Developing Home Port Facilities for Three NIMITZ-Class Aircraft Carriers in Support of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
July 1999
Executive Summary

Introduction

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to evaluate the environmental effects resulting from constructing and operating the facilities and infrastructure needed to create the capacity to home port three NIMITZ-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVNs) within the U.S. Pacific Fleet at four potential naval concentrations: (1) San Diego, California; (2) Bremerton, Washington; (3) Everett, Washington; and (4) Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (see Figures ES-1 through ES-3).

This EIS has been prepared in compliance with NEPA 42 U.S. Code (USC) 4321 et seq, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] Parts 1500-1508 [1997]), 32 C.F.R. Part 775 (1997), and the guidelines contained in the Chief of Naval Operations Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual Instruction (OPNAVINST) 5090.1B of November 1, 1994. It is intended to provide a full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts associated with a range of alternatives and to inform decisionmakers and the public. This EIS will be used in conjunction with other relevant materials to plan actions and to make decisions.

Purpose and need for the PROPOSED ACTION

The Navy has established a Pacific Fleet Force Structure consisting of six aircraft carriers. Home port capabilities for five of these vessels have been established at Navy installations in the continental United States. Home port facilities and infrastructure for two conventionally powered carriers (CV) and one nuclear powered carrier (CVN) currently exist at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI), Coronado, California; home port facilities and infrastructure for one CVN exist at Naval Station Everett (NAVSTA Everett), Washington; and home port facilities and infrastructure for one CVN exist at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS), Bremerton, Washington. Facilities and infrastructure exist in Japan to accommodate a forward-deployed CV.

As aging CVs reach the end of their service life and are replaced by CVNs, the Navy has a need to create the capacity to home port these new CVN assets. The U.S. Pacific fleet is currently undertaking the replacement of two such CVs within the U.S. Pacific Fleet area of responsibility (AOR). Additionally, the U.S. Pacific fleet is reevaluating the existing CVN home port capacity at NAVSTA Everett to determine if those facilities and infrastructure can efficiently support a CVN in terms of maintenance and repair capabilities and crew quality of life.

Of the six aircraft carriers homeported in the U.S. Pacific Fleet, three are currently NIMITZ-class CVNs. The CVN is a newer class of aircraft carrier requiring different homeporting shore infrastructure (e.g., electrical power and water depth). Examination of CVN Home Port Objectives and Requirements is fundamental in identifying locations to create the additional home port capacity required to support the three CVNs examined in this EIS. In broad terms, these CVN Home Port Objectives and Requirements can be described in four categories:

• Operations and training
• Facilities and infrastructure
• Maintenance
• Quality of Life (QOL) for Navy personnel

Figure ES-1 NASNI Coronado Vicinity Map

Figure ES-2 Puget Sound Vicinity Map

Figure ES-3 Pearl Harbor Naval Complex Vicinity Map

This EIS discusses how the CVN Home Port Objectives and Requirements listed above are considered in developing alternative home port locations for achieving the proposed action.

Proposed Action

To meet the projected CVN homeporting needs of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, both in terms of new CVN assets and reevaluation of the NAVSTA Everett home port capacity, the Navy proposes to select locations within the Pacific Fleet AOR for the construction of the facilities and infrastructure required to create the capacity to home port CVNs. The Navy does not propose to reevaluate the CVN home port capacity created at NASNI and PSNSY as a result of the 1993 BRAC process.

Preferred Alternative

The Navy’s preferred alternative is Alternative Two, which would upgrade the current facilities and infrastructure at NASNI (which has the homeport capacity to support one CVN and two CVs) with the additional capacity required to support a total of three CVNs and would maintain the existing CVN homeport capacity at NAVSTA Everett. The Navy’s preference for this home port combination is based on NASNI’s accessibility to the sea and training ranges; PHNSY’s inaccessibility to training ranges and the lack of facilities to support a carrier air wing; and the operational and quality of life advantages of the existing CVN home port at NAVSTA Everett and the assumption that depot maintenance for that CVN can be successfully completed without a significant adverse impact on crew quality of life or maintenance schedules and costs.

This assumption is based upon the expectation that the Department of the Navy or Washington State/local governments will be able to develop programs to:

1. Minimize quality of life impacts including commuting times, Navy Personnel Tempo of Operations (PERSTEMPO), and quality and availability of housing for the Everett ship’s crew and their families; and
2. Avoid unacceptable impacts on shipyard and ship’s force maintenance work and costs associated with that work, during the Everett carrier’s PIA and pre and post-PIA maintenance.

