Draft Environmental Assessment - bellowsafs.com · Bellows Air Force Station, ... concrete and...

Draft

Environmental Assessment Addressing Tinker Road Bridge

Repair/Replacement

Bellows Air Force Station, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i

Contract # FA8903-08-D-8771, Task Order # 0231

Prepared for:

Department of the Air Force

June

2018

Cover Sheet

Draft Environmental Assessment Addressing Tinker Road Bridge Repair/Replacement

at Bellows Air Force Station, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i

Responsible Agencies: United States Air Force, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces, Detachment 2, 18th Wing.

Affected Location: Bellows Air Force Station (BAFS), Waimānalo, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i.

Proposed Action: Tinker Road Bridge Repair/Replacement for BAFS.

Report Designation: Draft Environmental Assessment (EA).

Abstract: Tinker Road Bridge at BAFS is in poor condition and must be repaired or replaced. The range of alternatives considered to provide a fully capable bridge includes an evaluation of four action alternatives, two of which (Alternatives 1 and 4) are carried forward for analysis, in addition to the no action alternative. Under Alternative 1, Tinker Road Bridge would undergo repair-by-replacement in its present location with a new bridge constructed of reinforced concrete and piers. Under Alternative 4, bridge repairs would consist of repairing deteriorated concrete and exposed rebar, installing new bridge guardrail transition and end treatments, installing object markers, securing utility conduits, conducting a seismic analysis, and if required, concrete beam replacement. Under the No Action Alternative, the Tinker Road Bridge would not be repaired or replaced. Bridge deficiencies would likely increase over time, reducing its sufficiency rating, resulting in eventual bridge closure and establishment of an alternate access to the facility.

This EA evaluates the potential impacts of implementing the Proposed Action and Alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The analyses presented in this EA indicates that implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant environmental or socioeconomic impacts, and a Finding of No Significant Impact would be prepared. The Proposed Action would have the potential to impact wetlands and floodplains. There is no practicable alternative to impacting wetlands or floodplains; therefore, a Finding of No Practicable Alternative would also be issued. Resource areas determined to have a potential for impacts and meriting in-depth analysis are noise, air quality, safety, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, infrastructure, hazardous materials and waste management, and recreation and visual resources.

Written comments and inquiries regarding this document should be directed to:

Allison Nabours Detachment 2 18 FSS/CEE 515 Tinker Road Waimānalo, Hawai‘i 96795-1903

Privacy Notice

Your comments on this document are requested. Letters or other written or oral comments provided may be published in the EA. As required by law, comments will be addressed in the EA and made available to the public. Any personal information provided will be used only to identify your desire to comment on this document or to fulfill requests for copies of the EA or associated documents. Private addresses will be compiled to develop a mailing list for those requesting copies of the EA. However, only the names of the individuals making comments and the specific comments will be disclosed. Personal home addresses and phone numbers will not be published in the EA.

Draft

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ADDRESSING TINKER ROAD BRIDGE

REPAIR/REPLACEMENT

AT

BELLOWS AIR FORCE STATION, O‘AHU, HAWAI‘I

Prepared for:

Department of the Air Force

JUNE 2018

USAF | Draft EA Addressing Tinker Road Bridge Repair/Replacementat BAFS, Hawai‘iTABLE OF CONTENTS

June 2018 | i

Table of Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................................... v

1. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action .............................................................. 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................ 1-5

1.3 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................ 1-5

1.4 INTERAGENCY/INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION AND CONSULTATIONS ................... 1-5

1.4.1 Interagency Coordination and Consultations ....................................................... 1-5

1.4.2 Native Hawaiian Organization Consultations ....................................................... 1-5

1.4.3 Other Agency Consultations ................................................................................. 1-6

1.5 PUBLIC AND AGENCY REVIEW OF THE EA ....................................................................... 1-6

1.6 DECISION TO BE MADE ................................................................................................... 1-7

2. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................... 2-1

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 SELECTION STANDARDS FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ................................................... 2-1

2.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................... 2-1

3. Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 NOISE ........................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Definition of the Resource .................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 3-3

3.2 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................. 3-4



3.3 SAFETY ......................................................................................................................... 3-5



3.4 WATER RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 3-6



3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 3-11

3.5.1 Definition of the Resource .................................................................................. 3-11

3.5.2 Affected Environment ......................................................................................... 3-12

3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 3-18



3.6.2.1 Archaeological Resources .............................................................................. 3-20

3.6.2.2 Architectural Resources .................................................................................. 3-21


June 2018 | ii

3.6.2.3 Resources of Traditional or Religious Significance......................................... 3-21

3.7 INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................................................................................... 3-21



3.8 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT .................................................... 3-23



3.9 RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES ........................................................................ 3-24

4. Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 NOISE ........................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Alternative 1 ......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Alternative 4 ......................................................................................................... 4-3

4.1.3 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 4-4

4.2 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................. 4-4

4.2.1 Alternative 1 ......................................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.2 Alternative 4 ......................................................................................................... 4-5


4.3 SAFETY ......................................................................................................................... 4-6

4.3.1 Alternative 1 ......................................................................................................... 4-6

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


4.4 WATER RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 4-7

4.4.1 Alternative 1 ......................................................................................................... 4-8

4.4.2 Alternative 4 ....................................................................................................... 4-10

4.4.3 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 4-10

4.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 4-10

4.5.1 Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................... 4-11

4.5.2 Alternative 4 ....................................................................................................... 4-13


4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 4-13

4.6.1 Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................... 4-14

4.6.2 Alternative 4 ....................................................................................................... 4-15


4.7 INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................................................................................... 4-15

4.7.1 Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................... 4-15

4.7.2 Alternative 4 ....................................................................................................... 4-17



June 2018 | iii

4.8 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES ......................................................................... 4-17

4.8.1 Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................... 4-17

4.8.2 Alternative 4 ....................................................................................................... 4-18


4.9 RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES ........................................................................ 4-19

4.9.1 Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................... 4-19

4.9.2 Alternative 4 ....................................................................................................... 4-20


5. Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Projects Considered for Potential Cumulative Impacts ........................................ 5-1

5.1.2 Cumulative Impacts on Resource Areas .............................................................. 5-1

5.1.3 Compatibility of the Proposed Action and Alternatives with the Objectives of Federal, Regional, State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls ..... 5-7

5.1.4 Relationship between the Short-term Uses of the Environment and Long-term Productivity .................................................................................................. 5-7

5.1.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ..................................... 5-7

6. References ........................................................................................................................ 6-1

7. List of Preparers ............................................................................................................... 7-1

Appendices

A: Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning List

B. Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program: Federal Consistency Assessment Form

C. Air Conformity Applicability Model Report

Figures

1-1. Location of BAFS and Surrounding Area ....................................................................... 1-2

1-2. General Location of the Project Boundary ..................................................................... 1-3

1-3. West beam at pier over Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream at BAFS ........................................ 1-4

1-4. Pier cap deterioration on the bridge over Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream at BAFS ............. 1-4

2-1. BAFS Project Area and Constraints Map for the Proposed Action ................................ 2-3

2-2. Detour Route for the Proposed Action ........................................................................... 2-5


June 2018 | iv

Tables

2-1. Alternatives Considered for Analysis ............................................................................. 2-7

3-1. Sound Levels and Human Response ............................................................................. 3-2

3-2. Predicted Noise Levels for Typical Construction Equipment.......................................... 3-3

3-3. Common Terrestrial Wildlife Species Observed on BAFS ........................................... 3-14

3-4. Threatened and Endangered Species Potentially Occurring on or Near BAFS ........... 3-16

3-5. Migratory Birds Potentially Occurring on or near BAFS ............................................... 3-18

4-1. Example Activities Generating Elevated Noise Levels ................................................... 4-2

4-2. Estimated Air Emissions from the Proposed Action ....................................................... 4-5

5-1. Projects Considered for Cumulative Impacts Analysis ................................................... 5-2

USAF | Draft EA Addressing Tinker Road Bridge Repair/Replacementat BAFS, Hawai‘iABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

June 2018 | v

Abbreviations and Acronyms ACM asbestos-containing

material

AFI Air Force Instruction

AFCEC Air Force Civil Engineer Center

APE area of potential effect

BAFS Bellows Air Force Station

BMP best management practice

CCD census county division

CDP Census Designated Place

CE Civil Engineering

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO carbon monoxide

CZM Coastal Zone Management

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Program

dB decibel

dBA A-weighted decibel

DOD Department of Defense

DODI Department of Defense Instruction

DOH Department of Health

EA Environmental Assessment

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EO Executive Order

ERP Environmental Restoration Program

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

FONPA Finding of No Practicable Alternative

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

GHG greenhouse gas

HAR Hawai‘i Administrative Rules

HDLNR Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources

HQ Headquarters

HQ PACAF Headquarters Pacific Air Forces

HRS Hawai‘i Revised Statutes

H-POWER Honolulu Program of Waste Energy Recovery

ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan

INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

IRP Installation Restoration Program

LBP lead-based paint

LED light-emitting diode

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

USAF | Draft EA Addressing Tinker Road Bridge Repair/Replacementat BAFS, Hawai‘iABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

June 2018 | vi

MCTAB Marine Corps Training Area Bellows

MCB Marine Corps Base

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMRP Military Munitions Response Program

MSW municipal solid waste

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHO Native Hawaiian Organization

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOA Notice of Availability

NOx nitrogen oxides

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

O3 ozone

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Pb lead

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

pCi/L picocuries per liter

percent g percentage of the force of gravity

PM10 suspended particulate matter measured less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5 suspended particulate matter measured less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

PPE personal protective equipment

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

ROI region of influence

SHPD State Historic Preservation Division

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads

tpy tons per year

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USAF U.S. Air Force

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

UIC Underground Injection Control

VOC volatile organic compound

USAF | Draft EA Addressing Tinker Road Bridge Repair/Replacement at BAFS, Hawai‘iPURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

June 2018 | 1-1

1. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

1.1 Introduction Bellows Air Force Station (BAFS) Hawai‘i is operated and maintained as a recreational and training area for military personnel. BAFS is on the windward, southeastern side of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (see Figure 1-1). It is adjacent to Marine Corps Training Area Bellows (MCTAB), which is a part of Marine Corps Base (MCB) Hawai‘i. BAFS and MCTAB consist of 1,510 acres (426 acres on BAFS, and 1,073 acres on MCTAB). The primary access gate for BAFS is located on Tinker Road approximately 2 miles north of the intersection of Tinker Road and Kalanianaole Highway, just south of where Tinker Road crosses Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream (see Figure 1-2).

The Tinker Road Bridge over Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream is showing signs of deterioration and currently has a sufficiency rating of less than 50. The bridge sufficiency rating is a method of evaluating factors which indicate a bridge’s sufficiency to remain in service. The result of the formula is a percentage in which 100 percent represents an entirely sufficient bridge and zero percent represents an entirely insufficient or deficient bridge. The sufficiency rating is never less than 0 or more than 100. The Tinker Road Bridge is anticipated to fail within 5 years based on the 2017 DOT bridge inspection report (FHA 2017).

The Tinker Road Bridge is in poor condition mainly due to the condition of the concrete superstructure. The bridge superstructure consists of concrete girders with a cast-in-place reinforced concrete deck and concrete abutments and pier substructure. Based on the extensiveness and advanced state of deterioration, including corrosion in the reinforcing steel and spalling and delamination in the concrete girders, replacement of superstructure was recommended by the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) in the 2017 bridge inspection report (FHA 2017) (see Figures 1-3 and 1-4 for photos depicting current conditions of the concrete beams and piers). The FHA has recommended that vehicles crossing the bridge be restricted to no more than 10 tons (FHA 2017). Currently, traffic greater than 10 tons is accessing the installation through the use of a temporary detour through MCTAB via the MCTAB Bridge along the old taxiway located approximately 0.45 mile to the west of the Tinker Road Bridge (see Figure 1-2 for the location of the MCTAB bridge crossing of Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream).

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] § 4331 et seq.), the regulations of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that implement NEPA procedures (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§ 1500–1508), the U.S. Air Force (USAF) regulations for implementing NEPA (32 CFR § 989), and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7061.


June 2018 | 1-2

Figure 1-1. Location of BAFS and Surrounding Area


June 2018 | 1-3

Figure 1-2. General Location of the Project Boundary


June 2018 | 1-4

Figure 1-3. West beam at pier over Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream at BAFS

Figure 1-4. Pier cap deterioration on the bridge over Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream at BAFS


June 2018 | 1-5

1.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action The purpose of the Proposed Action is to maintain Tinker Road access to BAFS over Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream (see Figure 1-3).

1.3 Need for the Proposed Action The Proposed Action is needed because Tinker Road provides the only guest access to the BAFS recreational and training area and the Tinker Road Bridge is at the end of its service life. Based on the 2017 Bridge Inspection Report, the Tinker Road Bridge is anticipated to fail within 5 years (FHA 2017). If the bridge becomes unusable, then there will be no guest access within available BAFS property.

1.4 Interagency/Intergovernmental Coordination and Consultations

1.4.1 Interagency Coordination and Consultations Scoping is an early and open process for developing the breadth of issues to be addressed in the EA and for identifying significant concerns related to a proposed action. Per the requirements of Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (42 USC § 4231(a)) and Executive Order (EO) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction that could be affected by the Proposed Action were notified during the development of this EA. U.S. Marine Corps coordination was especially important because a portion of the Proposed Action would occur on lands under their control.

Appendix A contains the list of agencies consulted during this analysis and copies of correspondence.

1.4.2 Native Hawaiian Organization Consultations Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 4710.03, Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations, directs Department of Defense (DOD) components to conduct consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) whose members perform cultural, religious, or subsistence customs in the geographic region, or who may attach religious or cultural significance to resources that could be affected by an action. Although not specific to NHOs, AFI 90-2002, Air Force Interaction with Federally-Recognized Tribes, directs USAF installations to build relationships and conduct consultation with federally recognized tribes and communities. The NHO consultation process is distinct from NEPA consultation or the interagency coordination process, and it requires separate notification of all relevant NHOs. The timelines for NHO consultation are also distinct from those of other consultations. The BAFS point-of-contact for NHOs is the Installation Commander.

The NHOs that will be coordinated or consulted with regarding these actions are listed in Appendix A.


June 2018 | 1-6

1.4.3 Other Agency Consultations Per the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and implementing regulations (36 CFR § 800), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and implementing regulations, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Clean Air Act (CAA), Section 404 permitting and Section 401 certification under the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), BAFS will consult on their findings of effect under the above statutes and request concurrence from the Hawai‘i State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and Hawai‘i Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP).

The agencies that will be consulted with regarding these statutes are included in Appendix A. Results of the consultations and records of correspondence with the agencies will be included in the EA.

1.5 Public and Agency Review of the EA Because the Proposed Action area coincides with wetlands and floodplains, it is subject to the requirements and objectives of EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and EO 11988, Floodplain Management. USAF published an early notice that the Proposed Action would occur in a floodplain/wetland in the newspaper of record (Honolulu Star-Advertiser) on July 25, 2017. The notice identified state and federal regulatory agencies with special expertise that had been contacted and solicited public comment on the Proposed Action and any practicable alternatives. The comment period for public and agency input on the Proposed Action ended on August 24, 2017.

Through the public involvement process, USAF will notify relevant federal, state, and local agencies of the Proposed Action and request input on environmental concerns they might have regarding the Proposed Action. The public involvement process provides BAFS with the opportunity to cooperate with and consider state and local views in its decision regarding implementing this federal proposal. As part of the EA process, BAFS will host an open house meeting at the Waimānalo Elementary and Intermediate School cafeteria during the public review period of the Draft EA. This meeting will be advertised in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and posted at Shima’s Supermarket, a common source for local announcements, at 41-1606 Kalanianaole Highway, Waimānalo, HI 96795. The purpose of the open house is to foster open communication between the interested parties, including members of the public, and the project representatives. The open house format will also allow participants to see the range of individuals, organizations, and agencies interested in the project. Open house attendees will be provided with comment cards, fact sheets, and visual displays. Audio recorders will be made available to individuals who wished to record a comment verbally rather than submit a written comment. Comments received during the public involvement process will be incorporated into this EA.

A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EA and Finding of No Significant Impact/Finding of No Practicable Alternative (FONSI/FONPA) was published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, announcing the availability of the EA for review on June 18, 2018, which started a 30-day public


June 2018 | 1-7

availability period for the Draft EA. The NOA invites the public to review and comment on the Draft EA. The public and agency review period will end on July 18, 2018. The NOA and public and agency comments will be provided in Appendix A. An electronic version of the Draft EA and FONSI/FONPA was also made available on www.bellowsafs.com/TinkerRoadBridge_EA/.

Hardcopies of the Draft EA and FONSI/FONPA were sent to various agencies identified in Appendix A and any interested parties that requested a copy. The Draft EA and FONSI/FONPA are also available for review at the following locations during the 30-day public availability period:

Waimānalo Public Library 41-1320 Kalanianaole Hwy Waimānalo, HI 96795

Kailua Public Library 239 Kuulei Rd Kailua, HI 96734

Kaneohe Public Library 45-829 Kamehameha Hwy Kaneohe, HI 96744

1.6 Decision to be made This EA evaluates whether the Proposed Action would result in significant impacts on the natural and human environment. If significant impacts are identified, BAFS would undertake mitigation to reduce impacts to below the level of significance, undertake the preparation of an environmental impact statement addressing the Proposed Action, or abandon the Proposed Action. If it is determined that the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts, a FONSI would be appropriate. If the execution of a proposed action would involve “construction” in a wetland as defined in EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, or “action” in a floodplain under EO 11988, Floodplain Management, a FONPA would be issued in conjunction with the FONSI.

This EA is a planning and decision-making tool that will guide BAFS in implementing the Proposed Action in a manner consistent with mission requirements and USAF standards for environmental stewardship including 32 CFR § 989.


June 2018 | 1-8

This page intentionally left blank.

USAF | Draft EA Addressing Tinker Road Bridge Repair/Replacement at BAFS, Hawai‘iDESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

June 2018 | 2-1

2. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Proposed Action The Proposed Action is to maintain Tinker Road access to BAFS over Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream. All actions must be consistent with applicable BAFS internal planning documents and zoning requirements, applicable installation architectural compatibility guides, appropriate Unified Facilities Criteria (e.g., 3-301-01 and 3-310-08), and relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

2.2 Selection Standards for Project Alternatives The scope and location of the Proposed Action has undergone extensive review by BAFS Civil Engineering personnel, supporting installation and USAF staff specialists. The desired minimum sufficiency rating of a bridge replacement is 100 and a sufficiency rating of at least 80 is expected on a bridge repair. The average design-life of a new bridge is 50-75 years based on design specifications. An extended service life of 100 to 150 years can be achieved through consideration of environmental, design, materials, construction, and maintenance factors. Annual DOT Bridge Inspections serve to identify maintenance recommendations suggested within the next year and rehabilitation/reconstruction recommendations needed within the next 5 years.

Potential alternatives to the Proposed Action at Bellows AFB were each evaluated based on four selection standards described below. The standards were applied to all alternatives and are discussed in Section 2.3, as appropriate:

A. Bridge sufficiency rating above 80. Rationale: A sufficiency rating of 80 or above would reduce the frequency of required maintenance and associated maintenance and repair costs and would allow for a load carrying capacity to accommodate vehicular traffic in excess of 10 tons.

B. Avoid loss of jurisdictional wetlands acreage. Rationale: It is USAF policy (AFI 32-1023) to avoid constructing new facilities within areas containing wetlands, where practicable.

C. Avoid traffic interruptions to the greatest extent possible. Rationale: In order to maintain the recreational and training mission of BAFS, ease of access and egress for emergency vehicles and installation users and delivery of mission-essential materials is required.

D. Bridge repair must be on land owned by BAFS, which includes 10 feet to each side of Tinker Road. Rationale: Conducting real estate actions to acquire new land or right-of-ways would create unnecessary expense and project delays.

2.3 Proposed Action and Alternatives NEPA and CEQ regulations mandate the consideration of reasonable alternatives to proposed actions. “Reasonable alternatives” are those that would also be used to meet the purpose of and need for each proposed action.


June 2018 | 2-2

The NEPA process is intended to support flexible, informed decision-making; the analysis provided by this EA and feedback from the public and other agencies will inform decisions made about whether, when and how to execute the proposed actions. Among the alternatives evaluated is the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative is used to analyze the consequences of not undertaking the Proposed Action, not simply to conclude no impact, and serves to establish a comparative baseline for analysis.

The Proposed Action would be to maintain road access to BAFS that occurs along Tinker Road over Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream. The existing bridge acts as the only access point not requiring escort across MCTAB for the northern portion of the installation. A Community Noise Permit would be required for construction projects that exceed the maximum permissible sound levels for the zoning district in which it occurs. Specific permit restrictions for construction projects state that construction activities are permitted from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday (HAR Title 11, Chapter 46-7).

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis: Building a new access road and bridge in a new location was eliminated from further analysis because of the extent of land disturbance and subsequent effect on natural and cultural resources this would require. This alternative would also require a real estate action with USMC because BAFS would have to acquire land. The new location would also be within known archaeological areas.

