Attachment_4_-_MOTCO_Pier_2_Final_Supplemental_Environmental_Assessment.pdf

Final

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR

PIER 2 MODERNIZATION AND REPAIR DESIGN

CHANGES AT

MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL CONCORD, CA

JANUARY 2017

(This page intentionally left blank.)

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR

PIER 2 MODERNIZATION AND REPAIR DESIGN CHANGES AT

MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL CONCORD, CA

Proponent: Military Ocean Terminal Concord

NEPA Lead Agency: Military Ocean Terminal Concord

APPROVAL

This Supplemental Environmental Assessment meets the requirements of NEPA, 40

CFR 1500-1508 and 32 CFR 651.

Date LTC James R. Wiley

Commanding Officer

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for Pier 2 Modernization and Repair Design Changes at MOTCO

Executive Summary ES-1 January 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Department of the Army (Army) signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for the February 2015

Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 at MOTCO, California on April 14, 2015. In the ROD, the Army selected Alternative 1 for implementation. Alternative 1 included demolition of a considerable portion of Pier 2 and replacement of the main platform and trestles and reorienting the west end of the pier. The EIS and ROD are hereby incorporated by reference per 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part

1502.21 and consistent with 32 CFR Part 651.12(a)(3).

As the design of the modernization and repair progressed, the Army identified changes in the proposed Pier 2 layout (primarily consolidating two trestles into one) that would result in more efficient pier operations and a reduction in construction costs. The Army has prepared this

Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to assess the differences in the potential environmental and social impacts associated with the design changes for Pier 2 as compared with those analyzed for Alternative 1 in the EIS. Supplemental National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) documentation is required when the Army makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns such as the changes in the proposed Pier 2 repair and modernization design.

This SEA analyzes the following alternatives:

Alternative A. Under the no action alternative, the Army would implement the design for Pier 2 exactly as evaluated in the EIS as Alternative 1 and adopted in the resulting

ROD, which reduced the Pier 2 footprint from the existing structure (including piers and trestles) by approximately 17,442 square feet (SF). As further detailed in Section 2.3, this calculation varies slightly from the EIS as better data became available to refine these estimates as the planning and design for Pier 2 progressed.

Alternative B. Under this action alternative, the Army would adopt the recommended design changes for Pier 2. As compared to Alternative A, these design changes include consolidating the west and forklift trestle layout to a single trestle and reducing the Pier 2 footprint (including piers and trestles) by an additional approximately 17,982 SF (for a total reduction of 33,405 SF).

MOTCO is an Army Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command munitions and general cargo transshipment facility located in north central Contra Costa County, California

(Figure ES-1). This Department of Defense (DOD) installation is a West Coast common-user ammunition terminal and is home to the Surface Deployment and Distribution

Command’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.

ES-2 Executive Summary January 2017

Figure ES-1. MOTCO Location and Property

Executive Summary ES-3 January 2017

The installation is composed of an approximately 115-acre Inland Area administrative complex and an approximately 6,526-acre Tidal Area. The Tidal Area includes piers, staging, and transfer facilities, as well as 2,045 acres in offshore islands (see Figure ES-1). The Port

Chicago National Memorial, which is administered by the National Park Service (NPS), is also located in the Tidal Area near Pier 2 (see Figure ES-1). The Memorial honors those who gave their lives and were injured in the Port Chicago munitions explosion on July 17, 1944;

recognizes those who served at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine; and commemorates the role of the installation during World War II. The Memorial was designated in 1992 by Public Law

102-562 and became the 392nd unit of the NPS in 2009 (NPS 2013).

ES.1 Purpose and Need

The purpose and need for the revised design of Pier 2 is higher quality, improved operational efficiency, and lower life-cycle cost, which would ultimately save taxpayer dollars. The purpose and need for the repair and modernization of Pier 2 remains the same as evaluated in the EIS and ROD: to ensure MOTCO continues to meet its designated mission.

ES.2 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

The Army proposed to adopt recommended design changes for Pier 2 that emerged in the design process subsequent to the completion of the EIS for the Modernization and Repair of

Piers 2 and 3, MOTCO, California, and signing of the ROD. Whereas the EIS and ROD were based on preliminary design information for Pier 2, the United States Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) completed the 100 percent final design for the modernization of Pier 2 in October

2016. These design changes would provide the Army with the required modernized Pier 2 that meets all construction code requirements with the lowest life-cycle cost.