Throughout the EIS process, the Navy will continue to update information relating to its selection of a preferred alternative. Because NAVSTA Everett only recently assumed its role as a CVN home port with the arrival of the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (LINCOLN) in January 1997, validation of the assumption upon which the preferred alternative is based may not occur until completion of the 1999 PIA for the LINCOLN, now occurring April to October 1999. New information developed during this first PIA for a CVN homeported at NAVSTA Everett will be carefully reviewed by the Navy, especially information necessary to ensure that impacts on quality of life and maintenance work and costs have in fact been successfully mitigated. The regulations implementing NEPA require the Navy to prepare a supplemental EA or EIS should significant new information relevant to environmental concerns bearing on the impacts of the proposed action become available.

Additional Considerations

In addition to addressing the development of homeporting facilities and infrastructure for these three CVNs, this EIS addresses the following issues:

• The preservation of an existing transient CVN berth at NASNI
• The modernization of existing CVN home port facilities at PSNS
• Relocation of up to four Fast Combat Logistic Support Ships (AOEs) homeported at PSNS

The transient berth at NASNI provides direct land access from the ship berth to an airfield for air wing logistic support, including aircraft onloads and offloads for Pacific Northwest homeported CVNs. The majority of the CVNs' underway training is off southern California (SOCAL) and the only carrier access to a West Coast airfield is at NASNI. Therefore, it is essential that transient CVNs remain able to moor temporarily at NASNI to load and off-load their air wing.

Modernization of existing CVN berthing facilities at PSNS is based on new criteria established by the Navy for CVN home port facilities. Specifically, existing berths must be dredged and existing piers must be widened to comply with current criteria.

Creating additional CVN home port capacity at PSNS would require relocating up to four AOEs currently homeported at that location. Therefore, impacts of relocating up to four AOEs will be analyzed in this EIS.

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

The CVN Home Port Objectives and Requirements discussed below that must be met for a location to be reasonably considered as a CVN home port. Some level of facility improvements are needed to provide an adequate CVN home port at all locations. The level of facility improvements would be specific to the location and number of CVNs homeported at that location. Candidate locations were selected for consideration in this EIS if they could satisfy the objectives and requirements after the application of the following three criteria:

• location within the U.S. Pacific Fleet’s Area of Responsibility;
• capable of avoiding the need for extensive modifications to or construction of shore infrastructure and facilities; and
• capable of providing CVN maintenance in the ship’s home port area with the goal of minimizing the impact on crew quality of life.

Using the broad objectives outlined above, the Navy identified (DON 1997a) three concentrations of naval presence within the Pacific Fleet for consideration: San Diego, the Pacific Northwest, and Hawaii.

Specific locations for homeport capacity were arrived at by examining existing ports within the three concentrations described above, to determine how well they were capable of satisfying the following CVN Home Port Objectives and Requirements:

• Operations and Training;
• Facilities;
• Maintenance; and
• Quality of Life for Navy Personnel.

From this examination, four locations were identified as candidates: NASNI, PSNS, NAVSTA Everett, and PHNSY. All other locations were rejected from consideration in this EIS due to their inability to meet the CVN homeporting objectives and requirements stated above.

The Navy (DON 1997a) used the CVN Home Port Objectives and Requirements to determine what facility construction would be necessary at each of the four CVN homeporting locations to support a CVN. The analysis also included evaluating the feasibility of homeporting more than one CVN at each location with respect to (1) the additional construction projects that would be required and (2) other related (but not CVN-specific) projects that might be required based on the number of CVNs homeported.

The Navy then determined a reasonable range of combinations of CVNs and AOEs for each location (DON 1997a). Some combinations of CVNs and AOEs were considered but eliminated as they did not satisfy the CVN Home Port Objectives and Requirements. Finally, combinations of CVNs at locations were brought together into five alternatives, each capable of providing home ports for the three CVNs addressed in this EIS. Each alternative requires a varying level of facilities development, but satisfies CVN Home Port Objectives and Requirements. In addition to the reasonable range of five alternatives, a No Action Alternative is included as required by NEPA. The results of the analysis determining a range of reasonable home port alternatives used in this EIS are displayed in Table ES-1. Table ES-1 is also reproduced at the end of Volume 1.

CVN Home Port Facility and Infrastructure Improvements

Table ES-2 illustrates the facilities and improvements required for each of the five CVN Home Port alternatives in order to satisfy the CVN Home Port Objectives and Requirements. No improvements would occur under the No Action Alternative.

