Kwajalein Echo Pier Repair

Transcription

Kwajalein Echo Pier Repair
Environmental Assessment
Final
December 2013
Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/
Army Forces Strategic Command
P.O. Box 1500
Huntsville, AL 35807-3801
Public Release Number 3108
U.S. ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL/RONALD REAGAN BALLISTIC MISSILE
DEFENSE TEST SITE (USAKA/RTS)
KWAJALEIN ECHO PIER REPAIR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. ARMY SPACE AND MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND/
ARMY FORCES STRATEGIC COMMAND
AGENCY: U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic
Command (USASMDC/ARSTRAT)
ACTION:
Finding of No Significant Impact
BACKGROUND: Pursuant to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 United States Code § 4321 et seq.); the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA
(Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§ 1500-1508); Department of Defense (DoD)
Instruction 4715.9, Environmental Planning and Analysis; Army Regulation 200-1,
Environmental Protection and Enhancement; USAKA/RTS Environmental Standards (UES),
12th Edition and 32 CFR Part 187, Environmental Effects of Major Department of Defense
Actions, USASMDC/ARSTRAT has conducted an assessment of the potential environmental
consequences of repairing Echo Pier located on Kwajalein Island. The assessment focused on
those activities that have the potential to change the human and natural environments.
The existing Echo Pier was originally constructed in the early 1940s by the Japanese Imperial
Navy during World War II. The present configuration of the pier is the result of a series of
alteration and repair projects completed from WWII to the present. These alterations and repairs
were accomplished in piecemeal fashion, and as a result different areas of the pier have various
as-built conditions and load carrying capacities. In addition, the severe corrosive environmental
conditions prevalent at Kwajalein have severely deteriorated the structural components of the
pier and further reduced load carrying capacities. Underwater inspections have identified several
areas of the pile supported pier in failing or poor condition, especially in areas supported by
heavily corroded steel H-piles. No vehicular traffic is allowed on Echo Pier at several locations.
This severely limits the capacity of the pier to support mission critical operations.
Renovations and repairs to the pier have been conducted periodically or as circumstances
dictated. As a result, the foundation of Echo Pier is currently constructed of several types of
vertical retaining walls, all of which are visible at various locations along the pier’s length.
These include the original Japanese coral/block construction, a portion of which is exposed along
Charlie and Echo Berths; steel sheet piles added between the 1950s and 1960s that cover the
original foundation and are visible along Bravo, Delta, and Foxtrot Berths; and the more modern
“Z”-type steel sheet piles that were installed in the late 1970s that are visible along Bravo and
Foxtrot Berths.
The Environmental Assessment (EA) considers all potential impacts of the Proposed Action and
the No-action Alternative. This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) summarizes the
results of the evaluations of the activities associated with the proposed Echo Pier repair.
1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: The Proposed Action is to repair and
renovate the entire existing Echo Pier, which would involve upgrading the structure to current
design standards and operational requirements. Existing pier structures will either be
strengthened or replaced.
Both Bravo and Foxtrot Berths are sheet pile wharves with a concrete cap. The seaward end of
Bravo and Foxtrot Berths, where they transition to Charlie and Echo Berths, respectively,
consists of steel sheet pile walls along the edge of the pier widened using a pile supported deck
structure. The steel sheet pile is present in the center of the pier, between Charlie, Delta, and
Echo Berths, and inside of the piling supported edges of the pier. The existing tie rod anchors
(iron or steel rods used as connecting braces) will be replaced. For Echo and Charlie Berths, any
new tie rods would be fit through holes in the sheet pile wall and be anchored to a waler beam
(horizontal steel beam) on the outside of the wall. The entire anchorage assembly will be
encased within the new concrete cap. For Bravo, Foxtrot, and middle portion of Delta Berths,
the tie rods are currently anchored within the existing concrete cap beam above the top of the
steel sheet pile section. The existing concrete cap beam will be demolished in segments that will
not compromise the stability of the existing structure, and the tie rods will be inspected and
replaced as needed. Prior to installing new king‐piles, sheet piles, and pile foundations, the
harbor bottom would need to be cleared of any debris that may be present under or immediately
adjacent to Echo Pier that would interfere with the installation.
Two pier replacement alternatives are under consideration for the dogleg portion of the pier
(Echo and Charlie Berths):

Sheet pile/king pile wall—encapsulating the footprint of the dogleg portion of the pier
with new steel sheet piling, replacing all existing tie rods, filling the area within the sheet
piling with a suitable compacted structural fill material, and installing new reinforced
concrete decking (cap) with a new utility trench along the entire pier, or

Pile supported pier—installing new precast/prestressed concrete displacement piles to
replace deteriorated existing pile foundations that presently support the dogleg deck
sections, replacing all existing tie rods, and installing a new reinforced concrete deck and
concrete cap with a new utility trench.
Additional proposed activities include replacement of the existing utility systems supporting the
pier (electric, potable water, nonpotable water [including water for fighting fires], sanitary sewer
service, lighting, and communications) and providing new utility connections appropriate to each
berthing location. A new utility trench that will contain all utilities (including the new force
main sanitary sewer line) would be constructed at or adjacent to the new cap beam along Foxtrot
Berth.
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE: Under the No-action Alternative, if Echo Pier is not
repaired, USAKA/RTS may have to employ tactical operations using Army bridging assets and
the existing barge slip ramp and using Foxtrot Berth as the single berthing point for cargo
operations. This would obviously impact operations, but would allow mission critical activities
to continue in support of mission requirements.
2
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Fourteen broad areas of environmental consideration were
originally considered to provide a context for understanding the potential effects of the Proposed
Action and to provide a basis for assessing the severity of potential impacts. These areas
included air quality, airspace, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
hazardous materials and waste, health and safety, land use, noise, socioeconomics,
transportation, utilities, visual aesthetics, and water resources. These areas were analyzed as
applicable for the proposed location or activity.
Of the original 14 broad areas of environmental consideration, the Proposed Action could have
an effect on biological resources, cultural resources, and water resources. The remaining
resource areas were not analyzed further.
1. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
All transportation of equipment and materials required for the Echo Pier repair/ renovation
would be conducted in accordance with DoD and Department of Transportation regulations. In
the unlikely event of an accidental fuel spill, emergency response personnel would comply with
the Kwajalein Environmental Emergency Plan (KEEP) prepared by USAKA in accordance with
the UES.
All project personnel would be briefed on the protection afforded to species protected by the
UES (migratory birds, coral, mollusks, fish, turtles, and cetaceans) and to avoid areas designated
as nesting or roosting habitat. No critical habitat has been established at USAKA/RTS.
A turbidity monitoring plan would also be prepared, which would define the action to be taken if
turbidity levels exceed 10 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) above background. Turbidity
monitoring would occur at the repair and demolition areas.
a. Alternative 1- Sheet Pile/King Pile Wall
Terrestrial
Impacts to terrestrial species are analyzed according to a list of stressors as applicable that may
potentially be caused by the proposed activities. These stressors include direct impacts including
general disturbance by humans and loss or degradation of shelter and/or forage resources; and
exposure to noise.
Vegetation
Direct Impacts. Creation of a laydown area would impact any existing vegetation present at the
area selected; however, the area contains managed vegetation and would be restored to preproject conditions after any material remaining after use is removed. No threatened or
endangered plant species have been identified within the region of influence. Any restoration
activities would be coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as applicable.
Wildlife
Direct Impacts. Construction ground disturbance and personnel presence impacts would
include loss of habitat, displacement of wildlife, and short-term disruption of daily/seasonal
behavior. Construction activities could result in the temporary displacement of some seabirds
(e.g., black noddies, great crested terns, brown noddies, and white terns) and shorebirds (e.g.,
golden plovers and ruddy turnstones) that could nest or roost in the area or forage in the water
3
directly off the proposed construction site. However, no designated nesting or roosting habitat is
located in the project area, and proposed activities in shoreline areas would not be conducted in
areas populated with viable seabird or shorebird nests.
Noise. Construction ground disturbance and equipment noise-related impacts would include loss
of habitat, displacement of wildlife, and short-term disruption of daily/seasonal behavior.
Typical noise levels 50 feet from construction equipment generally range from 70 to 98 Aweighted decibels. The combination of increased noise levels and human activity would likely
displace some small species of wildlife and birds that forage, feed, or nest within this 50-foot
radius.
Although construction activities could cause flushing (birds suddenly flying up), this is a
common reaction to sudden natural sounds that only slightly increases the energy expenditure of
individual birds. Construction activities could result in the temporary displacement of some
seabirds (e.g., black noddies, great crested terns, brown noddies, and white terns) and shorebirds
(e.g., golden plovers and ruddy turnstones) that could nest or roost in the area or forage in the
water directly off the proposed construction site. However, no designated nesting or roosting
habitat is located in the project area, and proposed activities in shoreline areas would not be
conducted in areas populated with viable seabird or shorebird nests. Other wildlife species
present at or near the proposed construction site such as rats, skinks, and crabs could also be
temporarily displaced to other areas on the island. These mobile species would likely return to
the area after repairs and facility construction are completed.
Marine
Impacts to marine species are also analyzed according to a list of stressors that may potentially
be caused by the proposed activities. These stressors include turbidity and/or sedimentation,
vessel strike, direct impacts, entrapment, removal from water, exposure to noise, exposure to
wastes and discharges, general disturbance by human and natural factors, and loss or degradation
of shelter and/or forage resources.
Turbidity and/or Sedimentation
Turbidity is the degree to which light passing through a water column is scattered by suspended
organic and nonorganic matter. Sedimentation is particulate matter carried by water that settles
on the bottom of a body of water. A turbidity monitoring plan would be prepared, which would
define unacceptable levels. Silt curtains would be in place at all times as required to limit
turbidity levels in the surrounding waters. Only small amounts of sediment are expected to be
periodically mobilized by the planned sheetpile driving. Thus, it is expected that any elevated
turbidity would be small in scope, short in duration, and likely to remain completely within the
silt curtain.
Wastes and Discharges
Construction wastes may include plastic trash and bags that may be ingested and cause digestive
blockage or suffocation, or if large enough, along with discarded sections of ropes and lines, may
entangle marine life. Equipment spills, discharges, and run-off from the project area could
contain hydrocarbon-based chemicals such as fuel oils, gasoline, lubricants, hydraulic fluids and
other toxicants, which could expose protected species to toxic chemicals.
4
Local and Federal regulations prohibit the intentional discharge of toxic wastes and plastics into
the marine environment. Additionally, USAKA has incorporated into their Proposed Action,
conservation measures that include measures intended to prevent the introduction of wastes and
toxicants into the marine environment.
Vessel Strike
Vessels transiting the area as well as those that are part of normal pier activities have the
potential to strike marine species located on or just below the water’s surface.
Direct Impact
This stressor refers to construction-related disturbances other than exposure to elevated noise
levels and relocation. The potential for impacts along Foxtrot and Bravo have primarily been
defined by the probability of falling construction debris hitting resources, which may be very low
(projected as 5 percent in the impact analysis).
Entrapment
Entrapment of corals, mollusks, and small reef fish behind the new sheet piling (and becoming
buried under fill) is another stressor that could affect the species present on existing piles and
sheet piling.
Removal from Water
The Proposed Action is expected to result in the removal of underwater structures, the removal
of encrusting organisms from pilings that would be reinforced, and the removal of protected
sessile organisms from the dredging area.
Exposure to Noise
Implementation of the Proposed Action would cause a temporary increase in underwater noise
levels in the Kwajalein Lagoon. For all work other than pile driving, the action area is estimated
to be the in-water area within a 50-yard arc around Echo Pier (in the Lagoon). During the
proposed pile driving, the action area is extended northward up to about 5,140 yards from the
Pier to include the waters that may be ensonified by pile-driving noise capable of eliciting
behavioral response in UES-protected marine species.
The effects on marine life from exposure to high intensity noises vary with the frequency,
intensity, and duration of the sound source, and the hearing characteristics of the exposed animal.
Exposure to very high levels of sound can cause soft tissue injuries that could directly result in
fatality. Exposure to lower levels may cause injury in the form of permanent hearing damage,
also referred to as permanent threshold shift. Exposure to lower levels may cause behavioral
effects that include temporary threshold shifts, temporarily masked communications and/or
acoustic environmental cues, and areal avoidance.
General Disturbance—Human and Natural Factors
Direct take through harvest continues in the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) for several
of the species covered by this consultation, but no information is currently available to quantify
5
the level of impact direct take is having on consultation species in the action area. Sea turtles are
considered a food source in the RMI, and turtles continue to play an important cultural role in the
lives of the Marshallese.
Nearshore fisheries around Kwajalein Atoll consist primarily of subsistence and recreational
fishing for coral reef and pelagic species. Contemporary fishing methods include boat-based and
land-based hook-and-line fishing (handline or rod-and-reel), net fishing (cast, gill, drag, and
surround net), spear fishing, hook and gaff, and gleaning. Nearshore fisheries occasionally result
in entanglement and drowning of sea turtles. Marine debris continues to accumulate in the ocean
and along shorelines within the action area. Climate change is a global phenomenon, so resultant
impacts have likely been occurring in the action area. However, scientific data describing
impacts in the action area are lacking, and no climate change-related impacts on UES-protected
species within the action area have been reported to date.
Loss or Degradation of Shelter and/or Forage Resources
Resurfacing a seawall or replacing pilings would temporarily reduce available resources that
were on the original structures. Filling in the area behind a new sheet pile seawall would result
in the permanent conversion of marine habitat to fast land, which would be a permanent loss of
those resources. The proposed reconstructed pier would remain within the current pier footprint.
The benthic habitat in that area consists primarily of course sands and rubble that provides little
to no forage value for turtles, dolphins, or sharks, but may provide some resource value for the
black-lipped oyster.
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
The remnant of the original reef flat is located north of Echo Pier outside the harbor and thus
should not be affected by the proposed activities. Although some loss of coral would be
associated with the project, isolated protected coral colonies on the bottom under or adjacent to
the pier would be relocated to a location outside the project area.
b. Alternative 2 – Pile Supported Pier
The main difference between the action alternatives is that Alternative 1 includes completely
filling in marine habitat under Charlie and Echo, while Alternative 2 removes and replaces the
piles. In terms of potential loss of marine organisms within the direct footprint, the immediate
impacts were proposed and were modeled to be the same. There may be some disparity in levels
and types of noise produced. However, the obvious difference in temporal loss of marine habitat
with Alternative 1 being “permanent” fill may make Alternative 2 the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative.
Marine
Impacts to marine species such as corals, mollusks, fish, sea turtles, and cetaceans would be
similar to those resulting from implementation of Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would require
replacing deteriorated existing pile foundations in the dogleg portion of the pier with 24-inch
octagonal piles using hydraulic or diesel impact hammers, thus resulting in noise spread over an
additional period of time.
6
Summary of Effects to Biological Resources
No threatened or endangered plant species have been identified within the region of influence.
Additional roosting and foraging habitat is present on and off shore of the island. No designated
nesting or roosting habitat is located in the project area. Personnel would be instructed to avoid
all contact with any nest that may be encountered.
Table 1 provides a summary of the potential for impacts to UES-protected marine species as a
result of proposed Echo Pier repair activities.
Table 1. Summary of Potential Echo Pier Renovation-Related Impacts
No Effect
May Affect but
Not Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Likely to
Result in
Jeopardy to
Species
Stressor
Species Type
Turbidity and/or
Sedimentation
Coral
X1
No
Mollusk
X1
No
Coral
X1
No
Mollusk
X1
No
Fish
X
Sea Turtle
X
Marine Mammal
Vessel Strike
X
Mollusk
X
Fish
X
Sea Turtle
X
Marine Mammal
Direct Impacts
Entrapment
Removal from Water
X
Coral
X
Fish
X
Sea Turtle
X
Marine Mammal
X
Coral
X1
Mollusk
X1
Fish
X1
Sea Turtle
X
Marine Mammal
X
Coral
X1
Mollusk
X1
Fish
Exposure to Noise
Exposure to Wastes
X
Sea Turtle
X
Marine Mammal
X
Coral
X
Mollusk
X
Fish
X
No
Sea Turtle
X
No
Marine Mammal
X
No
Coral
X
7
Stressor
Species Type
No Effect
May Affect but
Not Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Likely to
Result in
Jeopardy to
Species
and Discharges
General Disturbance
Loss or Degradation
of Shelter and/or
Forage Resources
Mollusk
X
Fish
X
Sea Turtle
X
Marine Mammal
X
Coral
X
Mollusk
X
Fish
X
Sea Turtle
X
Marine Mammal
X
Coral
X
Mollusk
X
Fish
X
Sea Turtle
X
Marine Mammal
Note:
1
X
Moving consultation species considered an adverse impact
2. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archaeological Resources
Use of two construction staging (laydown) areas would not require ground disturbance. With the
exception of laydown Option 2, all of these areas are heavily disturbed from previous
construction and/or facility demolition and situated within an area of Kwajalein Island that was
dredged and filled after 1944. These areas have no potential for subsurface archaeological
remains; therefore, no historic properties will be affected and no archaeological monitoring is
required. The RMI Historic Preservation Officer has concurred with all aspects of the cultural
resources analysis, including both a Historic Engineering Record report and a Cultural Resources
Evaluation, for the rehabilitation of Echo Pier.
Laydown Option 2 is situated within the original shoreline of Kwajalein Island in an area that has
been determined to be low sensitivity for archaeological resources. Three archaeological sites
have been identified within the general area; however, none are within the staging area footprint,
and there is no ground disturbance proposed. In accordance with the USAKA Historic
Preservation Plan, areas of low archaeological sensitivity do not require pre-project inspection or
archaeological monitoring; however, the project supervisor is responsible for reporting any
cultural resources encountered during project activities. As a result, the potential for this project
to affect historic properties is extremely low.
8
Historic Buildings and Structures

Echo Pier—Echo Pier is a Japanese-constructed feature within the World War II-era
Kwajalein Island Battlefield (a U.S. National Historic Landmark) that is also listed in the
RMI National Register as a historic structure. During this project, Echo Pier will undergo
significant structural repair and renovation and the installation of new utility lines;
however, the structure has necessarily experienced repeated renovations since its original
construction. As a result, the original integrity of the pier has degraded substantially.

Facility Demolition—Based on a lack of architectural and historical significance, the
proposed demolition of FNs 605, 620, 621, and the unnumbered shed would have no
effect on historic properties.

Facility Relocation/Reinstallation—Based on a lack of architectural and historical
significance, the proposed temporary relocation/reinstallation of FN 611 would have no

Modification of FN 783 (Finger Piers)—The historical significance of the piers was
evaluated in the Cultural Resources Evaluation along with the facilities that will
demolished and, based on a lack of architectural and historical significance, determined
to be not eligible for inclusion in either the U.S. or RMI National Registers. As a result,
modification of FN 783 will have no effect on historic properties.
Underwater Cultural Resources
The area surrounding Echo Pier has been dredged previously, and all of the debris currently
within 200 feet of the structure’s foundation appears to be of modern origin. As a result, no
underwater archaeological properties will be affected by the subsurface rehabilitation of Echo
Pier. Although there are no known terrestrial or submerged archaeological remains within any of
the project area footprints, the potential for these materials to be unexpectedly encountered exists
across USAKA/RTS. As a result, project personnel will be briefed during routine construction
briefings regarding the significance of cultural resources and the penalties associated with their
disturbance or collection. If, during the course of program activities, cultural materials,
particularly human remains, are discovered, activities in the immediate vicinity of the find would
be halted and the USAKA/RTS environmental office notified. Coordination/consultation
required by the UES would be conducted by the USAKA/RTS environmental office as
appropriate to the find.
3. WATER RESOURCES (MARINE)
A turbidity monitoring plan would be prepared. Turbidity monitoring would be conducted daily,
and activities would cease if turbidity levels exceed 10 NTUs from the baseline measurement.
The monitoring plan would define the action to be taken if level exceeds background. Turbidity
monitoring would occur at the construction areas that have the potential to discharge into the
lagoon. Short-term inlet filters and a new gravel swale would be used to filter runoff from the
new onshore construction before discharge.
If archaeological or human remains are unexpectedly encountered during this aspect of the
project, work would cease in the immediate area and the USAKA Environmental Coordinator
would be immediately notified.
9
Monitoring and Mitigation
The following are specific mitigation measures to be used for the Echo Pier repair.
Implementation of them should ensure maximum protection to UES protected species, such as
coral, mollusks, Candidate species of reef fish, scalloped hammerhead sharks, sea turtles, and
marine mammals.
1. Prior to Initiation of Project Construction Work
a. Large non-UES-protected coral colonies and mollusks present in the project area and
deemed easily movable by divers will be translocated to a suitable area outside of the
project area in accordance with agency regulations or direction.
b. After completion of the Biological Opinion, and with National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) concurrence and guidance, UES-protected coral colonies and
mollusks will be translocated to a suitable area outside of the project area.
c. A 150-foot area around the pier will be established as a zone within which scalloped
hammerhead sharks, sea turtles, and marine mammals could be exposed to noise
levels that could cause permanent hearing damage.
d. Appropriate project contractors will be required to:
(1) Develop and implement a contingency plan to control and contain toxic spills,
including petroleum products, and ensure appropriate materials to contain and
clean potential spills will be maintained and readily available at the work site;
plan would include inspecting and cleaning construction and debris removal
equipment of any petroleum-based products or other potentially polluting
materials and compliance with the KEEP prepared by USAKA/RTS in
accordance with the UES;
(2) Ensure that the project manager and heavy equipment operators will perform
daily pre-work equipment inspections for cleanliness and leaks and that all
construction project-related materials and equipment will be cleaned of pollutants
prior to being placed in the water. All heavy equipment operations will be
postponed or halted should a leak be detected, and will not proceed until the leak
is repaired and equipment cleaned;
(3) Ensure that fueling of construction project-related vehicles and equipment will
take place at least 50 feet away from the water, preferably over an impervious
surface. With respect to construction equipment (barges) that cannot be fueled
out of the water, contractors will ensure that absorbent containment booms will be
employed to contain any potential spills and that any fuel spilled will be cleaned
up immediately;
(4) Develop and implement a plan to prevent construction debris from entering or
remaining in the marine environment during the project; specific construction
protocols, such as netting along Bravo and Foxtrot, would reduce the potential for
deck debris to enter the marine environment.
(5) Develop and implement a contingency plan for the removal and adequate securing
of equipment in the event of approaching storms; and
10
(6) Undergo site introductions and briefings by appropriately qualified personnel that
would cover the procedures to be used to mitigate potential effects.
2. During Project Construction Work (General)
a. Observers, using binoculars, will be posted on work boats as necessary prior to and
during pier repair activities (particularly pile driving) and will focus the majority of
their attention on the area within 150 feet of the pier, with periodic scans beyond 150
feet to maintain situational awareness. Observations will be made starting 60 minutes
prior to the initiation of pile driving, prior to the resumption of any work following
any break of more than 30 minutes, and periodically throughout the work day.
b. If a scalloped hammerhead shark, sea turtle, or marine mammal is seen in the water
within 150 feet of the pier, in-water work will cease until the animal has exited this
area or 15 minutes have passed without redetection of the animal in the safety zone.
With the exception of pile-driving, if UES-protected marine species are noticed
within 150 feet after work has already begun, that work may continue if, in the best
judgment of the project supervisor, the animal(s) will not be adversely affected by the
activity. For example, divers performing surveys or minor underwater work would
likely be permissible, whereas operation of heavy equipment is not.
c. No attempt will be made to feed, touch, ride or otherwise intentionally interact with
any scalloped hammerhead sharks, sea turtles, or marine mammals.
d. Observers will be tasked with recording all sightings of scalloped hammerhead
sharks, sea turtles, or marine mammals that occur during the proposed project.
Information collected will include species, any recognizable individual characteristics
if possible to discern; time, location and approximated distance from the observer to
the species; species behavior; any impact the sighting had on work activities such as
delays, shutdowns, and whether the species was at a sufficient distance that work
continued.
e. Turbidity and siltation from project-related work will be minimized and contained
through the curtailment of work during adverse tidal and weather conditions. Silt
curtains would be in place at all times to limit turbidity levels in the surrounding
waters. It may not be practical for the turbidity curtain to extend to the bottom due to
tidal changes. The curtains would blow inwards during a rising tide and out during an
ebb tide. These silt curtains would encompass the dogleg portion of the pier during
dredging, so sediment impacts are limited to the dredged areas, and all associated
equipment and typically extend from the water surface to a couple of feet from the
bottom, without losing effectiveness or impacting surrounding waters. During redecking, the entire pier might be enclosed if needed.
f. Turbidity will be monitored within 164 feet of the pier on at least a daily basis. If the
turbidity in the project area exceeds 10 NTUs above background levels, work will
cease until the turbidity levels are below 10 NTUs above background.
g. Absorbent pads will be used to remove the petroleum product prior to removing the
silt containment structures, should a construction-related sheen be observed on the
water surface.
11
h. When piloting construction related vessels within the Echo Pier area, construction
related vessel operators shall alter course to remain at least 150 feet from visible
scalloped hammerhead sharks, sea turtles, or marine mammals and 300 feet from
whales.
i. Within the Echo Pier area, construction-related vessel speed will be reduced to 10
knots or less when piloting vessels in the proximity of scalloped hammerhead sharks,
sea turtles, or marine mammals. If practicable, construction-related vessel speed will
be reduced to 5 knots or less when piloting vessels in areas of known or suspected sea
turtle or marine mammal activity.
j. If approached by a scalloped hammerhead shark, sea turtle, or marine mammal within
the lagoon, construction-related vessel operators will put the vessel engine in neutral
and allow the animal to pass.
k. Scalloped hammerhead sharks, sea turtles, or marine mammals will not intentionally
be encircled or trapped among multiple vessels or between vessels and the shore.
l. All objects to be placed in the water or substrate will be lowered to the bottom in a
controlled manner. This can include the use of a spud barge, cranes, winches, or
other equipment that maintain positive control over the rate of descent.
m. In-water tethers, as well as mooring lines for vessels, marker buoys, or other devices
shall be kept to the minimum lengths necessary, and shall remain deployed only as
long as needed to properly accomplish the work task.
n. USAKA/RTS will report any scalloped hammerhead shark, sea turtle, or marine
mammal stranding events to Pacific Islands Regional Office, NMFS, and coordinate
on the identification of species, possible cause of physical harm, and disposition of
remains, if needed.
3. During Project Construction Work (Pile Driving)
a. No pile driving will be conducted after dark unless that work has proceeded
uninterrupted since at least 1 hour prior to sunset, and no hammerhead sharks, sea
turtles, or marine mammals have been observed near the 150-foot safety range for
that work.
b. Pile driving observers shall remain continuously alert for protected species on a daily
basis starting 60 minutes prior to the commencement of work through 30 minutes
after shutdown of work. This includes any break in operations expected to last an
hour or less.
c. Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the safety zone will be monitored for 60
minutes to ensure it is clear of scalloped hammerhead sharks, sea turtles, and marine
mammals. Pile driving will not commence until the observers have declared the
safety zone clear of any of these species.
d. Pile driving will commence using soft-start or ramp-up techniques at the start of each
work day or following a break of more than 30 minutes. Pile driving will employ a
slow increase in hammering to alert species and allow them an opportunity to vacate
the area prior to full-intensity operations.
12
e. If a scalloped hammerhead shark, sea turtle, or marine mammal is found injured
within the vicinity of the action area, all in-water pile driving or renovation activities
shall cease immediately, regardless of their effect to the noted injured organism. The
contractor will immediately report to USAKA all incidents of known or possible
project-related protected species injuries and any incidents of obvious behavioral
disturbance of protected species.
f. USAKA will report any scalloped hammerhead shark, sea turtle, or marine mammal
stranding events to Pacific Islands Regional Office, NMFS, and coordinate on the
identification of species, possible cause of physical harm, and disposition of remains,
if needed.
4. Post Construction
a. A report of all observations will be delivered to NMFS and USFWS in a postconstruction report within 6 weeks of project completion.
The following are also specific mitigation measures to be used for the Echo Pier Repair.