Alternative A: No Action Alternative. Under Alternative A, the Army would implement the design for Pier 2 exactly as evaluated in the EIS for the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and

3, MOTCO, California, and adopted in the resulting ROD. Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) regulations require analysis of a No Action Alternative in an Environmental Assessment

(EA) to provide a benchmark, enabling decision makers to compare the magnitude of the potential environmental effects caused by the proposed action and other alternative actions. An analysis of the No Action Alternative is required even if the agency is under a court order or legislative mandate to act.

Some of the calculations of areas of potential effect presented in the SEA under Alternative A have been refined from those presented in the EIS. The calculations were updated based on refined mapping and engineering data available as a result of the ongoing planning and design of Pier 2. Whereas the EIS analysis was largely based on constructability and preliminary concept design information, this SEA analysis draws from the 100 percent design of Pier 2.

These updated calculations are administrative, factual corrections that have no bearing on the conclusions of the EIS and ROD.

ES-4 Executive Summary January 2017

Key elements of Alternative A are as follows:

the total Pier 2 footprint is reduced by 17,442 SF;

construction and demolition activities are estimated to occur over a 27-month period with demolition completed in 7 months;

876 24-inch octagonal concrete piles and 125 16-inch piles are installed and 4,514 creosote timber piles are removed; and landside trestle approaches and 1,350 linear feet of White Road are regraded and repaved and a new electrical substation is constructed in the northwest corner of the

Pier 2 parking lot.

habitat restoration, including a greater than 2:1 wetlands mitigation ratio (approximately

0.028 acre restoration for the estimated 0.013-acre area of unavoidable impact to wetlands), assuming the same mitigation ration under both alternatives.

Alternative B: Implement Pier 2 Design Changes (Preferred Alternative). The Pier 2 configuration under Alternative B includes a pier layout with the consolidation of two trestles into a single trestle. Alternative B is based on the 100 percent design for Pier 2 and includes assumptions regarding how construction and demolition activities would be sequenced and conducted. Key elements of Alternative B are as follows:

the total Pier 2 footprint is reduced by 33,405 SF;

construction and demolition activities are estimated to occur over a 27-month period with demolition spanning a 7-month period;

793 24-inch octagonal concrete piles and 134 16-inch piles are installed and an estimated 4,514 creosote timber piles are removed;

landside trestle approaches and 1,350 linear feet of White Road are regraded and repaved and a new electrical substation is constructed at the south end of the existing

Pier 2 parking lot; and habitat restoration, including a greater than 2:1 wetlands mitigation ratio (approximately

0.57 acre restoration for the estimated 0.26-acre area of unavoidable impact to wetlands), as specified in a Habitat Restoration Plan.

ES.3 Anticipated Environmental Consequences

The SEA evaluated the difference in the potential environmental and social effects associated with the design changes as compared with those analyzed for Alternative 1 in the EIS. Like the

EIS, the analysis addressed potential environmental effects to earth resources; water resources;

air quality; biological resources; land use and coastal zone management; transportation and utilities infrastructure; visual resources; recreational resources; noise; socioeconomics and environmental justice; cultural resources; and hazardous materials, hazardous waste, toxic

Executive Summary ES-5 January 2017 substances, and contaminated sites. While some potential for cumulative effects are addressed in Chapter 5.0 of the SEA, no significant cumulative impacts were identified.

As with the EIS, the analysis presented in the SEA concludes that all potential 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. Minimal updates and refinements were made to mitigation measures from the EIS (see Chapter 6 of the

SEA).

Overall, Alternative B has a lower magnitude of impacts than Alternative A on earth resources, water resources, biological resources, land use/coastal zone management, cultural resources, and visual resources due to the smaller Pier 2 footprint (an additional -17,982 SF for a total -33,405 SF under Alternative B). The impacts to the Port Chicago National Memorial are less under Alternative B as the west trestle, which is currently adjacent to the Memorial and would remain so under Alternative A, is relocated to the east approximately 750 feet under

Alternative B. Transportation/utilities infrastructure and air quality impacts are similar under both alternatives.

Under Alternative B, there are slightly greater landside impacts to wetlands and within the

100-year floodplain due to the new, single west trestle abutment. The Army has carefully considered alternative designs for the proposed action, with the goal of ensuring the operational adequacy of the new pier while minimizing the size of the new structure and the extent of new construction and fill in the waters of Suisun Bay. Alternative B, the new preferred alternative, would have lesser impacts to aquatic resources than the EIS-preferred alternative, Alternative

A. Therefore, the Army has determined that Alternative B is the Least Environmentally

Damaging Practicable Alternative in accordance with Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act.