CVN Homeporting alternative Costs

The costs associated with each of the CVN homeporting alternatives are compared below based on "best information available" estimates. Costs are normalized over a 30-year life cycle. Alternative Six (the No Action Alternative) costs purposefully have been calculated at zero by subtracting "status quo" and "baseline" costs to facilitate homeporting alternative comparisons. The status quo is defined as: two CVs at NASNI, four AOEs at PSNS, and one CVN at NAVSTA Everett. The cost of the status quo is $1,263,564,754, representing the operations and housing costs of these ships. The baseline cost, $43,167,039, is the cost associated with operating, maintaining, and housing the three CVNs and four AOEs as described in Alternative Six. Status quo and baseline costs have been subtracted from all alternatives in order to accurately reflect the incremental cost of each alternative.

Alternatives	Cost
Alternative One	$143,064,637
Alternative Two	$191,043,560
Alternative Three	$580,851,882
Alternative Four	$214,583,470
Alternative Five	$399,995,135
Alternative Six	$0

 

Table ES-1. Homeport Capacity Alternatives for CVNs and AOEs within the U.S. Pacific Fleet
		Capacity Alternatives (numbers of ships)
		One	Two		Three	Four	Five	Six (No Action)
Home Port Locations
NASNI		3	3		3	2	1	2
PSNS		2	1(4)		1(4)	1(4)	2(2)	2(4)
NAVSTA Everett		0(4)	1		0	2	1(2)	1
PHNSY		0	0		1	0	1	0
Alternative One NASNI PSNS NAVSTA Everett PHNSY		Facilities for Two Additional CVNs: Capacity for Total of Three CVNs Facilities for One Additional CVN and Relocation of Four AOEs: Capacity for Total of Two CVNs Facilities for Removal of Existing CVN and Addition of Four AOEs: Capacity for No CVNs Facilities for No CVN: No Change
Alternative Two NASNI PSNS NAVSTA Everett PHNSY		Facilities for Two Additional CVNs: Capacity for Total of Three CVNs Facilities for No Additional CVN: No Change — Capacity for Total of One CVN Facilities for No Additional CVN: No Change — Capacity for Total of One CVN Facilities for No CVN: No Change
Alternative Three NASNI PSNS NAVSTA Everett PHNSY		Facilities for Two Additional CVNs: Capacity for Total of Three CVNs Facilities for No Additional CVN: No Change — Capacity for Total of One CVN Facilities for Removal of Existing CVN: Capacity for Total of No CVNs Facilities for One CVN: Capacity for Total of One CVN
Alternative Four NASNI PSNS NAVSTA Everett PHNSY		Facilities for One Additional CVN: Capacity for Total of Two CVNs Facilities for No Additional CVN: No Change — Capacity for Total of One CVN Facilities for One Additional CVN: Capacity for Total of Two CVNs Facilities for No CVN: No Change
Alternative Five NASNI PSNS NAVSTA Everett PHNSY		Facilities for No Additional CVN: Capacity for Total of One CVN Facilities for One Additional CVN and Relocation of Two AOEs: Capacity for Total of Two CVNs Facilities for No Additional CVN and Addition of Two AOEs: Capacity for Total of One CVN Facilities for One CVN: Capacity for Total of One CVN
Alternative Six NASNI PSNS NAVSTA Everett PHNSY		(No Action Alternative) No Additional Facilities for One Additional CVN: No Additional Capacity for Total of Two CVNs No Additional Facilities for One Additional CVN: No Additional Capacity for Total of Two CVNs No Additional CVN: No Change —Total of One CVN No CVN: No Change
Notes: Numbers given are total number of CVNs for which capacity would be available at a site. NASNI and PSNS each have one CVN assigned and they are not addressed by this EIS action. (2) — Location of Two AOEs (4)— Location of four AOEs
Table ES-2. Construction Projects Needed to Support CVN Homeporting Capacity Alternatives
Alternative One
NASNI	Two Additional CVNs Total Three CVNs			Construct CVN berthing wharf and miscellaneous structures Modifications to Berth L
PSNS	One Additional CVN Total Two CVNs			Pierside and turning basin dredging Pier D replacement Utility upgrades to both sides of Pier D
NAVSTA Everett	No CVNs Addition of Four AOEs			Mooring dolphin for AOEs Electrical upgrade for AOEs North Wharf: Dredging, Utilities, Structural repairs
PHNSY	No CVNs			No projects
Alternative Two
NASNI	Two Additional CVNs Total Three CVNs			Construct CVN berthing wharf and miscellaneous structures Modifications to Berth L
PSNS	No Additional CVN Total One CVN			Pierside and turning basin dredging Pier D replacement Electrical upgrades to one side of Pier D
NAVSTA Everett	No Additional CVN Total One CVN			No projects
PHNSY	No CVNs			No projects
Alternative Three
NASNI	Two Additional CVNs Total Three CVNs			Construct CVN berthing wharf and miscellaneous structures Modifications to Berth L
PSNS	No Additional CVN Total One CVN			Pierside and turning basin dredging Pier D replacement Electrical upgrades to one side of Pier D
NAVSTA Everett	Remove Existing CVN No CVN			No projects
PHNSY	One CVN Total One CVN			Dredging and turning basins Controlled industrial facility (CIF); Pump/valve testing facility Pure water production facility Utility and structural upgrade Parking garage Drydock #4 upgrade Personnel support facilities
Alternative Four
NASNI	One Additional CVN Total Two CVNs			Construct CVN berthing wharf and miscellaneous structures
PSNS	No Additional CVN Total One CVN			Pierside and turning basin dredging Pier D replacement Electrical upgrades to one side of Pier D
NAVSTA Everett	One Additional CVN Total Two CVNs			Parking structure Electrical conversion to 4,160-V Expand hazardous waste facility Expand steam plant and add two oil waste tanks Pier A: Dredging North Wharf: Dredging, Utilities, Structural repairs
PHNSY	No CVN			No projects
Alternative Five
NASNI	No Additional CVNs Total One CVN			No projects
PSNS	One Additional CVN Total Two CVNs Removal of Two AOEs			Pierside and turning basin dredging Pier D replacement Utility upgrades to both sides of Pier D
NAVSTA Everett	No Additional CVNs Total One CVN Addition of Two AOEs			Mooring dolphin and electronic upgrade for AOEs North Wharf: Dredging, Utilities, Structural repairs, Expand Hazardous waste facility expansion
PHNSY	One CVN			Dredging and turning basins CIF Pump/valve testing facility Pure water production facility Utility and structural upgrades Parking garage Drydock #4 upgrade Personnel support facilities
Alternative Six
NASNI	One Additional CVN Total Two CVNs			No projects
PSNS	One Additional CVN Total Two CVNs			No projects
NAVSTA Everett	No Additional CVNs Total of One CVN			No projects
PHNSY	No CVN			No projects

