Attachment_8_-_USFWS_2014-F-0002-5_MOTCO_Pier_2_Final_Biological_Opinion.PDF

United States Department of the Interior

In reply refer to:

OSFBDT00-2014-F-0002-5

Malcolm Charles Director of Public Works

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

San Francisco Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office

650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300 Sacramento, California 95814

Military Ocean Tenninal Concord U.S. Department of the Army 834'h Transportation Battalion 410 Norman Avenue Concord, California 94520-1142

FEB 042015

Subject: Biological Opinion for the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 at Military Ocean Terminal Concord, Contra Costa County, California

Dear Mr. Charles:

This letter is in response to the U.S. Department of the Anny's (Anny) October 28, 2013, letter requesting formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 at Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO) Project (project). The proposed project is located in and adjacent to Suisun Bay Channel at the Army's MOTCO, in Contra Costa County, California. On October 30, 2013, our office received your consultation initiation letter, the proposed project's September 2013, Biological Assessment for Potential Effects on USFWS-Listed Species and Critical Habitat.for the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 MOTCO, Concord, CA (BA), and the Final Natural Resources Survey Report for the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 at MOTCO, Concord, CA. The Army has determined that the proposed project may affect the threatened delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) and its critical habitat, the endangered soft bird's-beak (Chloropyron mollis spp.

mollis), the endangered California clapper rail (CCR) (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM) (Reithrodontomys raviventris halicoetes), and the threatened California red-legged frog (CRLF) (Rana draytonii), and is not likely to adversely affect the endangered California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni). This document is issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

(Act).

Mr. Malcolm Charles 2

After reviewing the project's September 2013, BA, we identified insufficiencies with the project description and requested the Army provide additional information in a November 27, 2013, letter (Service File Number 08FBDT00-2014-TA-0002). On January] 7, 2014, our office received the Army's revised January 2014, BA with additional project description information. After reviewing the January 2014, BA, on March 18, 2014, we informed the Army that it was in consultation with the Service for the proposed project and continued to provide the Army technical assistance on portions of the project description that were still in development. On August 20, 2014, our office received the Army's August 18, 2014,Addendum to the USFWS Biological Assessment for the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 at MOTCO, CA (BA Addendum).

The Army has determined that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the California least tern. The Service concurs with the Army's determination that the project is not likely to adversely affect California least terns because: 1) this species has not been observed on the project site since I 988 nor were they observed during 2010 and 2013 bird surveys; 2) the tidal marsh areas at Piers 2 and 3 do not provide ideal foraging habitat for the birds reducing the likelihood of their presence; and 3) the Army has proposed to implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce adverse project effects to CCR and other shorebirds.

This document represents the Service's biological opinion on the effects of the Army's proposed Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 at MOTCO Project to delta smelt and its critical habitat, soft bird's-beak, CCR, SMHM and CRLF.

The following sources of information were used to develop this biological opinion: I) the Army's October 28, 2013, consultation initiation letter; 2) the January 2014, Revised Final Biological Assessment/or Potential Effects on USFWS-Listed Species and Critical Habitat/or the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 MOTCO, Concord, CA; 3) the September 2013, Final Natural Resources Survey Report for the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 at MOTCO, Concord, CA; 4) the January 15, 2014, response letter from the Army containing new project description information; 5) May 2013 to October 2014, electronic mail (email), telephone communications, and meetings between the Service, Army, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the Army's consultants, CARDNO TEC, about the project description; 6) the Army's August I 8, 2014, Addendum to the USFWS Biological Assessment/or the Modernization and Repair a/Piers 2 and 3 at MOTCO, CA; and 7) other information available to the Service.

May21,2013

CONSULTATION HISTORY

The Service provided the Army and Corps early technical assistance on the proposed project's potential effects to federally listed species and delta smelt critical habitat.

June to August 2013 The Service had email and telephone communications with the Army and Corps about the proposed project's BA and a future site visit at MOTCO.

