MOTCO_Environmental_Impact_Statement_10Feb15.pdf

Final

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FOR THE MODERNIZATION AND REPAIR

OF PIERS 2 AND 3 AT

MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL CONCORD, CA

FEBRUARY 2015

(This page intentionally left blank)

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 at

Military Ocean Terminal Concord, CA

Lead Agency for this EIS: Department of the Army, Office of the Secretary of the Army, Washington, D.C.

Title of Proposed Action: Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 at Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO)

Proposed Action: To modernize and repair Pier 2 and repair Pier 3 in order to fully meet current and future mission requirements

Designation: Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Abstract: The proposed action is to modernize and repair Pier 2 and repair Pier 3 at MOTCO to meet current and future mission requirements. Piers 2 and 3 are past their structural and design life and lack modern operational efficiencies. Based on the analysis described in the EIS, all impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. The proposed action, however, will include implementation of avoidance and minimization measures for potential impacts to federally listed species, critical habitat, and historic resources within the proposed action area. These measures were refined during consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and the California State Historic Preservation Officer and are documented in Chapter 6 of the EIS.

Point of Contact: Malcolm Charles, Director of Public Works Attention: SDAT-CCA-MI (Charles) 410 Norman Avenue Concord, CA 94520

(This page intentionally left blank)

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 at Military Ocean Terminal Concord

Executive Summary ES-i February 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Army has prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with those actions necessary to modernize and repair Pier 2 and repair Pier 3 at Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO) to meet the projected mission capacity of MOTCO through 2019. This EIS was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code 4321 et seq.); its implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500–1508);

the Army’s regulations implementing NEPA (32 CFR Part 651 as published in Federal Register, Volume 67, Pages 15290–15332); and, to the extent applicable, the California Environmental

Quality Act (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq). The Army is the lead agency for the proposed action; there is no cooperating agency (per 40 CFR Section 1501.6) for the EIS.

MOTCO is an Army Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC) munitions and general cargo transshipment facility located at a strategic site in north central Contra Costa

County, California (Figure ES-1). This Department of Defense (DOD) installation is the primary

West Coast common-user ammunition terminal and is home to the SDDC’s 834th

Transportation Battalion. MOTCO is in the East San Francisco Bay region, approximately 10 nautical miles inland past the Carquinez Strait that connects Suisun Bay to San Pablo Bay. San

Francisco is 30 miles to the southwest, Oakland is 20 miles to the southwest, Sacramento is 65 miles to the northeast, and the City of Concord is located approximately 5 miles south.

As an installation, MOTCO represents 72 percent of all DOD West Coast ammunition handling ability. To fulfill its mission, MOTCO utilizes three wharves (known as Piers 2, 3, and 4) (Figure

ES-2). Together, these piers have 11.2 million (M) pounds (lbs) of Net Explosive Weight (NEW) handling capability. The piers are mostly timber structures that were built between 1944 and

1945 to support ammunition movements to the Pacific theater during World War II (1939–1945;

WWII). Each of the piers was constructed with a main deck plus raised platform along the waterside length of the pier. This dual-level pier design and the rail track layout at the piers were originally designed for a non-containerized handling operation. Since MOTCO primarily accommodates containerized cargo (system of transport using containers), the current configuration is suboptimal in terms of usable space for forklifts and container handling equipment to move about; this decreases the efficiency of the baseline cargo handling operations. Timber waterfront structures typically have a design life on average of 25 to 30 years and a practical service life of 50 years or more with routine maintenance, repairs, and upgrades. Portions of each pier have been replaced with concrete, but most of the original timber structure remains and is almost 70 years old, well beyond the design life and practical service life of a typical waterfront timber structure.

Environmental Impact Statement for the Modernization Final

ES-ii Executive Summary February 2015

Figure ES-1. Regional Location

Executive Summary ES-iii

Figure ES-2. MOTCO Property

ES-iv Executive Summary February 2015

Pier 2 is the westernmost of the three main piers and has a total NEW capability of 5.5M lbs. At

Pier 2, cargo is loaded and unloaded using ship’s gear. The productivity of each vessel varies, but ships gear is typically less efficient than ship-to-shore gantry cranes (specialized pier cranes for handling intermodal containers). Extensive study has documented deterioration due to a combination of marine borer damage, fungal decay, and overloading. Pier 2 is in poor condition, is currently inoperable, and requires major rehabilitation and modernization in order to function to current containerization standards. In addition, the existing Pier 2 exit has a sharp turn and vehicles must travel at slower speeds than typically needed to ensure safe operations.

Pier 3 is currently the primary operational pier at MOTCO. Pier 3 is equipped with two gantry cranes that were installed in 1999. Each crane has a lifting capacity of 40 long tons (89,600 lbs) with the use of a spreader bar and 50 long tons (112,000 lbs) with the use of slings and is limited to approximately 12–15 lifts per hour. Pier 3 has a NEW capability of 4.6M lbs. The pier is in fair condition overall but with localized areas of severe deterioration, wide-spread marine borer damage, and fungal decay. Work at the pier is subject to loading restrictions. Recent engineering assessments estimate that without repairs, the practical service life expectancy of

Pier 3 is not estimated to extend beyond 2019.

