, construction of a Maintenance and Weapons Division (MWD)/Cutter Support Facility, and minor utility improvements.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the potential environmental impacts of commissioning and the homeport the three FRCs at SFO Galveston and has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (Title 42 United States Code [USC], 4321, et seq.); the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 1500–1508; the Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01; and the USCG’s implementing procedures for NEPA outlined in Commandant Instruction (COMDTINST) M16475.1D. The results of the EA will determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement is required, or whether a Finding of No Significant Impact will be issued.

This EA tiers off the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the Integrated Deepwater System Project (IDS) (USCG, 2002). The IDS PEIS evaluated the potential effects of the award of an initial contract for detailed design of IDS assets and impacts of USCG cutter operations. The PEIS assessed the potential impacts of the IDS Program on a broad, regional level and indicated that subsequent homeport decisions would be made based on logical groupings of assets to support the needs of USCG regions.

1.1 Location and Site Description

SFO Galveston is on 27.59 acres of government owned land in Galveston County, Texas (Figure 1). SFO Galveston is on the Northeastern end of Galveston Island, on the east bank of the Galveston Channel, and near the Port Bolivar Ferry Terminal. SFO Galveston is assigned to Sector Houston within USCG District 8. The District 8 area of operation covers all or part of 26 states throughout the Gulf Coast and Midwest from the Appalachian Mountains and Chattahoochee River in the east, to the Rocky Mountains in the west, and from the border between the United States and Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico to the south to the Canadian Border in North Dakota. District 8 includes 900 miles of coastline and 10,300 miles of inland navigable waterways.

USGC SFO Galveston 1-2 March 2017

Figure 1 – Regional Location Map

USGC SFO Galveston 1-3 March 2017

SFO Galveston provides specialty support and services to Sector Houston-Galveston units, tenant commands, visiting cutters, and local area military, dependents, and retirees. These services include: (1) personnel services (2) procurement, budgeting, and financial management services; (3) property management, warehousing, and shipping/receiving services; (4) food services and berthing; (5) port operations and facilities management services; (6) environmental and hazardous waste management, and; (7) armory support and weapons training.

There are three piers along the western boundary of SFO Galveston extending into the Galveston Channel (Figure 2). From north to south these piers are:

1. A 110-foot pier for mooring of the 87-foot Coastal Patrol Boats (WPB) MANOWAR and SKIPJACK (hereafter referred to as the WPB Pier);

2. A 330-foot pier for mooring of the 210-foot Medium Endurance Cutter (WMEC) DAUNTLESS and the 175-foot Coastal Buoy Tender (WLM) HARRY CLAIBORNE and (hereafter referred to as the WMEC/WLM Pier); and

3. A 180-foot pier for mooring of two 75-foot Inland Construction Tenders (WLIC) CLAMP and HATCHET (hereafter referred to as the WLIC Pier).

All three piers are served by utilities including electrical, communications, sewage, and potable water. +A travel lift capable of lifting boats up to 87 feet long is located south of the WLIC pier.

A small boat basin with a covered mooring for USCG small boats is north of the USCG piers.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) small boat basin, pier, and mooring is south of the USCG piers.

1.2 Fast Response Cutters

The FRCs, or SENTINEL Class Patrol Boats, are part of a major USCG acquisition program to replace the in-service fleet of 110-foot Island Class Patrol Boats. FRCs are capable of being deployed independently to conduct missions that include coastal security, fishery patrols, search and rescue (SAR), and national defense. A total of 58 FRCs are planned for acquisition and the USCG is proposing to homeport 3 of the FRCs in District 8 to support operations in the Gulf of Mexico.

FRCs are 154 feet long and 25 feet wide, and have a range of 2,950 nautical miles. They require a crew of up to 24 and are designed to remain underway for up to five days. FRCs hold and can launch and recover a short-range prosecutor rigid-hulled inflatable boat. The FRCs have improved operational capabilities over the 110-foot patrol boat including: (1) enhanced response time with a top speed of 28 knots; (2) ability to conduct missions on moderate seas up to transit speed for eight hours; (3) ability to survive on very rough seas for eight hours; (4) armed with a stabilized 25-mm machine gun mount and four crew-served .50-caliber machine guns; and (5) fully interoperable command and control systems with USCG existing and future assets, and with the departments of Homeland Security and Defense.