Using the proposed road detour as a permanent solution was eliminated from further analysis because this would require BAFS security escorts during MCTAB training activities. When no escort is required, unauthorized access to MCTAB or BAFS could occur, resulting in safety and security problems for government facilities and the public. This could lead to a significant safety concern.

Alternatives Considered for this Project:

Alternative 1 – Repair-by-Replacement (Preferred Alternative): Under this alternative, the Tinker Road Bridge would undergo repair-by-replacement in its present location with a new bridge constructed of reinforced concrete and piers (see Figure 2-1). From this point forward, this alternative will be referred to as “replacement.” Demolition of the existing bridge would include the removal and disposal of all pavement, girders, and concrete associated with the bridge. The dimensions of the new bridge are expected to be 40 feet longer (20 feet on either side of the stream) than the existing bridge. The dimensions for the new bridge include: a structural length of 137.5 feet and a deck width of 27.2 feet (FHA 2017). Three piers, one central and a pier on either side (within the embankment slope) are anticipated to be sufficient given the span of the bridge. Concrete abutments would be replaced on both sides of the channel. A temporary coffer dam would be installed to accommodate pier concrete and rebar installation. The cofferdam would be constructed by driving interlocking sheet piling around the work area, i.e., pier installation location. Once constructed, water would be pumped out to provide a dry work environment for pier installation. Sandblasting may be performed during construction for surface coating preparation. Rip rap is a layer of stone or chunks of concrete that could be used along embankment slopes to prevent erosion. It is not anticipated that concrete or rip rap would be placed on the channel bottom. Utility conduit to convey electrical and water supply across the Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream would be mounted to the bridge via deck hangers.


June 2018 | 2-3

Figure 2-1. BAFS Project Area and Constraints Map for the Proposed Action


June 2018 | 2-4

Access to the installation during demolition and construction would be maintained through the use of a temporary detour through MCTAB (See Figure 2-2). During the detour, the Entry Control Point for BAFS would be relocated to the access gate for MCTAB and a mobile guard facility would be positioned directly outside the gate and manned by BAFS Security Forces at all times. Vehicular traffic would turn north after entering MCTAB along an existing roadway that follows the perimeter fence until Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream. At Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream, vehicular traffic would turn west along an existing roadway that runs adjacent to Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream for approximately 0.4 mile. An existing access gate located along the old runway would then be used for entry into BAFS. Traffic would then proceed north along the old runway for approximately 1.1 miles to Pine Tree Lane. Pine Tree Lane dead ends at Tinker Road across from the AAFES Shopette and gas station. Jersey barriers would be positioned along the detour to ensure vehicles remain on the approved detour route. This detour is currently being used by vehicular traffic in excess of 10 tons. A cooperative agreement with MCTAB would be established for the duration of the construction phases of the project.

This alternative has been evaluated against the defined selection criteria in Section 2.2:

Selection Standard A would be met because bridge replacement would provide a bridge with a minimum sufficiency rating of 100.

Selection Standard B would be met because there would be no increased footprint within a jurisdictional wetland, coffer dams would be removed following project completion, and wetlands affected by construction would be restored to pre-project conditions. This alternative would result in no net loss of jurisdictional wetlands.

Selection Standard C would be met by maintaining access to the installation via a detour through MCTAB areas.

Selection Standard D would be met because the bridge replacement would be contained within the legal boundaries of BAFS.

This alternative meets the selection standards and is therefore carried forward for analysis.

Alternative 2 – Adjacent Replacement Makai: Under this alternative, the Tinker Road Bridge would be replaced adjacent to the existing bridge on the Makai or ocean side. A coffer dam would be installed during necessary pier concrete and rebar installation. Sandblasting would be an integral part of all concrete and rebar installation, depending on replacement bridge design. Access to the installation during demolition and construction could be maintained if construction maintains at least one lane over the existing bridge until the new bridge is ready.

This alternative has been evaluated against the defined selection criteria in Section 2.2;




June 2018 | 2-5

Figure 2-2. Detour Route for the Proposed Action


June 2018 | 2-6

Selection Standard C would be met by maintaining access to the installation via the existing bridge until the new bridge is complete.

Selection Standard D would not be met because the bridge replacement would require re-alignment of Tinker Road to accommodate approach to the new bridge and this would not be contained within the legal boundaries of BAFS. On the south side of the Tinker Road Bridge, BAFS owns 10 feet to each side of Tinker Road.

This alternative does not meet the selection standards and is therefore not carried forward for further analysis.

Alternative 3 – Adjacent Replacement Mauka: Under this alternative, the Tinker Road Bridge would be replaced adjacent to the existing bridge on the Mauka or mountain side. Construction would result in a net loss of wetlands associated with Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream through removal or filling. A coffer dam would be installed during necessary pier concrete and rebar installation. Sandblasting would be an integral part of all concrete and rebar installation, depending on replacement bridge design. Access to the installation during demolition and construction could be maintained if construction maintains at least one lane over the existing bridge until the new bridge is ready.



Selection Standard B would not be met because this alternative would result in a net loss of jurisdictional wetlands.


Selection Standard D would not be met because the bridge replacement would require re-alignment of Tinker Road to accommodate approach to the new bridge and this would not be contained within the legal boundaries of BAFS. On the south side of the Tinker Road Bridge, BAFS owns 10 feet to each side of Tinker Road.

This alternative does not meet the selection standards and, therefore, is not carried forward for further analysis.

Alternative 4 – Repair in Place: Under this alternative, the existing bridge would remain in place and work would consist of repairing deteriorated concrete and exposed rebar, installing new bridge guardrail transition and end treatments, installing object markers, securing utility conduits and conducting a seismic analysis. During repairs, it could be determined that certain concrete beams would need to be replaced. A coffer dam would be installed during necessary concrete and rebar repairs to the central pier. Sandblasting would be an integral part of all concrete and rebar repairs. Access to the installation during repair would be maintained through the use of the temporary detour described under Alternative 1.


June 2018 | 2-7


Selection Standard A would be met because bridge repair would provide a bridge with a minimum sufficiency rating of 80.



Selection Standard D would be met because the bridge replacement would be contained within the legal boundaries of BAFS.

This alternative meets the selection standards and is therefore carried forward for analysis. A summary of all alternatives in relation to the Selection Standards is provided in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. Alternatives Considered for Analysis

Alternative Selection

Standard A Selection

Standard B Selection

Standard C Selection

Standard D Carried Forward

Alternative 1 – Repair-by-Replacement

Meets Meets Meets Meets Yes

Alternative 2 – Adjacent Replacement Makai

Meets Meets Meets Does not meet No

Alternative 3 – Adjacent Replacement Mauka

Meets Does not meet Meets Does not meet No

Alternative 4 – Repair in Place

Meets Meets Meets Meets Yes

No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative the Tinker Road Bridge would not be repaired or replaced. Bridge deficiencies would likely increase over time, reducing its sufficiency rating. This would not support the purpose and need for the project as discussed in Sections 1.2 and 1.3. The No Action Alternative will be carried forward for further analysis, consistent with 32 CFR § 26 989, to provide a baseline against which the impacts of the action alternative can be assessed.


June 2018 | 2-8


USAF | Draft EA Addressing Tinker Road Bridge Repair/Replacement at BAFS, Hawai‘iAFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

June 2018 | 3-1

3. Affected Environment All potentially relevant resource areas were initially considered for analysis in this EA. In compliance with NEPA, CEQ, and EIAP 32 CFR § 989 guidelines, the following discussion of the environmental consequences focuses only on those resource areas considered potentially subject to impacts and with potentially significant environmental issues. This section includes noise, air quality, safety, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, infrastructure, hazardous materials and wastes, and recreation and visual resources. Some resource areas would not be affected by the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative. The potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives (including the No Action Alternative) on the baseline (current) conditions are described in Section 4. Resource areas that have been eliminated from further detailed study in this document and the rationale for eliminating them are presented as follows:

Land Use: Implementing the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative would not result in changes to existing land use designations. USFS-controlled lands would remain open to the public for recreational activities during construction of the Tinker Road Bridge, and activities would be coordinated in order to avoid conflict with recreational users in the area.

Geological Resources and Soils: Although disturbance of surficial bedrock and other geological features could occur under each alternative, the ground disturbance would not be substantial enough to alter lithology, stratigraphy, or the geological structures that control the distribution of aquifers and confining beds. Impacts to topography would be negligible under each alternative. The proposed activities could displace soil and alter topography; however, each alternative would occur on previously graded or flat land. No vegetation would be removed permanently and no additional impervious surfaces would be constructed; therefore, no long-term impacts on soils would be expected. Therefore, impacts on geological resources and soils are not expected.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice: No impacts on local demographics would be expected under the Proposed Action. The permanent relocation of workers to Honolulu County to meet the demand for construction workers would not likely occur and there would not be an increase in the number of military personnel assigned to BAFS. Construction activities associated with the Proposed Action would occur entirely on BAFS. Therefore, these activities would not adversely impact off-installation residents and no disproportionate adverse impacts on minority, low-income, or child populations would be expected.

3.1 Noise

3.1.1 Definition of the Resource Noise is defined as any sound that is undesirable because it interferes with communication, is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise intrusive. Noise is often generated by activities essential to a community’s daily life, such as construction or vehicular traffic.


June 2018 | 3-2

Noise Metrics and Regulations. The standard unit of measure for sound levels is the decibel (dB). The A-weighted decibel (dBA) is a unit of measurement that specifically represents how humans respond to sound. Human response to noise varies depending on the type and characteristics of the noise, distance between the noise source and the receptor, receptor sensitivity, and time of day. The threshold of audibility is generally within the range of 10 to 25 dBA for normal hearing. The upper boundary of audibility is 135 dBA and can be painfully loud (USEPA 1981a). Sounds encountered in daily life and their dBA levels are provided in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1. Sound Levels and Human Response

Noise Level (dBA)

Common Sounds Effect

10 Just audible Negligible*

30 Soft whisper (15 feet) Very quiet

50 Light auto traffic (100 feet) Quiet

60 Air conditioning unit (20 feet) Intrusive

70 Noisy restaurant or freeway traffic Telephone use difficult

80 Alarm clock (2 feet) Annoying

90 Heavy truck (50 feet) or city traffic Very annoying; Hearing damage (8 hours)

100 Garbage truck Very annoying*

110 Pile drivers Strained vocal effort*

120 Jet takeoff (200 feet) or auto horn (3 feet) Maximum vocal effort

140 Carrier deck jet operation Painfully loud

Source: USEPA 1981b Note: *HDR extrapolation

The State of Hawai‘i regulates noise exposure through Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS), Chapter 342F, Noise Pollution; HAR Title 11, Chapter 46, Community Noise Control; and HAR Title 12, Chapter 200-1, Occupational Noise Exposure. HAR Title 11, Chapter 46 categorizes all land into one of three zoning districts, and defines the maximum permissible sound levels that can emanate from each district. BAFS is considered to be in the Class A zoning district, which includes all areas equivalent to lands zoned residential, preservation, public space, open space, or similar. Maximum permissible sound levels for Class A zoning districts is 55 dBA during daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and 45 dBA during nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Noise levels shall not exceed these maximum permissible sound levels for more than 10 percent of the time within any 20-minute period, except by permit or variance. These standards apply to stationary noise sources and equipment related to agricultural, construction, and industrial activities; therefore, a permit is not required for the operation of recreational areas on BAFS (HAR Title 11, Chapter 46-4). A Community Noise Permit would be required for construction projects that exceed the maximum permissible sound levels for the zoning district in which it occurs. Specific permit restrictions for construction projects state that construction activities are permitted from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday (HAR Title 11, Chapter 46-7).


June 2018 | 3-3

Construction Noise Levels. Construction can cause an increase in sound that is well above the ambient level. Table 3-2 lists noise levels associated with common types of construction equipment. Construction equipment usually exceeds the ambient sound levels by 20 to 25 dBA in an urban environment and up to 30 to 35 dBA in a quiet suburban area.

Table 3-2. Predicted Noise Levels for Typical Construction Equipment

Construction Equipment a

Predicted Noise Level (dBA)

50 feet 100 feet 200 feet 500 feet 1,000 feet

CLEARING AND GRADING

Bulldozer 80 74 68 60 54

Grader 80–93 74–87 68–81 60–73 54–67

Truck 83–94 77–88 71–82 63–74 57–68

EXCAVATION

Backhoe 72–93 66–87 60–81 52–73 46–67

Jackhammer 81–98 75–92 69–86 61–78 55–72

BUILDING/INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION

Concrete mixer 74–88 68–82 62–76 54–68 48–62

Welding generator

71–82 65–76 59–70 51–62 45–56

Pile driver 91–101 85–95 79–89 71–85 65–78

Crane 75–87 69–81 63–75 55–67 49–61

Paver 86–88 80–82 74–76 66–68 60–62

Sandblaster 96 90 84 78 72

Source: USEPA 1971, USDOT 2006 Note: a Construction equipment equipped with noise control devices (e.g., mufflers) and use of sound barriers would result in lower noise levels than shown in this table.

3.1.2 Affected Environment BAFS is in a semi-rural/suburban area where the primary noise source is vehicle traffic from passenger vehicles. The ambient noise environment at BAFS is also affected by day-to-day operations and training activities on MCTAB such as ground maneuvers, amphibious maneuvers, and helicopter operations (GlobalSecurity.org 2011). The ambient noise environments of the off-installation areas are similar to that of BAFS; however, noise from Kalaniana‘ole Highway also contributes to the ambient noise environment to the southwest.

Receptors on the installation include residential sites (i.e., cabins, campsites, and installation housing) and outdoor recreational sites (i.e., beach areas, mini golf, nature trails, playing fields and courts, and picnic areas/pavilions). Off-installation residences would be considered sensitive receptors. The various recreational sites throughout the Recreation Area (i.e., the area between Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream and the northernmost point of the installation) are exposed to any noise generated in the area. The closest noise receptors to Tinker Road Bridge are the 100 series cabins to the northeast, with Cabin 150 being within 200 feet of the bridge. The nearest private residences are between 4,000 and 7,000 feet away from the project area.


June 2018 | 3-4

3.2 Air Quality

3.2.1 Definition of the Resource Air quality is defined by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere at a given location. Under the Clean Air Act, the six principal pollutants defining air quality, called “criteria pollutants,” include carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide, ozone (O3), suspended particulate matter (measured less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter [PM10] and less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter [PM2.5]), and lead (Pb). CO, SO2, Pb, and some particulates are emitted directly into the atmosphere from emissions sources. O3, nitrogen dioxide, and some particulates are formed through atmospheric chemical reactions that are influenced by weather, ultraviolet light, and other atmospheric processes. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions are used to represent O3 generation because they are precursors of O3.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR § 50) for the criteria pollutants. NAAQS are classified as primary or secondary. Primary standards protect against adverse health effects; secondary standards protect against welfare effects, such as damage to farm crops and vegetation and damage to buildings. Some pollutants have short- and long-term standards. Short-term standards are designed to protect against acute, or short-term, health effects, while long-term standards were established to protect against chronic health effects. The State of Hawai‘i has also established its own ambient air quality standards for the criteria pollutants, which in some cases are stricter than the NAAQS, and has promulgated an additional air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide.

Areas that are and have historically been in compliance with the NAAQS or have not been evaluated for NAAQS compliance are designated as attainment areas. Areas that violate a federal air quality standard are designated as nonattainment areas. Areas that have transitioned from nonattainment to attainment are designated as maintenance areas and are required to adhere to maintenance plans to ensure continued attainment.

The USEPA General Conformity Rule applies to federal actions occurring in nonattainment or maintenance areas when the total direct and indirect emissions of nonattainment pollutants (or their precursors) exceed specified thresholds. The emissions thresholds that trigger requirements for a conformity analysis are called de minimis levels. De minimis levels (in tons per year [tpy]) vary by pollutant and also depend on the severity of the nonattainment status for the air quality management area in question.

The Hawai‘i Department of Health (DOH), Clean Air Branch oversees programs for permitting the construction and operation of new or modified stationary source air emissions in the State of Hawai‘i. Air permitting is required for many industries and facilities that emit regulated pollutants, and these requirements include, but are not limited to, Title V permitting of major sources, New Source Review, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, New Source Performance Standards for selected categories of industrial sources, and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Permit rules and standards for emissions sources are based on the size of the emission units and type of pollutants.


June 2018 | 3-5

Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases. Global climate change refers to long-term fluctuations in temperature, precipitation, wind, sea level, and other elements of Earth’s climate system. Ways in which the Earth’s climate system may be influenced by changes in the concentration of various gases in the atmosphere have been discussed worldwide. Of particular interest, greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gas emissions that trap heat in the atmosphere. These emissions occur from natural processes and human activities. Scientific evidence indicates a trend of increasing global temperature over the past century because of an increase in GHG emissions from human activities. The climate change associated with this global warming is predicted to produce negative economic and social consequences across the globe.

3.2.2 Affected Environment BAFS is on the Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i, which is within the State of Hawai‘i Air Quality Control Region. The entire State of Hawai‘i has been designated by USEPA as unclassified/attainment for all criteria pollutants (USEPA 2017a). As such, the General Conformity Rule does not apply to proposed actions at BAFS and neither an applicability determination nor a conformity analysis is required.

BAFS is an insignificant minor source of air emissions. The installation’s most recent air emissions inventory estimated emissions of each criteria pollutant to be no more than 2.7 tpy. As such, BAFS does not require any operational air permits, such as a Title V permit, and qualifies as an insignificant activity under Hawai‘i DOH air permitting regulations (i.e., Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) 11-60.1-82). Air emissions sources on BAFS include one 2,000-gallon propane storage tank, four 6,000-gallon each diesel and gasoline storage tanks, two 30-kilowatt emergency generators, miscellaneous internal combustion engines used for grounds maintenance, and campfire pits and grills (ACSI 2015). The only stationary air emission sources within the footprint of the Proposed Action are generators that are occasionally used to provide electricity to three pavilions.

Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases. Ongoing global climate change has the potential to increase average temperatures, alter precipitation patterns, and raise sea level within the State of Hawai‘i. As a result, the availability of freshwater water, potential for coastal flooding, distributions and abundance of native plants and animals, and the health of native populations could be adversely impacted from ongoing climate change (Leong et al. 2014).

3.3 Safety

3.3.1 Definition of the Resource A safe environment is one in which the potential for death, serious bodily injury or illness, or property damage is eliminated or reduced as much as possible. This EA addresses worker, personnel, client, and public health and safety during proposed activities and operations. Proposed activities include the proposed demolition and construction activities associated with each alternative.

Construction site safety is largely a matter of adherence to regulatory requirements imposed for the benefit of employees and implementation of operational practices that reduce risks of illness, injury, death, and property damage. The health and safety of onsite military and civilian


June 2018 | 3-6

workers are safeguarded by numerous DOD and USAF regulations designed to comply with standards issued by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and USEPA. These standards specify the amount and type of training required for industrial workers, the use of protective equipment and clothing, engineering controls, and maximum exposure limits for workplace stressors. Compliance with OSHA standards and regulations and other applicable laws and regulations for the protection of employees is exclusively the obligation of the commercial contractor.

AFI 91-203, Air Force Consolidated Occupational Safety Instruction, provides USAF industrial and general ground safety guidance. The purpose of this instruction is to minimize loss of USAF resources and to protect USAF personnel from occupational deaths, injuries, or illnesses by managing risks. In conjunction with the USAF Mishap Prevention Program, these standards ensure all USAF workplaces meet federal safety and health requirements. This instruction applies to all USAF activities. OSHA regulations (29 CFR §§ 1910 and 1926) set forth safety and health requirements that extend to all U.S. employers and employees (OSHA 2017a).

3.3.2 Affected Environment All contractors are required to conduct construction activities in a manner that does not pose any risk to workers, personnel, recreational visitors, or the general public. Additionally, they are responsible for following ground safety regulations and workers compensation programs. Industrial hygiene programs address exposure to hazardous materials, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and availability of material safety data sheets. Industrial hygiene is the responsibility of contractors, as applicable. Contractor responsibilities are to review potentially hazardous workplace operations; to monitor exposure to workplace chemicals (e.g., asbestos, lead, hazardous material), physical hazards (e.g., noise propagation), and biological agents (e.g., infectious waste); to recommend and evaluate controls (e.g., ventilation, respirators) to ensure personnel are properly protected or unexposed; and to ensure a medical surveillance program is in place to perform occupational health physicals for those workers subject to any accidental chemical exposures. Various Installation Restoration Program (IRP) and Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) sites are present on BAFS; however, none are within the project area.

3.4 Water Resources

3.4.1 Definition of the Resource Water resources include groundwater, surface water, wetlands, and floodplains, and their relationship to the area of the Proposed Action. It also considers water quality programs that are enforced as part of water resources protection regulations. Evaluation of water resources examines the quantity and quality of the resource and its demand for various purposes.