Mr. Malcolm Charles

August 20, 2013

October 2013 to April2014

October 30, 2013

November 27, 2013

December 4, 2013

December 17, 2013

January 17, 2014

January to March

March 17,2014

The Service attended a site visit at MOTCO and participated in a meeting discussing the proposed project with the Army, NMFS, HB&A and CARDNO TEC consultants, and other Federal resource agencies.

The Service's section 7 biologist, Ms. Mara! Kasparian, and the Army's project planner, Ms. Kim Garber had ongoing email and telephone discussions about the BA's project description infonnation needs and section 7 consul ta ti on process.

The Service received the Anny's October 28, 2013, consultation initiation letter for the proposed project along with the September 2013, Biological Assessment for Potential Effects on USFWS-Listed Species and Critical Habitat for the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 MOTCO, Concord, CA and the September 2013, Final Natural Resources Survey Report for the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 at MOTCO, Concord, CA.

The Service provided the Anny a letter (Service File Number 08FBDT00- 2014-TA-0002) requesting additional information for the BA's project description in order to begin the section 7 consultation.

The Service participated in a conference call with the Army and NMFS to discuss the project description information requests in the Service's November 27, 2013, letter.

The Service and Army met to discuss project description information needs and the section 7 consultation process.

The Service received the January 2014, Revised Final Biological Assessment for Potential Effects on USFWS-Listed Species and Critical Habitat for the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 MOTCO, Concord, CA, the September 2013, Final Natural Resources Survey Report for the Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 at MOTCO, Concord, CA and the Army's January 15, 2014, response letter to the Service's November 27, 2013, information request.

Ms. Kaspaiian and Ms. Garber corresponded by email and telephone about the Service's review of and informational needs in the project's January 2014, BA.

The Service received a March 13, 2014, letter from the Army inquiring about the Service's review of the January 2014, BA, the resources survey report, and the project's consultation status.

March 18, 2014

March 20, 2014

March21,2014

April to October 2014

April 7, 2014

April 17, 2014

April 22, 2014

June 11, 2014

June 27, 2014

The Service informed the Anny that it was in section 7 consultation for the proposed project by email and letter (Service File Number OSFBDT00-

2014-TA-0002-1).

To assist the Army in expediting the completion of a project BA Addendum, NMFS and the Army proposed twice-monthly consultation conference calls with the Service, and HB&A and CARDNO TEC consultants to provide technical assistance on the project description.

The Service received additional project description information to review from the A1my and its consultants by email.

Twice-monthly, consultation conference calls were held between the Service, NMFS, Anny, Corps, as well as HB&A and CARDNO TEC consultants to discuss the Army's ongoing development of the project description. The Anny requested the Service provide technical assistance on the development of their project description and BA Addendum until both were completed. From April to October, the Service reviewed and provided comments on the project description and recommended additional avoidance and minimization measures to reduce adverse project effects to listed species and delta smelt critical habitat.

The Service recommended the Army include CRLF and project effects to CRLF as part of this section 7 consultation based on the presence of suitable frog habitat in the project action area; the Army agreed to include CRLF and a project effects' analysis to CRLF in the BA Addendum.

The Service received an email containing a draft Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan from the Army.

The Service received an email containing a second, draft Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan from the Army with a request to review and provide comment on its methodology; the Service provided comments to the Anny during the subsequent consultation conference call.

A conference call was held between the Anny, NMFS and the Service where the Army informed the Service that they would be unable to provide the BA Addendum by July 1, 2014, as they had projected.

The Service sent the Anny a letter (Service File Number OSFBDT00-2014- TA-0002-3), stating because the project's BA Addendum was not ready for submission by July I, the project's consultation timeline would shift later into the year.

June to August 2014 The Service, NMFS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Army had discussions about fish and water quality monitoring for adverse project

August 20, 2014

August 27, 2014

August to October

September 9, 2014 effects to delta smelt critical habitat that the Army would be unable to avoid or minimize.

The Service received the Army's August 18, 2014, BA Addendum and cover letter requesting the Service complete the project's consultation by October 28, 2014.

The Army sent the Service an email with additional sediment toxicology data and revised chapters for the August 2014, Final Sediment Sampling Report.

The Army, NMFS, Service, and HB&A and CARDNO TEC consultants, had ongoing communications about the revised project description information in the BA Addendum.