USGC SFO Galveston 1-4 March 2017

Figure 2 - SFO Galveston Existing Site Plan

USGC SFO Galveston 1-5 March 2017

1.3 Purpose and Need

1.3.1 Purpose of the Proposed Action

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to commission and homeport three FRCs in the District 8 Area of Responsibility (AoR), and to provide adequate land side and water side facilities and infrastructure, consistent with the planning criteria developed in the USCG’s Homeport Feasibility Study, Volume II (USCG, 2012).

1.3.2 Need for the Proposed Action

The need for the Proposed Action is to commission and homeport upgraded, modern assets for the USCG’s District 8, in support of executing the wide range of USCG missions and the increasing mission demands in the AoR. Most of the USCG’s current fleet of cutters are nearing or already past their economically and operationally useful life spans. At the same time, the demands on the USCG are increasing and the need to extend maritime homeland security operations further offshore are stressing these assets and USCG personnel. The continued use of aged assets degrades the ability of the USCG to meet its mission requirements in three primary ways: (1) older assets are less able to support modern USCG needs in the areas of data management, communications, and interoperability; (2) older assets break down at increasingly higher rates, making them unavailable for service, sometimes for extended periods; (3) older assets have increasingly strained USCG repair and maintenance budgets and are becoming very costly to adequately maintain.

1.4 Public and Agency Involvement

The EA will be made available to all interested federal, state, and local agencies and the general public for review upon request. A list of agencies and person contacted during the preparation of this EA is in Chapter 6. Consultation activities pursuant to other environmental laws and regulations are described in the appropriate resource sections in Chapter 3.

1.5 Document Organization

This EA identifies, evaluates, and documents the environmental effects of the Proposed Action.

Chapter 2 provides a description of the Proposed Action, No Action alternative and other alternatives considered but eliminated. The existing resource conditions and potential environmental consequences of the proposed action are described in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 provides a comparative analysis of the impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action alternative. Chapter 5 summarizes the environmental significance of the Proposed Action.

Chapter 6 contains a list of agencies and persons contacted, and Chapter 7 provides a list of references cited in this document.

USGC SFO Galveston 2-1 March 2017

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

The USCG prepared the Homeport Feasibility Study, Volume II (USCG, 2012), which identified several planning factors and stakeholder criteria that would need to be satisfied for an FRC homeport alternative to meet the purpose and need for the action. Planning factors are the key project parameters that allow the USCG to develop potential viable alternatives for the homeport of the FRCs. Alternatives may be eliminated from further consideration if they do not meet one or more of the planning factors. The best alternatives should meet all planning factors. The following set of planning factors was included in the Homeport Feasibility Study to evaluate potential homeport locations:

• USCG-owned or leased areas shall be explored for viable homeport alternatives to meet arrival dates. If an existing Government-owned homeport facility is viable, commercially leased property is not required.

• Impacts to existing home ported occupants shall be minimized.

• Facility and project execution issues (existing waterfront condition, dredging, etc.)

required to meet minimum threshold requirements will be resolved to meet arrival dates.

• Capital costs shall be minimized and only address required upgrades to meet minimum requirements.

• Use of existing adequate logistics and support amenities (housing, personnel support, etc.) will be maximized.

• WPB (Patrol Boats) 110s will be decommissioned and replaced by FRCs.

• Existing wharves, if available, shall be able to fully accommodate the FRCs minimum requirements.

• There will be a long term USCG presence and need for the homeport facilities for a period consistent with the 20-year economic life of the assets.

• All berthing plans shall be flexible and maximize the ability to accommodate home porting changes.

The following stakeholder criteria were also established by USCG as guidance for the future home porting decision-making process (criteria are listed in order of importance).

1. Operations Requirements:

a. Deliver capabilities that enhance operational mission effectiveness.

b. Ability to maintain operational readiness during construction.

c. Align individual projects with current regional strategic plans.

d. Ability to meet USCG Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection setback requirements.