ES.1 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the proposed action is to modernize and repair Pier 2 and repair Pier 3 so the

Army can maintain its ability to meet documented DOD mission requirements in support of normal and contingency operations. Piers 2 and 3 are past their structural and design life and lack modern operational efficiencies. Based on NEW handling capability, Pier 2 is the optimum pier for mission capability, but it cannot be used in its current condition. Pier 3 requires some level of repair to maintain even its limited operational capability through 2019. The proposed action is therefore needed to modernize and repair pier infrastructure at MOTCO to ensure that this vital West Coast port can continue to meet its designated mission. Without these actions, the DOD's ability to perform its current and future contingency operations in the Pacific theater would be impacted.

ES.2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

The proposed action is to modernize and repair Piers 2 and 3 to meet current and future mission requirements at MOTCO. The intent of the proposed action is to provide the installation with safe, functional, and efficient facilities. The proposed action has five distinct components.

1. Considerably demolish existing Pier 2 and rebuild structural elements.

2. Replace pier-side infrastructure and supporting facilities at Pier 2.

3. Upgrade shore-side roads and electrical infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of Piers 2 and 3.

4. Repair piles at Pier 3.

Executive Summary ES-v February 2015

5. Conduct maintenance dredging to -32 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) plus 2 feet overdepth dredging to compensate for inaccuracies in the dredging operation waterward of Pier 2.

The EIS addresses the following alternatives.

Alternative 1: Fully implement repairs to Piers 2 and 3 with Pier 2 re-oriented to align the west end with the existing shipping channel to create a more modernized configuration.

Alternative 2: Fully implement repairs to Piers 2 and 3 leaving the Pier 2 footprint in its present location. Alternative 2 would use the same structural system as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3: Fully implement repairs to Piers 2 and 3, reorienting Pier 2 to create a more modernized configuration but with a larger deck surface and heavier load-carrying capacity than that proposed under Alternative 1.

No Action Alternative: Make no repairs to Piers 2 or 3 and continue to utilize Pier 3 with loading restrictions for the remainder of its service life.

In an effort to document what would be involved with the proposed action, the Army prepared constructability memoranda for Piers 2 and 3, a design for Pier 3, and a concept design report for Pier 2. A summary of the results of these efforts is provided in the following sections for Piers

2 and 3, respectively. These are elements of the proposed action that are common to all the action alternatives.

ES.2.1 Overview of Piers 2 Repairs and Modernization

Pier 2 was built using creosote-treated timber in 1944 and has a footprint of approximately

211,065 square feet (SF). A 15-foot wide concrete apron (the area from which cargo is lifted) was added to the waterside of the main deck in 1966. This portion of the deck has twin 18-inch piles every 24 feet, with a concrete pile cap beam and a concrete slab on top. In 1966, a concrete approach trestle was added to the east side of Pier 2. The fender system along the north end of the main pier structure at Pier 2 was upgraded in 2002. The upgrade involved removing the timber fender and driving new 16-inch square concrete piles every 8 feet for the length of the pier. There are 118 fender piles and each pile is approximately 70 feet long.

The existing pier has two levels, including a main deck and a platform level, which interferes with efficient container handling. Modernization of Pier 2 would require the replacement of the existing dual-level deck and fender system with a single-level deck, replacement of existing wooden piles with pre-stressed concrete piles, installation of new crane rails, and the addition of two 80-long-ton container cranes. The west trestle approach would be demolished. A third access trestle would be used to accommodate forklifts and provide pedestrian access to a new

Operations Building / Breakroom after the existing Operations Building / Breakroom is demolished. Pier-side supporting facilities including mooring hardware, office space, removable bull-rail, potable water, sanitary sewer, fire protection, lightning protection, and high mast

ES-vi Executive Summary February 2015 lighting would be repaired or replaced. Existing antiterrorism/force protection (AT/FP) measures would be reinstalled or replaced. A drainage system and treatment device would be added to the pier to remove contaminants from surface runoff before it enters Suisun Bay. Refer to Figure

ES-3 for a general Pier 2 site plan.

ES.2.2 Demolition of Pier 2 and Demolition of Two Pier 2 Support Buildings

A considerable portion of Pier 2 would be demolished. The total estimated area for demolition is

159,000 SF of pier structure, which includes the removal of 4,514 creosote-treated timber piles ranging from 55 to 75 feet long and 254 concrete square piles (136 18-inch square piles from the concrete apron and 118 16-inch square piles from the fender system) approximately 70 feet long. (It is anticipated many of the concrete piles could be reused.) In addition to pile removal, demolition would include removing 1,300 cubic yards (CY) of concrete slab; 200 tons of reinforcing steel; 1,550 timber pile cap beams; 112,500 feet of stringers; 13,500 decking boards;

and 1,895 CY of asphalt. In addition to these items, there are various utility hangers, steel fasteners, sprinklers, risers, fender frames and camels, hose connections, circuit breakers, electrical cables, and other miscellaneous components that would be removed.

As part of the proposed action, Buildings A-21 and 160, totaling 6,358 SF, would be demolished. Building A-21 is a 5,782 SF structure built in 1944 and used as an office / battery charging area. Building 160 is a 576 SF structure built in 1965 and used as a steam plant. Prior to demolition, an inspection would be conducted by a qualified inspector to determine the presence of any toxic materials. These materials would be removed prior to demolition in accordance with federal and state law. Following the removal of any toxic materials, the structures would be demolished. The materials would be transported to a previously identified staging/stockpile area where the pieces would be stockpiled and processed for recycling, salvage, or landfill disposal; or, if more appropriate, a semi-truck would transport the pieces directly to an appropriate recycling, salvage, or landfill facility.