Groundwater. Groundwater is water that collects or flows beneath the Earth’s surface, filling the porous spaces in soil, sediment, and rocks. It is an essential resource often used for potable water consumption, agricultural irrigation, and industrial applications. A deposit of subsurface water that is large enough to tap via a well is referred to as an aquifer. Groundwater originates from precipitation, percolates through the ground surface, and is often used for potable water


June 2018 | 3-7

consumption, agricultural irrigation, and industrial applications. Groundwater typically can be described in terms of its depth from the surface, aquifer or well capacity, water quality, surrounding geologic composition, and recharge rate.

The Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources (HDLNR) is responsible for managing, administering, and exercising control over public lands, water resources, ocean waters, navigable streams, coastal areas (except commercial harbors), minerals, and all interests therein. The Commission on Water Resource Management is the agency responsible for administering the State Water Code. Under the Code, all waters of the State are held in trust for the benefit of the citizens of the State. Therefore, all water use is subject to legally protected water rights. The State of Hawai‘i DOH administers an Underground Injection Control (UIC) program to protect the quality of groundwater sources used for drinking water. UIC permitting was enacted primarily to protect drinking water sources but is also helpful in maintaining the water quality of the coastal environment.

Surface Water. Surface water includes natural, modified, and constructed water confinement and conveyance features, above groundwater that may or may not have a defined channel and discernable water flows. These features are generally classified as rivers, streams, creeks, springs, wetlands, natural and artificial impoundments (e.g., ponds, lakes), and constructed drainage canals and ditches.

Stormwater is surface water generated by precipitation events that may percolate into permeable surficial sediments or flow across the top of impervious or saturated surficial areas, a condition known as runoff. Stormwater is an important component of surface water systems because of its potential to introduce sediments and other contaminants that could degrade the water quality of lakes, rivers, and streams. Stormwater flows, which can be exacerbated by high proportions of impervious surfaces associated with buildings, roads, and parking lots, and stormwater runoff from land disturbance activities, which can cause soil erosion and increase sediments in surface waters, are important factors to consider for the management of surface water. Stormwater management systems provide the benefit of reducing sediments and other contaminants that would otherwise flow directly into surface waters.

The CWA (33 USC § 1251 et. seq., as amended) establishes federal limits, through the NPDES, on the amounts of specific pollutants that are discharged to surface waters to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the water. The term “waters of the United States” has a broad meaning under the CWA and incorporates deepwater aquatic habitats and special aquatic habitats. Sections 404 and 401 (through water quality certification) of the CWA regulate the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the waters of the United States, including wetlands (discussed in the following subsection).

Water quality standards at the installation are regulated by USEPA, under the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 USC § 201, 300 et seq.) and the CWA. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to identify and develop a list of impaired water bodies where technology based and other required controls have not provided attainment of water quality standards. Section 305(b) of the CWA requires states to assess and report the quality of their water bodies. The State of Hawaii combined their 303(d) and 305(b) list into one report referred to as the Integrated Report. The


June 2018 | 3-8

Integrated Report identifies those water bodies that are impaired and do not meet designated uses, and it establishes total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the pollutants of concern.

Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (42 USC § 17094) establishes stormwater design requirements for federal construction projects that disturb a footprint greater than 5,000 square feet. Additional guidance is provided in the USEPA Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act.

Wetlands. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (33 CFR § 328). USACE defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated with ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions.”

Wetlands are protected as a subset of the waters of the United States under Section 404 of the CWA. Section 404 of the CWA authorizes USACE to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the waters of the United States, including wetlands. In addition, Section 404 of the CWA also grants states with sufficient resources the right to assume these responsibilities. Section 401 of the CWA gives the state board and regional boards the authority to regulate through water quality certification any proposed federally permitted activity that could result in a discharge to water bodies, including wetlands. The state may issue certification, with or without conditions, or deny certification for activities that might result in a discharge to water bodies.

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires that federal agencies provide leadership and take actions to minimize or avoid the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Federal agencies are to avoid new construction in wetlands, unless the agency finds there is no practicable alternative to construction in the wetland, and the proposed construction incorporates all possible measures to limit harm to the wetland.

Floodplains. Floodplains are areas of low-level ground adjacent to rivers, stream channels, large wetlands, or coastal waters. Such lands might be subject to periodic or infrequent inundation during flooding events such as from rainfall, hurricane storm surge, or a combination of both. Floodplain ecosystem functions include natural moderation of floods, flood storage and conveyance, groundwater recharge, and nutrient cycling.

Flood potential is evaluated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which defines 100-year and 500-year floodplains. The 100-year floodplain is the area that has a 1 percent chance of inundation by a flood event in a given year while 500-year floodplains have a 0.2 percent chance of inundation in a given year.

EO 11988, Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to determine whether a proposed action would occur within a floodplain. This determination typically involves consultation of Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which contain enough general information to determine the relationship of the project area to nearby floodplains. EO


June 2018 | 3-9

11988 directs federal agencies to avoid floodplains to the maximum extent possible wherever there is a practicable alternative. In accomplishing this objective, Section 1 of EO 11988 states that “each agency shall provide leadership and shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains in carrying out its responsibilities.”

Coastal Zone. The federal CZMP comprehensively addresses the nation’s coastal issues through a voluntary partnership between the federal government and coastal and Great Lakes states and territories. Authorized by the CZMA of 1972 (16 USC § 1451 et seq., as amended), the program aims to protect, restore, and responsibly develop the nation’s diverse coastal communities and resources. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administers the program. The coastal zone refers to the coastal waters and the adjacent shorelines, including islands, transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches. Federal lands are excluded from the definition of “coastal zone” as defined by CZMA. However, activities on federal lands with any reasonably foreseeable coastal effects must be consistent with the enforceable policies of the affected state’s approved coastal program.

Hawai‘i’s CZMP was federally approved in 1977. The Hawai‘i CZM Program is administered by the State of Hawai‘i Office of Planning. The Office of Planning is the state agency responsible for implementing the federal consistency provisions and reviewing federal projects under CZMA. HRS Chapter 205A is the center of the federal consistency activities, and contains the CZM Program objectives and policies for recreational resources, historic resources, scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, economic uses, coastal hazards, managing development, public participation, beach protection, and marine resources. The Office of Planning has developed the Hawai‘i Ocean Resources Management Plan to address the requirements of the CZMA.

If the federal agency determines that coastal effects are reasonably foreseeable and that a proposed action is not exempt from further review, the federal agency must then submit a Consistency Determination to the state agency at least 90 days before final approval of the federal agency activity unless the federal agency and the state agency agree otherwise (15 CFR § 930.36). If the federal agency determines that an activity is not reasonably likely to have coastal effects based on a thorough consistency assessment, the federal agency must provide the state agency a Negative Determination at least 90 days prior to final approval (15 CFR § 930.35).

3.4.2 Affected Environment Groundwater. Groundwater beneath BAFS occurs in two distinct basal aquifers (upper and lower) within the Waimānalo Aquifer System of the Windward Aquifer Sector. The upper aquifer is unconfined and hosted in sedimentary volcanic rock, while the lower aquifer is confined and hosted in a dike compartment. The upper and lower aquifers are also characterized by several other factors including vulnerability to contamination; the upper aquifer is highly vulnerable, and the lower aquifer has a low vulnerability to contamination (Mink and Lau 1992).


June 2018 | 3-10

Although portions of the Waimānalo Aquifer System have connectivity between surface-water and groundwater, in lower reaches of the valley such as where BAFS is located, surface-water and groundwater are generally hydraulically separated from the basal freshwater aquifer by thick sediments (Honolulu Board of Water Supply 2012). The downstream portion of Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream (before it drains into the ocean) is tidally influenced and brackish. This may indicate that groundwater is discharging to the stream from a thin freshwater lens.

BAFS has eight existing wells; three wells for military use and five wells listed as unused. There are no groundwater use permits on file with the Commission on Water Resource Management. HAR Chapter 11-23 describes the delineation of a UIC line, which separates exempted aquifers and underground sources of drinking water. A review of the UIC map for the Island of O‘ahu indicates that BAFS and the groundwater underneath the proposed project area is not considered a potential source of drinking water.

Surface Water. BAFS is within the lower portion of the Waimānalo watershed, which drains 11.1 square miles of the Ko‘olau Mountains to the west. BAFS and MCTAB contain two major streams and two small tributaries totaling 2.6 miles in length (see Figure 2-1). Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream drains the central portion of the Bellows complex emptying into Waimānalo Bay. Inoa‘ole Stream crosses the southern portion of BAFS in a southwest-northeast direction until it empties into the Waimānalo Bay. Two small tributaries drain into Inoa‘ole Stream, one of which occurs within the southern portion of BAFS and the other runs along the northern border of the southern portion of BAFS. Inoa‘ole Stream drains the southern portion of MCTAB. There are no defined watercourses in the limited drainage area of the northern part of BAFS (USAF 2013a). The proposed project would intersect Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream.

Streams on BAFS are highly modified from their natural state and are characterized by low flow, high suspended sediment, and major channel modifications. Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream is a highly altered waterway with just over 1 percent of the natural stream channel remaining (HDOH 2007). Generally, all of the watercourses on the BAFS complex have been channelized. Because of their proximity to the coast and the generally low topographic elevation of BAFS, the streams are significantly influenced by tidal conditions and have flat channel slopes. The channels are characteristically wide but have limited flood-carrying capacity because of their flat gradients. Water from the Waimānalo Bay flows upstream with the tide in streams on BAFS (USAF 2013a).

Hawaii DOH has classified Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream as a class 2 stream. According to HAR Chapter 11-54-03(b) (2), class 2 waters are protected for uses such as recreation and protection of aquatic life. However, Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream runs through a predominantly agricultural area and is designated as a Water Quality Limited Segment for failing to meet the State’s water quality standards (HDOH 2007). Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream is included on the 303(d) list of impaired waters because of sediments and nutrients (HDOH 2014) and in 2001 the HDOH approved TMDLs. The stream has been given high-priority status for the development of watershed-based water quality improvement management actions, and there have been several projects conducted upstream in the watershed to address the impairments (USAF 2013a).


June 2018 | 3-11

Wetlands. Jurisdictional wetlands on BAFS include estuarine wetlands associated with Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream. Wetland Jurisdictional Determination forms for the Pu’ewai Wetland along the lower Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream were submitted to the USACE Honolulu District on November 1, 2016. This wetland is approximately 7.6 acres (USAF 2016b). There is extensive shoreline habitat on BAFS that is classified by the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory as marine wetland habitat; however, this shoreline habitat has not been determined to be jurisdictional by USACE. The proposed project area would occur within the Pu’ewai Wetland associated with Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream (see Figure 2-1).

Floodplains. The area along the coastline within the northern and southern portions of BAFS is within the 100-year floodplain. In addition, lands surrounding Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream are also within the 100-year floodplain (see Figure 2-1). The proposed project is within the 100-year floodplain associated with the Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream on BAFS.

Coastal Zone. Because of Hawai‘i’s geographic nature as a group of islands, the coastal zone area includes all lands, plus waters extending to the limit of state jurisdiction. However, any lands owned, leased, held in trust, or otherwise subject solely to the discretion of the Federal government are administratively excluded from the coastal zone. The entire proposed project area occurs within excluded lands. Despite this exclusion, the CZMA requires that direct Federal activities be consistent with state programs “to the maximum extent practicable” and are subject to review by the state Office of Planning. Consequently, USAF will submit a consistency determination (see Appendix B) for review (USAF 2013a).

CZM program objectives and policies cover recreational resources, historic resources, scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, economic uses, coastal hazards, managing development, public participation, beach protection, and marine resources. BAFS is also within a Special Management Area as designated by the City and County of Honolulu. Under Chapter 205A, Part II, of the HRS and Chapter 25 of the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu, development within a Special Management Area requires either a special management area use permit or special management area minor permit based on development characteristics. The City and County of Honolulu also designates 40 feet inland from the certified shoreline as the shoreline setback area, within which development is limited without a variance (Chapter 205A, Part III of the HRS and Chapter 23 of the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu). The proposed project area would not be within the 40-foot distance from the shoreline.

3.5 Biological Resources

3.5.1 Definition of the Resource Biological resources include native or naturalized plants and animals and the habitats (e.g., wetlands, forests, and grasslands) in which they exist. Protected and sensitive biological resources include federally listed (endangered or threatened), proposed, and designated or proposed critical habitat; species of concern managed under conservation agreements or management plans; and state-listed species. Federal candidate species and species of concern are not protected by law; however, these species could become listed, and therefore are given consideration when addressing biological resource impacts of an action.


June 2018 | 3-12

The ESA (16 USC § 1536) requires federal agencies, in consultation with USFWS or NMFS, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. The ESA defines critical habitat under section 3(5)(A). Once critical habitat is designated, Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to insure they do not fund, authorize, or carry out any actions that will destroy or adversely modify that habitat.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 (16 USC § 1361 et seq.) provides protection to all marine mammals in U.S. waters; several are also protected under the ESA. The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions, in waters under U.S. jurisdiction and by U.S. citizens on the high seas. Under Section 3 of the MMPA, “take” is defined as “harass, hunt, capture, kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill any marine mammal.” The MMPA requires consultations with NMFS if impacts on marine mammals are unavoidable.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act calls for direct actions to stop or reverse the continued loss of fish habitats. Under this Act, Congress directs NMFS and the eight regional Fishery Management Councils to describe and identify Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in each Fishery Management Plan; minimize, to the extent practicable, the adverse effects of fishing on EFH; and identify other actions to encourage the conservation of EFH. EFH is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. Section 305(b) mandates that Federal agencies must consult with the Secretary of Commerce on all proposed activities authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that might adversely affect EFH.

State-listed species are protected under the Hawai‘i Administrative Rule Chapter 13-107, Threatened and Endangered Plants and Chapter 13-124 Indigenous Wildlife, Endangered & Threatened Wildlife, Injurious Wildlife, Introduced Wild Birds, and Introduced Wildlife. The administrative rules are promulgated by the HDLNR, Division of Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

In accordance with the MBTA and EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (January 10, 2001), require federal agencies to minimize or avoid impacts on migratory birds listed in 50 CFR § 10.13. DOD and USFWS have cooperatively signed a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines an approach to promote the conservation of migratory bird populations.

Additionally, EO 13112, Invasive Species (February 3, 1999) requires all federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species, provide for their control and minimize their economic, ecological, and human health impacts.

3.5.2 Affected Environment Vegetation. There are no naturally occurring native plant assemblages on BAFS as a result of the historic development and continual disturbance in the area. All of the vegetation types on BAFS are secondary successional plant communities dominated by introduced species (USAF 2013a). BAFS has extensive areas of introduced vegetation that are under no or minimal management and areas that are landscaped or are heavily impacted by frequent human activity.


June 2018 | 3-13

Most of BAFS consists of the landscaped areas including ‘managed ironwood’ and ‘managed kiawe’ and unmanaged areas including koa-haole/Christmas berry shrubland, or ‘shrubs’, and five additional vegetation types: ironwood forest, koa-haole shrubland, mangrove, and pickleweed flats. Other cover types lacking vegetation include beach and disturbed or developed areas. The proposed project area is only found in landscaped areas and areas lacking vegetation.

These areas are landscaped or are heavily impacted by frequent human activity. The landscaped areas at BAFS are primarily near the shoreline to the north of Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream. They occur within or adjacent to the various recreational and community support facilities grouped in this area and in other developed areas. The landscaping consists of maintained lawns and a variety of common ornamental species (USAF 2013a). Managed kiawe, an invasive species of mesquite tree, grows along the shoreline in the northern portion of the landscaped beach area and managed ironwood occupies the central portion.

Wildlife and Habitat. The terrestrial and marine environments at BAFS provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species. The sandy shoreline also provides foraging habitat for migratory shorebirds; however, the shoreline is moderately influenced by recreational activity, which limits its use by wildlife. Mammals likely to occur at BAFS include feral cats, mongooses, dogs, pigs, rats, and mice; all of which have been observed during surveys in October 2014, January 2016, or June 2016 (USACE 2018). A total of 37 bird species were observed during these surveys and only seven of the observed species were native (see Table 3-3) (USAF 2015a, USACE 2018). Additionally, five amphibians and reptiles, 14 species of fish, and nine mollusk species were observed during the October 2014 and January 2016 surveys (USAF 2015a, USACE 2018).

Terrestrial habitat. Terrestrial habitat consists of wetlands, second-growth forest, shrubland, and turf areas, with shrubland and turf being the most dominant. There is one estuarine wetland at BAFS adjacent to the lower portion of Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream. Most of this wetland was covered by a dense growth of mangrove trees and two large patches of pickleweed in the center of the wetland and along the northeast edge. However, the removal of mature red mangroves was completed in 2014, and the pickleweed removal was initiated in 2015 (USAF 2017a, USAF 2016b). Mangroves cover foraging habitat critical for key wildlife species, such as the endangered Hawaiian black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni), that use the intertidal marginsof brackish wetlands (USAF 2013a). Stilts sometimes use clumps of pickleweed as cover for their nests and young, but the pickleweed also provides cover for introduced mammals that prey upon the stilts, such as rats, feral cats, and mongoose. After the mangrove and pickleweed removal, the wetland now provides improved habitat for native waterbirds (USAF 2016b). However, pickleweed and red mangrove are aggressive invasive species that will need to be consistently managed to prevent regrowth (USAF 2017a).

Second-growth forest and shrubland are intermixed on BAFS and provide habitat for a variety of exotic species for foraging, nesting, and cover. Many birds have been observed in these second-growth forest and shrubland habitats, including northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Japanese white-eye (Zosterops japonicus), white-rumped shama (Copsychus malabaricus), Japanese bush warbler (Cettia diphone), and Hawaiian owl (Asio flammeus sandwichensis).


June 2018 | 3-14

Table 3-3. Common Terrestrial Wildlife Species Observed on BAFS

Common Name, Hawaiian Name Scientific Name

MAMMALS

European house mouse Mus musculus domesticus

Domestic dog Canis familiaris

House cat Felis catus

Rat Rattus sp.

Small Indian mongoose Herpestes auropunctatus

Pig Sus scrofa

BIRDS

Great frigatebird, ‘iwa Fregata minor

Ruddy turnstone , 'akekeke Arenaria interpres

White-rumped shama Copsychus malabaricus

Pacific golden-plover, kolea Pluvialis fulva

Wandering tattler, 'ulili Heteroscelus incanus

Black-crowned night-heron, 'auku'u Nycticorax nycticorax hoactli

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis

Zebra dove Geopelia striata

Common myna Acridotheres tristis

Hawaiian coot, ʻalae keʻokeʻo* Fulica alai

Mallard x Hawaiian duck (koloa maoli), hybrid Anas platyrhynchos X A. wyvilliana

Hawaiian short-eared owl, pueo* Asio flammeus sandwichensis

Indian peafowl* Pavo cristatus

Gray francolin Francolinus pondicerianus

Chicken Gallus sp.

Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus

Rock pigeon Columba livia

Spotted dove Streptopelia chinensis

Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis

Red-crested cardinal Paroaria aponica

Red-vented bulbul Pycnonotus cafer

Red-whiskered bulbul Pycnonotus jocosus

White-rumped shama Copsychus malabaricus

Japanese bush-warbler Cettia diphone

Japanese white-eye Zosterops japonicus

Java sparrow Padda oryzivora

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus

House sparrow Passer domesticus

Common waxbill Estrilda astrild

Red-billed leiothrix Leiothrix lutea

Nutmeg mannikin Lonchura punctulata

Yellow-fronted canary Serinus mozambicus

Scaly-breasted munia Lonchura punctulata


June 2018 | 3-15

Chestnut munia Lonchura atricapilla

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

Red-eared slider turtle Chrysemys scripta elegans

Brahminy blind snakes* Indotyphlops braminus

Cane toad Rhinella marina

Japanese wrinkled frog Glandirana rugosa

Frog Rana sp.

Source: USAF 2015a, USACE 2018 *Observed by BAFS personnel and, therefore, included in the Final Flora and Fauna Survey Report (USACE 2018) findings.

Turf areas at BAFS typically include mowed grass and ornamental shrubs. This habitat is widely used by exotic species including sparrows, doves, and other ground feeders. Lawn and fields are also used extensively by the Pacific golden plover (Pluvialis fulva) as winter foraging areas.

Aquatic habitat. BAFS includes two major streams, although highly modified, and two small tributaries totaling 2.6 miles in length. Common marine fish species in both Pūhā (Waimānalo) and Inoa‘ole streams at BAFS include false mullet (Neomyxus leuciscus), striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), and Hawaiian flagtails (Kuhlia sandvicensis). The habitats at the stream mouths represent an important nursery area for juveniles of these species, all three of which are valuable commercial and recreational fish species in Hawai‘i. Introduced species, dominated by several species in the family Poeciliidae (guppies, mollies, mosquitofish), occur in the greatest numbers in the lower salinity and freshwater reaches of all streams.

