Manchester Tank Farm Improvements (P-856) Public Draft EA June Abstract

Transcription

1

2 Abstract Lead Agency for the EA: Title of Proposed Action: Project Location: Affected Region: Action Proponent: Designation: Department of the Navy Manchester Tank Farm Improvements (P-856) Naval Base Kitsap, Manchester Fuel Department Kitsap County, Washington Naval Base Kitsap Environmental Assessment The Department of the Navy (Navy) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S. Code sections h), as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts ) and Navy regulations for implementing NEPA (32 CFR part 775). Under the Proposed Action, Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Puget Sound would construct new aboveground storage tanks and permanently close-in-place existing underground storage tanks, in accordance with applicable Washington State underground storage tank regulations, at Naval Base Kitsap, Manchester Fuel Department (MFD). The purpose of the Proposed Action is to improve MFD fuel tank infrastructure to meet Department of Defense and customer fuel storage and distribution requirements in a costeffective manner, while simultaneously complying with applicable regulations. The Proposed Action is needed because recent changes in environmental regulations have resulted in costly new compliance requirements that negatively affect operations at MFD. Implementation of the Proposed Action would begin as early as This EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the two action alternatives Alternative 1 (the South Site Alternative) and Alternative 2 (the Tank Rehabilitation Alternative) and a No Action Alternative to the following resource areas: water resources, geological resources, cultural resources, biological resources, visual resources, transportation, and hazardous materials and wastes. Prepared by: Point of Contact: Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, EV21 Attention: NEPA Planner, Manchester Tank Farm Improvements 1101 Tautog Circle, Room 203 Silverdale, WA Address: NWNEPA@navy.mil Date: June 2018 Abstract-i Abstract

3 ES.1 Proposed Action EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze the construction of aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and the permanent closure of existing underground storage tanks (USTs) at Naval Base Kitsap (NBK), Manchester Fuel Department (MFD), located next to the unincorporated community of Manchester, Washington. The UST closures would be implemented in accordance with applicable Washington State UST regulations (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] ). Implementation of the Proposed Action could begin as early as 2021 and would continue for approximately six years. The action proponent is NBK and the project sponsor is Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistic Center Puget Sound. ES.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of the Proposed Action is to improve MFD fuel tank infrastructure to meet Department of Defense (DoD) and customer fuel storage and distribution requirements in a cost-effective manner, while simultaneously complying with applicable regulations. As the United States (U.S.) military s only installation with refueling capability in the Pacific Northwest, MFD is a strategic fuel reserve for supporting all joint forces assigned to Navy Region Northwest. MFD also serves DoD ground and air units located throughout the Pacific Ocean. The Proposed Action is needed because recent changes in environmental regulations have resulted in costly new compliance requirements that negatively affect operations at MFD. In October 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) adopted changes to the rules governing the federal UST program (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] part 280) and state program approval (40 CFR part 281). These changes added new operational and maintenance requirements for UST systems, such as tank tightness testing. Tank tightness testing requires USTs to be placed out-of-service for extended periods of time, a requirement that puts the MFD mission to maintain sufficient fuel storage capacity for DoD and customer needs at risk. Construction of new fuel storage tanks under the Proposed Action would result in improved maintenance efficiencies while avoiding impacts to the DoD mission (as discussed in Section 1.3.3). ES.3 Alternatives Considered Alternatives were developed for analysis based upon the following reasonable alternative screening factors: meet current fuel tank design requirements avoid potential seismic faults minimize impacts to operations at MFD minimize impacts to aesthetics and viewsheds The Department of the Navy (Navy) is considering two action alternatives that meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, and a No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative): South Site Alternative Under Alternative 1, the Navy would construct six new 125,000-barrel multi-product ASTs capable of storing and distributing both F-76 and JP-5 fuel at MFD. The construction of the new ASTs would be conducted in three phases (two ASTs ES-1 Executive Summary

4 constructed under each phase) to maintain the required minimum storage of fuel throughout construction. Each phase of construction would take approximately two years. Phases I, II, and III of Alternative 1 include the incremental closure of the eight existing USTs located within the footprint of the new ASTs. In addition, the Navy has identified a future connected action, whereby the remaining 26 USTs would be closed in place in accordance with applicable Washington State UST regulations (WAC ). The Navy would conduct further National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and consultations to develop a closure plan for the remaining USTs, as necessary. Alternative 2: Tank Rehabilitation Alternative Under Alternative 2, the Navy would rehabilitate existing USTs to construct a tank-within-a-tank. The Navy would construct 15 new 50,000-barrel steel ASTs within the shells of 15 of the existing USTs. The 15 USTs would be closed in place and then modified to be used to provide secondary containment for the new ASTs, in accordance with applicable Washington State UST regulations (WAC ). The remaining 19 USTs would be closed at a future date as explained under Alternative 1. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative is also carried forward for detailed analysis and serves to establish a comparative baseline for analysis of the two action alternatives. The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action and would not satisfy two of the screening factors (meet current fuel tank design requirements and possibly, avoid potential seismic faults). Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur and compliance with final Washington State UST regulations would likely not be met. ES.4 Summary of Environmental Resources Evaluated in the Environmental Assessment Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, NEPA, and Navy instructions for implementing NEPA, specify that an EA should address those resource areas potentially subject to impacts. In addition, the level of analysis should be commensurate with the anticipated level of environmental impact. The following resource areas have been addressed in this EA: water resources, geological resources, cultural resources, biological resources, visual resources, transportation, and hazardous materials and wastes. Because potential impacts would be negligible or nonexistent, the following resources were not evaluated in detail in this EA: air quality, noise, American Indian traditional resources, land use, utilities, public health and safety, socioeconomics, and environmental justice. ES.5 Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives and Major Mitigating Actions Table ES-1 provides a tabular summary of the potential impacts to the resources associated with each of the alternative actions analyzed. Table ES-2 presents impact avoidance and minimization measures for Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, the same impact avoidance and minimization measures as presented for Alternative 1 would be implemented. ES.6 Public Involvement Regulations from the CEQ (40 CFR part ) direct agencies to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures. The Navy has made the Draft EA available for public review. ES-2 Executive Summary

5 Resource Area Water Resources Geological Resources Cultural Resources Biological Resources Visual Resources Transportation Table ES-1 No Action Alternative Potential Impacts No significant impact. No change to existing conditions. Six USTs would remain near a potential seismic fault; however, continued compliance with existing fuel storage management and safety procedures would minimize the potential for impacts to water resources. No significant impact. No change to existing conditions. No significant impact. No change to existing conditions. No significant impact. No change to existing conditions. Six USTs would remain near a potential seismic fault; however, continued compliance with existing fuel storage management and safety procedures would minimize the potential for impacts to biological resources. No significant impact. No change in existing conditions. No significant impact. No change in existing conditions. Summary of Potential Impacts to Resource Areas Alternative 1: South Site Alternative Alternative 2: Tank Rehabilitation Potential Impacts Alternative Potential Impacts No significant impact. No significant impact. No direct impacts to surface water, floodplains, or Potential impacts would be similar to those groundwater. Implementation of and adherence to the described for Alternative 1, though the increase Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and associated in impervious surface would be 11.9 acres. best management practices would minimize the potential for pollutants to enter receiving waters. Increase in impervious surfaces (13.9 acres) would occur. No significant impact. Surface disturbance and grading would result in minor changes to topography. New ASTs would avoid potential seismic faults and their associated risk. Excavated soil material would be temporarily stockpiled within MFD boundaries in generally flat and previously developed/disturbed areas. No significant impact [Placeholder text] The Navy is consulting with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Suquamish Tribe s Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO). No significant impact. Construction would result in the removal of approximately 13.9 acres of mostly low-quality vegetation and some mature trees. Direct mortality to common, less-mobile wildlife species, such as rodents. No significant impact. Permanent addition of six approximately 64-foot high ASTs to viewshed. No significant impact. Temporary and minor increase in average daily traffic generated from construction. No significant impact. Potential impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative 1; however, less soil would be stockpiled. No significant impact [Placeholder text] The Navy is consulting with the SHPO and the Suquamish Tribe s THPO. No significant impact. Potential impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative 1, though the loss of low-quality vegetation would be approximately 11.9 acres. No significant impact. Permanent addition of 15 approximately 26-foot high ASTs to viewshed. No significant impact. Potential impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative 1. ES-3 Executive Summary

6 Resource Area Hazardous Materials and Wastes Table ES-1 No Action Alternative Potential Impacts Significant impact. No change to existing conditions. Six existing USTs would continue to be located near a potential seismic fault. Adverse impact to operations and potential for not meeting mission requirements. Summary of Potential Impacts to Resource Areas Alternative 1: South Site Alternative Alternative 2: Tank Rehabilitation Potential Impacts Alternative Potential Impacts Beneficial impact. Beneficial impact. Compliance with anticipated state UST regulation Potential impacts would be similar to those updates would be less impactful to operations. Fuel described for Alternative 1. storage would not occur near a potential seismic fault. Inadvertent minor releases of construction-related oils/fluids. Resource Area Alternative 1: South Site Alternative Water Resources Water Resources Water Resources Geological Resources Measure Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) preparation and implementation as per Construction General Permit. Excavated soil material would be temporarily stockpiled within MFD boundaries in generally flat and previously developed/disturbed areas, with proper erosion-control BMPs. Non-potable water used for hydrostatic testing would be handled in accordance with federal and state requirements. Conduct a geotechnical analysis. Table ES-2 Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures Anticipated Implementing Benefit/Evaluating and Monitoring Effectiveness Avoid/minimize runoff, sedimentation, and erosion into receiving waters. Avoid/minimize runoff, sedimentation, and erosion into receiving waters. Avoid impairing receiving waters. Avoid siting ASTs within 50 feet of a seismic fault. Implementation at the onset of construction. Monitoring would be conducted monthly and following significant rain events. Post construction monitoring until the site stabilizes. Throughout construction duration. Implementation and monitoring would occur during the hydrostatic test phase of new tank construction. Design stage. Responsibility Construction contractor with Navy oversight. Construction contractor with Navy oversight. Construction contractor with Navy oversight. Design engineer with Navy oversight. Estimated Completion Date End of construction. Until stockpiled soil is moved to a permanent location. Completion of hydrotesting. Prior to final design. ES-4 Executive Summary

7 Resource Area Cultural Resources Biological Resources Biological Resources Biological Resources Biological Resources Measure Stop work in the area and implement Section 106 process for inadvertent discovery. Revegetate temporarily disturbed areas with native vegetation. Conduct all vegetation removal, trimming, and grading of vegetated areas outside of the peak bird breeding season to the maximum extent practicable. If project activities cannot occur outside the bird nesting season, conduct surveys prior to scheduled activity to determine if active nests are present within the area of impact and buffer any nesting locations found during surveys. Any clearing, landscaping, and construction activity that would be required within the 660-foot secondary buffer for nesting bald eagles would occur outside of the nesting and fledging period of January 1 through August 31. Table ES-2 Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures Anticipated Implementing Benefit/Evaluating and Monitoring Effectiveness Protection of potential Throughout construction cultural resources until duration. significance can be determined. Enhance extent of native vegetation at MFD. Minimize potential impacts to migratory birds. Minimize potential impacts to migratory birds. Avoiding impacts to nesting and fledging bald eagles. Post-construction with periodic success monitoring. Pre-construction. Pre-construction and construction (if nests found). Pre-construction and construction (during nesting and fledging period). Responsibility Construction contractor with Navy oversight. Construction contractor with Navy oversight. Construction contractor with Navy oversight. Construction contractor with Navy oversight. Construction contractor with Navy oversight. Estimated Completion Date End of construction. End of post-construction. Pre-construction. Pre-construction and end of construction (or when birds fledge). Pre-construction and end of construction (or when birds fledge). ES-5 Executive Summary

8 Resource Area Visual Resources Transportation Hazardous Materials and Wastes Hazardous Materials and Wastes Hazardous Materials and Wastes Measure Native vegetation (especially trees) would be planted around the construction footprint where operationally feasible. Follow designated haul routes for construction vehicle traffic. A Closure Plan would be prepared in accordance with WAC Chapter for UST closure. Test excavated material for acceptability for on-site reuse. Hazardous materials testing of structures to be demolished. Table ES-2 Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures Anticipated Implementing Benefit/Evaluating and Monitoring Effectiveness Provide a visual screening Post-construction. of the ASTs. Minimize impacts to area roadways and community noise. Minimize potential impacts to the human and natural environment. Avoid exposure of possible contaminated soils to the human and natural environment. Prevent exposure of possible asbestos and lead to construction workers. Pre-construction and construction. Pre-construction and construction. Pre-construction. Pre-construction. Responsibility Construction contractor with Navy oversight. Construction contractor with Navy oversight. Construction contractor with Navy oversight. Construction contractor with Navy oversight. Construction contractor with Navy oversight. Estimated Completion Date Until trees are established and can continue to grow on their own without human involvement (approximately three years). End of construction. End of construction. Pre-construction. Pre-construction. ES-6 Executive Summary

9 Public Draft Environmental Assessment Manchester Tank Farm Improvements (P-856) at Naval Base Kitsap, Manchester Fuel Department, Washington TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS... v 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION Introduction Location Background Mission Manchester Fuel Department Operations and Maintenance Underground Storage Tank Regulations and Manchester Fuel Department Compliance Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action Scope of Environmental Analysis Resource Areas Future Underground Storage Tank Closures Key Documents Relevant Laws and Regulations Public and Agency Participation and Intergovernmental Coordination PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Proposed Action Screening Factors Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis No Action Alternative Alternative 1: South Site Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2: Tank Rehabilitation Alternative Alternatives Considered but not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis Alternate Southern Site Location Alternate Northern Site Location Closing Manchester Fuel Department Constructing New Underground Storage Tanks AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Water Resources Regulatory Setting Affected Environment Environmental Consequences i Table of Contents

10 3.2 Geological Resources Regulatory Setting Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Cultural Resources Regulatory Setting Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Biological Resources Regulatory Setting Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Visual Resources Regulatory Setting Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Transportation Regulatory Setting Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Hazardous Materials and Wastes Regulatory Setting Affected Environment Environmental Consequences CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Definition of Cumulative Impacts Scope of Cumulative Impacts Analysis Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Past Actions Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Cumulative Impact Analysis Greenhouse Gases Water Resources Geological Resources Cultural Resources Biological Resources Visual Resources Transportation Hazardous Materials and Wastes OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY NEPA ii Table of Contents

11 5.1 Consistency with Other Federal, State, and Local Laws, Plans, Policies, and Regulations Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Relationship between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity REFERENCES LIST OF PREPARERS List of Figures Figure 1-1 Regional Location of Manchester Fuel Department Figure 1-2 Manchester Fuel Department Figure 2-1 Location of Alternative Figure 2-2 Example Aboveground Storage Tank Profile for Tanks 1, 2, 5, and 6 under Alternative Figure 2-3 Example Aboveground Storage Tank Profile for Tanks 3 and 4 under Alternative Figure 2-4 Location of Alternative Figure 2-5 Typical Cross-section of Rehabilitated Tank under Alternative Figure Water Resources at and Near Manchester Fuel Department Figure Bald Eagle Nest at Manchester Fuel Department Figure 3.5-1a 3D Visual Rendering of Alternative 1 as Viewed from Above Figure 3.5-1b 3D Visual Rendering of Alternative 1 as Viewed from the Unincorporated Community of Manchester Figure Primary Truck Route from State Route 16 to Manchester Fuel Department List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Existing Aboveground Storage Tanks at Manchester Fuel Department Table ES-1 Table ES-2 List of Tables Summary of Potential Impacts to Resource Areas... ES-3 Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures... ES-4 Table 2-1 Summary of Alternative 1 Components Table Impacts to Land Cover Types under Alternative Table Impacts to Land Cover Types under Alternative Table 4-1 Cumulative Action Evaluation Table 5-1 Principal Federal and State Laws Applicable to the Proposed Action Appendices Appendix A Public and Agency Participation... A-1 iii Table of Contents

12 Abbreviations and Acronyms Acronym Definition amsl above mean sea level APE area of potential effect AQCR Air Quality Control Region AST aboveground storage tank B.P. Before Present BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BMP best management practice CAA Clean Air Act CDP Census Designated Places CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act DoD Department of Defense EA Environmental Assessment Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act F-24 Commercial Jet A aviation fuel F-76 Military diesel fuel HDC Hardlines Design Company JP-5 Jet propellant-5 INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MFD Manchester Fuel Department MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Reparation Act NAVFAC NW Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest Navy Department of the Navy NBK Naval Base Kitsap NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFPA National Fire Protection Association NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOA Notice of Availability NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places ROI Region of Influence SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SR State Route SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer U.S. United States U.S.C. U.S. Code UFC Unified Facilities Criteria USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UST underground storage tank WAC Washington Administrative Code WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation iv Abbreviations and Acronyms

13 1.1 Introduction 1 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action The United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (Navy) proposes to construct aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and permanently close-in-place existing underground storage tanks (USTs) at Naval Base Kitsap (NBK), Manchester Fuel Department (MFD), located next to the unincorporated community of Manchester, Washington (Figure 1-1). The UST closures would be implemented in accordance with applicable Washington State UST regulations (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] ). Implementation of the Proposed Action could begin as early as 2021 and would continue for approximately six years. The Navy has identified a future connected action, whereby the remaining USTs not within the footprint of the alternative selected would be closed in place, also in accordance with applicable Washington State UST regulations (WAC ), at a later time. The Navy would conduct further National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and consultations to develop a closure plan for the remaining USTs, as necessary (see Section 1.5.2, Future Underground Storage Tank Closures). The Navy has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the NEPA (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] sections h), as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts ) and Navy regulations for implementing NEPA (32 CFR part 775). 1.2 Location MFD is a 234-acre site located in eastern Kitsap County, Washington. MFD consists of two separate areas divided by a county road and Little Clam Bay. Little Clam Bay is a 27-acre lagoon that separates MFD into areas east of Little Clam Bay and areas west of Little Clam Bay (Figure 1-2). The county road is Navy property leased to Kitsap County. There are two piers at MFD: a fuel pier that accommodates the loading and unloading of fuel (the only bulk method of fuel transfer), and a small pier that is used for mooring barges (Navy 2016a). 1.3 Background Mission MFD is a Defense Fuel Support Point of the Defense Logistics Agency, under the command of Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Puget Sound. The MFD mission is to receive, store, and issue on-specification aviation and marine petroleum products in support of Department of Defense (DoD) missions and operations, with appropriate controls to ensure safety, quality, inventory control, and environmental protection (Navy 2016a). There are currently 34 USTs and 16 ASTs at MFD used to store various fuel products, including F-24 jet fuel, JP-5 jet fuel, and F-76 diesel. Thirty-two of the 34 USTs were constructed in the 1940s, and the remaining two were constructed in the 1950s (Navy 2016a). 1-1 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