Environmental Comparison of Alternatives

This EIS analyzes the potential environmental effects of the proposed action at various locations with varying numbers of CVNs and AOEs, including any associated facilities and infrastructure development and dredging. Environmental resource areas addressed in this EIS include: geology, topography, and soils; dredging, hydrology, and water quality; pollution prevention; socioeconomics, environmental justice, schools, and housing; transportation/circulation/parking; public facilities and recreation; safety and environmental health; aesthetics; and utilities. Issue analysis includes an evaluation of the direct, indirect, short-term, and cumulative impacts associated with the proposed actions.

Table ES-3 summarizes the analysis and comparison of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project alternatives presented in Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6. The table presents significant impacts and mitigation measures for each alternative. The agency responsible for monitoring each measure is listed in parentheses after the measure.

CVN Home port Locations Eliminated From Consideration

Those alternative home port sites considered but eliminated in the Coronado area included the following: NAVSTA San Diego; Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado; Navy Pier; and Naval Submarine Base, San Diego. These sites would require construction, dredging, and increased utilities capacity to accommodate a homeported CVN. None of these sites could reasonably satisfy CVN homeporting requirements due to space and logistical constraints. Within the Puget Sound area, Naval Submarine Base (SUBASE) Bangor (a Trident submarine home port located on the shores of the Hood Canal in Kitsap County, 12 miles northwest of Bremerton) was considered. This site was rejected because all basic CVN support facilities including a pier would need to be constructed. In the Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Ford Island Pier F5 was considered inferior due to the extent of improvements necessary to accommodate a CVN, and NAVSTA Berths B22 and B23 were considered inferior to Piers B2 and B3 due to the need for greater dredging, structural improvements, and utility upgrades.

Those scenarios for CVN homeporting facility development considered but eliminated included the following: a third additional CVN at NASNI (a total of four CVNs); a second additional CVN at PSNS (a total of three CVNs); a second additional CVN at NAVSTA Everett (a total of three CVNs), and a second CVN at PHNSY (total of two CVNs). These actions would not reasonably satisfy the Navy’s CVN Home Port Objectives and Requirements.

Additionally, the concept of establishing an air wing in Hawaii was considered but eliminated from further consideration because it is not economically feasible nor operationally supportable in light of the requirements to (1) establish an air station from which to operate and (2) for the air wing to return to CONUS for extended periods to accomplish the majority of its training. The option of constructing a Depot Maintenance Facility at NAVSTA Everett was examined but deemed to be unreasonable. Both cost and close proximity to depot maintenance facilities at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard were significant factors in this decision. Construction of more propulsion plant depot maintenance capacity in the Pacific Northwest would create excess regional maintenance infrastructure, and would be counter to BRAC efforts to reduce excess infrastructure.