Protected Species. The USFWS-Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office does not provide species lists through IPaC; therefore, potential occurrence for listed animals is based on biological field survey results summarized in the BAFS 2018 Final Flora and Fauna Survey Report, BAFS Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP), (updated in 2015), 2014 Biological Surveys of BAFS, and data compiled by the Hawai‘i Biodiversity and Mapping Program and provided by USFWS (USACE 2018, USAF 2013a, USAF 2015a, USFWS 2017a). Table 3-4 includes species that have been observed on, or have the potential to occur on, or near BAFS.

Plants. There are 293 plant species in Hawai‘i listed as threatened or endangered (3 with critical habitat), 202 species of concern, 92 candidate species, and 2 recommended as candidates (HDOFAW Undated). However, no rare, threatened, or endangered plant species have been documented on BAFS (USAF 2013a, USAF 2015a, USACE 2018). According to the Hawai‘i Division of Forestry and Wildlife, the state and federally listed plant ‘Ena‘ena (Pseudognaphalium sandwicensium var. molokaiense) has the potential to occur near the proposed project area (USAF 2013a).

Birds. Listed Hawaiian waterbirds are found in fresh and brackish-water marshes and ponds. During the June 2016 survey, a pair of ae‘o or Hawaiian black-necked stilts (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni) were seen copulating within the wetland and have been observed on previous site visits (USACE 2018). Hawaiian black-necked stilts can be found wherever ephemeral or persistent standing water occurs (USFWS 2017a). Additionally, Hawaiian common gallinule (Gallinula galeata sandvicensis) were observed in waterways during the


June 2018 | 3-16

Table 3-4. Threatened and Endangered Species Potentially Occurring on or Near BAFS

Common Name, Hawaiian Name

Scientific Name Status Habitat

MAMMALS

Hawaiian hoary bat, ope‘ape‘a*

Lasiurus cinereus semotus Endangered Forest and Open Country

Hawaiian monk seal, ‘ilio-holo-I-kauaua*

Monachus schauinslandi Endangered Marine

Humpback whale, kahola Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine

BIRDS

Band-rumped storm petrel, ‘ake’ake

Oceanodroma castro Endangered Marine

Hawaiian common gallinule* Gallinula galeata sandvicensis Endangered Wetlands

Hawaiian coot, ‘alae ke‘oke‘o* Fulica alai Endangered Wetlands

Hawaiian duck, koloa maoli* Anas wyvilliana Endangered Wetlands

Hawaiian petrel, ‘ua‘u Pterodroma sandwichensis Endangered Marine

Hawaiian black necked stilt, ae‘o*

Himantopus mexicanus knudseni Endangered Wetlands

Newell’s shearwater, ‘a ‘o Puffinus auricularis newelli Threatened Marine

Wedge-tailed shearwater, ‘ua‘u kani

Ardenna pacifica MBTA Marine

REPTILES

Green sea turtle, honu* Chelonia mydas Threatened Marine

Hawksbill turtle, ‘ea* Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Marine

PLANTS

‘ena‘ena Pseudognaphalium sandwicensium var. molokaiense

Endangered Dunes

Sources: USAF 2013a, USFWS 2017a *Observed on BAFS during October 2014, January 2016, or June 2016 surveys (USAF 2015a, USACE 2018)

October 2014 survey period but outside of the survey area (USAF 2015a). During the January 2016 survey, three gallinule chicks were recorded with their parents from Tinker Bridge just inside the BAFS entrance gate (within the project area). No other evidence of nesting activity was recorded during the January 2016 survey. Additionally, BAFS personnel noted that ʻalae keʻokeʻo or Hawaiian coot (Fulica alai); koloa maoli or Hawaiian duck (Anas wyviliana); and pueo or the Hawaiian short-eared owl (Asio flammeus sandwichensis), a species of concern, have also been observed on the installation (USACE 2018). Although not observed, the federally threatened Newell’s shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelii) and seabirds protected under the MBTA, such as the wedgetailed shearwater (Puffinus pacificus chlorhynchus), could nest in areas adjacent to or on BAFS (USAF 2015a, USACE 2018). Observations made during the January and June 2016 surveys indicate that nesting activity by endangered species of waterbirds (i.e., Hawaiian black-necked stilt and Hawaiian common gallinule) is occurring within BAFS (USACE 2018).


June 2018 | 3-17

Reptiles. Green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) have been observed on the surface and underwater in Waimānalo Bay during past surveys and during the January 2016 survey (USAF 2013a, USACE 2018). Additionally, two turtle nesting sites occurred on BAFS in 2015 (USAF 2016c, USACE 2018). Haul-out by green sea turtles (i.e., when green sea turtles come on to shore to rest, lay eggs, etc.) is on the rise in the main Hawaiian Islands (USAF 2013a). The hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) is listed as endangered and is known to occur in Waimānalo Bay. Two sightings of ʻea or hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) hatchlings occurred in October 2016: a dead hatchling was found on October 12, 2016, on the water’s edge near cabin 242A, and live hatchlings were found at the water’s edge by the rock out-cropping at the mouth of Inoa‘ole stream on October 23, 2016.

Mammals. The endangered Hawaiian hoary bat has been observed on BAFS and it is possible that it uses suitable roosting habitat on the installation, which includes woody vegetation from 3 to 29 feet above ground surface (HDOFAW 2005, USACE 2018). Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) are known to frequent the waters off Hawaiian Islands from December through April; however, Waimānalo Bay is too shallow for anything but a rare visit by these whales and none were observed during the January 2016 survey (USACE 2018). The Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi), which is currently listed as endangered, is known to occur and possibly forage in Waimānalo Bay (USAF 2013a). In February 2013 a Hawaiian monk seal hauled out on the northern beach area at BAFS and they were observed during the June 2016 survey (USACE 2018).

Other. Coastal plants such as naupaka (Scaevola sericea), which is commonly found on BAFS, and pa‘u o hi‘iaka (Jacquemontia ovalifolia ssp. Sandwicensis), which is occasionally found on AFS, are likely present in the project area and are host to the federally endangered yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus mana) (USACE 2018). These listed bees have been noted at other shoreline areas near the project area (HDLNR 2017).

Critical Habitat

In 2015, critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal was revised and designated at specified land and water areas of the Northwest and main Hawaiian Islands. Areas include the seafloor and marine habitat to 10 meters above the seafloor from the 200 meter depth contour through the shoreline and extending into terrestrial habitat 5 meters inland from the shoreline between identified boundary points on Kaula, Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, Maui Nui (including Kahoolawe, Lanai, Maui, and Molokai), and Hawaii. These terrestrial boundary points define preferred pupping areas and significant haul-out areas. BAFS beach does not fall within assigned boundary points; therefore, it is excluded from monk seal terrestrial critical habitat designation. Additionally, certain areas are ineligible for designation because the areas are managed under an INRMP found to provide a benefit to Hawaiian monk seals (in accordance with Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA) (USACE 2018).

Essential Fish Habitat

Within the bay, the entire water column and all bottom habitat, including coral reefs, are designated as EFH (USAF 2013a). The Proposed Action would not be expected to have any impact on EFH; therefore, this habitat will no longer be discussed in the EA.


June 2018 | 3-18

Migratory Birds

The sandy shoreline at BAFS provides foraging habitat for a variety of migratory shorebirds (see Table 3-5). However, the shoreline is heavily used by recreationists on weekends and by military personnel during the week, which limits its use by wildlife (USAF 2013a). No migratory birds listed in Table 3-5 were observed along the beach during the October 2014, January 2016, or June 2016 surveys (USAF 2015a, USACE 2018).

Table 3-5. Migratory Birds Potentially Occurring on or near BAFS

Common Name Scientific Name Seasons

Apapane Himatione sanguinea On Land: Year-round

Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica On Land: Migrating

Black-footed albatross Phoebastria nigripes At Sea: Migrating

Christmas shearwater Puffinus nativitatis On Land: Breeding

Laysan albatross Phoebastria immutabilis On Land: Breeding, Wintering

Tahiti petrel Pseudobulweria rostrata On Land: Wintering

Tristram’s storm petrel Oceanodroma tristrami On Land: Wintering

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus On Land: Wintering

Source: USFWS 2017b

3.6 Cultural Resources

3.6.1 Definition of the Resource Cultural resources are historic or prehistoric sites and districts or historic buildings, structures, and objects considered important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other purposes. They include archaeological resources, historic architectural or engineering resources, and traditional cultural resources. Depending on the condition and association, such resources might provide insight into the cultural practices of previous civilizations; represent significant historic or architectural themes, events, or persons; or retain cultural and religious significance to modern groups.

Several Federal laws and regulations govern protection of cultural resources, including the NHPA of 1966, the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (1990). BAFS is required to comply with USAF regulations and instructions regarding cultural resources, including AFI 32-7065, Cultural Resources Management and BAFS’s Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) (USAF 2016a). BAFS consults with NHOs in accordance with the laws listed previously, as well as DODI 4710.03, Consultation Policy with NHOs.

The NHPA establishes criteria for assessing the significance of cultural resources. Resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are termed “historic properties.” Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to assess the potential impact of their undertakings on historic properties in the area of potential effect (APE) and to prevent, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on historic properties. BAFS is consulting under


June 2018 | 3-19

Section 106 of the NHPA with the Hawai‘i SHPD and interested NHOs. As a part of the Section 106 process, BAFS has defined the undertaking as the replacement or repair of the Waimanalo Bridge, as described in Section 2. The APE encompasses the project footprints where ground disturbing activities would occur, as depicted in Figure 2-1.

NAGPRA provides a process for museums and federal land managers to return certain Native American and Native Hawaiian cultural items (e.g., human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony) to lineal descendants, and culturally affiliated Indian tribes and NHOs. NAGPRA includes provisions for unclaimed and culturally unidentifiable Native American and Native Hawaiian cultural items on federal and tribal lands, and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking.

Typically, cultural resources are subdivided into archaeological resources, architectural resources, or resources of traditional or religious significance. Archaeological resources comprise areas where human activity has measurably altered the earth or deposits of physical remains are found (e.g., projectile points and bottles), but standing structures do not remain. Architectural resources include standing buildings, bridges, dams, other structures, and designed landscapes of historic or aesthetic significance. Generally, architectural resources must be more than 50 years old to warrant consideration for the NRHP. More recent structures might warrant protection if they are of exceptional importance or if they have the potential to gain significance in the future. Resources of traditional or religious significance can include archaeological resources, sacred sites, structures, districts, prominent topographic features, habitat, plants, animals, or minerals considered essential for the preservation of traditional culture. Resources of traditional or religious significance also include human skeletal remains, funerary and sacred items, and objects of cultural patrimony that are protected under NAGPRA.

3.6.2 Affected Environment Archaeological evidence at BAFS indicates Hawaiians first settled the area between AD 1040 and AD 1219 (Dye and Pantaleo 2010). Permanent settlements were typically in the central and upland areas along Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream, whereas the lowland and immediate coastal areas were predominantly used for temporary settlements. Inland dunes and beaches were often used for burial activities. The Waimānalo area was a productive region for irrigated taro and aquaculture. In the mid-nineteenth century, all land in Hawai‘i was divided among the king, 245 chiefs, and the government in a process called the Māhele (Dye and Pantaleo 2010). Most of the land in Waimānalo was set aside as crown lands (that is, belonging to the monarchy), although a small number of Land Commission awards were made in the area around BAFS and MCTAB (Tomonari-Tuggle 2014). In 1850, an Englishman named Thomas Cummins obtained a lease for the crown lands in Waimānalo where he established a cattle ranch. Through the rest of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century the area was leased for cattle ranching, rice plantations, and subsequently sugar cultivation. A coup backed by American troops overthrew the government of Queen Lili‘uokalani in 1893, eventually leading to annexation of Hawai‘i as a territory of the United States in 1900. All lands previously held by the Hawaiian government, including the Cummins lease, passed to the territorial government.

BAFS was established in 1917 as the Waimānalo Military Reservation and served as a training camp, a bivouac area, a target practice area for the Coast Artillery Corps, and a strafing and


June 2018 | 3-20

bombing practice range for the Army Air Service. In 1933, the installation’s name was changed to Waimānalo Reservation, Bellows Field. Extensive development occurred in 1941 and 1942, first in preparation for possible war in the Pacific and later in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Runways were built and expanded, revetments were constructed to protect aircraft from further air attack or flying debris, and much of the military reservation was leveled or filled (Tomonari-Tuggle 2014). During the Cold War, portions of the installation were developed as a communications facility and two Nike-Hercules surface-to-air missile batteries were installed. BAFS was also developed as a DOD rest and recreation center, which remains BAFS primary mission today. In 2000, BAFS was reduced to 197 acres with the remaining acreage transferred to the U.S. Marine Corps and established as MCTAB.

3.6.2.1 Archaeological Resources

Several dozen archaeological studies have been completed on BAFS and MCTAB since the 1970s, including pedestrian inventory survey, trenching, coring, and the use of remote sensing methods such as ground penetrating radar (Tomonari-Tuggle 2014, Dye and Pantaleo 2010). This research and studies from adjacent areas suggests the entire lowland area of BAFS may have been a single archaeological site prior to extensive mechanical disturbance associated with construction of aircraft runways and the Nike Hercules Missile Launch Facility (Tuggle 1995). The entire APE has been subject to previous archaeological work. Reconnaissance surveys and subsurface testing were completed in portions of the APE in 1975, 1988, and 2001. Archaeological monitoring of previous ground disturbance within the APE was conducted in 1975, 1989, 2000, 2002, and 2006, including monitoring of ground disturbance during replacement of the Waimānalo Bridge in 1989 (USAF 2016a, Tomonari-Tuggle 2014, Miller 1991). Monitors of the bridge replacement encountered archaeological deposits likely associated with nearby site 4852, also known as site O-18 or the Bellows Dune Site.

Two other sites have been identified near the APE, sites 4851 and 4853. Sites 4851, 4852, and 4853 are habitation sites with discontinuous locales of buried archaeological materials. Pre-contact site boundaries at BAFS and MCTAB tend to be poorly defined and somewhat artificial. Most were loosely drawn around individual locales where buried deposits have been encountered rather than defined through systematic subsurface testing (Tomonari-Tuggle 2014). It is expected that archaeological deposits continue beyond identified site boundaries.

The Bellows Field Archaeological Area is an archaeological district at BAFS formally listed in the NRHP in 1974. The historic significance of the district was recognized primarily on the basis of scientifically important deposits excavated at the Bellows Dune Site (4852) located within the district (USAF 2016a). The district’s boundaries extend the length of Waimānalo beach. As with archaeological sites on the installation, the boundaries are poorly defined, somewhat arbitrary, and bear little resemblance to the distribution of sites that have subsequently been defined within the district and its vicinity (USAF 2016a). The SHPD has assigned new site numbers within the district and it is no longer considered a distinct historic property. However, in practice, the district’s significance and protections are extended to the new sites (USAF 2016a, AECOM 2015).


June 2018 | 3-21

3.6.2.2 Architectural Resources

BAFS has evaluated most historic-age architectural resources on the installation with studies completed in 2002, 2012, and 2015 (USAF 2016a, Tomonari-Tuggle 2014, Desilets and Bylery 2015). The Waimānalo Bridge was originally built in 1941; however, records indicate the bridge appears to have been completely replaced in 1989 after the original bridge was washed out during a storm. The bridge no longer retains historic integrity and is not eligible for NRHP listing. No other architectural resources are in the APE.

3.6.2.3 Resources of Traditional or Religious Significance

Resources of traditional or religious significance may include landscapes, natural features, plant communities, faunal resources, and traditional fishing or gathering areas important to contemporary and descendant communities. Traditional cultural resources on BAFS of particular cultural importance to Native Hawaiians are the iwi kupuna (ancestral bones) buried within the installation boundaries. For Native Hawaiians, the iwi kupuna are integral to the connection between the people, the land, and sustainment of Native Hawaiian identity, past and present. Traditionally, the bones of the dead were highly respected, venerated, loved, and protected by relatives (Baldauf 2010). The tradition of protecting or caring for iwi kupuna remains a significant aspect of cultural identity for Native Hawaiians today. Desecration of iwi kupuna, including disturbing the bones or exposing them to sunlight “results in the spirit being insulted as well as injury and spiritual trauma to the living descendants of the dishonored dead” (Baldauf 2010). Destruction of iwi is considered the worst act of desecration (Baldauf 2010).

BAFS procedures require cultural monitoring of all ground disturbing activities on the installation to minimize the potential for affecting burials. BAFS procedures for the treatment of human remains on the installation is to consult with NHOs per the requirements of NAGPRA and leave the burial intact and in place whenever possible if it will not lead to further disturbance. If it is not possible to avoid the burial, the remains are carefully removed and ceremonially interred at a new tomb specially made for this purpose. During periodic ceremonies presided over by Native Hawaiian religious leaders and hosted by USAF, additional bone remains are entombed within the structure (USAF 2016a). No other resources of traditional or religious importance to Native Hawaiians are known in the APE.

3.7 Infrastructure

3.7.1 Definition of the Resource Infrastructure consists of the systems and physical structures that enable a population in a specified area to function. Infrastructure is wholly man made, with a high correlation between the type and extent of infrastructure and the degree to which an area is characterized as “urban” or developed. The availability of infrastructure and its capacity to support growth are generally regarded as essential to the economic growth of an area. The infrastructure components to be discussed in this section include utilities, solid waste management, and transportation. Utilities include electrical supply, water supply, sanitary sewer and wastewater system, propane gas, communications system, and stormwater drainage. Solid waste management primarily relates to the availability of landfills to support a population’s residential, commercial, and industrial needs


June 2018 | 3-22

and includes recycling efforts. Transportation includes major and minor roadways that feed into the installation, security gates, and roadways on the installation.

3.7.2 Affected Environment Because the sanitary sewer and wastewater system, propane gas, communications system, and stormwater drainage are not affected or improved through the Proposed Action, they will not be analyzed further in this EA.

Electrical Supply. Hawaiian Electric Company, Incorporated, supplies electricity to BAFS and the entire island of O‘ahu. Many of the electrical distribution lines at BAFS are older, overhead, pole-mounted lines, which are more susceptible to failure than modern, buried electrical lines (USAF 2015b).

Utility conduit, mounted to the Tinker Road Bridge via deck hangers, carries electrical line across the Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream to supply power to the guard shack at the primary access gate and street lighting in the immediate vicinity of the guard shack.

Water Supply. BAFS purchases water from the City and County of Honolulu, Board of Water Supply, which in turn draws water from an aquifer underneath the Island of O‘ahu (BWS 2017). Water is delivered to the installation through a PVC main (12-inch and 8-inch-diameter) and is distributed through the installation via smaller diameter transite, PVC, cast iron, and poly piping (Wright Undated).

Utility conduit, mounted to the Tinker Road Bridge via deck hangers, carries 2-inch poly piping across the Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream to supply water to the guard shack at the primary access gate.

Solid Waste Management. There are no active landfills at BAFS. Solid waste generated at the installation is collected by contractors and disposed of at City and County of Honolulu, Department of Environmental Services disposal facilities. Most residential and commercial solid waste (i.e., municipal solid waste [MSW]) generated on the Island of O‘ahu is disposed of at the Honolulu Program of Waste Energy Recovery (H-POWER), the island’s waste-to-energy plant. Noncombustible MSW and construction and demolition wastes are disposed of at the City-owned Waimānalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill and privately-owned Nanakuli Landfill, respectively (ENV 2017a).

Both the City and County of Honolulu and BAFS manage recycling programs to reduce the amount of solid waste. Recycled materials collected by the City and County of Honolulu include aluminum, paper, glass, plastic, metals, and green waste (i.e., yard debris) (ENV 2017c). Bins to collect aluminum cans and plastic bottles for recycling are provided throughout the installation. Additional recycling efforts are commonly included in specific construction and demolition projects.

Transportation. BAFS is accessed via the Kalaniana‘ole Highway, which is also known as Highway 72. As discussed in Section 1.1, the primary access gate for BAFS is located on Tinker Road approximately 2 miles north of the intersection of Tinker Road and Kalanianaole Highway, just south of where Tinker Road crosses Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream. The primary


June 2018 | 3-23

access gate is manned at all times and completed renovations in 2018 (USAF 2010a). The primary circulation route on the BAFS is Tinker Road, which generally follows the perimeter of the installation. Secondary roads on the installation include Pine Tree Road, Family Circle Road, and the inactive runways that support limited vehicular access. No issues with traffic have been reported at the installation.

3.8 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management

3.8.1 Definition of the Resource Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Wastes, and Petroleum Products. Hazardous materials are defined by 49 CFR § 171.8 as hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, marine pollutants, elevated temperature materials, materials designated as hazardous in the Hazardous Materials Table (49 CFR § 172.101), and materials that meet the defining criteria for hazard classes and divisions in 49 CFR § 173. Hazardous wastes are defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) at 42 USC § 6903(5), 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.”

Petroleum products include crude oil or any derivative thereof, such as gasoline, diesel, or propane. They are considered hazardous materials because they present health hazards to users in the event of incidental releases or extended exposure to their vapors.

Evaluation of hazardous materials and wastes focuses on the storage, transportation, handling, and use of hazardous materials, as well as the generation, storage, transportation, handling, and disposal of hazardous wastes. In addition to being a threat to humans, the improper release or storage of hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, and petroleum products can threaten the health and well-being of wildlife species, habitats, soil systems, and water resources.