14

15

16 1.3.2 Manchester Fuel Department Operations and Maintenance As the U.S. military s only installation with refueling capability in the Pacific Northwest, MFD is a strategic fuel reserve for supporting all joint forces assigned to Navy Region Northwest. MFD also serves DoD ground and air units located throughout the Pacific Ocean. Operations at MFD include: fuel storage and transfers; over the water fuel transfers; oily waste treatment plant operations; auxiliary operations; and annual tank tightness testing. Operation and maintenance of the USTs and infrastructure include continued inventory monitoring of the tanks, and maintenance/testing/repair of the piping and distribution systems (Notkin Mechanical Engineers 2017). The Navy employs a ten-year cycle for tank out of service internal inspection, repair, and maintenance of the concrete USTs. The current process of cleaning, inspecting, and repairing these USTs takes approximately four years to complete which drives the individual UST out of service rates to 30 percent. Mandatory repairs include drain line repairs, sleeving lines, tank coating repairs, and various other structural and mechanical repairs. Based on the time USTs are out of service for maintenance/repair, and if fuel quality issues require a tank to be temporarily removed from service, MFD is at risk of not meeting their usable fuel storage capacity and economic resupply volume requirements for both F-76 and JP-5 (Notkin Mechanical Engineers 2017) Underground Storage Tank Regulations and Manchester Fuel Department Compliance Recent changes in environmental regulations have resulted in costly new compliance requirements that negatively affect operations at MFD. Prior to 2015, field constructed USTs were deferred from having to comply with federal UST regulations. In October 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) adopted changes to the rules governing the federal UST program (40 CFR 280) and state program approval (40 CFR part 281). These changes added new operational and maintenance requirements for UST systems, such as tank tightness testing. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has been delegated authority by USEPA to administer the UST program, which means the Washington State s UST regulations must be at least as stringent as the federal regulations. In accordance with the new USEPA regulations, Ecology has three years, or until October 2018, to update the state UST regulations to reflect the federal provisions (Ecology 2017). To comply with the new UST regulations, Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Puget Sound will have to conduct annual UST tightness testing on all the USTs. Tank tightness testing is a precision leak test performed on USTs to confirm the integrity of the USTs. This is necessary because the USTs are single-walled and do not have an interstitial space leak monitoring system. Beginning in 2017, MFD transitioned to annual tank tightness testing in advance of the anticipated October 2018 regulatory start date. Each tightness test takes approximately one week to complete, and the tanks must be static (out of service) during the tightness tests, causing operational impacts. If a UST fails the test, additional testing and inspection is required, further impacting operations. With the number of USTs at MFD, tightness testing of all USTs takes approximately four months to complete. This means that to meet the annual tightness testing requirements, MFD USTs will undergo testing for a third of the year and that puts MFD at risk for not meeting its mission of ensuring fuel storage capacity. 1.4 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of the Proposed Action is to improve to MFD fuel tank infrastructure to meet DoD and customer fuel storage and distribution requirements in a cost-effective manner, while simultaneously 1-4 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

17 complying with applicable regulations. As one of the largest fuel storage and dispensing facilities in the Pacific Northwest, MFD is a strategic fuel reserve for supporting all joint forces assigned to Navy Region Northwest. MFD also serves DoD ground and air units located throughout the Pacific Ocean. The Proposed Action is needed because recent changes in environmental regulations (as explained in Section 1.3.3) have resulted in costly new compliance requirements that negatively affect operations at MFD. Tank tightness testing requires USTs to be placed out of service for extended periods of time, a requirement that puts MFD at risk for not meeting its mission of ensuring fuel storage capacity. Construction of new fuel storage tanks under the Proposed Action would result in improved maintenance efficiencies while avoiding impacts to the DoD mission. 1.5 Scope of Environmental Analysis Resource Areas This EA includes an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. The environmental resource areas analyzed in this EA include: water resources, geological resources, cultural resources, biological resources, visual resources, transportation, and hazardous materials and wastes. The study area for each resource analyzed may differ due to how the Proposed Action interacts with or impacts the resource. For instance, the study area for geological resources may only include the construction footprint of a structure whereas the visual resources study area would expand to include areas that may be visually impacted by a new structure Future Underground Storage Tank Closures With the implementation of the Proposed Action, up to 26 USTs would remain at MFD; however, the Navy has identified a need to ultimately close-in-place all remaining USTs under a future action. Under the future activity, up to all remaining USTs would be closed in place over an approximate 10-year period; however, the timing, details, and sequence of UST closure have yet to be determined. The Navy would conduct further NEPA analysis and consultations to develop a closure plan for the remaining USTs, as necessary. The closure would also be conducted in accordance with applicable Washington State UST regulations (WAC ). Because the future UST closure is a reasonably foreseeable future action, a broad assessment of the future UST closure is presented in Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts. 1.6 Key Documents Key documents are sources of information incorporated into this EA. Documents are key because of similar actions, analyses, or impacts that may apply to this Proposed Action. CEQ guidance encourages incorporating documents by reference. Documents incorporated by reference in part or in whole include: Tank Farm Planning Study to Provide Military Construction Project Documentation ( The Brochure ). This document provides an analysis of options for maintaining the existing fuel storage capacity in accordance with new environmental regulations. The document also provides a Life Cycle Cost Analysis comparison of the alternatives versus the status quo (Notkin Mechanical Engineers 2017). 1-5 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

18 Geotechnical Engineering Services, Manchester Tank Farm Planning Study Fleet Logistics Center Puget Sound, Manchester, Washington. This study provides geotechnical analysis and recommendations to supplement the Tank Farm Planning Study 2017 (GeoEngineers 2017). Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, Manchester Fuel Department. In 2009, the Navy finalized the Manchester Fuel Department Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP). The INRMP is currently being revised to incorporate new data on natural resources (Navy 2016a). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Proposed Military Construction and Decommissioning Project. This Environmental Site Assessment identified existing environmental conditions within the project area. The report recommended further investigations (Navy 2017). Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, Proposed Military Construction and Decommissioning Project. The results of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment indicate no additional site investigation is needed before implementation of the Proposed Action; however, recommended measures have been identified to reduce potential costs and schedule delays associated with contaminated soils should they be identified during project implementation (Navy 2018). 1.7 Relevant Laws and Regulations The Navy has prepared this EA based upon federal and state laws, statutes, regulations, and policies pertinent to the implementation of the Proposed Action, including the following: NEPA (42 U.S.C. sections h), which requires an environmental analysis for major federal actions that have the potential to significantly impact the quality of the human environment CEQ Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts ) Navy regulations for implementing NEPA (32 CFR part 775), which provides Navy policy for implementing CEQ regulations and NEPA Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. sections 7401 et seq.) Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. sections 1251 et seq.) Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. section 300f et seq.) Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 U.S.C. sections 1451 et seq.) Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. sections 9601 et seq.) National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. sections et seq.) Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (42 U.S.C. sections ) Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. sections 1531 et seq.) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. sections ) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (16 U.S.C. sections d) Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 1-6 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

19 A description of the Proposed Action s consistency with these laws, policies and regulations and the names of regulatory agencies responsible for their implementation is presented in Chapter Public and Agency Participation and Intergovernmental Coordination Pursuant to section of the CEQ regulations, the Navy will involve environmental agencies, applicants, and the public, to the extent practicable, in preparing and implementing this EA. The Navy also will meet this requirement by publishing a Notice of Availability (NOA) announcing the availability of the Draft EA for review and an open house public meeting. The Kitsap Sun published the NOA on June 15, 16, and 17, The Navy also mailed and ed notification letters and postcards to community stakeholders on June 15, 2018, informing them of the availability of the Draft EA for review and comment; the comment review period end date (July 16, 2018); and the date, time, and location of the public meeting (June 27, 2018, from 5 P.M. to 8 P.M., at John Sedgwick Jr. High School in Port Orchard). The Draft EA has been made available for review at and at the Manchester and Port Orchard public libraries. The public review period is from June 15, 2018 to July 16, A concise summary of relevant comments and responses will be provided in the Final EA. Appendix A contains copies of agency and Tribal correspondence. 1-7 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

20 2.1 Proposed Action 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives The Proposed Action is to construct new aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and permanently close existing underground storage tanks (USTs) at Manchester Fuel Department (MFD). The existing USTs located within the footprint of the new ASTs would be closed in place in accordance with applicable Washington State UST regulations (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] ). Implementation of the Proposed Action would begin as early as 2021 and would continue for approximately six years. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not change land use or MFD operations, nor would it include in-water construction. 2.2 Screening Factors National Environmental Policy Act s (NEPA s) implementing regulations provide guidance on the consideration of alternatives to a federally proposed action and require rigorous exploration and objective evaluation of reasonable alternatives. Only those alternatives determined to be reasonable and to meet the purpose and need require detailed analysis. Potential alternatives that meet the purpose and need were evaluated against the following screening factors: meet current fuel tank design requirements avoid potential seismic faults minimize impacts to operations at MFD minimize impacts to aesthetics and viewsheds 2.3 Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis Based on the reasonable alternative screening factors and meeting the purpose and need for the Proposed Action, two action alternatives in addition to the No Action Alternative were identified and have been analyzed in this Environmental Assessment (EA) No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative is carried forward for analysis in this EA as a requirement under NEPA. It is used to analyze the consequences of not undertaking the Proposed Action and serves to establish a comparative baseline for the analysis contained in the action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur. The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action and would not satisfy three of the screening factors (meet current fuel tank design requirements, avoid potential seismic faults, and minimize impacts to operations at MFD). The new Federal UST regulations would impose operational constraints associated with operator requirements, inspections, UST monitoring, and tightness testing. In addition, there is uncertainty on whether the October 2018 Washington State UST regulations would require closure of single wall USTs by near-term compliance deadlines. If the regulations mandate closure of USTs prior to construction of additional fuel storage capability, then MFD would not meet its mission requirements and would be in danger of not meeting their fuel storage requirements. Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur and compliance with final Washington State UST regulations would likely not be met. 2-1 Proposed Action and Alternatives

21 2.3.2 Alternative 1: South Site Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative 1, six new 125,000-barrel multi-product ASTs capable of storing and distributing both F-76 and JP-5 fuel would be constructed on the southern portion of MFD (Figure 2-1). The project area presented on Figure 2-1 is a notional depiction of the approximate area associated with Alternative 1, based on a preliminary layout. Ultimately, if this alternative is selected, the project area boundary may undergo minor adjustments to reflect design considerations; however, the project area and nearby areas are generally similar with respect to impacts to resources, so any future minor adjustments in the project area extent are not anticipated to result in changes in the environmental consequences presented in Chapter 3. The construction of the new ASTs would be conducted in three phases (two ASTs constructed under each phase) to maintain the required minimum storage of fuel throughout construction. Each phase of construction would take approximately two years. In addition, a remote impoundment spill collection system would be provided. The system would consist of a series of swales and drain lines leading from the storage tanks to a remote impoundment area designed to prevent the accidental discharge of petroleum (Figure 2-1). Phases I, II, and III of Alternative 1 include the incremental closure of the eight existing USTs located within the AST footprint. The USTs would be closed in place, in accordance with applicable Washington State UST regulations (WAC ), by removing the soil from above, opening the tanks from the top, and then backfilling each shell with clean soil from site excavations and/or inert off-site materials, as required. Table 2-1 summarizes the components associated with Alternative 1. The following sections describe the major activities of Alternative 1. Table 2-1 Summary of Alternative 1 Components Phase New ASTs USTs Closed Footprint Stockpiled Soil (acres) Duration (years) I ,700 2 II ,000 2 III ,800 2 Totals ,500 Up to 6 Note: 1 Approximate volume (in cubic yards) of temporary stockpiled soil Aboveground Storage Tank Design The proposed layout of Alternative 1 reflects a minimum 50-foot setback distance to the potential seismic fault, and compliance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) spacing criteria. The new AST structures would be welded steel with a column supported fixed cone roof and would be approximately 64 feet high by 140 feet in diameter. In accordance with UFC requirements (UFC ), the ASTs would be painted white. Figures 2-2 and 2-3 depict typical profiles of the proposed new ASTs. The six ASTs would be located in secondary containment dikes with remote impounding to minimize the footprint and utilize the site topography to prevent the accidental discharge of petroleum to the environment in the event of a spill. A paved fire access road, fire protection water main, and hydrants would be constructed around the new ASTs and containment areas to provide fire protection and cooling water in the event of a fire. The design would also include new aboveground fuel piping, use of existing tunnel piping where applicable, and new pumps. 2-2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

22

23

24 Construction Phases The following description summarizes the work that would occur under Phases I, II, and III. Clearing and grubbing of all existing vegetation would occur to accommodate construction of the new ASTs. Existing USTs would be removed from service, filled, and closed in place. The UST concrete walls would be partially demolished and tank roof slabs, columns, and internal structures would be removed to allow for final earthwork and grading. The USTs would then be filled with compacted inorganic soil material excavated (and temporarily stockpiled) from the construction footprint, and/or additional fill from onsite or off-site sources, if required. Fuel lines from the closed USTs would be purged of fuel, cut, capped and abandoned in place or removed. Existing water main piping, valves, and hydrants located within the improvement area would be disconnected from service and demolished as required. Excavated soil material would be temporarily stockpiled within MFD boundaries in generally flat and previously developed/disturbed areas, and appropriate erosion-control best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented in accordance with a project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In addition, under Phase III, F-24 truck loading pumps, piping, supply system, electrical system, and an additive injection system would be constructed0f Alternative 2: Tank Rehabilitation Alternative Under Alternative 2, the Navy would rehabilitate the existing USTs to construct a tank-within-a-tank. Construction of the Tank Rehabilitation Alternative would occur in two phases to maintain usable facility fuel storage requirements. The Navy would construct 15 new 50,000-barrel steel ASTs within 15 of the existing USTs inside a project footprint of approximately 13.8 acres (Figure 2-4). The existing USTs would be closed in place and then modified to be used to provide secondary containment for the new ASTs. The USTs would be closed in accordance with applicable Washington State UST regulations (WAC ). The resulting new tanks would be considered ASTs (and not USTs), because the tanks can be visually inspected on all sides, including the walls and roof, and these tanks would be situated on the surface floor of the existing UST per the definition of UST tanks in 40 CFR part (USEPA 2018). The USTs selected to be used as secondary containment for the new ASTs are located outside the suspected seismic fault zone. Alternative 2 would be implemented in two phases, Phase I and Phase II, and occur over a period of approximately six years (Figure 2-4). The new ASTs would be supported on a new reinforced concrete ringwall foundation that would be connected to the existing UST floor. The new ASTs would be approximately 52 feet high and have a diameter of 106 feet (however, only the top approximately 26 feet of the AST would be above the ground surface). Figure 2-5 presents a typical cross-section of a rehabilitated tank. To accommodate the new AST inside the shell of the UST, the soil overlying the UST would be excavated to expose the existing tank roof, and temporarily stockpiled on site. The existing UST would then be modified by removing the roof slab, columns, and internal structures. After the existing below grade tank shell is exposed and the existing roof removed, a new shell segment would be added to the existing shell to extend the tank wall height to provide the necessary secondary containment volume. 1 While F-24 is stored at MFD and improvements to the F-24 distribution system are proposed as part of the Proposed Action, adjusting the F-24 storage capacity at MFD is not part of the Proposed Action. 2-5 Proposed Action and Alternatives

25

26 Figure 2-5 Typical Cross-section of Rehabilitated Tank under Alternative Proposed Action and Alternatives

27 To obtain the necessary containment volume plus freeboard, the height of the new containment would be 10 feet 3 inches higher than the existing ground surface. Soil would be placed around the tank perimeter and a 20-foot-wide ring around to top of the tank. The surface of this ring would have asphalt pavement. Any excess excavated soil material would be temporarily stockpiled within MFD boundaries in generally flat and previously developed/disturbed areas, and appropriate erosion-control BMPs would be implemented in accordance with a project-specific SWPPP. Modifying the existing USTs would provide sufficient secondary containment volume to contain the entire contents of the new AST. Existing piping to the F-76 and JP-5 tanks would continue to remain in service. Overhead electrical lines would be relocated to provide room for the new ASTs. In addition, cathodic protection systems and fire protection upgrades would be implemented. 2.4 Alternatives Considered but not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis The following alternatives were considered, but not carried forward for detailed analysis in this EA because they did not meet the purpose and need for the project and/or satisfy the screening factors presented in Section 2.2, Screening Factors Alternate Southern Site Location The Navy considered constructing the ASTs further south of Alternative 1. Constructing ASTs in this area would make them more visible to the surrounding unincorporated community of Manchester given the lower topography and closer proximity of the site. Therefore, this potential alternative was eliminated from further analysis in this EA Alternate Northern Site Location The Navy considered constructing the ASTs further north of Alternative 1. New ASTs in this area could possibly be placed on or near a potential fault. In addition, given the variable topography and geology in this area of MFD, substantial cut and fill would be needed to meet current fuel tank design requirements. This would negatively impact the viewshed as stands of existing trees would be removed. Therefore, this potential alternative was eliminated from further analysis in this EA Closing Manchester Fuel Department The Navy considered closing MFD. This potential alternative was eliminated from analysis because it does not meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Action. MFD is the only Department of Defense (DoD) strategic fuel storage and distribution facility in the Pacific Northwest. Other identified fuel locations could not meet the mission. Therefore, this potential alternative was eliminated from further analysis in this EA Constructing New Underground Storage Tanks This potential alternative would remove all existing USTs and replace them with new USTs. The new USTs would have to be smaller in volume and more numerous to meet the secondary containment and monitoring requirements. To avoid potential seismic faults, the USTs would be constructed in locations that were previously not developed due to shallow depth to bedrock, requiring substantial removal of vegetation and resulting in visual impacts. In addition, the UST decommissioning and construction process could put MFD at risk of not meeting their usable fuel storage capacity, especially as other USTs may be out-of-service during tank tightness testing. Therefore, this potential alternative was eliminated from further analysis in this EA. 2-8 Proposed Action and Alternatives