USGC SFO Galveston 2-2 March 2017

e. Ability to meet Life Safety Standards.

f. Abreast berthing or nesting is not desirable for FRCs.

2. Shore Infrastructure Capacity:

a. Accessibility of vessels to shore support facilities including dock utility connections.

b. Availability of adequate waterfront infrastructure to support vessels.

c. Wind and wave action loadings on the berths will be minimized.

d. Ability to adequately berth like vessels in close proximity to one another.

e. Optimum spatial and functional configuration of shore support facilities and waterfront infrastructure.

f. Ability to meet adjacency requirements between shore support facilities.

g. Renovation/Reuse/New Construction/Leasing are considered viable options for

FRC locations.

3. Economics:

a. Ability to begin construction when necessary to accommodate vessel arrival date.

b. Reduce the USCG's shore footprint through consolidation of units/facilities.

c. Co-locate facilities with other Department of Homeland Security components.

d. Divest high cost, maintenance intensive facilities via centralization of operational and shore assets.

4. Environmental Impacts:

a. Ability to avoid or mitigate potentially significant impacts to the environment.

Finally, the homeport decision must consider the recommendation of the Commandant of the USCG to locate the FRCs at SFO Galveston to most effectively meet USCG operational needs in District 8 (USCG, 2013c). An Integrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP) was prepared subsequent to the Homeport Feasibility Study to further evaluate the proposed homeport alternatives at SFO Galveston. The ILSP included the following additional planning criteria:

• Utilization of existing and/or planned shore facilities at SFO Galveston shall be maximized for each home porting alternative to ensure support for the USCG’s ongoing effort to minimize its environmental footprint.

• Impacts to existing homeported USCG vessels shall be minimized.

• For maneuvering purposes, a turn radius of 310 feet will be used for the FRC.

• The use of commercial or other government facilities can be explored, but should be minimized. However, and alternative that may provide collocation with other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies shall be explored.

• The weighing of the criteria to be used to evaluate alternatives will be developed and assigned during the Planning Proposal development.

Two alternatives are described in detail in this EA; the Preferred Action and the No Action Alternative. Several other alternatives were considered but were eliminated from further analysis

USGC SFO Galveston 2-3 March 2017 because they did not meet the project purpose and need (as described in Section 2.3). The No Action Alternative is described in Section 2.2.

2.1 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is to commission and homeport three FRCs at SFO Galveston and to provide all necessary facilities and infrastructure required to support homeporting of these new assets. The FRCs are scheduled to arrive at SFO Galveston in fiscal year 2020. The current FRC delivery schedule is critical to optimize operational capability in the Gulf of Mexico area of operation, and homeporting the new FRCs at SFO Galveston would increase and enhance Sector Houston’s ability to meet USCG mission demands in their operational area, as well as ensure the USCG mission requirement to enforce the laws and regulations of the United States throughout the Gulf of Mexico. Collocating the FRCs at an existing USCG-owned facility, such as SFO Galveston, supports the USCG’s policy of consolidating homeports, and the Department of Homeland Security’s goal of decreasing/maintaining the current real property footprint.

The Proposed Action requires improvements to the facility, an extension of a pier to accommodate the three FRCs, a new Maintenance and Weapons Division (MWD)/cutter support facility to support shore-side administrative, storage and repair functions with minor upgrades to shore-tie utility connections to support new demands of the FRCs, minor renovations to the existing engineering building to accommodate FRCs support functions, SFO staff, and the industrial production facility (IPF). These project features are described in further detail below (see Figure 3 for proposed improvements).

2.1.1 Pier Construction

Under the Proposed Action, the existing 180 foot WLIC pier would be extended by 150 feet to accommodate mooring of the FRCs. The WLIC extension, as depicted in Figure 4, would allow for mooring of only two FRCs, which is adequate for USCG purposes since one FRC would be out on patrol at almost all times. The third FRC will moor on the existing WMEC pier.