Similarly, the Army has found that there are no practicable alternatives to the proposed implementation of the project elements sited in the 100-year floodplain and the Army has taken all practicable measures to minimize harm to the floodplain.

There is negligible difference between the alternatives in terms of potential impacts to the following resources: recreation; noise; socioeconomic/environmental justice; and hazardous material, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and contaminated sites.

ES.4 Agency and Public Involvement

Early in the SEA development process (January 2016), MOTCO sent scoping letters to the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NPS, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 9, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Regulatory Division, California State Clearinghouse, California State Historic Preservation Office

(SHPO), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), San

Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB), California Department of

ES-6 Executive Summary January 2017

Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Cortina Band of Indians, and Ione Band of Miwok Indians. These letters notified these agencies and federally recognized tribes of the proposed action and associated consultations and solicited comments. No responses to these letters were received.

As detailed in Section ES.5, additional coordination continued with USFWS, NMFS, USACE

Regulatory Division, SHPO, BCDC, NPS, and SFBRWQCB on consultation and permitting in support of the proposed action.

In accordance with 32 CFR Part 651.35, the draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) for this SEA will be made available to the public for review and comment for 30 days prior to the initiation of the proposed action. A notification of the draft FNSI will be published in the Contra

Costa Times. The draft FNSI will be distributed to agencies and tribes listed in the above paragraph and any other agencies, organizations, and individuals that have expressed interest in the project. The draft FNSI will articulate the deadline for receipt of comments, availability of the SEA for review, and steps required to obtain the SEA. The draft FNSI, SEA, and documents incorporated by reference will be available at the Concord Public Library and Bay Point Library and at: https://www.sddc.army.mil/Pages/motco.aspx.

ES.5 Intergovernmental Coordination, Consultation, and Permitting

In accordance with 32 CFR Part 651.14(2), the following permit and agency coordination requirements have been identified as applicable to the proposed action. Appendix A includes the results of the consultations and permitting efforts that occurred in parallel with development of this SEA, which are summarized below.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, Section 7 consultation with NMFS and USFWS regarding potential impacts to threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat. Both NMFS and USFWS have concurred with the Army’s conclusions that revised design for the project to replace/upgrade Pier 2 does not change the determinations of the Biological Opinions issued by these agencies, and that re-initiation of formal consultation pursuant to 50 CFR Part 402.16 is not necessary.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act consultation with NMFS regarding potential impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). NMFS concurred with the

Army’s assessment that reinitiation of EFH consultation was not warranted.

Combined Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act)/Section 404 (Clean Water Act [CWA]) permitting from the USACE San Francisco District to perform in-water construction and for the discharge of fill in jurisdictional wetlands. The Army has begun the permitting process.

In conjunction with the Section 10/404 permit, obtaining a CWA Section 401 Water

Quality Certification from the SFBRWQCB. The Army has begun the permitting process.

Coastal Zone Management Act Coastal Consistency Determination concurrence from the BCDC. The Army continues to adhere to the terms of the Conditional Concurrence

(C2033.003.05) obtained during the EIS process.

https://www.sddc.army.mil/Pages/default.aspx

Executive Summary ES-7 January 2017

National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 consultation with the SHPO, NPS, and federally recognized Tribes regarding potential impacts to historic properties.

Consultation was conducted and concluded the design changes would have no adverse effect to historic properties.

Demonstration that project-related construction emissions are below any applicable

General Conformity Rule de minimis levels in accordance with the Clean Air Act and

California Clean Air Act. A Record of Non-Applicability has been prepared.

Although this SEA is not a joint NEPA/California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document, it includes CEQA-specific analysis to facilitate and expedite permit issuance from state agencies.

The intent is for state agencies issuing permits to be able to use this SEA to meet CEQA requirements.