A turbidity monitoring plan would be prepared, which would define the action to
be taken if turbidity levels exceed 10 NTUs above background. Turbidity

In addition to the turbidity monitoring that is required by the permit, sediment
samples should be collected after project completion and analyzed for metal,
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon and total organic carbon content. Postconstruction sampling will determine if contaminated sediment was dispersed to
other previously clean locations within and outside of the harbor.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be in place to prevent the overflow of
concrete or fill materials from entering into the lagoon from the top.
Additionally, concrete type forms should be used to contain and prevent the cap
material from entering the lagoon.

BMPs should be in place to prevent demolition debris from entering into the
lagoon. Prior to any work, all hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos-containing
materials, lead-based paint, mercury in thermometers, fluorescent lights, etc.)
would be removed. At all times, proper engineering controls shall be maintained
to safeguard the marine water and the environment. Additionally, if
archaeological or human remains are unexpectedly encountered during this aspect
of the project, work would cease in the immediate area and the USAKA
Environmental Coordinator would be immediately notified.

Grated drain inlets would be located at low spots along the pier. The inlets will
be fitted with permanent filter inserts to mitigate any pollutants and sediments
within the stormwater and ocean spray runoff prior to discharging to the lagoon.
Typical pollution control practices to prevent pollutants entering stormwater
systems including grit collection chambers, grit filters, and oil absorbent materials
will be a requirement for the contractor.
13
CONCLUSION: The resulting environmental analysis shows that no significant impacts
would occur from the proposed construction activity. Preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement, therefore, it is not required. A follow-up action list will be developed and completed
by the Executing Agent to ensure compliance with the actions described in the EA. The Final
EA and Final Finding of No Significant are available at http://www.govsupport.us/eprea.
POINT OF CONTACT: Requests for a copy of the Kwajalein Echo Pier Repair Final EA and
Final Finding of No Significant Impact should be addressed to:
Army Forces Strategic Command
Attention: SMDC-ENE (Mark Hubbs)
Post Office Box 1500
14
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
16
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information
Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)
2. REPORT TYPE
09/12/2013
NEPA Document
3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
W9113M-11-D-0003-0012
Kwajalein Echo Pier Repair Environmental Assessment
5b. GRANT NUMBER
N/A
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
N/A
6. AUTHOR(S)
5d. PROJECT NUMBER
N/A
5e. TASK NUMBER
Mr. Mark Hubbs, Environmental Assessment Team Chair
-0012
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
N/A
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic
Command
PO Box 1500
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
N/A
10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)
N/A
Commander, U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll
ATTN: SMDC-RDTC-TEK-W
PO Box 903, APO, AP 96555-0010
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
N/A
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Release number 3108.
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze the impacts of repair and renovation of the Echo Pier
located on the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site (USAKA/RTS). Echo Pier
cannot currently support any loading or off-loading operations beyond manual operations. No vehicles (trucks, cranes,
forklifts, etc.) are allowed on Echo Pier at several locations. Repair is needed in order to continue its use as a location for
the transfer of supplies and a major berthing location for USAKA/RTS. The EA also addresses the No-action Alternative.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:
a. REPORT
b. ABSTRACT
c. THIS PAGE
Unc
Unc
Unc
17. LIMITATION OF
ABSTRACT
SAR
18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
OF
Mr. Mark Hubbs, SMDC-ENE
PAGES
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)
(256) 955-2608
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-1 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command
(USAKA/RTS), located in the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), is a remote, secure activity
that supports test and evaluation programs of major Army and Department of Defense (DoD)
missile systems and provides space surveillance and space object identification services in
support of the U.S. Space Command and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
USAKA/RTS supports Army missile defense, Missile Defense Agency demonstration and
validation, Air Force Intercontinental Ballistic Missile development and operational testing, and
the U.S. Space Surveillance Network.
Kwajalein Island is the largest of the 11 islands in the RMI used by USAKA/RTS under the
terms of the Military Use and Operating Rights Agreement, 748 acres in size, and remains the
most important and busiest of the islets. It is bounded on the north and west by the Kwajalein
Island Lagoon and on the east and south by the Pacific Ocean. It is the headquarters and main
logistical base for USAKA/RTS, and has a population of about 1,200.
The existing Echo Pier was originally constructed on Kwajalein in the early 1940s by the
Japanese Imperial Navy during World War II. The present configuration of the pier is the result
of a series of alteration and repair projects completed from WWII to the present. These
alterations and repairs were accomplished in piecemeal fashion, and as a result, different areas
of the pier have various as-built conditions and load carrying capacities. In addition, the severe
corrosive environmental conditions prevalent at Kwajalein have severely deteriorated the
structural components of the pier and further reduced load carrying capacities. Underwater
inspections have identified several areas of the pile supported pier in “failing” or “poor”
condition, especially in areas supported by heavily corroded steel H-piles. No vehicular traffic is
allowed on Echo Pier at several locations. This severely limits the capacity of the pier to
support mission critical operations.
Echo Pier has five berths: Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo, and Foxtrot. Each berth has
approximately 650, 325, 165, 320, and 800 feet of pier length, respectively. Renovations and
repairs to the pier have been conducted periodically or as circumstances dictated. As a result,
the foundation of Echo Pier is currently constructed of several types of vertical retaining walls,
all of which are visible at various locations along the pier’s length. These include the original
Japanese coral/block construction, a portion of which is exposed along Charlie and Bravo
Berths; steel sheet piles added between the 1950s and 1960s that cover the original foundation
and are visible on portions of Charlie, Delta, and Echo Berths; and the more modern “Z”-type
steel sheet piles that were installed in the late 1970s that are visible along Bravo and Foxtrot
Berths.
The Environmental Assessment (EA) considers all potential impacts of the Proposed Action and
the No-action Alternative. This Executive Summary summarizes the results of the evaluations
of the activities associated with the proposed Echo Pier repair.
December 2013
Kwajalein Echo Pier Repair Final EA
es-1
ES-2 PROPOSED ACTION
The Proposed Action is to repair and renovate the entire existing Echo Pier, which would involve
upgrading the structure to current design standards and operational requirements. Existing pier
structures will either be strengthened or replaced.
consists of steel sheet pile walls along the edge of the pier widened using a pile supported deck
structure. The steel sheet pile is present in the center of the pier, between Charlie, Delta, and
Echo Berths, and inside of the piling supported edges of the pier. The existing tie rod anchors
(iron or steel rods used as connecting braces) will be replaced. For Echo and Charlie Berths,
any new tie rods would be fit through holes in the sheet pile wall and be anchored to a waler
beam (horizontal steel beam) on the outside of the wall. The entire anchorage assembly will be
encased within the new concrete cap. For Bravo, Foxtrot, and middle portion of Delta Berths,
the tie rods are currently anchored within the existing concrete cap beam above the top of the
steel sheet pile section. The existing concrete cap beam will be demolished in segments that
will not compromise the stability of the existing structure, and the tie rods will be replaced. Prior
to installing new king piles, sheet piles, and pile foundations, the harbor bottom would need to
be cleared of any debris that may be present under or immediately adjacent to Echo Pier that
would interfere with the installation.

concrete decking (cap) with a new utility trench along the entire pier or

sections, replacing all existing tie rods, and installing a new concrete cap with a new
utility trench.
berthing location. New standpipes/hydrants will be installed to meet fire protection standards.
New storm drainage management structures (such as grated inlets and drainlines) will also be
installed. The new sanitary sewer line in this trench will run separate from all other utility lines
and provide connections to new sewer pump-out boxes servicing Bravo, Charlie, Delta, and
Echo berths. The new sewer line would convey wastewater to a new lift station (replaced due to
insufficient capacity).
The Proposed Action also includes the demolition of an existing stevedore/warehouse building
at the Echo/Charlie Berths of the pier (Facility 605) and replacing it with a smaller 4,600-square
foot building. The improvements further include a new, approximately 6,300-square foot
on‐shore stevedore/warehouse, installation of a new concrete pad/driveway approximately
es-2
December 2013
13,209 square feet surrounding the building, and installation of a new drainage swale that runs
along the north end of the building to an existing drain inlet.
ES-3 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The single largest daily use of the pier is to support the movement of RMI citizens and
USAKA/RTS employees between Kwajalein and the adjacent island of Ebeye. There are
approximately 17 berthings on weekdays and 10 to 12 berthings on the weekends. Under the
No-action Alternative, if Echo Pier is not repaired, USAKA/RTS may have to employ tactical
operations using Army bridging assets and the existing barge slip ramp on Kwajalein. This
would obviously impact operations, but would allow mission critical activities to continue in
support of mission requirements.
ES-4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Fourteen broad areas of environmental consideration were originally considered to provide a
context for understanding the potential effects of the Proposed Action and to provide a basis for
assessing the severity of potential impacts. These areas included air quality, airspace,
biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials and waste,
health and safety, land use, noise, socioeconomics, transportation, utilities, visual aesthetics,
and water resources. These areas were analyzed as applicable for the proposed location or
activity.
Of the 14 broad areas of environmental consideration, the Proposed Action could have an effect
on biological resources, cultural resources, and water resources. The remaining resources
were not analyzed.
ES-5 RESULTS
This section summarizes the conclusions of the analyses made for each of the areas of
environmental consideration. The EA contains a list of Best Management Practices (BMPs)
and/or mitigation measures that would minimize the potential for impacts.
ES-5.1
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
All transportation of equipment and materials required for the Echo Pier repair/renovation would
be conducted in accordance with DoD and Department of Transportation regulations. Prior to
use, all equipment would be inspected and cleaned of any petroleum-based product or other
potentially polluting material that could be released into the marine environment. In the unlikely
event of an accidental fuel spill, emergency response personnel would comply with the
Kwajalein Environmental Emergency Plan (KEEP) prepared by USAKA in accordance with the
UES. The KEEP is a contingency plan similar to a spill prevention, control, and countermeasure
plan and incorporates the hazardous materials management plan. Adherence to these
regulations and applicable standard operating procedures for spill prevention, control, and
countermeasures while transporting equipment and materials would preclude impacts to
vegetation and wildlife.
December 2013
es-3
The extensive development on Kwajalein Island has eliminated most of its natural vegetation;
thus, managed vegetation is dominant. Vegetation in the vicinity of Echo Pier and the areas
proposed for on-shore use is maintained by USAKA personnel.
UES (migratory birds, coral, mollusks, fish, sea turtles, and cetaceans) and to avoid areas
designated as nesting or roosting habitat. No critical habitat has been established at
USAKA/RTS.
A turbidity monitoring plan would be prepared, which would define unacceptable levels. Impacts
from sediment in fine to coarse sand areas created during proposed activities may also occur.
The turbidity should decrease rapidly with the cessation of the work since the materials in the
project area are mainly soft silt sediment which (due to a high composition of sand) tends to
rapidly settle from the water column. The turbidity increase would be temporary and highly
localized to the area where the work is being done. Activities would cease when the turbidities
exceed 10 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) above background as required by the
Dredging and Filling DEP. Silt curtains will be used around the pier during any pile work to
contain any increased turbidities to the immediate project site.
ES-5.1.1
ALTERNATIVE 1—SHEET PILE/KING PILE WALL
ES-5.1.1.1
Terrestrial
potentially be caused by the proposed activities. These stressors include direct impacts
including general disturbance by humans and loss or degradation of shelter and/or forage
resources, and exposure to noise.
Direct Impacts
Creation of a laydown area would impact any existing vegetation present at the area selected;
however, the area contains managed vegetation and would be restored to pre-project conditions
after any material remaining after use is removed. No threatened or endangered plant species
have been identified within the region of influence. Any restoration activities would be
coordinated with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as applicable.
Construction ground disturbance and personnel presence impacts would include loss of habitat,
displacement of wildlife, and short-term disruption of daily/seasonal behavior. Construction
activities could result in the temporary displacement of some seabirds (e.g., black noddies,
great crested terns, brown noddies, and white terns) and shorebirds (e.g., golden plovers and
ruddy turnstones) that could nest or roost in the area or forage in the water directly off the
proposed construction site. However, no designated nesting or roosting habitat is located in the
project area, and proposed activities in shoreline areas would not be conducted in areas
populated with viable seabird or shorebird nests.
Noise
Construction ground disturbance and equipment noise-related impacts would include loss of
habitat, displacement of wildlife, and short-term disruption of daily/seasonal behavior. Typical
noise levels 50 feet from construction equipment generally range from 70 to 98 A-weighted
es-4
December 2013
decibels (dB). The combination of increased noise levels and human activity would likely
displace some small species of wildlife and birds that forage, feed, or nest within this 50-foot
radius.
Although construction activities could cause flushing (birds suddenly flying up), this is a common
reaction to sudden natural sounds that only slightly increases the energy expenditure of
seabirds and shorebirds that could nest or roost in the area or forage in the water directly off the
populated with viable seabird or shorebird nests. Other wildlife species present at or near the
proposed construction site such as rats, skinks, and crabs could also be temporarily displaced
to other areas on the island. These mobile species would likely return to the area after repairs
and facility construction are completed.
Additional roosting and foraging habitat is present on and off shore of the island. The presence
of personnel who may cause wildlife to avoid the area, at least temporarily, would indirectly
reduce the potential for impacts from the highest elevated noise levels. The disturbance from
the short-term noise associated with on-shore construction and pier repair is not expected to
alter migration patterns. Although no designated nesting or roosting habitat is located in the
project area, personnel would be instructed to avoid any such designated areas and to avoid all
contact with any nest that may be encountered.
ES-5.1.1.2
Marine
wastes and discharges, general disturbance by human and natural factors, and loss or
degradation of shelter and/or forage resources.
on the bottom of a body of water. A turbidity monitoring plan would be prepared, which would
define unacceptable levels. Silt curtains would be in place at all times to limit turbidity levels in
the surrounding waters. These silt curtains would encompass the entire construction site and all
associated equipment and typically extend from the water surface to a couple of feet from the
bottom, without losing effectiveness or impacting surrounding waters. Only small amounts of
sediment are expected to be periodically mobilized by the planned sheetpile driving. Thus, it is
expected that any elevated turbidity would be small in scope, short in duration, and likely to
remain completely within the silt curtain. No consultation marine vegetation species are known
to exist in the vicinity of Echo Pier.
Effects to benthic species such as crabs and fish from increased turbidity would be temporary
since these species are mobile. Activities would cease when the turbidities exceed 10 NTUs
above background levels. No artificially planted or cultivated sponges that would require
consultation under the UES were observed within the project area. According to USFWS, all
December 2013
es-5
sponges identified at the Echo Pier location appear to have fairly broad distributions as
documented in recent biennial species inventories and biological assessments. Project related
jeopardy to any particular sponge species’ existence at USAKA/RTS appears unlikely.
Construction wastes may include plastic trash and bags that may be ingested and cause
digestive blockage or suffocation, or if large enough, along with discarded sections of ropes and
lines, may entangle marine life. Equipment spills, discharges, and run-off from the project area
could contain hydrocarbon-based chemicals such as fuel oils, gasoline, lubricants, hydraulic
fluids and other toxicants, which could expose protected species to toxic chemicals.
Local and Federal regulations prohibit the intentional discharge of toxic wastes and plastics into
the marine environment. Additionally, USAKA has incorporated into their Proposed Action,
conservation measures that include measures intended to prevent the introduction of wastes
and toxicants into the marine environment.
Vessel Strike
Vessels transiting the area as well as those that are part of normal pier activities have the
potential to strike marine species located on or just below the water’s surface.
Direct Impact
levels and relocation. The potential for impacts along Foxtrot and Bravo Berths have primarily
been defined by the probability of falling construction debris hitting resources, which may be
very low (projected as 5 percent in the impact analysis).
Entrapment
buried under fill) is another stressor that could affect the species present on existing piles and
sheetpiling.
Removal from Water
The Proposed Action is expected to result in the removal of underwater structures, the removal
sessile organisms from the dredging area.
Exposure to Noise
Implementation of the Proposed Action would cause a temporary increase in underwater noise
levels in the Kwajalein Lagoon. For all work other than pile driving, the action area is estimated
to be the in-water area within a 50-yard arc around Echo Pier (in the Lagoon). During the
proposed pile driving, the action area is extended northward up to about 5,140 yards from the
Pier to include the waters that may be ensonified by pile driving noise capable of eliciting
behavioral response in UES-protected marine species.
es-6
December 2013
intensity, and duration of the sound source, and the hearing characteristics of the exposed
animal. Exposure to very high levels of sound can cause soft tissue injuries that could directly
result in fatality. Exposure to lower levels may cause injury in the form of permanent hearing
damage, also referred to as permanent threshold shift. Exposure to lower levels may cause
behavioral effects that include temporary threshold shifts, temporarily masked communications
and/or acoustic environmental cues, and areal avoidance.
Direct take through harvest continues in the RMI for several of the species covered by this
consultation, but no information is currently available to quantify the level of impact direct take is
having on consultation species in the action area. Sea turtles are considered a food source in
the RMI, and turtles continue to play an important cultural role in the lives of the Marshallese.
fishing for coral reef and pelagic species. Contemporary fishing methods include boat-based
and land-based hook-and-line fishing (handline or rod-and-reel), net fishing (cast, gill, drag, and
surround net), spear fishing, hook and gaff, and gleaning. Nearshore fisheries occasionally
result in entanglement and drowning of sea turtles. Marine debris continues to accumulate in
the ocean and along shorelines within the action area. Climate change is a global
phenomenon, so resultant impacts have likely been occurring in the action area. However,
scientific data describing impacts in the action area are lacking, and no climate change-related
impacts on UES-protected species within the action area have been reported to date.
those resources. The proposed reconstructed pier would remain within the current pier
footprint. The benthic habitat in that area consists primarily of course sands and rubble that
provides little to no forage value for turtles, dolphins, or sharks, but may provide some resource
value for the black-lipped oyster.
ES-5.1.2
ALTERNATIVE 2—PILE SUPPORTED PIER
filling in marine habitat under Charlie and Echo Berths , while Alternative 2 removes and
replaces the piles. In terms of potential loss of marine organisms within the direct footprint, the
immediate impacts were proposed and were modeled to be the same. There may be some
disparity in levels and types of noise produced. However, the obvious difference in temporal
loss of marine habitat with Alternative 1 being “permanent” fill may make Alternative 2 the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative.
ES-5.1.3
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
December 2013
es-7
Table ES-1 provides a summary of the potential for impacts to UES-protected marine species
as a result of proposed Echo Pier repair activities.
ES-1. Summary of Potential Echo Pier Renovation-Related Impacts
Stressor
Turbidity and/or
Sedimentation
Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Likely to
Result in
Jeopardy to
Species
Coral
X1
No
Mollusk
X1
No
Coral
X1
No
Mollusk
X1
No
Species Type
No Effect
Fish
X
Sea Turtle
X
X
Marine Mammal
Coral
Vessel Strike
X
Mollusk
X
Fish
X
X
X
Sea Turtle
Marine Mammal
Direct Impacts
Entrapment
Fish
X
Sea Turtle
X
Marine Mammal
Coral
X
X1
Mollusk
X1
Fish
X1
X
X
Sea Turtle
Marine Mammal
Removal from
Water
Coral
X1
Mollusk
X1
X
Fish
Sea Turtle
Exposure to Noise
May Affect but
Not Likely to
Adversely
Affect
X
Marine Mammal
X
Coral
X
Mollusk
X
Fish
Sea Turtle
Marine Mammal
es-8
X
X
No
No
X
No
December 2013
ES-1. Summary of Potential Echo Pier Renovation-Related Impacts (Continued)
Stressor
Species Type
No Effect
May Affect but
Not Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Coral
Exposure to
Wastes and
Discharges
General
Disturbance
Loss or
Degradation of
Shelter and/or
Forage Resources
Note:
1
Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Likely to
Result in
Jeopardy to
Species
X
Mollusk
X
Fish
X
Sea Turtle
X
Marine Mammal
X
Coral
X
Mollusk
X
Fish
X
Sea Turtle
X
Marine Mammal
X
Coral
X
Mollusk
X
Fish
X
Sea Turtle
X
Marine Mammal
X
ES-5.2
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The RMI Historic Preservation Officer has been consulted about the proposed rehabilitation of
Echo Pier and has provided comments and concurrence. The comments have been
incorporated into this EA, and the consultation letter is provided in Appendix B.
ES-5.2.1
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As proposed, project activities that would require ground disturbing activities include
construction of the new onshore stevedore facility and demolition and removal of 1,660 square
feet of concrete along Marine Road. Use of two construction staging (laydown) areas would not
require ground disturbance. With the exception of laydown Option 2, all of these areas are
heavily disturbed from previous construction and/or facility demolition and situated within an
area of Kwajalein Island that was dredged and filled after 1944. These areas have no potential
for subsurface archaeological remains; therefore, no historic properties will be affected and no
archaeological monitoring is required. The RMI Historic Preservation Officer has concurred with
all aspects of the cultural resources analysis, including both a Historic Engineering Record
report and a Cultural Resources Evaluation, for the rehabilitation of Echo Pier.
Laydown Option 2 is within the original shoreline of Kwajalein Island in an area that has been
determined to be low sensitivity for archaeological resources. Three archaeological sites have
been identified within the general area; however, none are within the staging area footprint, and
there is no ground disturbance proposed. In accordance with the USAKA Historic Preservation
Plan, areas of low archaeological sensitivity do not require pre-project inspection or
December 2013
es-9
archaeological monitoring; however, the project supervisor is responsible for reporting any
cultural resources encountered during project activities. As a result, the potential for this project
to affect historic properties is extremely low.
ES-5.2.2
HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
Echo Pier Rehabilitation
Echo Pier is a Japanese-constructed feature within the World War II-era Kwajalein Island
Battlefield (a U.S. National Historic Landmark) and is listed in the U.S. National Register of
Historic Places (National Register) and also in the RMI National Register as a historic structure.
During this project, Echo Pier will undergo significant structural repair and renovation and the
installation of new utility lines; however, the structure has necessarily experienced repeated
renovations since its original construction, including a $3.2 million renovation in the 1970s.
Many of the original features have been repaired or replaced, and the entire pier has been
resurfaced. The original World War II Japanese gun emplacement was demolished because of
damage suffered during the Operation Flintlock invasion in 1944, and none of the facilities
currently located atop the pier are elements of the structure’s original construction. Other than a
few remnants of the pier’s original submerged foundation and the overall shape of the structure,
which will not be altered during the rehabilitation, very few original features remain. During a
U.S. National Park Service visit to Kwajalein Island in 1989, the Maritime Historian noted that
“Kwajalein bears no resemblance to its World War II appearance: the scattered, isolated
wartime resources that remain convey a limited sense of what happened there.”
Proactively, the existing conditions of Echo Pier have been documented using the general
guidelines and format developed by the U.S. National Park Service for short form Historic
American Engineering Record reports. The report includes a historical and construction
narrative and historical and modern photographs and maps. As a result, the proposed
rehabilitation of Echo Pier will have no adverse effects on Echo Pier.
Project Demolitions, Modifications, and Relocations
Six facilities are proposed for demolition, relocation, or minor, temporary modifications. These
six facilities were assessed for possible historical significance and all were determined to be not
eligible for inclusion in either the U.S. or RMI National Registers of Historic Places (National
Register). As a result, the demolition, modification, or relocation of these facilities will have no
Underwater Resources
Hydrographic surveys within a 200-foot area around Echo Pier were conducted in August 2012.
Magnetometer, side scan sonar, and diver-in-water methods were all used for the survey. The
survey noted a variety of derelict items situated in the vicinity of the pier foundation. The area
surrounding Echo Pier has been dredged previously, and all of the debris currently within 200
feet of the structure’s foundation appears to be of modern origin. As a result, no underwater
archaeological properties will be affected by the subsurface rehabilitation of Echo Pier.
Although there are no known terrestrial or submerged archaeological remains within any of the
project area footprints, the potential for these materials to be unexpectedly encountered exists
es-10
December 2013
be halted and the USAKA/RTS environmental office notified. Coordination/consultation required
by the UES would be conducted by the USAKA/RTS environmental office as appropriate to the
find. In addition, to the extent feasible, renovation of Echo Pier will be undertaken in
accordance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
ES-5.3
WATER RESOURCES
A turbidity monitoring plan would be prepared. Turbidity monitoring would be conducted daily,
and activities would cease if turbidity levels exceed 10 NTUs from the baseline measurement.
The monitoring plan would define the action to be taken if level exceeds background. Turbidity
monitoring would occur at the construction areas that have the potential to discharge into the
lagoon.
Monitoring and Mitigation
Monitoring and mitigation measures for water resources are provided in section ES-5.4.
ES-5.4
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MITIGATION
Consideration would be given to detaching and moving those coral colonies having appropriate
structure to minimize impacts that would otherwise lead to certain mortality. Appropriate
receiving sites would need to be identified.
The following are specific mitigation measures to be used for the Echo Pier repair project that
may be applicable. Their implementation should ensure maximum protection to UES protected
species, such as coral, mollusks, Candidate species of reef fish, scalloped hammerhead sharks,
sea turtles, and marine mammals.
a. Large non-UES-protected coral colonies and mollusks present in the project area
and deemed easily movable by divers will be translocated to a suitable area outside
of the project area in accordance with agency regulations or direction.
b. After completion of the Biological Opinion, and with NMFS concurrence and
guidance, UES-protected coral and mollusks will be translocated to a suitable area
outside of the project area.
December 2013
es-11
out of the water, contractors will ensure that absorbent containment booms will
be employed to contain any potential spills and that any fuel spilled will be
cleaned up immediately;
(4) Develop and implement a plan to prevent project-related debris from entering or
protocols, such as netting along Bravo and Foxtrot, could reduce the potential for
deck debris to enter the marine environment would be implemented;
(5) Develop and implement a contingency plan for the removal and adequate
securing of equipment in the event of approaching storms; and
during pier repair activities (particularly pile driving) and will focus the majority of their
attention on the area within 150 feet of the pier, with periodic scans beyond 150 feet
to maintain situational awareness. Observations will be made starting 60 minutes
prior to the initiation of pile driving, prior to the resumption of any work following any
break of more than 30 minutes, and periodically through the work day.
If UES-protected marine species are noticed within 150 feet after work has already
begun, that work may continue if, in the best judgment of the project supervisor, the
animal(s) will not be adversely affected by the activity. For example, divers
performing surveys or minor underwater work would likely be permissible, whereas
operation of heavy equipment is not.
sharks, sea turtles, or marine mammals that occur during the proposed project.
es-12
December 2013
continued.
curtains would be in place at all times as required to limit turbidity levels in the
surrounding waters. It may not be practical for the turbidity curtain to extend to the
bottom due to tidal changes. The curtains would blow inwards during a rising tide
and out during an ebb tide. These silt curtains would encompass the dogleg portion
of the pier during dredging, so sediment impacts are limited to the dredged areas,
and all associated equipment and typically extend from the water surface to a couple
of feet from the bottom, without losing effectiveness or impacting surrounding waters.
During re-decking, the entire pier might be enclosed if needed.
f.
Turbidity will be monitored within 164 feet of the pier on at least a daily basis. If the
water surface.
h. When piloting construction related vessels within the Kwajalein Harbor near Echo
Pier, construction related vessel operators shall alter course to remain at least 150
feet from visible scalloped hammerhead sharks, sea turtles, or marine mammals and
300 feet from whales.
i.
Within the Echo Pier area, construction-related vessel speed will be reduced to 10
be reduced to 5 knots or less when piloting vessels in areas of known or suspected
sea turtle or marine mammal activity.
j.
If approached by a scalloped hammerhead shark, sea turtle, or marine mammal,
construction-related vessel operators will put the vessel engine in neutral and allow
the animal to pass.
k. Scalloped hammerhead sharks, sea turtles, or marine mammals will not intentionally
be encircled or trapped among multiple vessels or between vessels and the shore.
l.
All objects to be placed in the water or substrate will be lowered to the bottom in a
m. In-water tethers, as well as mooring lines for vessels, marker buoys or other devices
remains, if needed.
December 2013
es-13
that work.
hour or less.
minutes to ensure it is clear of scalloped hammerhead sharks, sea turtles, and
marine mammals. Pile driving will not commence until the observers have declared
the safety zone clear of any of these species.
shall cease immediately, regardless of their effect to the noted injured organism.
The contractor will immediately report to USAKA all incidents of known or possible
f.
USAKA will report any scalloped hammerhead shark, sea turtle, or marine mammal
if needed.
The following are also specific mitigation measures to be used for the Echo Pier Repair.
es-14

A turbidity monitoring plan would be prepared, which would define the action to be
taken if turbidity levels exceed 10 NTUs above background. Turbidity monitoring
would occur at the repair and demolition areas.