The proximity of the existing USCG piers to the USACE-maintained Galveston Channel limits the USCG ability to extend any of the piers at SFO Galveston. The USACE has established a 200 foot set back from the toe of the USACE dredged channel (the setback was established after construction of the USCG piers and therefore the WMEC/WLM pier currently extends into the setback). Extension of the WLIC pier would necessarily extend into the 200 foot setback, but not the actual dredged channel. Based on discussions with the USACE, it was determined that it would be viable for the USCG to extend a pier into the 200 foot setback but only to the extent of the adjacent USACE T-pier. (As described further below, a permit under Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, as codified under 33 USC 408 (Section 408), would be required from the USACE to permit occupancy of a USACE civil works structure.) Extension of the WMEC/WLM pier enough to accommodate the three FRCs would extend beyond the USACE T-pier and therefore was eliminated from further consideration, as described in Section 2.3 below.

There is not adequate space for construction of a separate new pier at SFO Galveston.

Figure 3 - Proposed Action

USGC SFO Galveston 2-4 March 2017

USGC SFO Galveston 2-5 March 2017

Figure 4 - Proposed WLIC Pier Improvements

The WLIC pier extension would be similar in design to the existing pier with a 40-foot wide concrete deck and pile bents 20 feet on center (a total of no more than 40 piles). The piles would be driven into the existing channel bottom using an impact hammer. Shore ties would also be extended to accommodate utility connections to the FRCs. In order to accommodate both the existing WLICs, which would continue to moor at this pier, and the new FRCs, while not extending beyond the USACE pier, the Proposed Action would include reconfiguration of the existing rip-rap bulkhead and minor dredging along the shoreline to extend the usable length of the pier (Figure 3). The existing rip-rap rock would be removed prior to pile driving activities then reset upon completion to ensure shoreline stability is maintained.

2.1.2 MWD/Cutter Support Facility

The Proposed Action would require construction of a new MWD/Cutter Support Facility to accommodate the maintenance and administrative support functions for the FRCs. The MWD/Cutter Support Facility would be approximately 5,020 square feet and similar to existing buildings at SFO Galveston (e.g., reinforced concrete block construction, brick veneer, metal seam roof, and designed to withstand hurricane force winds). The building would be used for general storage and storage of parts and tools. Hazardous material/flammable storage would be located in a storage facility within an existing warehouse. The building would be constructed at the location shown on Figure 3. Two existing asphalt lay down areas would be used as lay down areas for temporary storage for the FRC short-range prosecutor rigid-hulled inflatable boats or other storage/staging of materials.

USGC SFO Galveston 2-6 March 2017

The Proposed Action would also require minor interior space renovations to the existing engineering building to accommodate the FRC and SFO Galveston staff, and the industrial production facility (IPF).

2.1.3 Utilities

The Proposed Action would include upgrade and extension of the existing shore utilities along the pier extension so each FRC would be provided its own electrical shore tie connection.

Telephone, satellite/cable TV, and local area network (LAN) lines will also require separate shore tie connections. Telephone shore tie connection boxes would be waterproof, corrosion proof, and handle a minimum of ten lines; six voice lines with lightening arrestors and four data lines without lightning arrestors. Cable/satellite TV shore tie connection would be located immediately adjacent to each telephone. Data shore tie and would allow for a type “F” coaxial connector on the “Cable TV” shore tie. The LAN lines shore tie connection box would have at least 4 fiber optic connections (2 pair) that support line rates of 100 Mbps or 100/1000 Mbps.

Sewage connections would tie into an existing 4-inch line. If sewer gravity drainage from the existing 4-inch line is not possible, a sewer lift station may be required. Additional water supply will be required for the pier extension and the maintenance facility. The existing main capacity is adequate to meet the anticipated load.

2.1.4 Ancillary Actions

The Homeport of three FRCs at SFO Galveston would result in 99 new personnel permanently stationed at SFO Galveston (24 crewmembers for each FRC [72 total] and a 27-person MWD detachment). The WMEC DAUNTLESS is planned to be relocated when the FRCs arrive and therefore 75 personnel associated with the DAUNTLESS would depart SFO Galveston.

Consequently, the net increase in personnel at SFO Galveston would be approximately 24 personnel. (Relocation or decommissioning of the DAUNTLESS is not part of the Proposed Action evaluated here as the decision as to the fate of this vessel is not known at present.)