ES-8 Executive Summary

Table of Contents i January 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Installation Description and Current Situation ........................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................... 1-3

1.3 Scope and Content of This Supplemental Environmental Assessment .................. 1-3

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

1.5 Intergovernmental Coordination, Consultation, and Permitting ............................... 1-5

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ....................... 2-1

2.1 Alternatives Considered and Preferred Alternative ................................................... 2-1

2.2 Alternative A: No Action Alternative ............................................................................ 2-1

2.3 Alternative B: Implement Pier 2 Design Changes ...................................................... 2-3

2.3.1 Demolition .......................................................................................................... 2-3

2.3.2 Modernization and Repair ................................................................................ 2-5

2.3.3 Other Project Activities not included in the Design Changes ...................... 2-8

2.3.4 Construction Timeline and Operations .......................................................... 2-9

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................ 2-10

2.5 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Further Consideration ................... 2-12

2.6 Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis (Least Environmentally Damaging

Practicable Alternative) ............................................................................................... 2-13

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Earth Resources ............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Water Resources ............................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2.1 Surface Water .................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.2 Groundwater ...................................................................................................... 3-2

3.2.3 Wetlands ............................................................................................................ 3-2

3.2.4 Floodplains ........................................................................................................ 3-2

3.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3.1 Conformity Requirements ................................................................................ 3-4

3.3.2 Greenhouse Gases ........................................................................................... 3-4

3.3.3 Permitted Stationary Sources .......................................................................... 3-4

3.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................... 3-4

3.4.1 Habitats .............................................................................................................. 3-4

3.4.2 Flora ................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.4.3 Fauna .................................................................................................................. 3-7

3.4.4 Special Status Species ..................................................................................... 3-7

3.5 Land Use and Coastal Zone Management ................................................................. 3-15

3.5.1 Land Use .......................................................................................................... 3-15

3.5.2 Coastal Zone Management ............................................................................ 3-15

3.6 Transportation and Utilities Infrastructure ................................................................ 3-15 ii Table of Contents January 2017

3.7 Visual Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-19

3.8 Recreational Resources .............................................................................................. 3-19

3.9 Noise 3-19

3.10 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ........................................................... 3-19

3.10.1 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................. 3-19

3.10.2 Environmental Justice .................................................................................... 3-20

3.11 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 3-20

3.12 Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Waste, Toxic Substances, and Contaminated

Sites 3-21

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Earth Resources ............................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative ............................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Alternative B ...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Water Resources ............................................................................................................ 4-2

4.2.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative ............................................................... 4-3

4.2.2 Alternative B ...................................................................................................... 4-4

4.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 4-7

4.3.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative ............................................................... 4-7

4.3.2 Alternative B ...................................................................................................... 4-7

4.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................... 4-8

4.4.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative ............................................................... 4-8

4.4.2 Alternative B ...................................................................................................... 4-9

4.5 Land Use and Coastal Zone Management ................................................................. 4-21

4.5.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative ............................................................. 4-21

4.5.2 Alternative B .................................................................................................... 4-21

4.6 Transportation and Utilities Infrastructure ................................................................ 4-22

4.6.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative ............................................................. 4-22

4.6.2 Alternative B .................................................................................................... 4-22

4.7 Visual Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-24

4.7.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative ............................................................. 4-24

4.7.2 Alternative B .................................................................................................... 4-25

4.8 Recreational Resources .............................................................................................. 4-26

4.8.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative ............................................................. 4-26

4.8.2 Alternative B .................................................................................................... 4-26

4.9 Noise 4-26

4.9.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative ............................................................. 4-27

4.9.2 Alternative B .................................................................................................... 4-27

4.10 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ........................................................... 4-30

4.10.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative ............................................................. 4-30

4.10.2 Alternative B .................................................................................................... 4-30

4.11 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 4-31

4.11.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative ............................................................. 4-32

Table of Contents iii January 2017

4.11.2 Alternative B .................................................................................................... 4-32

4.12 Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Waste, Toxic Substances, and Contaminated

Sites 4-33

4.12.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative ............................................................. 4-33

4.12.2 Alternative B .................................................................................................... 4-33

5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Approach to Cumulative Impacts Analysis ................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Potential Cumulative Effects by Resource .................................................................. 5-1

5.2.1 Resources of Concern ...................................................................................... 5-1

5.2.2 Other Actions Affecting the Resources of Concern ...................................... 5-2

5.2.3 Determination of the Magnitude and Significance of Cumulative Effects on the Selected Resource ................................................................................................ 5-14

6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Introduction and Definition of Mitigation Measures ................................................... 6-1