The Army provided the Service with revised turbidity monitoring and environmental and species protection Specification Sheets for the BA Addendum.

September 12, 2014 In an email, the Army requested the Service provide a copy of the project's draft biological opinion for their internal review.

November 5, 2014 The Service issued the draft biological opinion to the Army.

December 4, 2015 The Army emailed a comment matrix on the draft biological opinion to the Service.

December 5, 2014 The Service participated in a conference call with the Army and consultants to discuss the comments provided on December 4, 2014.

December 12, 2014 The A1my emailed a revised comment matrix and redline/strikeout version of the draft biological opinion to the Service.

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

Description of the Action

Project Purpose and Need

The Army proposes to modernize and repair Piers 2 and 3 at MOTCO. 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 1 ). Piers 2 and 3 are past their structural and design life and lack modern operational efficiencies. In its cmTent degraded and nonoperational condition, Pier 2, the optimum operational pier for mission capability, cannot be utilized and Pier 3, currently the primary operational pier at

Mr. Malcolm Charles 6

MOTCO, requires some level ofrepair to maintain even its limited operational capability through 2019. The proposed project is needed to modernize and repair pier infrastructure at MOTCO to ensure this vital West Coast port can continue to meet its designated national security mission.

Without these actions, the U.S. Department of Defense's (DOD) ability to perform its current and future contingency operations in the Pacific theater could be impacted.

There are five components to the proposed project: 1) partial demolition of existing Pier 2 and reconstruction of structural elements; 2) replacement of pier-side infrastructure and supporting facilities at Pier 2; 3) upgrade to shore-side roads and electrical infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of Piers 2 and 3; 4) repair of piles and selected structural elements at Pier 3; and 5) maintenance dredging to -32 feet (ft) mean lower low water (MLLW) plus 2 ft over-depth dredging to compensate for inaccuracies in the dredging operation waterward of Pier 2.

Project Location

MOTCO is located in the East San Francisco Bay region, approximately I 0 nautical miles inland past the Carquinez Strait that connects Suisun Bay to San Pablo Bay, in Contra Costa County, California. 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 (Figure I).

Mr. Malcolm Charles 7

[_ "l MOTCO Boundary _,,,,,,. US and State Highways

County Boundary Road mB Facilities Railroad

Wetland Preserve

Note: Because of tidal erosion and tidal fluctuation, islands in the Bay-Delta change in shape and size over time.

Figure 1: MOTCO Property with Piers 2 and 3 in Suisun Bay Channel

Mr. Malcolm Charles 8

Proposed Construction Activities

Overview of Pier 2 Modernization and Repairs

Pier 2 was built using creosote-treated timber in 1944 and has a footprint of approximately 211,065 square ft (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 ft, plus a concrete pile cap beam and a concrete slab on top. 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 aud driving new 16-inch square concrete piles every 8 ft for the length of the pier. There are 118 fender piles and each pile is approximately 70 ft long. The fender piles are in fair condition and many of these fender piles could be reused if carefully removed during demolition.

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 and extended, and the east trestle would be extended, repaired, and upgraded. A third access trestle would be used to accommodate forklifts and provide pedestrian access to a new Operations Building I Breakroom after the existing Operations Building I Breakroom is demolished. Pierside supporting facilities including mooring hardware, office space, removable bull-rail, potable water, sanitary sewer, fire protection, lightning protection, and high mast lighting would be repaired or replaced.

Existing antiterrorism and force protection 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.

Demolition of Pier 2 and Two Buildings

The total estimated area for demolition is 159,000 sf of pier structure, which includes the removal of approximately 4,514 creosote-treated timber piles ranging from 55 to 75 ft 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). It is anticipated many of the piles from the fender system 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 ft 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.

The two existing buildings on the pier, Buildings A-21 and 160, totaling 6,358 sf, would be demolished. Building A-21isa5,782 sf structure that was built in 1944 and used as an office/battery charging area. Building 160 is a 576 sf structure that was built in 1965 and used as a steam plant (Figure 2). 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

Mr. Malcolm Charles 9 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, the semi-truck would transport the pieces directly to an appropriate recycling, salvage, or landfill.