Personnel would all live in market housing and therefore no new housing would be constructed as part of the Proposed Action.

Parking at SFO Galveston is adequate for current operations. The increased demand for parking as SFO Galveston would be partially offset by the spaces vacated with the departure of the DAUNTLESS. However, there is adequate parking on the site to accommodate the additional load from the FRCs. To reduce potential operational, traffic, and noise impacts, the construction work would be scheduled during normal daytime hours, and laydown areas would be located in paved or otherwise disturbed areas.

2.1.5 Operational Profiles

As discussed in Section 1.3, Purpose and Need for Action, the FRCs would upgrade the capabilities of the existing USCG assets and thus improving the Coast Guard’s ability to meet increasing mission demands throughout the District 8 Area of Operations. While the types of operations performed by the FRCs would be similar in nature to those of the existing WPBs that they are designed to replace, the FRCs would operate a greater number of hours per year, for a longer amount of time per deployment, and in rougher sea states (note that while the FRCs

USGC SFO Galveston 2-7 March 2017 proposed to be homeported at SFO Galveston would not replace existing WPBs at SFO Galveston, the FRCs would replace the WPBs in the overall District 8 Area of Operations). This potential change or increase in operational tempo was evaluated in the Final Programmatic EIS for the Integrated Deepwater System Project (US Coast Guard 2002) and is incorporated here by reference.

In addition, FRC operations would follow all operational guidance applicable to Coast

Guard surface assets, including, but not limited to: Vessel Environmental Manual (COMDTINST M16455.1) – The Vessel Environmental Manual contains the Coast Guard’s environmental policies and procedures applicable to surface assets. Chapter 11 of the Vessel Environmental Manual describes measures for protection of marine wildlife applicable to all waterborne Coast Guard assets. In accordance with this instruction, all Commanding Officers and Officers in Charge must plan and act to protect marine mammals during operations and planning.

Protected Living Marine Resources Program (COMDTINST 16475.7) – The Protected Living Marine Resources Program outlines actions to support the recovery of protected living marine resources through internal compliance with and enforcement of federal, state, and international laws designed to preserve marine protected species.

2.1.6 Best Management Practices and Required Permits and Approvals included in the Proposed Action

The following measures are considered as part of the Proposed Action as standard contract provisions and best management practices included in all USCG projects.

Best Management Practices

General Control Measures

• Erosion control measures would be implemented to prevent pollution caused by construction operations and to reduce stormwater runoff. Implementation of standard BMPs would minimize the potential for adverse effects on aquatic organisms from sedimentation and degraded water quality. (BMPs may include measures listed in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) list of BMPs for Tier I projects, as required for Section 401 water quality certification discussed below under required permits and approvals.)

• In accordance with the federal Noise Control Act, all noise producing activities associated with project construction would be conducted in accordance with the City of Galveston Municipal Code Section 24-2 and 24-3 which states that no person shall conduct, permit or allow any activity or sounds sources to exceed 75 decibels dB(A) during daytime hours (7:00 am to 10:00 pm) and 70 dB(A) during nighttime hours (10:00 pm to 7:00 am).

• Construction staging and equipment maintenance would be confined to upland paved or ruderal lands.

USGC SFO Galveston 2-8 March 2017

• Vehicles and equipment would be kept in good repair, without leaks of hydraulic or lubricating fluids. Spill containment and cleanup materials would be present on-site, and if leaks or drips occur, they would be cleaned up immediately. Drip pans would be used when vehicles are parked. Equipment maintenance and/or repair would be confined to one location. Runoff in this area would be controlled to prevent contamination of soils and water.

• Construction contractors would be required to comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations regarding safety measures and precautions on the job site.

• Contractors would be required to comply with policies and procedures addressing hazardous materials management, hazardous waste management, including accidental spills, and worker safety and training requirements;

• Materials from demolition activities would be recycled to the extent feasible to divert materials from disposal in landfills and any waste generated that cannot be recycled would be disposed at a permitted disposal facility. If any discarded material meets the definition of a RCRA hazardous waste, it will be managed by all hazardous waste rules.

Contractors would be required to provide proof of proper disposal for all waste generated to the Coast Guard.