6.2 Best Management Practices and Standard Operating Procedures .......................... 6-1

6.3 Mitigation Measures included in this EA ................................................................... 6-14

7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 7-1

8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................. 8-1

APPENDIX A AGENCY CONSULTATION

APPENDIX B 404(b)(1) ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS (LEAST ENVIRONMENTALLY

DAMAGING PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE)

APPENDIX C FINAL SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION SURVEY REPORT FOR

THE MODERNIZATION AND REPAIR OF PIER 2 AT MILITARY

OCEAN TERMINAL CONCORD, CA

APPENDIX D RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY FOR CLEAN AIR ACT

CONFORMITY, MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL CONCORD, CA

iv Table of Contents January 2017

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. Regional Location ............................................................................................ 1-2

Figure 1-2. MOTCO Property .............................................................................................. 1-4

Figure 2-1. Alternative A and Alternative B Demolition and Construction

Footprints .......................................................................................................... 2-2

Figure 3-1. Potential and Delineated Wetlands Near Pier 2 ............................................. 3-3

Figure 3-2. 100-Year Floodplain in Pier 2 Vicinity ............................................................. 3-5

Figure 3-3. Habitats ............................................................................................................. 3-6

Figure 3-4. Soft Bird’s-Beak Survey Area and Survey Results ..................................... 3-11

Figure 3-5. Non-Federally Listed Special Status Plants in the Project Area ................ 3-13

Figure 3-6. Federally Listed Special Status Animals in the Project Area ..................... 3-14

Figure 3-7. Areas of Potential Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Occurrence ........................ 3-16

Figure 3-8. AADT Data Locations Near MOTCO ............................................................. 3-18

Figure 4-1. Acoustic Analysis of Pile Driving Noise and Impacts to Fish under

Alternative B ................................................................................................... 4-12

Figure 5-1. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Project Locations at

MOTCO .............................................................................................................. 5-4

Table of Contents v January 2017

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Creosote Timber Pile Removal Estimates under Alternatives A and B ...... 2-3

Table 2-2 Peak Activity Demolition Operations under Alternatives A and B .............. 2-4

Table 2-3 Summary of Pier 2 24-inch Octagonal Concrete Piling Work Under

Alternative B ..................................................................................................... 2-5

Table 2-4 Peak Activity Construction Operations under Alternatives A and B ......... 2-10

Table 2-5 Comparison of Major Construction/Demolition Under Alternatives A and B ............................................................................................................... 2-10

Table 2-6 Comparison of Alternatives (Additional Quantities) ................................... 2-11

Table 3-1 General Conformity de Minimis Thresholds (tons/year) ............................... 3-4

Table 3-2 Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the Action Area ............... 3-8

Table 3-3 2014 AADT Volumes Near MOTCO ............................................................... 3-17

Table 3-4 Truck AADT Volumes Near MOTCO ............................................................. 3-17

Table 4-1 Potential Direct Wetland Impacts Under Alternatives A and B .................... 4-6

Table 4-2 Potential Short-Term Wetland Impacts Under Alternatives A and B1 .......... 4-6

Table 4-3 Alternative B Estimated Air Emissions from

Demolition and Construction Activities ......................................................... 4-8

Table 4-4 Potential Habitat Impacts of Project Alternatives ....................................... 4-10

Table 4-5 Potential Short-Term Habitat Impacts Under Alternatives A and B1 ......... 4-10

Table 4-6 Anticipated Number of Vehicular Trips for Pier 2 ....................................... 4-23

Table 5-1. Cumulative Action Evaluation .............................................................................. 5-3

Table 5-2 GHG Emissions Associated with Alternatives A and B .............................. 5-15

Table 6-1 Summary of Relevant Best Management Practices and/or Standard

Operating Procedures ...................................................................................... 6-2

Table 6-2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation Measures ............................ 6-15

Table 6-3 ESA-Specific Reasonable and Prudent Measures, and Terms and

Conditions ....................................................................................................... 6-22

Table 8-1 Key Cardno List of Preparers .......................................................................... 8-3 vi Table of Contents

(This page intentionally left blank)

Acronyms and Abbreviations vii January 2017

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic ACP Access Control Point APE Area of Potential Effect

BCDC San Francisco Bay

Conservation and Development Commission

BGEPA Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act

BMP Best Management Practice BO Biological Opinion

CARB California Air Resources

Board CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQ Council on Environmental

Quality CEQA California Environmental

Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNPS California Native Plant

Society CO Carbon Monoxide CWA Clean Water Act CX Categorical Exclusion CY Cubic Yard CZMA Coastal Zone Management