According to the February 2012 Pier 2 Routine Inspection Report, the main platform and west trestle are in seriously degraded condition and it cannot be assumed the structure could adequately support heavy equipment. Therefore, as much as possible, the demolition would be conducted from the water. In very shallow water and intertidal areas, demolition crews would use either smaller equipment that can be operated safely from the pier or amphibious equipment that can work from the adjacent mud substrate. Land-based equipment and a bin to contain the demolished materials could be used at the shoreward ends of the approaches.

During demolition activities, the Barge Pier located west of Pier 2 would be used to transfer equipment and materials from land to water and vice versa. According to a February 2012 inspection report, the Barge Pier does not have a compromised load rating so it would suffice for this purpose (KCI Technologies 2012).

Executive Summary ES-vii

Figure ES-3. Pier 2 – General Site Plan

ES-viii Executive Summary February 2015

The main effect of water-based demolition is the demolition materials would be handled one additional time: when demolished material is offloaded from the barges and reloaded onto trucks at the Barge Pier.

All demolition equipment, mostly excavators with various attachments, would be mounted on barges and brought to the work area by a small tug. Small sections of the deck and superstructure would be cut off and placed on a transport barge that would be used to move the materials to shore by tug. Another excavator would be located on the Barge Pier and would transfer the demolished deck pieces into a semi-truck, which would transport the pieces to a previously identified staging/stockpile area to be stockpiled and processed for recycling, salvage, or landfill disposal. If more appropriate, the semi-truck would transport the pieces directly from the Barge Pier to an appropriate recycling, salvage, or landfill facility.

Crews would begin work at one end of the pier, likely the western end, and move along the length of the structure. Deck removal and pile removal would occur at roughly the same location and pace, so that clear, open water is left as work progresses eastward (this would assist with maintaining control of the debris while decreasing the amount of debris boom required around the active demolition area). Debris booms would be placed around the work area in accordance with best management practices (BMPs). It is anticipated the debris booms would be attached to the pier structures; however, the specific locations of the debris booms would be dependent on the type of equipment, wave action, and currents. The Army will continue to communicate with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) regarding the location of the debris booms once the Pier 2 design phase is completed, as well as during the implementation of the proposed action. The Army will monitor turbidity during construction and will require the contractor to limit the spread of turbidity (and any associated contaminants) in accordance with the project’s Clean Water Act Section 404/401 requirements and the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinions issued by NMFS and

USFWS.

Skiffs, or small boats, would be working in the water to continually ferry workers from the barge to shore and monitor the water to keep it clear of floating debris. Railroad rails would be placed on flatbed trucks for hauling to either a recycling facility or a salvage yard. It is anticipated that the utility lines, pipes, conduits, and other miscellaneous metal would be hauled to the same metal recycling facility as the rails.

Asphalt would be removed from the decking using an excavator with a special scraping attachment. The asphalt would be placed in an 18-CY capacity end-dump truck and hauled to a recycling facility or appropriate disposal facility. The decision on whether the asphalt would be recycled would depend on the condition of the asphalt and how cleanly it comes off of the wood decking boards.

Executive Summary ES-ix February 2015

MEC is a term distinguishing specific categories of military munitions that may pose unique explosives safety risks and include UXO, discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents.

Due to the 1944 Port Chicago Disaster, there may be unexploded ordnance (UXO) and other munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) located in the vicinity of the Pier 2 work. Demolition and construction contractors would follow all scheduling, coordination, security, safety, permitting, and other matters pertinent to work accomplishment in accordance with DOD

Manual 6055.09, DOD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards, and as directed by the

Explosive Safety Submission (ESS). As part of the proposed action, a limited clearance of MEC in the vicinity of Pier 2 would occur within a specified and delineated work area, as opposed to a full, 100 percent clearance of the entire Pier 2 footprint. In order to perform construction activities safely, as many as eight certified UXO divers would spend up to six weeks investigating and removing any explosive anomalies prior to construction as part of the limited

MEC clearance operation. During the MEC clearance operations, there would also be one tender per diver, a stand-by diver, and a dive supervisor along with other

UXO technicians for a total of up to 40 on-site personnel supporting dive operations. A qualified MEC dive team would also be on hand to support construction activities in the event suspected MEC is encountered after work begins. MEC diving operations would only occur during daylight hours.

In addition to the in-water work, any intrusive (ground disturbing) activities would require MEC construction support.