Table ES-3 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigations

Radiological Aspects of Nimitz-Class Aircraft Carrier Homeporting

The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP) provides comprehensive technical management of all aspects of Naval nuclear propulsion plant design, construction, and operation including careful consideration of reactor safety, radiological, environmental, and emergency planning concerns. The record of the NNPP’s environmental and radiological performance at the operating bases and shipyards presently used by nuclear-powered warships demonstrates the continued effectiveness of this management philosophy. This effectiveness is demonstrated by the fact that Naval reactors have accumulated over 4,900 reactor-years of operation without a reactor accident or any other problem having a significant effect on the environment. It further demonstrates that application of the environmental practices that are standard throughout the NNPP would assure the absence of any adverse radiological environmental effect at any home port site.

Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative analysis was based on projects that are proposed for construction after 1998 (the projected baseline for implementing the proposed action), or reasonably anticipated to be built within the years 1998 to 2005. The cumulative impact region of influence encompassing the homeporting location varied in extent depending upon the environmental resource assessed. For example, the region of influence for terrestrial hydrology and water quality included the watershed surrounding the home port location, the area in which local water sources interact. Where appropriate, past projects or previous development that have influenced the environmental resource’s region of influence were also considered. In analyzing the proposed action’s incremental contribution to regional cumulative impacts, the action that would have the greatest potential for adverse environmental impact on each particular home port location environmental resource was used to provide a potential worst case cumulative analysis. For example, at NASNI, no additional home port facilities for no additional CVN (Alternative Five) would have the greatest effect on socioeconomics, while creating facilities to home port two additional CVNs (Alternatives One, Two, or Three) would have the greatest environmental effect on terrestrial hydrology and water quality.

Past, present, and reasonable foreseeable projects in the area may have incremental adverse impacts related to geologic hazards, hydrology, marine water quality, sediment quality in the Bay’s biological resources, and cultural resources. The proposed action would also have impacts that, while not exceeding the thresholds of significance on an individual project basis, do add to the effects already resulting from other projects in the area.

NASNI

The proposed action (Alternatives One, Two or Three) would add incrementally to impacts to property and human safety associated with geologic hazards and erosional hazards; however, measures incorporated into the project including building code regulations, and flood control measures, appropriate soil compaction, and standard erosion control measures reduce the incremental effects such that there would not be a cumulatively significant impact. Cumulative effects of reasonably foreseeable development projects and the proposed action on hydrology and marine water quality would be reduced to less than significant levels with incorporation of federal, state, and local regulatory procedures. Cumulative changes to sediment quality from historical inputs combined with other past, present, and future projects could constitute a significant impact to beneficial uses in specific water segments of San Diego Bay. Potential impacts from construction and operations associated with creating capacity to home port two additional CVNs (Alternatives One, Two, or Three) would include impacts to eelgrass and shallow water communities from dredging and filling as well as short-term disruption of California least tern foraging in the vicinity of Pier J/K, and at a proposed mitigation site. However, these cumulative effects would be temporary and would be reduced to less than significant levels by construction of the mitigation site. The proposed action, in combination with reasonably foreseeable projects on NASNI, the Silver Strand, and elsewhere in and around San Diego Bay, could significantly impact these sensitive resources by incrementally reducing habitat areas, reducing population sizes for sensitive plant and animal species, or affect their survival and reproductive success. The mitigation measures proposed as part of the proposed action, however, would reduce the incremental impact on sensitive plant species such that there would not be a cumulatively significant impact. Cumulative impacts due to shading on marine biology from the proposed action together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would be less than significant. The proposed action of creating the capacity to home port two additional CVNs (Alternatives One, Two, or Three) would not contribute to cumulative impacts on cultural resources adjacent to or on ancient shorelines. Back to Alternatives