Act dB Decibel dBA A-weighted decibel DNL Day-Night Average Sound

Level DOD Department of Defense DOR Designer of Record DPS Distinct Population Segment

EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS Environmental Impact

Statement EO Executive Order EPACT Energy Policy Act ESA Endangered Species Act ESS Explosive Safety Submission ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit

FICUN Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise

FNSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FRP Facility Response Plan FY Fiscal Year

GHG Greenhouse Gas

HM Hazardous Material HMMP Hazardous Material

Management Plan HRP Habitat Restoration Plan HW Hazardous Waste HWMP Hazardous Waste

Management Plan Hz Hertz

IRP Installation Restoration

Program

LBP Lead-Based Paint LEDPA Least Environmentally

Damaging Practicable Alternative

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

Leq Sound Equivalent Level LF Linear Feet LID Low Impact Development LOS Level of Service LPS Lightning Protection System LUC Land Use Control m Meter MARAD Maritime Administration MEC Munitions of Explosive

Concern MLLW Mean Lower Low Water MMPA Marine Mammal Protection

Act MMRP Military Munition Response

Program MOTCO Military Ocean Terminal

Concord MRS Munitions Response Site viii Table of Contents January 2017

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NO× Nitrogen Oxides NPS National Park Service NRHP National Register of Historic

Places NWSSBD Naval Weapons Station Seal

Beach Detachment

OSHA Occupational Safety and

Health Administration

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PM2.5 Particulate Matter Less Than or Equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 Particulate Matter Less Than or Equal to 10 microns in diameter re 1 µPa referenced to 1 micro Pascal REC Record of Environmental

Consideration RMS Root Mean Square ROD Record of Decision RONA Record on Non-Applicability RPMP Real Property Master Plan

SAV Submerged Aquatic

Vegetation SEA Supplemental Environmental

Assessment

SEL Sound Exposure Level SF Square Feet SFBRWQCB San Francisco Bay Regional

Water Quality Control Board SHPO State Historic Preservation

Officer SOP Standard Operating

Procedure SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SPCC Spill Prevention Control and

Countermeasure SPL Sound Pressure Level SPP Shoreline Protection Plan SWMP Stormwater Management

Plan SWPPP Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan

TEF Temporary Exclusion Fence TWW Treated Wood Waste U.S. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers USEPA U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UXO Unexploded Ordnance

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

WQMP Water Quality Management

Plan

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-1 January 2017

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Department of the Army (Army) signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for the February 2015

Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 at Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO), California on April 14, 2015. In the ROD, the

Army selected Alternative 1 for implementation. Alternative 1 included demolition of a considerable portion of Pier 2 and replacement of the main platform and trestles and reorienting the west end of the pier. The EIS and ROD are hereby incorporated by reference per 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1502.21 and consistent with 32 CFR Part 651.12(a)(3).

As the design of the modernization and repair progressed, the Army identified changes in the proposed Pier 2 layout (primarily consolidating two trestles into one) that would result in more efficient pier operations and a reduction in construction costs. This Supplemental

Environmental Assessment (SEA) is being prepared to assess the differences in the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts and cumulative effects associated with the design changes for Pier 2 as compared with those analyzed for Alternative 1 in the EIS. Supplemental

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation is required when the Army makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns such as the changes in the proposed Pier 2 repair and modernization design.

This SEA analyzes, in detail, the following alternatives:

Alternative A. Under the no action alternative, the Army would implement the design for Pier 2 exactly as evaluated in the EIS as Alternative 1 and adopted in the resulting

ROD, which reduced the Pier 2 footprint from the existing structure (including piers and trestles) by approximately 17,442 square feet (SF). As further detailed in Section 2.3, this calculation varies slightly from the EIS as better data became available to refine these estimates as the planning and design for Pier 2 progressed.

Alternative B. Under this action alternative, the Army would adopt the recommended design changes for Pier 2. As compared to Alternative A, these design changes include consolidating the west and forklift trestle layout to a single trestle and reducing the Pier 2 footprint (including piers and trestles) by an additional approximately 17,982 SF (for a total reduction of 33,405 SF). Additional modifications are included in Alternative B and discussed in detail in Section 2.3.