According to the February 2012, Pier 2 Routine Inspection Report, the main platfonn and approach are in serious condition, and it cannot be assumed the structure could adequately support heavy equipment (Corps 2012). Therefore, as much as possible, the demolition would be conducted from the water. In very shallow water and intertidal areas, demolition would either use 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. Demolished material will be 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. The semi-truck would transport the pieces 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, the semi-truck would transport the pieces directly to an appropriate recycling, salvage, or landfill.

Work would begin 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. 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 Anny will continue to communicate with the Service 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 Anny will require the contractor to limit the spread of turbidity (and any associated contaminants) in accordance with the project's Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certification requirements, as stated in the General and Species Specific Conservation Measures and project Specification Sheets.

Skiffs, or small boats, would be working in the water to continually ferry workers from the barge to shore and to 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 the utility lines, pipes, conduits, and other miscellaneous metal would be hauled to the same metal recycling facility as the rails.

C'.'.::l E n'1<~ Strvctww fi41tto.a<I

Figure 2: Pier 2 Existing Structures and Site Plan

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 an asphalt recycling facility or appropriate disposal facility. Asphalt would be recycled depending on the condition of the asphalt and how cleanly it comes off of the wood decking boards.

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 areas. The Army intends to pursue a limited clearance ofMEC in the vicinity of Pier 2 that 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. During the limited 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.

Mr. Malcolm Charles 11

Following the MEC clearance operation, pile removal would commence. Best management practices 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 ft below the mudline using pneumatic shears or a similar cutting tool. 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 (Figure 3); however, to the extent this number changes, it is likely more piles would be cut versus pulled in order to stabilize submerged sediments. Increasing the number of piles to be cut would likely result in less substrate disturbance and a reduction in turbidity.

Piles Likleyto be Pulled (-13 Piles)

Plies to be Cut (-2,359 Piles)

Figure 3. Pier 2 Pile Removal Methodology

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 obstructions to driving the new concrete piles. The proposed piles to be cut would remain submerged approximately 2 ft 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 off 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

Mr. Malcolm Charles 12 using tarps and a floating boom. If a timber pile breaks, every effort will 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 ft below the mudline using pneumatic shears or a similar cutting tool.

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

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. By cutting as many piles as possible versus pulling the piles, the Anny would avoid some of the potential impacts to water quality and species associated with increased turbidity and contaminant resuspension from sediments re-entering the water column during pile removal via pulling. This best management practice is consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) March 2007 Best Management Practices for Pile Removal and Disposal.

Mr. Malcolm Charles 13

Modernization and Repair of Pier 2 and White Road Infrastructure Improvements

The proposed pier head construction (totaling 95,000 sf) would have a single level, 1,000-foot long by 95-foot-wide working area for container handling and break-bulk loading and offloading.

The site design would have container crane rails at 80-foot spacing and would rotate the new pier head around the east end of Pier 2 so that the west end is relocated approximately 48 ft further offshore and into deeper water. There would be a net decrease in the overall pier facility footprint by approximately 27,222 sf and a reduction of the west trestle by 989 sf. Rotating the pier would result in an overall reduction in the overwater footprint that covers shallower water habitat areas (areas with a depth ofless than 12 ft) while the footprint covering deeper water habitat increases slightly. The new pier would extend into deeper water sufficient to support the draft of vessels using the new pier. The berth length is shorter than the existing berth since this pier will be used for container missions instead of non-containerized cargo.

The modernized Pier 2 would require driving 876 new 24-inch octagonal pre-stressed concrete piles, 125 reused square concrete piles, 14,338 CY of concrete, and 2,150 tons ofreinforcing 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 I Breakroom, installation of a new 12-kilovolt electrical substation and two 1,500-kilowatt diesel emergency generators to support 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 Antiterrorism/Force Protection 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) identified during consultation would be removed as part of the demolition process.

Construction would proceed from west to east, following behind 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 4-5 piles per day), the roadway 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 ft apart. Construction for the main deck would proceed at a rate of one bent every two days for the 95-foot deck.