28 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences This chapter presents a description of the environmental resources and baseline conditions that could be affected from implementing any of the alternatives and an analysis of the potential direct and indirect effects of each alternative. All potentially relevant environmental resource areas were initially considered for analysis in this Environmental Assessment (EA). The discussion of the affected environment (i.e., existing conditions) focuses only on those resource areas potentially subject to impacts. In addition, the level of detail used in describing a resource is commensurate with the anticipated level of potential environmental impact. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not change the current industrial land use or Manchester Fuel Department (MFD) operations. In addition, implementation of the Proposed Action would not include in-water construction. For these reasons, the analysis focuses on the potential impacts from proposed upland improvements at MFD. This section analyzes water resources, geological resources, cultural resources, biological resources, visual resources, transportation, and hazardous materials and wastes. Potential impacts to the following resource areas would be negligible or non-existent so they were not analyzed in detail: Air Quality Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a negligible effect on air quality, due to the attainment designation of Kitsap County in relation to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants and the classification of attributed air sources. The United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) classifies Kitsap County as being unclassified/attainment for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, a General Conformity evaluation is not required. Under the Proposed Action, emissions would occur from mobile sources when operated during construction activities and from stationary sources (i.e., vapor releases from the aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), pipelines, appurtenances, and hoses) during operation. These construction and operation related emissions would not appreciably impact air quality, criteria pollutants, or hazardous air pollutants, and greenhouse gas emissions would not significantly increase. Implementation of the No Action would not increase emissions. Noise Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in periodic noise generating activities over an estimated six-year period, during times of construction. The highest noise levels generated during construction would be from heavy equipment such as cranes, excavators, backhoes, pavers, and dump trucks as well as stationary equipment such as air compressors and power generators. Intermittent construction noise, including roadway-generated noise from project-related trips, may be audible to residents on the south side of MFD and recreational users of nearshore and shoreline area north of MFD. However, construction noise generated between the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. is exempt from maximum allowable noise levels under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Construction is not anticipated to occur outside of these hours (7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.). Noise in relation to biological resources is discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources. Implementation of the No Action would not generate new noise sources. Land Use The current MFD land use is industrial. There would be no change in land use designation with implementation of the alternatives. American Indian Traditional Resources Waters next to MFD fall within the usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations of the Suquamish Tribe. There are no known American Indian traditional resources present at MFD (Department of the Navy [Navy] 2011). Both action alternatives would occur 3-1 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

29 in an upland setting and would have no effect on traditional resources because they 1) would not change the Tribe s access to exercise tribal treaty rights, and 2) would not reduce or degrade harvestable marine resources. No impacts to American Indian traditional resources would occur. Public Health and Safety Implementation of the alternatives would occur within the boundaries of MFD, an area with restricted public access. All rules and regulations governing safety, access, hazardous materials, and hazardous wastes would continue to be followed, to include measures to minimize safety and environmental health risks. There would be no change to the availability of, or access to, emergency response services (i.e., police, fire, paramedics) to the surrounding community. Executive Order (EO) 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, requires federal agencies to make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children and shall ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health risks or safety risks. Under the Proposed Action, standard job site safety measures would be implemented, which include securing equipment, materials, and vehicles, and neutralizing safety hazards during construction. The alternatives would occur on government property, where access is controlled to limit access to authorized persons only. MFD would continue to be fenced to minimize the potential for unauthorized access. Potential air quality, noise, and transportation impacts to the nearby housing areas (to include the children within) are addressed in the relevant resource area sections. Under all alternatives, no new land use activities that might potentially impact children would be introduced. Therefore, there would be no disproportionate impact to the health and safety of children from implementation of the alternatives. Utilities and Services Implementation of the Proposed Action would not involve the increase in personnel or new requirements that would place a long-term demand on electricity, potable water, sanitary sewer, or communications services. Any temporary additional electricity or services needed during construction would be supplied by area utility providers (e.g., Kitsap Public Utilities District). Postconstruction, no increase in utilities or services demand would occur. Proposed construction would not disrupt regional utility transmission/ distribution services as utilities and services do not cross through MFD to other areas. The existing fire protection water system within the project footprint does not currently meet Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) requirements. Implementation of the Proposed Action would upgrade the fire protection system to meet UFC and NFPA requirements. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not change utilities or services; however, the fire protection system would not meet UFC and NFPA requirements. Socioeconomics Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in an infusion of direct and indirect revenue to the local and regional economy over the life of the project. Proposed demolition/construction activities would take place over an approximately 6-year period and would require direct skilled and laborer construction jobs with various building trades. The majority of construction jobs would likely be filled from regional workers; there would be no anticipated increase in housing demand or school enrollment. The current per diem rate (lodging, meals, and incidentals) for workers temporarily assigned to the project area is $144 per worker per day. Workers are anticipated to spend this and other money on food, lodging, incidentals, and gas, resulting in a temporary economic enhancement to the local economy and neighboring communities. There would be no change in neighborhood make-up or demographics. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would no change socioeconomic conditions. 3-2 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

30 Environmental Justice EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires federal agencies to consider any potential disproportionally high and adverse human health and environmental impacts to minority and lowincome populations. In general, the racial profiles for Manchester Census Designated Place (CDP) were similar across the census areas with the exception of a smaller percentage of African American and Hispanic or Latino residents and larger percentage of Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander residents in the Manchester CDP. The median household income for Manchester CDP is higher than State, county, and the other key communities at $73,701. Percent of families in Manchester CDP living below the poverty level was at 10.3 percent in 2016, higher than state and county poverty level but less than the City of Port Orchard, East Port Orchard, and Parkwood CDPs (U.S. Census Bureau 2010; 2016a, 2016b). Under all alternatives, there would be no change to land use at MFD; no new land use activities that might potentially impact surrounding populations would be introduced. Demolition/construction truck traffic entering and leaving MFD would follow local haul routes and restrictions. The alternatives would not create a large amount of additional traffic in the area that would affect local communities over the long-term. Therefore, there would be no disproportionate effects on low-income or minority populations from implementation of the alternatives. 3.1 Water Resources This discussion of water resources includes groundwater, surface water, marine waters, wetlands, floodplains, and shorelines. Groundwater is water that flows or seeps downward and saturates soil or rock, supplying springs and wells. Surface water resources generally consist of wetlands, lakes, rivers, and streams. Marine waters typically include estuaries, waters seaward of the historic height of tidal influence, and offshore high salinity waters. Wetlands are jointly defined by the USEPA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." Wetlands generally include "swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Floodplains are areas of low-level ground present along rivers, stream channels, large wetlands, or coastal waters. Shorelines can be located along marine (oceans), brackish (estuaries), or fresh (lakes) bodies of water Regulatory Setting The Safe Drinking Water Act is the federal law that protects public drinking water supplies throughout the nation. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the USEPA sets standards for drinking water quality. Groundwater quality and quantity are regulated under several statutes and regulations, including the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes federal limits, through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, on the amounts of specific pollutants that can be discharged into surface waters to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the water. In the State of Washington, the USEPA s NPDES stormwater program requires federal construction site operators engaged in clearing, grading, and excavating activities that disturb 1 acre or more to obtain coverage under the state s NPDES Construction General Permit for stormwater discharges. Construction or demolition that necessitates an individual permit also requires preparation of a Notice of Intent to discharge stormwater and a SWPPP that is implemented during construction. As part of the 2010 Final Rule for the CWA, titled Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and 3-3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

31 Development Point Source Category, activities covered by this permit must implement non-numeric erosion and sediment controls and pollution prevention measures. EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires that federal agencies avoid, to the extent possible, long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with destruction and modification of wetlands and to avoid the direct and indirect support of new construction in wetlands whenever there is a practicable alternative. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 provides assistance to states, in cooperation with federal and local agencies, for developing land and water use programs in coastal zones. Actions occurring within the coastal zone commonly have several resource areas that may be relevant to the CZMA. Lands that are controlled or managed by federal agencies are specifically excluded from the Coastal Zone. Therefore, MDF is, by definition, outside of the Coastal Zone. However, the CZMA requires that federal actions that have reasonably foreseeable effects on coastal uses or resources must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved state coastal management programs. Activities and development impacting coastal resources that involve the federal government are evaluated through a process called federal consistency, in which the proponent agency is required to prepare a Coastal Consistency Determination for concurrence from the affected state, in this case Washington. EO 11988, Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the longand short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development unless it is the only practicable alternative. Flood potential of a site is usually determined by the 100-year floodplain, which is defined as the area that has a one percent chance of inundation by a flood event in a given year Affected Environment The following discussions provide a description of the existing conditions for each of the categories under water quality resources at MFD Groundwater Regionally, the primary source for water recharge to the aquifers is local precipitation, with approximately 50 to 80 percent available to recharge the aquifers. The precipitation and subsequent infiltration directly recharges the glacial deposits and shallow aquifer. Within the project area, there is no evidence of a hydraulically connected sequence of unconsolidated deposits, but more likely perched zones occur within the glacial till overlaying bedrock. To the extent that perched groundwater is present, this groundwater is most likely to flow radially towards receiving waters to the east and north. The depth to groundwater beneath project areas was reported to be at least 50 feet below ground surface and localized occurrence of shallow perched groundwater also appeared to be present (Navy 2018). The Clam Bay Aquifer is located to the west of Little Clam Bay and outside of the project area (Figure 3.1-1). This aquifer is described as a rather small, silty sand and gravel aquifer and is situated in a depth of sea level to -150 feet mean sea level. The lateral extent of this aquifer is limited by the occurrence of surrounding bedrock (Kitsap County Public Utility District and Washington State Department of Ecology 1997). There are also aquifers just south of Manchester (Yukon Aquifer) and at Port Orchard (Port Orchard Deep Aquifer). Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (1998) and Kitsap County (Kitsap County Public Utility District and Washington State Department of Ecology 1997) both 3-4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

32 indicate that the groundwater flow direction below the project area would be away from these aquifers. There are no water supply wells located downgradient of the project area (Navy 2018) Surface Water Surface water at MFD consists of several freshwater ponds, streams, and wetland areas (Figure 3.1-1). There are no wetlands or surface water features within the project area. Notable surface water features located near the project area include: Franco Pond is a 0.7-acre isolated freshwater pond downstream from the existing ASTs and receives inflow small surface drainages as well as subsurface flow (Figure 3.1-1). It was developed as a freshwater resource and wildlife viewing area. Beaver Creek originates 4.5 miles off-installation and only flows through the northwest corner of MFD into Clam Bay (Figure 3.1-1) Estuarine Waters Estuarine waters, characterized by the mixing of seawater and freshwater runoff from land, surround MFD (Dethier 1990). The northern portion of MFD lies along Clam Bay, a small protected estuary where Beaver Creek empties into Puget Sound. The tidal flats of Clam Bay are exposed during tidal cycles but are sheltered from normal wind-generated surf. Within the boundaries of MFD is Little Clam Bay, a shallow, artificially impounded estuarine lagoon of approximately 26 acres. At one time Little Clam Bay was completely open to tidal action from Clam Bay and Rich Passage but has since been isolated by a weir at the mouth of the estuary. As a result, water quality has declined in Little Clam Bay as indicated by increased incidence of algal blooms, higher water temperatures, increased biological oxygen demand and reduced salinity Wetlands No wetlands are located within the project area (Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest [NAVFAC NW] 2018). There are several small wetland areas located near but outside of the project area (refer to Figure 3.1-1). These include the following. Franco Pond marsh: A marsh of approximately 1 acre occupies the southwest shoreline of Franco Pond. Beaver Creek wetland: A marsh of approximately 1 to 2 acres is located on the south side of Beaver Creek about 300 feet upstream of the Clam Bay estuary. Olympic Drive West wetland: A marsh of approximately 1.5 acres is located south of Olympic Drive West. West Clam Bay Road wetland: A marsh of approximately 0.5 acre is located on the west side of West Clam Bay Road, just north of the oil/water separator No. 7 facility. In addition, a man-made spill containment basin is located between North Dike Road and Olympic Drive East. This basin (identified as a wetland on MFD maps) extends from near the dike at Little Clam Bay approximately 1,400 feet to the east. It occupies an area of approximately 8 to 10 acres. This basin is used in spill containment and as a stormwater catchment basin. 3-5 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

33

34 Floodplains Using the latest available Federal Emergency Management Agency flood hazard mapping data (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2018), the waterways surrounding MFD have associated 100-year flood zones with a base flood elevation of 13 feet and high flood risk. The 100-year floodplain of Beaver Creek is to the northwest of MFD and is also classified as a 100-year floodplain with high flood risk. The project area ranges in elevation from 84 to 231 feet above mean sea level, thus placing it outside of floodplains Shorelines There are approximately 2 miles of saltwater shoreline at MFD that provide habitat to a range of marine and bird life. The northern portion of MFD shoreline lies along Clam Bay consisting of sand and cobble beaches and interspersed eelgrass beds. The MFD shoreline to the south and east of Clam Bay includes Orchard Point and extending south to the town of Manchester. This shoreline is more exposed to wind and surf influences than the Clam Bay shoreline and the habitat transitions towards pocket beaches along with exposed rocky shores Environmental Consequences In this EA, the analysis of water resources considers the potential impacts on groundwater, surface water, estuarine waters, wetlands, floodplains and shorelines. Given the nature of the Proposed Action and the types of water resources within the project area, no impacts to floodplains or shorelines would occur No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur and there would be no change to water resources. As described in Section 3.8, Hazardous Materials and Wastes, there are six existing underground storage tanks (USTs) that would continue to be located near a potential seismic fault. However, continued compliance with existing fuel storage management and safety procedures would minimize the potential for impacts to water resources. Therefore, no significant impacts to water resources would occur with implementation of the No Action Alternative Alternative 1: South Site Alternative Potential Impacts (Preferred Alternative) There is no groundwater aquifer used for potable water located below or downgradient of the Alternative 1 project area. Measures indicated below to protect surface water quality would also help protect groundwater quality in the perched groundwater below the project area. Because more than 1 acre would be disturbed under Alternative 1, coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit would be obtained. Under the permit, a site-specific SWPPP would be prepared that includes a site plan for managing stormwater runoff and describes best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented to eliminate or reduce erosion, sedimentation, and stormwater pollution. Excavated soil material would be temporarily stockpiled within MFD boundaries in generally flat and previously developed/disturbed areas, and appropriate erosion-control BMPs would be implemented in accordance with a project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). With proper implementation of the SWPPP and associated BMPs, potential impacts to surface waters, 3-7 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

35 estuarine waters, and wetlands from erosion and off-site sedimentation during construction would not be significant. There would be an increase in storm water volume with the change in surface cover from grass/vegetation overlying the existing USTs to the steel ASTs and pavement/concrete. To accommodate and manage this increase of approximately 13.9 acres of impervious surface, a stormwater collection system consisting of drainage swales, catch basin inlets, and drain pipes would be installed to drain water away from the tanks and discharge into the storm water system. Drainage swales would be installed to reduce stormwater sheet flow across roadways. Alternative 1 would require the use of non-potable water for hydrostatic testing of the ASTs. MFD has non-potable water available on-site. The hydrostatic test water would be handled in accordance with federal and state requirements. Therefore, no significant impacts to water resources would occur with implementation of Alternative Alternative 2: Tank Rehabilitation Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternative 2, impacts to water resources would be similar to those as described for Alternative 1. The amount of increase in impervious surfaces would be slightly less, however, at approximately 11.9 acres. Therefore, no significant impacts to water resources would occur with implementation of Alternative Geological Resources This discussion of geological resources includes the topography, geology, and soils of a given area. Topography is described with respect to the elevation, slope, and surface features (landforms) found within a given area. The geology of an area includes its geologic history and the horizontal and vertical distributions of bedrock and unconsolidated materials, mineral and fossil deposits, geologic hazards and seismic properties. Soil refers to unconsolidated earthen materials overlying bedrock or other parent material. Soil structure, elasticity, strength, drainage, shrink-swell potential, and erodibility determine the ability for the ground to support structures and facilities. Soils are typically described in terms of their type, slope, physical characteristics, and relative compatibility or limitations with regard to particular construction activities and land uses Regulatory Setting Consideration of geologic resources extends to prime or unique farmlands. The Farmland Protection Policy Act was enacted in 1981 in order to minimize the loss of prime farmland and unique farmlands as a result of federal actions. There are no design criteria in Washington State to design for surface fault rupture. However, the (California) Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo) provides some guidance for the placement of structures near active faults, and states that any structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of an active fault and must be set back from the fault at least 50 feet Affected Environment The following discussions provide a description of the existing conditions for each of the categories under geological resources at MFD. 3-8 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