1.1 INSTALLATION DESCRIPTION AND CURRENT SITUATION

MOTCO is an Army Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command munitions and general cargo transshipment facility located in north central Contra Costa County, California

(Figure 1-1). This installation is a West Coast common-user ammunition terminal and is home to the Surface Deployment and Distribution Command’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.

MOTCO Pier 2 Modernization and Repair Design Changes

1-2 Chapter 1: Introduction

Figure 1-1. Regional Location

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-3 January 2017

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.

The installation is composed of an approximately 115-acre Inland Area administrative complex and an approximately 6,526-acre Tidal Area. The Inland Area and the Tidal Area are connected by a road running parallel to and west of Port Chicago Highway. The Tidal Area includes piers, staging and transfer facilities, as well as 2,045 acres in offshore islands (Figure 1-2). Two public rail lines, Union Pacific Railroad and Burlington Northern Santa Fe, traverse the Tidal

Area and interconnect with Army-owned MOTCO rail lines.

The Port Chicago National Memorial, which is administered by the National Park Service (NPS), is also located on MOTCO (see Figure 1-2). The Memorial honors those who gave their lives and were injured in the Port Chicago munitions explosion on July 17, 1944; recognizes those who served at the magazine; and commemorates the role of the facility during World War II.

The Memorial was designated in 1992 by Public Law 102-562 and became the 392nd unit of the

NPS in 2009 (NPS 2013).

MOTCO installation property was formerly owned by the Department of the Navy as part of

Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment (NWSSBD) Concord. On October 1, 2008, MOTCO properties were transferred from the Navy to the Army per 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The purpose and need for the revised design of Pier 2 is higher quality, improved operational efficiency, and lower life-cycle cost, which would ultimately save taxpayer dollars. The purpose and need for the repair and modernization of Pier 2 remains the same as evaluated in the EIS and ROD: to ensure MOTCO continues to meet its designated mission.

1.3 SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The Army has prepared this SEA to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action in accordance with NEPA of 1969 (42 United States [U.S.] Code Section 4321 et seq.); its implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508); the Army’s regulation implementing NEPA (32 CFR Part 651), and, to the extent applicable, the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq.).

The Army is the lead agency for the proposed action; there are no cooperating agencies (per 40

CFR Part 1501.6) for this SEA.

1-4 Chapter 1: Introduction

Figure 1-2. MOTCO Property

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-5 January 2017

This SEA evaluates the potential environmental impacts of implementing Alternative A (EIS

Alternative 1, the no action alternative for this SEA) or Alternative B (revised Pier 2 design, based on the current best available data). It contains discussions of mitigation measures, permit requirements, and conclusions regarding whether or not described impacts are significant in accordance with NEPA. As noted in Section 1.0, the EIS for the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3, MOTCO, California, and the resultant ROD are incorporated into this SEA by reference per 40 CFR Part 1502.21 and consistent with 32 CFR Part 651.12(a)(3).

1.4 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Early in the SEA development process (January 2016), MOTCO sent scoping letters to the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NPS, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 9, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Regulatory Division, California State Clearinghouse, California State Historic Preservation Office

(SHPO), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), San

Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB), California Department of

Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Cortina Band of Indians, and Ione Band of Miwok Indians. These letters notified these agencies and federally recognized tribes of the proposed action and associated consultations and solicited comments. No responses to these letters were received.

As detailed in Section 1.5, additional coordination continued with USFWS, NMFS, USACE

Regulatory Division, SHPO, BCDC, NPS, and SFBRWQCB on consultation and permitting in support of the proposed action.

In accordance with 32 CFR Part 651.35, the draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) for this SEA will be made available to the public for review and comment for 30 days prior to the initiation of the proposed action. A notification of the draft FNSI will be published in the Contra

Costa Times. The draft FNSI will be distributed to agencies and tribes listed in the above paragraph and any other agencies, organizations, and individuals that have expressed interest in the project. The draft FNSI will articulate the deadline for receipt of comments, availability of the SEA for review, and steps required to obtain the SEA. The draft FNSI, SEA, and documents incorporated by reference will be available at the Concord Public Library and Bay Point Library.