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 pile caps have been poured with concrete 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 poured. The formwork for each pile cap and deck section can then be reused in a leapfrog fashion. As soon as a section of form work is completed, the workers would lay out the reinforcing steel to prepare for concrete pouring. A derrick barge would be needed to lower falsework (a temporary structure used to support the

Mr. Malcolm Charles 14 structure during construction) support members and rebar to workers on the deck. Once the fonnwork 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 fonned 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. Work on the east trestle can begin once the main deck piles are complete, while the deck is being poured and after the utilities and crane rails are installed.

The road leading to the west trestle would be widened to allow for a safe tum 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 detennined, 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. In addition, the repairs would be located within the 100-foot "disturbance buffer" between the Port Chicago Naval Magazine Memorial and west trestle.

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 (10 fixtures each with high pressure sodium or similar floodlights) would be constructed approximately 50 ft behind the back of the pier. These four banks oflights would replace 50 (unshielded) high pressure sodium street lights or mercury vapor floodlights. The 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 the 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.

A segment of White Road between Johnson Road to 3,000 ft east ofMurdoh Road would be repaired. Repairs would cover approximately 0.9 acre of existing roadway and embankment and include removing and replacing 8,500 linear ft of asphalt and base materials to a width of 20 ft, and repainting roadway st1ipes. The demolition of the existing road would generate approximately 12,000 CY ofrecyclable 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 confonn better with existing railroad crossings. The planned construction would provide yellow, non-reflective centerline striping and white, non-reflective edge stripping 10 ft on either side of the centerline. The completed road would also include compacted shoulders providing edge support for pavement and grade to drain.

Mr. Malcolm Charles 15

Due to the age aud poor conditions of existing utilities infrastmcture 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 disturbauce includes the transformers and panel boards on 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. The existing I 00- sf pad mounted transformer (oil filled) would be replaced with a new 4-way switch and new pad-mounted trausf01mer. A trench measuring approximately 4 ft deep by 2 ft 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 ft long) to approximately 5 ft into the west bound lane of White Road.

Wetlauds 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 on site would vary depending on how many activities are occurring at the time. For example, the pile driving derrick would require at least seven workers, the crew doing the formwork would have up to eight workers, aud the crew pouring would have up to 12 workers. When all three constmction 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.

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. Pier 3 is in need ofrepairs to be able to maintain its limited operational capability through 2019; however, use of Pier 3 beyond 2019 is speculative. Results of the Army's 2013 pier inspection indicate that pier damage has not increased as rapidly as expected since a 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 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, would protect the piles from further marine borer infestation. The Army estimates that with a 100-foot buffer, approximately 10. 72 aquatic habitat acres (including 1.57 acres covered by the pier) in Suisun Channel will be affected by the proposed HDPE jacket wrapping work at Pier 3.

The marine borer infestation has been increasing in association with the increasing salinity level in Suisun Bay (Enright and Culberson 2010) which creates a more favorable habitat for the marine organism. 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 HDPE pile wrap would be installed 2 ft above the highest tide level down to 2 ft below the mudline.

Mr. Malcolm Charles 16

Due to the 1944 Port Chicago Disaster, there may be UXO and other MEC located in the vicinity of the Pier 3 work areas. The Army intends to pursue a limited clearance of MEC in the vicinity of Pier 3 that 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 perfonn 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. During the limited 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. To the extent possible, construction diving would be conducted during daylight hours; however, diving may also occur when conditions are favorable during high slack tides after sunset or before sunrise. Activities not associated with diving would all occur during normal business hours.

Following the MEC clearance operation, 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 construction dive team members and support personnel would be approximately 40 workers. To accommodate Suisun Bay water conditions (e.g., swift and variable tidal currents with low to no underwater visibility), in-water work would be scheduled primarily around slack tides (i.e., periods of time when current velocities are minimal). While the dive team will attempt to complete 8 hours of work per day, insofar as tidal amplitudes and associated currents change on daily, bi-weekly, and annual cycles, the in-water work is anticipated to be conducted during windows of varying duration as conditions allow. To the extent possible, construction diving would be conducted during daylight hours unless high slack tide occurs after sunset. Activities not associated with diving would all occur during nonnal business hours before sunrise or after sunset.