In addition to the turbidity monitoring that is required by the permit, sediment
samples should be collected after project completion and analyzed for metal,
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon and total organic carbon content. Postconstruction sampling will determine if contaminated sediment was dispersed to
other previously clean locations within and outside of the harbor.

BMPs should be in place to prevent the overflow of concrete or fill materials from
entering into the lagoon from the top. Additionally, concrete type forms should be
used to contain and prevent the cap material from entering the lagoon.
December 2013

BMPs should be in place to prevent demolition debris from entering into the lagoon.
Prior to any work, all hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos-containing materials, leadbased paint, mercury in thermometers, fluorescent lights, etc.) would be removed. At
all times, proper engineering controls shall be maintained to safeguard the marine
water and the environment. Additionally, if archaeological or human remains are
unexpectedly encountered during this aspect of the project, work would cease in the
immediate area and the USAKA Environmental Coordinator would be immediately
notified.

Grated drain inlets would be located at low spots along the pier. The inlets will be
fitted with permanent filter inserts to mitigate any pollutants and sediments within the
stormwater and ocean spray runoff prior to discharging to the lagoon. Typical
pollution control practices to prevent pollutants entering stormwater systems
including grit collection chambers, grit filters, and oil absorbent materials will be a
requirement for the contractor.
ES-5.5
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
ES-5.5.1
The limited construction planned for the Echo Pier repair project and its future use would not
likely result in cumulative impacts to biological resources. Other than the potential for additional
vessels and noise in the area associated with the fuel pier replacement on Roi-Namur, outfall
repair offshore of Roi-Namur, Barge Slip Ramp repairs on Kwajalein Island, and the hydrophone
replacement offshore of Gagan, there are no other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable
future programs identified within the region of influence that, when added to the potential
impacts of the Proposed Action, would result in cumulative impacts. These activities would be
performed at varying times and locations.
ES-5.5.2
CULTURAL RESOURCES
When reviewed against other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions at
USAKA/RTS, implementation of the Proposed Action (rehabilitation of Echo Pier and associated
activities) would not result in significant adverse effects on historic properties.
ES-5.5.3
WATER RESOURCES (MARINE)
No cumulative impacts to water quality are anticipated as a result of implementing the Proposed
Action. No long-term adverse effects to water resources are anticipated. There are no other
past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future programs identified within the region of influence
that, when added to the potential impacts of the Proposed Action, would result in cumulative
impacts.
December 2013
es-15
es-16
December 2013
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... es-1 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... ac-1 1.0
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION................................................ 1-1 1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................... 1-6 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION.................................. 1-6 1.3.1 PURPOSE .............................................................................................. 1-6 1.3.2 NEED ...................................................................................................... 1-6 1.4 DECISION(S) TO BE MADE .............................................................................. 1-7 1.5 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW ............................................................ 1-7 1.6 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION .......................................... 1-8 2.0
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................ 2-1 2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................ 2-4 2.2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1—SHEET PILE/KING PILE WALL .............................. 2-8 2.2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2—PILE SUPPORTED PIER ...................................... 2-10 2.2.3 DEBRIS REMOVAL PROCESS ........................................................... 2-12 2.2.4 CONSTRUCTION STAGING (LAYDOWN) AREAS ............................. 2-12 2.2.5 FACILITY CONSTRUCTION ................................................................ 2-13 2.2.6 UTILITIES UPGRADES ........................................................................ 2-13 2.2.7 CONSTRUCTION AND PORT OPERATION PHASING ...................... 2-14 2.2.8 POST CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................... 2-14 2.3 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................ 2-16 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD ................ 2-16 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 3-4 3.1.1 REGION OF INFLUENCE ...................................................................... 3-5
3.1.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................. 3-5
3.1.2.1 Vegetation ................................................................................ 3-5 3.1.2.2 Wildlife ..................................................................................... 3-5 3.1.2.2.1 Terrestrial ............................................................... 3-5 3.1.2.2.2 Marine .................................................................... 3-7 3.1.2.2.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Other Protected
Wildlife Species .................................................... 3-12 3.1.2.2.3.1 Coral ................................................ 3-12 3.1.2.2.3.2 Non-Coral Macroinvertebrates......... 3-20 3.1.2.2.3.3 Fish .................................................. 3-21 3.1.2.2.3.4 Sea Turtles ...................................... 3-25 3.1.2.2.3.5 Cetaceans........................................ 3-29 3.1.2.3 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat ......................................... 3-41 3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 3-41 3.2.1 REGION OF INFLUENCE .................................................................... 3-41
3.2.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................... 3-41
3.3 WATER (MARINE) ........................................................................................... 3-45 December 2013
i
3.3.1
3.3.2
REGION OF INFLUENCE .................................................................... 3-45
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................... 3-45
4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................... 4-1 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 ALTERNATIVE 1—SHEET PILE/KING PILE WALL .............................. 4-1 4.1.1.1 Terrestrial ................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1.1.1 Vegetation .............................................................. 4-1 4.1.1.1.2 Wildlife .................................................................... 4-2 4.1.1.2 Marine ...................................................................................... 4-3 4.1.1.2.1 Vegetation .............................................................. 4-3 4.1.1.2.2 Wildlife .................................................................... 4-3 4.1.2 ALTERNATIVE 2—PILE SUPPORTED PIER ...................................... 4-24 4.1.3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS .................................................................... 4-25 4.1.4 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/MITIGATION MEASURES ......... 4-27 4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 4-30 4.2.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES..................................................... 4-30 4.2.2 HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ...................................... 4-30 4.2.3 UNDERWATER RESOURCES ............................................................ 4-33 4.2.4 MITIGATION MEASURES/BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ......... 4-33 4.3 WATER RESOURCES (MARINE) ................................................................... 4-33 4.3.1 TURBIDITY ........................................................................................... 4-34 4.3.2 SPILLAGE ............................................................................................ 4-34 4.3.3 ECHO PIER REPAIR DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL/
REINSTALLATION ............................................................................... 4-35 4.3.4 MITIGATION MEASURES/BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ......... 4-35 4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................. 4-36 4.4.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS ..................................................... 4-36 4.4.1.1 Biological Resources ............................................................. 4-36 4.4.1.2 Cultural Resources ................................................................ 4-36 4.4.1.3 Water Resources (Marine) ..................................................... 4-36 4.5 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................ 4-36 4.6 FEDERAL ACTIONS TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN
MINORITY POPULATIONS AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS
(EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898) .......................................................................... 4-37 4.7 FEDERAL ACTIONS TO ADDRESS PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RISKS AND SAFETY RISKS (EXECUTIVE
ORDER 13045, AS AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 13229) .................. 4-37 5.0
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 5-1
6.0
LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................. 6-1
7.0
AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED ............................................................. 7-1
ii
December 2013
APPENDICES
A
DISTRIBUTION LIST
B
CORRESPONDENCE
FIGURES
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
3-1
3-2
3-3
4-1
4-2
Regional Location .......................................................................................................... 1-2
Kwajalein Island Echo Pier ............................................................................................. 1-3
Echo Pier Repair Project Area, Kwajalein Island ........................................................... 1-4
Echo Pier Structural History ........................................................................................... 1-5
Echo Pier – Berth Locations ........................................................................................... 2-2
Examples of Ships That Use Echo Pier ......................................................................... 2-3
Existing Stevedore/Warehouse Building 605 ................................................................. 2-5
Echo Pier Repair Alternatives ........................................................................................ 2-9
Sample Precast/Prestressed Concrete Piles ............................................................... 2-11
Kwajalein—Biological Resources, Kwajalein Atoll ......................................................... 3-6
Echo Pier Repair Cultural Resources Area of Potential Effects, Kwajalein Island ....... 3-42
Kwajalein: Classifications of Coastal-Water Use, Kwajalein ........................................ 3-46
Area Expected To Be Ensonified within the Lagoon, Kwajalein Atoll ............................. 4-4
Echo Pier Historic Alterations ....................................................................................... 4-32
TABLES
1-1
2-1
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
Local Newspapers .......................................................................................................... 1-7
Staging Assignments ................................................................................................... 2-15 Coral Species Observed at Echo Pier ............................................................................ 3-8
UES Marine Non-Coral Consultation Species Potentially in the Echo Pier Area ......... 3-12
Number of UES Consultation Corals Estimated at Risk of Project Related Mortality
at Echo Pier .................................................................................................................... 4-6
Estimated Number of Pinctada margaritifera at Risk of Project Related Mortality at
Echo Pier ........................................................................................................................ 4-8
Estimated Number of UES-Protected Fish at Risk of Echo Pier Renovation-Related
Impact .......................................................................................................................... 4-10
Estimated Source Levels and Ranges to Effects Threshold Isopleths for Proposed
Pile Driving ................................................................................................................... 4-16
In-Water Sounds - Biological Thresholds Under MMPA .............................................. 4-17
In-Water Sounds - Biological Thresholds For Fish ....................................................... 4-17
Summary of Potential Echo Pier Renovation-Related Impacts .................................... 4-25
December 2013
iii
iv
December 2013
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
μPa
Micropascal
APE
Area of Potential Effects
AZ
Acropora Zone
BMP
Best Management Practice
BSR
Barge Slip Ramp
CALTRANS
California Department of Transportation
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CIDH
Cast in Drilled Hole
CRE
Cultural Resources Evaluation
dB
Decibel
DEP
Document of Environmental Protection
DoD
Department of Defense
EA
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
ESA
Endangered Species Act
ETP
Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean
ºF
Degrees Fahrenheit
FN
Facility Number
FONSI
Finding of No Significant Impact
HPO
Historic Preservation Officer
IUCN
International Union for Conservation of Nature
KEEP
Kwajalein Environmental Emergency Plan
MMPA
Marine Mammal Protection Act
MZ
Montipora Zone
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency
NTU
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
PCB
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
December 2013
ac-1
PTS
Permanent Threshold Shift
PZ
Porites Zone
RMI
Republic of the Marshall Islands
rms
Root Mean Square
SEL
Sound Exposure Level
SL
Sound Level
SOP
Standard Operating Procedure
SOSC
Species of Special Concern
SPCC
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
SPL
Sound Pressure Level
SZ
Sand Zone
TTS
Temporary Threshold Shift
UES
USAKA Environmental Standards
USAKA
U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll
USAKA/RTS
U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile
Defense Test Site
USASMDC/ARSTRAT
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces
Strategic Command
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UXO
Unexploded Ordnance
V
Volt
ac-2
December 2013
1.0 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action
1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR
PROPOSED ACTION
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared by the U.S. Army Space and Missile
Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command (USASMDC/ARSTRAT) to analyze repair
and renovation of the Echo Pier located on the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Ronald Reagan
Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site (USAKA/RTS). See Figures 1-1 through 1-3.
This EA is in compliance with the following:

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations that implement NEPA (40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Parts 1500-1508)

Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 4715.9, Environmental Planning and Analysis

Army Regulation 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement

32 CFR Part 989 Environmental Standards and Procedures for United States Army
Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) Activities in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 12th Edition,
August 2011

32 CFR Part 187, Environmental Effects of Major Department of Defense Actions
1.1
BACKGROUND
USAKA/RTS, located in the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), is a remote, secure activity
and a site of major test facilities. USAKA/RTS supports test and evaluation programs of major
Army and DoD missile systems and provides space surveillance and space object identification
services in support of the U.S. Space Command and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). USAKA/RTS supports Army missile defense, Missile Defense Agency
demonstration and validation, Air Force Intercontinental Ballistic Missile development and
operational testing, and the U.S. Space Surveillance Network.
Kwajalein Island is the largest of the 11 islands in the RMI used by USAKA/RTS under the
terms of the Military Use and Operating Rights Agreement, 748 acres in size, and remains the
most important and busiest of the islets. It is bounded on the north and west by the Kwajalein
Island Lagoon and on the east and south by the Pacific Ocean. It is the headquarters and main
logistical base for USAKA/RTS, and has a population of about 1,200 (U.S. Army, 2011).
The existing Echo pier was originally constructed in the early 1940s by the Japanese Imperial
Navy during World War II. Because Kwajalein Island has been filled along the lagoon shore to
create more available land over time, approximately 800 feet of the original pier is now visible
only as a portion of 6th Street, with its easternmost end near the intersection of 6th Street and
Poinsettia Streets. Although buried, it is believed that the original walls of the pier still exist.
(Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 1994; Colorado DataScapes 2011) The present configuration
of the pier is the result of a series of alteration and repair projects completed from WWII to the
present (Figure 1-4). These alterations and repairs were accomplished in piecemeal fashion,
December 2013
1-1
167°0’0"E
167°20’0"E
N
167°40’0"E
168°0’0"E
9°20’0"N
Roi-Namur
Ennugarret
Gagan
Gellinam
Eniwetak
Illeginni
Omelek
Meck
E
9°0’0"N
W
A la ska
C h ina
Legan
C a nada
L in e
Japan
In te rn
a tio n al
D ate
U .S .
Guam
Midway
Wake Atoll
Hawaii
Ennylabegan
Kwajalein Atoll
Kwajalein
A ustralia
8°40’0"N
E q ua to r
S
Regional Location
EXPLANATION
Kauai, Hawaii
Figure 1-1
1-2
December 2013
Echo Pier
Kwajalein Island
Echo Pier
EXPLANATION
Kauai, Hawaii
Figure 1-2
December 2013
1-3
Road
et
Stre
Stre
Palm
ettia
n
Lagoo
s
Poin
502
506
et
eet
6th Str
564
eet
6th Str
719
718
Finger
Piers
560
Road
Ro a d
602
607
eet
7th Str
1058
774
729
621
605
Lagoon
Supply
Road
626
620
623
Marine
611
715
710
629
702
716
816
636
eet
8th Str
806
1759
Lagoon
835
1791
804
844
805
Road
813
826
d
tive Roa
Automo
700
803
822
Kwajalein Island
856
1789
808
eet
9th Str
9th
Str
ee
t
868
760
900
961
962
EXPLANATION
Electrical Transmission Tie-In
Option 1 Laydown Area
Concrete Removal Area
Proposed On-Shore
Stevedore Warehouse
Echo Pier Repair
Project Area
Existing Structure
Facilities to be Demolished*
New Concrete Pad/Driveway
Note: * Smaller Stevedore Warehouse building
to be constructed in same general area
(Approx. 4,600 square feet)
NORTH
0
125
250
Kwajalein Island
Figure 1-3
500 Feet
13_projectareas_echopier, 4/25/2013
1-4
December 2013
EXPLANATION
Pre-1950 wharf (sheet pile/CRM wall,
portions of sheet pile replaced in 1979)
1950 wharf (timber deck supported by
steel HP piles, additional HP piles added
between 1966-1969, piles encased in
concrete in 1987)
1952-1966 wharf (concrete deck
supported by concrete piles,
broken piles replaced in 1979
with steel HP and concrete piles)
1972 wharf (concrete deck
supported by concrete piles,
sheet pile replacement)
1950-1952 wharf (concrete deck
supported by concrete piles, steel HP
piles added between 1966-1969,
concrete piles added in 1972, steel piles
encased in concrete in 1987)
December 2013
Echo Pier Structural
History
Kauai, Hawaii
Figure 1-4
1-5
and as a result different areas of the pier have various as-built conditions and load carrying
capacities. In addition, the severe corrosive environmental conditions prevalent at Kwajalein
have severely deteriorated the structural components of the pier and further reduced load
carrying capacities. Underwater inspections have identified several areas of the pile supported
pier in “failing” or “poor” condition, especially in areas supported by heavily corroded steel
H-piles. No vehicular traffic is allowed on Echo Pier at several locations. This severely limits
the capacity of the pier to support mission critical operations.
Renovations and repairs to the pier have been conducted periodically or as circumstances
dictated. As a result, the foundation of Echo Pier is currently constructed of several types of
vertical retaining walls, all of which are visible at various locations along the pier’s length. These
include the original Japanese coral/block construction, a portion of which is exposed along
Charlie and Echo Berths; steel sheet piles added between the 1950s and 1960s that cover the
original foundation and are visible along Bravo, Delta, and Foxtrot Berths; and the more modern
“Z”-type steel sheet piles that were installed in the late 1970s that are visible along Bravo and
Foxtrot Berths.
1.2
SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
USASMDC/ARSTRAT complies with the statutes and regulations listed above that direct DoD
lead-agency officials to consider potential environmental consequences when authorizing or
approving federal actions.
This EA describes the events necessary to repair and renovate Echo Pier. It also presents the
decision maker with a concise analysis of anticipated environmental consequences that would
result from conducting the Proposed Action. Actions occurring within the United States, or
within the RMI per the Compact of Free Association, will be evaluated under NEPA. If
applicable, a Document of Environmental Protection (DEP), which addresses impacts from the
Proposed Action and further describes environmental controls the installation intends to
implement, will be prepared after the completion of this EA. A Biological Assessment will be
prepared concurrent with the EA.
1.3
1.3.1
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to repair and renovate the existing Echo Pier in order to
continue its use as a location for the transfer of supplies and a major berthing location for
USAKA/RTS.
1.3.2
NEED
The Proposed Action is needed because USAKA/RTS is extremely limited in its capacity and
capabilities based on the failing status of Echo Pier. Echo Pier cannot support any loading or
off-loading operations beyond manual operations. The severe corrosive environmental
conditions prevalent at Kwajalein have severely deteriorated the structural components of the
pier and further reduced load carrying capacities. No vehicles (trucks, cranes, forklifts, etc.) are
1-6
December 2013
allowed on Echo Pier at several locations. Vehicles are still allowed on the Foxtrot Berth portion
of the Pier to support cargo operations.
If this project is not provided, USAKA/RTS would have to continue to rely on Foxtrot Berth as
the single berthing point for any cargo operations. Foxtrot Berth is located on the approach arm
that leads to the main section of the Echo Pier (containing Charlie, Delta, and Echo Berths).
Without this project Echo Pier and Foxtrot Berth will continue to deteriorate at an accelerated
rate, risking a catastrophic failure that could cripple mission operations for USAKA and
supported agencies. Further attempts to repair the existing pile supported pier in additional
piecemeal fashion is not considered a viable option due to the demonstrated continual
deterioration inherent with that design.
1.4
DECISION(S) TO BE MADE
USAKA/RTS is the proponent for this action. Following the public review period (as specified in
the newspaper notices) the USAKA/RTS Commander will be informed of the potential
environmental effects of the Proposed Action and will decide whether to:
(1) Sign the FONSI, which would allow the Proposed Action to proceed; or
(2) Conduct additional environmental analysis (if needed); or
(3) Select the No-action Alternative.
1.5
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW
In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality and DoD regulations for implementing
NEPA, USASMDC/ARSTRAT is soliciting comments on this EA and the enclosed Draft Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from interested and affected parties. A Notice of Availability
for the EA and Draft FONSI will be published in the following newspapers (Table 1-1):
Table 1-1. Local Newspapers
Country or State
Republic of the Marshall Islands
City/Town
Newspaper
Majuro
Marshall Islands Journal
USAKA/RTS
Kwajalein Hourglass
Copies of the EA and Draft FONSI have been placed in local libraries and are available on the
Internet at http://www.govsupport.us/eprea.
December 2013
1-7
1.6
RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
As appropriate, the conclusions of these NEPA studies are summarized and included in this
document:
1-8

Historic Engineering Record Echo Pier (Nob Pier; USAKA Facility Number 1385; RMI
Site Number MI-KW-KW-006) U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall
Islands, 30 January 2013

Kwajalein Barge Slip Ramp Repair Environmental Assessment, August 2012

USAKA/RTS Facility Closure and Demolitions Supplemental Environmental
Assessment, August 2011

Environmental Standards and Procedures for United States Army Kwajalein Atoll
(USAKA) Activities in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 12th Edition, August 2011

Document of Environmental Protection Activity: Dredging and Filling. Control Number
DEP-10-002.0, February 2011; Effective Date 30 April 2011

Document of Environmental Protection Activity Shoreline Protection. Control Number
DEP-07-002.0, January 2008; Effective Date 4 March 2009

USAKA/RTS Facility Closure and Demolitions Environmental Assessment, January 2009

United States Army Kwajalein Atoll Real Property Master Plan Implementation
Programmatic Environmental Assessment, May 2004