Special Hazards. Special hazards are substances that might pose a risk to human health and are addressed separately from hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Special hazards include asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), lead-based paint (LBP), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), all of which are typically found in buildings and utilities infrastructure.

Asbestos is regulated by USEPA under the Clean Air Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. The State of Hawai’i regulates asbestos in accordance with HAR Title 11, Chapter 501, Asbestos Requirements. USEPA has established that any material containing more than 1 percent asbestos by weight is considered an ACM. ACMs are generally found in building materials such as floor tiles, mastic, roofing materials, pipe wrap, and wall plaster. USEPA has implemented several bans on various ACMs between 1973 and 1990, so ACMs are most likely in older buildings (i.e., constructed before 1990). LBP was commonly used prior to its ban in 1978; therefore, buildings constructed prior to 1978 may contain LBP. Additionally, LBP has been used in some modern highway construction applications; therefore, any roadway or bridge regardless of age could contain


June 2018 | 3-24

LBP. PCBs are man-made chemicals that persist in the environment and were widely used in building materials (e.g., caulk) and electrical products prior to 1979. Structures constructed prior to 1979 potentially include PCB-containing building materials.

3.8.2 Affected Environment Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Wastes, and Petroleum Products. USAF installations manage hazardous materials through AFI 32-7086, Hazardous Materials Management, and hazardous wastes through AFI 32-7042, Waste Management. BAFS does not use substantial volumes of hazardous materials and petroleum products. Most hazardous materials and petroleum products are limited to those for vehicle fueling at the base exchange service station and Building 540. The installation also typically does not generate appreciable amounts of hazardous waste (USAF 2014a). BAFS is an active RCRA Very Small Quantity Generator (formerly known as Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators) with facility identification number HI3570028719 (USEPA 2017c). RCRA Very Small Quantity Generators generate 100 kilograms or less per month of hazardous waste or 1 kilogram or less per month of acutely hazardous waste.

BAFS does not maintain a hazardous materials management plan or a hazardous waste management plan. The installation does, however, maintain a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan, which identifies specific procedures and responsibilities for responding to a spill of oil or a hazardous substance (USAF 2014a). There are no hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, or petroleum products currently within the areas of the Proposed Action.

Special Hazards. The Tinker Road Bridge over Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream was reconstructed in 1989, which would be less likely to contain ACMs, LBP, and PCBs; however, appropriate testing of special hazards would occur prior to demolition (USAF 2014b).

3.9 Recreation and Visual Resources

3.9.1 Definition of the Resource Recreation. Recreation refers to both natural and human-made lands designated by planning entities to offer visitors and residents diverse opportunities to enjoy leisure activities. Recreational resources are places or amenities set aside as parklands, beaches, trails, recreational fields, sport or recreational venues, open spaces, open waters, and aesthetically pleasing landscapes along with a variety of other uses. Federal, state, and local jurisdictions typically have designated land areas with defined boundaries for recreation. Other less-structured activities (e.g., fishing) are performed in broad, less defined locales. A recreational setting might consist of natural or human-made landscapes and can vary in size from a roadside monument to a designated sport area to a wilderness area. For this analysis, recreational activities include any type of outdoor activity in which BAFS recreational visitors or the general public could participate.

Visual Resources. Visual resources are defined as the natural and man-made features that give a setting or area its aesthetic qualities. These features define the landscape character of an area and form the overall visual impression that an observer receives include landforms, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and man-made modifications. Evaluating


June 2018 | 3-25

the aesthetic qualities of an area is a subjective process because the value that an observer places on a specific feature varies depending on his/her perspective. In general, a feature observed within a landscape can be considered as “characteristic” (or character-defining) if it is inherent to the composition and function of the landscape. Landscapes can change over time, so analysis of the environmental impacts of a proposed action on a given landscape or area must be made relative to the “characteristic” features currently composing the landscape or area.

3.9.2 Affected Environment Recreation. BAFS has dual missions of training and recreation; the latter is to provide recreational activities for the well-being and morale of the DOD military and civilian personnel. As such, much of the installation consists of recreational facilities or facilities supporting the recreation mission. Most of the BAFS recreational areas and facilities are along the shoreline, including recreational areas (beach areas, picnic grounds, mini golf, nature trails, playground, and playing fields and courts), temporary residences (cabins and campsites), and support facilities (bathhouses, shoppette/launderette, mini-fitness center, and a gas station) (USAF 2013b, USAF 2013a, USAF 2010a). Recreational amenities at BAFS are open to all active-duty and retired military personnel, and other authorized DOD personnel. Approximately 1,300 to 1,500 visitors per day access BAFS (USAF 2013a).

In addition to recreation areas on BAFS, Bellows Field Beach Park is within MCTAB (between the northern and southern portions of BAFS) and Waimanalo Bay State Recreation Area or Waimānalo Bay Beach Park (also known as Sherwood Forest) is adjacent to the south of the southern portion of BAFS. Bellows Field Beach Park is maintained by the City and County of Honolulu, and is open to the general public on weekends. Camping is authorized at the park with a permit, and the beach provides activities such as swimming, bodysurfing, and board surfing (USAF 2013a). Waimānalo Bay Beach Park shares a beach with Bellows Field Beach Park, and offers permitted camping, snorkeling, a ballpark, and basketball courts.

Visual Resources. BAFS is located on the windward side of the Ko‘olau Mountain Range on Waimānalo Bay. It is bordered by approximately 1.4 miles of shoreline (0.4 mile of hardened shoreline and 0.7 mile of sandy beach along the northern portion of BAFS and approximately 0.3 mile of sandy beach along the southern portion of BAFS). Most of BAFS is flat, except for an area in the far northern part of the installation that has steep terrain and elevations up to 600 feet.

BAFS is classified by three levels of grounds maintenance performed (improved, semi-improved, unimproved), which affects the landscape. Improved areas around buildings consist of landscaping, including maintained lawns and common ornamental plant species, which contributes to visual qualities in the developed areas of BAFS, primarily along the shoreline in the northern portion of BAFS. Semi-improved grounds receive infrequent maintenance, and unimproved areas do require maintenance except occasional brush control. Trees cover the landscaped/managed areas and the unmanaged forest areas.

The Tinker Road Bridge is in improved and unimproved areas at the southern edge of the northern portion of BAFS. Areas along Tinker Road are maintained, but surrounding land is


June 2018 | 3-26

generally unimproved consisting of trees and shrubs. It is approximately 200 feet south of the closest cabins (100 series cabins along Jetty Lane) and 200 feet west of the beach. Except for an unimpeded view on the bridge to the ocean, it is partially shielded from view of the beach by trees along the shoreline. The temporary detour route is primarily through MCTAB along existing roadways that are semi-improved, but surrounded by unmanaged forest. The temporary detour route is currently being used by heavy trucks accessing BAFS, and travels along Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream and abandoned taxiways.

USAF | Draft EA Addressing Tinker Road Bridge Repair/Replacement at BAFS, Hawai‘iENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

June 2018 | 4-1

4. Environmental Consequences

4.1 Noise The impacts associated with noise were evaluated based on the changes to the ambient noise environment that would be caused by the implementation of the Proposed Action. An action could have a significant impact with respect to noise if sensitive noise receptors were exposed to noise in excess of applicable standards, or if noise levels created appreciable areas of incompatible land use.

4.1.1 Alternative 1 Short-term, minor, adverse impacts on the BAFS ambient noise environment would be expected during the implementation of Alternative 1, Replacement. Short-term impacts would result from demolition and construction equipment use. Construction would require different types of equipment described in Table 3-2.

Under Alternative 1, the noise from equipment would be localized and intermittent, lasting only for the duration of equipment operation. Noise levels would vary depending on the type of equipment being used and the distance of the receptor from the noise source. Most equipment used would be expected to produce noise levels between approximately 59 and 89 dBA at a distance of 200 feet (see Table 3-2). Noise levels at the upper end of this range would be associated with equipment such as pile drivers and sandblasters which would be used during an 8- to 14-week period, depending on whether cofferdams would be erected. Proposed construction timeframes, activities, and equipment use are shown in Table 4-1. Sound levels on the lower end of the range would be more constant during proposed construction period of 12 to 18 months. Noise levels would decrease with distance from the project area and through the use of noise attenuation equipment, such as equipment exhaust mufflers. Because noise levels would be expected to exceed 55 dBA during construction activities, a Community Noise Permit would be required.

Proposed activities under Alternative 1 would likely require several pieces of equipment to be used simultaneously. In general, the addition of a piece of equipment with identical noise levels to another piece of equipment would add approximately 3 dB to the overall noise environment, which is barely perceptible by the human ear (TRS Audio Undated a, Caltrans Undated). Cumulative noise associated with multiple pieces of construction equipment operating simultaneously would increase the overall noise environment by a few dB over the noisiest equipment, depending on the noise levels. Project construction is projected to last over a period of 12 to 18 months. Because this alternative includes the demolition and replacement of the existing bridge, the project length would likely be at the maximum term. Therefore, the noise impacts, although still considered temporary, would be experienced over a longer time period.


June 2018 | 4-2

Table 4-1. Example Activities Generating Elevated Noise Levels

Project Phase

Activity Maximum Duration of

elevated noise

(weeks)

Potential Equipment to be Used

Site Mobilization

Establish project cordon. Stage equipment and supplies.

1 Heavy equipment transport

Demolition Erect coffer dam north side of bridge. 1 Pile-driving hammer,

crane

Demolition

Demolition of north side of bridge. 2 Boom-mounted breakers, hand-held breakers (jackhammer), backhoe

Demolition Remove north side coffer dam and erect coffer dam south side of bridge.

1 Pile-driving hammer, crane

Demolition

Demolition of south side of bridge. 2 Boom-mounted breakers, hand-held breakers (jackhammer), backhoe

Demolition Remove south side coffer dam and erect coffer dam under central support.

1 Pile-driving hammer, crane

Demolition

Demolition of center support beam and removal of coffer dam.

0.3 Boom-mounted breakers, hand-held breakers (jackhammer), backhoe

Construction Site grading and ground work. Elevations survey. Excavation.

2 Grader, Bulldozer

Construction

Drive 10 to 15 pylons (10 new pylons, 5 central pylons if original pylons need to be replaced) for the two edge support columns and one central pier.

2 Pile driver

Construction Build form work, install rebar, and weld for the three support columns.

6 Welding generator

Construction

Erect coffer dam around column supports. Pour concrete for column supports. Duration includes cure time and stripping of forms. Timeframe dependent on engineer specifications for pour schedule, type of concrete mix, specific cure time, and sampling.

2 Pile driving hammer, crane, concrete mixer

Construction

Remove all in-stream materials (i.e., coffer dams). Erect safety scaffolding affixed to column support for construction of upper bridge structure.

4

Construction Install form and rebar cage for upper structure. 8 Welding generator

Construction Pour concrete for upper structure. Duration includes cure time and stripping of forms.

12 Concrete mixer

Construction Install form and rebar cage for guard rails. 3 Welding generator

Construction Pour concrete for guard rail. Duration includes cure time and stripping of forms.

4 Concrete mixer

Construction Finishes, reconstitution, landscaping, and stripe painting.

6


June 2018 | 4-3

Additional short-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on the BAFS ambient noise environment would result from the increase in construction vehicle traffic. Construction traffic would use existing roadways to access the work areas. Consequently, the additional traffic resulting from construction vehicles would likely cause negligible to minor increases in noise levels. The detour route would occur within 400 feet of the campsites to the right of Pine Tree Road. The average daily traffic along Tinker Road Bridge was estimated to be 500 vehicles in 2017 (FHA 2017), which would be diverted along the detour. Noise levels 100 feet from the centerline of the road would range from 50 to 70 dBA depending on the intensity of traffic, as described in Table 3-1. Noise levels at the campsite from vehicular traffic could range from 38 to 58 dBA. Receptors at other cabins, group campsites, and recreational areas would experience noise at lower levels depending on their distance from the detour route. Noise generation during quiet hours would be lower because traffic would become increasingly intermittent. Increased noise levels would be temporary and intermittent. with the highest noise levels limited to high volume traffic, and noise levels would decrease with distance from the detour route. Therefore, noise generated from vehicular traffic would not be significant.

Alternative 1 would occur near the 100 series cabins, approximately 200 feet northeast of the project area. Noise levels at the 100 series cabins could range between approximately 79 and 89 dBA over an 8- to 14-week period during noise intensive construction activities. During other construction activities, noise levels at these cabins generally would occur between 59 and 82 dBA. The construction site is near recreational areas; therefore, people using these areas could experience similar noise levels. Receptors at other cabins, campsites, and recreational areas would experience noise at lower levels depending on their distance from the construction area. BAFS would implement measures to reduce noise levels and impacts to facility users by requiring the use of noise attenuation features on construction equipment, limiting construction hours, temporarily closing lodging and recreation areas expected to experience the highest noise levels, offering alternative accommodations, if available, informing facility users of the construction schedule so they better plan their activities, and possibly offering accommodations most likely to experience the highest noise impacts at discounted rates with full disclosure of the circumstances.

Impacts to the ambient noise environment and receptors would be minor because increased noise levels would be temporary and intermittent; the highest noise levels would be limited to intermittent spurts; noise levels would decrease with distance from the project area; and the use of noise attenuation equipment would ensure that noise levels would not exceed levels specified in the Community Noise Permit. Additionally, noise generation would only occur for the duration of construction and would be isolated to working hours between 8 a.m. (or 9 a.m. on Saturdays) and 6 p.m. All applicable noise laws and guidelines would be followed to reduce effects from noise and construction workers would be required to use proper personal hearing protection to limit exposure. No long-term impacts would be expected because use of Tinker Road Bridge would not result in any appreciable increase to the ambient noise environment of the installation. Therefore, no significant impacts would be expected.

4.1.2 Alternative 4 Short-term, minor, adverse impacts on the BAFS ambient noise environment and sensitive receptors would be expected under Alternative 4, Repair. Under this alternative, impacts would


June 2018 | 4-4

be similar to those described for Alternative 1; however, increased frequency and duration of infrastructure/building construction or excavation equipment use would be expected under this alternative. The potential for additional cumulative noise impacts due to simultaneous equipment use would not appreciably increase the magnitude of impacts under this alternative because the use of additional pieces of equipment would only increase the overall noise environment by a few dB over the noisiest equipment (depending on the noise levels). Demolition for this alternative would be less intense than Alternative 1 and project duration would be shorter resulting in less total noise exposure. Therefore, impacts would be minor and would not be significant.

4.1.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented and conditions would remain as described under Section 3.1.2 and no additional impacts on the ambient noise environment would be expected. No additional impacts on the ambient noise environment would be expected.

4.2 Air Quality Impacts on air quality would be considered significant if the Proposed Action were to exceed the General Conformity Rule de minimis thresholds. Because State of Hawai‘i is in attainment for the NAAQS and the General Conformity Rule doesn’t apply, the General Conformity 100 tpy de minimis level has been used as a conservative indicator of potential significance under NEPA. Impacts on air quality would also be significant if the Proposed Action increased the BAFS potential to emit above major source thresholds or required the installation to obtain a Title V permit from the Hawai‘i DOH. Significant impacts on air quality would also occur if the Proposed Action meaningfully contributed to the potential effects of global climate change.

4.2.1 Alternative 1 Short-term, minor, adverse impacts on air quality would occur from the emission of criteria pollutants and GHGs during construction associated with the proposed bridge replacement. Air emissions from construction would be temporary and brief. Although the proposed bridge replacement could occur over 18 months, for the purposes of this air quality analysis, all construction is conservatively assumed to occur during 2019.

Criteria pollutant and GHG air emissions would be produced from the combustion of fuels in heavy equipment, and bridge replacement would likely require the use of such equipment to varying degrees. Particulate matter air emissions, such as fugitive dust, would be produced from ground-disturbing activities and from the combustion of fuels in heavy equipment. Fugitive dust air emissions would be greatest during ground disturbing activities (such as the initial site grading, excavation, and bridge demolition) and vary day to day depending on the work phase, level of activity, and prevailing weather conditions. The quantity of uncontrolled fugitive dust emissions from a construction site is proportional to the area of land being worked and the level of activity. Construction would incorporate best management practices (BMPs) and environmental control measures (e.g., wetting the ground surface) to minimize fugitive particulate matter air emissions. Additionally, work vehicles are assumed to be well maintained


June 2018 | 4-5

and use diesel particulate filters to reduce particulate matter air emissions. Construction workers commuting daily to and from the job sites in their personal vehicles and heavy duty diesel vehicles hauling construction materials and debris to and from the job sites also would result in criteria pollutant and GHG air emissions.

USAF’s Air Conformity Applicability Model was used to estimate the air emissions from the proposed bridge replacement. In circumstances with a lack of specificity for project variables (e.g., dimensions of disturbance, types of construction equipment needed, intensity of construction), reasonable and conservative estimates were used. Table 4-2 includes the collective criteria pollutant and GHG air emissions resulting from the Proposed Action as well as applicable significance criteria. The proposed bridge replacement would result in negligible impacts on air quality. Criteria pollutant emissions would be below the 100 tpy conservative indicator of potential significance for each pollutant; therefore, the level of air quality impacts would not be significant. The detailed Air Conformity Applicability Model report containing full emissions calculations is provided in Appendix C.

Table 4-2. Estimated Air Emissions from the Proposed Action

Emissions Source NOx

(tpy) VOC (tpy)

CO (tpy)

SO2

(tpy) PM10

(tpy) PM2.5

(tpy) GHGs (tpy)

Tinker Road Bridge Replacement 2.768 0.485 2.708 0.006 0.302 0.130 594.9

Significance Criteria 100 100 100 100 100 100 NA

Key: NA = Not Applicable Notes: Pb and hydrogen sulfide emissions are not included because they are negligible for the types of emission sources under this Proposed Action.

No long-term impacts on air quality would occur. The proposed bridge replacement would not add or modify any stationary air emission sources on BAFS; therefore, the installation’s air emission inventory would not change and no air permitting implications would occur. Therefore, no significant impacts to air quality would be expected under Alternative 1.

Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases. Construction associated with Alternative 1 would emit approximately 595 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent during 2018. By comparison, this amount of carbon dioxide equivalent is approximately the GHG footprint of 29 single family houses with two cars per home (USEPA 2017b). As such, this single-year emission of GHG would not meaningfully contribute to the potential effects of global climate change.

Ongoing changes to climate patterns on Hawai‘i are described in Section 3.2.2. These climate changes are unlikely to affect USAF’s ability to implement the proposed bridge replacement.

4.2.2 Alternative 4 Similar to Alternative 1, short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on air quality would occur from the emission of criteria pollutants and GHGs from heavy machinery use during construction associated with Alternative 4. Compared to the Alternative 1, slightly less air emissions would be produced from bridge repair because of the less intensive construction associated with the bridge replacement. However, the estimated air emissions from the proposed bridge repair would be essentially the same as the emissions estimated for Alternative 1 (shown in Table


June 2018 | 4-6

4-1), because the bridge repair emissions were estimated using extremely conservative assumptions. No long-term impacts on air quality would occur because the proposed bridge repair would not add or modify any stationary air emission sources on BAFS. Impacts from climate change and GHGs would be identical to Alternative 1. Therefore, no significant impacts to air quality would be expected.

4.2.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented and bridge replacement or repair would not be completed. As such, air quality conditions would remain the same as described in Section 3.2.2 and no additional impacts on air quality would occur. No new air emissions would be produced, and the current air permitting status of BAFS would not change. Therefore, no significant impacts to air quality would be expected.

4.3 Safety Any increase in safety risks would be considered an adverse impact on safety. A proposed action could have a significant impact with respect to health and safety if the following were to occur:

Substantially increase risks associated with the safety of construction personnel, contractors, or the local community.

Substantially hinder the ability to respond to an emergency.

Introduce a new health or safety risk for which the installation is not prepared or does not have adequate management and response plans in place.

4.3.1 Alternative 1 Short-term, minor, adverse impacts on safety would be expected during the implementation of Alternative 1. Impacts would result from the exposure of workers to the safety hazards associated with demolition, construction, and excavation activities. Examples of such safety hazards include slips/trips/falls; exposure to the heat and wet conditions; and fire, mechanical, electrical, vision, noise, chemical, and respiratory hazards.

During all phases of the Proposed Action, health and safety standards and regulations required by OSHA, DOD, and USAF would be followed. Workers would be required to wear PPE such as ear protection, steel-toed boots, hard hats, gloves, and other appropriate safety gear. The project area would be fenced and appropriately marked with signs to warn BAFS residents, personnel, and clients. Alternative 1 would not extend off of BAFS; therefore, no impacts on the non-military general public would be expected. Heavy machinery and mechanized equipment transporting materials to and from the project area would use appropriate traffic guards and signals to direct traffic to roads and streets to avoid high traffic areas. Operating procedures would be implemented to direct pedestrians away from construction areas (OSHA 2017b). Adherence to all applicable standards and implementation of the practices discussed above would eliminate or reduce potential adverse impacts on the safety of construction workers, personnel, or clients on BAFS.