PSNS

The cumulative impact of the proposed action (Alternatives One through Five) and reasonably foreseeable projects on geological resources could be potentially significant. However, measures incorporated into the proposed action, including building code regulations, flood control measures, appropriate soil compaction, and standard erosion control measures, reduce the incremental effects such that there would not be a cumulatively significant impact. Cumulative effects of reasonably foreseeable development projects and the proposed action on hydrology and marine water quality would be reduced to less than significant levels with incorporation of federal, state, and local regulatory procedures. Soil and groundwater remediation related to creating the facilities to home port one additional CVN (Alternative Five), in conjunction with any similar remediation occurring during other related project development in the vicinity, would be a beneficial cumulative impact. The proposed action (Alternatives One through Five) would not incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts on salmonid species as dredging and construction would occur outside the salmon outmigration window. Although there is the potential for reasonably foreseeable projects to impact cultural resources within the greater Sinclair Inlet area, the proposed action’s incremental contribution to this cumulative impact would be less than significant. Cumulative impacts resulting from reasonably foreseeable projects and the proposed action would be localized and would end upon completion of construction such that effects on environmental justice associated with noise and air quality impacts would be less than significant. The proposed action (all alternatives) would not increase vessel traffic within the Suquamish Tribe’s Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds. Back to Alternatives

NAVSTA Everett

The proposed action (Alternatives One, Four, and Five) would add incrementally to impacts to property and human safety associated with geologic hazards and erosional hazards; however, measures incorporated into the project including building code regulations, flood control measures, appropriate soil compaction, and standard erosion control measures reduce the incremental effects such that there would not be a cumulatively significant impact. Cumulative effects of reasonably foreseeable development projects and the proposed action on hydrology and marine water quality would be reduced to less than significant levels with incorporation of federal, state, and local regulatory procedures. The proposed action, in conjunction with those of other reasonably foreseeable projects, would have a small, localized, and temporary contribution to the total watershed-based inputs of contaminants into Puget Sound. The proposed action’s incremental contribution to this cumulative impact would be less than significant. The proposed action (Alternatives One, Four, and Five) would not contribute to cumulative impacts on salmonid species and Dungeness crabs because measures incorporated into the project, including scheduling dredging and construction during non-peak outmigration months, would avoid impacts to salmon and other fish, such that there would not be a cumulatively significant impact. The proposed action of creating the capacity to homeport one additional CVN (Alternative Four) along with reasonably foreseeable projects would result in a significant cumulative impact on traffic. Measures incorporated into the project, including roadway and intersection improvements outside of NAVSTA Everett, would reduce the incremental effects such that there would not be a cumulatively significant impact. Cumulative impacts resulting from reasonably foreseeable projects and the proposed action would be localized and would end upon completion of construction such that effects on environmental justice associated with noise and air quality impacts would be less than significant. Creating the capacity to home port additional vessels or increase the number of vessel movements in the waters around NAVSTA Everett (Alternative One, Four, and Five) would encroach within the Tulalip Tribe’s "Usual and Accustomed fishing places." This impact would be short term, and would not cause a disproportionately high and adverse impact on tribal members. The proposed action and the relocation of the CCDG-3 cruiser-destroyer group would not substantially impact environmental justice issues related to Native American fishing activity and would not represent a significant incremental impact to regional cumulative impacts. Back to Alternatives

PHNSY

Cumulative effects of reasonably foreseeable development projects and the proposed action (Alternative Three and Five) on hydrology and marine water quality would be reduced to less than significant levels with incorporation of federal, state, and local regulatory procedures. Creating the capacity to home port one CVN (Alternative Three and Five) would add a small incremental potential for contamination of soil, stormwater runoff, and the nonpotable caprock aquifer to the geographical region of influence. The proposed action (Alternative Three and Five) and other reasonably foreseeable development projects’ potential impacts on hydrology, marine water quality, and sediment quality would be reduced to less than significant levels with incorporation of federal, state, and local regulatory procedures. The proposed action’s (Alternative Three and Five) incremental contribution to marine biological impacts would also be less than significant. The cumulative effects on marine and terrestrial biological impacts of the proposed action and reasonably foreseeable project impacts would be less than significant. The effects of projected annual growth in the region plus the traffic generated by a homeported CVN (Alternative Three and Five) would be significant. The proposed action (Alternatives Three, and Five) would add incrementally to impacts on traffic. However, measures incorporated into the project, including implementation of roadway and intersection improvements outside of PHNSY, reduce the incremental effect such that there would not be a cumulatively significant impact. The proposed action (Alternatives Three, and Five) would add incrementally to impacts on cultural resources. However, measures incorporated into the project, including implementing Section 106 evaluation process requirements that mandate the systematic inventory, assessment, and mitigation of significant effects, reduce the incremental effect such that there would not be a cumulatively significant impact. Back to Alternatives

Growth Inducement

Growth-inducing impacts are actions or circumstances that produce growth in excess of projections by local jurisdictions or regional associations of governments. Growth-inducing impacts are generally related to the availability of public services, the potential for increased development densities, and increased development pressures on adjacent properties. The extension of public facilities through an area lacking those facilities could encourage development between the newly served area and the community providing the service. These extensions of public facilities would include roads, sewer trunk lines, water transmission lines, etc. These public facilities would have an additional capacity to serve new development or they can eliminate an impediment to growth. Development of property for residential uses could raise the value of surrounding undeveloped land and increase economic pressures on those property owners to convert their land to a more intensive land use.