Following the MEC clearance operations, pile removal would commence. BMPs will be employed during pile removal and disposal activities. The piles would be removed either with a vibratory hammer, by direct pull with a crane, or cut 2 feet below the mudline using pneumatic shears or a similar cutting tool, so that the broken tip is not exposed. The final determination on how many piles could be cut versus pulled would be based on the Pier 2 design. It is estimated

2,155 piles could be pulled and 2,359 piles could be cut; however, to the extent this number changes, it is likely more piles would be cut versus pulled. The proposed piles to be pulled would be those that would remain within the footprint of the new Pier 2 structure; these piles are required to be removed to avoid causing obstructions to driving the new concrete piles. The proposed piles to be cut would remain submerged approximately 2 feet beneath the mudline and thus would not be a hazard to navigation. The remaining piles under the mudline would remain encapsulated by organic clayey sediments in an anaerobic state, which would generally limit any future release of contaminants from the remaining pile structures into the water column and surrounding sediments. For piles to be pulled, the operator will be trained to remove the pile slowly and as much as possible to avoid pinching, twisting, or breaking the pile. Depending on the embedment, the use of a high-pressure water jet may be required to loosen or remove mud keeping some of the piles stuck in place. Any falling debris would be contained using tarps and a floating boom. If a timber pile breaks, every effort would be made to cleanly pull out the remainder of the pile or stub. If the entire pile cannot be removed, it would be cut 2 feet below

ES-x Executive Summary February 2015 the mudline using pneumatic shears or an underwater chainsaw, so that the broken tip is not exposed.

Similar to the timber pier superstructure, removed timber piles would be placed on a barge, unloaded at the Barge Pier, and taken to an on-site stockpile area for cutting and reloading onto trucks for ultimate disposal. The concrete piles that cannot be recycled would be loaded onto a barge and taken to the shore where they would be broken into smaller pieces and then hauled to an appropriate disposal facility. It is anticipated many of the square concrete piles could be reused; therefore, these piles would be stockpiled onsite at an existing staging area.

The concrete apron structure would be removed using two excavators working together, one using shears or a vibratory point and the other holding a skip box attachment to catch the concrete pieces as they are broken off. The concrete debris would be loaded onto a barge, brought to shore, transferred to an end-dump truck, and hauled either to an onsite stockpile area or directly to a recycling facility.

The stockpile area would be worked by two pieces of equipment: a loader and an excavator.

The excavator would separate the different types of materials and cut them into manageable sizes. The loader would take demolished materials off the semi-truck from the Barge Pier and place them into piles for the excavator, and then load the trucks for offsite disposal and/or recycling.

At the peak of demolition operations, there would be up to four excavators or a mix of excavators and cranes working (two or three mounted on barges, one at the Barge Pier transferring materials to shore, and one cutting debris into manageable pieces in the stockpile area), about two to eight trucks per day hauling material away from the site, one tug boat moving the two barges around, and two skiffs managing the debris boom and shuttling crew members between barges and shore.

The number of off-installation truck trips per day would depend on the activity being conducted.

It is estimated, however, that there would be a total of 1,300–1,350 truck trips (round trips) during demolition, amounting to 8–12 round trips per day.

During demolition, it is anticipated there would be 10–20 workers at the job site every day. It is expected the workers would park at the parking lot near Gate 1 and be shuttled to the work site.

ES.2.3 Modernization and Repair of Pier 2 and White Road Infrastructure Improvements

The modernized Pier 2 would require driving up to 1,064 new 24-inch octagonal pre-stressed concrete piles and up to 150 reused square concrete piles and installing up to 22,000 CY of concrete and 3,300 tons of reinforcing steel. The concrete piles would be driven by a Delmag

Pile Hammer D62-22 or equivalent. In addition, shore-side construction and improvements would include construction of a 1,500 SF Operations Building / Breakroom, installation of a new

12-kilovolt electrical substation and two 1500-kilowatt diesel emergency generators to support

Executive Summary ES-xi February 2015 container cranes, expansion of the staging area at Lot T-10 by 39,500 SF, repairs to White

Road, and realignment of the road network servicing the pier to adjust to the new access points.

Building 100 would be moved from its present location on the north side of White Road to the

Pier 2 parking area south of White Road. Measures to improve AT/FP would include installation of bollards waterside of the pier and security lighting throughout the area. Erosion of the shoreline west of Pier 2 would also be addressed; as part of this action, any non-functional material (i.e., the material does not serve as a structural component to prevent shoreline erosion) would be removed. Vegetation buffering would be incorporated into the repairs to the maximum extent practicable.

Construction would proceed from west to east following the demolition work. Pile driving could begin as soon as there is sufficient space behind the demolition equipment to maneuver the barge-mounted pile driving derrick. Assuming a pile driving rate of one pile every two hours (or four to five piles per day), the construction would proceed at a rate of about one bent (a substructure unit supporting each end of a span) per day (bents are at 24-foot spacing). Bents on the main deck are 20 feet apart; thus, the main deck would proceed at a rate of one bent every two days for the 95-foot deck (i.e., Alternatives 1 and 2) and every three days for the 131-foot deck (i.e., Alternative 3).

Once the piles have been driven, the formwork (or mold) could be built up around them beginning with the pile cap beams. This work is performed by pile driver personnel using hand tools with assistance from a derrick barge and electrical power. The contractor would likely form two sets of pile cap beams at a time. Once the first set of concrete pile caps have been placed and cured, the deck slab above those pile caps can be formed. While the concrete on the first set of pile cap beams is curing, the second set would be formed and placed. The formwork for each pile cap and deck section can then be reused in a leapfrog fashion.