United States Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) Supplement Environmental Impact
Statement, December 1993
December 2013
2.0 Description of Proposed Action and
Alternatives
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
AND ALTERNATIVES
This chapter describes the Proposed Action, Alternatives that could be selected to implement
the Proposed Action, the No-action Alternative, and alternatives considered but eliminated from
further study.
2.1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Currently, Echo Pier extends into the Kwajalein Lagoon for approximately 1,120 feet; the end of
the pier (dogleg to the south) is approximately 320 feet long. The single largest daily use of the
pier is to support the movement of RMI citizens and USAKA/RTS employees between Kwajalein
and the adjacent island of Ebeye. The majority of the total workforce for USAKA/RTS are RMI
citizens. The U.S. Government is responsible for providing this transportation between Kwajalein
and Ebeye. There are approximately 17 berthings on weekdays and 10 to 12 berthings on the
weekends. Approximately 970,000 people are transported annually using old U.S. Landing
Crafts. Echo Pier has five berths: Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo, and Foxtrot. Each berth has
approximately 650, 325, 165, 320, and 800 feet of pier length, respectively. Figure 2-1 shows
the general location and overall layout of the berths. Bravo Berth is generally used as a ferry
terminal and for docking U.S. Army Vessel LCU 2021, Great Bridge. Foxtrot Berth, used as the
commercial port of USAKA, is where the Matson cargo ship, Islander (Figure 2-2), docks for 1
day every 2 weeks for offloading and loading of cargo. Hydrographic surveys of the seafloor
adjacent to Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo, and Foxtrot Berths at Echo Pier were conducted in 2012.
Hydrographic surveys included multibeam echo sounder bathymetry, magnetometer magnetic
field measurement, and side scan sonar imaging. The purpose of the surveys was to map the
water depth and locate potential debris in an area within 200 feet of the Echo Pier berths. To
augment the geophysical data collection, diving personnel also collected marine debris data for
the area adjacent to both Bravo and Foxtrot Berths while conducting an underwater pier
inspection. During the course of the inspection, Charlie, Delta, and Echo Berths were
continuously occupied by the U.S. Army Vessel Worthy, U.S. Army Vessel LT-102, Mystic, and
U.S. Army Vessel USAKA 1906C (Figure 2-2), respectively. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Honolulu District, 2012a)
A debris survey was conducted to identify and document significant items of bottom debris that
may be obstructions to navigation, future pile driving, or other repair/upgrade activities. This
survey was conducted within a distance of 30 feet perpendicular to the bulkhead, and included
written descriptions and photographic documentation in conjunction with location information.
Since the sheet pile was continuous for both Bravo and Foxtrot Berths, access was restricted to
the face of the sheet pile and seaward. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District, 2012a)
Both Bravo and Foxtrot Berths are sheet pile wharves. Their configuration is a concrete cap
over steel sheet pile. Fenders are spaced irregularly along the berths. The current steel sheet
pile structures were built outside of the original pier, encasing the original structure within the
modern footprint. The seaward end of Bravo and Foxtrot Berths, where they transition to
Charlie and Echo Berths, respectively, also marks a transition in construction style (Figure 1-4),
December 2013
2-1
Foxtrot
Bravo
Echo
Charlie
ck
Dry Do
Delta
Echo Pier Berth Locations
EXPLANATION
Kauai, Hawaii
0
2-2
100
Figure 2-1
200 Feet
December 2013
The Islander Cargo Ship
The USAS Worthy KMRSS
The USAKA 1906C Fuel Barge
Examples of Ships That
Use Echo Pier
EXPLANATION
Kauai, Hawaii
Figure 2-2
December 2013
2-3
the pier was widened using a pile supported deck structure.. The steel sheet pile is present in
the center of the pier, between Charlie, Delta, and Echo Berths, and inside of the piling
supported edges of the pier.
The U.S. Army Vessel Worthy (Figure 2-2) is a large research vessel docked in a semipermanent manner at Echo Pier when it is not sailing for mission requirements. Other vessels
can temporarily moor on the west and north sides of Echo Pier but cannot be off-loaded or
supported from those locations due to the failing condition of the pier.
A Military Sealift Command supply ship delivers to Kwajalein about every 2 weeks. This ship is
known as the Islander (Matson Navigation Company) (Figure 2-2) and is the primary means of
transporting materials and supplies to USAKA/RTS, with the exception of mail, perishable/shortshelf life class I (items with a definite non-extendible period of shelf-life that ends with the
expiration date), and emergency supplies. USAKA averages approximately 30 to 40 containers
on each delivery. The Islander uses organic electric cranes to off- or on-load containers from
Foxtrot Berth. The length and shallow water depth on Foxtrot Berth negatively limit the
capabilities of the Islander to support USAKA/RTS. Greater capacity and capability will be
restored once Echo Pier is repaired and operational. The pier supports transfer of
approximately 17,500 tons of cargo annually.
Support to ships from other Government Agencies is extremely limited due to the condition of
the pier. For example, U.S. Navy destroyers frequently stop for fuel but cannot execute any
other re-supply operations or off-load cargo due to the condition of Echo Pier. The U.S. Coast
Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are the primary other
Government Agencies supported on a recurring basis annually.
Currently, the pier does not have adequate utilities to support the other Government Agencies.
For example, one lift station (a point where wastewater is pumped [or “lifted”] to a higher
elevation in the sewer system) does not have sufficient capacity to pump demand loads from
U.S. Navy destroyers. As a result, the destroyer must leave berth and return to sea to dump
sewage every couple of days. Similarly, there are problems with the existing electrical service
during storms and high waves.
2.2
PROPOSED ACTION
The Proposed Action is to repair and renovate the entire existing Echo Pier (Figure 2-1), which
would involve upgrading the structure to current design standards and operational requirements.
Existing pier structures will either be strengthened or replaced.
The existing Stevedore Storage facility (Building 605, Figure 2-3) on the pier would be
demolished and replaced with a smaller 4,600-square foot building after the pier renovation with
integrated latrines and a utility vault. Foundation support for the new building will depend on
where it is sited. If it is located over existing backfill areas and/or a new pile supported deck,
driven pile foundation support may be needed, similar to the existing structure. If is located over
new backfill areas for a fill pier concept, shallow foundation support using spread and wall
footings may be possible. Construction of the new on-shore stevedore/warehouse building is
2-4
December 2013
EXPLANATION
EXPLANATION
Existing Stevedore/
Warehouse
Building 605
Kauai, Hawaii
Figure 2-3
December 2013
2-5
described in Section 2.2.5. Buildings 620, 621, and an unnumbered pier shed would also be
demolished. The existing NOAA Tide Gauge facility (Building 611) would be temporarily
relocated to a location approved by USAKA/RTS and then re-installed on the repaired pier, in
coordination with NOAA.
Due to the probable existence of asbestos in Buildings 605 and 621, and possible existence in
Buildings 620, 630, 631 or the pier itself, demolition debris could contain hazardous material.
Prior to any renovation work, all hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos-containing materials, leadbased paint, mercury in thermometers, fluorescent lights, etc.) would be removed, properly
containerized, and shipped to an off-island approved landfill for disposal/treatment in
accordance with the Kwajalein Environmental Emergency Plan (KEEP). Transport and use of
hazardous material would be managed in accordance with standard operating procedures
(SOPs) and regulations currently in place (e.g., UES 12th Edition, DEPs, and any other
USAKA/RTS policy). All asbestos abatement work, including removal, handling, transport, and
disposal would be in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.1101, “Toxic and Hazardous Substances,”
and 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M, “National Emission Standard for Asbestos.” Lead in water is
regulated under both the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
consists of steel sheet pile walls along the edge of the pier replaced by pilings. The steel sheet
pile is present in the center of the pier, between Charlie, Delta, and Echo Berths, and inside of
the piling supported edges of the pier. The existing tie rod anchors (iron or steel rods used as
connecting braces) will be replaced by new tie rods. For Bravo, Foxtrot, and the middle portion
of Delta Berths, the tie rods are anchored within the existing new concrete cap beam above the
top of the steel sheet pile section. The existing concrete cap beam will be demolished in
segments that will not compromise the stability of the existing structure, and the tie rods will be
replaced by new tie rods. For Echo and Charlie Berths, new tie rods would be fit through holes
in the sheet pile wall and be anchored to a waler beam (horizontal steel beam) on the outside of
the wall. The entire anchorage assembly will be encased within the new concrete cap. The
steel sheet piles below the existing concrete cap are expected to remain untouched. Prior to
installing new king‐piles, sheet piles, and pile foundations, the harbor bottom would need to be
cleared of any debris that may be present under or immediately adjacent to Echo Pier that
would interfere with the installation.
At the Delta Berth, about 19 feet of new sheet pile wall will be installed at the east edge of the
berth, and about 50 feet of new combined king pile/sheet pile wall system will be installed at the
west edge of the berth. For the center portion of the berth, existing deteriorated tie‐rods are to
be replaced with new tie‐rods anchored to a new anchor wall located within the footprint of the
existing pier. The new wall will be anchored to new anchor walls within the footprint of the
existing pier.
Any fill material to be placed in the marine environment shall be non-hazardous, non-polluting,
and placed in such a manner as to minimize any potential adverse environmental impacts to
marine species associated with locations of siltation, spillage, and turbidity. Disposal of wet
concrete into the water, over the reef edge, or on shore protection structures is prohibited.
2-6
December 2013
A portion of the subgrade materials under distressed sections of the existing pavements may
need to be removed and re‐compacted or replaced with properly compacted aggregate. This
aggregate would be imported from off‐island borrow (soil, gravel, or sand) sources and shipped
by barge if the excavated materials do not meet material specification requirements since there
are no on‐island borrow sources. Marine fenders, bollards, and chocks would also be added as
required.

Fender—cushion between a boat/ship and pier that prevents chafing

Bollard—a post on a pier used for securing ropes or mooring lines

Chock—heavy metal or wood fitting with two jaws curving inward through which a rope
or cable may be run
berthing location. New standpipes/hydrants will be installed to meet fire protection standards.
New storm drainage management structures (such as grated inlets and drainlines) will also be
installed. A new utility trench that will contain all utilities (including the new force main sanitary
sewer line) would be constructed at or adjacent to the cap beam along Foxtrot Berth. The new
sanitary sewer line in this trench will run separate from all other utility lines and provide
connections to new sewer pump-out boxes servicing Bravo, Charlie, Delta, and Echo Berths.
The new sewer line would convey wastewater to a new lift station (replaced due to insufficient
capacity). From the lift station, wastewater would be conveyed to an onshore sewer manhole in
a new, separate trench that is independent from the new utility trench along Foxtrot Berth.
A general construction sequence would include:

















Mobilize personnel and equipment
Demolish warehouse
Demolish existing concrete deck on dogleg; cap utilities as necessary
Remove piles that interfere with proposed new sheet pile
Partially demolish pile supported aprons
Cut off existing piles at mudline, with the lower portions left in place and the upper
portions to be removed for upland disposal.
Construct new sheet walls
Replace all existing tie rods at Delta Berth
Excavate, coring, and boring for anchor rod assemblies
Install stabilizing anchor rods and foundations
Excavate and remove debris along sheet pile alignment
Install new perimeter sheet piling
Construct new continuous or A-frame anchor systems
Install anchor rod extensions and concrete sheet pile wall caps
Remove additional portions of east and west aprons
Remove excess soft bottom material and debris, prior to fill placement
Place coarse granular fill behind new bulkheads
December 2013
2-7




Complete repairs to Bravo and Foxtrot Berths
Install paving sections
Construct warehouse building
Clean up and demobilize
Construction activities for electrical, utilities, lighting, mooring, berthing, and other ancillary work
can be completed within the above major construction activities as allowed by the final
schedule. The proposed approach would allow phasing of construction and completion of some
pier areas if warranted.
Contractors may use vibratory or impact hammers. Existing piles would be cut off using saws,
torches, or other means. Concrete work (cap beam and pavement) would be cast-in-place. In
addition, contractors may drive temporary king piles to support the sheet piles along Bravo and
Foxtrot berths while the tieback and cap beam is being replaced.

concrete decking (cap) with a new utility trench along the entire pier, or

sections, replacing all existing tie rods, and installing a new concrete cap beam and a
reinforced concrete deck with a new utility trench.
2.2.1
Alternative 1 would consist of installing new perimeter steel sheet piles, and backfilling behind
them to create a fill pier (Figure 2-4). Under this concept, existing concrete and steel piles
would be cut off at the mudline (floor of the lagoon) with the lower portions left in place and the
upper portions removed for upland disposal. Existing sheetpile bulkheads would be left
in‐place. To reduce the amount of potential settlement of the backfill, soft and loose harbor
deposits at the mudline may need to be removed from within the new sheet pile areas before
backfilling.
For a fill pier, a combined king pile/sheet pile wall system at Echo Berth and conventional steel
sheet piles at Charlie Berth are being considered. This alternative would consist of a a
conventional steel sheet pile section at Echo Berth with cementitious (cement-like) backfill. The
walls at these berths would be tied together using steel tie‐rods. Tieback anchors (horizontal
rods used to reinforce retaining walls for stability) would be 2- to 2.5-inch diameter rods with a
12-foot maximum spacing for a single king pile section. Sheet pile anchor walls would be
provided to support sections of the new bulkheads where tie rods between the main berths are
not feasible. The new sheet piles would be backfilled using various materials, such as imported
rockfill that would be placed underwater and compacted granular structural fill that would be
2-8
December 2013
December 2013
Not to scale
EXISTING
WALL
1A
EXISTING PILES TO
REMAIN AND BE CUTOFF
AT MUDLINE, EXCEPT
THOSE THAT INTERFERE
WITH NEW SHEET PILE
EXISTING FILL
STRUCTURAL
FILL
EXISTING PILES TO REMAIN &
BE CUT OFF AT THE MUDLINE,
EXCEPT THOSE THAT INTERFERE
WITH NEW SHEET PILE
STRUCTURAL
FILL
1B
EXISTING
WALL
CROSS SECTION LINE
OF ALTERNATIVE #1
STRUCTURAL
FILL
Alternative #1: Sheet Pile/King Pile Wall
STRUCTURAL
FILL
EXPLANATION
NEW SHEET
PILE WALL
1A
NEW SHEET
PILE WALL
NEW KING
PILE WALL
NEW 24”
CONCRETE
PILES
2A
NEW KING
PILE WALL
1B
NEW 24”
CONCRETE PILES
NEW SHEET
PILE WALL
EXISTING
WALL
2A
NEW SHEET
PILE WALL
EXISTING
WALL
EXISTING PILES TO
REMAIN AND BE
CUTOFF AT MUDLINE
EXISTING FILL
NEW SHEET
PILE WALL
EXISTING PILES TO
REMAIN & BE CUT OFF
AT THE MUDLINE
CROSS SECTION LINE
OF ALTERNATIVE #2
Figure 2-4
Kauai, Hawaii
Echo Pier Repair
Alternatives
Alternative #2: Pile Support Pier
NEW SHEET
PILE WALL
2B
NEW 24”
CONCRETE
PILES
2B
2-9
placed above the water table. Rock fill may consist of imported material from off-island sources
and/or on‐island recycled crushed concrete depending on availability and quality. Other backfill
materials are being considered to reduce lateral earth pressures on the new walls, such as
Elastizell or lightweight cellular concrete. New tie rods for the wall will be anchored to the
opposite berth or the new anchor walls.
The sheet pile/king pile wall system would be installed to encapsulate the footprint of the
existing pier (Figure 2-4). According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1994 Manual (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1994), a sheet pile wall is a “row of interlocking, vertical pile
segments driven to form an essentially straight wall whose plan dimension is sufficiently large
enough that its behavior may be based on a typical unit (usually 1 foot) vertical slice.” Some
existing piles would have to be removed to maintain the existing footprint. Despite the highly
corrosive environment at USAKA/RTS, steel sheet piling has performed well at the site. The
sheet pile design would be controlled by existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers seismic
requirements.
Alternative 1 would also include the renovations/repair planned for the rest of the pier as
described in Section 2.2, the new facility construction (Section 2.2.5), and utilities upgrades
(Section 2.2.6).
New steel sheet piles would generally be installed using vibratory hammers. Where the use of a
vibratory hammer is not possible due to concerns with potential vibration induced settlements, a
hydraulic press‐in or an impact hammer may need to be used for sheet pile installation. New
king piles would generally be installed using hydraulic and/or diesel impact hammers. (GRL
Engineers, Inc., 2011)
2.2.2
The second alternative for the Echo Pier repair would consist of installing new precast/
prestressed concrete displacement piles to replace deteriorated existing pile foundations that
presently support the deck sections of Echo Pier (Figure 2-4). It is anticipated that these piles
would be fabricated off island and shipped to Kwajalein by barge. The piles would be installed
to sufficient embedment depths in the underlying backreef deposits. The new piles would be
located in between existing pile bents (two or more piles driven in a row with a pile cap holding
them in place) where feasible to reduce potential conflict with existing piles. Where this is not
feasible, removal of existing piles may be required.
The precast prestressed concrete piles (Figure 2-5) would be 24-inch octagonal piles with an
axial capacity of 90 tons per pile. Piles have been installed for previous extensions of Echo
Pier. Pile driving during these construction projects was found to be difficult due to slow setup,
soft driving, and low pile capacities. Spacing of the piles was found to be controlled by live load
requirements due to low axial capacities of piles. The pile supported pier alternative would also
require analysis and potential upgrading of the existing sheet pile system and the addition of
new sheet piles to withstand current loading requirements.
2-10
December 2013
EXPLANATION
EXPLANATION
Sample Precast/
Prestressed Concrete
Piles
Kauai, Hawaii
Figure 2-5
December 2013
2-11
Driven pile foundations would be installed using impact hammers; hydraulic and/or diesel
hammers are anticipated. Pile foundations may be installed from the water side of the pier
using barge mounted equipment. Where feasible, piles may also be installed from the existing
deck after Building 605 at Echo Pier has been demolished. Alternative 2 would also include the
renovations/repair planned for the rest of the pier as described above in Section 2.2, the new
facility construction (Section 2.2.5), and utilities upgrades (Section 2.2.6).
2.2.3
DEBRIS REMOVAL PROCESS
Prior to installing new king piles, sheet piles, and pile foundations, the harbor bottom would
need to be cleared of any debris that may be present under or immediately adjacent to Echo
Pier that would interfere with the installation. Predrilling using augering and/or spudding
equipment may be needed to reduce the potential amount of piles/sheet piles hanging up on
debris and/or locally cemented layers. Spudding is used as an alternate to jetting or predrilling
in upper soil that consists of miscellaneous fill (GRL Engineers, Inc., 2011)
It is anticipated that a small mechanical clamshell device would be used to remove debris under
the pier to facilitate placement of new sheet piles or concrete piles. All removal activities would
be in an area previously dredged and must meet the requirements and limitations of the existing
Dredging and Filling Document of Environmental Protection, DEP-10-002.0 (U.S. Army
Kwajalein Atoll/Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, 2011).
Using a clamshell or suction grip dredge, the debris removed from under the pier could be
placed on a barge stationed just outside of, and against, the silt curtain for disposal or moved
temporarily to an area suggested by USAKA Environmental adjacent to the existing pier location
to allow for some drying of the material prior to reloading and transportation to the proposed
containment site by truck. As part of this method, silt curtains would be in place at all times to
limit turbidity levels in the surrounding waters. It may not be practical for the turbidity curtain to
extend to the bottom due to tidal changes. The curtains would blow inwards during a rising tide
and out during an ebb tide. These silt curtains would encompass the entire construction site
and all associated equipment and typically extend from the water surface to a couple of feet
from the bottom, without losing effectiveness or impacting surrounding waters. Prior to removal
of the silt curtains, the turbidity within the silt curtains would not exceed the 10 Nephelometric
Turbidity Units (NTUs) of background levels per the DEP-10-002.0. In the event that a
containment area would be used for this project, the existing DEP-10-002.0 (U.S. Army
Kwajalein Atoll/Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, 2011) would be reviewed
and modified as appropriate to accommodate the planned discharge.
2.2.4
CONSTRUCTION STAGING (LAYDOWN) AREAS
Two locations have been proposed for use as construction staging/laydown areas (Figure 1-3).
Neither area is located on the original portion of the island. The laydown area would be used to
temporarily hold equipment required for the proposed Echo Pier repair, such as, but not limited
to, sheet piles, pneumatic hammers, construction equipment, and water piping. It would be
located within a previously disturbed and maintained portion of Kwajalein. No long-term
adverse effects to biological, cultural, or water resources are anticipated from the use of this
area. Any effects to vegetation currently present in the area would be mitigated by planting
appropriate replacement vegetation when a laydown area is no longer required.
2-12
December 2013
2.2.5
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION
The improvements also include a new on‐shore stevedore/warehouse of approximately 6,300
square feet, installation of a new approximately 13,209 square-foot concrete pad/driveway
surrounding the building, and installation of a new drainage swale that runs along the North end
of the building to an existing drain inlet. The proposed onshore facility would be on a vacant
earthen lot, previously occupied by Building 709 and currently surrounded by a chain link fence
(Figure 1-3). Based on available subsurface information and foundation plans from the previous
building and Cold Storage Building 636 located just south of the site, it is anticipated that the
new warehouse may be supported on shallow foundations consisting of spread and wall
footings. Additional excavation and replacement of a portion of the subsurface materials directly
under the footings with properly compacted granular structural fill may be needed for support
and to reduce differential foundation settlements.
Utility service to the new onshore stevedore/warehouse would be limited to only potable water
for an emergency eye wash. No restrooms, showers, or lockers are anticipated. Adequate
requirements (including access as needed) and coverage for nonpotable water fire protection
would be provided. Environmental requirements would be met for quality of storm water
drainage from the new facility site for its surface discharge to existing adjacent drainage
systems.
2.2.6
UTILITIES UPGRADES
Utilities within the pier would be relocated or replaced within a new utility trench cast along or
adjacent to the cap beam at Foxtrot and Echo Berths. Utilities include electric, potable water,
nonpotable water (including water for fighting fires), sanitary sewer service, lighting, and
communications. For each utility, new connections would be installed to service the needs of
each berth as described in Section 2.2 of this EA.
A new connection would be provided to the existing 4,160-volt (V) circuit that presently serves
the existing electrical loads on the wharf. This connection will consist of new underground
conduit and wire from an existing manhole on land near the entrance to the wharf to a new
substation room in the new stevedore/warehouse building at the Echo and Charlie Berths.
The new substation will include primary 4,160-V switchgear and transformers along with
480/277-V and 208/120-V switchboards and panel boards for distribution to electrical loads on
the wharf. Electrical loads on the wharf include 480-V, 208-V, and 120-V shore power
receptacles, pole mounted light fixtures, a stevedore/warehouse building, a pump lift station and
the NOAA weather station. Electrical distribution to the wharf electrical loads will consist of a
system of underground conduits and cables originating from the new substation room.
New underground conduits for the telecommunication wiring would be provided from the
existing manhole on land to a telephone closet in the stevedore/warehouse building. New
underground conduits for telecommunication wiring will be provided for telecommunication
service to the new stevedore/warehouse building and to existing telephone and fiber outlet
locations on the pier.
December 2013
2-13
Potable water service and supply along the pier would be sized accordingly to meet the demand
requirements of the renovated pier (berth and comfort station usage) and new pier stevedore
warehouse. Underground nonpotable water would be supplied for proposed fire hydrants along
the pier (including a dry hydrant proposed at the intersection of Echo and Foxtrot Berths) and
fire protection for the new pier building to meet protection loading demands and coverage
requirements.
A nonpotable water line runs along Echo, Delta, and Charlie Berths. Although this water line is
currently inactive, the proposed connection of the line (to an on-shore nonpotable water line at
the beginning of the pier) would allow for the wash down of vessels. An aboveground, potable
water line would also be used to service several berths along the pier after replacing existing
hose bibs (valves/taps).
The sanitary sewer system will be upgraded to adequately handle the loads contributed by
larger naval vessels and other smaller vessels that use the pier, and generated wastewater from
the new pier building. A new force main and wet well would properly transmit the wastewater to
an existing transition manhole on shore near the beginning of the pier. Additional sewer
pump‐out boxes are proposed to service Bravo, Charlie, Delta and Echo berths. Runoff
management and environmental requirements would be met for quality of storm water from the
new pier facility for its surface discharge to the ocean. Utility accommodations for bilge water
handling and treatment are not anticipated.
2.2.7
CONSTRUCTION AND PORT OPERATION PHASING
During repair/renovation of the pier, port operations would need to continue. Several staging
assignments for vessels that use Echo Pier are under consideration, as shown in Table 2-1.
Figure 2-2 shows several of these vessels. The ferries would need to be temporarily relocated
during construction at Bravo and Foxtrot Berths. Some vessels could be relocated to existing,
temporary, or permanent finger piers or to the north and south synchro-lifts at the dry dock. The
dry dock was enclosed on the top and two sides with a dome shaped tent (which may appear in
some figures); however the covering was removed in early 2012 due to storm damage and will
be replaced once funding is secured. Cargo containers are piled up on the lagoon side during
blasting operations as an attempt to prevent sand blast grit from entering the harbor. (U.S.
Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012a)
2.2.8
POST CONSTRUCTION
Post construction activities would consist of packing up and moving project components off
island. Nonhazardous debris remaining after debris removal and filling activities would be
moved to the Kwajalein Waste landfill or shipped off-island for disposal.
2-14
December 2013
Table 2-1. Staging Assignments
Vessel
Great Bridge
Phase 1
Bravo
Ferry 1
Bravo
Ferry 2
Bravo
Ferry 3
Bravo
Ferry 4
Worthy
Mystic
N/A
Roi-Namur
N. side of
Synchro Lift
Foxtrot
Roi-Namur
Need power, water, sewer
Water barge
mooring
Dispose water barge.
Additional mooring point N.
Foxtrot
Water barge
mooring
Dispose water barge.
Additional mooring point N.
Foxtrot
Container
Vessel
(Islander)
Great Bridge
2 (Noted in
the January
2013
Charrette)
New Tug
(Noted in the
January 2013
Charrette)
Notes
Dispose 3 vessels, 2 ferry
operations daily, Catamaran to
N. Syncro Lift
Dispose 3 vessels, 2 ferry
operations daily, Catamaran to
N. Syncro Lift
Bravo
Phase 2
Bravo
Phase 4
N side of Synchro
Phase 5
N side of Synchro
Bravo
Alpha A1N
Alpha A1N
Bravo
Bravo
Alpha A1S
Alpha A1S
Bravo
Bravo
S. side of Synchro
Lift
N/A
Charlie
Delta
S. side of Synchro
Lift
N/A
Charlie
Delta
Bravo
N/A
Charlie
Delta
Roi-Namur
11 personnel to move vessel
Echo
Echo
Echo
Need to confirm length
Check deck strength (Phase 3)
Water barge
mooring
Water barge
mooring
Water barge
mooring
Water barge
mooring
Dispose water barge. Additional
mooring point N. Foxtrot
Water barge
mooring
Water barge
mooring
Water barge
mooring
Water barge
mooring
Need power, diver survey, sewer,
water, site evaluation
N/A
Roi-Namur
N. side of Synchro
Lift
Foxtrot
Phase 3
Notes
Need power, diver survey, sewer,
water, site evaluation, move SBM
craft
Source: U.S. Corps pf Engineers District, Honolulu, 2013 (30% design); Concept Design Charrette Report, Jan 2013
December 2013
2-15
2.3
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No-action Alternative, if Echo Pier is not repaired, USAKA/RTS may have to employ
tactical operations using Army bridging assets and the existing barge slip ramp (BSR). This
would obviously impact operations, but would allow mission critical activities to continue in
support of mission requirements.
If this project is not provided, USAKA/RTS would have to continue to rely on Foxtrot Berth as
the single berthing point for any cargo operations. Foxtrot Berth is located on the approach arm
that leads to the main section of the Echo Pier (containing Charlie, Delta, and Echo Berths).
The physical size and location of Foxtrot Berth severely restricts the critical supply activities at
Kwajalein because only one ship can berth for unloading/loading at any given time. Also, the
limited draft at Foxtrot Berth restricts the type and size of ships that can berth at Kwajalein.
Without this project Echo Pier and Foxtrot Berth will continue to deteriorate at an accelerated
rate, risking a catastrophic failure that could cripple mission operations for USAKA and
supported agencies. Further attempts to repair the existing pile supported pier in additional
piecemeal fashion is not considered a viable option due to the demonstrated continual
deterioration inherent with that design.
2.4
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD
Pile Types
Three types of piles were considered for the pile supported pier system: (1) large diameter steel
pipe piles, (2) large diameter cast in drilled hole (CIDH) piles, and (3) precast prestressed
concrete piles. Large diameter steel pipe piles are not recommended because of the highly
corrosive environment at USAKA/RTS and the high cost associated with required experienced
labor. Large diameter CIDH piles would require temporary or permanent steel casings for the
entire depth. Installation and removal of these casings in a submerged sand deposit would
likely have adverse impacts to the integrity of the shaft concrete.
2-16
December 2013
3.0 Affected Environment
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter describes the environmental characteristics that may be affected by the Proposed
Action at Kwajalein Island. To provide a baseline point of reference for understanding any
potential impacts, the affected environment is concisely described; any components of concern
are described in greater detail.
Available reference materials, including EAs and environmental impact statements (EISs), were
reviewed. Questions were directed to installation and facility personnel and private individuals.
Environmental Resources
Fourteen broad areas of environmental consideration were originally considered to provide a
context for understanding the potential effects of the Proposed Action and to provide a basis for
assessing the severity of potential impacts. These areas included air quality, airspace,
biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials and waste,
health and safety, land use, noise, socioeconomics, transportation, utilities, visual aesthetics,
and water resources.
Of the original 14 broad areas of environmental consideration, the Proposed Action could have
an effect on biological resources, cultural resources, and water resources. The remaining
resources were not analyzed for the following reasons:

Air Quality—The proposed repair activities would not impact the surrounding air quality
due to the minimal ground disturbance, short repair period, and strong prevailing winds
surrounding the proposed site. Since the majority of the repair activities would occur in
or along water, dust would not be a concern.