June 2018 | 4-7

Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on safety would be expected under Alternative 1 because of improved bridge conditions. No long-term, adverse impacts on safety would be expected because improvements would not pose safety risks to BAFS residents, personnel, or clients. Therefore, no significant impacts would be expected.

4.3.2 Alternative 4 Short-term, minor, adverse impacts on safety would be expected under Alternative 4. Under this alternative, impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative 1. Adherence to all applicable standards and regulations and implementation of the practices discussed above would eliminate or reduce any adverse impacts on the safety of workers, personnel, or clients on BAFS. Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts would be expected under Alternative 4 because the existing bridge would be repaired. No long-term, adverse impacts on safety would be expected because improvements would not pose safety risks to BAFS residents, personnel, or clients. Therefore, no significant impacts would be expected.

4.3.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, bridge repair or replacement would not be implemented and conditions within the project area would remain as described under Section 3.3.2. Bridge conditions would continue to deteriorate over time and could pose an increased safety risk to those accessing the installation. However, BAFS would close the bridge to all traffic before impacts to safety become significant, therefore no significant impacts to safety would be expected.

4.4 Water Resources A proposed action could have significant impacts on groundwater and surface water resources if it were to substantially affect water quality, reduce water availability, or reduce supply to existing users; endanger public health or safety by creating or worsening health hazard conditions; threaten or damage unique hydrologic characteristics; overdraft groundwater basins; exceed the safe annual yield of water supply sources; or violate applicable laws or regulations that protect water resources.

Determination of the significance of wetland impacts is based on (1) loss of wetland acreage, (2) the function and value of the wetland, (3) the proportion of the wetland that would be affected relative to the occurrence of similar wetlands in the region, (4) the sensitivity of the wetland to proposed activities, and (5) the duration of ecological ramifications. Impacts on wetland resources are considered significant if high-value wetlands would be adversely affected or if wetland acreage is lost.

The potential effect of flood hazards on a proposed action is important if such an action occurs in an area with a high probability of flooding.

Development projects affecting land use, water use, or the natural resources of a coastal zone must ensure the project is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the enforceable policies of Hawai‘i’s CZM Program. The Proposed Action would need to be consistent with the following objectives, to the maximum extent practicable:


June 2018 | 4-8

Recreational resources: provide coastal recreational opportunities accessible to the public

Historic resources: protect, preserve, and where desirable, restore those natural and man-made historic and pre-historic resources in the coastal zone management area that are significant in Hawaiian and American history and culture

Scenic and open space resources: protect, preserve, and, where desirable, restore or improve the quality of coastal scenic and open space resources

Coastal ecosystems: protect valuable coastal ecosystems from disruption and minimize adverse impacts on all coastal ecosystems

Economic uses: provide public or private facilities and improvements important to the state’s economy in suitable locations

Coastal hazards: reduce hazard to life and property from tsunami, storm waves, stream flooding, erosion, and subsidence

Managing development: improve the development review process, communications, and public participation in the management of coastal resources and hazards

Public participation: stimulate public awareness, education, and participation in coastal management

Beach protection: protect beaches for public use and recreation

Marine resources: implement the state’s ocean resources management plan.

4.4.1 Alternative 1 Groundwater. Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on groundwater would be expected under Alternative 1. Vehicles and equipment associated with the proposed construction could increase the potential for petroleum or hazardous material spills. Fuels, hydraulic fluids, oils, and lubricants would also be stored on site to support construction vehicles and machinery. To minimize the potential for a release of fluids into groundwater, proper housekeeping, maintenance of equipment, and containment of fuels and other potentially hazardous materials would be conducted. Absorbent pads and containment booms shall be stored on-site, if appropriate, to facilitate the clean-up of accidental petroleum releases. Therefore, no significant impacts to groundwater would be expected.

Surface Water. Short-term and long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on surface water would be expected under Alternative 1. The proposed bridge replacement would occur within the Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream. Any alterations to the bed and/or banks of the stream channel would require a Stream Channel Alteration Permit(s) and potentially a CWA Section 404 permit and Section 401 certification for impacts on waters of the United States.

Short-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on surface waters could occur during construction. Alternative 1 would create temporary, small-scale ground disturbances, which could, increase erosion potential and runoff during heavy precipitation events during construction. Under Alternative 1, bridge replacement would include a coffer dam and


June 2018 | 4-9

sandblasting within the stream. These activities would disturb the soils and would lead to temporary increases in turbidity within the water column; however, turbidity and siltation from project-related work would be contained within the vicinity of the site through the appropriate use of effective silt containment devices to avoid these impacts. All project-related materials and equipment (i.e., dredges, backhoes, etc.) to be placed in the water would be cleaned of pollutants prior to use.

A site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) would be developed and implemented for Alternative 1. BMPs would be developed as part of the SWPPP to manage stormwater both during and after demolition and construction. Demolition material would be disposed of in accordance with the SWPPP, ESCP, and the installation’s solid waste management procedures (see Section 4.9.1 for more information). Stormwater would be managed to minimize the impact of the project on existing hydrology, while maintaining on-site infiltration and preventing runoff from storm events. Restablization and revegetation of disturbed sites following construction, along with other BMPs to abate runoff and wind erosion, would reduce the impacts of erosion and runoff on the streams and Waimānalo Bay. Therefore, no significant impacts to surface waters would be expected.

The NPDES stormwater program requires construction site operators engaged in clearing, grading, and excavating activities that disturb 1 acre or more, including smaller sites in a larger common plan of development, to obtain coverage under a NPDES permit for their stormwater discharges. Because the acreage of the proposed project is less than 1 acre in size, BAFS would not be required to obtain coverage under a NPDES permit for stormwater discharge for this project.

Wetlands. Short-term and long-term, minor, adverse impacts on wetlands could be expected under Alternative 1. Bridge replacement would include pier replacement and would include a coffer dam and sandblasting within wetlands. These activities would disturb the soils within the wetland and would lead to temporary increases in turbidity within the water column. Additionally, the movement of equipment to and from the wetland would create ground disturbances along the banks of the wetland. Ground disturbances would expose soils and increase soil erosion potential and sedimentation within the wetland. However, implementation of BMPs outlined in the ESCP and SWPPP would minimize these impacts. No project-related materials (i.e., fill, revetment rock, pipe, etc.) should be stockpiled in the water (i.e., stream channels, wetlands, etc.). Any soil exposed near wetlands as part of the project would be protected from erosion (with plastic sheeting, filter fabric, etc.) after exposure and stabilized as soon as practicable (with native or non-invasive vegetation matting, hydroseeding, etc.). Therefore, no significant impacts to wetlands would be expected.

Bridge replacement could result in dredging and placement of fill within wetlands and waters of the United States. Any impacts on existing wetlands in the Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream wetland would require CWA Sections 404 and 401 permitting prior to conducting bridge demolition or construction activities if the actions would or could result in any dredging, placement of fill, or modification of existing hydrology.

Floodplains. Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on floodplains would be expected from the construction associated with Alternative 1 because bridge replacement would occur within the


June 2018 | 4-10

100-year floodplain. However, these improvements would not result in an increase in impervious surfaces and would not alter floodplain boundaries. Therefore, no significant impacts to floodplains would be expected.

Coastal Zone Management. While the Proposed Action has the potential to result in short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on coastal resources and uses, there would be no long-term adverse effects on coastal resources and uses. A copy of the Hawai‘i CZM Program Federal Consistency Assessment Form, as required by the Hawai‘i Ocean Resources Management Plan, is included in Appendix B. The Proposed Action would be consistent with the enforceable policies of Hawai‘i’s CZM Program. The implementation of BMPs outlined in a site-specific ESCP and SWPPP for the project would reduce impacts on coastal resources from ground disturbances during construction and increased impervious surfaces.

The proposed bridge replacement would not change land use and is being implemented to enhance recreational opportunities at BAFS by providing safe access to the recreational facilities at BAFS. Therefore, no significant impacts would be expected.

4.4.2 Alternative 4 Impacts on water resources would be similar, but less intense than those identified for Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, the Tinker Road Bridge would be repaired in place. A coffer dam would be installed during concrete pier installation and sandblasting would be used. The proposed bridge repairs would occur within a wetland and the 100-year floodplain, but would result in lesser impacts on these resources than a full replacement. Impacts on the Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream wetlands would require CWA Sections 404 and 401 permitting prior to conducting bridge repair. Therefore, no significant impacts on water resources would be expected.

4.4.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, bridge repair or replacement would not be implemented and conditions within the project area would remain as described under Section 3.4.2. Bridge conditions would continue to deteriorate over time; however, stream disturbance would not occur. Therefore, no impacts on water resources would be expected.

4.5 Biological Resources Potential impacts on biological resources are evaluated based on the following criteria:

importance (e.g., legal, commercial, recreational, ecological, scientific) of the resource proportion of the resource that would be affected relative to its occurrence in the region sensitivity of the resource to proposed activities duration of ecological impacts potential for “taking” of federally listed species effect on ESA-protected species habitat.

Effects on biological resources would be significant if species or habitats of concern based on legal status or ecological importance were adversely affected over large areas. Effects would


June 2018 | 4-11

also be considered significant if disturbances cause reductions in population size or distribution of a species.

4.5.1 Alternative 1 Vegetation. Short- to long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on nonnative vegetation would be expected from vegetation loss under Alternative 1. The proposed project area is within managed areas on the installation where landscaping species and turf are the predominant vegetation types. Alternative 1 would occur within managed ironwood; however, because these vegetation types are nonnative, impacts would be negligible. All landscaped areas would maintained and landscape irrigation conservation BMPs would be implemented.

Ground disturbance would occur as a result of trenching for bridge replacement (with concrete piers and temporary coffer dam). This disturbance could increase the potential for establishment of nonnative and invasive species, thereby altering the habitat. However, BMPs would be implemented to minimize potential adverse impacts associated with the spread of nonnative vegetation within the project area. Through the implementation of BMPs significant impacts to vegetation would not be expected.

Wildlife and Habitat. Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on wildlife and habitat could occur as a result of the proposed bridge replacement. Adverse impacts would be expected from the Proposed Action because of physical disturbance, noise, and habitat degradation.

Increased noise during bridge replacement could disturb or displace wildlife, resulting in short-term, minor adverse impacts; however, species in the project area are likely habituated to human activity and ambient noise because of the existing recreational activity, MCTAB training exercises, and vehicular traffic. Mobile wildlife species that might use this area are expected to temporarily use similar, adjacent habitats during demolition and construction activities. After construction, wildlife would be expected to return to habitat in the project area and would not be permanently displaced. Injury or mortality of small less-mobile terrestrial species (e.g., reptiles, rodents, and small mammals) could occur as a result of construction; however, population-level impacts would not be expected. Therefore, no long-term, adverse impacts on wildlife would be expected as a result of temporary demolition and construction disturbances.

Additionally, the project area is within a managed area and does not contain large expanses of shrub or forest habitat. As a result, the project area is not likely to contain high-value habitats to most wildlife (particularly native species). Habitat degradation could still occur from the temporary and localized increases in sedimentation near the bridge because of vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction. Sedimentation could degrade the habitat quality of the wetland and Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream by increasing turbidity and siltation, which could clog gills or airways, and by increasing the deposition of sediment in the stream, which could smother benthic wildlife. In order to minimize potential impacts, disturbance in the wetland and stream habitat would be minimized through the use of BMPs. Additionally, areas cleared of vegetation would be planted or covered as quickly as possible to prevent further erosion and site work would be conducted during periods of minimal rainfall if possible. Through the implementation of BMPs significant impacts to wildlife and habitat would not be expected.


June 2018 | 4-12

Protected Species. Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on protected species would be expected from the bridge replacement that would result in physical disturbance and noise. The potential impacts from noise and habitat disturbance associated with Alternative 1 are expected to be similar to those discussed previously for wildlife.

The bridge proposed for replacement under Alternative 1 crosses over Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream, which provides suitable habitat for several protected waterbird species at BAFS. Federally listed species, such as the Hawaiian black-necked stilt, Hawaiian duck, Hawaiian coot, and the Hawaiian common gallinule, have been observed along the shore and wetland areas of Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream and thus could occur within the vicinity of the bridge. In order to minimize potential impacts, reduced speed limits would be posted and implemented to avoid incidental take and project personnel would be informed of protected species that could occur in the project area. Hawaiian waterbird surveys would be conducted within potential habitat near the project area and a 100-foot buffer would be established around all active nests until chicks/ducklings have fledged. Because the Hawaiian short-eared owl has the potential to occur in or near the project area, twilight pre-construction surveys are recommended prior to clearing vegetation. A buffer zone would be established if nests are present and no clearing would occur until nesting ceased. Surveys for yellow-faced bees and ‘Ena‘ena are also recommended prior to vegetation clearing.

Green sea turtles are attracted to the abundance of algae that occurs near the mouth of Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream and aggregate there on a regular basis. The Proposed Action would not be expected to impact nesting sites; however, impacts from artificial lighting that could disorient emerging hatchlings would be avoided by restricting demolition and construction activities to daylight hours. Sea turtles could be susceptible to sedimentation; however, turbidity and siltation from project-related work would be contained within the vicinity of the site through the appropriate use of effective silt containment devices to avoid these impacts. Additionally, disturbance in the wetland and stream habitat would be minimized through restabilization and revegetation of disturbed sites following construction, along with BMPs to abate wind erosion and runoff to the streams and Waimānalo Bay. If dredging is required under Alternative 1, it would be scheduled to avoid sea turtle nesting and hatching periods.

Monk seals have also been observed on BAFS and, therefore, could occur within the vicinity of the project area (USACE 2018). Although no impacts on monk seals would be anticipated from demolition or construction activities, BAFS would follow the BMPs set forth by NMFS to protect monk seals and cooperate with NMFS with associated recovery effort activities for this species. This would include providing seal protection zones (protective barriers and signs erected around hauled out seals), recording monk seals sightings and locations, sharing records with NMFS, training military personnel on BMPs for protection of monk seals, and monitoring shoreline activities that could impact monk seals.

The Hawaiian hoary bat has been observed on BAFS and it is possible that it uses suitable roosting habitats on BAFS (USAF 2013a, USACE 2018). If trees or shrubs suitable for bat roosting (i.e., between 3 and 29 feet tall) are cleared during the bat breeding season (April to August), there is a risk that young bats could inadvertently be harmed or killed. All potential


June 2018 | 4-13

impacts on the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat would be avoided by following these recommendations from the USFWS:

Woody plants greater than 15 feet (4.6 meters) tall would not be removed or trimmed during the bat-birthing and pup-rearing season (June 1 through September 15).

If vegetation clearing cannot be avoided during the bat-birthing and pup-rearing season, a knowledgeable biologist would conduct surveys to determine occurrence and the status of any bats that are identified within the proposed project footprint.

Additionally, no barbed wire would be used, as bat mortalities have been documented as a result of becoming ensnared by barbed wire during flight (HDLNR 2017). With the implementation of these BMPs, the Proposed Action would be anticipated to result in no effect on the Hawaiian hoary bat.

Because the migratory bird species observed on BAFS consist of seabirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl, the removal of terrestrial vegetation from the proposed bridge replacement would not be expected to interfere with nesting activities of these species. Therefore, no impacts on migratory bird species from the removal of habitat or incidental take of a nest would be expected. Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on migratory birds would be expected because of temporary noise disturbances, as described for wildlife. Through the implementation of precautionary measures and BMPs significant impacts to protected species and migratory birds would not be expected.

4.5.2 Alternative 4 No impacts on native vegetation communities would be anticipated. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts on wildlife and protected species would be expected from the Tinker Road Bridge repairs due to physical disturbance or noise. Impacts to wildlife and protected species would be similar, but less than those identified for Alternative 1. Under this alternative, a coffer dam could be installed and sandblasting would occur, resulting in physical disturbance and noise impacts on wildlife and protected species that use the wetland and stream habitat. Implementation of BMPs would minimize disturbance within the wetlands and Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream, which could provide habitat for wildlife and protected species. All precautionary measures described under Alternative 1 would be implemented to avoid impacts on wildlife and protected species. Therefore, impacts on biological resources would not be significant.

4.5.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, bridge repair or replacement would not be implemented and conditions within the project area would remain as described under Section 3.5.2. Bridge conditions would continue to deteriorate over time; however, disturbance to biological resources would not occur. Therefore, no impacts on biological resources would be expected.

4.6 Cultural Resources Impacts on cultural resources include potential effects on buildings, sites, structures, districts, and objects eligible for or included in the NRHP; cultural items as defined in NAGPRA;


June 2018 | 4-14

archaeological resources as defined by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979; and archaeological artifact collections and associated records as defined by 36 CFR § 79.

Under Section 106 of the NHPA, a proposed action might have no effect (no historic properties affected), no adverse effect, or an adverse effect on historic properties. An adverse effect occurs “when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association” (36 CFR § 800.5(a)(1)). Specifically, adverse effects on historic properties can include physically altering, damaging, or destroying all or part of a resource; altering characteristics of the surrounding environment that contribute to the resource’s significance; introducing visual or audible elements that are out of character with the property or that alter its setting; or neglecting the resource to the extent that it deteriorates or is destroyed.

4.6.1 Alternative 1 Replacement of Waimānalo Bridge under Alternative 1 could have short- to long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts on cultural resources; however, these impacts are not likely. Archaeological site 4852, the Bellows Dune Site, extends into the APE and was encountered during monitoring of the previous bridge replacement in 1989. Ground disturbance under Alternative 1 would be expected to be contained within previously disturbed soils and no new impacts would be expected to site 4852. BAFS has made a finding of “no adverse effect” under Section 106 of the NHPA and is consulting with the SHPD on this determination. BAFS will develop and implement an Archaeological Monitoring Plan that will require all ground-disturbing activities to be monitored by a qualified archaeologist for the presence of undisturbed cultural materials. If undisturbed deposits were discovered, all activity would immediately cease and BAFS would follow the procedures for cultural discoveries in the BAFS ICRMP.

The current Waimānalo Bridge was rebuilt in 1989 after flooding washed out the original bridge, built in 1941. The newer bridge no longer has historic integrity; therefore, replacement of the bridge would have no impact on the resource.

Short- to long-term, moderate adverse impacts on traditional cultural resources could occur if human remains are encountered during ground disturbing activities. Although ground disturbance would be largely contained within previously disturbed soils, potential exists for encountering human remains. Human remains in previously disturbed areas are more likely to be isolated or fragmented and could be challenging to quickly identify and protect during archaeological monitoring. In the view of Native Hawaiians, disturbance of any iwi kupuna would have an adverse impact on the remains and on the descendant community.

All ground-disturbing activities would be monitored by a qualified archaeologist for the presence of cultural materials, including human remains. In the event of an unanticipated cultural discovery, all activity would immediately cease and BAFS would follow the procedures for cultural discoveries in the ICRMP, including compliance with NAGPRA. Therefore, no long-term or significant impacts on cultural resources would be expected.


June 2018 | 4-15

4.6.2 Alternative 4 Impacts on cultural resources under Alternative 4 would be similar to those described for Alternative 1. Long-term, direct, minor to moderate impacts on cultural resources are possible but unlikely. Ground disturbance during the repair of Tinker Road Bridge would be outside of known archaeological sites and would largely be contained within soils disturbed during original construction of the bridge. BAFS will conduct archaeological monitoring during ground disturbance to minimize the potential for adverse impacts on unknown subsurface cultural materials that may extend into undisturbed portions of the APE. Waimānalo Bridge was rebuilt in 1989 and does not have historic integrity; therefore, repairs to the bridge would have no impact on the resource. Short- to long-term, moderate adverse impacts on traditional cultural resources could occur if human remains are encountered during ground disturbing activities. Although ground disturbance would be largely contained within previously disturbed soils, potential exists for encountering human remains.

All ground-disturbing activities would be monitored by a qualified archaeologist for the presence of cultural materials, including human remains. In the event of an unanticipated cultural discovery, all activity would immediately cease and BAFS would follow the procedures for cultural discoveries in the MOA, including compliance with NAGPRA. Therefore, no long-term or significant impacts on cultural resources would be expected.

4.6.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, bridge repair or replacement would not be implemented and conditions within the project area would remain as described under Section 3.6.2. Bridge conditions would continue to deteriorate over time; however, disturbance to cultural resources would not occur. Therefore, no significant impacts on cultural resources would be expected.

4.7 Infrastructure Effects on infrastructure are evaluated for their potential to disrupt or improve existing levels of service and create additional needs for electrical supply, water supply, sanitary sewer and wastewater system, propane gas, communications system, and stormwater drainage, solid waste management, and transportation. For example, effects might arise from physical changes to traffic circulation or energy needs created by either direct or indirect workforce and population changes related to installation activities. An effect could be significant if the Proposed Action results in any of the following effects on infrastructure:

capacity of a utility is exceeded long-term interruption of the utility violation of a permit condition violation of an approved plan for that utility.