As soon as a section of formwork is completed, the workers would lay out the reinforcing steel to prepare for concrete placement. A derrick barge would be needed to lower falsework (a temporary structure used to support the structure during construction) support members and rebar to workers on the deck. Once the formwork and rebar are in place, the section would be ready for concrete. The concrete would be brought in using 9 CY cement mixer trucks from a nearby batch plant. A concrete pump would be used to transfer the concrete from the trucks to the formed section.

Construction would begin with the west trestle, followed by the forklift/pedestrian trestle and the four light platforms. Pile driving for the main deck would begin as soon as the piles for the light platforms have been driven and would proceed from west to east. The road leading to the west trestle would be widened to allow for a safe turn radius for trucks entering the pier from White

Road. In addition to the road work at the trestle entrances, the shoreline rock revetment along

White Road would be repaired. The exact locations and areas needing repair are to be

ES-xii Executive Summary February 2015 determined, but in any case, repairs would be to the existing rock revetment and would only occur above the limits of ordinary high water and any adjacent wetlands.

The existing Lot T-10 would be expanded by 39,500 SF on the western end to allow for additional room for handling containers. A new electrical substation would be constructed on shore at the existing Pier 2 employee parking lot. Approximately 8,000 SF of concrete pad would be constructed as the foundation for the new electrical substation, backup generators, and Building 100. The Lot T-10 expansion work would start at the beginning of the project, and the White Road upgrade work would occur after completion of the west trestle construction.

To accommodate port operations occurring between dusk and dawn (which would fluctuate with the season), four high-mast light poles (with high pressure sodium or similar floodlights) would be constructed approximately 50 feet behind the back of the pier. These four banks of lights would replace 50 (unshielded) high pressure sodium street lights or mercury vapor floodlights.

These new light poles would be provided with maintenance-friendly lowering devices to allow for flood light replacement from the pole platform. The new lights would be shielded to focus the light on work areas where it is needed and avoid unnecessarily illuminating the sky and surrounding areas. In addition, anti-perching devices would be installed on the lights to prevent possible roosting/nesting by raptors.

Under the proposed action, a segment of White Road between Johnson Road to 3,000 feet east of Murdoh Road would be repaired. Repairs would cover approximately 0.9 acres of existing roadway and embankment and include removing and replacing 8,500 linear feet of asphalt and base materials to a width of 20 feet, and repainting roadway stripes. The demolition of the existing road would generate approximately 12,000 CY of recyclable materials (e.g., concrete, gravel, dirt) that would be used at the installation as road base for future road repairs. The White

Road profile would be redesigned for improved drivability and to conform better with existing railroad crossings. The planned construction would provide yellow, non-reflective centerline striping and white, non-reflective edge striping 10 feet on either side of the centerline. The completed road would also include compacted shoulders providing edge support for pavement and grade to drain.

Due to the age and poor condition of existing utilities infrastructure within the Tidal Area, various upgrades are planned to include replacing existing transformers, panel boards, junction boxes, and burying existing overhead power lines. The potential area of disturbance includes the transformers and panel boards located landside of Pier 3, as well as a segment of electrical equipment along White Road between the east trestle of Pier 2 and the west trestle of Pier 4.

Under the proposed action, the existing 100 SF pad-mounted transformer (oil filled) would be replaced with a new four-way switch and new pad-mounted transformer. In order to bury the existing overhead power lines, a trench measuring approximately 4 feet deep by 2 feet wide would be excavated from the utility poles located at the east trestle of Pier 2 and the west trestle of Pier 4 (i.e., approximately 3,510 feet long) to approximately 5 feet into the west bound lane of

Executive Summary ES-xiii February 2015

White Road. (Wetlands would be avoided during trenching.) The power lines would be buried within the existing roadway of White Road and then the affected portions of White Road would be repaired. Prior to project completion, the area would be restored to appropriate native habitat which would include proper grading for drainage.

During construction, the number of workers onsite would vary depending on how many activities are occurring at the time. For example, the pile driving derrick would require at least 7 workers, the crew doing the formwork would have up to 8 workers, and the concrete crew would have up to 12 workers. When all three construction activities are occurring concurrently, there would be at least 30 workers at the site (in addition to any crew associated with the demolition of Pier 2).

It is expected the workers would park at the parking lot near Gate 1 and be shuttled to the work site.

ES.2.4 Pier 3 Repairs

Pier 3 was constructed in 1944 as an all timber structure. In the 1960s, it was modified with the addition of a 15-foot concrete apron extension on the waterside of the pier and concrete approach trestle on the east side. Pier 3 was modified again in 1999 with the addition of concrete crane rail girders on both the waterside and the landside of the main platform to support two new container gantry cranes and shore-side electrical support structures (Figure

ES-4).

Pier 3 is in need of repairs to be able to maintain its limited operational capability through 2019.

(For the purpose of this EIS, use of Pier 3 beyond 2019 is speculative.) In the Draft EIS, the proposed action included protecting up to 4,066 timber piles from continuing marine borer damage; however, results of a 2013 pier inspection indicate that pier damage has not increased as rapidly as expected since the 2012 pier inspection. As a result, the pile protection plan was adjusted to reflect the need to protect up to 1,753 of the most structurally significant timber piles located under the Main Platform and walkway that are currently being infested by marine borers.