After an evaluation of a variety of types of turbidity barriers available, the Army has determined the installation of turbidity barriers would not be practicable or effective given the specific hydrodynamic conditions of Suisun Bay; however, the Army will deploy debris booms at Piers 2 and 3, conduct Pier 3 work dming slack tide, and cut as many piles as possible at Pier 2.

Debris booms would be placed around the Pier 3 work area in accordance with best management practices. 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 Anny will communicate with the Service regarding the location of the debris booms once the design phase is completed, as well as during the implementation of the proposed action.

The Am1y will require the contractor to limit the spread of turbidity (and any associated contaminants) in accordance with the forthcoming CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification requirements, the turbidity monitoring metrics in the project's Specification Sheets for their contractor(s), and the measures listed in the General and Species Specific Conservation Measures.

The Anny does not intend to be prescriptive in dictating to the contractor what means of sediment containment or changes in methods to limit the generation of turbidity during pile wrapping are to be employed in combination with debris booms, as long as the approach is practicable and

Mr. Malcolm Charles 17 effective. However, in the event of inconsistencies between the CW A Section 401 certification requirements and contractor specifications, the CW A certification requirements will have precedence.

Maintenance Dredging

When (more recently known as) Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment (NWSSBD) Concord was established, it was dredged extensively. Specifically, since 1943, Piers 2, 3, and 4 have been dredged nearly 20 times. Maintenance dredging has occurred at the east and west lighter moorings, the Barge Pier, and Piers 2, 3, and 4. Maintained depths were -32 ft MLLW at Piers 2, 3, and 4; -14 ft MLLW at the Barge Pier and east lighter mooring; and -22 ft MLLW at the west lighter mooring.

Since 1943, a total of 1.8 million CY of dredge materials were removed from NWSSBD Concord (Corps 1995, 1975). Prior to Fiscal Year (FY) 75, the dredged materials were disposed on land at NWSSBD Concord or in nearby water areas (Table 1 ). During the FY75 dredging event, however, the dredged materials were deposited in Carquinez Strait (Corps 1975). In 1986, NWSSBD Concord proposed to place 285,000 CY of dredge material on Site S-20A, a 12-acre upland site located at the intersection of Port Chicago Highway and Driftwood Way on NWSSBD Concord (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board [SFBRWQCB] 1986). According to SFBRWQCB Order Number 86-54, the dredge material disposal area was to have been diked to form a settling pond. The return discharge water was to be monitored at the control structure prior to discharge to Suisun Bay through an unnamed slough to the Bay (SFBRWQCB 1986).

However, there are no records available from the Corps or the SFBRWQCB to confirm this dredging took place. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared in 1974 for the construction of a container handling facility at Pier 2. The action involved the dredging of an approach channel between Suisun Bay Channel and Pier 2. The dredging involved the removal of 250,000 CY of material; the proposed disposal site was the 290-acre land site adjacent to Piers 3 and 4 (Corps 1975).

The tidal range around the MOTCO piers is+/- 8 ft. Depending on the vessel type, the scheduling of inbound and outbound vessels can be limited to times when water depth is sufficient for transit.

Since the last maintenance dredging event in 1986, the water depth at the piers has gradually become shallow in certain areas due to the shoaling. Therefore, maintenance dredging to -32 ft MLLW plus 2 ft overdepth is proposed. Approximately 750 CY of dredged material adjacent to Pier 2 would be redistributed using a bed-leveler device. Bed-leveler devices consist of a large customized plow or a box beam suspended from a work barge. A 1,000 to 3,000 horsepower tug is generally used to push or pull the barge-mounted bed-leveler at towing speeds ranging from 1- 2 knots. A typical bed-leveler varies from 30-50 ft in width and weighs anywhere from 25-50 tons. Maintenance dredging would be achieved by towing a heavy steel blade or bar over the bottom in order to redistribute the sediment to deeper portions of Suisun Bay near Pier 2. It is anticipated maintenance dredging would be conducted following Pier 2 construction, take approximately I week and occur within the approved delta smelt work window of 1 August through 30 November.