4.7.1 Alternative 1 Electrical Supply. Short-term, minor adverse impacts on the electrical supply would be expected from construction Alternative 1. Because of the presence of utility conduits on the Tinker Road Bridge, electrical service to the guard shack and area lighting in the immediate


June 2018 | 4-16

vicinity would be temporarily disconnected during construction. Once construction is complete, electrical service would be restored to the area. Due to the use of the temporary detour, a mobile guard facility would be used by BAFS Security Forces throughout construction and the guard shack would be temporarily closed. A mobile generator would supply power to the mobile guard facility for the duration of construction. No other electrical service interruptions would be anticipated due to the construction associated with Alternative 1. The number of personnel and visitors at the installation would not change as a result of the proposed bridge replacement; therefore, electrical demand would not increase. No significant impacts to electrical supply would be anticipated under Alternative 1.

Water Supply. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts on the water supply would be expected from construction of Alternative 1. Because of the presence of utility conduits on the Tinker Road Bridge, water supply to the guard shack would be temporarily disconnected during construction. Once construction is complete, water supply would be restored to the guard shack. Due to the use of the temporary detour, a mobile guard facility would be used by BAFS Security Forces throughout construction and the guard shack would be temporarily closed. A portable restroom facility would be provided during construction. No other water supply interruptions would be anticipated due to the construction associated with Alternative 1. The number of personnel and visitors at the installation would not change from Alternative 1; therefore, the demand for water supply would not change. No significant impacts to water supply would be anticipated under Alternative 1.

Solid Waste Management. Short-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on solid waste management would be expected from bridge replacement. Construction of the replacement bridge would generate solid wastes that contractors would be required to dispose of. The solid wastes generated would consist mainly of building materials such as concrete, metals (conduit, piping, and wiring), and lumber. Contractors would be required to recycle debris to the greatest extent possible, thereby diverting it from landfills and the island’s waste-to-energy plant (Honolulu Program of Waste Energy Recovery). Site-generated scrap metals, wiring, clean ductwork, and structural steel would be separated and recycled off-site. Clean fill material, ground up asphalt, and broken-up cement would be diverted from landfills and reused whenever possible. Excess soils generated would be reused to the extent possible elsewhere for grading and contouring. Any debris removed from aquatic environments would be disposed of at an approved upland or ocean dumping site. Additionally, a litter control plan and a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan would be developed. Adherence to these plans would prevent contamination as well as the attraction and introduction of non-native species (USFWS 2017a).

No long-term impacts on solid waste management would be expected from implementation of Alternative 1. The number of personnel and visitors, and type and quantity of activities at the installation would not change as a result of the proposed bridge replacement. The amount of solid waste generated would not be expected to change. Therefore, no significant impacts on solid waste management would be expected under Alternative 1.

Transportation. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts on transportation would be expected from construction and operation of the proposed bridge replacement. Alternative 1 would result in an increase in construction traffic at the installation for delivery of equipment, vehicles, and


June 2018 | 4-17

supplies. However, this traffic would be a small percentage of the total installation traffic and many of the vehicles required would be driven to and kept on site for the duration of work activities, resulting in few additional trips.

When there is active training occurring on MCTAB, security will be provided along the detour route to allow safe access to the installation. Under these circumstances, a wait of no more than 15 minutes would occur. All lane closures would be coordinated with Security Forces to ensure that traffic flow impacts are minimized.

Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on transportation would be expected from operation of Alternative 1. This alternative would replace the bridge over Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream, which would prevent restrictions on use of the bridge and make the installation’s transportation system more reliable. The number of personnel and visitors at the installation would not change as a result of the bridge replacement; therefore, traffic would not increase. No significant impacts on transportation would be expected under Alternative 1.

4.7.2 Alternative 4 Implementation of Alternative 4 would have similar impacts on electrical supply, communications system, and stormwater drainage as described for Alternative 1. The impacts on transportation and the impacts on solid waste management would be slightly less than those described for Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, the bridge over Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream would be repaired in place. Traffic patterns identified for bridge replacement would apply during bridge repair. Additionally, Alternative 4 would generate less solid waste than Alternative 1 because the existing bridge would not be demolished. Therefore, no significant impacts on infrastructure would be expected under Alternative 4.

4.7.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Tinker Road Bridge would not be repaired or replaced. Bridge deficiencies would increase over time, leading to bridge closure within the next 5 years and terminating user vehicle access to BAFS. Without user vehicle access, BAFS would be unable to meet its mission of providing a recreational area for military personnel; this would be a significant impact.

4.8 Hazardous Materials and Wastes Impacts on hazardous materials and wastes would be significant if a proposed action would result in noncompliance with applicable federal or state regulations, or increase the amounts generated or procured beyond current management procedures, permits, and capacities. Impacts on contaminated sites would be considered significant if a proposed action would disturb or create contaminated sites resulting in negative effects on human health or the environment, or if a proposed action would make it substantially more difficult or costly to remediate existing contaminated sites.

4.8.1 Alternative 1 Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Wastes, and Petroleum Products. Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts would occur from the use of hazardous materials and petroleum products and


June 2018 | 4-18

the generation of hazardous wastes during construction associated with the proposed bridge replacement. Hazardous materials that could be used include paints, welding gases, solvents, preservatives, and sealants. Additionally, hydraulic fluids and petroleum products, such as diesel and gasoline, would be used in the vehicles and equipment supporting construction. Construction would generate negligible quantities of hazardous wastes. Contractors would be responsible for the disposal of hazardous wastes in accordance with federal and state laws. All hazardous materials, petroleum products, and hazardous wastes used or generated during construction would be contained and stored appropriately (e.g., secondary containment, inspections, spill kits) in accordance with applicable regulations to minimize the potential for releases. Additionally, fueling of all project-related vehicles and equipment would not occur near any body of water. Contractors could be required to develop and implement their own Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans depending on the scope of construction. All construction equipment would be maintained according to the manufacturer’s specifications and drip mats would be placed under parked equipment as needed. The bridge replacement would not change long-term hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, and petroleum products management practices. No significant impacts related to hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, and petroleum products would be expected under Alternative 1.

Special Hazards. Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts from special hazards could occur under Alternative 1 because the Tinker Road Bridge might contain special hazards including ACMs, LBP, and PCBs, and these special hazards might be disturbed during bridge replacement. Contractors would be required to take appropriate precautions when removing potential special hazards such as paint, chalking, bearing fabric, and joint sealant. All ACM- and LBP-contaminated debris would be disposed of at a USEPA-approved landfill. New construction of the bridge could include the use of ACMs and LBP because the federal bans on these special hazards do not apply to certain highway construction applications. Significant impact related to special hazards would not be expected.

4.8.2 Alternative 4 Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Wastes, and Petroleum Products. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts would occur from the use of hazardous materials and petroleum products and the generation of hazardous wastes during construction associated with the proposed bridge repair. Hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, and petroleum products usage and generation during construction would be largely similar but slightly less than Alternative 1 because Alternative 4 would entail less intensive construction. Adverse impacts could be manifested from additional quantities of hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, and petroleum products being used, generated, and stored on site and longer duration for construction, which could increase the potential for a spill. The proposed alternative would not change long-term hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, and petroleum products management practices. Therefore, no significant impacts related to hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, and petroleum products would be expected under Alternative 4.

Special Hazards. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts from special hazards could occur from Alternative 4. Special hazards would have a lesser potential to be disturbed by Alternative 4 because this alternative only entails bridge repair instead of the complete demolition and reconstruction of the Tinker Road Bridge. Contractors would take similar precautions as


June 2018 | 4-19

described for Alternative 1 when working with potential special hazards. Proposed repair of the Tinker Road Bridge could include the use of ACMs and LBP because the federal bans on these special hazards do not apply to certain highway construction applications. Significant impact related to special hazards would not be expected.

4.8.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented and replacement or repair of the Tinker Road Bridge would not occur. As a result, hazardous materials and wastes conditions would remain the same as described in Section 3.8.2. No impacts from the use of hazardous materials and petroleum products and the generation of hazardous wastes would occur. Special hazards would not be disturbed and remain in place. Significant impact related to hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, and petroleum products or special hazards would not be expected.

4.9 Recreation and Visual Resources The environmental impacts on recreational resources near a proposed action are assessed based on recreational availability and use. A proposed action is assessed to determine if it would substantially impede access to recreational resources, reduce recreational opportunities, cause conflicts between recreational users, or result in the physical deterioration of recreational resources.

A proposed action is considered to have a substantial adverse impact on visual resources if it alters or impedes a scenic vista; damages scenic resources; degrades the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or creates a new source of substantial light or glare which would affect day or nighttime views.

4.9.1 Alternative 1 Recreation. Impacts would be expected on recreational resources during construction under Alternative 1. During construction, BAFS visitors and the general public would continue to have access to all existing recreational opportunities; however, construction noise is anticipated to cause annoyance to persons in the areas closest to the Tinker Road Bridge, including the southern end of BAFS beach and the northern end of Bellows Field Beach Park. BAFS would implement measures to reduce noise levels and impacts to recreational resource users by requiring the use of noise attenuation features on construction equipment and limiting construction hours to 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays for the 12-18 month duration of the construction project.

The 100 series cabins along Jetty Lane are as close as 200 feet from the proposed construction site, so lodgers there would be expected to experience annoyance from construction noise. BAFS would reduce noise impacts by temporarily closing lodging areas expected to experience the highest noise levels, offering alternative accommodations if available, informing facility users of the construction schedule so they can better plan their activities, and possibly offering accommodations most likely to experience the highest noise impacts at discounted rates with full disclosure of the circumstances.


June 2018 | 4-20

The temporary traffic detour route would divert visitor traffic past a group campsite. The detour route would occur approximately 400 feet from the campsites to the north of Pine Tree Road. The average daily traffic along Tinker Road Bridge was estimated to be 500 vehicles in 2017 (FHA 2017), which would be diverted along the detour. Noise levels at the campsite from vehicular traffic could range from 38 to 58 dBA. Noise impact during quiet hours would be lower at the campsites because traffic would become increasingly intermittent. Therefore, noise generated from the vehicular traffic of the detour would not result in a significant impact to users of the group campsite. Through the implementation of measures outlined above, significant impacts on recreation would not be expected under Alternative 1.

Visual Resources. Short term, minor, adverse impacts would be expected on visual resources during construction under Alternative 1. Presence of construction equipment and activities at the Tinker Road Bridge site would create adverse visual intrusions/contrasts affecting the existing high quality landscape. During construction, the bridge site would have low aesthetic appeal due to presence of construction equipment, which could be visible from portions of the beach and the southernmost 100 series cabins. Additionally, construction equipment and supplies may be temporarily stored at the work site during the course of construction. Therefore, while construction activities associated with Alternative 1 would impact the site’s overall visual appeal, the impact would be temporary lasting for 12 to 18 months of construction and would not be visible from most of BAFS and adjacent MCTAB areas. No long-term impacts on visual resources would be expected under Alterative 1 because the new bridge would be in the same location and be of similar dimensions as the existing bridge. Additionally, any ground disturbance that occurred during construction would be restored and re-vegetated as necessary. Therefore, significant impacts on visual resources are not expected under Alternative 1.

4.9.2 Alternative 4 Recreation. Short term, minor, adverse impacts would be expected on recreational resources during construction under Alternative 4. Impacts on recreational resources would be similar to those described in Section 4.9.1 for Alternative 1. No significant impacts on recreation would be expected.

Visual Resources. Short term, minor, adverse impacts would be expected on visual resources during construction under Alternative 4. Impacts on visual resources would be similar to those described in Section 4.9.1 for Alternative 1. No significant impacts on visual resources would be expected.

4.9.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Tinker Road Bridge would not be repaired or replaced. Bridge deficiencies would increase over time, leading to bridge closure within the next 5 years and terminating user vehicle access to BAFS. Without user vehicle access, BAFS would be unable to meet its mission of providing a recreational area for military personnel; this would be a significant impact.

USAF | Draft EA Addressing Tinker Road Bridge Repair/Replacement at BAFS, Hawai‘iCUMULATIVE EFFECTS

June 2018 | 5-1

5. Cumulative Effects

5.1 Cumulative Effects CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA require that the cumulative impacts of a proposed action be assessed (40 CFR §§ 1500–1508). A cumulative effect is defined as the following (40 CFR § 1508.7):

The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to 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.

Cumulative effects are most likely to arise when a relationship exists between a proposed action and other actions expected to occur in a similar location or during a similar time period. Actions overlapping with or in proximity to a proposed action would be expected to have more potential for a relationship than those more geographically separated.

CEQ’s guidance for considering cumulative effects states that NEPA documents “should compare the cumulative effects of multiple actions with appropriate national, regional, state, or community goals to determine whether the total effect is significant.” The first step in assessing cumulative effects involves identifying and defining the scope of other actions and their interrelationship with a proposed action or alternatives. The scope must consider other projects that coincide with the location and timeline of a proposed action and other actions.

This cumulative effects analysis focuses on past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects related to the implementation of the proposed installation improvement projects at BAFS. For the purposes of this analysis, the temporal span of consideration is the time period of implementation of the bridge repair or replacement, which is 3 years (through 2021).

5.1.1 Projects Considered for Potential Cumulative Impacts For the resource areas, the present effects of past actions are now part of the existing environment described in Section 3. Identification of projects occurring at BAFS during the same time as the Proposed Action ensures that all present and reasonably foreseeable future activities that have the potential to result in cumulative effects are taken into account. On- and off-installation actions that have a potential to partially coincide, either in time or geographic extent, with the Proposed Action are analyzed to determine if environmental resources would be incrementally affected. Table 5-1 provides a summary of the present and reasonably foreseeable projects considered for potential cumulative effects.

5.1.2 Cumulative Impacts on Resource Areas As determined through the analyses provided in Section 4, the Proposed Action would have the potential to incrementally add to the cumulative impacts on noise, air quality, safety, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, infrastructure, hazardous materials and wastes, and recreation and visual resources. The discussion that follows assesses the cumulative impact of the Proposed Action on these resource areas.


June 2018 | 5-2

Table 5-1. Projects Considered for Cumulative Impacts Analysis

Project Description

ON-INSTALLATION PROJECTS

Communications line extension

USAF would extend underground fiber optic communication line to three support facilities at BAFS: civil engineering, housekeeping, and logistics.

Demolish three of the 300-Series Cabins

USAF would demolish three of the 300-series cabins (Buildings 316, 317, 318). The concrete pads would be left in place with existing utilities.

Aboveground Fuel Storage Tank Replacement

USAF would replace two 6,000-gallon aboveground fuel storage tanks (ASTs) that are at the end of their service life with two new ASTs, one 1,000-gallon diesel AST and one 2,000-gallon MOGAS AST.

Waterline Replacement USAF would replace aging waterlines throughout BAFS by installing new pipe within the existing right of way, adjacent to the existing waterline.

OFF-INSTALLATION PROJECTS

Construct Improvements to Kalaniana‘ole Highway

The State of Hawai‘i proposes to construct safety and operational improvements along Kalaniana‘ole Highway between the Olomana Golf Course and Waimānalo Beach Park. Specific improvements include construction of turning lanes, sidewalks, wheelchair ramps, bike paths or bike lanes, traffic signal upgrades, utility relocation, and drainage improvements (Oahu MPO 2016). This project is currently under construction.

Noise. Construction associated with the Proposed Action and the cumulative projects would occur at different times and different locations over the next 5 years. If bridge replacement or repair is constructed concurrently with any of the on-installation cumulative projects, construction associated with the Proposed Action would contribute to minor, adverse cumulative noise impacts from construction vehicles, operation of construction equipment, and shifted traffic patterns to accommodate the construction. These cumulative impacts would be higher in areas where the Proposed Action and cumulative project are near receptors (i.e., cabins and campsites). Construction impacts would be short term, intermittent, and limited to working hours, while operation of the Tinker Road bridge would not have long-term nose impacts by itself or cumulatively. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the Proposed Action with regard to noise would not be significant.

Air Quality. Implementation of the Proposed Action when combined with other cumulative projects would not be expected to result in significant cumulative impacts on air quality. Concurrent construction, demolition, and renovation activities associated with the Proposed Action and cumulative projects in the same vicinity could have short-term, negligible to minor, adverse cumulative impacts on air quality from the emission of criteria pollutants and GHGs associated with heavy equipment used during construction. Particulate matter air emissions (e.g., fugitive dust) would be produced from ground-disturbing activities and from the combustion of fuels in heavy equipment.

The Proposed Action and other cumulative projects would generate emissions that would cumulatively result in minor, adverse increases of GHG levels on BAFS and surrounding areas. It is anticipated that the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from bridge replacement or repair is would be similar to the GHG footprint of 29 single family houses, each with two cars.


June 2018 | 5-3

Therefore, it is expected that the single-year GHG emissions from the Proposed Action would not meaningfully contribute to the potential effects of global climate change and would not significantly affect air quality. The Proposed Action would not have any long-term, adverse impacts on air quality. The Proposed Action would not contribute to any significant cumulative impacts.

Safety. The Proposed Action would have short-term, minor adverse impacts on safety during construction activities from exposure of workers to safety hazards. Although construction activities pose an increased risk of accidents, construction workers would comply with all appropriate OSHA, DOD, and USAF health and safety regulations and policies, including wearing appropriate PPE. Safety during construction for non-construction-related people (e.g., personnel, residents, and recreational visitors) that might be in the area would be maintained by installing construction barriers and warning signs. Construction for the Proposed Action and cumulative projects occurring at the same time and in the same vicinity could have short-term, minor, adverse, cumulative effects by increasing local construction traffic and exposure to safety hazards. Cumulative effects on construction safety would be short-term and negligible to minor.

The Proposed Action would result in long-term, beneficial impacts on safety because of improved safety conditions through replacement of old infrastructure with new facilities or repair of deficient conditions. Cumulative projects, including construction of a new CE workshop and improvements to Kalaniana‘ole Highway would also improve safety conditions at those locations. Cumulatively, the Proposed Action and cumulative projects would result in long-term, beneficial impacts on safety because of improvement of safety conditions. The Proposed Action would not have long-term, adverse impacts and, therefore, would not contribute to any long-term, adverse cumulative impacts. The Proposed Action would not contribute to any significant cumulative safety impacts.

Water Resources. Short-term, negligible to minor, adverse cumulative impacts on groundwater from potential spills or accidental releases from construction vehicles and equipment used for the Proposed Action and cumulative projects. However, these potential impacts would be prevented or minimized through implementation of standard construction BMPs, including proper housekeeping, maintenance of equipment, and containment of fuels and other potentially hazardous materials. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not contribute to any significant cumulative groundwater impacts.

Construction of the Proposed Action in combination with cumulative projects would result in a net increase of ground disturbance and impervious surfaces on the installation, which would increase the volume and velocity of stormwater entering streams and the Waimānalo Bay and potentially introduce sediment and other contaminants to water bodies, which could degrade water quality. These actions would cumulatively contribute to short- and long-term, minor, adverse impacts on surface water. Demolition of existing facilities and use of existing concrete slabs or other impervious surfaces under cumulative projects would help to offset some of the additional impervious surfaces. However, on-installation cumulative projects would comply with Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act to maintain or restore predevelopment site hydrology, and implement site-specific SWPPPs and ESCPs and


June 2018 | 5-4

associated BMPs to manage stormwater during and after construction. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not contribute to any significant cumulative surface water impacts.

Short-term, minor, adverse cumulative impacts on wetlands could be expected from the Proposed Action and on-installation cumulative projects from ground disturbances within or close to wetlands that could expose soils and increase soil erosion potential, sedimentation, and turbidity. Development and implementation of a SWPPP and ESCP, and implementation of aforementioned BMPs would minimize these impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not contribute to any significant cumulative wetland impacts.

Short- and long-term, negligible to minor, adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts on floodplains would occur because of the implementation of the Proposed Action and cumulative projects. Short-term, adverse impacts would be expected from the Proposed Action because it would require ground disturbance within a floodplain; however, it would not result in an increase in impervious surfaces and would not alter floodplain boundaries. Ground disturbance and increased impervious surfaces within the floodplain would be avoided to the greatest extent practicable. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not contribute to any significant cumulative floodplains impacts.

The Proposed Action and cumulative projects have the potential to result in short-term, negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on coastal resources and uses. Short-term impacts during construction would include ground disturbances and temporary viewshed effects. The Proposed Action would be consistent with the enforceable policies of Hawai‘i’s CZM Program. A consistency determination for the Proposed Action is provided in Appendix B. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts on the Hawai‘i CZM area.

Biological Resources. There are no naturally occurring native plant assemblages on BAFS because of historic development and continual disturbance. However, the installation provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species as well as foraging habitat for migratory shorebirds along the shoreline.

Concurrent construction, demolition, and other activities associated with the Proposed Action and on-installation cumulative projects occurring in the same vicinity could have short- and long-term, negligible, adverse cumulative effects on nonnative vegetation as a result of vegetation loss and disturbance and soil compaction. Short-term, negligible to minor, adverse cumulative impacts on wildlife would occur from noise and habitat disturbance. Construction-related noise would be temporary lasting only for the duration of those activities. Species within construction areas are likely habituated to human activity and ambient noise because of the existing recreational activity, and mobile wildlife species might temporarily use similar, adjacent habitats during construction. Therefore, these species would not be permanently displaced, and impacts would be cumulatively minor. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not contribute to any significant cumulative impacts to vegetation or wildlife and associated habitat.