To extend the useful life of Pier 3 until Pier 2 is ready for missions, non-reactive high-density polyethylene (HDPE) jackets would be installed around the timber piles. The jackets or wraps, consisting of an inner adhesive layer protected by an outer jacket, would protect the piles from further marine borer infestation. Per the final Pier 3 specifications, 23,803 linear feet of pile wrapping would be needed in the Main Platform area and 2,249 linear feet of pile wrapping would be needed in the walkway area. The outer HDPE jackets would be new, non-rigid, virgin material with a minimum thickness of 60 mils (0.06 inches). The inner layer would form a non-corrosive coating and prevent the passage of oxygen and nutrients to the timber piles from the marine environment and have a minimum thickness of 46 mils (0.046 inches).

The marine borer infestation has been increasing in association with the increasing salinity level in Suisun Bay which creates a more favorable habitat for the marine organism.

ES-xiv Executive Summary

Figure ES-4. Pier 3 – General Site Plan

Executive Summary ES-xv February 2015

As part of the installation process, water would be used to clean existing piles to remove rotted portions and any marine or biological growth from the pile. The pile wrap would be installed 2 feet above the highest tide level down to 2 feet below the mudline.

The proposed above-deck maintenance repairs previously described in the Draft EIS (i.e., fixing cracks and spalls [surface chips] in the concrete structure, replacing decayed or missing wooden components and corroded hardware on the timber structure, replacing broken or missing utility hangers, filling potholes and cracks in the asphalt overlays, and shimming non-bearing piles) are no longer part of the proposed Pier 3 repairs and have been eliminated from analysis in this Final EIS.

Due to the 1944 Port Chicago Disaster, there may be MEC located in the vicinity of the Pier 3 work. Demolition and construction contractors would follow all scheduling, coordination, security, safety, permitting, and other matters pertinent to work accomplishment in accordance with DOD Manual 6055.09, DOD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards, and as directed by the ESS. As part of the proposed action, a limited clearance of MEC in the vicinity of Pier 3 would occur within a specified and delineated work area, as opposed to a full, 100 percent clearance of the entire Pier 3 footprint. In order to perform construction activities safely, as many as eight certified MEC divers would spend up to six weeks investigating and removing any explosive anomalies adjacent to the piles to be wrapped prior to construction as part of the limited MEC clearance operation. During the MEC clearance operations, there would also be one tender per diver, a stand-by diver, and a dive supervisor along with other UXO technicians for a total of up to 40 on-site personnel supporting dive operations. A qualified MEC dive team would also be on hand to support construction activities in the event suspected MEC is encountered after work begins. MEC diving operations would only occur during daylight hours.

Following the MEC clearance operations, the cleaning and wrapping of the piles would commence. Composition of the construction dive teams would be similar to the MEC dive teams. Divers would most likely work in pairs to clean and wrap the piles. The total number of divers and support personnel would be approximately 40 workers. To accommodate Suisun Bay water conditions (e.g., swift current with low to no underwater visibility), in-water work would be scheduled primarily around neap and/or slack tides (i.e., periods of time when tidal velocities are minimal). Therefore, the in-water work is anticipated to be conducted during windows of varying duration, depending on the tides. To the extent possible, construction diving would be conducted during daylight hours; however, diving may also occur when conditions are favorable during slack tide after sunset or before sunrise. Activities not associated with diving would all occur during normal business hours.

Debris booms would be placed around the Pier 3 work area in accordance with BMPs. It is anticipated the debris booms would be attached to the pier structures; however, the specific locations of the debris booms be dependent on the type of equipment, wave action, and currents. The Army will continue to communicate with NMFS and USFWS regarding the location

ES-xvi Executive Summary February 2015 of the debris booms during the implementation of the proposed action. The Army will monitor turbidity during construction and will require the contractor to limit the spread of turbidity (and any associated contaminants) in accordance with the project’s Clean Water Act Section 401/404 requirements and the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinions issued by NMFS and

USFWS.

ES.2.5 Maintenance Dredging

Maintenance dredging was performed on a regular basis at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach

Detachment (NWSSBD) Concord (now MOTCO) until 1986; since 1943, Piers 2, 3, and 4 have been dredged nearly 20 times. Dredging was typically performed using a clamshell method to -

32 feet MLLW at Piers 2, 3, and 4; -14 feet MLLW at the Barge Pier and east lighter mooring;

and -22 feet MLLW at the west lighter mooring (USACE 1975). Since 1943, a total of 1.8 M CY of dredged material has been removed from NWSSBD Concord (USACE 1975; 1995). Under the proposed action, maintenance dredging would be performed adjacent to Pier 2 to a depth of

-32 feet MLLW plus 2 feet overdepth to address shoaling that has occurred since the last dredging event. The quantity of dredging would vary by alternative ranging from approximately

750 CY to 3,800 CY, substantially less than past dredging events. While no maintenance dredging would occur under the proposed action at Pier 3, there would be localized displacement of sediment around the individual piles to be wrapped. It is anticipated the maintenance dredging would be conducted following Pier 2 construction.

ES.2.6 Comparison of Major Components of Pier 2 Action Alternatives

Table ES-1 provides a comparison of the major components of Pier 2 action alternatives.