36 Topography Topography in the project area extends radially from a maximum of approximately 245 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the Vista Point to 40 feet amsl along Olympic Drive on the north side of MFD. Along the perimeter of the facility, the topography is relatively steep, specifically along the northern perimeter, increasing from approximately 40 feet amsl along Olympic Drive to 175 feet amsl over approximately 200 feet laterally. Site development in the eastern portion of MFD is somewhat constrained by these steep slopes Geology The geology of the Puget Lowland region is comprised of a sequence of unconsolidated glacial deposition overlying Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rocks (Navy 2016a). The glacial sequence varies in composition and thickness depending on location. The geology of MFD is composed of reworked beach deposits and bedrock along the immediate shoreline to a thin sequence of glacial till and bedrock over the remainder of the area. More than 200 earthquakes have occurred in the Puget Sound region since 1840; however, most were less than 5.0 magnitude on the Richter scale. The latest earthquake to occur in the area was a 3.7 magnitude that was centered approximately 7 kilometers (5 miles) away from MFD on May 30, Six of the existing USTs and portions of the tunnel piping system overlap or are near a potential seismic fault. If this feature is an active fault, then the risk of ground rupture at the site resulting from surface fault rupture is considered high. These six USTs would then have an increased risk of potential failure and/or product loss to the surrounding environment (Notkin Mechanical Engineers 2017) Soils MFD is underlain with unconsolidated soil and sediment varying from 2 to more than 30 feet thick across the immediate industrial area (Navy 2016a). The soil at MFD is predominantly Melbourne loam, terrace phase. The top 1 to 2 inches of soil is organic matter; underlain with 12 to 13 inches of loam to loamy fine, sandy soil. Bedrock is composed of shale, sandstone, or conglomerate and is located at a depth of 14 to 15 inches. The existing/proposed tank areas were identified as having a low potential for liquefaction and liquefaction-induced displacements because the glacially consolidated soils and bedrock mapped in the area are not susceptible to liquefaction (Notkin Mechanical Engineers 2017). The project area contains soils rated as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance (U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey 2018); however, this area is currently utilized for industrial purposes and no agriculture activities currently exist at MFD Environmental Consequences Geological resources are analyzed in terms of drainage, erosion, prime farmland, land subsidence, beach stability and erosion, and seismic activity. The analysis of topography and soils focuses on the area of soils that would be disturbed, the potential for erosion of soils from construction areas, and the potential for eroded soils to become pollutants in downstream surface water during storm events. The analysis also examines potential impacts related to seismic events. BMPs are identified to minimize soil impacts and prevent or control pollutant releases into stormwater. The potentially affected environment for geological resources is limited to lands that would be disturbed by any proposed facility development or demolition. 3-9 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

37 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur and there would be no change to baseline geology, topography, or soils. The six existing USTs would continue to be located near a potential seismic fault. Therefore, no significant impacts to geological resources would occur with implementation of the No Action Alternative Alternative 1: South Site Alternative Potential Impacts (Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative 1, the six new ASTs would be sited away from excessively steep slopes located to the north of the mapped fault lines (Notkin Mechanical Engineers 2017) to reduce the amount of grading required. Grading to construct a flat surface for the new ASTs would result in minimal alteration of existing topography (refer to Figures 2-2 and 2-3). As described in Section 2.3.2, Alternative 1: South Site Alternative, eight existing USTs would undergo incremental closure by removing the soil from above, opening the tanks from the top, and then backfilling each shell with clean soil from site excavations and/or inert off-site materials, as required. The excavated area would then be compacted to engineering standards and graded to approximate existing slope contours. The new ASTs would be sited outside the 50-foot setback distance from the potential seismic fault to minimize potential impacts from ground rupture (refer to Figure 2-1). A geotechnical analysis would be conducted prior to final design and the new ASTs would be constructed in compliance with the applicable UFC requirements for seismic design. Standard seismic engineering data would be used to minimize potential effects of seismically induced ground movement such as severe shaking, lateral spreading, or slope failure. There is low potential for liquefaction and liquefaction-induced displacements at the site for the new ASTs. Excavated soil material would be temporarily stockpiled within MFD boundaries in generally flat and previously developed/disturbed areas, and appropriate erosion-control BMPs would be implemented in accordance with a project-specific SWPPP and in compliance with coverage under an NPDES Construction General Permit (refer to Section , Alternative 1: South Site Alternative Potential Impacts for additional details). The excavated area would then be compacted to engineering standards and graded to approximate existing slope contours. There would be minimal to no impact with regard to the potential for increased erosion. Substantial earthwork would be required to create multiple levels of flat area for the new ASTs, secondary containment area, and perimeter access roads. Excavated soil would be utilized as fill and backfill material to the greatest extent possible. Where associated backfill for existing cut and cover tanks underlie new tanks, this material would also be excavated and replaced with structural fill per the geotechnical engineer s recommendations. The estimated amount of fill required to fill the eight USTs is approximately 61,900 cubic yards (Notkin Mechanical Engineers 2017). The tanks would be filled with compacted inorganic soil material taken from site excavations performed for the new tanks and remote impoundment area. Excess excavated soil would be temporarily stockpiled and used for abandoning-inplace additional USTs during subsequent phases of Alternative 1. Following filling of the excavated areas, all the refilled areas would be revegetated to provide a surface cover to protect the soil from erosion. No impacts to prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance would occur because the farmland has not been developed. Therefore, no significant impacts to geological resources would occur with implementation of Alternative Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

38 Alternative 2: Tank Rehabilitation Alternative Potential Impacts The study area encompasses the proposed construction and ground disturbance areas related to Alternative 2. The 15 new ASTs would be constructed within 15 of the existing USTs that have been rehabilitated. These are located in areas away from excessively steep slopes located to the north of the mapped fault lines (Notkin Mechanical Engineers 2017). Because these occur in previously graded areas, there would be minimal, if any, alteration of existing topography. The new ASTs would be sited outside the 50-foot setback distance from the potential seismic fault to minimize potential impacts from ground rupture (refer to Figure 2-4). A similar geotechnical analysis and compliance with the applicable UFC requirements for seismic design as described for Alternative 1 would be followed. Because Alternative 2 would result in an AST within a UST shell, the existing USTs would not need to be filled. Therefore, unlike Alternative 1, very little fill material would be needed. Alternative 2 would include the management of any excavated soils as presented for Alternative 1. Prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance located in the project area would continue to be utilized for industrial purposes and the project would not impact any existing agriculture activities. Therefore, no significant impacts to geological resources would occur with implementation of Alternative Cultural Resources This discussion of cultural resources includes prehistoric and historic archaeological sites; historic buildings, structures, and districts; and physical entities and human-made or natural features important to a culture, a subculture, or a community for traditional, religious, or other reasons. Cultural resources can be divided into three major categories that includes archaeological resources, architectural resources, and traditional cultural properties. These are described below: Archaeological resources (prehistoric and historic) are locations where human activity measurably altered the earth or left deposits of physical remains. Architectural resources include standing buildings, structures, landscapes, and other builtenvironment resources of historic or aesthetic significance. Traditional cultural properties may include archaeological resources, structures, neighborhoods, prominent topographic features, habitat, plants, animals, and minerals that American Indians or other groups consider essential for the preservation of traditional culture Regulatory Setting Cultural resources are governed by other federal laws and regulations, including the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of Sections 106 and 110 of the NHPA primarily define the Federal agencies responsibility for protecting historic properties. Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Section 110 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to establish in conjunction with the Secretary of the Interior historic preservation programs for the identification, evaluation, and protection of historic properties. Cultural resources also may be covered by state, local, and territorial laws. Commander, Navy Region Northwest Instruction , Policy for Consultation with Federally Recognized American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes (November 10, 2009), sets forth policy, procedures, and responsibilities for consultations with federally-recognized American Indian and Alaska 3-11 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

39 Native Tribes in the Navy Region Northwest area of responsibility. The goal of the policy is to establish permanent working relationships built upon respect, trust, and openness with tribal governments Affected Environment Cultural resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or eligible for listing in the NRHP are historic properties as defined by the NHPA. The list was established under the NHPA and is administered by the National Park Service on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior. The NRHP includes properties on public and private land. Properties can be determined eligible for listing in the NRHP by the Secretary of the Interior or by a federal agency official with concurrence from the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). A NRHP-eligible property has the same protections as a property listed in the NRHP. Historical properties include both archaeological and architectural resources. The area of potential effect (APE) for cultural resources is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking (project, activity, program or practice) may cause changes in the character or use of any historic properties present. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of the undertaking and may be different for various kinds of effects caused by the undertaking. For the Proposed Action, the Navy determined that the APE is all 234 acres of MFD. The Navy sent a letter to the SHPO on October 3, 2017, requesting concurrence for the extent of the APE; on October 12, 2017, the SHPO concurred with the APE (Appendix A). The Navy is coordinating with the SHPO on the determination of effects (Appendix A). Most of the land at MFD has been disturbed through the construction of fuel tanks and related facilities; therefore, it is unlikely that archaeological resources exist at MFD. However, three prehistoric archaeological sites were identified in 1995, though all are located in a restricted area of MFD that is not used during normal operations and outside of the areas proposed for ground disturbance. The Navy has conducted inventories of cultural resources at MFD to identify historical properties that are listed or potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP (EDAW Inc. 1996; Hardlines Design Company [HDC] 2010). The Navy sent a letter to the Suquamish Tribe Chairman on October 3, 2017, requesting concurrence for the extent of the APE; on November 3, 2017, the Suquamish Tribe concurred with the APE (Appendix A). The Navy also provided a brief of the Proposed Action and a tour of the project site to Suquamish Tribal leadership and staff. The Navy is coordinating with the Suquamish Tribe s Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) on the determination of effects (Appendix A) Prehistoric and Historic Setting Prehistory Ames and Maschner (1999) have created a concise cultural chronology for Puget Sound. The cultural chronology is divided into five periods: Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Early Pacific, Middle Pacific, and Late Pacific. A brief overview of these time periods is presented below. Paleo-Indian (14,500 to 12,500 Before Present [B.P.]) Paleo-Indian sites are scarce in Puget Sound, and evidence for this phase is often based on sites in other regions. The diagnostic tool from this time period is the Clovis projectile point, a large lanceolate point with a fluted base. Sites dating to this phase are believed to be temporary campsites or short-term hunting or foraging sites. These site types represent small, highly mobile groups with a general foraging subsistence pattern (Ames and Maschner 1999) Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

40 Archaic (12,500 to 6,400 B.P.) The environment of Puget Sound was in flux during this time period. Changes in sea levels resulted in areas that had been dry coastal lowlands being underwater, and areas that had been at sea level being under dense rainforest-like vegetation. The diagnostic tool type of this time period is the Olcott point, a large leaf-shaped projectile point. Semi-subterranean pithouses are found in village sites that were permanent or semi-permanent. Subsistence shifted from foraging to a more complex hunter-gatherer lifestyle following seasonally available resources (Ames and Maschner 1999). Early Pacific (6,400 to 3,800 B.P.) During the Early Pacific period the first evidence for the use of specialized resources, such as camas (Camassia quamash) and shellfish, is found in the archaeological record. Increased sedentism is indicated by numerous deeply stratified shell midden sites. Shell middens also indicate a focus on intertidal resources. Another marker of this period is the presence of human burials in the archaeological record (Ames and Maschner 1999). Middle Pacific (3,800 to 1,800-1,500 B.P.) Sedentism increased during the Middle Pacific period, as evidenced by shell middens, the remains of large rectangular cedar plank houses, villages, and large canoes. The exploitation of fish resources expanded during this period, as evidenced by groundstone tools such as net weights. A wider diversity of bone and antler tools are found in the archaeological record during this time period, along with the toggling harpoon (Ames and Maschner 1999). Late Pacific (1,800-1,500 to 175 B.P.) The Late Pacific period is marked by a decline in the use of chipped stone and the first indication of heavy-duty woodworking tools in the archaeological record. Warfare escalated during this time period and population demographics shifted on the landscape. Changes in subsistence patterns are also reflected in the archaeological record. It is generally accepted that there is cultural continuity between populations of the Late Pacific period and groups in ethnographic times (Ames and Maschner 1999) Ethnography The Manchester area is in the traditional territory of the Suquamish, whose aboriginal lands extended along the eastern shore of the Kitsap Peninsula and included Bainbridge Island, Whidbey Island, and Blake Island. They moved within their territory seasonally to harvest a variety of fish/marine, land game, and plant resources. These resources were used for food, clothing, shelter and ceremonial purposes (Lewarch et al. 2002). Salmon were the primary food source and were harvested in estuarine waters or streams with spears, clubs, traps, and hook and line. Several species of berries and roots were used for food and medicinal purposes The Suquamish used the shorelines and uplands within the modern boundaries of MFD and within the Puget Sound for establishing seasonal campsites and for hunting land game. Fish resources, especially salmon, were also likely taken in the area (Lewarch et al. 2002) History In 1898, the U.S. Army purchased the land where MFD is located in order to build fortifications to protect the Rich Passage. Between 1911 and 1914, Manchester was used as a testing station for torpedoes, until Keyport was established. Manchester was transferred to the U.S. Navy in 1924, though little activity occurred at this time (HDC 2010) Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

41 The Navy established a fuel depot at Manchester in the late 1930s. In order to construct the depot, large areas of land were excavated for the construction of 33 underground concrete fuel storage tanks in the 1940s and 1950s. These tanks were located on higher ground and connected with pipelines that ran through underground tunnels to the central pumping station, which in turn connected to the fuel pier (HDC 2010). During World War II, Manchester expanded with the construction of underground facilities, major repairs occurred at two fueling piers, and many permanent and temporary buildings were built. The fuel depot became an annex of the Naval Supply Depot Seattle. Then in 1967, the fuel depot became the Manchester Division of Naval Supply Center Puget Sound. In 1970, the facility was reassigned as the Naval Supply Center Puget Sound, MFD and 150 acres were deemed excess and transferred to the State of Washington, becoming Manchester State Park (HDC 2010) Archaeological Resources MFD was surveyed for archaeological resources in 1995 as part of the 2000 Historic and Archeological Resources Protection plan (EDAW 1996). Three prehistoric sites were present within the active beach zone. This was only a Level 1 survey, therefore NRHP eligibility determinations were not conducted (Navy 2011). Ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of these sites would trigger further study to determine the sites eligibility for the NRHP. These three sites are located outside of the ground disturbing footprint of the Proposed Action Architectural Resources MFD was surveyed for historic properties in 1996 as part of the 2000 Historic and Archeological Resources Protection plan. This 2000 plan recommended that six buildings were individually eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. These six buildings included Building 1 (Maintenance Building), Building 12 (Fuel Pump House), Building 76 (Lighthouse), Building 601 (Commander s House; Quarters A), Building 602 (Quarters B; Civilian Quarters), and Building 603 (Quarters C; Civilian Quarters). A list of additional World War II-era buildings were recommended as not eligible for the NRHP. This list did not include fuel tanks and small utility buildings. There were no historic districts identified at MFD during this survey (Navy 2011). In 2010, another architectural survey (HDC 2010) was completed which evaluated 56 buildings and structures that included the six that were previously recommended as eligible during the 1996 survey. HDC determined that the six previously recorded buildings retained a good level of integrity and recommended no changes. In a letter dated June 9, 2010, the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation concurred with the Navy s eligibility determinations for the quarters (Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 2010). However, Building 601 (Commander s House; Quarters A), Building 602 (Quarters B; Civilian Quarters), and Building 603 (Quarters C; Civilian Quarters) were all demolished in 2011 (Navy 2011). HDC evaluated 40 buildings and structures dating during World War II (1941 to 1945). They determined that none of these buildings or structures (including the USTs) were individually eligible for listing in the NRHP or as contributing as part of a historic district. HDC also evaluated 10 buildings and structures from the Early Cold War (1946 to 1965) that consisted of small utility structures and storage tanks. HDC recommended that none of these facilities (including the USTs) were individually eligible for listing in the NRHP or contributing to a historic district (HDC 2010) Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

42 3.3.3 Environmental Consequences Analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources considers both direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts may be the result of physically altering, damaging, or destroying all or part of a resource, altering characteristics of the surrounding environment that contribute to the importance of the resource, introducing visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that are out of character for the period the resource represents (thereby altering the setting), or neglecting the resource to the extent that it deteriorates or is destroyed. Indirect impacts are those that may result from a change in activity levels or other occurrence that was a byproduct of the proposed action, such as the effect of increased vehicular or pedestrian traffic near the resource No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur and there would be no change to cultural resources. Therefore, no significant impacts to cultural resources would occur with implementation of the No Action Alternative Alternative 1: South Site Alternative Potential Impacts (Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative 1, six new ASTs would be constructed on the southern portion of MFD. Alternative 1 also includes the incremental closure of eight existing USTs located within the AST footprint. There are no known archaeological sites or architectural resources located within the ground disturbing footprint of the South Site Alternative. In the unlikely event that previously unrecorded archaeological sites were encountered during the construction or tank closure process, the Navy would stop work in the immediate area and then follow the Section 106 process for inadvertent discovery (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] part ), including evaluating the sites for NRHP eligibility, in consultation with the SHPO, affected American Indian tribes, and other interested parties, pursuant to the implementing regulation of the NHPA, other applicable federal laws, and Department of Defense (DoD) and Navy regulations. Similarly, if American Indian human remains, funerary items, sacred objects, or items of cultural patrimony are encountered, the Navy would stop work in the area and comply with the NAGPRA. Alternative 1 would not affect archaeological sites or architectural resources. Therefore, no significant impacts to cultural resources would occur with implementation of Alternative 1 [Placeholder text; awaiting the outcome of SHPO and THPO coordination] Alternative 2: Tank Rehabilitation Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternative 2, the Navy would rehabilitate the existing USTs. There are no known archaeological sites or architectural resources located within the ground disturbing footprint of Alternative 2. In the unlikely event that previously unrecorded archaeological sites were encountered during the construction or tank closure process, the Navy would stop work in the immediate area and then follow the Section 106 process for inadvertent discovery (36 CFR part ), including evaluating the sites for NRHP eligibility, in consultation with the SHPO, affected American Indian tribes, and other interested parties, pursuant to the implementing regulation of the NHPA, other applicable federal laws, and DoD and Navy regulations. Similarly, if American Indian human remains, funerary items, sacred objects, or items of cultural patrimony are encountered, the Navy would stop work in the area and comply with the NAGPRA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