For this EIS, the potential economic growth associated with those CVN home port capacity alternative components that would produce a net future increase in employment would be less than significant, except at NAVSTA Everett for the one Additional CVN (Alternative Four) and at PHNSY (Alternatives Three and Five) with one CVN. The preferred CVN homeporting alternative (Alternative Two) would not result in this growth inducement potential.

Utility upgrades needed to support homeporting facility and infrastructure requirements would not remove a constraint on surrounding undeveloped areas at any of the locations for any of the alternatives. The expansion of utilities to serve the proposed action would not require extension of public utilities in undeveloped areas and would not allow for the possibility of major land expansion because the areas surrounding NASNI, PSNS, NAVSTA Everett, and PHNSY are already developed areas.

In conclusion, there would be no growth-inducing impacts associated with implementation of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative Two). There would be growth-inducing impacts associated with the implementation of Alternative Four at NAVSTA Everett with two CVNs and at PHNSY if either Alternative Three or Five is selected.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

Under the Navy’s preferred action (Alternative Two), the following irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources would occur:

The proposed creation of capacity to home port two additional CVNs at NASNI and related dredging operations would result in the replacement of existing land uses with construction of a new pier to replace the existing Pier J/K, a relocated ferry/flag landing, and electrical upgrades. Intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat that supports eelgrass would be permanently replaced by the fill area. A mitigation program to replace the lost habitat is proposed as part of the proposed action. The proposed action would result in the consumptive use of certain nonrenewable energy resources required to operate dredge support systems, barges, tugs, trucks, pumps, and equipment as well as energy expended during the construction and operation of support facilities. The dredged material disposed as backfill for construction of a new pier, at the in-bay disposal site at NAB to create shallow water habitat, at the LA-5 designated ocean disposal site, or used to enhance endangered bird habitat at NASNI would be irreversibly and irretrievably committed to the disposal process.

The proposed creation of CVN home port capacity including facilities and infrastructure improvements at PSNS and related dredging operations under Alternative Two would result in the permanent replacement of existing land uses with a new Pier D to replace the existing one. The proposed action would result in the consumptive use of certain nonrenewable energy resources required to operate dredge support systems, barges, tugs, trucks, pumps, and equipment as well as energy expended during the construction and operation of support facilities. The dredged material suitable for disposal would be disposed of at a designated disposal site in Elliott Bay near Seattle and would be irreversibly and irretrievably committed to the disposal process. Disposal of the sediment not suitable for ocean disposal in an upland landfill or CDF/CAD would be irreversible and irretrievably committed to that area.

Under Alternative One, four AOEs would be relocated at NAVSTA Everett. Additional dredging and construction would be required at the NAVSTA Everett North Wharf to accommodate FFGs relocated from Pier A. The dredged material suitable for disposal would be disposed of at a designated disposal site in Elliott Bay near Seattle and would be irreversibly and irretrievably committed to the disposal process. Under Alternative Two, a CVN would continue to be homeported at NAVSTA Everett and no irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources would result.

Under either Alternative One or Two, no CVN would be homeported at PHNSY. No irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources would result.

An irreversible commitment of facilities at any of the alternative locations would be avoided by incorporating design features that would allow complete and economical decommissioning when determined necessary by the Navy.

The Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

The short-term uses of the environment related to the proposed action would increase the overall operational efficiency of NASNI and potentially PSNS if it is selected as a home port site for one of the NIMITZ-class aircraft carriers. The dredging operations would provide berthing for NIMITZ-class aircraft carriers that would support the Navy’s mission. The long-term productivity of NASNI, PSNS, and NAVSTA Everett would thus increase as a result of the proposed action and related dredging activities. The long-term environmental consequences of the proposed action on a local level would be minimal.

The proposed action would not contribute to a further degradation of productivity of San Diego Bay because it would include measures to protect fish and wildlife habitat areas from potential adverse effects of construction, dredging, and dredged material disposal activities.

The proposed action may affect Sinclair Inlet adjacent to PSNS. The dredging effects would be short term. This action would not degrade the productivity of the Sinclair Inlet because it would include measures to protect fish and wildlife habitat areas from potential adverse effects of construction, dredging, and dredged material disposal activities.