Table ES-1. Comparison of Pier 2 Alternatives

Project Element Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Waterside Construction

Pier 95,000 SF

(95 ft x 1,000 ft)

95,000 SF

(95 ft x 1,000 ft)

157,200 SF

(131 ft x 1,200 ft)

Loading Capacity 600 PSF 600 PSF 1,000 PSF

Change in Footprint from Existing Pier 2

-27,222 SF -27,081 SF +35,354 SF

Change in West Trestle Size from Existing Pier 2

-989 SF -2,734 SF +7,006 SF

24” Octagonal Pre-stressed Concrete Piles

876 868 1,064

16” and 18” Square Concrete Piles (Reused from Pier 2)

125 125 150

Concrete 14,338 CY 14,213 CY 21,948 CY

Wharf Reinforcing Steel 2,150 Tons 2,132 Tons 3,292 Tons

Container Cranes (2) 80 LT/80 Gage (2) 80 LT/80 Gage (2) 80 LT/100 Gage

Crane Rail 2,000 LF 2,000 LF 2,400 LF

Train Rails 0 (Removed) 0 (Removed) 8,000 LF

Rubber Blocking for Fender 1,000 LF 1,000 LF 1,200 LF

Executive Summary ES-xvii February 2015

Table ES-1. Comparison of Pier 2 Alternatives

Project Element Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

System

Camel Log for Fender System 1,000 LF 1,000 LF 1,200 LF

Metal Guardrails 4,156 4,056 4,156

Guardrail Posts 706 688 706

Operations Office/Break Room 1,500 SF 1,500 SF 1,500 SF

Light Platform Catwalk (Timber) 4 4 4

Security Lights (100 ft steel poles with 10 lights each)

4 4 4

Oil/Water Separator Yes Yes Yes

Closed-Circuit Television Yes Yes Yes

Lightning Protection Yes Yes Yes

Dredging 750 CY 3,800 CY 1,450 CY

Waterside Demolition

Creosote-Treated Timber Piles 4,514 4,514 4,514

Concrete 18” Apron Piles 136 136 136

Concrete 16” Fender Piles 118 118 118

Timber Pile Caps 1,549 LF 1,549 LF 1,549 LF

Concrete Pile Caps 63 CY 63 CY 63 CY

Pile Cap Blocks 660 LF 660 LF 660 LF

Bracing 2,850 LF 2,850 LF 2,850 LF

Stringers 5,623 LF 5,623 LF 5,623 LF

Concrete Girder 402 CY 402 CY 402 CY

Columns 624 LF 624 LF 624 LF

Wooden Curb 240 LF 240 LF 240 LF

Concrete Bullrail 171 CY 171 CY 171 CY

Guard Rail 3,870 LF 3,870 LF 3,870 LF

Guard Posts 650 650 650

Wood Decking Boards 160,000 SF 160,000 SF 160,000 SF

Concrete Decking 648 CY 648 CY 648 CY

Asphalt Deck Overlay 122,800 SF 122,800 SF 122,800 SF

Train Rails 12,925 LF 12,925 LF 12,925 LF

Piping for Utilities 12,235 LF 12,235 LF 12,235 LF

Mooring Gear (Bollards, Bitts, Cleats)

21 21 21

Steel Splices 250 250 250

Sheet Pile 84 LF 84 LF 84 LF

Concrete Fire Wall 14,637 SF 14,637 SF 14,637 SF

Timber Fire Wall 3,859 SF 3,859 SF 3,859 SF

Light Poles 22 22 22

Building A-21 5,782 SF 5,782 SF 5,782 SF

Landside Construction

Improve White Road 31,500 SF 31,500 SF 31,500 SF

Improve West Approach 11,500 SF 11,500 SF 11,500 SF

Lot T-10 Expansion 39,500 SF 39,500 SF 39,500 SF

ES-xviii Executive Summary February 2015

Table ES-1. Comparison of Pier 2 Alternatives

Project Element Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Electrical Substation 12 KV 12 KV 12 KV

Sewage Lift Station Yes Yes Yes

Diesel Generators (2) 1,500 KW (2) 1,500 KW (2) 1,500 KW

Concrete Pads 8,000 SF 8,000 SF 8,000 SF

Power Line Burial 7,020 SF 7,020 SF 7,020 SF

Move Building 100 Yes Yes Yes

Landside Demolition

Abandoned Pumping Station 1 1 1

Building 160 576 SF 576 SF 576 SF

Notes: CY = cubic yards; ft = feet; KV= kilovolt; KW = kilowatt; LF = linear feet; LT = long ton; NA = not applicable;

PSF = pounds per square foot; SF = square feet

ES.2.7 Construction Timeframe and Staging Areas

Repairs to Pier 3 are expected to be done in advance of work at Pier 2. Repairs to Pier 3 could begin as early as 2015 and would be completed within 31 weeks. This timeframe for the Pier 3 in-water work includes six weeks for the limited MEC clearance operations and 25 weeks for pile cleaning and wrapping. However, there is the potential for a gap in time to occur between the limited MEC clearance operation and the beginning of pile repair work to begin. There may also be work stoppages of up to 30 days for normal MOTCO ship operations to occur. No above-water repairs at Pier 3 would be completed under the refined proposed action. The overall timeframe for the completion of Pier 3 repairs was reduced from 47 weeks as described in the Draft EIS to 31 weeks.