Mr. Malcolm Charles 18

Table I: Historical dredge volumes and methods at MOTCO ·. ); ·; < j ; .. < 1 ~~~#tit)i~~.m~ved' >''.)', ':·.·>.h' .·>;'·.:··;,:·. "'"' :·.:.· .• •• ·:.·~{r:·.>:·. --·> •. 0 [ .. , " .... ~G''

1.:· .. ·\ .. ·"- .·.,,·~'::·::.~;.~::,:>}'.:-.::·-·:-~.;' ', ·,,' ' .. · (CtiWe¥<1i:ds) .... •. < .•.•. • ::: .•'ii<· Ti • • ..... ·.; ;;; ••

1943 620,000 Clamshell 1944 298,000 Clamshell 1945 70,500 Clamshell 1950 82,300 Clamshell 1951 48,500 Clamshell 1953 37,000 Clamshell 1957 108,700 Clamshell 1959 20,900 Clamshell 1960 69,700 Clamshell 1962 40,000 Clamshell 1965 52,000 Clamshell 1967 36,800 Clamshell 1969 30,000 Hvdraulic Pipeline 1970 63,200 Clamshell 1975 78,000 .· Clamshell

Unknown* 42,759 Unknown Unknown* 42,759 Unknown Unknown* 42,759

Unknown .

1981 * 42,759 .. Unknown 1986** Unknown Unknown

Sources: Corps 1995, 1975 Notes: *As discussed in Corps (1995), between 1957 and 1981 a total of670,500 CY was removed at NWSSBD Concord.

However, it is believed there were three additional dredging events between 1975 and· 1981 (i.e., 13 events between 1957 and 1981 ). The quantity re111oved reflects the average of total ainount dredged over four events.

** Project drawings show plans to petfonn dredging in 1986, but records are not available to confinn dredging occun-ed in 1986.

Monitoring

A Water Quality Monitoring Plan will be implemented throughout the duration of the project during sediment-disturbing in-water activities. This plan will support the project's compliance with the Section 401 Water Quality Certification requirements. Water quality data from locations upstream versus downstream of project activities will be used to determine the extent ofproject related effects on water quality such as turbidity and contaminants and to limit such effects in accordance with criteria set forth in the certification. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan is currently being developed by the Anny and will be submitted to the Service for review and approval.

In order to investigate the level of potential adverse project effects to delta smelt and its critical habitat from multi-year, year-round project activities, the Anny has proposed to collect and analyze fish monitoring data for three, consecutive years during construction. The Anny will evaluate existing data sources and if necessary augment those sources with additional data collection points. Data will only be collected from relevant project areas considered safe from UXO exposure to personnel. Trawl methods are not authorized given potential for UXO discovery. Contemporaneous data from delta smelt surveys in combination with data from water quality monitoring will be used to assess the degree to which delta smelt in the action area are

Mr. Malcolm Charles 19 exposed to project-related disturbances and changes in water quality. The scope of the monitoring program is in development and will be submitted to the Service for review and approval a minimum of 60 days prior to beginning of in-water work for the actions described above. This biological opinion would be amended as necessary to include any additional effects to listed species from implementation of the final monitoring plan.

Project Footprint

The proposed project's footprint occurs within Suisun Bay Channel and its associated tidal marshes at MOTCO, as well as terrestrial areas adjacent to Shaner Road that will be used for staging construction-related equipment and materials. Table 2 summarizes the approximate acreages for natural and man-made elements where construction actions will occur and/or may be affected by the proposed project discussed in this biological opinion. For purposes of our effects analysis we estimate the footprint to include a total of 92. 76 acres of aquatic habitat, 0.84 acre of marsh habitat, and 11.06 acres of upland habitat.

Pier 2, over-water area Pier 3, over-water area 1.57 Pier 3, wra ing area with 100 ft buffer 9.15 Maintenance Dredging shoaling area 1.55 Aquatic Acoustic Impacts, 150dB RMS ZOI 83.61 SA V habitat area 1.