Airspace—The proposed repair activities would not adversely affect airspace. All
activities, other than delivery of necessary components, would be performed on the
ground or in the water adjacent to the current Echo Pier.

Geology and Soils—Any disturbance (trenching, digging, dredging) that would be
required to accommodate the repairs to the Echo Pier would be accomplished in
accordance with the existing 2011 Dredging and Filling DEP. The construction laydown
areas would be selected and approved by USAKA Environmental.

Hazardous Material and Waste—Due to the age of the buildings slated for demolition,
the demolition debris would contain asbestos and lead-based paints. Demolition debris
would be transported off-island as necessary for proper disposal. All collected
contaminated concrete, soil, and sediments will be properly containerized and shipped to
an off-site approved landfill for disposal/treatment.
Hazardous waste treatment or disposal is not allowed at USAKA/RTS under the UES.
The UES require preparation and implementation of a contingency plan (KEEP), for
responding to releases of oil, hazardous material, pollutants, and contaminants to the
environment. The KEEP is substantively similar to the spill prevention, control, and
countermeasure plan required in the United States. Hazardous wastes are consolidated
at the hazardous waste facility on Kwajalein (Facility No. 1521), packaged for shipment,
and shipped to the United States for disposal. All hazardous waste shipments from
December 2013
3-1
USAKA/RTS are manifested. Transport and use of hazardous material would be
managed in accordance with SOPs and regulations currently in place (e.g., UES 12th
Editions, DEPs, and any other USAKA/RTS policy).
All asbestos abatement work, including removal, handling, transport, and disposal would
be in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.1101, “Toxic and Hazardous Substances,” and 40
CFR Part 61, Subpart M, “National Emission Standard for Asbestos.” Lead in water is
regulated under both the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Health and Safety—No impacts to health and safety associated with demolition,
construction, and operation activities are anticipated for Kwajalein Island. Tasks
involved with removal of hazardous material such as asbestos and PCBs will be
performed in accordance with hazardous materials and waste regulations. Removal and
disposal of lead-based paint would be in accordance with Occupational Safety and
Health Administration standards for protection of workers. All activities would follow
current applicable health and safety laws, regulations, and SOPs.
General operational and safety procedures would include methods for unexploded
ordnance (UXO) anomaly assessment and avoidance both in terrestrial and aquatic
environments. USAKA is a former World War II battlefield and as such UXO may be
present at Echo Pier both on the sea floor and in shore-side support areas. The
Proposed Action alternatives involve construction and ground disturbing activities that
would result in the potential to encounter UXO. Procedures would be developed for
encountering potential UXO anomalies for all piling work on Echo Pier and the
excavation/foundation work for the storage building on shore. These procedures would
be implemented prior to and during construction activities to ensure that potential
impacts from UXO would be minimized and that appropriate safeguards are in place.
3-2

Land Use—There are no planned changes in the current designated land use patterns.
The use of the facilities (i.e., entrance of vessels into port, maintenance activities) is a
normal operation.

Noise—Occupational Safety and Health Administration workplace standards for noise
would be maintained during the Proposed Action. There are no sensitive human noise
receptors to be disturbed at the locations proposed for use. Noise effects on wildlife are
discussed in the Biological Resources section.

Socioeconomics—The Proposed Action may cause temporary logistical changes and
delay in the delivery of goods and the transport of personnel on and off Kwajalein Island
due to the repositioning/berth change of vessels. Temporary additional personnel may
be on island during the repair period. Any logistical changes or additional personnel are
not anticipated to significantly affect the day-to-day operations of any social or economic
characteristic (e.g. population size, schools, employment characteristics, income
generated and the type and cost of housing) of Kwajalein Island.

Transportation—Transportation of the components and equipment in support of the
repair efforts for the Echo Pier would be accomplished by ocean vessels or by plane.
These types of actions are routine and would result in no impacts to the existing
transportation systems. The presence of equipment and personnel may result in a
temporary disruption to island transportation in the immediate vicinity of the work sites
during the proposed activities; however, any potential effects on island roads or ocean
routes would be short-term. Vessels that use Echo Pier to deliver cargo and personnel
would still be able to use it or temporarily modified finger piers in adjacent areas.
Transportation procedures would comply with all applicable safety regulations.
December 2013

Utilities—The current electrical capacity (4,160-V) provided by Kwajalein Island would be
sufficient to operate any shore side equipment needed and to complete the Proposed
Action. The proposed utility upgrades (electrical substation, telecommunication, potable
and nonpotable water) would improve the efficiency of the current electrical (4,160-V) or
water supply serving Echo Pier and would be performed along the pier’s edge.

Visual Aesthetics—The Proposed Action would not alter the current scenic quality of the
areas in view of Echo Pier.
Environmental Setting
Kwajalein Atoll is located in the western chain of the RMI in the West Central Pacific Ocean.
USAKA/RTS operates as a subordinate command of USASMDC/ARSTRAT. Kwajalein is one
of the 11 islands in the RMI (shown in the Figure 1-1 inset) used by USAKA/RTS under the
terms of the Military Use and Operating Rights Agreement: Kwajalein, Ennylabegan (Carlos),
Legan, Illeginni, Roi-Namur, Ennugarret, Gagan, Gellinam, Omelek, Eniwetak, and Meck. The
proposed location for repairs to the Echo Pier would occur on the western lagoon side of
Kwajalein Island. See Figure 1-2 for an overview of the Echo Pier location on Kwajalein Island.
Kwajalein Harbor is located in shallow water on the lagoon side of the island and is protected
from strong currents and large waves, although some tidal fluctuations occur. The harbor
substrate is primarily sand; however, it varies from fined-grained soft sediments to rock and
coral substrates. The following description was prepared following an underwater video
transect conducted in the harbor in 1999. Coralline algae beds are common throughout the
harbor, but are most prevalent in the southern half of the harbor near the fuel pier and clam
biomonitoring site. Only a few Halimeda, a green algae, growths were observed in the harbor.
Rock rubble or hard substrate bottom in these areas allows the growth of hard coral and other
epibenthic species. The mid-harbor area is generally flat bottom with softer sediment and
interspersed coralline algae. The depth of the soft sediments varies from less than a foot to
over 3 feet. Near the dry dock (referred to as the shiplift in this document), sediment
characteristics varied based on the location relative to two stormwater point-source discharge
pipes at the base of the dry dock. (U.S. Army Public Health Command, 2012)
Areas near these two outfalls contained very coarse sediments, while under the pier there were
fine-grained soft sediments. The northern half of the harbor is best characterized as having soft
sediment with interspersed coralline algae. Near Echo Pier coarse sediments, rubble, and
debris were observed. Fine sediments were observed beneath Echo Pier. The near-shore
areas of the harbor are characterized by coarser grained sediments, sand and rocks.
Predominant grain size measurements for Kwajalein Harbor range from fine sand (0.003 inch)
to gravel (0.37 inch). (U.S. Army Public Health Command, 2012)
Prior to the construction of the shiplift facility in 1995, ship hulls were blasted on a ramp at the
shoreline or while suspended off the end of Echo Pier by a crane. The management of wastes
from these activities has been covered by a DEP since May 2001. (U.S. Army Public Health
Command, 2012)
December 2013
3-3
3.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Native or naturalized vegetation, wildlife, and the habitats in which they occur are collectively
referred to as biological resources. For the purpose of discussion, biological resources have
been divided into the areas of vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and
environmentally sensitive habitat.
The descriptions of biological resources provided in the following paragraphs are based largely
on past surveys conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). In accordance with requirements specified in the UES, USAKA/RTS
must conduct a natural resource baseline survey every 2 years to identify and inventory
protected or significant fish, wildlife, and habitat resources at USAKA/RTS. A site-specific
survey was conducted in May 2013.
The UES provide protection for a wide variety of marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, coral
species, migratory birds, and other terrestrial and marine species, listed in Section 3-4 of the
UES (U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command,
2011).
In addition to the protection provided to vegetation and wildlife by the Endangered Species Act
and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the UES protect species at USAKA/RTS that are
listed or are candidates, proposed, or petitioned for designation as endangered or threatened
and their critical habitats under the U.S. process; incorporate procedures for evaluating effects
on fish, wildlife, and plants; and expand protection of marine mammals, migratory birds, and
habitats of local or regional significance. (U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense
Command/Army Forces Strategic Command, 2011)
Water quality and reef protection standards have been established at USAKA/RTS. This
protection applies to all of the following categories of biological resources occurring within the
Marshall Islands, including RMI territorial waters:
3-4

Any threatened or endangered species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act
(as amended)

Any species petitioned, candidate or proposed for designation, under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act (as amended)

All species designated by the RMI under applicable RMI statutes, such as the RMI
Endangered Species Act of 1975, MMPA of 1990, Marine Resources (Trochus) Act of
1983, and the Marine Resources Authority Act of 1989