It is anticipated that the demolition and reconstruction of Pier 2, including all waterside and landside elements of the modernization effort, would commence as early as 2016. Similar to

Pier 3, limited MEC clearance operations would occur at Pier 2 prior to pile removal; MEC clearance operations could take up to six weeks. The demolition would take nearly 7 months and construction would take nearly 24 months. The construction timeframe assumes that an average of four to five piles could be driven per day, the access trestle would proceed at a rate of one bent per day, and the main deck would proceed at a rate of one bent every two days for the 95-feet deck (i.e., Alternatives 1 and 2) and every three days for the 131-feet deck (i.e., Alternative 3). There is the potential that a gap in time may occur between the limited MEC clearance operation and the commencement of pile repair work. In addition, there may also be work stoppages of up to 30 days for normal MOTCO ship operations to occur. If the project begins the first quarter of 2016, it is estimated the project could be completed in the third quarter of 2018. The overall timeframe for the completion of Pier 2 modernization and repairs was increased from 27 months, as described in the Draft EIS, to approximately 31 months. The increase in the overall timeframe for Pier 2 is mostly due to the addition of MEC clearance operations and to account for maintenance dredging that would occur within the approved delta smelt work window (August 1st through November 30th).

Executive Summary ES-xix February 2015

The majority of daily construction activities would commence during normal working hours.

Certain construction activities, such as concrete placement, may have to extend beyond these hours in order to accomplish activities that must be performed without interruption until completion. This is expected to occur rarely and would only be undertaken with appropriate notification and minimization measures employed.

The staging areas (lay-down, equipment, and material) have been identified as E-61, E-61/E-85, and E-85. These 11.06 contiguous acres of land are bounded on the north by Shaner Road, the south by Robinson Road, the east by Born Road, and the west by Johnson Road. These areas are currently used as staging lots for cargo and equipment and are paved with a combination of asphalt and gravel. In order to make these staging areas acceptable for use, it is anticipated the lots would need various levels of upgrades to potentially include being graded, compacted, and resurfaced prior to use. Additional lots for parking of equipment and vehicles on a day-to-day basis during repair, construction, and demolition activities would include existing lots located near Pier 2 with prior coordination with MOTCO. The lots available for use are existing lots that have asphalt-paved surfaces and are currently used for operational purposes.

ES.3 Preferred Alternative

The EIS analyzes three action alternatives and the No Action Alternative. Based on a thorough review of the alternatives, the Army has determined Alternative 1 to be its Preferred Alternative.

Alternative 1 accomplishes all of the basic requirements for modernizing Pier 2 and re-orients the pier to provide more efficient access for the types of vessels that use the pier. No changes in the number of loading and unloading missions executed at MOTCO would occur under the proposed action; therefore, there would continue to be approximately five missions at MOTCO per year with each mission event totaling approximately 36 days of port operations activity.

Factors that influenced selection of Alternative 1 as the Preferred Alternative included impact analysis presented in the EIS and the operational flexibility afforded by rotating the new pier so the west end is approximately 48 feet further into deeper waters. Alternative 1 would result in a

989-SF reduction of the west trestle and a net decrease in the overall pier facility footprint of about 27,222 SF, which would result in an overall reduction in the overwater footprint that covers shallow water habitats. In conclusion, Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred

Alternative because it meets the purpose and need of the proposed action, and balances environmental impacts with operational flexibility.

ES.4 Environmental Consequences

A summary of environmental consequences for all alternatives analyzed in this EIS is provided in Table ES-2. While some potential for cumulative effects are addressed in Chapter 5, no significant cumulative impacts were identified.

ES-xx Executive Summary February 2015

ES.5 Public Comment on the EIS

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a Notice of Availability in the Federal

Register for the Draft EIS on November 22, 2013. The Draft EIS was circulated for review and comment by elected officials, government agencies, and the interested public. The Draft EIS was made available for general review at the Concord Public Library and Bay Point Library, and online at http://www.sddc.army.mil.

The Draft EIS 45-day public comment period began when the Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register and continued through January 6, 2014. Public comments on the Draft EIS were received throughout the comment period and were reviewed, considered, and addressed appropriately in this Final EIS.

Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS and the date/location of the public meeting were announced via paid advertisements in the Contra Costa Times on November 22–24 and 27, 2013 and on December 13–15 and 18, 2013. The Draft EIS was made available for general review at the Concord Public Library, 2900 Salvio Street, Concord, CA 94519 and at the Bay

Point Library, 205 Pacifica Avenue, Bay Point, CA 94565. A public meeting was held on

December 18, 2013 between 5:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. in the Riverview Middle School library, 205 Pacifica Avenue, Bay Point, CA 94565.

The public meeting was attended by a total of seven people (not including Army personnel and contractors participating in or facilitating the meetings). One written comment and one oral comment were received during the public meeting. Three written comments were also received during the 45-day comment period by either mail or the project email account. During the Draft

EIS public comment period, a total of five government agencies and individuals provided comments.

The Final EIS will be made publicly available during the 30-day Wait Period that follows publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. The Army will issue a Record of

Decision following conclusion of this 30-day Wait Period.

Executive Summary ES-xxi February 2015

Table ES-2. Summary of Impacts

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action

Earth Resources No impacts to geology, or seismology.

Negligible impacts to topography.

Minor adverse impacts to soil and sediments.

Existing management programs such as best management practices would continue and minimize adverse impacts.

Same as Alternative 1.