• Standard contract provisions for USCG construction projects require that if previously unknown resources are encountered during construction, construction would be halted and the resource would be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. If the resource is historically significant, the USCG in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and local tribes, as appropriate, would be take action to avoid, reduce, or eliminate impacts on those resources.

Biological Resources Control Measures

In-Water Work Restrictions

• Pile driving activities will typically occur between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM, but can be altered/adjusted as directed to ensure no negative impact to identified resources.

• No underwater drilling or pile driving would occur between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.

• When impact pile drivers are used for pile installation and proofing, bubble curtains would be used to attenuate sound levels. Special care would be taken to ensure the bubble ring is properly installed on the uneven substrate of the installation sites.

• A ‘‘soft-start’’ technique would be used during pile driving to allow marine mammals and fish to vacate the area before the pile driver reaches full power. For vibratory hammers, the contractor would initiate the driving for 15 seconds at reduced energy followed by a 1 minute waiting period. This procedure shall be repeated two additional

USGC SFO Galveston 2-9 March 2017 times before continuous driving is started. For impact driving, an initial set of three strikes would be made by the hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1 minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets before initiating continuous driving.

• When in-water work may generate visible turbidity plumes, silt curtains will be used to isolate the turbidity.

• Prior to commencing dredging activities, install floating turbidity barriers with weighted skirts that extend to within one foot of the bottom around all work areas that are in or adjacent to surface waters. These barriers will stay in place and be maintained until work has been completed and all erodible materials have been stabilized.

• If a dewatering system is used, all water collected from the system shall have a turbidity value less than 25 NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) before being discharged into the mooring basin. In the event this threshold is exceeded, all operations must cease and appropriate measures taken to restore conditions to within acceptable water quality standards.

• All dredge material will be disposed of at a suitable dredge disposal location, as directed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

• A marine mammal observer (MMO) will be present during all impact pile driving. The MMO will have authority to stop work should any marine mammals or sea turtles be observed in the Level B harassment zone. If a marine mammal or sea turtle enters the exclusion zone during impact pile driving, activity will stop, and the behavior of the animal will be monitored and documented. Pile driving will be delayed until no animals are sighted in the zone for 15 minutes.

2.1.7 Required Permits and Approvals

The following permits and approvals will be required for the Proposed Action. These permits and approvals cannot be sought at this time because the project is in a conceptual design phase and lacks necessary detail and scheduling to seek final permits and approvals. These issues are evaluated here and agency input has been sought, and once a conceptual homeport option is selected and the project proceeds into the design phase, final permits and approvals would be sought.

Endangered Species Act – The Proposed Action has the potential to affect species or habitat listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and therefore would require consultation with USFWS and NOAA NMFS under Section 7 of the ESA. During the current conceptual homeport phase of this project, the USCG has initiated consultation with the USFWS and NOAA NMFS.

The USCG has initially determined that, pursuant to the ESA, the Proposed Action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect listed species (see Section 3.1); however should reinitiation of consultation with USFWS and NOAA NMFS be necessary at such time as the project concept is

USGC SFO Galveston 2-10 March 2017 approved and funded for detailed design and construction, additional measures to avoid effects to listed species may be developed and included in the final project.

Marine Mammal Protection Act – The Proposed Action has the potential to affect marine mammal species protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). During the current conceptual homeport phase of this project, the USCG has sought input from NOAA NMFS. The USCG has initially determined that the propose action would not have significant effects on marine mammals (see Section 3.1); however should reinitiation of consultation with NOAA NMFS be necessary at such time as the project concept is approved and funded for detailed design and construction, additional measures to avoid effects to marine mammals may be developed and included in the final project.

Essential Fish Habitat – The Proposed Action has the potential to adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH) protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and, therefore, the USCG has included measures to avoid and minimize effects on EFH. The USCG has determined that the proposed action would have minor adverse effects on EFH (see Section 3.1); however should reinitiation of coordination with NOAA NMFS be necessary at such time as the project concept is approved and funded for detailed design and construction, additional measures to avoid effects to EFH may be developed and included in the final project.