Short- and long-term, negligible to minor, adverse and beneficial impacts on protected species and migratory birds would be expected from the Proposed Action. When considered in combination with the on-installation cumulative projects, the Proposed Action would result in


June 2018 | 5-5

short-term, negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on protected species from physical disturbance and noise and indirectly from habitat alteration because of construction activities. Short-term, negligible to minor, adverse cumulative impacts on protected species and migratory birds (e.g., seabirds) would result from nighttime lighting. To minimize impacts from nighttime lighting, particularly seabird fallout, all exterior lights would be shielded downward and outfitted with the lowest wattage bulbs possible.

The Proposed Action and on-installation cumulative projects would be conducted in a manner to avoid adverse effects on protected species and migratory birds to the extent practicable. Surveys are recommended prior to vegetation clearing to prevent impacts on several protected species including the Hawaiian hoary bat, Hawaiian short-eared owl, yellow-faced bees, and ‘Ena‘ena. Recommendations to minimize impacts on Hawaiian hoary bats include no vegetation clearing, removing, or disturbing woody plants greater than 15 feet during the bat-birthing and pup-rearing season (June 1 through September 15), and no use of barbed wire. Implementation of BMPs would minimize the potential for adverse effects on wetland and stream habitat through restabilization and revegetation of disturbed sites. Additionally, restabilization and revegetation would decrease wind erosion and runoff to Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream and Waimānalo Bay. BMPs would also minimize the potential for adverse effects on vegetation through prevention of spreading of nonnative vegetation. Although no impacts on monk seals would be anticipated from the Proposed Action, BAFS would comply with NMFS BMPs to protect monk seals and cooperate with NMFS with associated recovery effort activities for this species. Through the implementation of precautionary measures and BMPs, the Proposed Action would not contribute to any significant cumulative impacts to protected species or migratory birds.

Cultural Resources. The Proposed Action could result in short- and long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts on cultural resources. However, adverse impacts would be unlikely. When considered in combination with cumulative projects that require any ground disturbance, the Proposed Action could result in short- and long-term, moderate, adverse impacts on archaeological and traditional cultural resources from ground disturbance that could encounter or disturb human remains and archaeological sites. Extensive ground disturbance occurred at BAFS during military construction in World War II and the Cold War that affected burials, displacing remains and redistributing them within fill in construction areas. Because of previous disturbance in the APE, there is low potential for encountering unknown archaeological materials or human remains during implementation of the Proposed Action; however, there is generally a high potential for encountering such resources during on-installation cumulative projects, including those outside of defined archaeological sites, because site boundaries are poorly defined. A qualified archaeologist would monitor all ground disturbing activities at BAFS. BAFS would adhere to the requirements of NAGPRA for any unanticipated discoveries of human remains or associated cultural items. Any human remains encountered would be left in place and avoided whenever possible. If avoidance is not possible, or if further disturbance would likely occur, the remains would be removed in consultation with NHOs and, unless otherwise specified, reinterred in the burial vault.

When considered in combination with cumulative projects, the Proposed Action would not contribute to any adverse or significant cumulative impacts on architectural resources because


June 2018 | 5-6

no such resources are within the APE. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be expected.

Infrastructure. The Proposed Action would result in short-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on utilities (i.e., supply/service interruptions and increased erosion, sedimentation, and runoff), solid waste management (i.e., generation of construction-related solid wastes), and transportation (i.e., increased vehicle traffic and road closures). These impacts would be temporary lasting only for the duration of construction. When implemented concurrently with on-installation cumulative projects, the Proposed Action would contribute to short-term, minor, adverse cumulative impacts on utilities through temporary supply/service interruptions and solid waste management through increased generation of solid waste to support the construction processes. The short-term increases in utility demand would not be expected to exceed capacity of the utilities. The cumulative increase construction solid waste would not exceed the capacity of the Nanakuli Landfill. Short-term, adverse cumulative impacts would result from increased traffic and lane/road closures during construction of the proposed installation improvement projects and improvements along Kalaniana‘ole Highway. Although the transportation impacts from the Proposed Action would be experienced primarily on BAFS, if the proposed installation improvement projects align in time and location with Kalaniana‘ole Highway improvements, there could be cumulative off-installation impacts. Long-term beneficial impacts would be expected from communications line extensions, aboveground fuel storage tank replacement, and waterline replacement.

Long-term, beneficial cumulative impacts on transportation would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action and the Kalaniana‘ole Highway improvements. Long-term beneficial cumulative impacts would result from improved transportation infrastructure with the capacity to accommodate increasing traffic demands and traffic flow. No significant cumulative impacts to infrastructure would be expected as a result of the Proposed Action.

Hazardous Materials and Waste Management. The Proposed Action would require the use of small quantities of hazardous materials and petroleum products and generate small quantities of hazardous wastes, resulting in short-term, negligible, adverse effects. Additionally, use of construction vehicles and equipment to implement the Proposed Action and cumulative projects could also result in spilled petroleum, oils, or fuel. Construction and demolition from the cumulative projects occurring at the same time and in the same vicinity could have short-term, negligible to minor, adverse, cumulative effects on hazardous materials and waste management. Compliance with federal and state laws and adherence to appropriate plans for hazardous materials and wastes, such as Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans, would limit potentially adverse cumulative effects. Cumulatively, long-term effects would not be significant. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts due to hazardous materials and waste management would be expected.

Short-term, minor, adverse cumulative impacts from special hazards might occur from implementation of the Proposed Action and cumulative projects. Special hazards (e.g., ACM, LBP, and PCBs) would be surveyed under the Proposed Action and in on-installation cumulative projects. Surveys for special hazards would be completed, as necessary, by a certified contractor prior to work activities to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to reduce


June 2018 | 5-7

potential exposure to, and release of, these special hazards. Contractors would be required to take appropriate precautions when removing potential special hazards such as paint, chalking, bearing fabric, and joint sealant. All ACM- and LBP-contaminated debris would be disposed of at a USEPA-approved landfill. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts due to special hazards would be expected.

5.1.3 Compatibility of the Proposed Action and Alternatives with the Objectives of Federal, Regional, State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls

The Proposed Action would be consistent with existing and foreseeable future uses at BAFS and MCTAB, as well as BAFS installation plans such as the BAFS 2010 Recreation Area Master Plan, 2013 INRMP, and 2013 Strategic Plan. The proposed installation improvement projects would be compatible with all off-installation land uses, and would be consistent with State of Hawai‘i and City and County of Honolulu land use plans and policies.

5.1.4 Relationship between the Short-term Uses of the Environment and Long-term Productivity

Short-term uses of the biophysical components of the human environment include direct impacts, usually related to construction activities, including any temporary population increases that occur over a period of less than 5 years. Long-term uses of the human environment include those impacts that occur over a period of more than 5 years, including permanent resource loss.

The Proposed Action would not result in an intensification of land use in the surrounding area, or represent a significant loss of open space. The Proposed Action would have short-term, adverse effects on the natural environment, including increased ground disturbance, sedimentation, noise, safety risks, traffic, and generation of solid wastes. However, the Proposed Action would help meet long-term, mission-related needs of BAFS and tenant units through the improvement of access to the installation. This would provide a long-term benefit through reduced consumption of fuel, energy, water, and other resources; provision of reliable utilities and an efficient transportation system; and enhancement of the morale and welfare of BAFS personnel and visitors.

5.1.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources An irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources refers to impacts on or losses to resources that cannot be reversed or recovered, even after an activity has ended and facilities have been decommissioned. A commitment of resources is related to use or destruction of nonrenewable resources, and the impacts that loss will have on future generations. Irreversible impacts primarily result from the use or destruction of a specific resource (e.g., energy and minerals) that cannot be replaced within a reasonable timeframe. Irretrievable resource commitments involve the loss in value of an affected resource that cannot be restored as a result of a proposed action (e.g., extinction of a threatened or endangered species or the disturbance of a cultural site).

Material Resources. Material resources that would be irretrievably used for the Proposed Action include steel, concrete, and other construction materials. Such materials are not


June 2018 | 5-8

presently in short supply and would not be expected to limit other unrelated construction activities. The irretrievable use of material resources would not be considered significant.

Energy Resources. Energy resources used during implementation of the Proposed Action would be irretrievably lost. These would include petroleum-based products (e.g., gasoline, diesel, lubricants, propane gas) and electricity. During construction, gasoline, diesel, and other petroleum products would be used for the operation of construction vehicles and equipment. Consumption of these energy resources would not place a significant demand on their availability in the region. Therefore, no significant impacts would be expected.

Human Resources. The use of human resources for construction is considered an irretrievable loss only in that it would preclude such personnel from engaging in other work activities. However, the use of human resources for construction of the Proposed Action represents employment opportunities, and is considered beneficial but not signficant.

USAF | Draft EA Addressing Tinker Road Bridge Repair/Replacement at BAFS, Hawai‘iREFERENCES

June 2018 | 6-1

6. References ACSI 2015 Advanced Compliance Solutions, Inc. (ACSI). 2015. Air Emissions

Inventory. December 1, 2015.

AECOM 2015 AECOM. 2015. Marine Corps Training Area Bellows Cultural Landscape Report [Draft]. Prepared for Marine Corps Base Hawai‘i, Kaneohe Bay, Hawai‘i. Contract N62470-10-D-3008.

Caltrans Undated California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Undated. “Loudness Comparison Chart (dBA).” Available online: <http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist2/projects/sixer/loud.pdf>. Accessed June 30, 2017.

Covanta 2017 Covanta. 2017. “Covanta Honolulu.” Available online: <https://www.covanta.com/Our-Facilities/Covanta-Honolulu>. Accessed August 16, 2017.

Desilets and Byerly 2015

Desilets, M. and D. Byerly. 2015. Historic Architecture Assessment of World War II and Cold War Era Properties, Bellows Air Force Station, Waimānalo, O’ahu Island, Hawai‘i. Prepared by Zapata Incorporated and Garcia and Associates, Kailua, Hawai‘i.

Dye and Pantaleo 2010

Dye, Thomas S. and Jeffrey Pantaleo. Age of the O18 site, Hawai‘i. Archaeology in Oceania. 45(3):113-119.

ENV 2017a City and County of Honolulu Department of Environmental Services (ENV). 2017. “How the City Manages Our Waste.” Available online: <http://www.opala.org/solid_waste/archive/How_our_City_manages_our_waste.html#aftercollected>. Accessed August 16, 2017.

ENV 2017b City and County of Honolulu Department of Environmental Services (ENV). 2017. Seventh Annual Report Status of Actions Taken To Comply With the State Land Use Commission’s Order Dated October 2, 2009 and Status of Operations Waimānalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill. Available online: <http://www.opala.org/solid_waste/pdfs/Annual%20Report-LUC-SUP-WGSL-7-20-17.pdf>. Accessed August 23, 2017.

ENV 2017c City and County of Honolulu Department of Environmental Services (ENV). 2017. “SORT IT OUT: What to Recycle/How to Dispose of...” Available online: <http://www.opala.org/solid_waste/what_goes_where_table.html>. Accessed August 16, 2017.

GlobalSecurity.org 2011

GlobalSecurity.org. 2011. “Bellows Air Force Station (AFS).” Available online: <http://www.globalsecurity.org /military/facility/bellows.htm>. Accessed February 22, 2017.


June 2018 | 6-2

HDLNR 2017 State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (HDLNR). Comments on DOPAA for an Environmental Assessment Addressing Installation Improvements and Maintenance at Bellows Air Force Station, Oahu, Hawaii. August 15, 2017

HDOFAW 2005 State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Forestry and Wildlife (HDOFAW). 2005. Hawaii’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. October 1, 2005.

HDOFAW Undated

HDOFAW. Undated. Threatened and Endangered Plants of Hawaii.

HDOH 2007 Hawai‘i Department of Health (HDOH). 2007. Ko‘olaupoko Watershed Restoration Action Strategy, Kailua Bay Advisory Council (KBAC). June 2007.

HDOH 2014 HDOH. 2014 State of Hawaii Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report: Integrated Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Congress Pursuant to §303(d) and §305(b), Clean Water Act (P.L. 97-117). September 2014.

Honolulu Board of Water Supply 2012

Honolulu Board of Water Supply. 2012. Ko‘olau Poko Watershed Management Plan. Appendix D. Overview of O‘ahu hydrogeology.

Leong et al. 2014 Leong, J.A., J.J. Marra, M.L. Finucane, T. Giambelluca, M. Merrifield, S.E. Miller, J. Polovina, E. Shea, M. Burkett, J. Campbell, P. Lefale, F. Lipschultz, L. Loope, D. Spooner, and B. Wang. 2014. Ch. 23: Hawai‘i and U.S. Affiliated Pacific Islands. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J.M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, pages 537-556. doi:10.7930/J0W66HPM.

Miller 1991 Miller, L.O. 1991. Archaeological Monitoring of the Tinker Road Bridge Repair (Replacement) Project, Bellows Air Force Station, Waimānalo, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i. Prepared for T. Iida Contracting, Ltd., Kāne‘ohe, Hawai‘i. Prepared by Public Archaeology Section, Applied Research Group, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

Mink and Lau 1992

Mink, J. and L. Lau. 1992. Aquifer Identification and Classification for O’ahu: Groundwater Protection Strategy for Hawai‘i. University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, Water resources research center, Technical Report No. 179.

PVT Land Company 2017

PVT Land Company Limited. 2017. “About Us: Oahu's Only C&D Landfill And Recycling Facility.” Available online: <http://www.pvtland.com/about-us/>. Accessed August 16, 2017.


June 2018 | 6-3

Oahu MPO 2016 Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). 2016. Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2040. Approved 13 April 2016. Available online: <http://www.oahumpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ORTP-2040-APPROVED-160502.pdf>. Accessed August 29, 2017.

OSHA 2017a Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2017. Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, 1926 Subpart O. Motorized Vehicles, Mechanized Equipment, and Marine Operations. Available online: <http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owastand.display_standard_group?p_toc_level=1&p_part_number=1926#1926_Subpart_O>. Accessed February 22, 2017.

OSHA 2017b OSHA. 2017.“Operation-Specific Sheets: Heavy Equipment and Powered Industrial Truck Use.” . Available online: <https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/hurricane/heavy-equip.html>. Accessed August 2, 2017.

Tomonari-Tuggle 2014

Update to the Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP), Marine Corps Base Hawaii 2014-2019. International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Prepared for Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific, Pearl Harbor, Hawai‘i. Contract N62742-04-D-1855.

TRS Audio Undated a

Tontechnik-Rechner-SengPiel Audio (TRS Audio). Undated. “Adding Acoustic Levels of Sound Sources.” Available online: <http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-spl.htm>. Accessed June 30, 2017.

Tuggle 1995 Tuggle, David H. 1995. Archaeological Monitoring Plan: Underground Storage Tank Removal, Bellows Air Force Station, O`ahu, Hawai‘i . Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

USACE 2018 USACE. 2018. Final Flora and Fauna Survey Report Bellows Air Force Station. February 2018.

USAF 2009b USAF. 2009. FY 2009 Military Construction Project Data. Project Title: Alternative Energy Using Solar PV. Department of Defense Form 1391. March 2009.

USAF 2010a USAF. 2010. Bellows Air Force Station Recreation Area 2010 Master Plan. March 5, 2010.

USAF 2013a USAF. 2013. Final Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for Bellows Air Force Station O‘ahu Hawai‘i, April 2013 Incorporating Annual Review Change January 2015.

USAF 2013b USAF. 2013. Bellows Air Force Station Map with Labels. October 10, 2013.


June 2018 | 6-4

USAF 2014a USAF. 2014. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan for Bellows Air Force Station. January 2014.

USAF 2014b USAF. 2014. 2014 Bridge Inspection Report BFMV85103 - Tinker Road over Waimānalo Stream.

USAF 2015a USAF. 2015. Final Biological Surveys of Bellows Air Force Station. September 3, 2015.

USAF 2015b USAF. 2015. Description of Undertaking and Finding of Effect Replace Utility Poles at Bellows AFS. May 13, 2015.

USAF 2016a USAF. 2016. Draft Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan, Bellows Air Force Station. April 2016.

USAF 2016b USAF. 2016. Final Hydrologic Survey of the Pu’ewai Wetland and Pūhā (Waimānalo) Stream at Bellows Air Force Station, Hawai‘i. November 2016.

USAF 2016c USAF. 2016. Bellows Air Force Station Green Sea Turtle Nesting Egg Dig Dates. June 24, 2016.

USAF 2017a USAF. 2017. Draft Pu‘ewai Wetlands Management Plan for Bellows Air Force Station (Bafs) O‘Ahu, Hawai‘I. November 27, 2017.

USAF 2017b USAF. 2017. Geographic Information System data for BAFS. Building construction dates taken from Building feature class.

USDOT 2006 U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Federal Highway Administration. 2006. “Construction Noise Handbook.” Available online: <https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ENVIRonment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm>. Accessed July 31, 2017.

USEPA 1971 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. December 1971.

USEPA 1981a USEPA. 1981. Noise Effects Handbook. July 1981. Available online: <http://www.nonoise.org/library/handbook/handbook.htm>. Accessed July 31, 2017.

USEPA 1981b USEPA. 1981. “Noise and its Measurement.” January 1981. Available online: <http://nonoise.org/epa/Roll19/roll19doc49.pdf>. Accessed July 31, 2017.


June 2018 | 6-5

USEPA 2017a USEPA. 2017. “Nonattainment/Maintenance Area Status for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants.” As of 20 June 2017. Available online: <https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ak.html>. Accessed August 24, 2017.

USEPA 2017b USEPA. 2017. “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.” Available online: <https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator>. Accessed August 25, 2017.

USEPA 2017c USEPA. 2017. Enforcement and Compliance History Online. Detailed Facility Report for USAF Bellows AFS, 515 Tinker Road, Waimānalo, HI 96795. Available online: <https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110000789335>. Accessed August 30, 2017.

USFWS 2017a USFWS. 2017. Comments on DOPAA for an Environmental Assessment Addressing Installation Improvements and Maintenance at Bellows Air Force Station, Oahu, Hawaii. 01EPIF00-2017-TA-0363. August 21, 2017.

USFWS 2017b USFWS. 2017. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Resource List. Available online: <https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/>. Accessed April 2017.

Viotti 2017 Viotti, Vicki. 2017. “The search for a new Oahu landfill site drags on.” Honolulu Star-Advertiser. March 19, 2017. Available online: <https://www.pressreader.com/usa/honolulu-star-advertiser/ 20170319/281517930937552>.


June 2018 | 6-6


USAF | Draft EA Addressing Tinker Road Bridge Repair/Replacement at BAFS, Hawai‘iLIST OF PREPARERS

June 2018 | 7-1

7. List of Preparers This document has been prepared by HDR under the direction of BAFS, HQ PACAF, and Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC). The following individuals were responsible for managing the development of this document and provided information and technical assistance towards its preparation:

Craig Gorsuch, HQ PACAF, DET2, 18 FSS

Allison Nabours, PACAF, 18 FSS DET 2/ENVIL

Melissa Markell, AFCEC/CZN

The following HDR individuals contributed to the preparation of this document:

Chad Blackwell M.A. Historic Preservation/Architectural History B.A. History Years of Experience: 12

Dave Boyes – Project Manager M.S. Natural Resources B.S. Applied Biology Years of Experience: 38

Timothy Didlake B.S. Earth Sciences Years of Experience: 9

Nicolas Frederick – Deputy Project Manager M.S. Biology B.S. Psychology Years of Experience: 8

Megan Gambone M.S. Biology B.S. Environmental Science Years of Experience: 10

Leigh Hagan M.E.S.M. Environmental Science and Management B.S. Biology Years of Experience: 12

Elizabeth Leclerc B.A. Anthropology Years of Experience: 9

Kathy Lemberg B.A., Anthropology Years of Experience: 11

Christopher McJetters B.S. English Years of Experience: 10

Cheryl Myers A.A.S. Nursing Years of Experience: 26

Steven Peluso, CHMM, CPEA B.S. Chemical Engineering Years of Experience: 30

Stephen Pyle, JD – Quality Manager J.D. Environmental Law B.S. Natural Resource Management Years of Experience: 16

Morgan Shelby B.S. Environmental Studies Years of Experience: 2

Emily Smith M.R.L.S. Resources Law/Environmental Law and Policy B.A. Biology Years of Experience: 10

Patrick Solomon, CEP M.S. Geography B.A. Geography Years of Experience: 22

USAF | Draft EA Addressing Tinker Road Bridge Repair/Replacement at BAFS, Hawai‘iLIST OF PREPARERS

7-2


Draft Environmental Assessment - bellowsafs.com · Bellows Air Force Station, ... concrete and...

Documents

Transcript of Draft Environmental Assessment - bellowsafs.com · Bellows Air Force Station, ... concrete and...