43 Alternative 2 would not affect archaeological sites or architectural resources. Therefore, no significant impacts to cultural resources would occur with implementation of Alternative 2 [Placeholder text; awaiting the outcome of SHPO and THPO coordination]. 3.4 Biological Resources Biological resources include living, native, or naturalized plant and animal species and the habitats within which they occur. Plant associations are referred to generally as vegetation, and animal species are referred to generally as wildlife. Habitat can be defined as the resources and conditions present in an area that support a plant or animal Regulatory Setting The primary laws protecting biological resources of the study area are the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). A synopsis of these statutes and their requirements as they relate to the Proposed Action is provided below. For the purposes of this assessment, individual species listed and given special consideration under these statutes are considered special status species. The purpose of the ESA is to conserve the ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend and to conserve and recover listed species. Section 7 of the ESA requires action proponents to consult with either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, depending on which agency has jurisdiction over the affected species, to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed threatened and endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Bald and golden eagles are protected by the BGEPA. This act prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from taking bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb. In the Pacific Northwest, the USFWS has developed guidance to avoid disturbing bald eagles, as well as a preliminary process to obtain authorization for the incidental take of bald eagles. Under the MBTA, take is defined as the unlawful means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, [or] possess migratory birds or their nests or eggs at any time, unless permitted by regulation. Nearly all native migratory and resident bird species that occur in the U.S. are protected under the MBTA, and their conservation by federal agencies is mandated by EO 13186, Migratory Bird Conservation. Migratory birds that deserve highest priority for conservation to avoid the need for listing under the ESA are listed as Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008). While the hunting of migratory birds is regulated by state and federal wildlife agencies, there is no process to authorize a take of migratory birds incidental to other activities. All marine mammals are protected under the provisions of the MMPA. The MMPA prohibits any person or vessel from taking marine mammals in the U.S. or the high seas without authorization. The MMPA defines take to mean to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

44 3.4.2 Affected Environment Within this EA, biological resources are divided into three major categories: (1) terrestrial vegetation, (2) terrestrial wildlife, and (3) special status species. The following discussions provide a description of the existing conditions for each of the categories under biological resources at MFD Terrestrial Vegetation Terrestrial vegetation provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species as well as shade and woody debris for fish habitat in streams. Approximately 160 acres of MFD is vegetated, with 80 acres of mature forest and 80 acres of 1- to 12-year old plantation trees (Navy 2016a). A survey conducted at MFD included an area covering both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 footprints (combined 44-acre survey area). It was determined that approximately 50 percent of the area is developed (roads, pavement, mowed grass, buildings) and the remaining 50 percent is dominated by a mix of coniferous and deciduous tree cover as well as grass and invasive brush with scattered trees. The survey observed the following coniferous trees in order of dominance included: Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), shore pine (Pinus contorta), grand fir (Abies grandis), spruce (Picea spp.), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata) (NAVFAC NW 2018) Terrestrial Wildlife Wildlife includes all animal species (i.e., insects, mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and freshwater fish) focusing on the species and habitat features of greatest importance or interest. Eight small mammal species were identified during surveys at MFD, of which, the vagrant shrew (Sorex vagrans) was the most common. Other species recorded included deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), Pacific jumping mouse (Zapus trinotatus), Townsend s chipmunk (Neotamias townsendii), Townsend s vole (Microtus townsendii), Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii), and creeping vole (Microtus oregoni) (Grassley and Grue 1999). A small population of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) exists at MFD and one large game species, Columbian black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), is frequently observed at the installation (Navy 2016a). Five species of bats occur at MFD which includes silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), California Myotis (Myotis californicus), little brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus), and long-legged Myotis (Myotis Volans) (Grassley and Grue 1999). River otter (Lutra Canadensis) occurs frequently along a rocky shoreline area west of the Little Clam Bay outfall. River otters can be found foraging in this area as well as the mouth of Beaver Creek (Navy 2016a). Birds A total of 42 aquatic bird species occur on or near MFD with 23 of those species recorded at freshwater wetlands at MFD (Grassley and Grue 1999). The most common species include wood duck (Aix sponsa), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), and bufflehead (Bucephala albeola). There are 80 different species of terrestrial birds that occur at MFD. An introduced nuisance species, the European starling, was the most abundant species recorded during surveys. Other common species recorded included American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), Pacific wren (Troglodytes pacificus), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) (Grassley and Grue 1999) Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

45 Amphibians and Reptiles Spring and summer surveys recorded seven amphibian species occurring within the ponds and terrestrial habitat of MFD. These included the following: rough-skinned newt (Taricha granulosa), Ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzii), long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum), Western redback salamander (Plethodon vehiculum), Northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile), Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla), and red-legged frog (Rana aurora) (Grassley and Grue 1999). Two reptile species, common Garter snake (Thamnophis) and Western terrestrial Garter snake (Thamnophis elegans), were identified during surveys (Grassley and Grue 1999). Fish Freshwater systems occurring on MFD include ponds, streams, and wetland areas (refer to Section 3.1, Water Resources). Beaver Creek is located on the northwest corner of MFD and into Clam Bay. Both resident and anadromous fish populations occur in Beaver Creek. Salmonid species include coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), chum salmon (O. keta), and cutthroat trout (O. clarki clarki). Non-game fish such as sculpin (Cottoidia spp.) also occur in Beaver Creek (Navy 2016a) Special Status Species Special Status species that may be present within the vicinity of MFD include marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), marine mammals (California sea lion [Zalophus californianus], Steller sea lion [Eumetopias jubatus], and harbor seal [Phoca vitulina]), ESA-listed fish species, and bald eagle. A biological survey of the project area did not record the presence of any threatened or endangered plant species (NAVFAC NW 2018). Marbled murrelet is federally listed as threatened (57 Federal Register 45328) and has designated critical habitat (76 Federal Register 61599) but no critical habitat is at MFD or within the vicinity of MFD. A 2013 survey (Hersum 2014) of vegetation at MFD did not observe any potential marbled murrelet nesting platforms or suitable nesting habitat. In 2017, a marbled murrelet habitat assessment detected no suitable habitat (NAVFAC NW 2017). Marbled murrelets may occur in the estuarine waters near MFD. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife surveys of central Puget Sound, including Rich Passage and Clam Bay from mid-september to April detected low numbers of marbled murrelets (Pearson and Lance 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016). California and Steller sea lions and harbor seals are protected under the MMPA. California sea lions and Steller sea lions haul out on a navigation buoy offshore of MFD and are commonly spotted swimming along the shorelines of MFD. Harbor seals are frequently sighted swimming along the shorelines of MFD year-round, but no harbor seal haulouts have been identified at MFD. The nearest documented haulout is Blakely Rocks approximately 3.5 miles away on the east side of Bainbridge Island (Jeffries et al. 2000). ESA-listed fish species that may occur within the estuarine waters of MFD include Puget Sound evolutionary significant unit of Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), Puget Sound distinct population segment of steelhead (O. mykiss), Puget Sound/Georgia Basin distinct population segments of bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) and yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). There is one known bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest platform on MFD that is monitored for occupancy annually during the nesting season (Navy 2016b). Pairs at this nest produced chicks every year from 2013 to 2017 and is currently occupied in nesting season for This nest is located on the north side of MFD (Figure 3.4-1). Eagles are frequently observed feeding and roosting within MFD Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

46

47 3.4.3 Environmental Consequences This analysis focuses on vegetation types or wildlife that are important to the function of the ecosystem or are protected under federal or state law. Impacts to biological resources would be considered significant if, after the completion of required consultations and authorizations, a permanent loss of high value habitat for fish and wildlife, or reduction in the population of a special status species would result from the Proposed Action No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur and there would be no change to biological resources. As described in Section 2.3.1, there are USTs that would continue to be located near a potential seismic fault. However, continued compliance with existing fuel storage management and safety procedures would minimize the potential impacts to biological resources. Therefore, no significant impacts to biological resources would occur with implementation of the No Action Alternative Alternative 1: South Site Alternative Potential Impacts (Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative 1, direct impacts would occur to vegetated areas where small mammals and birds would likely be present. Wildlife within as well as outside the construction footprint could be impacted by noise from construction activities. Birds and small mammals could be exposed to elevated noise levels along the upland, shoreline, and marsh habitat. California and Steller sea lions and harbor seals could be exposed to noise during construction. Vegetation As summarized in Table 3.4-1, implementation of Alternative 1 would result in a net loss of approximately acres of brush, grasses, and trees, as these previously vegetated areas would become developed (i.e., converted to steel ASTs, concrete, or pavement). Mature trees would be avoided and saved as much as possible, but some would likely be removed. Table Impacts to Land Cover Types under Alternative 1 Land Cover Type Permanent Impact Acres Permanent Impact % of Total Brush Grasses Trees Subtotal - Vegetated Areas Developed Total There would be a loss of habitat for birds, small mammals, and reptiles that nest, forage, and rest within the vegetation that would be removed. The affected habitats are relatively common on MFD, and following construction, there would be new plantings of native trees and shrubs as needed to restore temporarily affected areas. Therefore, impacts to vegetation at MFD would not be significant Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

48 Terrestrial Wildlife Some loss of habitat for wildlife (birds and small mammals) may occur with the removal of existing vegetation. If vegetation removal occurs during nesting within that habitat, there may be inadvertent loss of nests and young. Demolition activities could also result in the direct loss of common, less-mobile wildlife species, such as mice and voles. However, the numbers of individuals that could be lost would be inconsequential to populations present at MFD. Indirect, temporary, adverse impacts to wildlife species would occur within nearby habitat due to an increase in dust, noise, or other demolition-related disturbances. Temporary disturbances due to noise associated with clearing vegetation, as well as an increase in the general activity and human presence could mask bird vocalizations, invoke stress in birds, and cause common bird and wildlife species to avoid the work area during demolition periods. Birds and small mammals may avoid the area during construction to avoid the noise, but noise would be expected to be intermittent and temporary, and not substantially impact foraging, nesting, or resting behavior. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have negligible impacts to terrestrial wildlife. Fish and Amphibians Fish species occurring in Beaver Creek and Beaver Pond and amphibians present is the ponds would not be impacted, as these waterbodies are located on the west side of Little Clam Bay and outside the construction footprint. There would be no impacts to these areas from construction as a SWPPP and NPDES permit would be in place to manage stormwater discharge (refer to Section 3.1, Water Resources). Special Status Species Marbled Murrelet Marbled murrelets do not nest, nor have they been observed at MFD and thus no impacts to their habitat would occur with vegetation removal. Any noise generated during construction would stay predominantly within MFD boundaries and may be audible within the immediate nearshore areas. Alternative 1 would have no effect on the marbled murrelet as defined by the ESA; therefore, consultation with the USFWS is not required. Sea Lions and Harbor Seals The only potential affect to sea lions and harbor seals would be from airborne construction noise while these mammals are on land or have their heads above water. However, elevated noise is expected to stay predominantly within MFD and may be audible along the shoreline and nearshore areas of Clam Bay but at noise levels consistent with baseline noise conditions in the area. No impacts to sea lions or harbor seals would occur under Alternative 1. There would be no effect on threatened and endangered species, and no effect on marine mammals protected under the MMPA. As a result, consultation between the Navy and NOAA Fisheries regarding these species is not required. ESA Listed Fish Species ESA listed fish species could be present within the nearshore estuarine areas of MFD but would not be affected since these areas are outside of the construction footprint and there is no in-water construction proposed as part of Alternative 1. In addition, the SWPPP and NPDES permit conditions would manage stormwater discharge (see Section 3.1, Water Resources). Implementation of Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed fish; therefore, consultation with the NOAA Fisheries and USFWS is not required Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

49 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Species Alternative 1 would disturb a relatively small area of low-value habitat for MBTA species at MFD. Following demolition, some existing areas of habitat would become steel or concrete surfaces. Due to the small proportion of the site that would be disturbed, MBTA species would be expected to utilize suitable habitat away from the project area. However, construction or demolition activities during breeding season could cause nest failure of nearby nesting birds or nests destroyed during the vegetation removal. Impacts to nesting birds would be minimized by implementation of impact avoidance and minimization measures that includes surveys for active nests prior to vegetation removal and providing a buffer for those nesting locations. Indirect temporary impacts to MBTA species may occur within nearby habitat due to an increase in dust, noise, or other demolition-related disturbances. The potential for demolition activities to adversely modify behavior of MBTA species is unlikely, particularly because of the temporary nature of the activity and the proximity to human activity. Furthermore, whenever possible, habitat-clearing activities would be timed to avoid the nesting season. Implementation of impact avoidance and minimization measures would minimize the potential for impacts to migratory bird species and indirect temporary impacts to populations of migratory birds, including Species of Concern listed under the MBTA. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts to migratory birds. Bald Eagle The bald eagle nest located approximately 1,000 feet north of the project area may be exposed to temporary elevated noise. Bald eagles are commonly observed flying over and foraging at MFD, increases in noise above ambient conditions would be negligible and temporary. Further, bald eagles have likely acclimated to general construction noise in the region. Summary As supported by the preceding discussion and analysis, no significant impacts to biological resources would occur with implementation of Alternative Alternative 2: Tank Rehabilitation Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternative 2, direct impacts from construction would occur on vegetated areas where small terrestrial mammals and birds would likely be present. Areas within as well as outside the footprint could be impacted by noise generated during construction activities. Areas outside the footprint include the Spill Containment Basin wetland/marsh area on the north side of MFD, little Clam Bay to the west of the project footprint, and Clam Bay to the north of the footprint. Birds and small mammals could be exposed to elevated noise levels along the upland, shoreline, and marsh habitat. Sea lions and harbor seals that are swimming along the shorelines may be exposed to elevated airborne noise levels during construction. Vegetation Under Alternative 2, vegetation present within the footprints of the new ASTs would be removed. As summarized in Table 3.5-2, Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a net loss of approximately acres of grasses and trees, as these previously vegetated areas would become developed (i.e., converted to steel ASTs, concrete, or pavement). Mature trees would be avoided and saved as much as possible, but some would likely be removed Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

50 Table Impacts to Land Cover Types under Alternative 2 Land Cover Type Permanent Impact Acres Permanent Impact % of Total Grasses Trees Subtotal - Vegetated Areas Developed Total Vegetation removal would be expected to be less under this alternative as compared to Alternative 1 as the new ASTs would be constructed on top of the already existing UST footprints. Any vegetation that would require removal would likely be limited to small shrubs and existing invasive species. Therefore, impacts to vegetation would be negligible. Terrestrial Wildlife As stated above, less vegetation would need to be removed as compared to Alternative 1 and there would be negligible impacts to terrestrial wildlife. Elevated noise from construction would predominantly stay within MFD boundaries before attenuating to baseline conditions at distances reaching the shoreline and nearshore areas of Clam Bay. Birds and small mammals may avoid the area during construction to avoid the noise, but noise would be expected to be intermittent and temporary and not significantly impact foraging, nesting, or resting behavior. Fish and Amphibians There would be no impact to fish or amphibians occurring in Beaver Creek and and/or ponds on MFD as these waterbodies are located on the west side of MFD and away from any impacts associated with construction under Alternative 2. Special Status Species Vegetation that also may serve as habitat for MBTA species would be removed but to a lesser extent under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1. As described under Alternative 1, impact avoidance and minimization measures that includes surveys for active nests prior to vegetation removal and providing a buffer for those nesting locations would be implemented. General construction disturbance to MBTA species from dust, noise, or human presence would be temporary and negligible. ESA listed fish species could be present within the nearshore estuarine areas of MFD but would not be affected since these areas are outside of the construction footprint and there is no in-water construction proposed as part of Alternative 2. With implementation of a SWPPP and NPDES permit to manage stormwater discharge, as discussed in Section 3.1, Water Resources, there would be no impact to estuarine water resources. Therefore, consultation with the NOAA Fisheries and USFWS is not required. A bald eagle nest is located on the north side of MFD and within approximately 600 feet of the proposed AST construction. Construction noise would attenuate to near baseline conditions at the nest. Furthermore, it is likely that the nesting pair of bald eagles and other eagles that may forage or rest at MFD have acclimated to general construction noise in the region. However, any clearing, landscaping, and construction activity that would be required within the 660-foot secondary buffer would occur outside of the nesting and fledging period of January 1 through August 31 (USFWS 2007) Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

51 Marbled murrelet do not nest on and have not been observed on MFD (NAVFAC NW 2017). Alternative 2 would have no effect on the marbled murrelet as defined by the ESA. Noise from construction may extend over Clam Bay before attenuating to baseline conditions, but disturbance to sea lions or harbor seals that may be swimming in the area would be negligible. There would be no effect on threatened and endangered species or marine mammals protected under the MMPA. Therefore, no significant impacts to biological resources would occur with implementation of Alternative Visual Resources This discussion of visual resources includes the natural and built features of the landscape visible from public views that contribute to an area s visual quality. Visual perception is an important component of environmental quality that can be impacted through changes created by various projects. Visual impacts occur as a result of the relationship between people and the physical environment Regulatory Setting The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides general direction on the analysis of visual impacts by establishing that the federal government use all practicable means to ensure all Americans safe, healthful, productive, aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 4331[b][2]). Thus, the visual analysis should determine if and how a project s visual appearance would substantially affect the public s view of the area, especially when those views are associated with important scenic, recreational, historic, and cultural resource values Affected Environment MFD consists of buildings, fuel storage and supply infrastructure, roads, a lagoon, and natural forested and open areas. Trees at MFD are mostly 50 to 80 years old. Since the Navy acquired the property, there has been little active forest management due to the combination of secondary growth and the desire to maintain visual and aesthetic buffers between installation facilities and nearby privately owned properties (Navy 2016a). As a result, the Navy s management policy has created a natural visual screen that blends in with the surrounding environment. The southeastern edge of MFD contains the majority of the aboveground infrastructure including office buildings, maintenance buildings, and the main fuel pier where Navy vessels dock. To the west, the site slopes upward to a hilltop of 250 feet where the current USTs and the service pipelines are buried. Paved and dirt access roads, and electrical infrastructure, including poles and transmission lines, traverse the site. There is an existing AST at the top of the hill, and the west end of MFD contains an additional five ASTs with secondary containment dikes. The existing ASTs rise to approximately 60 feet above the ground surface. The surrounding landscape that views MFD is generally a mix of residential and commercial development. The region is heavily vegetated, with most residences maintaining large trees. The vegetation provides visual screening. Straight-line views of the MFD ASTs generally require an individual to be either within MFD, or viewing MFD from an unobstructed or elevated point outside of MFD. These vantage points occur sporadically within the unincorporated community of Manchester and the shoreline of Clam Bay Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