1.5 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION, CONSULTATION, AND PERMITTING

In accordance with 32 CFR Part 651.14(2), the following permit and agency coordination requirements have been identified as required for the proposed action. Appendix A includes the results of the consultations and permitting efforts that occurred in parallel with development of this SEA, which are summarized below.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, Section 7 consultation with NMFS and USFWS regarding potential impacts to threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat. Both NMFS and USFWS have concurred with the Army’s conclusions

1-6 Chapter 1: Introduction January 2017 that revised design for the project to replace/upgrade Pier 2 does not change the determinations of the Biological Opinions (BOs) issued by these agencies, and that re-initiation of formal consultation pursuant to 50 CFR Part 402.16 is not necessary (see

Appendix A). These BOs (NMFS BO SWR-2013-9819 dated November 19, 2014 and

USFWS BO 08FBD-2014-F-0002-5 dated February 4, 2015) are available in Appendix D of the EIS.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act consultation with NMFS regarding potential impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). NMFS concurred with the

Army’s assessment that reinitiation of EFH consultation was not warranted (see

Appendix A). NMFS’ EFH Response is included in the NMFS BO available in

Appendix D of the EIS.

Combined Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act)/Section 404 (Clean Water Act [CWA]) permitting from the USACE San Francisco District to perform in-water construction and for the discharge of fill in jurisdictional wetlands. In support of the permit application, the

Army has prepared a draft Section 404(b)(1) alternatives analysis, included in this SEA as Appendix B, identifying the Army’s preferred alternative as the Least Environmentally

Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), as required for permitting. The draft

404(b)(1) analysis will be revised following public review of the SEA, and submitted as part of the permit application to the USACE San Francisco District Regulatory Branch.

The final determination of compliance with the 404(b)(1) guidelines is made by the

District as part of the permit review process.

In conjunction with the Section 10/404 permit, obtaining a CWA Section 401 Water

Quality Certification from the SFBRWQCB. The Army has begun the permitting process.

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Coastal Consistency Determination concurrence from the BCDC. The Army continues to adhere to the terms of the Conditional

Concurrence (C2033.003.05) obtained during the EIS process.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation with the SHPO, NPS, and federally recognized Tribes regarding potential impacts to historic properties.

Concurrence with regard to no adverse effect to historic properties is provided in

Appendix A.

Demonstration that project-related construction emissions are below any applicable

General Conformity Rule de minimis levels in accordance with the Clean Air Act and

California Clean Air Act. A Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) has been prepared

(Appendix D).

Although this SEA is not a joint NEPA/CEQA document, it includes CEQA-specific analysis to facilitate and expedite permit issuance from state agencies. The intent is for state agencies issuing permits to be able to use this SEA to meet CEQA requirements.

Chapter 2: Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives 2-1 January 2017

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

The Army proposed to adopt recommended design changes for Pier 2 that emerged in the design process subsequent to the completion of the EIS for the Modernization and Repair of

Piers 2 and 3, MOTCO, California, and signing of the ROD. Whereas the EIS and ROD were based on preliminary design information for Pier 2, the USACE completed the 100 percent final design for the modernization of Pier 2 in October 2016. These design changes would provide the Army with the required modernized Pier 2 that meets all construction code requirements with the lowest life-cycle cost.

2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This SEA evaluates two alternatives in detail, which are described in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.

Alternatives considered but not carried forward for detailed evaluation in this SEA are summarized in Section 2.5. Figure 2-1 depicts the main elements of Alternatives A and B in comparative format. The Army has identified Alternative B as the preferred alternative based on higher quality, increased operational efficiency, and lower life-cycle cost, which would ultimately save taxpayer dollars.

2.2 ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under Alternative A, the Army would implement the design for Pier 2 exactly as evaluated in the

EIS for the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3, MOTCO, California, and adopted in the resulting ROD (Figure 2-1). Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require analysis of a No Action Alternative in an Environmental Assessment (EA) to provide a benchmark, enabling decision makers to compare the magnitude of the potential environmental effects caused by the proposed action and other alternative actions. An analysis of the No

Action Alternative is required even if the agency is under a court order or legislative mandate to act.

Some of the calculations of areas of potential effect presented in this SEA under Alternative A have been refined from those presented in the EIS. The calculations were updated based on refined mapping and engineering data available as a result of the planning and design of Pier 2.

Whereas the EIS analysis was largely based on constructability and preliminary concept design information, this SEA analysis draws from the 100 percent design of Pier 2. These updated calculations are administrative, factual corrections that have no bearing on the conclusions of the EIS and ROD. Under Alternative A, the total Pier 2 footprint would be reduced by 17,442

SF. Tables 2-1, 2-5, and 2-6 compare specific aspects of the two alternatives.

2-2 Chapter…