Marine mammals designated under the U.S. MMPA of 1972

Bird species pursuant to the Migratory Bird Conservation Act

Species are protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species,
or mutually agreed on by USAKA/RTS, USFWS, NMFS, and the RMI Government as
being designated as protected species (U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense
Command/Army Forces Strategic Command, 2011)
December 2013
3.1.1 REGION OF INFLUENCE
The region of influence for biological resources includes areas within 200 feet of Echo Pier on
the western lagoon side of Kwajalein and additional areas of the lagoon used for vessel travel
that may be affected by the proposed activities. Figure 3-1 shows the categories of biological
resources observed during recent surveys around Kwajalein and the adjacent lagoon.
3.1.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1.2.1 Vegetation
Much of Kwajalein has been cleared and paved, including the area adjacent to Echo Pier. Nonnative grasses and weeds dominate the open areas and are maintained by mowing. A small
amount of herbaceous strand still exists in some places along the coastline, and patches of
littoral shrubland are present. Since the 1930s, the island has been enlarged over the years
with dredged landfill and consequently exhibits vegetation characteristic of heavily disturbed
areas. The locations proposed for the Echo Pier repair activities are within areas of managed
vegetation and are similar to other open managed areas on Kwajalein. (U.S. Army Space and
Missile Defense Command, 2002; U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense
Command, 2006)
Marine plants observed in the Echo Pier area during the 2010 Inventory included green algae,
brown algae, red algae, and blue-green algae. Seagrass has been observed off the Barge Slip
Ramp at Kwajalein. (U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command,
2011). (U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012)
Threatened and Endangered Plant Species
No threatened or endangered vegetation species have been identified on or offshore of
Kwajalein.
3.1.2.2 Wildlife
3.1.2.2.1 Terrestrial
During the inventories performed biennially at USAKA by the USFWS and NMFS, seabirds,
shorebirds, and land birds (including one introduced sparrow) and two species of domesticated
birds have been observed. Nine species were observed in the vicinity of Echo Pier in 2010
(U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012). The birds of the
RMI are predominantly breeding seabirds and migratory shorebirds. Seabirds are resident
either seasonally or year-round. Shorebirds either migrate through the area or spend their
entire non-breeding season on the low atolls and coral islets of the RMI. Seabirds forage at sea
and come ashore only to breed or, for some species, to rest. Although the numbers of birds
vary between inventories, black noddies, black-naped terns, white terns, Pacific golden plovers,
ruddy turnstones, and tattlers are the most common species. All of the common birds at
USAKA are either resident seabirds that nest on the ground or in trees or are migratory
shorebirds that winter at USAKA and other Central Pacific islands. (U.S. Department of the
Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2006; 2011; 2012)
December 2013
3-5
EXPLANATION
Kwajalein Biological Resources
Kwajalein Atoll
Figure 3-1
3-6
December 2013
Kwajalein and Roi-Namur Islands have the greatest diversity of birds of all the USAKA islets.
Most of these birds have been observed in managed vegetation around the airport runway and
adjacent catchment areas, drainage ditches, and puddles. Shorebirds use the shoreline and
exposed reef flat during low tide, but also use the golf course grounds, airport runway, and
mowed lawns. Birds commonly observed include black noddies, great crested terns, brown
noddies, and white terns. Black-naped and white terns are the only species observed nesting
on Kwajalein. Black-naped terns were observed nesting on the concrete pier structures at the
harbor fuel loading docks. Common greenshanks have also recently been observed on the
island. Migratory birds use the region of influence for loafing and resting. (U.S. Department of
the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2006; 2011; 2012)
The azure-tailed skink which seems to be associated with littoral forest shrub land was common
on Kwajalein. Native island geckos appeared to be on all islets, although no formal survey
efforts have been dedicated to reptiles. Dogs, cats, and black rats are present on the islet.
(U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2011; 2012)
Threatened, Endangered, and Other Protected Wildlife Species
No terrestrial wildlife listed as threatened or endangered has been observed on Kwajalein.
3.1.2.2.2 Marine
An abundant bottom community can be observed throughout the harbor, including coral, shrimp,
polychaetes (worms) and other infaunal species (organisms that burrow into and live in the
bottom deposits of a body of water), and fish. Coral species observed offshore of Kwajalein and
species observed within the Echo Pier vicinity during the 2010 Inventory and 2013 survey are
provided in Table 3-1. The 2010 Inventory surveyed the shoreline band of reef leading up to the
shoreline region of Foxtrot, but did not distinguish between the Echo Pier area of project
influence, nor were the broader habitats of Echo Pier surveyed. Various zones were separated
for surveying along Foxtrot as a result of gross differences in their community composition
based structure. Bottom substrate along the seaward end of Foxtrot is mainly sand (SZ = Sand
Zone); inshore of that a region heavily dominated by the coral species Acropora was found (AZ);
just inshore of that heavily dominant cover by Porites cylindrica was identified (PZ = Porites
zone); and in from that a high coverage region of Montipora digitata (MZ = Montipora zone).
(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013)
Macro-invertebrates observed during the 2010 Inventory included mollusks, crustaceans, sea
stars, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, ascidians, and sponges (U.S. Department of the Army
Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012). Forty-nine non-coral macroinvertebrate
species representing 31 genera were observed in the project area and included 2
Arthropoda, 5 Cnidaria, 3 Chordata, 3 Echinodermata, 15 Mollusca, and 21 Porifera
species. Species richness appeared greatest on Wall and Pile habitats. In total 3,832 noncoral macroinvertebrates were counted with additional abundance categories of 10s and
100s noted. Cnidaria (mainly hydroids) represented 73 percent of the recorded abundance
estimates followed by Porifera (sponges) at 18 percent. No artificially planted or cultivated
sponges were encountered. Estimated densities were highest on Charlie and Echo Pile
habitats. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013)
December 2013
3-7
Table 3-1. Coral Species Observed at Echo Pier
Bottom
Wall
x
x
x
x
x
Bottom (SZ)
I-Piles
x
Bottom (MZ)
M-Piles
x
Bottom (PZ)
O-Piles
x
Bottom (AZ)
Wall
Foxtrot
Bottom
Echo
Wall
Bottom
x
Delta
I-Piles
x
M-Piles
O-Piles
Charlie
Wall
Bottom
Family Genus
Species
Wall
Bravo
ANTIPATHARIA
Antipathidae
Cirrhipathes sp.
Black Coral (yet to be
Ided)
MILLEPORINA
Milliporidae
x
x
x
Millepora exaesa
x
M. tenella
x
Millepora spp. (enc.)
x
x
x
x
SCLERACTINIA
Acroporidae
Acropora abrotanoides
x
A. aculeus
x
A. anthocercis
x
A. aspera
x
A. austera
x
A. caroliniana
x
x
A. cerealis
x
x
A. cytherea
x
x
x
x
A. digitifera
x
A. c.f. divaricata
x
A. c.f. elegans
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
A. humilis
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
A. samoensis
x
A. simplex
x
A. speciosa
x
A. tenella
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
A. tenuis
x
x
x
A. valida
x
x
A. vaughani
x
x
x
x
x
x
Acropora sp. 2
3-8
x
x
A. muricata
Acropora sp. 1
x
x
A. microclados
A. nasuta
x
x
A. gemmifera
A. latistella
x
x
x
A. florida
A. granulosa
x
x
x
x
x
December 2013
Table 3-1. Coral Species Observed at Echo Pier (Continued)
Acropora sp. 3
Bottom (SZ)
Bottom (MZ)
Bottom (PZ)
Bottom (AZ)
Wall
Bottom
I-Piles
x
x
x
Astreopora gracilis
A. c.f. incrustans
A. listeri
A. myriophthalma
A. randalli
Montipora
aequituberculata
M. digitata
M. efflorescens
M. hoffmeisteri
M. informis
M. c.f. montasteriata
M. peltiformis
M. tuberculosa
Montipora sp. 1
Montipora sp. 2
Montipora sp. 3
Agariciidae
Leptoseris c.f. explanata
L. hawaiiensis
L. incrustans
L. scabra
Leptoseris sp.
x
Pavona bipartita
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
P. cactus
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
P. duerdeni
x
x
x
x
P. maldivensis
x
P. varians
x
December 2013
M-Piles
x
x
Acropora spp. (enc.)
Astrocoeniidae
Stylocoeniella guentheri
Caryophyllidae
Plerogyra sinuosa
Dendrophylliidae
Tubastrea sp.
Faviidae
Foxtrot
x
Acropora sp. 4
Acropora sp. 5
Acropora sp. 6
Acropora sp. 7
Acropora spp. (juv.)
O-Piles
Echo
Wall
Bottom
Wall
Bottom
Delta
I-Piles
M-Piles
O-Piles
Charlie
Wall
Bottom
Family Genus
Species
Wall
Bravo
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
3-9
Favia heliathoides
x
F. matthaii
x
F. maxima
x
F. speciosa
x
Favia sp. (juv.)
Favites abdita
F. c.f. chinensis
F. halicora
F. pentagona
Favites sp. (juv.)
Goniastrea edwardsi
G. pectinata
Leptastrea purpurea
L. transversa
Montastrea curta
M. magnistellata
M. valenciennesi
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Fungiidae
Ctenactis crassa
Cycloseris vaughani
x
x
x
Fungia fungites
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Merulina ampliata
x
x
x
x
x
x
Platygyra sinensis
F. paumotensis
F. repanda
Fungia spp. (juv. att.)
Herpolitha limax
H. weberi
Lithophyllon mokai
Unidentified fungiid
Merulinidae
x
x
Bottom (SZ)
Bottom (AZ)
Wall
Bottom
Foxtrot
I-Piles
M-Piles
O-Piles
Wall
Bottom
Wall
Bottom
I-Piles
M-Piles
O-Piles
Wall
Echo
x
x
x
Delta
Bottom (MZ)
x
x
Charlie
Bottom (PZ)
Cyphastrea agassizi
C. chalcidicum
C. serailia
Bottom
Family Genus
Species
Wall
Bravo
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Mussidae
Lobophyllia corymbosa
x
x
x
L. c.f. flabelliformis
L. c.f. hataii
x
L. hemprichii
x
Scolymia australis
Symphyllia agaricia
x
x
3-10
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
December 2013
x
x
x
x
x
Wall
Bottom
I-Piles
M-Piles
O-Piles
Wall
Bottom
Wall
Bottom
I-Piles
M-Piles
O-Piles
x
x
x
x
Bottom (SZ)
x
Foxtrot
Bottom (MZ)
Pectinia paeonia
Echo
Bottom (PZ)
x
x
x
x
Delta
Bottom (AZ)
S. radians
S. recta
S. c.f. valenciennesii
Symphyllia sp. (juv.)
Oculinidae
Galaxea horrescens
Pectiniidae
Echinophyllia aspera
E. echinata
Mycedium elephantotus
Mycedium sp.
Charlie
Wall
Bottom
Family Genus
Species
Wall
Bravo
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pocilloporidae
Pocillopora damicornis
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
P. eydouxi
P. kelleheri
x
P. ligulata
x
P. meandrina
P. verrucosa
Poritiidae
Alveopora tizardi
Porites cylindrica
P. horizontalata
P. lobata
P. lutea
P. rus
Siderastreidae
Psammocora haimeana
P. nierstraszi
P. obtusangula
P. profundacella
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
P. vaughani
x
Total Families (16)
Total Genera (36)
Total Species (128)
Total SOSCs (63)
13
25
66
28
9
19
28
9
7
10
11
3
11
15
23
12
6
9
9
3
2
2
2
1
8
16
23
9
9
14
19
6
8
10
14
6
11
14
18
8
13
18
53
29
10
19
31
13
2
2
2
1
10
17
28
15
14
27
66
28
8
14
40
26
7
10
17
11
6
8
20
12
9
15
32
16
ESA Species (11)
5
2
1
3
1
0
1
1
0
1
5
4
0
1
6
3
2
1
4
Source: National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013
Note: (O = outer; M = middle; I = inner; AZ = Acropora zone; PZ = Porites zone; MZ = Montipora zone;
SZ = sand zone; ESA = Endangered Species Act; UES coordination species in bold; UES consultation
species highlighted in red).
December 2013
3-11
A wide variety of reef fish have been recorded in the water surrounding the islet. The
blacksaddled coral trout (Plectropomus laevis), a species listed under Other Marine and
Terrestrial Species of Significant Biological Importance in the UES, was seen during the 2010
Inventory. The area surveyed as part of the 2010 Inventory within the region of influence
contained the highest number of species observed for a single site at Kwajalein; 103 species of
reef fish from 26 families. It was also unique in that large clouds of larval cardinalfish were
observed near coral mounds during the 2010 Inventory. (U.S. Department of the Army Space
and Missile Defense Command, 2006; 2011; 2012)
3.1.2.2.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Other Protected Wildlife Species
Several consultation species of coral, invertebrates, fish, sea turtles, and marine mammals are
present or have the potential to occur in the area of the Echo Pier. These species are listed in
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 and briefly described in the following sections.
Table 3-2. UES Marine Non-Coral Consultation Species Potentially in the Echo Pier Area
Species
Non-Coral Macroinvertebrates
Black-Lipped Pearl Oyster
Fish
Dick’s Damsel
Green Chromis
Johnston Island Damsel
Scalloped Hammerhead Shark
Sea Turtles
Green Sea Turtle
Hawksbill Sea Turtle
Cetaceans
Bottlenose Dolphin, Pacific
Common Dolphin
Risso’s Dolphin
Spinner Dolphin
Spinner Dolphin, Costa Rican
Spinner Dolphin, Eastern
Spinner Dolphin, Whitebelly
Spotted Dolphin, Coastal
Spotted Dolphin, Offshore
Striped Dolphin
Melon-Headed Whale
Scientific Name
Pinctada margaritifera
Plectroglyphidodon dickii
Chromis viridis
Plectroglyphidodon johnstonianus
Sphyrna lewini
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Tursiops truncatus gilli
Delphinus delphis
Grampus griseus
Stenella longirostris
S. l. centroamericana
S. l. orientalis
S. l. longirostris
S. attenuata graffmani
S. a. attenuata
S. coeruleoalba
Peponocephala electra
3.1.2.2.3.1 Coral
Coral species for which consultation is required as part of the UES are listed in Table 3-1 (red
font). Six species were observed near Echo Pier during the 2010 Inventory, but 11 species
were observed during the 2013 Echo Pier survey. No sponges that require consultation were
observed during the 2010 Inventory. The information provided below is mainly taken from the
“Petition to List 83 Coral Species under the Endangered Species Act” (Center for Biological
3-12
December 2013
Diversity, 2009). (U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012;
National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013)
Acropora aculeus
Species Description
Acropora aculeus colonies form corymbose (flat-topped flower clusters) clumps characterized
by thin, spreading, interlocking, horizontal branches and fine, upward projecting branchlets.
Radial skeletons secreted by a single polyp (corallites) along the sides of the branches are
nariform (nostril-shaped), with slightly flaring lips. On the branchlet tips, axial and radial
corallites are not clearly differentiated. A. aculeus colonies are usually gray, bright blue-green,
or yellow, with branch tips that are yellow, lime green, pale blue, or brown. They are found on
upper reef slopes and lagoons at depths of 16.4 to 114.8 feet (International Union for
Conservation of Nature [IUCN] Species Account).
Distribution
This species is common in the Central Indo-Pacific and less abundant in other parts of its range,
which includes the Southwestern, Northern, and Eastern Indian Ocean, Australia, Southeast
Asia, Japan and the East China Sea, and the Oceanic West Pacific (IUCN Species Account).
A. aculeus is also reported from Society and Pitcairn Islands. U.S.-affiliated waters in which it
occurs include American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Marshall Islands (found at
17 of 87 surveyed sites), Micronesia, Palau, and unspecified U.S. minor outlying islands.
Populations at USAKA. A. aculeus has also been observed at other locations at Kwajalein (one
other survey station), Ennylabagan (one survey station), Legan (one survey station), and
Illeginni (one survey station) (U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense
Command, 2012).
Status and Threats
Like other Acropora species, A. aculeus is especially susceptible to bleaching and disease and
is slow to recover (IUCN Species Account). This species’ corymbose colonies are also
particularly vulnerable to crown-of-thorns starfish predation (IUCN Species Account). Other
threats include aquarium harvest and extensive habitat reduction (IUCN Species Account).
Habitat and associated population loss over 30 years is estimated at 37 percent. The IUCN
classifies this species, which has a decreasing population trend, as vulnerable.
Acropora aspera
Species Description
The thick branches that comprise the corymbose colonies of A. aspera vary in length based on
exposure to wave action. Other characteristic features include small but distinct axial corallites
and crowded, dual-sized, radial corallites with a scale-like appearance due to prominent lower
lips. This pale blue-gray, green, cream, or bright blue species is found on reef flats, shallow
lagoons, and exposed upper reef slopes at depths up to 16.4 feet; it is also found in deep water
(IUCN Species Account).
December 2013
3-13
Distribution
A. aspera is widespread but uncommon throughout its range (IUCN Species Account). U.S.affiliated waters in which it is found include American Samoa, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia,
the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, and unspecified minor U.S. outlying islands. More broadly,
the species occurs in the Northern Indian Ocean, the Central Indo-Pacific, Australia, Japan and
the East China Sea, and the Oceanic West Pacific. It has also been reported in Oman.
Populations at USAKA. A. aspera has also been observed at other locations at Kwajalein (five
survey stations), Roi-Namur (three survey stations), Meck (one survey station), Omelek (one
survey station), and Ennugarrett (two survey stations) (U.S. Department of the Army Space and
Missile Defense Command, 2012).
Status and Threats
A. aspera is listed by the IUCN as vulnerable because it shows decreasing population trends
and has suffered estimated habitat losses of 37 percent over 30 years (IUCN Species Account).
Like other members of its genus, this species is particularly susceptible to bleaching, disease,
crown-of-thorns starfish predation, trade, and habitat degradation. It is slow to recover from
disturbance events.
Acropora microclados
Species Description
Acropora microclados colonies are corymbose plates up to 3.3 feet in diameter, usually
distinctive pale pinkish-brown, with short, uniform, tapered branchlets that are up to 0.39 inch
thick at their bases. Colonies are usually a distinctive pale pinkish-brown in color but are
occasionally other colors. Tentacles are pale gray and often extended during the day. Axial
corallites of this species are tubular and conspicuous; incipient axial corallites are common; and
irregular radial corallites are usually tubular, flat, and nariform with sharp-edged openings. A.
microclados is found on upper reef slopes and subtidal reef edges at depths of 16 to 66 feet,
where it is usually uncommon (IUCN Species Account).
Distribution
A. microclados is found in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, the Northern Indian Ocean, the
Central Indo-Pacific, Australia, Southeast Asia, Japan and the East China Sea, the Oceanic
West Pacific, Samoa, the Cook Islands, and the Chagos Archipelago. Its presence has been
confirmed in the central Pacific. A. microclados has a broad range overall, having the 20th
largest range of 114 Acropora species examined. U.S.-affiliated waters within its range include
American Samoa, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau.
Populations at USAKA. A. microclados has also been observed at other locations at all the
islands in USAKA (U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012).
Status and Threats
A. microclados is listed by the IUCN as vulnerable because it shows a decreasing population
trend and has suffered estimated habitat losses of 33 percent over 30 years (IUCN Species
Account). Like other members of its genus, this species is particularly susceptible to bleaching,
3-14
December 2013
disease, crown-of-thorns starfish predation, trade, and habitat degradation. It is slow to recover
from disturbance events. A. microclados may be less prone to bleaching than other Acropora.
Susceptibility and impacts of disease on A. microclados are not well understood, although in
general Acropora species are moderately to highly susceptible to disease. Medium to high level
traces of subacute dark spots disease for A. microclados have been reported. Effects on
reproduction include reduced fertility. Ample evidence shows that diseases can have
devastating regional impacts on individual coral species.
As a whole, the genus Acropora has been heavily involved in international trade with 50,000 to
270,000 reported exported pieces per year from Indonesia and 30,000 to 100,000 pieces from
Fiji.
Factors that increase the potential extinction risk (higher likelihood of falling below the Critical
Risk Threshold) for A. microclados include the relatively high susceptibility of the genus
Acropora to common threats (bleaching, acidification, disease, predation, and pollution), with
broad global distribution, limited local distribution, and uncommon local abundance—these
characteristics tend toward making this species potentially vulnerable to local extinction.
Acropora speciosa
Species Description
Acropora speciosa colonies form thick cushions and bottlebrush branches that are creamcolored with contrasting corallite tips. Small, flat, and tubular or pocket-like radial corallites
merge with large, elongate, and slightly tapered axial and incipient axial corallites. A. speciosa
is found in protected reef environments with clear water and a high Acropora diversity; it also
occurs subtidally on walls and steep slopes in deep or shaded shallow conditions (IUCN
Species Account). Its typical depth range is 39.4 to 98.4 feet.
Distribution
A. speciosa appears in U.S.-affiliated waters including American Samoa, Marshall Islands,
Micronesia, Palau, and unspecified minor U.S. outlying islands (IUCN Species Account). This
coral was observed in small numbers at both lagoonal and wall habitats at Rongelap Atoll . The
broader range of the species includes the Central Indo-Pacific, the Oceanic West Pacific,
Southeast Asia, the Central Pacific, New Caledonia, Philippines, Fiji, Sarawak, Ban Ngai (Viet
Nam), the Great Barrier Reef, Papua New Guinea, and Western Samoa. (Beger, et al., 2008)
Populations at USAKA. A. speciosa has also been observed at other locations at Bravo, Echo,
and Foxtrot Berths, and has also been observed at Omelek (U.S. Department of the Army
Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012). It was found at 13 sites of 87 sites surveyed in
the Marshall Islands (Richards, et al., 2008).
Status and Threats
A. speciosa is listed by the IUCN as vulnerable because it shows a decreasing population trend
and has lost 35 percent of its habitat over 30 years (IUCN Species Account). Like other members
of its genus, this species is particularly susceptible to bleaching, disease, crown-of-thorns starfish
predation, trade, and habitat degradation. It is slow to recover from disturbance events.
December 2013
3-15
Acropora tenella
Species Description
Cream Acropora tenella colonies consist of horizontal plates of flattened, generally unfused
branches with white or blue tips that either fan out or form irregular tangles. Radial corallites,
which are distinct from axial corallites, are scattered over the branch surface and occur laterally
on old branches. A. tenella, which is common in some areas, occurs on lower reef slopes below
131 feet and on subtidal, protected slopes and shelves at depths of 82 to 230 feet.
Distribution
Acropora tenella is found in the Central Indo-Pacific, Southeast Asia, Japan and the East China
Sea, and the Oceanic West Pacific (IUCN Species Account). U.S.-affiliated waters within its
range include Micronesia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Palau.
Populations at USAKA. A. tenella has also been observed at other locations at Kwajalein (four
survey stations) and Illeginni (one survey station) (U.S. Department of the Army Space and
Status and Threats
A. tenella is listed by the IUCN as vulnerable because it shows a decreasing population trend
and faces estimated habitat losses of 39 percent over 30 years (IUCN Species Account). Like
other members of its genus, this species is particularly susceptible to bleaching, disease, crownof-thorns starfish predation, trade, and habitat degradation. It is slow to recover from
disturbance events.
Acropora vaughani
Species Description
Blue, cream, or pale brown Acropora vaughani colonies are usually open branched, though on
upper reef slopes and in open lagoons the species develops a bushy appearance due to
compact branchlets protruding from the main branches. Other distinctive features include
abundant developing axial corallites, widely spaced radial corallites that are variable in length,
and a fine coenosteum that gives branches a smooth appearance. A. vaughani is an
uncommon species found in turbid water around fringing reefs at depths of 9.8 to 66 feet (IUCN
Species Account). It is thought to be restricted to protected subtidal habitats such as contained
lagoons and sandy slopes (IUCN Species Account).
Distribution
A. vaughani’s range includes the Northern Indian Ocean, the Central Indo-Pacific, Australia,
Southeast Asia, Japan and the East China Sea, the Oceanic West Pacific, the Central Pacific,
and Madagascar (IUCN Species Account). U.S.-affiliated waters within this range include
American Samoa, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, and
unspecified US minor outlying islands.
Populations at USAKA. A. vaughani has also been observed at other locations at Kwajalein
(three survey stations), Omelek (one survey station), Illeginni (one survey station), Gagan (one
survey station), Gellinam (two survey stations), Eniwetak (one survey station), and Ennugarrett
3-16
December 2013
(two survey stations) (U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command,
2012).
Status and Threats
A. vaughani is listed by the IUCN as vulnerable because it shows a decreasing population trend
and has lost an estimated 35 percent of its habitat over 30 years (IUCN Species Account). Like
other members of its genus, this species is particularly susceptible to bleaching, disease, crownof-thorns starfish predation, trade, and habitat degradation. It is slow to recover from
disturbance events.
Cyphastrea agassizi
Species Description
Cyphastrea agassizi colonies are massive (having a solid bulky form) and usually only a few
inches in diameter, often with deeply grooved surfaces (IUCN Species Account). Corallites are
widely spaced and, as in other Cyphastrea species, plocoid with small calices. The coenosteum
is usually whitish and smooth, while corallites are pale brown or green. The dividing walls,
which are sometimes orange, are arranged in three unequal orders, with the first order
protruding. The species sometimes has irregular “groove and tubercle” formations. It is
uncommon.
Distribution
U.S. waters in which C. agassizi is found include the Hawaiian Islands, U.S. Minor Outlying
Islands (Johnston Atoll), and the Northern Mariana Islands, along with the freely associated
states of Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia (IUCN Species Account). More broadly,
C. agassizi occurs in the Andaman Sea, the Central Indo-Pacific, Southeast Asia, Japan and
the East China Sea, Eastern Australia, the Oceanic West Pacific, and Fiji.
Populations at USAKA. C. agassizi has also been observed at other locations at Roi-Namur
(one survey station), Meck (one survey station), Illeginni (two survey stations), Gellinam (one
survey station), Gagan (one survey station), and Eniwetak (two survey stations) (U.S.
Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012).
Status and Threats
C. agassizi has a restricted depth range and is therefore susceptible to bleaching, disease, and
the habitat reduction that has already occurred throughout its range (IUCN Species Account).
Losses over 30 years are estimated to be 36 percent, which qualifies this declining species as
vulnerable under IUCN criteria.
Leptoseris incrustans
Species Description
Species in the Leptoseris genus have generally small (under 7.9 inches) colonies that are
bladelike or encrusting (frequently unifacial), and they often have a distinctive central corallite
(IUCN Species Account). Corallites have the poorly defined walls that are characteristic of the
Agaricidae family and form small, shallow depressions. Corallites are further distinguished by
columellae (central column-like structures), usually separated by ridges and interconnected by
December 2013
3-17
fine indistinct corallite walls. Tentacles generally extend only at night. Pale to dark brown or
greenish-brown Leptoseris incrustans colonies are usually encrusting, though sometimes they
develop broad spreading plates that often have radiating ridges. The colonies have a smooth
surface. L. incrustans is found on reef slopes and on vertical walls at depths of 33 to 66 feet
(IUCN Species Account).
Distribution
L. incrustans is restricted to the Indo-West Pacific (IUCN Species Account). Its range
encompasses the Red Sea, the Southwest and Central Indian Ocean, the Central Indo-Pacific,
Southern Japan and the South China Sea, Eastern Australia, the Oceanic West Pacific, and the
Central Pacific. U.S.-affiliated waters within this range include the Hawaiian Islands, Johnston
Atoll, American Samoa, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and
Palau.
Populations at USAKA. L. incrustans have also been observed at other locations at Roi-Namur
(one survey station), Legan (one survey station), Gellinam, (one survey station) Gagan (one
survey station), and Eniwetak (two survey stations) (U.S. Department of the Army Space and
Status and Threats
L. incrustans is an uncommon species with unknown population trends (IUCN Species
Account). It is susceptible to bleaching, disease, crown-of-thorns starfish predation, and already
extensive reef habitat reduction due to a combination of threats. Vulnerabilities to these threats
increase the likelihood that it will be entirely lost within one generation from critically degraded
reefs. The IUCN has listed L. incrustans as vulnerable and estimates that it faces the loss or
degradation of 35 percent of its habitat over 30 years.
Pavona bipartita
Species Description
Uniformly pale to dark brown Pavona bipartita colonies are submassive or encrusting and can
exceed 3.3 feet in diameter. Species in the family Pavona have corallites in small, shallow
depressions with poorly defined walls that are separated by protruding membranous ribs. In P.
bibartita, uniformly distributed corallites are separated by characteristically uneven ridges that
are sometimes several centimeters long. There are two slightly alternating orders of
membranous ribs. P. bipartita is an uncommon species that is found in shallow reef
environments at depths of 9.8 to 65.6 feet, including reef slopes and vertical walls (IUCN
Species Account).
Distribution
P. bipartita is found in the Red Sea, the Southwest and Central Indian Ocean, the Central IndoPacific, Southern Japan and the South China Sea, the Oceanic West Pacific, the Central
Pacific, and the Great Barrier Reef (IUCN Species Account). U.S.-affiliated waters within its
range include American Samoa, Micronesia, the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, and
unspecified U.S. minor outlying islands. In Guam, only a handful of P. bipartita colonies have
been encountered, all of which were found on the sides of channels in high energy reef front
3-18
December 2013
environments (Southeast and Pacific Islands Regional Offices National Marine Fisheries
Service, 2012; Allen and McKenna [eds.], 2001; Commander, Navy Region Marianas, 2007).
Populations at USAKA. Although P. bibartita has not been observed at USAKA during prior and
current Inventory Surveys, it has been observed at other locations in the Marshall Islands (U.S.
Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012). It was only recently
observed at Echo Pier habitats along Bravo, Charlie, Delta, and Echo (National Marine
Fisheries Service, 2013).
Status and Threats
Population trends for this uncommon species are unknown, but it is susceptible to bleaching
and is projected to lose 34 percent of its habitat over 30 years (IUCN Species Account). The
IUCN has determined that P. bipartita faces an increased likelihood of being entirely lost from
critically degraded reefs within one generation and has listed this species as vulnerable.
Factors that reduce potential extinction risk (decrease the likelihood of falling below the Critical
Risk Threshold) for P. bipartita are its broad distribution range, moderate tolerance of sediment
stress, and low disease and predation susceptibility of the genus (Brainard, et al., 2011).
Pavona cactus
Species Description
Pale brown or greenish-brown Pavona cactus colonies form thin, contorted, bifacial, upright
fronds with white margins and sometimes thickened branching bases. Colonies can exceed 33
feet in diameter (IUCN Species Account). Species in the family Pavona have corallites in small,
shallow depressions with poorly defined walls that are separated by protruding membranous
ribs. Fine, shallow P. cactus corallites are aligned in irregular rows parallel to the frond margins.
P. cactus is usually found in lagoons and on upper reef slopes, especially those of fringing
reefs, and in turbid water protected from wave action (IUCN Species Account). This species
may be found at depths of 9.8 to 66 feet, though more commonly at depths of 9.8 to 36 feet.
Distribution
U.S.-affiliated waters within the range of P. cactus include American Samoa, the Marshall
Islands, Micronesia, the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, and unspecified U.S. minor outlying
islands (IUCN Species Account). More broadly, the species can be found in the Red Sea and
the Gulf of Aden, the Persian and Arabian Gulfs, the Southwest and Central Indian Ocean, the
Central Indo-Pacific, Australia, Southern Japan and the South China Sea, the Oceanic West
Pacific, and the Central Pacific.
Populations at USAKA. P. cactus has also been observed at other locations at Kwajalein
(seven survey stations), Roi-Namur (one survey station), Meck (four survey stations), Omelek
(one survey station), Illeginni (one survey station), Gagan (two survey stations), and Ennugarrett
(three survey stations) (U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command,
2012).
Status and Threats
P. cactus is listed by the IUCN as vulnerable (IUCN Species Account). It is susceptible to
bleaching and extensive reduction of reef habitat (estimated 36-percent habitat loss or
December 2013
3-19
degradation over 30 years). It is also targeted for the aquarium trade, with 1,362 specimens
exported in 2005. These threats increase the risk that P. cactus will be eliminated entirely from
critically degraded reefs within a single generation.
Porites horizontalata
Species Description
Porites horizontalata colonies are composites of encrusting laminae and contorted branches
that divide and then re-fuse. P. horizontalata is generally pale brown with cream branch and
plate extremities except in shallow water, where it is sometime brightly colored. Its corallites are
separated into groups by ridges. P. horizontalata occurs in shallow reef environments at depths
of less than 33 feet and greater than 66 feet (IUCN Species Account).
Distribution
P. horizontalata is found in the Northern Indian Ocean, the Central Indo-Pacific, Papua New
Guinea, Southern Japan and the South China Sea, and the Oceanic West Pacific (IUCN
Species Account). U.S.-affiliated waters include American Samoa, the Marshall Islands,
Micronesia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and unspecified U.S. minor outlying islands. It has
been observed at locations such as Tutuila in American Samoa and Guam. (U.S. Department
of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012; Brainard, et al., 2011; Southeast and
Pacific Islands Regional Offices National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012)
Populations at USAKA. While P. horizontalata has been observed at USAKA in the Mid-Atoll
Corridor, observations at USAKA only include three of the pier faces at Echo Pier and a single
patch reef northeast of Illeginni Islet. (U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense
Command, 2012; Brainard, et al., 2011; Southeast and Pacific Islands Regional Offices National
Marine Fisheries Service, 2012)
Status and Threats
Porites species are heavily harvested for the aquarium trade; in Indonesia, for example, the
catch quota for the genus is 55,500 specimens per year (IUCN Species Account). Branching
members of the genus, including P. horizontalata, are especially vulnerable to bleaching and
rank in the top 10 coral genera for bleaching response. Porites species are also more
susceptible to disease than most corals. P. horizontalata is projected to lose 37 percent of its
habitat over 30 years and is at increased risk of being entirely lost from critically degraded reefs
within one generation. The IUCN lists P. horizontalata as vulnerable. Factors that reduce its
potential extinction risk (decrease the likelihood of falling below the Critical Risk Threshold) are
the species’ broad distribution, the high tolerance of sediment stress and turbid water, and low
disease and predation susceptibility of the genus (Brainard, et al., 2011).
3.1.2.2.3.2 Non-Coral Macroinvertebrates
One non-coral macroinvertebrate, the black-lipped pearl oyster, was observed in the region of
influence (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013).
3-20
December 2013
Pinctada margaritifera
Pinctada margaritifera (black-lipped pearl oysters) were observed during the May 2013 survey
(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013). The following information was obtained from Animal
Life Resource, 2012.
Species Description
P. margaritifera have outside blackish round and flat valves with white to green spots. The inner
valve surfaces can be blue, gray, green, pink, and yellow. The valves are 6 to 10 inches wide.
The mantle is orange, while the foot is gray or black. They eat bits of plant and animal plankton.
Hermaphroditic adults first develop into males, then females. Eggs and sperm released into the
water are fertilized there. Foreign particles or parasites stuck between the valve and the body
are encased in hard, shiny layers of calcium carbonate, forming a pearl.
Habitat
Black-lipped pearl oysters live at depths of 3 to 130 feet (91.4 to 3,962.4 meters) and are
attached to hard surfaces in and around coral reefs. This species prefers calm, clear waters
often poor in nutrients.
Distribution
This species occurs naturally in the Indian Ocean and the western to central Pacific, including
the Hawaiian Islands. It is also raised commercially fairly widely in the Pacific, in French
Polynesia, Tahiti, Cook Islands, Gilbert Islands, Marshall Islands (Jaluit, Namdrik, and Arno
atolls), Solomon Islands, southern China, Japan, northern and Western Australia, Seychelles,
and the Sudan. The College of The Marshall Islands has a Pinctada hatchery for use in the
commercial cultivation of the species in the RMI (Marshall Islands Journal, 2012). The species
has been shown to be adaptable to cultivation (handling and transport) with success, so the
probability of successful transplantation is good for this project.
Population at USAKA. P. margaritifera is also found at other USAKA locations such as RoiNamur, Illeginni, Gagan, Eniwetak, and Ennugarrett (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013a;
U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2006; 2012).
Major Threats
Black-lipped pearl oysters are a highly sought after resource in the Pacific and Indo-Pacific
regions. This species is the most important source of mother-of-pearl used for carvings and
inlays, as well as Tahitian black pearls.
3.1.2.2.3.3 Fish
Three of the eight pomacentrid reef fish currently listed as candidate species (green chromis
[Chromis viridis], Dick’s damsel [Plectroglyphidodon dickii], and Johnston Island damsel
[Plectroglyphidodom johnstonianus]) have been observed offshore in the region (National
Marine Fisheries Service, 2013). UES section 3-4.5.1(a) requires that these species be treated
as consultation species. The following information on these reef fish was taken from the Center
for Biological Diversity Petition (Center for Biological Diversity, 2012) and the IUCN Red List of
December 2013
3-21
Threatened Species (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,
2013).
Green Chromis
Species Description
Chromis viridis has blue-green shading to white ventrally with a blue line from the front of the
snout to the eye; the courting and nesting male changes hue to yellow with black posteriously.
It is approximately 4 inches long. C. viridis looks similar to C. atripectoralis, but is generally
smaller and lacks the black area on the inside of the pectoral fin base.
Distribution
This species occurs in the Red Sea and east coast of Africa to the Line Islands and the
Tuamotu archipelago; Ryukyu Islands to Great Barrier Reef and New Caledonia. It occurs in
U.S. territorial waters in American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Marshall
Islands (including Kwajalein).
Population at USAKA. C. viridis has been observed at all 11 USAKA islands (U.S. Department
of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012).
Habitat
C. viridis inhabits shallow, protected inshore and lagoon reefs. Many studies have reported its
close association with a narrow set of branching coral species as juveniles and adults. This
species is closely associated with branching corals, especially Acropora, at a depth range of 3
to 39 feet. It is typically found on shallow coral reefs in protected waters, retreats to spaces
among branching corals for shelter, and the young are found in more closely branched corals.
Adults are found in large groups above thickets of branching Acropora corals in sheltered areas
such as subtidal reef flats and lagoons, and juveniles are closely tied to individual coral heads.
A study in the Red Sea found that larvae preferred to settle on the branching coral Acropora
eurystoma. The larvae settle directly into live corals and are found in close association with
living coral throughout their adult life. C. viridis juveniles and adults shelter in a relatively narrow
range of branching coral habitats.
Natural History
C. viridis feeds mainly on copepods and crustacean larvae in large aggregations above
branching corals and stay close to the shelter of reef. Males prepare the nest for spawning
which is shared with several females. Spawning involves a large number of eggs which hatch in
2 to 3 days. Males guard the nest and ventilate the fertilized eggs with their caudal fins, and
feed on eggs which do not hatch. This species is oviparous, with distinct pairing during
breeding. Its eggs are demersal and adhere to the substrate. The larvae settle directly onto live
coral. In the Red Sea, larvae have a strong preference for settling on Acropora coral and prefer
colonies that host conspecific adults and juveniles.
Threats
C. viridis is threatened by the loss and degradation of its coral reef habitat due to temperatureinduced mass bleaching events and ocean acidification, as well as direct harm to essential
functions due to ocean warming and acidification, such as reduced aerobic capacity. C. viridis
3-22
December 2013
is closely associated with live, branching coral habitat, and its populations have been shown to
decline sharply following the loss of live coral habitat from bleaching and other disturbances. In
a survey of a portion of the Great Barrier Reef that experienced bleaching during the 1997-1998
mass bleaching event, numbers of C. viridis collapsed after the bleaching event, attributed to
the destruction of live coral coverage combined with a takeover of the coral structures by algae.
In a study of the effects of coral loss on reef fish abundance on the Great Barrier Reef,
significant declines were documented in the abundance of C. viridis, which was one of 5 species
out of 53 fish species studied that declined, attributed to its close association with live coral.
Habitat choice experiments found that C. viridis larvae preferred live coral cover to degraded
and algal-covered coral, and that the density of late-stage larvae was significantly lower on
degraded and algal-covered coral compared to live coral. The global marine aquarium trade
may also pose a threat from overharvest. C. viridis was the most commonly imported marine
ornamental fish into the United States in 2005, with more than 900,000 individuals imported.
Dick’s Damsel
Species Description
Plectroglyphidodon dickii is a light brown damselfish, with a sharp black band toward the
posterior end and a white back end and tail. It is approximately 3.3 inches long.
Distribution
This species occurs throughout most of Indo-Pacific from the Red Sea and east coast of Africa
to islands of French Polynesia, and Ryukyu Islands to New South Wales and Lord Howe. It
occurs in U.S. territorial waters in American Samoa.
Population at USAKA. P. dickii has been identified at 10 of the 11 USAKA islands. It has not
been identified in spatially limited surveys at Ennylabegan (U.S. Department of the Army Space
and Missile Defense Command, 2012).
Habitat
Adults inhabit coral-rich areas of clear lagoon and seaward reefs, and many sources report their
association with live, branching Pocillopora and Acropora corals. It is typically found in colonies
taking refuge in branching corals in isolated reefs on sand bottoms of lagoons and bays in less
than 40 feet. It is associated with branching corals on inshore and lagoon reefs, at depths of 3
to 164 feet. There is a strong association of adults with branching corals. A detailed study of
habitat use in Papua New Guinea found that P. dickii territories were dominated by live coral
(~80 percent cover) and had twice the coral cover than found in areas adjacent to their
territories and more than twice the amount of live coral than found in territories of two other
sympatric (existing in the same geographic area) damselfish species (P. lacrymatus and
Stegastes nigricans). P. dickii territories also contained significantly higher proportional cover of
live Acropora and Pocillopora corals than outside their territories.
Natural History
P. dickii establishes territories on live, branching corals, mainly of the genera Acropora and
Pocillopora. P. dickii is a territorial grazer that maintains distinct algal farms on small sections of
live coral branches. It feeds primarily on filamentous algae and associated small benthic
invertebrates within its territories. It weeds unwanted algal species from its territories,
December 2013
3-23
encourages the growth of preferred algae. It defends its territories against large, mobile grazers
and corallivores, which can enhance the survivorship of corals that might otherwise be damaged
by scraping and excavating grazers and can result to an increase in overall coral diversity.
Analysis of stomach contents of P. dickii in Papua New Guinea found that it is primarily a
herbivore that selectively feeds on a narrow range of algae found in its territory, with diatoms as
the most important food source, followed by gelids, blue-green algae, and the red alga
Polysiphonia. It actively kills coral polyps without consuming them to increase the area for algal
growth inside its territory. P. dickii uses small sections of the coral branches as nest sites.
Threats
P. dickii is threatened by the loss and degradation of its coral reef habitat due to temperatureinduced mass bleaching events and ocean acidification, as well as direct harm to essential
functions due to ocean warming and acidification. In a study of the effects of loss of live coral
cover on the abundance of coral reef fish in Fiji, P. dickii declined significantly following loss of
Acropora coral cover. Similarly, large declines in hard coral cover at Hoskyn Island in the Great
Barrier Reef were followed by declines of P. dickii.
Johnston Island Damsel
Species Description
P. johnstonianus has a pale yellowish-gray body with a very broad black posterior bar, a head
that is gray dorsally shading to yellowish-gray ventrally, a violet-blue line on the sides of snout,
and lavender scales bordering the eyes.
Distribution
This species occurs on the East coast of Africa to the Hawaiian Islands, French Polynesia, and
Pitcairn Islands; Ryukyu Islands and Ogasawara islands to Great Barrier Reef, Lord Howe, and
Norfolk Island. It occurs in U.S. waters in Hawaii, and U.S. territorial waters in American
Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Marshall Islands (including Kwajalein).
Population at USAKA. P. johnstonianus has been observed at all 11 USAKA islands (U.S.
Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012).
Habitat
P. johnstonianus inhabits passes and outer reefs at a depth of 6.6 to 39.3 feet, and is often
associated with Acropora or Pocillopora corals. This species inhabits exposed coral reefs,
generally at depths of 6.5 to 39 feet, and is closely associated with corals of the genera
Acropora and Pocillopora. Its territory may be a single large head of Pocillopora eydouxi coral
or adjacent heads. It is considered highly dependent on live coral for shelter, food, and
reproduction.
Natural History
P. johnstonianus is classified as an ‘‘indeterminate’’ algal farming species, which refers to a
species that defends its territories less aggressively than other farming species, weeds less
intensively, and has more subtle effects on the composition of algal assemblages within its
3-24
December 2013
territories. P. johnstonianus is one of two damselfish species that is considered an obligate
corallivore. Acropora and Montipora corals are major feeding items, while Pocillopora and
Porites corals are moderately used items. This species feeds mainly on coral polyps.
Threats
P. johnstonianus is threatened by the loss and degradation of its coral reef habitat due to
temperature-induced mass bleaching events and ocean acidification, as well as direct harm to
essential functions due to ocean warming and acidification. P. johnsonianus is highly
dependent on live coral cover, in particular branching Acropora and Pocillopora corals for
shelter, food, and reproduction. Several studies have found that P. johnstonianus declines in
abundance in response to loss of live coral cover. A meta-analysis of studies that documented
the effects of disturbance-mediated coral loss on coral reef fishes found that P. johnstonianus
declined significantly and consistently across multiple study locations. A study of the effects of
the loss of live coral cover on the abundance of coral reef fish in Fiji, found that P. johnstonianus
declined significantly following loss of Acropora coral cover. Large declines in hard coral cover
at Hoskyn Island in the Great Barrier Reef were also followed by declines of P. johnstonianus.
3.1.2.2.3.4 Sea Turtles
Sea turtles (described below) frequently enter the lagoon and are commonly seen in the harbors
at Kwajalein. Green (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) sea turtles have
been observed on and offshore of Kwajalein and were seen in the lagoon during the 2010
Inventory (U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012). Suitable
sea turtle nesting habitat was not observed on Kwajalein. Riprap placement along the lagoon
side of the islet prevents the formation of suitable beach conditions preferred by nesting turtles.
(U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2011)
Green Sea Turtle
The green sea turtle was listed in 1978 as threatened under the Endangered Species Act
throughout its Pacific range because of overexploitation, habitat loss, lack of regulation and
adequate enforcement, and evidence of declining numbers. Although virtually no empirical data
are available to assess the status or trends of turtle stocks in the RMI (or USAKA), anecdotal
information suggests that turtle populations have decreased by as much as 50 percent over the
last 10 years.
Information in this section is taken from the Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the
Green Turtle (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998a), and
Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation (National Marine
Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007a) unless otherwise noted.
Species Description
The green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) is the largest member of the marine turtle family
Cheloniidae and is found throughout the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic oceans and the
Mediterranean Sea. Green sea turtles are distinguished from other sea turtles by their smooth
carapace with four pairs of lateral scutes, a single pair of prefrontal scutes, and a lower jawedge that is coarsely serrated. Adult green sea turtles can weigh more than 220 pounds and
December 2013
3-25
exceed 3 feet in carapace length. The common name of this sea turtle refers to the green color
of its subdermal fat. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010)
Although most sea turtles warm themselves by swimming close to the surface of shallow
waters, the Eastern Pacific green turtle basks in the sun on land. It is one of the few marine
turtles known to leave the water other than at nesting times (National Geographic, undated).
Most green turtles appear to have a nearly exclusive herbivorous diet, consisting mainly of
seagrass and algae, but in some areas, green turtles feed on mollusks and polychaetes, fish,
fish eggs, and jellyfish.
Habitat
The green sea turtle was listed in 1978 as threatened under the Endangered Species Act
throughout its Pacific range because of overexploitation, habitat loss, lack of regulation and
adequate enforcement, and evidence of declining numbers. Adult green sea turtles are typically
resident in foraging areas (e.g., seagrass or macro-algae habitats), although periodically turtles
migrate long distances to breeding areas. Reproductive females generally nest every two or
more years. Green sea turtles may lay up to six clutches in one season, and each clutch may
contain about 100 eggs which incubate in the soil for up to 2 months.
Adult green turtles are typically resident in foraging areas (e.g., seagrass or macro-algae
habitats), although periodically turtles migrate long distances to breeding areas. Sub-adult and
adult green sea turtles forage in low abundance in nearshore waters of the RMI, and some level
of nesting occurs there. Most green sea turtles appear to have a nearly exclusive herbivorous
diet, consisting mainly of sea grass and algae, but in some areas, such as along the eastern
Pacific coast, green sea turtles feed on mollusks and polychaetes, fish, fish eggs, and jellyfish.
Distribution
The green sea turtle nesting concentration in the French Frigate Shoals is the largest in the
Central Pacific. Green sea turtles prefer areas where surface water temperatures are no lower
than about 68 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in the coldest month. Green sea turtle foraging areas
are found throughout the Pacific. Nesting is known to occur at hundreds of sites across the
Pacific, with major nesting occurring in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Australia,
Micronesia, Hawaii, New Caledonia, Mexico, the Galapagos Islands, and other sites. Oceania
is a subset of the Pacific, and includes Melanesia, Polynesia, and the RMI (where the action