52 Surrounding Viewshed MFD is surrounded by water to the north and east. Due north of MFD is Clam Bay, the open waters of Rich Passage, the USEPA s Manchester Environmental Laboratory on the shoreline of Clam Bay, and Manchester State Park. The community of South Beach on Bainbridge Island lies approximately 1 mile northeast across Rich Passage. MFD is visible from the shoreline and select hilltops within the community of Manchester but is mostly obscured by tree stands along the perimeter. Bisecting MFD from north to south is Beach Drive, a main road connecting the community of Manchester and Wautauga Beach and Waterman Point. Visible to the west along Beach Drive within MFD are five ASTs and their secondary containment dikes (Exhibit 1). The ASTs are a prominent feature of the existing landscape; however, MFD maintains a dense and tall tree line around the ASTs to screen views from outside the installation. Exhibit 1 Existing Aboveground Storage Tanks at Manchester Fuel Department (Source: Google Earth) Environmental Consequences The evaluation of visual resources in the context of environmental analysis typically addresses the contrast between visible landscape elements. Collectively, these elements comprise the aesthetic environment, or landscape character. The landscape character is compared to the Proposed Action s visual qualities to determine the compatibility or contrast resulting from the buildout and demolition activities associated with the Proposed Action No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur and there would be no change to visual resources. Therefore, no significant impacts to visual resources would occur with implementation of the No Action Alternative Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

53 Alternative 1: South Site Alternative Potential Impacts (Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative 1, the construction of six, approximately 64-foot-high ASTs would impact the visual environment as depicted in the renderings depicted on Figure 3.5-1a and Figure 3.5-1b. As shown on Figure 3.5-1b, the proposed ASTs are depicted as viewed from a representative location within the community of Manchester. Initially, the ASTs would likely be visible from areas within the community of Manchester, and to motorists passing through MFD on Beach Drive. Although grading and tree removal is necessary to construct a structurally sound building foundation for the new ASTs, the Navy would preserve to the extent practicable existing vegetation and trees to reduce visual impacts to the surrounding viewshed. In time, the re-planting of trees around the perimeter after construction would provide visual screening consistent with the screening around the existing ASTs, as the trees reach maturity (see Figure 3.5-1b). Furthermore, the new ASTs would be visually consistent with the existing ASTs, and thus the overall viewshed. In accordance with UFC guidelines, the new ASTs would be painted white and match the existing ASTs at MFD (DoD 2015). Although the color white may not blend into the surrounding environment as well as other colors or patterns would, white has the lowest solar absorbance effect and the fuel in the ASTs would remain at a more constant temperature (Navy 2007). ASTs associated with Alternative 1 would be visible from select areas within the community of Manchester and the shoreline of Clam Bay to the north (including Manchester State Park). Due to the high tree line around MFD and the generally east facing aspect of Manchester, the ASTs associated with Alternative 1 would be mostly out of sight to the majority of Manchester, and locations to the north and east. Therefore, no significant impacts to visual resources would occur with implementation of Alternative Alternative 2: Tank Rehabilitation Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternative 2, the construction of fifteen, approximately 52-foot high ASTs would impact the visual environment. Given that approximately half of the AST structure would be below ground, the anticipated visual impact from the new AST would be approximately 26 feet above the ground surface (i.e., approximately the top half of the AST would be above ground level). The new ASTs under Alternative 2 would have a lower profile than Alternative 1 because they would sit partially below ground surface inside the existing USTs. The proposed new ASTs under Alternative 2 would be dispersed at MFD. As a result, Alternative 2 would likely be initially visible from the community of Manchester, communities across Rich Passage facing MFD, and the shoreline of Clam Bay (including Manchester State Park). However, in time, due to the low profile of the proposed ASTs and the previously discussed emphasis on tree management at MFD, the ASTs would be mostly obscured from outside viewers. Therefore, no significant impacts to visual resources would occur with implementation of Alternative Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

54

55

56 3.6 Transportation Transportation refers to the movement of people, goods, and/or equipment on a surface transportation network. A surface transportation network may include any or all of the following types of transportation facilities: roadways, bus routes, railways, subways, bikeways, trails, waterways, airports, and taxis, and can be assessed at both local and regional scales. Given the location and nature of the Proposed Action, the impact discussion below focuses on the roadway network that provides local and regional access to the project area Regulatory Setting Interstates, U.S. highways, and state routes fall under the jurisdiction of Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Other roadways in the area are managed by local entities, such as Kitsap County and the City of Port Orchard Affected Environment The affected environment for transportation includes the internal road network of MFD and surrounding public streets in Kitsap County. State Route (SR) 3 and SR 16 provide regional access to MFD. SR 3 runs generally north/south through the Kitsap Peninsula and intersects with SR 16 in the town of Gorst, located approximately 7 miles southeast of MFD. SR 16 runs generally east/west through Kitsap County, connecting with Interstate 5 in the City of Tacoma, approximately 24 miles south of MFD. Based on data collected by WSDOT (2016) SR 3 has an existing average daily traffic volume of 50,328 and SR 16 has an existing average daily traffic volume of 59,725. Primary access to MFD is from Beach Drive East. Beach Drive East is a locally managed road that is classified by WSDOT as a minor arterial and runs north/south past MFD. SR 166 runs east/west and connects SR 16 to Beach Drive East, approximately 3 miles west of MFD. Southeast Mile Hill Drive and Southeast Sedgwick Road are minor arterial roadways that run east/west and connect to Beach Drive East, south of the MFD. From Beach Drive East, a restricted access road within the fence line of MFD, Olympic Drive, provides access to the area east of Little Clam Bay on MFD Environmental Consequences Impacts to transportation are analyzed by considering the possible increase in traffic congestion, including queues and delays, resulting from potential increases in commuter and/or construction traffic No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur and there would be no change to transportation. Therefore, no significant impacts to transportation would occur with implementation of the No Action Alternative Alternative 1: South Site Alternative Potential Impacts (Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative 1, a construction staging area would be established within the overall project footprint. Project-related trips would include the delivery of construction materials and equipment, the removal of construction debris, and construction worker commuting trips. Materials would be transported to the project area using a truck route (Figure 3.6-1) that navigates from SR 16 to SR 160/Sedgwick Road to Long Lake Road, Woods Road, East Beaver Creek Road and to Beach Drive East Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

57

58 Construction workers would also travel to MFD and would likely use the existing roadway network over the duration of the construction period. As a result, there would be a temporary increase in daily traffic volume. Construction and worker trips could coincide with the traditional peak commuting periods (typically between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. to 6:30 P.M.). Based on the construction footprint, it is estimated that up to approximately 46 worker and hauling trips per day may be added to the local roadway network during each phase (CalEEMod 2017). The addition of these trips would be minor when added to the existing average daily traffic volume on regional roads because the trips would be distributed throughout the day and workers may choose to take routes other than that shown on Figure 3.6-1, further dispersing construction-related traffic. Of these trip types, only worker trips are likely to involve a substantial recurring traffic increase during weekday peak commuting periods. Delivery trips and debris removal trips would occur throughout the workday, would use a pre-determined truck route, and would not be concentrated during peak commuting periods. The increase in daily traffic volume would be distributed along the existing roadway network described above. Construction of Alternative 1 would result in a temporary and relatively minor increase in daily traffic volume. Therefore, no significant impacts to transportation would occur with implementation of Alternative Alternative 2: Tank Rehabilitation Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternative 2, impacts to transportation would be similar to those described for Alternative 1, with the exception of how existing USTs would be removed from service. Alternative 2 proposes to rehabilitate the existing USTs to construct a tank-within-a-tank and no fill material would be needed. Therefore, Alternative 2 would generate slightly less traffic than Alterative 1. As with Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would result in a temporary and relatively minor increase in daily traffic volume associated with the delivery of construction equipment and materials, removal of construction debris from the site, and construction worker trips. To minimize impacts, trucks would travel along a pre-determined truck route (see Figure 3.6-1). Therefore, no significant impacts to transportation would occur with implementation of Alternative Hazardous Materials and Wastes This section discusses hazardous materials, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and contaminated sites Regulatory Setting Hazardous materials are defined by 49 CFR part as hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, marine pollutants, elevated temperature materials, materials designated as hazardous in the Hazardous Materials Table, and materials that meet the defining criteria for hazard classes and divisions in 49 CFR part 173. Transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Hazardous wastes are defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, as: a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may (A) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

59 Special hazards are those substances that might pose a risk to human health and are addressed separately from other hazardous substances. Special hazards include asbestos-containing material, lead-based paint, and polychlorinated biphenyls Affected Environment The Navy employs a Hazardous Material Control and Management Program and a Hazardous Waste Minimization Program for all activities. The Navy continuously monitors its operations to find ways to minimize the use of hazardous materials and to reduce the generation of hazardous wastes. Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments1f2 were conducted at MFD to evaluate environmental conditions of the ground surrounding the existing USTs for possible petroleum contaminants from past releases. Results of the Phase I assessment (Navy 2017) recommended further site characterization of only those past spill events that occurred within the project area. The Phase II study determined that detected concentrations did not exceed default or site-specific cleanup levels (Navy 2018) Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials may be found in the form of a solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material at MFD. Piping for the fuel is transferred and distributed either above-ground or through three underground tunnels (Notkin Mechanical Engineers 2017) Hazardous Waste MFD has a Hazardous Waste Management Plan (NAVFAC NW 2013) that provides guidance related to the management of hazardous waste generation and accumulation activities at MFD. Waste generated is in accordance with WAC and is managed so as not to pose a threat to human health or the environment. There are oil water separator systems throughout MFD that serve to prevent releases of petroleum products to both groundwater and surface water. Monthly sampling and quarterly visual inspections of the oil water separator outfalls are conducted at MFD as required under the NPDES permit. The existing tanks and infrastructure are routinely monitored, tested, and cleaned per Unified Facilities Guide Specifications guidelines. MFD has a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan in place. MFD staff is trained annually on the Standard Operating Procedures in the event of a spill (NAVFAC NW 2013) Special Hazards (Asbestos Containing Materials, Lead-Based Paint, Polychlorinated Biphenyls) An assessment of potentially-regulated building materials was conducted at MFD (Kane Environmental Inc. 2017). Of the nine paint chip samples collected and analyzed, seven samples detected lead, three had chromium, and one contained cadmium (Kane Environmental Inc. 2017). The assessment did not include asbestos-containing materials, as none were observed in or on structures. 2 Conducted in accordance with the scope and limitations of American Society for Testing and Materials Practice E and Ecology Guidance for Remediation of Petroleum Contaminated Sites Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

60 3.7.3 Environmental Consequences The hazardous materials and wastes analysis contained in the respective sections addresses issues related to the use and management of hazardous materials and wastes as well as the management and disposal of hazardous materials as a result of the Proposed Action at MFD. Impacts involving hazardous materials and wastes are considered significant if the storage, use, transportation, or disposal of these substances significantly increases human health or ecological risks. Federal, state, and local laws regulate storage, disposal, and transporation of hazardous materials and wastes to protect human health and the environment from potential impacts. Significance is based on toxicity, level of exposure risk during construction activity with older contaminated structures or infrastructure, risk associated with transportation and storage, and the method of disposal. All demolition and construction would be in accordance with MFDs Hazardous Materials and Waste Management program No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur and there would be no change to existing fuel storage infrastructure, operations, or maintenance at MFD. Six existing USTs would continue to be located near a potential seismic fault. Compliance with existing fuel storage management and safety procedures would continue to minimize the potential for a product release to the environment. However, should a seismic event occur that results in damage to one of the six USTs, a potential product loss could occur, resulting in impacts from hazardous materials to resources. Therefore, significant impacts related to hazardous materials and wastes would occur with implementation of the No Action Alternative Alternative 1: South Site Alternative Potential Impacts (Preferred Alternative) UST Closure Process USTs would be closed in accordance with WAC Chapter , which regulates the permanent closure of USTs in Washington State and stipulates what actions must be taken to leave them in place. Ecology oversees the implementation and enforcement of these regulations. The closure of existing USTs within the potential seismic fault area would result in beneficial impacts by removing the risk of potential failure and/or product loss to the surrounding environment due to ground rupture. Prior to demolition, additional testing (as warranted given previous investigations) of all structures would be completed to confirm whether hazardous materials are present. If such materials are present, work would be completed in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration and USEPA regulations. Demolition of concrete walls would be conducted under requirements established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (29 CFR part 1910) and Washington State Construction Standard for Lead (WAC ) which requires construction workers to wear appropriate respirators to limit exposure to lead dust. Tank roof slabs, columns, and internal structures would be appropriately handled, temporarily stockpiled onsite, and covered until which time they could be loaded on to a truck and taken offsite to an approved disposal or recycle location. The Navy would divert as much demolition waste from landfills as possible using demolition deconstruction techniques to reduce, reuse, or recycle the various types of waste Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

61 While not expected, contamination may be present in soils removed to expose UST foundations and underground pipelines. If laboratory results indicate that contaminated soil remains, additional excavation, sampling, and laboratory analysis would be completed until all contaminated soil has been removed. Potentially contaminated soil would be segregated from clean soil, stockpiled, and sampled to characterize the soil for proper disposal. Excavated on-site soil would be utilized as fill and backfill material to the greatest extent possible. All infrastructure that is not removed but is to be closed in place (i.e., fuel lines) would be purged of fuel, cut, and capped in accordance with applicable Washington State UST regulations (WAC ). Construction equipment and vehicles could inadvertently leak oils or hydraulic fluids. Equipment and vehicle spills or leaks would be immediately cleaned up in accordance with applicable State and Federal regulations. All new ASTs would be hydrotested prior to application of the coating system and use. The hydrotest water would be disposed of through the existing permitted NPDES outfall at MFD (refer to Section 3.1, Water Resources). A remote impoundment spill collection system would be provided for the new ASTs to prevent hazardous materials from being released into the environment. It would consist of a series of swales and drain lines leading from the tanks to a remote impoundment area designed to prevent the accidental discharge of petroleum. Therefore, beneficial impacts related to hazardous materials and wastes would occur with implementation of Alternative Alternative 2: Tank Rehabilitation Alternative Potential Impacts Under Alternative 2, impacts to hazardous materials and wastes would be similar as described under Alternative 1. Therefore, beneficial impacts related to hazardous materials and wastes would occur with implementation of Alternative Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

62 4 Cumulative Impacts This section (1) defines cumulative impacts, (2) describes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions relevant to cumulative impacts, (3) analyzes the incremental interaction the proposed action may have with other actions, and (4) evaluates cumulative impacts potentially resulting from these interactions. 4.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts The approach taken in the analysis of cumulative impacts follows the objectives of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and CEQ guidance. Cumulative impacts are defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part as the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. To determine the scope of environmental impact analyses, agencies shall consider cumulative actions, which when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same impact analysis document. In addition, CEQ and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have published guidance addressing implementation of cumulative impact analyses Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis (CEQ 2005) and Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (USEPA 1999). CEQ guidance entitled Considering Cumulative Impacts Under NEPA (CEQ 1997) states that cumulative impact analyses should: determine the magnitude and significance of the environmental consequences of the proposed action in the context of the cumulative impacts of other past, present, and future actions...identify significant cumulative impacts [and] focus on truly meaningful impacts. Cumulative impacts are most likely to arise when a relationship or synergism exists between a proposed action and other actions expected to occur in a similar location or during a similar period. Actions overlapping with or near the proposed action would be expected to have more potential for a relationship than those more geographically separated. Similarly, relatively concurrent actions would tend to offer a higher potential for cumulative impacts. To identify cumulative impacts, the analysis needs to address the following three fundamental questions. Does a relationship exist such that affected resource areas of the proposed action might interact with the affected resource areas of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions? If one or more of the affected resource areas of the proposed action and another action could be expected to interact, would the proposed action affect or be affected by impacts of the other action? If such a relationship exists, then does an assessment reveal any potentially significant impacts not identified when the proposed action is considered alone? 4.2 Scope of Cumulative Impacts Analysis The scope of the cumulative impacts analysis involves both the geographic extent of the effects and the period in which the effects could be expected to occur. For this Environmental Assessment (EA), the 4-1 Cumulative Impacts

63 study area delimits the geographic extent of the cumulative impacts analysis. In general, the study area (region of influence [ROI]) would include those areas previously identified in Chapter 3 for the respective resource areas. The time frame for cumulative impacts centers on the timing of the proposed action. Another factor influencing the scope of cumulative impacts analysis involves identifying other actions to consider. Beyond determining that the geographic scope and time frame for the actions interrelate to the proposed action, the analysis employs the measure of reasonably foreseeable to include or exclude other actions. For the purposes of this analysis, public documents prepared by federal, state, and local government agencies form the primary sources of information regarding reasonably foreseeable actions. Documents used to identify other actions include notices of intent for Environmental Impact Statements and EAs, management plans, land use plans, and other planning related studies. 4.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions This section focuses on past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects at and near the Proposed Action locale. In determining which projects to include in the cumulative impacts analysis, a preliminary determination was made regarding the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable action. Specifically, using the first fundamental question included in Section 4.1, Definition of Cumulative Impacts, it was determined if a relationship exists such that the affected resource areas of the Proposed Action (included in this EA) might interact with the affected resource area of a past, present, or reasonably foreseeable action. If no such potential relationship exists, the project was not carried forward into the cumulative impacts analysis. In accordance with CEQ guidance (CEQ 2005), these actions considered but excluded from further cumulative effects analysis are not catalogued here, as the intent is to focus the analysis on the meaningful actions relevant to informed decision-making. Projects included in this cumulative impact analysis are listed in Table 4-1 and briefly described in the following subsections. Table 4-1 Cumulative Action Evaluation Level of NEPA Action Analysis Completed Past Actions MFD Tank Farm Construction Action predated NEPA McCormick Woods Expansion NA Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions McCormick Woods Expansion NA Kitsap Transit Fast Ferry Connections NA Kitsap County Public Works: Sewer and Stormwater Improvement Projects NA Kitsap County Public Works: Transportation and Road Improvement Projects NA MFD Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan In-progress Future UST Closures at MFD Not started Note: NA = not applicable Past Actions Regional land use changes have been ongoing for more than 30 years with a trend towards development of undeveloped space. Development has been, and continues to be, occurring both on individual lots and on larger-scale planned developments. 4-2 Cumulative Impacts