Coordination and Public Involvement

A Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on 3 December 1996. Four scoping hearings were held, as follows: in Bremerton, Washington, on 3 February 1997; in Everett, Washington, on 4 February 1997; in Pearl City, Hawaii, on 6 February 1997; and in Coronado, California on 10 February 1997. A summary of issues identified at the scoping sessions and in letters received in responses to the NOI are included in Appendix B.

In addition to the scoping sessions, meetings were held with the following agencies:

• City of Coronado
• City of Bremerton Planning Department
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle and Los Angeles Districts
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX and Region X
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Olympia, Washington and San Diego, California)
• U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (Olympia, Washington and San Diego, California)
• California Department of Fish and Game
• California Department of Toxic Substances Control
• Hawaii Department of Health, Clean Water Branch
• Department of Business, Economics, Development and Tourism, Coastal Zone Management Program
• Hawaii State Historic Preservation Office
• Kitsap County Department of Community Development
• Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) Agencies
• Washington Dept. of Natural Resources
• Washington Department of Ecology, Northwest Regional Office
• Suquamish Tribe
• Tulalip Tribe

Public notice activities

The Draft EIS was circulated for a 75-day period. Public hearings were held approximately 4 to 5 weeks after the Federal Register publication of the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS. Public hearings were held in Bremerton, Washington, Everett, Washington, Honolulu, Hawaii, Coronado, California, and San Diego, California. The exact hearing dates, times, and locations appeared as a notice in local newspapers two weeks before the public hearings. The notice also included the addresses of local libraries where the Draft EIS could be reviewed. The notice was mailed to approximately 300 individuals who had attended the scoping meetings for the Draft EIS, to all individuals who requested to be included on the EIS mailing list, and to other agencies, offices, and individuals who requested copies of the Draft EIS. Information on the dates and times of public hearings were available from the Navy by phone, fax, or e-mail.

Structure of the EIS

The EIS has been organized to maximize the document’s usefulness to the reader. It is briefly described below.

Volume 1 contains information to provide an understanding of purpose and need and the proposed action, environmental setting, environmental consequences, and mitigation measures. Environmental impacts associated with homeporting facilities needed to support CVNs and relocated AOEs for each location are discussed beginning with the action requiring the least amount of improvements, through those requiring the most amount of improvements. Volume 1 has been designed to minimize technical, quantitative data, which are included in Volumes 2 through 6 (bound together) and are described below.

Volume 2 contains appendices that include supporting environmental technical data generic to a particular environmental issue area. For example, the volume contains descriptive detail regarding noise characteristics and methods of measurement.

Volume 3 contains supporting environmental technical data specific to the NASNI CVN homeporting location. Sections referring to various issue areas are numbered corresponding to the Volume 1 contents. For example, all supporting environmental technical data for Volume 1, section 3.1, Topography, Geography, and Soils at NASNI are included in Volume 3, section 3.1. Not all environmental issue area discussions in Volume 1 refer to supporting environmental technical data, so they are not represented in this volume.

Volume 4 contains supporting environmental technical data specific to the PSNS Bremerton CVN homeporting location. Sections referring to various issue areas are numbered corresponding to the Volume 1 contents. For example, all supporting environmental technical data for Volume 1, section 4.1, Topography, Geography, and Soils at PSNS Bremerton, are included in Volume 4, section 4.1. Not all environmental issue areas discussions in Volume 1 refer to supporting environmental technical data, so they are not represented in this volume.

Volume 5 contains supporting environmental technical data specific to the NAVSTA Everett CVN homeporting location. Sections referring to various issue areas are numbered corresponding to the Volume 1 contents. For example, all supporting environmental technical data for Volume 1, section 5.1, Topography, Geography, and Soils at NAVSTA Everett, are included in Volume 5, section 5.1. Not all environmental issue areas discussions in Volume 1 refer to supporting environmental technical data, so they are not represented in this volume.

Volume 6 contains supporting environmental technical data specific to PHNSY CVN homeporting location. Sections referring to various issue areas are numbered corresponding to the Volume 1 contents. For example, all supporting environmental technical data for Volume 1, section 6.1, Topography, Geography, and Soils at PHNSY, are included in Volume 6, section 6.1. Not all environmental issue areas discussions in Volume 1 refer to supporting environmental technical data, so they are not represented in this volume.

Volumes 7-10 include comments made on the Draft EIS and Navy responses: Volume 7 for Coronado, California (due to its size, Volume 7 has been split into two documents: 7A and 7B); Volume 8 for Bremerton, Washington; Volume 9 for Everett, Washington; and Volume 10 for Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Back to Introduction