US Army Corps of Engineers Permits – The Proposed Action would require permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers under Section 408 of the Rivers and Harbors Act to extend the WLIC pier into the Galveston Channel, a USACE federally authorized civil works project, and under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for construction within the waters of the United States.

For issuance of a Section 408 permit, the USACE must find that the proposed alteration does not impair the usefulness of the USACE project, which includes retaining the project’s authorized purpose, and is not injurious to the public interest.

A Section 404 or Section 10 permit must be issued for in-water construction and dredging, and would include appropriate terms and conditions for the protection of the environment.

(Compliance with other environmental laws and regulations, such as ESA and CZMA, would be required for USACE issuance of the permit.) A water quality certification from the TCEQ under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act would also be required for issuance of a USACE permit. (A Section 408 permit must be secured before a Section 404 or Section 10 permit can be issued.)

Permits from USACE are likely to include environmental control measures to avoid impacts to marine mammals and fish.

Coastal Zone Management Act - Federal agencies must review all activities where coastal effects are reasonably foreseeable to determine whether any coastal use or resource would be affected. If a coastal use or resource would be affected, the Federal agency must submit to the state’s coastal management program a consistency determination for federal activities and development projects; and a consistency certification for federal permits and licenses and federal support to state and local agencies. If the Federal agency determines that there will be no coastal effects, it is generally required to submit a negative determination. In the State of Texas the Texas General

USGC SFO Galveston 2-11 March 2017

Land Office (GLO) is the coastal management authority and applicable enforceable polices of the Texas Coastal Management Program are found at 31 TAC §503.1 et seq.

The TCEQ manages the Galveston Bay Estuary under The Galveston Bay Plan, a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan produced by the Galveston Bay National Estuary Program under Section 320 of the CWA (GBNEP, 1994). Under the Plan, the Coastal Coordination Council has the authority to review federal actions to determine their consistency with the Plan as part of the federal coastal consistency review.

If the Coast Guard makes the determination this action will be consistent with the Galveston Bay Plan, it will submit this determination to the TCEQ for their concurrence. Otherwise, the Coast Guard will work with the TCEQ to work out any inconsistencies.

Section 106 - The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (1966) is the primary federal legislation that outlines the federal government’s responsibility to consider cultural resources.

Section 106 of the NHPA requires the federal government to take into consideration the effects of an undertaking on historic properties. Historic properties are those cultural resources listed, or eligible to be listed, on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The criteria used to determine whether a cultural resource is a historic property, and therefore eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, are defined in 36 CFR Part 60.

The Section 106 process is outlined in the federal regulations at 36 CFR Part 800. These regulations describe the criteria that a federal agency uses to evaluate cultural resources. The USCG must first determine if the action is the type of action that has the potential to affect historic properties. If so, the USCG must identify the Area of Potential Effects (APE), determine if historic properties are present in that APE, determine the effect that the undertaking would have on historic properties, and consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and federally recognized tribes with historic ties to the APE.

There are numerous known historic structures on Galveston Island, including over 60 structures that are part of 6 historic districts with in the National Register of Historic Places; however there are no registered historic structures of regional significance present at SFO Galveston. The oldest structure at SFO Galveston is the Administration Building, which dates to the 1930's. In 2010, consultation with the Texas Historical Commission determined the Administration Building is not NHPA eligible (USCG, 2010).

2.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the three FRCs would not be homeported at SFO Galveston and none of the associated pier or shore-side improvements would be made. If the FRCs are not homeported at SFO Galveston, they would have to be homeported at another location, preferably within District 8, which could negatively affect the USCG’s ability to efficiently and effectively complete its missions in the western Gulf of Mexico AoR. The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action, as described in Section 1.3.

USGC SFO Galveston 2-12 March 2017

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

Three other alternatives to the Proposed Action were identified during project development;

however these alternatives were eliminated from further consideration because they did not meet the purpose and need for the proposed action.

2.3.1 Homeport Three FRCs at SFO Galveston and Extend the WMEC/WLM Pier

This alternative would homeport three FRCs at SFO Galveston and extend the existing WMEC/WLM pier 113 feet to accommodate mooring of the FRCs.