64 Construction of Manchester Fuel Department MFD was formally established in 1942 as U.S. Naval Fuel Depot, Puget Sound Washington. In the 1940s and 1950s, USTs were constructed at MFD, resulting in substantial alteration of geological resources to accommodate the fuel storage and distribution system The McCormick Woods Expansion and other Residential Development McCormick Communities is a master planned community of approximately 7,000 acres to ultimately consist of approximately 2,000 private homes, a golf course, and various community amenities. The full buildout of the community is on-going and will continue to occur over the next 15+ years (Kitsap Sun 1996, 2016; Kitsap County Hearing Examiner 2007). The development is located more than 6 miles to the southwest of MFD Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions The McCormick Woods Expansion and other Residential Development See Section above for a description of this past and present project Kitsap Transit Fast Ferry Connections Kitsap Transit has developed a plan to support three new pedestrian ferry routes to downtown Seattle. The first enhances existing ferry service out of Bremerton, and service initiated in the summer of The second provides ferry service to Kingston and is expected to be functioning in the summer of The third services Southworth and will be brought online in summer In Southworth, the new ferry service would require construction of a terminal and dock, at a location to be determined (Kitsap Transit 2016) Kitsap County Public Works: Sewer and Stormwater Improvement Projects The following sewer and stormwater improvement projects by Kitsap County Public Works are either on-going or planned to occur in Kitsap County. Manchester Yukon Harbor Sewer Extension. This project will extend sewer service along Colchester Avenue and Yukon Harbor Drive in Manchester and install gravity mains, force mains, and a pump station. Construction began on the project in January 2018, and the project is expected to be complete in December 2018 (Kitsap County Public Works 2018a). Manchester Pump Station Retrofit, Beach Transport-line Rehabilitation and Shoreline Stabilization Project. This project will rebuild Pump Stations 45, 46, and 47 in Manchester due to outdated infrastructure. It also includes replacing or upgrading the gravity pipe along the beach between the pump stations. Construction began on the project in February 2017, and the project is expected to be complete in March 2019 (Kitsap County Public Works 2018b). Beach Drive Stormwater Water Quality Treatment Project. This project would utilize Green Stormwater Solutions to treat runoff from this shoreline road with the goal of reducing pollution to Sinclair Inlet and Puget Sound (Kitsap County Public Works 2018c) Kitsap County Public Works: Transportation and Road Improvement Projects Kitsap County has identified several transportation and road improvement projects as follows: 4-3 Cumulative Impacts

65 Beach Drive #2 - Pave Shoulders and Stormwater Improvements. This project will construct pedestrian and bicycle facilities, along with associated underground drainage upgrades, between East Main Street and East Jessica Way. This project has an anticipated construction period from May until December 2023 (Kitsap County Public Works 2018d). East Chester Road - East Madrone Avenue Shoulders. This project will consist of constructing a pedestrian walkway on East Chester Road and East Madrone Avenue between Alaska Avenue and California Avenue. This project has an anticipated construction period from May 2023 through January 2024 (Kitsap County Public Works 2018e). Alaska Avenue - Roadway Shoulders. This project will construct a pedestrian walkway and associated drainage improvements on Alaska Avenue from Mile Hill Drive to East Madrone Ave. This project has an anticipated construction period from March 2023 through January 2024 (Kitsap County Public Works 2018f). Manchester - California Green Street Project. This project will create a green street on California Street in Manchester. Green street projects include techniques designed to handle stormwater runoff in a more natural way (Kitsap County Public Works 2018g). Seal Coat Pilot Project. This is a three-phase project to evaluate various pavement preservation methods at three separate locations in south Kitsap County. Phase 1 was completed in 2016; Phase 2 was completed in Phase 3 is scheduled for construction in July 2018 (Kitsap County Public Works 2018h). Jackson Avenue - Salmonberry Road Intersection. To improve safety, Kitsap County proposes to replace the existing limited control intersection with a single-lane roundabout. Construction is anticipated to begin April 2020 (Kitsap County Public Works 2018i) Manchester Fuel Department Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan The MFD Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) is currently being revised to incorporate new data on natural resources. The revised INRMP will guide the management of natural resources to support the installation mission while protecting and enhancing the installations resources for multiple use, sustainable yield, and biological integrity. The plan strives to fully integrate and coordinate the natural resources program with other MFD plans and activities. The INRMP establishes goals that represent a long-term vision for the health and quality of MFD s ecosystem and natural resources (Navy 2016a). The Navy is preparing an EA for the INRMP Future Underground Storage Tank Closures at MFD The Navy has identified a need to ultimately close-in-place all remaining USTs under a future action at MFD. Under the future activity, up to all remaining USTs would be closed in place over an approximate 10-year period; however, the timing, details, and sequence of UST closure has yet to be determined. Closure of the remaining USTs at MFD would be subject to a full and detailed NEPA analysis and consultations to ultimately determine the preferred method of closure and associated impacts. The closure would also be conducted in accordance with applicable Washington State UST regulations (WAC ). 4-4 Cumulative Impacts

66 4.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis Where feasible, the cumulative impacts were assessed using quantifiable data; however, for many of the resources included for analysis, quantifiable data is not available, and a qualitative analysis was undertaken. In addition, where an analysis of potential environmental effects for future actions has not been completed, assumptions were made regarding cumulative impacts related to this EA where possible. The analytical methodology presented in Chapter 3, which was used to determine potential impacts to the various resources analyzed in this document, was also used to determine cumulative impacts Greenhouse Gases Implementation of the Proposed Action would contribute a nominal amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the form of fossil fuels combustion from construction and operational activities. However, due to the relatively small project scale, the annual greenhouse gas emissions would be well below the CEQ threshold of 25,000 metric tons and would not likely contribute to global warming to any discernible extent. Over the last two decades, many pollutant levels have declined, and air quality has improved in the Puget Sound Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR). Residential development is likely to be the biggest contributor to regional air quality impacts. In most cases, residential development within the AQCR includes removal of forested habitat, and the associated ecosystem function of improving air quality. Heavy equipment is used during construction, and post construction, as residences become occupied, air quality is further reduced by paved surfaces, vehicle use, and increased energy demands. It is worth noting, however, that despite this general growth trend happening throughout the AQCR for the last several decades, improved technology and legal standards for vehicles and heavy equipment, and increased use of renewable energy, have contributed to an overall improvement in regional air quality. As population growth continues, Kitsap County is also engaged in many improvements to reduce vehicle use, including the establishment of the Southworth Fast Ferry commuter option, and multiple road improvements to improve safety for pedestrian and cyclist usage. With these improvements in place, the impacts of population growth on air quality may be further reduced. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in significant impacts within the ROI Water Resources Description of Geographic Study Area The study area for water resources includes all surface water within MFD, as well as the surface water to which MFD is tributary. Estuarine waters within Puget Sound are not included in the ROI, as the Proposed Action is not anticipated to impact estuarine water resources Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions Projects that have the potential to contribute to a cumulative impact include residential development (including the McCormick Woods Expansion), the Kitsap County Public Works stormwater improvements, and Future UST Closures at MFD. 4-5 Cumulative Impacts

67 Cumulative Impact Analysis All present and reasonably foreseeable future development projects would be subject to water quality controls. Any construction project disturbing greater than 1 acre is also required to comply with a NPDES permit. Cumulative water resources impacts that would occur with implementation of the alternatives would primarily include the potential for increases in erosion and sediment loading from the ongoing regional development. Surface water quality measures are required as part of the Kitsap County planning approval process. In one example, the Phase V for the McCormick Woods Expansion is required to have retention and detention for mitigation of stormwater quantity resulting from an increase in impervious surfaces (Kitsap County Hearing Examiner 2007). Similarly, Kitsap County requires avoidance of all wetlands, with vegetative buffers to protect wetland water quality. The Kitsap County Public Works projects will improve regional water quality as well. The sewer and stormwater improvements all include water quality enhancement features such as bioretention (i.e., using vegetation in retention features), use of ponds, and media filtering to reduce the possibility of pollutants entering the regional waters. Improvements to pump stations and gravity mains would also improve flood management and enhance water resources. Future UST closures at MFD would be implemented in accordance with NPDES permit requirements, to include preparation of a SWPPP and the application of BMPs. Currently, stormwater management at MFD reflects runoff and treatment pathways established following the construction of the MFD Tank Farm. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in significant water quality impacts within the ROI Geological Resources Description of Geographic Study Area The study area for cumulative impacts to geological resources is MFD and its immediate vicinity Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions Because of the limited potential for impacts to the ROI for geological resources from off-installation projects, the projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative impact would be the Construction of the MFD Tank Farm, Manchester Pump Station Retrofit, Beach Drive #2 Improvements, East Chester Road East Madrone Avenue Shoulders, and Future UST Closures at MFD Cumulative Impact Analysis The identified cumulative projects and the Proposed Action would result in surface disturbance. There would be no increased risk for seismic-related impacts or erosion with the implementation of the identified impact avoidance and minimization measures. The construction of the MFD Tank Farm resulted in substantial alteration to topography and impacts to geological resources. Future UST closures at MFD would need either on-site soils (cleared for re-use) and/or off-site soils. Soil would be stockpiled on flat and previously disturbed/developed areas and managed in accordance with BMPs. Once the remaining USTs are filled, there would be no discernable change in topography. Cumulative impacts to geological resources from past, present, and future actions within the ROI would be less than significant because all projects, public and private, are required to be completed consistent with SWPPP and erosion control BMPs. No major changes in regional topography are anticipated. 4-6 Cumulative Impacts

68 Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in significant impacts within the ROI Cultural Resources Description of Geographic Study Area The study area for cumulative impacts to cultural resources is MFD and its immediate vicinity Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions The only project with the potential to contribute to a cumulative impact to cultural resources would be the revisions to the MFD INRMP and Future UST Closures at MFD Cumulative Impact Analysis There are no known historic or archaeological sites on MFD. All activities conducted in accordance with the INRMP would comply with all cultural resources laws and regulations. Cumulative impacts to cultural resources from past, present, and future actions within the ROI would be less than significant because the Proposed Action is unlikely to have any impacts to cultural resources, and the Proposed Action would comply with the state and federal laws which govern management and protection of cultural resources that are discovered in the course of project implementation. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in significant impacts within the ROI Biological Resources Description of Geographic Study Area The study area for biological resources includes MFD and the surrounding areas used for forage by animals potentially found in or near MFD Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions All the identified cumulative projects have the potential to contribute a cumulative impact to biological resources Cumulative Impact Analysis Residential development, especially large-scale planned developments, have the greatest potential to impact biological resources in the study area. The McCormick Woods Subdivision alone is 7,000 acres (i.e., more than 350 times larger than the impact associated with the Proposed Action). Historically, the study area (including MFD prior to Tank Farm construction) was heavily forested, but the region is now more urbanized. As such, the study area is likewise becoming increasingly developed and the natural forested conditions are giving way to more artificial, groomed, and maintained landscapes. The increase in population in the region is currently causing substantial habitat loss, loss of diversity, and increased, long-term risk of damage to biological resources via introduction of invasive species in landscaping, and potential conflicts through interactions such as car accidents. Furthermore, increased populations of house pets in the area may further depress the availability of small prey species that may already be stressed by habitat loss. Conversely, the Kitsap County Public Works stormwater and sewer projects and 4-7 Cumulative Impacts

69 the California Green Street Project would result in indirect beneficial impacts to biological resources from improved water quality. Through the application of the MFD INRMP actions, the Navy would provide for the long-term ecosystem management planning that informs and guides MFD in the management of natural resources in support of the military mission, while protecting and enhancing natural resources for multiple uses, sustainable yield, and biological integrity. Cumulative biological resource impacts from past, present, and future actions within the ROI would be less than significant because biological impacts from the Proposed Action would not contribute substantially to the biological impacts throughout the study area. Direct impacts associated with the Proposed Action would occur on less than 20 acres of marginal quality habitat with a high presence of invasive species. Indirect impacts would be associated with noise disturbances that may temporarily cause wildlife to relocate or experience stress. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in significant impacts within the ROI Visual Resources Description of Geographic Study Area For the purposes of this cumulative analysis, the study area for visual resources includes MFD and the surrounding areas with a view of MFD Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions All the identified cumulative projects have the potential to contribute a cumulative impact to visual resources Cumulative Impact Analysis Cumulative visual resource impacts that would occur with implementation of the alternatives would include a general trend of development replacing the currently existing natural landscape near MFD. The use of construction equipment would temporarily alter the visual environment in the immediate area of construction. While the current and historic trends in residential development in the study area have maintained a heavy presence of mature trees, substantial tree removal would occur as part of the residential development in the region. This trend would create a more fractured landscape with substantially thinner vegetation than currently exists, with defined clumps of denser mature tree stands associated with public lands and open spaces. In the overall landscape-level changes to the visual environment, the Proposed Action represents a very small, discrete, expansion of a currently existing visual interruption that would likely be negligible when considered in the context of the overall trend of development. While the Proposed Action would create between 6 and 15 ASTs at MFD, these ASTs would occur where ASTs currently occur and would be congruent with the existing landscape. The closure and filling of remaining USTs would result in temporary visual impacts due to truck/worker trips and potential removal of some screening trees. Temporarily disturbed areas would be revegetated so that in time the affected area would approximate existing conditions. The use of vegetative screening (native trees) would reduce the visual impact to off-installation viewers. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed 4-8 Cumulative Impacts

70 Action combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in significant impacts within the ROI Transportation Description of Geographic Study Area For the purposes of this cumulative analysis, the study area for transportation is the transportation network leading to/from MFD Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions Projects and activities impacting traffic within the study area include private development within the area, the Alaska Avenue - Roadway Shoulders, East Chester Road - East Madrone Avenue - Shoulders, Beach Drive #2 - Pave Shoulders and Stormwater Improvements, the Kitsap Transit Fast Ferry Connection, and the Future UST Closures at MFD Cumulative Impact Analysis Cumulative transportation impacts that would occur with implementation of the alternatives would include discrete road closures or temporary traffic stops associated with the Kitsap County transportation projects. Beach Drive East would also be subject to closure and/or temporary traffic stops associated with the Beach Drive #2 - Pave Shoulders and Stormwater Improvements project, which is slated to start construction in The most substantial impacts would occur from the ongoing trend of residential development and local population growth contributing to more vehicles using the road and potentially causing congestion in the study area. Some of this congestion may be relieved by the opening of the Kitsap Transit fast ferry connection and regional road improvements. However, the plans available for the Manchester Ferry options did not include improved public transport to bring ferry users to the terminal, and so congestion and traffic patterns of commuters driving to the ferry may also be a concern. The Kitsap County Public Works transportation projects create more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly routes in the region. The use of these amenities may also contribute to slower traffic. Closure and fill of the remaining USTs at MFD would be subject to a NEPA analysis and consultations to ultimately determine the preferred method of closure and associated impacts. To fill all the remaining USTs at MFD, it is likely that substantial fill material would need to be brought from off-site regional locations to MFD. The fill sources are currently unknown, as are the potential transportation methods (truck or barge). If fill is needed from off-site locations via truck, it is assumed at this time that drivers would follow the same routes as presented in Figure Truck trips would occur on an intermittent basis for a period of approximately 10 years. If barges are used to deliver off-site fill, it is anticipated that impacts to marine transportation would be negligible as trips would be infrequent. However, at this time, no sources for fill have been identified nor have decisions been made regarding the transport of potential fill material. Cumulative transportation impacts from past, present, and future actions within the ROI would be less than significant because impacts associated with the Proposed Action and with the identified cumulative projects would be driven by commuting workers and would be dispersed throughout the region and absorbed through the existing road network. Population growth is likely to be a significant factor in traffic patterns and changes; however, the Proposed Action does not contribute to that population 4-9 Cumulative Impacts

71 growth. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in significant impacts within the ROI Hazardous Materials and Wastes Description of Geographic Study Area The ROI for hazardous materials and wastes includes MFD and its immediate vicinity Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions Because of the limited potential for impacts to hazardous materials and wastes off-installation, the only projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative impact would be the Future UST Closures at MFD Cumulative Impact Analysis Cumulative impacts to hazardous materials and wastes that would occur with implementation of the alternatives would include potential construction related releases. However, such releases would be avoided/minimized through implementation of SWPPPs and associated BMPs, such that impacts would not occur. In addition, any potential soil contamination found during excavations and grading would be addressed through established federal, state, and local guidelines regulating petroleum and hazardous waste. The future UST closures at MFD would be implemented in accordance with WAC , which regulates the permanent closure of USTs in Washington State and stipulates what actions must be taken to leave them in place. The accomplishment of this goal would reduce the risk of future hazardous material releases, and when combined with the Proposed Action, would result in a net beneficial impact. Cumulative impacts associated with hazardous materials and wastes from past, present, and future actions within the ROI would be less than significant because the Proposed Action, as well as identified cumulative projects would operate under approved SWPPP and hazardous materials management plans. For activities on MFD, the Navy Hazardous Material Control and Management Program and Hazardous Waste Minimization Program requirements would apply and limit the potential for adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in significant impacts within the ROI Cumulative Impacts

72 5 Other Considerations Required by NEPA 5.1 Consistency with Other Federal, State, and Local Laws, Plans, Policies, and Regulations In accordance with 40 CFR part (c), analysis of environmental consequences shall include discussion of possible conflicts between the Proposed Action and the objectives of federal, regional, state and local land use plans, policies, and controls. Table 5-1 identifies the principal federal and state laws and regulations that are applicable to the Proposed Action and describes briefly how compliance with these laws and regulations would be accomplished. Table 5-1 Principal Federal and State Laws Applicable to the Proposed Action Federal, State, Local, and Regional Land Use Status of Compliance Plans, Policies, and Controls Preparation of this EA has been conducted in compliance NEPA; CEQ NEPA implementing regulations; Navy with NEPA and in accordance with CEQ regulations and the procedures for Implementing NEPA Navy s NEPA procedures. MFD is located in Kitsap County, which is in attainment for criteria pollutants; because of this, a formal conformity Clean Air Act (CAA) determination is not required. Emissions would be well below applicable thresholds. The Proposed Action would be implemented in compliance with Washington s Construction General Permit, to include Clean Water Act (CWA) preparation of a SWPPP and use of BMPs. No impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. would occur. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) The Navy is preparing CZMA compliance documentation. The Navy has initiated consultation with the SHPO and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Suquamish Tribe s THPO(see Appendix A). Because no ESA listed species are within the project action Endangered Species Act (ESA) area, the Proposed Action would not impact ESA listed species. The Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) migratory bird populations and would be in compliance with the MBTA. The Proposed Action would not take, possess, or transport Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) bald or golden eagles, their nests or eggs, and would therefore be in compliance with the BGEPA. Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act Resource Conservation and Recovery Act EO 11988, Floodplain Management EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations The Navy s Installation Restoration Program would continue to monitor and conduct reviews of remedial action methods every five years as required. The Proposed Action would comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act via continued compliance with the Hazardous Waste Management Plan (NAVFAC NW 2013). The Proposed Action would not impact floodplains because no floodplains are located within the project area. The Proposed Action would comply via BMPs and pollution control measures. No disproportionately high or adverse impacts to minority and low-income communities are expected from the Proposed Action. 5-1 Other Considerations Required by NEPA

73 Table 5-1 Principal Federal and State Laws Applicable to the Proposed Action (Continued) Federal, State, Local, and Regional Land Use Status of Compliance Plans, Policies, and Controls There are no residences, schools, or other facilities used by EO 13045, Protection of Children from children within the project areas. The Proposed Action Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks would not cause environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 5.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources The Navy has initiated consultation with the SHPO and Suquamish Tribe s THPO (see Appendix A). Resources that are irreversibly or irretrievably committed to a project are those that are used on a long-term or permanent basis. This includes the use of non-renewable resources such as metal and fuel, and natural or cultural resources. These resources are irretrievable in that they would be used for this project when they could have been used for other purposes. Human labor is also considered an irretrievable resource. Another impact that falls under this category is the unavoidable destruction of natural resources that could limit the range of potential uses of that particular environment. Implementation of the Proposed Action would involve commitment of a range of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources. Raw materials, such as AST materials, fossil fuel, and labor would be expended. These materials and labor, as well as the expenditure of funds, would be irreversibly committed to the project. However, these types of construction materials and labor are not in short supply and implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. 5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts This EA has determined that the alternatives considered would not result in any significant impacts. While some impacts clearly could not be avoided altogether, the Navy has determined that all such impacts could, to at least some extent, be reduced through impact avoidance and minimization measures. 5.4 Relationship between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity NEPA requires an analysis of the relationship between a project s short-term impacts on the environment and the effects that these impacts may have on the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the affected environment. Impacts that narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment are of particular concern. This refers to the possibility that choosing one development site reduces future flexibility in pursuing other options, or that using a parcel of land or other resources often eliminates the possibility of other uses at that site. In the short-term, effects to the human environment with implementation of the Proposed Action would primarily relate to the construction activity itself. In the long-term, productivity of the action areas would remain the same, as the establishment of ASTs and associated maintenance activities at the project sites would not change the overall productivity of the area. The Proposed Action would not result in any impacts that would reduce environmental productivity or permanently narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment. 5-2 Other Considerations Required by NEPA

74 6 References Ames, K.M. and H.D.G. Maschner. (1999). Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames and Hudson Ltd., London. CalEEMod. (2017). Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod. Version: CalEEMod October. CEQ. (1997). Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC. CEQ. (2005). Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis. Washington, DC. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. (2010). Letter to Captain M.J. Olson from Gregory Griffith regarding Quarters A, B, and C, Naval Base Kitsap-Manchester. June 9. Dethier, M.N. (1990). A Marine and Estuarine Habitat Classification System for Washington State. Washington Natural Heritage Program. Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, Washington. DoD. (2015). Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) Design: Petroleum Fuel Facilities. Ecology. (2017). New EPA UST Regulations. What do the Revised EPA UST Regulations Mean for USTs in Washington State. Available at: Accessed on October 16, EDAW, Inc. (1996). Historic and Archaeological Resources Protection Plan for the Naval Fuel Depot Manchester, Washington. Seattle. On file at NAVSUP Manchester. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2018). National Flood Hazard Layer. Available at: Accessed on January 25, GeoEngineers. (2017). Geotechnical Engineering Services, Manchester Tank Farm Planning Study Fleet Logistics Center Puget Sound, Manchester, Washington. May. Grassley, J.M. and C.E. Grue (editors). (1999). An Inventory of Flora and Fauna on the U.S. Navy s Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Puget Sound, MFD, Manchester, Washington. Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. HDC. (2010). Architectural Inventory and Evaluation of Naval Supply Station Manchester, Manchester, Kitsap County, Washington. Prepared for NAVFAC Atlantic. January 6. Hersum, C. (2014) MFD Baseline Vegetation Survey. Prepared for NAVFAC NW. June. Jeffries, S.J., P. Gearin, H.R. Huber, D.L. Saul, and D.A. Pruett. (2000). Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, Olympia, Washington. Accessed at: Kane Environmental Inc. (2017). Metals-Based Paint Survey, MFD. Manchester, Washington. Prepared for NAVFAC NW. April. 6-1 References

75 Kitsap County Hearing Examiner. (2007). Office of the Hearing Examiner, Kitsap County, Report and Decision: Case No , McCormick Woods Preliminary Plat/PUD, Phase V. July 26. Kitsap County Public Utility District and Washington State Department of Ecology. (1997). Kitsap County Initial Basin Assessment. Available at: Accessed on April 4, Kitsap County Public Works. (2018a). Yukon Harbor Sewer Extension. Available at: Accessed on March 7, Kitsap County Public Works. (2018b). Pump Station 45, 46, 47 and Gravity Pipe Improvements. Available at: Accessed on March 7, Kitsap County Public Works. (2018c). Beach Drive Stormwater WQ Treatment Project. Available at: Accessed on March 7, Kitsap County Public Works. (2018d). Beach Drive #2 - Pave Shoulders and Stormwater Improvements. Available at: Accessed on March 7, Kitsap County Public Works. (2018e). East Chester Road - East Madrone Avenue - Shoulders. Available at: Accessed on March 7, Kitsap County Public Works. (2018f). Alaska Avenue - Roadway Shoulders. Available at: Accessed on March 7, Kitsap County Public Works. (2018g). Manchester - California Green Street Project. Available at: Accessed on March 7, Kitsap County Public Works. (2018h). Seal Coat Pilot Project. Available at: Accessed on March 7, Kitsap County Public Works. (2018i). Jackson Avenue - Salmonberry Road Intersection. Available at: Accessed on March 7, Kitsap Sun. (1996). McCormick Woods. November 17. Kitsap Sun. (2016). McCormick Land Sold to New Developer, who Plans to Start Building. February 24. Kitsap Transit. (2016). Passenger-Only Ferry Business Plan and Long Range Strategy: Phase Two Report. March. Lewarch, D., L. Forsman, D. Iversen, S. Kramer, and L. Larson. (2002). Cultural Resources Survey at Bremerton Sub-Region (PSNS/NAVSTA & Jackson Park Housing/NAVHOSP), Kitsap County, Washington. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Navy, Engineering Field Activity, Northwest. NAVFAC NW. (2013). Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Puget Sound, MFD. April. NAVFAC NW. (2017). Marbled Murrelet Habitat Assessment. Manchester Fuel Tank Replacement Project at MFD. November 21. NAVFAC NW. (2018). P-856 Manchester Tank Farm Improvement Project. Biological Resources Survey. March. 6-2 References

76 Navy. (2007). Final Environmental Assessment. MILCOM P-401. Replace Fuel Storage Tanks and Facilities. Naval Base Point Loma, San Diego, California. Navy. (2011). Final Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Underutilized, Excess, and Obsolete Buildings, Naval Base Kitsap at Manchester, Washington. May. Navy. (2016a). Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, Manchester Fuel Department. Navy. (2016b) Nest Monitoring Report: Investigating Nest Occupancy and Productivity of Bald Eagle and Osprey Nests at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, MFD, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Keyport and Naval Base Kitsap Bremerton. NAVFAC Northwest, Silverdale, Washington. Navy. (2017). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Proposed MILCON and Decommissioning Project. Fleet logistics Center Puget Sound Manchester, Washington. Contract No. N D- 9013, Delivery Order No Navy. (2018). Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report in Support of MILCON P-856. Prepared by CH2M. January. Notkin Mechanical Engineers. (2017). Tank Farm Planning Study to Provide Military Construction Project Documentation. Pearson, S.F. and M.M. Lance. (2013). Fall-winter 2012/2013 marbled murrelet at-sea densities for four strata associated with U.S. Navy facilities: Annual Research Progress Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division. Olympia, Washington. Pearson, S.F. and M.M. Lance. (2014). Fall-winter 2013/2014 marbled murrelet at-sea densities for four strata associated with U.S. Navy facilities: Annual Research Progress Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division. Olympia, Washington. Pearson, S.F. and M.M. Lance. (2015). Fall-spring 2014/2015 marbled murrelet at-sea densities for four strata associated with U.S. Navy facilities: Annual Research Progress Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division. Olympia, Washington. Pearson, S.F. and M.M. Lance. (2016). Fall-spring 2015/2016 marbled murrelet at-sea densities in five strata associated with U.S. Navy facilities: Annual Research Progress Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division. Olympia, Washington. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Population, Household, and Race Demographics for Washington, Kitsap County, City of Port Orchard, Manchester CDP, Parkwood CDP, and East Port Orchard CDP. U.S. Census Bureau. (2016a). Population, Household, and Race Demographics for Washington, Kitsap County, City of Port Orchard, Manchester CDP, Parkwood CDP, and East Port Orchard CDP American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. U.S. Census Bureau. (2016b). Economic Characteristics, Employment for Washington, Kitsap County, and Manchester CDP American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey. (2018). Custom Soil Resource Report for Kitsap County Area, Washington. Obtained on February 22, References

77 U.S. Geological Survey. (1998). Hydrogeologic Framework of the Puget Sound Aquifer System, Washington and British Columbia. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1424-d prepared by J.J. Vaccaro, A.J. Hansen, Jr., and M.A. Jones. Available at: Accessed on April 4, USEPA. (2018). UST Technical Compendium about the 2015 UST Regulations. Field-Constructed Tanks. Available at: Accessed on March 1, USFWS. (2007). National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. Available at: USFWS. (2008). Birds of Conservation Concern United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: WSDOT. (2016) Annual Traffic Report. Available at: Accessed on February 15, References

78 7 List of Preparers The below contractor staff from Cardno and Scout Environmental prepared this EA in collaboration with the following Navy and Defense Logistics Agency personnel. U.S. Department of the Navy Loren Anderson Design Manager, NAVFAC NW B.S., Mechanical Engineering Ellen Angeles Project Manager - Civil, NAVFAC NW B.S., Civil Engineering Glenn E. Schmitt, P.E. Regional Fuel Manager, NAVSUP FLC Puget Sound M.S., Thermal and Environmental Engineering Danae Smith Environmental Protection Specialist, NAVSUP Naval Petroleum Office M.S., Environmental Science and Management Jackie Stoner Environmental Planner/Project Manager, NAVFAC NW B.S., Environmental Policy and Assessment Defense Logistics Agency Stacey Christenbury Environmental Protection Specialist, Installation Operations for Energy M.B.A., Business Administration Prime Contractor - Cardno Jackie Clark B.S., Business Administration Years of Experience: 9 Responsible for: Technical Editing, Graphic Design, and Document Production Stephanie Clarke B.S., Biology and Environmental Studies Years of Experience: 3 Responsible for: GIS analysis Scott Coombs M.S., Marine Science Years of Experience: 20 Responsible for: Water Resources and Geological Resources Caitlin Jafolla B.A., Urban Studies and Planning Years of Experience: 6 Responsible for: Air Quality, Transportation 7-1 List of Preparers

79 Isla Nelson B.A., Anthropology Years of Experience: 17 Responsible for: Cultural Resources Jennifer Weitkamp B.S., Fisheries Years of Experience: 21 Responsible for: Deputy Project Manager, Biological Resources, Hazardous Materials and Wastes Lisa Woeber B.B.A., Business Administration Years of Experience: 20 Responsible for: Technical Review Subcontractor Scout Environmental Ryan Pingree M.S., Environmental Science and Management Years of Experience: 21 Responsible for: Project Management Melanie Hernandez J.D., Environmental Law Years of Experience: 21 Responsible for: NEPA Compliance Review 7-2 List of Preparers

80 Appendix A Public and Agency Participation A-1 Appendix A

81 ~ff'',).,._,/~ ~~. 00 II - DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL BASE KITSAP 120 SOUTH DEWEY ST BREMERTON, WA Ser PRB4/ Oct 17 Allyson Brooks, PhD State Historic Preservation Officer Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation P.O. Box Olympia, WA Dear Dr. Brooks: SUBJECT: PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS AND DECOMMISIONING OF UNDERGROUND TANKS, MANCHESTER FUEL DEPOT, MANCHESTER, WASHINGTON In accordance with Section I 06 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act, the Navy is initiating consultation regarding the proposed undertaking to construct six aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and decommission and close 29 concrete underground tanks, five steel underground tanks, and a commercial truck loading rack at Manchester Fuel Depot (MFD) which is located in Manchester, WA (Enclosure I). Consistent with 36 CFR ( d), the APE for this project is defined as the geographic area within which the proposed undertaking may directly cause effects to historic properties. Enclosure (2) depicts the APE as encompassing a majority of the built environment within the MFD operational boundary. This area includes areas of construction, laydown, temporary roads, piping, and other utility connections. The undertaking will construct six ASTs within a secondary containment system. The tanks will be, connected to the existing fuel piping system, with a fixed cone roof, and sited to avoid mapped fault lines, and currently known contaminated sites. The design will include remote impoundment, secondary containment to minimize the facility footprint and utilize the site topography, new above ground fuel piping, reuse of the existing tunnel piping where applicable, and new pumps and piping servicing the existing fuel truck loading rack. Also, all existing underground tanks will be closed in place. Existing lighting, power and closed circuit televisions systems will be removed or revised as required for the new tanks. Existing water main piping, valves, and hydrants within the project area will be disconnected from service and demolished. The unused fuel lines to the decommissioned tanks will be purged of fuel, cut, capped, and abandoned in place or removed. Electrical systems including area lighting, motor operated valves, and controls will be demolished or relocated. The Navy requests your concurrence on the APE. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Amanda Bennett. She can be reached by phone at (360) or by at amanda.j.bennett@navy.mil. Sincere, Figures: I. Project Location 2. Area of Potential Effect

82 Figure 1. Project Location

83 Figure 2. Area ofpotential Effect

84 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL BASE KITSAP 120 SOUTH DEWEY ST BREMERTON, WA Ser PRB4, Oct 17 The Suquamish Tribe The Honorable Leonard Forsman, Chairman PO Box 498 Suquamish, WA Dear Chairman Forsman: SUBJECT: PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS AND DECOMMISIONING OF UNDERGROUND TANKS, MANCHESTER FUEL DEPOT, MANCHESTER, W ASHrNGTON ln accordance with Section l 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Navy is initiating consultation regarding the proposed undertaking to construct six aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and decommission and close 29 concrete underground tanks, five steel underground tanks, and a commercial truck loading rack at Manchester Fuel Depot (MFD) which is located in Manchester, WA (Enclosure 1 ). Consistent with 36 CFR ( d), the APE for this project is defined as the geographic area within which the proposed undertaking may directly cause effects to historic properties. Enclosure (2) depicts the APE as encompassing a majority of the built environment within the MFD operational boundary. This area includes areas of construction, laydown, temporary roads, piping, and other utility connections. The undertaking will construct six ASTs within a secondary containment system. The tanks will be, connected to the existing fuel piping system, with a fixed cone roof, and sited to avoid mapped fault lines, and currently known contaminated sites. The design will include remote impoundment, secondary containment to minimize the facility footprint and utilize the site topography, new above ground fuel piping, reuse of the existing tunnel piping where applicable, and new pumps and piping servicing the existing fuel truck loading rack. Also, all existing underground tanks will be closed in place. Existing lighting, power and closed circuit televisions systems will be removed or revised as required for the new tanks. Existing water main piping, valves, and hydrants within the project area will be disconnected from service and demolished. The unused fuel lines to the decommissioned tanks will be purged of fuel, cut, capped, and abandoned in place or removed. Electrical systems including area lighting, motor operated valves, and controls will be demolished or relocated. The Navy requests your concurrence on the APE. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Amanda Bennett. She can be reached by phone at (360) or by at amanda.j.bennett@navy.mil. Figures: 1. Project Location 2. Area of Potential Effect

85 Figure 1. Project Location

86 Figure 2. Area of Potential Effect