area is located). However, about 90 percent of nesting takes place among two Australian
nesting aggregations (Northern and Southern Great Barrier Reef which includes the Coral Sea
Platform), with over half of all the nesting occurring on a single island; Raine Island in the
Northern Great Barrier Reef. (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1998a; 2007a)
Population at USAKA. Minor nesting (less than 25 nests) is supported at the atolls of Ailinginae,
Bikini, Bokak, Kwajalein, Rongerik, Taka, and Wotje, but little information is available
concerning current breeding success in these areas. Turtle sightings at USAKA are not unusual
but are also not common. Although virtually no empirical data are available to assess the status
or trends of turtle stocks in the RMI (or USAKA), anecdotal information suggests that turtle
populations have declined in most areas over the last century. (National Marine Fisheries
Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a) In
2010, four green turtle nests were discovered near the housing area on northeast Kwajalein.
3-26
December 2013
Three nests were facing inland on a steep hill, and the hatchlings were possibly confused by
lighting in the area and headed inland instead of out to sea. A fourth nest faced the ocean, and
the hatchlings required no assistance. (Cable News Network, 2010)
Major Threats
The principal cause of the historical, worldwide decline of the green turtle is long-term harvest of
eggs and adults on nesting beaches and juveniles and adults on feeding grounds. These
harvests continue in some areas of the world and compromise efforts to recover this species.
Incidental capture in fishing gear, primarily in gillnets, but also in trawls, traps and pots,
longlines, and dredges is a serious ongoing source of mortality that also adversely affects the
species' recovery. Primary sea turtle threats in the RMI include directed take and increased
human presence. Green turtles are also threatened, in some areas of the world, by a disease
known as fibropapillomatosis.
Hawksbill Sea Turtle
The hawksbill sea turtle is protected as an endangered species under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act, for Pacific territories (Guam and American Samoa) and commonwealths (Northern
Marianas Islands) of the United States and for certain independent states, such as the RMI.
(National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, 2012)
Information in this section is taken from the Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the
Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1998b), Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 5-Year Review:
Summary and Evaluation (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
2007b; 2013), unless otherwise noted.
Species Description
Hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) are recognized by their relatively small size
(carapace length less than 3 feet, narrow head with tapering beak, and strongly serrated
posterior margin of the carapace and thick overlapping shell scutes. The hawksbill sea turtle is
threatened with extinction throughout its range.
Habitat
The hawksbill sea turtle has the potential to be a long-range migrant. It is likely that adult
hawksbills perform regular migratory movements among a preferred nesting beach, a breeding
ground, and a persistent foraging territory. The distances between these territorial locations
vary greatly and appear to be of random length among individuals. Where hawksbills aggregate
in local habitats is not entirely related to food availability, but rather is influenced by multiple
factors including shelter and predator avoidance (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013). The geographic proximity of an adult's foraging habitat in
relation to its natal beach is not known, and the same must also be said for juveniles. Once a
foraging or nesting site is chosen, hawksbill sea turtles tend to be persistent in the continuing
use of that site. Hawksbill sea turtles have been classified as opportunistic feeders on a wide
variety of marine invertebrates and algae. Hawksbill sea turtles appear to be specialist sponge
carnivores, selecting just a few genera of sponges throughout the Caribbean Sea for their
principal diet. There are very few vertebrates capable of digesting sponges without being
injured by the sponges’ silicate spicules (needles), but hawksbill sea turtles apparently can.
December 2013
3-27
Distribution
Hawksbills range from approximately 30° N latitude to 30° S latitude. They are closely
associated with coral reefs and other hard-bottom habitats, but are also found in other habitats
including inlets, bays, and coastal lagoons. Hawksbill turtles nest broadly in the Pacific,
including on the islands and mainland areas from China to Japan, throughout the Philippines,
Malaysia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Australia. The largest
nesting concentration occurs on remote islands in the Great Barrier Reef area. However, along
the eastern Pacific Rim where nesting was common in the 1930s, hawksbills are now rare or
absent. Hawksbill nesting information is available for eight locations within Oceania: GBR,
Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji, Micronesia (Federated States of
Micronesia and Palau), the Samoan Islands (Western Samoa and American Samoa), and the
Mariana Islands. Hawksbill nesting may occur elsewhere within the range of this population, but
little to no information is available, and nesting activity at those sites is thought to be very low. A
rough monthly estimate of numbers of hawksbill sea turtle nests per survey in the Rock Islands
of Palau indicated a possible bi-modal season (December–February and June–August).
Population at USAKA. Information is scarce to describe hawksbills in the RMI. Foraging
populations of sub-adult and adult hawksbill turtles were found in the nearshore waters at Wotje
Atoll, and a few subadults were spotted swimming in the lagoons of some of the seven northern
Marshall atolls surveyed in 1988 (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1998b). Based on their reported occurrence in island groups on all sides of the RMI, it
is likely that hawksbills occur in low abundance around other atolls and islands of the RMI,
including Kwajalein. A hawksbill sea turtle adult female was observed digging a nest and
dropping eggs on Omelek, Kwajalein Atoll in mid-May 2009. On July 5, several hatchlings were
observed leaving the nest and heading to the shoreline. For the Omelek nest, 101 empty egg
shells were counted, 5 hatchlings were rescued and released, 13 infertile eggs were recovered
from the nest, and 2 fully developed eggs (possibly crushed), were documented from the nest,
for a total of 121 eggs.
Major Threats
Sea turtles have been harvested for centuries by native inhabitants of the Pacific region. In
modern times, however, a severe overharvest has resulted from a variety of factors, among
which is the loss of traditional restrictions that had limited the numbers of sea turtles taken by
island residents. Brought about by modernized hunting gear, and easier boat access to remote
islands where sea turtles nest, extensive commercial exploitation has replaced subsistence
harvest for sea turtle products in both domestic markets and international trade, and is
maintained by inadequate regulations and education. One often-mentioned aspect of this
problem is the pillage of wildlife on remote islands by supply ships and commercial fishing
crews.
Anecdotal observations throughout Micronesia, from across the Pacific, and from other tropical
oceans of the world are in near total agreement that current stock sizes are significantly below
historical numbers. Although quantitative historical records are few, dramatic reductions in
numbers of nesting and foraging hawksbill sea turtles have apparently occurred in Micronesia
and Pacific Mexico just south of California since World War II, largely because of increased
access to remote nesting beaches by indigenous fishermen equipped with spear guns, outboard
motors, SCUBA, and other high-tech fishing gear. Market pressures from Asia, sustained by a
vast fleet of Taiwanese and other fishing vessels of various national origins, are overwhelming
the existing stocks. Most important of all hawksbill sea turtles are threatened by a pervasive
3-28
December 2013
tortoiseshell trade, which continues particularly in southeast Asia and Indonesia even though
the once-lucrative Japanese markets were closed in 1994.
Primary sea turtle threats in the RMI include directed take and increased human presence.
There is limited information regarding sea turtle threats in the 34 atolls and large islands of the
RMI. The consumption of nesting sea turtles and their eggs appears to be the single most
important source of mortality of turtles. Sea turtle harvest has expanded to all of the atolls, with
Majuro and the Southern Islands purchasing sea turtles caught from the Northern Islands where
they nest. There is little or no control over the harvest on any of the islands, although informal
control comes from the owner of the land (upon which the sea turtles are nesting). The sea
turtles are primarily harvested from the nesting beaches and are generally taken for
celebrations. Sea turtle eggs are regularly eaten. Also, eggs are hatched and the young kept
as pets. In some cases the practice of raising young is mistakenly believed to be a good
conservation practice. Coastal construction on several atolls may also degrade beach nesting
sites. Poaching by foreign fishermen is possibly a serious threat on uninhabited atolls.
3.1.2.2.3.5 Cetaceans
Large whales are generally widely distributed, open water species and are unlikely to be
observed in the Echo Pier vicinity. Sperm whales are frequently sighted off the ocean side of
Illeginni (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002). These whales
could potentially transit near Kwajalein Island, although they were not observed or heard during
recent surveys. UES-protected cetacean species which may be present in the area, based on
either historical range or anecdotal information are also considered in this EA. These include
Coastal spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata graffmani); common dolphin (Delphinus delphis);
Costa Rican spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris centroamericana); Eastern spinner dolphin
(Stenella longirostris orientalis); offshore spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata attenuata); striped
dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba); Hawaiian (also known as whitebelly) spinner dolphin (Stenella
longirostris longirostris); bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops sp.); Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops
truncatus gilli); Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus); spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris); and
melon headed whale (Peponocephala electra), which are briefly described below.
Tursiops truncatus (Bottlenose Dolphin)
Unless otherwise noted, this information comes from the NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected
Resources, 2012e.
Species Description
The bottlenose dolphin is one of the most well-known species of marine mammals. They have
a robust body and a short, thick beak. Their coloration ranges from light gray to black with
lighter coloration on the belly. Inshore and offshore individuals vary in color and size. Inshore
animals are smaller and lighter in color, while offshore animals are larger, darker in coloration
and have smaller flippers. Bottlenose dolphins can sometimes be confused with the roughtoothed dolphins, Risso's dolphins, and Atlantic spotted dolphins in regions of overlapping
distributions. This species is protected under the MMPA of 1972, as amended. This species is
also afforded protection at USAKA/RTS as a consultation species under UES Section 3-4.5
(U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command, 2011).
December 2013
3-29
Bottlenose dolphins range in lengths from 6.0 to 12.5 feet with males slightly larger than
females. Adults weigh from 300 to 1,400 pounds. This is a long-lived dolphin species with a
lifespan of 40 to 45 years for males and more than 50 years for females. Bottlenose dolphins
are commonly found in groups of 2 to 15 individuals. Offshore herds sometimes have several
hundred individuals. This species is often associated with pilot whales and other cetacean
species.
Bottlenose dolphins are generalists and feed on a variety of prey items endemic to their habitat,
foraging individually and cooperatively. Like other dolphins, bottlenose dolphins use high
frequency echolocation to locate and capture prey. Coastal animals prey on benthic
invertebrates and fish, and offshore animals feed on pelagic squid and fish.
Sexual maturity varies by population and ranges from 5 to 13 years for females and 9 to 14
years for males. Calves are born after a 12-month gestation period and are weaned at 18 to 20
months. On average, calving occurs every 3 to 6 years. Females as old as 45 years have
given birth.
Habitat
Bottlenose dolphins are found in temperate and tropical waters around the world. There are
coastal populations that migrate into bays, estuaries, and river mouths as well as offshore
populations that inhabit pelagic waters along the continental shelf.
Distribution
The bottlenose dolphin has a worldwide distribution ranging from latitudes of 45°N to 45°S.
There are currently 11 stocks of bottlenose dolphins in U.S. waters: California Coastal;
California-Oregon-Washington Offshore; Hawaii; Eastern Gulf of Mexico Coastal; Gulf of Mexico
Bay, Sound and Estuarine; Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf and Slope; Gulf of Mexico Outer
Continental Shelf; Northern Gulf of Mexico Coastal; Western Gulf of Mexico Coastal; Western
North Atlantic Coastal and Western North Atlantic Offshore. Population trends for all of the U.S.
stocks are currently unknown.
Major Threats
Major threats to this species come from incidental injury and mortality from fishing gear, such as
gillnet, seine, trawl, and longline commercial and recreational operations. Exposure to
pollutants and biotoxins are also of concern for this species. Viral outbreaks have been
reported. This species is also at risk because of direct harvest, in Japan and Taiwan.
In 2006, NMFS implemented the Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan to reduce the serious
injury and mortality of Western North Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins incidental to nine U.S.
commercial fisheries. In addition to multiple non-regulatory provisions for research and
education, the plan requires modifications of fishing practices for small, medium, and largemesh gillnet fisheries from New York to Florida. The plan also established seasonal closures
for certain commercial fisheries in state waters. Bottlenose dolphins are classified as Data
Deficient on the IUCN Red List.
3-30
December 2013
Delphinus delphis (Common Dolphin)
The following information is from the NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources, 2012g
web site.
Species Description
Short-beaked common dolphins are small dolphins under 9 feet long and weigh about
440 pounds. As adults, males are slightly larger than females. They have a rounded melon,
moderately long beak, and a sleek but robust body with a tall, pointed, triangular, dorsal fin
located in the middle of the back. This species can be identified by its distinct bright coloration
and patterns. A dark gray cape extends along the back from the beak and creates a "V" just
below the dorsal fin on either side of the body. There is a yellow/tan panel along the flank,
between the dark cape and white ventral patch, forward of the dorsal fin. This bold coloration
forms a crisscrossing "hourglass" pattern. A narrow dark stripe extends from the lower jaw to
the flipper. There is also a complex color pattern on the facial area and beak that includes a
dark eye patch.
Short-beaked dolphins are usually found in large social groups averaging hundreds of
individuals, but have occasionally been seen in larger herds consisting of thousands of animals
(up to at least 10,000), which are known as "mega-pods." These large schools are thought to
consist of sub-groups of 20 to 30 individuals that are possibly related or separated by age
and/or sex. Short-beaked common dolphins are often active at the surface displaying various
behaviors. They will often approach ships and even large whales to bowride for long periods of
time.
Short-beaked common dolphins are capable of diving to at least 650 feet to feed on fish from
the deep scattering layer at night, and usually rest during the day. The majority of their prey is
epipelagic schooling fish and cephalopods (e.g., squid).
Males become sexually mature between 3 to 12 years and females between 2 to 7 years.
Breeding usually takes place between the months of June and September, followed by a 10 to
11 month gestation period. Females give birth to a single calf that is about 2.5 to 3 feet long,
and have an estimated calving interval of 1 to 3 years. They have an estimated lifespan of up to
35 years.
Habitat
Short-beaked common dolphins prefer warm tropical to cool temperate waters (52 to 88°F) that
are primarily oceanic and offshore, but still along the continental slope in waters 650 to
6,500 feet deep. Short-beaked common dolphins also prefer waters altered by underwater
geologic features where upwelling occurs.
Distribution
The abundance and distribution of short-beaked common dolphins vary based on interannual
changes, oceanographic conditions and seasons. They can occur on the continental shelf or
farther offshore. Off the U.S. west coast, the majority of the populations are found off of
California, especially during the warm-water months.
December 2013
3-31
Population Trends
Overall, this species is still abundant worldwide, except for a few specific populations. There
are insufficient data for this species to determine the population trends. Short-beaked common
dolphins inhabiting U.S. waters have been divided, for management purposes, into two stocks,
the California-Oregon-Washington Stock and the Western North Atlantic Stock. There are an
estimated 100,000 off northwestern Europe, over 300,000 off western North America, and 3
million in the eastern Pacific.
Major Threats
They are commonly incidentally taken in fishing gear, including longlines, driftnets, gillnets, and
trawls. They are also hunted for their meat and oil, in Russia, Japan, and by nations bordering
the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea. Historically, fishing operations, specifically the tuna
purse seine industry in the eastern tropical Pacific, killed significant numbers of short-beaked
common dolphins.
Grampus griseus (Risso’s Dolphin)
The following information is from the NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources, 2012f
web site.
Species Description
Risso's dolphins, sometimes called “gray dolphins,” have a robust body with a narrow tailstock.
These medium sized cetaceans can reach lengths of approximately 8.5 to 13 feet and weigh
660 to 1,100 pounds. Males and females are usually about the same size. They have a
bulbous head with a vertical crease, and an indistinguishable beak. They have a tall, sickleshaped dorsal fin located mid-way down the back. As Risso's dolphins age, their color lightens
from black, dark gray, or brown to pale gray or almost white. Their bodies are usually heavily
scarred, with scratches from teeth raking between dolphins, as well as circular markings from
their prey (e.g., squid), cookie-cutter sharks, and lampreys. Mature adults swimming just under
the water's surface appear white.
Risso's dolphins are found in groups of 5 to 50 animals, but groups typically average between
10 to 30 animals. They have been reported as solitary individuals, pairs, or in loose
aggregations in the hundreds and thousands. Occasionally this species associates with other
dolphins and whales. They have been reported with other species, such as bottlenose dolphins,
gray whales, northern right whale dolphins, and Pacific white-sided dolphins. When at the
surface, they have a small inconspicuous blow (the blow is more distinct after long dives) and
their head partially emerges at a 45° angle. This species is often very active on the surface,
engaging in behavior such as breaching, flipper-slapping, and spyhopping.
Risso's dolphins are capable of diving to at least 1,000 feet and holding their breath for 30
minutes, but usually make shorter dives of 1 to 2 minutes. They feed on fish (e.g., anchovies),
krill, and cephalopods (e.g., squid, octopus, and cuttlefish) mainly at night when their prey is
closer to the surface. The majority of their diet consists of squid, and they have been known to
move into continental shelf waters when following their preferred prey.
Not much is known about the reproduction of Risso's dolphins. Individuals become sexually
mature when they reach a length of about 8.5 to 9 feet. Breeding and calving may occur year3-32
December 2013
round and the gestation period is approximately 13 to 14 months. The peak of the breeding and
calving season may vary geographically (especially in the North Pacific), with most animal births
occurring during summer to fall in Japanese waters and from fall to winter in California waters.
They have an estimated lifespan of at least 35 years.
Habitat
Risso's dolphins are found in temperate, subtropical and tropical waters of 50 to 86°F that are
generally greater than 3,300 feet and seaward of the continental shelf and slopes. They are
more common in waters of 59 to 68°F and may be limited by water temperature.
Distribution
Risso's dolphins have a cosmopolitan distribution in oceans and seas throughout the world from
latitudes 60°N to 60°S. In the Northern Hemisphere, their range includes the Gulf of Alaska,
Gulf of Mexico, Newfoundland, Norway, Persian Gulf, and Red Sea. They are known to inhabit
the Mediterranean and Black Sea. In the Southern Hemisphere, their range includes Argentina,
Australia, Chile, South Africa, and New Zealand. Little or nothing is known of their migration
patterns or movements, but they may be affected by movements of spawning squid and
oceanographic conditions.
Population Trends
For management purposes, Risso's dolphins inhabiting U.S. waters have been divided into four
stocks: California-Oregon-Washington, Hawaiian, Northern Gulf of Mexico, and Western North
Atlantic. The California-Oregon-Washington stock is estimated between 13,000 to 16,000
animals and the Hawaiian stock is estimated to be 1,500 to 2,500 animals. There are
approximately 175,000 animals in the eastern tropical Pacific, western North Pacific, and the
East China Sea. There are insufficient data for this species to determine the population trends.
Major Threats
Bycatch in fishing gear is the primary threat to Risso's dolphins. Several types of fishing gear,
including gillnets, longlines, and trawls, have been documented to incidentally take this species.
Historically, large numbers of Risso's dolphins were killed incidental to tuna purse seine fishing
in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Small numbers of Risso's dolphins have been captured
from the wild for the purpose of public display in aquariums and oceanariums.
Stenella longirostris (Spinner Dolphin)
Spinner dolphins are protected under the MMPA, and are also afforded protection at USAKA as
a consultation species under UES Section 3-4.5. The UES identifies the spinner dolphin
(Stenella longirostris), and the Costa Rican (S. l. centroamericana), Eastern (S. l. orientalis),
and Hawaiian (whitebelly) (S. l. longirostris) sub-species of this dolphin as protected marine
mammals. However, the Costa Rican spinner occurs over the continental shelf in the eastern
tropical Pacific, while the Eastern spinner is restricted to pelagic waters east of 145 degrees
west longitude. USASMDC/ARSTRAT considers it discountable that Costa Rican and Eastern
spinners would occur in the RMI. As such, spinner dolphins and whitebelly spinner dolphins will
be the only spinner dolphins considered in this EA. Because it is doubtful that untrained
observers would be able to differentiate between the two, and because the expected responses
to exposure to the proposed action would be identical for both, they will be referred to jointly as
December 2013
3-33
spinner dolphins in this EA. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a;b) Unless otherwise
noted, this information comes from Wikipedia, 2012 and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 2012c.
Species Description
The spinner dolphin is sometimes referred to as the long-snouted dolphin, particularly in older
texts, to distinguish it from the similar Clymene dolphin, which is often called the short-snouted
spinner dolphin. The eastern tropical Pacific and Southeast Asian populations of the spinner
dolphin are listed in Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of
Wild Animals since they have an unfavorable conservation status or would benefit significantly
from international co-operation organized by tailored agreements.
In addition, the spinner dolphin is covered by the Memorandum of Understanding for the
Conservation of Cetaceans and Their Habitats in the Pacific Islands Region and the
Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Conservation of the Manatee and Small
Cetaceans of Western Africa and Macronesia. This species is protected under the MMPA of
1972, as amended. It is also afforded protection at USAKA/RTS as a consultation species
under UES Section 3-4.5 (U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces
Strategic Command, 2011).
The spinner dolphin is a long and slender species famous for its acrobatic displays in which it
spins along its longitudinal axis as it leaps through the air. Adults range from 50 to 92.5 inches
and reach a body mass of 51 to 174 pounds. The rostrum of this species is relatively long and
narrow. It also has a triangular or sub-triangular dorsal fin. Spinner dolphins generally have a
dark gray dorsal field or cape, lighter lateral field, and white or very light-grey ventral field.
There is also a dark band that runs from the eye to the flipper, bordered above by a thin light
line. However, variation in body form and color pattern is more pronounced in spinner dolphins
than in any other cetacean. Some populations of spinner dolphin found in the eastern Pacific
have bizarre backwards facing dorsal fins, and males with strange humps and upturned caudal
flukes.
Habitat and Ecology
The spinner dolphin has a pantropical distribution, is found in off-shore tropical waters around
the world. It occurs in all tropical and subtropical waters between 40°N and 40°S. The species
is usually associated with inshore waters, islands, or banks. However, in the eastern tropical
Pacific, dolphins live hundreds of miles from the nearest land in waters of mixed shallow, shoal,
and sharp thermocline and relatively low variation in surface temperature. There appear to be
seasonal shifts in the preferred habitat of spinner dolphins along with a year-to-year variation in
habitat distribution.
The spinner dolphin feeds mainly on small mesopelagic fish, squids, and sergestid shrimps and
will dive 656 to 984 feet to feed on them. Spinner dolphins of Hawaii feed on many organisms
in deep scattering layers when they move to the surface. The dwarf spinner dolphin may eat
mostly benthic fish in reefs and shallow water. Spinner dolphins are themselves preyed on by
sharks. Other possible predators include the killer whale, the false killer whale, the pygmy killer
whale, and the short finned pilot whale. They are also susceptible to parasites, both external
ones such as barnacles and remoras, and internal ones such as nematodes and trematodes.
3-34
December 2013
In certain regions, such as Hawaii and northern Brazil, dolphins spend the daytime resting in
shallow bays near deep water. At dusk, they travel offshore to feed. They may move some
distance along the shore when feeding, and the same animals may not be present in the same
bay on two successive days. Some dolphins move slowly along the shore between successive
nights, and not all of them go into the rest coves every day. However, in Hawaii, site-fidelity in
dolphins is strong.
Spinner dolphins live in a fluid social organization. The bond between mothers and calves are
persistent. Adult males will form coalitions of a few to a dozen individuals. The function of
these coalitions is not understood, although they may form the several associated groups that
make up a school. Acoustic signals of spinner dolphins include whistles, which may be used to
regulate the organization and function of the school; burst-pulse signals, thought to have a
evocative and vocative nature; and echolocation click trains. The spinner dolphin has a
gestation period of about 10 months, and nursing lasts 1 to 2 years. Females reach sexual
maturity at 4 to 7 years, and may calve every 3 years, while males become sexually mature at 7
to 10 years. Breeding is seasonal, more so in certain regions than others.
Spinner dolphins are well known for their acrobatics and aerial behaviors. They leap high out of
the water and rotate longitudinally. While in the air, the dolphin reaches its maximum height and
falls back into the water while making a parabolic trajectory. The number of spins depends on
the relationship between the swim speed and angular speed while spinning underwater. While
it is not well understood, it is possible that this spinning behavior is related to breathing patterns,
swimming energetics, play, hunting, removal of ectoparasites, territoriality, or acoustic
communication. Other observed aerial behaviors include nose-outs, tail slaps, flips, head slap,
"salmon leaps," and side and back slaps.
Distribution
The spinner dolphin has a pantropical distribution, is found in off-shore tropical waters around
the world in a number of discrete geographical population. It occurs in all tropical and
subtropical waters between 40°N and 40°S.
Major Threats
Over tens of thousands of spinner dolphins, mostly eastern and white-bellied varieties, were
killed in the 30 years after purse seine fishing for tuna was introduced in the 1950s. The
process killed probably half of all Eastern spinner dolphins. They have also been contaminated
by pollutants such as DDT and PCBs. Spinner dolphins, as with other species impacted by the
ETP tuna purse-seine fishery, are managed both nationally by the coastal countries and
internationally. Spinner dolphins in Hawaii have multiple daily visits to their nearshore resting
grounds.
Stenella attenuata attenuata (Offshore Spotted Dolphin)
Unless otherwise noted, this information comes from: Riseman, D., 1999.
Species Description
S. attenuata is referred to as the pantropical spotted dolphin because its skin becomes spotted
as the dolphin grows older. Its dorsal surface is dark gray but covered in paler spots, while its
December 2013
3-35
paler ventral surface is covered with dark spots. Other distinguishing features are the spotted
dolphin's bright, white snout and melon, a fatty area located on its forehead. The inshore
spotted dolphins tend to be larger in size than offshore dolphins. Males also typically have
larger body sizes than females. It has pectoral fins (on the sides), a dorsal fin (on the central
back), and tail flukes. The blowhole, used for breathing and communication, is located on the
top of the head. Because S. attenuata has a thin layer of blubber, it has small amounts of
stored energy, so it eats high energy foods to make up for the low energy.
This species is protected under the MMPA of 1972, as amended. It is also afforded protection
at USAKA/RTS as a consultation species under UES Section 3-4.5 (U.S. Army Space and
Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command, 2011).The average lifespan of
species in the wild is 46 years. S. attenuata does not have any particular birthing season,
although the number of births does rise in spring and autumn months. The gestation period
lasts a little less than a year, and the lactation period can last for 1.5 years or longer. Females
usually give birth to a single offspring. The current population of spotted dolphins is estimated
to be 2.2 million.
Habitat and Ecology
The spotted dolphin is a gregarious animal, swimming in pods of several individuals to several
thousand dolphins. The offshore schools tend to be larger in number than those of the inshore
dolphins. The spotted dolphin often associates with other dolphin species and is commonly
sighted with yellowfin tuna. It is an extremely fast animal and an acrobatic species as well,
possessing the ability to leap to great heights. It uses echolocation to locate its food.
The spotted dolphin finds its prey, squid and small fish, near the ocean surface. These dolphins
have also been known to feed on isopods and pteropods. Lactating females eat significantly
more fish than pregnant or normal spotted dolphins. The lactating female's deviation from the
norm is presumably because she requires more energy than normal and pregnant dolphins.
More protein and also more energy are obtained from eating fish, rather than from eating the
same mass of squid. In addition, fish also contain more calcium and phosphorous, which aid in
lactation. Lastly, fish have lower water content, which prevents additional water loss in the
lactating female since the consumed fish are hypotonic with the sea water.
Distribution
The offshore spotted dolphin lives in the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific oceans. It migrates
seasonally to the Japanese coast and is the most common cetacean in the Gulf of Mexico. S.
attenuata lives in the tropical and subtropical areas of the ocean and seas. Although some live
inshore, most members of the species live offshore, where the temperature of the deeper water
remains fairly constant. The majority of this species live in between the equator and the
Galapagos Islands for the same reason that they tend to live offshore. The home range is
hundreds of miles in diameter.
Major Threats
Because S. attenuata tend to swim with yellowfin tuna, Pacific fishermen use sightings of these
dolphins to help them locate their yellowfin tuna targets. The majority of S. attenuata deaths are
a consequence of yellowfin tuna fishing operations. Between 1985 and 1990, almost 130,000
were killed each year because of the tuna fish catching methods. Thanks to United States
3-36
December 2013
government regulations, such as requiring improvements in fishing equipment, this number has
decreased substantially by 100,000 deaths per year.
Stenella attenuata graffmani (Coastal Spotted Dolphin)
Unless otherwise indicated, the following information comes from the NOAA) Office of Protected
Resources, 2012b web site. Coastal spotted dolphins (Stenella attenuata graffmani) are a
subspecies of the pantropical spotted dolphin and are managed as a separate stock.
Species Description
In 1980, NMFS listed the coastal stock as depleted under the MMPA, as amended. The
offshore stock was listed as depleted in 1993. This species is also protected as a consultation
species under UES Section 3-4.5 (U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army
Forces Strategic Command, 2011).
Like other dolphins of the genus Stenella, these are relatively small dolphins, reaching lengths
of 6 to 7 feet and weighing approximately 250 pounds at adulthood. They have long, slender
snouts or beaks. Pantropical spotted dolphins are without spots when born, accumulating them
as they age until they are almost completely covered with overlapping patterns. Pantropical
spotted dolphins are also distinguished by a dark "cape" or coloration on their backs stretching
from their head to almost mid-way between the dorsal fin and the tail flukes and by a whitetipped beak.
Pantropical spotted dolphins often occur in groups of several hundred to a thousand animals.
They are considered quite gregarious, often schooling with other dolphin species, such as
spinner dolphins. Although specific migratory patterns have not been clearly described, they
seem to move inshore in the fall and winter months and offshore in the spring. They feed
primarily on mesopelagic cephalopods and fishes.
Habitat
Spotted dolphins spend the majority of their day in shallower water typically between 300 to
1,000 feet deep. At night they dive into deeper waters to search for prey.
Distribution
Animals of the northeastern stock are found in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) far at
sea. Coastal spotted dolphins are found within 100 miles off the coast. A Hawaiian stock
occurs throughout the islands but is not considered depleted. The entire species itself can be
found in all oceans of tropical and subtropical climate worldwide.
Currently the northeastern stock is estimated to have a population size of 737,000, and the
coastal stock size is 149,400. The long-term trend is flat for the northeastern stock, and a trend
is not available for the coastal stock. The current population size of the non-depleted stocks is
as follows: Hawaii—10,260; Atlantic—4,400; Northern Gulf of Mexico—91,300.
December 2013
3-37
Major Threats
Due to the as yet unexplained association between large yellowfin tuna and some dolphins in
the ETP, these stocks of spotted dolphins have been the targets of the tuna purse-seine fishery
that uses the dolphins' locations to find tuna. Many dolphins used to be caught in the nets and
suffocated. Currently, fishing methods for tuna imported into the United States under the
Dolphin-Safe program do not allow such destructive fishing practices. Interactions with tourists
are a growing issue for the Hawaiian stock.
Two programs run by NMFS' Southwest Fisheries Science Center aim to conserve spotted
dolphins. The Dolphin-Safe Program focuses on reducing fishing-related dolphin mortality by
developing alternative fishing methods that do not involve dolphins. The Dolphin Energetics
Program focuses on determining whether energetics limitations associated with the fishing
practice may be contributing to the observed lack of recovery of fishery-associated dolphin
stocks in the ETP.
Stenella coeruleoalba (Striped dolphin)
This information comes from the NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources, 2012b web
site.
Species Description
Striped dolphins are some of the most abundant and widespread dolphins in the world. These
dolphins can reach lengths of about 9 feet and weigh up to 350 pounds for males and 8 feet and
330 pounds for females. They have a small to medium-sized robust, sleek body with a long,
defined beak and round "melon" (forehead). The dorsal fin is tall and located mid-back. Their
distinct and striking coloration pattern with a complex of bold thin stripes that extend from the
eye to the flipper and another set of stripes down the side of the body to the anal region
distinguishes it from other cetacean species, and is the origin of its common name. The beak,
tapered flipper, tail, and back, or cape, are dark blue/gray. The area just above the side stripe is
bluish or light gray and creates a contrasting shoulder blaze that curves back and up toward the
animal's dorsal fin. The ventral side is white to pinkish, and much lighter than the rest of the
body.
The (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species considers this species “Lower Risk Conservation
Dependent.” This species is protected under the MMPA of 1972, as amended. This species is
also afforded protection at USAKA/RTS as a consultation species under UES Section 3-4.5
(U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command, 2011).
Striped dolphins are usually found in tight, cohesive groups averaging between 25 and 100
individuals, but have been occasionally seen in larger groups of up to several hundred and even
thousands of animals. Within these schools there is a complex system of individuals that may
be organized by age, sex, and breeding status. They rarely associate with other species of
whales, dolphins, and seabirds. Their surface behavior is often characterized as sociable,
athletic, energetic, active, and nimble with rapid swimming. They can often be observed
breaching, "roto-tailing" (a circular motion using the tail while jumping out of the water), jumping,
and leaping up over 20 feet above the surface of the water.
3-38
December 2013
Striped dolphins feed on a diverse diet consisting of various species of relatively small, closelypacked, midwater, "benthopelagic" and/or "pelagic" shoaling/schooling fish (e.g., cod) and
cephalopods (e.g., squid and octopus) throughout the water column. They are capable of diving
to at least 2,300 feet.
Striped dolphins become sexually mature at about 7 feet in length, between the ages of 5 and
13 years for females and 7 to 15 years for males. They give birth to a single 3.3-foot long calf
during the summer or autumn after a gestation period of about one year. The interval between
giving birth to calves is usually 3 to 4 years, and lactation lasts 12 to 18 months. The estimated
lifespan of these dolphins is up to 58 years.
Habitat
Striped dolphins prefer highly productive tropical to warm temperate waters (52 to 84°F) that are
oceanic and deep. These dolphins are often linked to upwelling areas and convergence zones.
Distribution
Striped dolphins are mainly found in tropical and warm temperate waters seaward of the
continental shelf from 50°N to 40°S. Their range includes Greenland, northern Europe (United
Kingdom, Denmark), the Mediterranean Sea, and Japan to Argentina, South Africa, Western
Australia, and New Zealand. This species occurs in the United States off the west coast, in the
northwestern Atlantic, and in the Gulf of Mexico. They can also be found in the waters off of
Hawaii, but do not occur in the colder temperate and boreal waters of Alaska.
Striped dolphins are abundant and widespread throughout the world as well as in offshore U.S.
waters. For management purposes, striped dolphins inhabiting U.S. waters have been divided
into four stocks: the California/Oregon/Washington stock, the Hawaiian stock, the Northern Gulf
of Mexico stock, and the Western North Atlantic stock.
Recent abundance estimates of U.S. stocks are 9,000 to 14,000 for the U.S. west coast
(California-Oregon-Washington), 7,000 to 10,500 around the Hawaiian Islands, 4,500 to 6,500
for the northern Gulf of Mexico, and 68,500 to 94,500 for the western North Atlantic. It is
estimated that 1 million striped dolphins occur in the eastern tropical Pacific. Populations in the
western North Pacific and the Mediterranean are in serious decline due to hunting, over-fishing,
and disease. There are insufficient data to determine the population trends for this species.
Major Threats
Striped dolphins are taken as bycatch or interact with a number of fisheries, such as in pelagic
trawls, gillnets, driftnets, purse seine nets, and hand-harpoons. They have been subjected to
drive hunts in Japan and taken in the Caribbean and Sri Lanka. During the mid-twentieth
century it is estimated that as many as 21,000 animals were caught and killed each year. In the
early 1990s, more than 1,000 dolphins died in the Mediterranean Sea from a virus, which may
have been triggered by pollution (e.g., organochlorines), and fewer available prey.
Environmental toxins and contaminants lower the disease immunity of these animals.
December 2013
3-39
Peponocephala electra (Melon-Headed Whale)
Unless otherwise indicated, the following information comes from the NOAA Office of Protected
Resources web site (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012h).
Species Description
Melon-headed whales are small members of the dolphin group. They can reach a length of 9
feet and weight of 460 pounds. They have a small head with a rounded melon and no
discernible beak. Their dorsal fin is relatively large and they have pointed, tapering flippers
(pectoral fins). Body color is dark with a large dorsal cape and dark areas on the side of the
face that are not always readily apparent.
Females have gestation periods of approximately 12 months. Lactation period and many other
reproductive facts are poorly known. Longevity is 22 years for males and 30 years for females.
Melon-headed whales often occur in groups of hundreds to over 1,000 animals. Smaller,
coordinated subgroups are common within the larger groups. They are often found on the edge
of, or behind, schools of Fraser's dolphins. They feed primarily on squids, fishes, and some
crustaceans in moderately deep water.
Habitat
They prefer deeper areas of warmer tropical waters where their prey are concentrated.
Distribution
Melon-headed whales are found primarily in deep waters throughout tropical areas of the world.
There are three recognized stocks in the United States: Hawaii, Northern Gulf of Mexico, and
Western North Atlantic.
Population Trends
Current population estimates for the different U.S. stocks are: Hawaii—2,950; Western North
Atlantic—unknown, only two sightings have been made, but these did not occur during
population size surveys; Northern Gulf of Mexico—3,450. There is not enough data to
determine trends in the Hawaii, Western North Atlantic, or Northern Gulf of Mexico stocks.
Major Threats
Bycatch occurs in some areas, though not to any large extent, and there are no recent bycatch
records from the United States. There may have been a drive fishery in the Solomon Islands
before the 1990s, and melon-headed whales are sometimes caught as bycatch in the drive
fisheries in Japan and other parts of the Pacific.
Mass stranding is fairly common in this species, especially in Hawaii in the United States. A
stranding event in 2004, in which 150 to 200 melon-headed whales in Hawaii remained inside a
bay on the island of Kauai until herded out by volunteers, may have been related to nearby U.S.
Navy training involving the use of sonar.
3-40
December 2013
3.1.2.3 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
No critical habitat has been established at USAKA/RTS. Extensive dredge and fill activities
since the 1930s have degraded the marine habitat surrounding Kwajalein, particularly on the
lagoon side. A remnant of the original reef flat is located just north of Echo Pier, outside the
harbor (U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2001). According to the UES,
seabird colonies and shorebird sites on Kwajalein are terrestrial habitat types that are potentially
significant (U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command,
2011).
Kwajalein Lagoon is mostly about 160 feet deep, dropping in places to approximately 200 feet.
The lagoon bottom is mainly fine coral sand, often with thick growths of Halimeda algae and
large numbers of coral knolls that range from mere bumps in the bottom to steep-sided
pinnacles that reach to the surface of the water. (Underwater Kwajalein, undated)
3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The region of influence, or Area of Potential Effects (APE) as defined by cultural resources
legislation, encompasses any location where historic properties may be affected. This includes
any and all areas where ground disturbance or facility modification would take place (Figure
3-2). For this project, the APE includes Echo Pier, which will be rehabilitated and repaired;
demolition/relocation of ancillary structures; modification of finger piers to accommodate
temporary berthing; an area for the construction of a new onshore stevedore facility; and options
for a construction staging (laydown) area.
Prehistory and History of Kwajalein Island
Note: This brief prehistory and history of Kwajalein Island has been partially excerpted from
Mead, 2008.
Most Marshallese regard Kwajalein Island as the cultural hub of Kwajalein Atoll. It is a
residence island associated with Irooj clans which govern the atoll. Traditionally, Kwajalein
Island is called Eoon-ene in Kuwajleen, which roughly translates to the “the (main or central)
islet of Kuwajleen.” (Carucci, 1997)
Initial settlement of Kwajalein Atoll was probably on the lagoon strand of Kwajalein Island. If the
ethnographic data recovered from Kwajalein residents can be assumed to be an extension of
the prehistoric past, the earliest occupation was probably on the western end of the island.
Extrapolating from archaeological studies in other parts of the Marshall Islands, the earliest sites
are likely to be found near the center, specifically in the area of the present day landing strip and
taxiway (Beardsley, 1994).
December 2013
3-41
Road
et
Stre
Stre
Palm
ettia
n
Lagoo
s
Poin
502
506
et
eet
6th Str
564
eet
6th Str
719
718
Lagoon
Ro a d
602
607
560
Road
Supply
Road
626
620
623
Marine
611
eet
7th Str
1058
621
605
774
729
783
715
710
629
702
716
816
636
eet
8th Str
806
1759
Lagoon
835
1791
804
844
805
Road
813
826
d
tive Roa
Automo
700
803
822
Kwajalein Island
856
1789
808
eet
9th Str
868
760
9th
Str
ee
t
900
961
962
EXPLANATION
Electrical Transmission Tie-In
Closest Known Archaeological Sites
Concrete Removal Area
Proposed On-Shore
Stevedore Warehouse
Existing Structure
Facilities to be Demolished
Echo Pier Repair
Cultural Resources
Area of Potential
Effects
783 (Finger Piers)
New Concrete Pad/Driveway
Kwajalein Island
NORTH
0
125
250
Figure 3-2
500 Feet
13_projectareas_echopier, 4/25/2013
3-42
December 2013
The pattern of settlement on residence islands was defined during some of the earliest
systematic archaeological investigations and appears that on Kwajalein that settlement pattern
remained relatively consistent into the mid-20th century. Residence was based on family
compounds on the lagoon strand or slightly back from it. These compounds contained sleeping
and cooking houses and other small resource processing shelters surrounding a cobble gravel
platform. Other features associated with these compounds would include small garden patches
and wells. The central portion of the island would be dedicated to coconut trees and aroid (taro)
pits. (Mead, 2008)
Oral traditions and limited historic documentation indicate that in the later 19th century,
settlement on Kwajalein was strung along the lagoon shore from one end of the island to the
other. By the 1930s, Kwajalein had a number of churches, meeting houses, and two schools
and at least two trading posts. At some point after 1914, the Japanese colonial government
established offices on the island, located in the area between Ocean and Lagoon Roads in the
approximate line of 9th Street (Carucci, 1997).
Construction of the Japanese Base on Kwajalein began in earnest in 1940. Designed as the
regional administrative center for the Japanese of the Eastern Mandates, Kwajalein was built on
a slightly different pattern from that seen on other Japanese occupied islands (e.g., Wotje,
Maloelap, and Roi-Namur, which were constructed as airbases). The island contained a larger
number of administrative buildings, had only a minor airstrip, a very large shipping dock, and a
number of warehouses. (Mead, 2008)
The American amphibious assault on Kwajalein began with heavy naval and aerial bombing to
soften up the Japanese defenses. On D-day, January 31, 1944, the first landings were on the
small islands to the west. The Americans landed on the western end of Kwajalein Island on the
second day of the assault and over the course of the next several days fought their way along
the length of the island. The fighting was characterized by repeated encounters with localized
pockets of resistance with the heaviest fighting along the lagoon shore. Once the battle lines
reached the area west of the current tank farm, fighting changed to a structure-by-structure
offensive as the Americans encountered Japanese entrenched in the more densely constructed
administrative and warehouse districts. (Mead, 2008)
Almost immediately after the battle, the Americans began rebuilding the base. Construction
included an airfield, housing, warehouses, airfield support facilities, headquarters and
administrative buildings, and infrastructure. Virtually all of this construction was temporary;
mostly rapidly constructed buildings of wood and metal (Quonset huts) erected over slabs ongrade. One of the more profound transformations was the first in a series of expansions of the
island’s footprint, when the area south of Echo Pier was filled, widening this part of the island.
(Mead, 2008)
In 1946 the United States established the Pacific Proving Ground, and Kwajalein Island became
the primary support base for nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands. Between 1951 and 1958
the temporary WWII base facilities were replaced by more permanent construction and
infrastructure was upgraded. As the civilian population increased, both military and civilian
personnel began to bring their families with them to Kwajalein, creating a need for family
housing and other non-military support facilities. The need for additional land led to the filling in
of an area immediate north of Echo Pier. (Mead, 2008)
December 2013
3-43
The Nuclear Testing program at the Pacific Proving Ground ended in 1958; the base contracted
in size and population. Before the base could be closed, it was reactivated in 1959 for the first
in a series of programs which would provide new life for the base as a research and
development facility for the American missile program. The missile testing programs required
support facilities including sensors and tracking systems and the increased population of the
island required additional housing and support facilities. Between 1959 and 1964, the
requirement for land to construct these facilities would lead to additional filling efforts on the
lagoon side of the island which would nearly double its width; land creation on the north and
south ends of the island to increase the length by over 25 percent. After 1976, active programs
related to missile programs died back and once again the base entered a period of decreased
activity. (Mead, 2008)
In 1983 the Strategic Defense Initiative brought new impetus and base construction once again
resumed. In the late 1980s and early 1990s environmental concerns began to play a role in
base planning, by the mid-1990s the base would have a program in place to consider the
cultural effect of construction on the island. (Mead, 2008)
Archaeological Resources within the Area of Potential Effects (APE)
The rehabilitation of Echo Pier includes the construction of two new stevedore warehouses (one
on the pier and the other onshore), removal of 1,660 square feet of existing concrete pavement
along Marine Road, and two options for a construction staging (laydown) area. The sites
selected for the onshore stevedore facility (and its associated concrete driveway) and the
Option 1 laydown area are within a dredged and filled area of the Kwajalein Island lagoon
shoreline and have no potential for archaeological resources. As shown on Figure 3-2, the
Option 2 laydown area is proposed for a previously disturbed area situated within the original
shoreline of the island. There are archaeological sites in the vicinity of this laydown area, but
outside of its footprint, and there is no ground disturbance proposed. The footprint of Option 2
is within an area of low archaeological sensitivity (Environmental Office, United States Army
Kwajalein Atoll, 2006).
Buildings and Structures within the Area of Potential Effects
Battlefield (a U.S. National Historic Landmark) (Thompson, 1985) that is also listed in the RMI
National Register as a historic structure (Mead, 2012a and b; Messing, 2012). As a historic
property, renovation of the pier has the potential to adversely affect its historic character.
In addition to potential effects on the pier itself, this project also encompasses:

The demolition of four pier structures (Facility Numbers [FNs] 605, 620, 621, and an
unnumbered pier shed) and the temporary relocation/reinstallation of FN 611, none of
which were part of the original pier construction. To determine the appropriate APE,
these facilities have been assessed for possible historical significance in a Cultural
Resources Evaluation (CRE) specifically prepared for this project and determined to be
not eligible for inclusion in either the U.S. or RMI National Registers (KAYA Associates,
Inc., 2013a).

Temporary, minor modification of FN 783 (finger piers), which was constructed in 1960.
As a part of this project the CRE also assessed the historical significance of FN 783 and
3-44
December 2013
determined it to be not eligible for inclusion in either the U.S. or RMI National Registers
(KAYA Associates, Inc., 2013a).
Underwater Resources within the Area of Potential Effects
Hydrographic surveys were conducted in August 2012 to measure water depths for each berth,
inspect the underwater elements of the pier for damage or deterioration, and locate potential
debris within 200 feet of the structure. Magnetometer, side scan sonar, and diver-in-water
methods were all utilized for the survey (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District,
2012a; b). The survey noted a variety of derelict items situated in the vicinity of the pier
foundation and photographs of the items were included in the report. The majority of the debris
was found adjacent to the pier foundation. Among the items noted were remnants of chain,
nylon and wire rope, pier fenders, tires, timber stubs, ladders, anchors of varying sizes, and
miscellaneous construction debris (sheet metal, pipe, etc.), all of which appear to be modern in
age.
3.3 WATER (MARINE)
This section describes the existing marine water resource conditions at the proposed sites.
Normally, water resources include surface water, groundwater, water quality, and flood hazard
areas. No flood hazard or surface water areas have been identified in the region of influence.
However, generally coral atolls lack surface water bodies or defined drainage channels due to
extreme high porosity and permeability of the soils and surface sediments. With the exception
of man-made impervious surfaces, abundant amounts of rainwater rapidly infiltrate directly into
the ground.
The region of influence includes the lagoon area on the western side of Kwajalein Island.
Coastal Waters
The coastal waters surrounding the Echo Pier have been classified under the UES as either A
or B. No shoreline waters are classified as AA. Class A waters are protected for unrestricted
recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, potential use as a potable-water source, and the support and
propagation of aquatic life. Class A water shall be kept clean of trash, solid materials, and oil.
No mixing zones shall be authorized in Class A waters. Class B waters are generally limited to
the harbor, landfill, and outfall areas. Mixing zones are allowed in Class B waters. Water
classifications for Kwajalein Island are shown in Figure 3-3 and provided in Appendix 3-2A of
the UES-12th Edition. (U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic
Command, 2011)
December 2013
3-45
NORTH
EAST
Echo Pier
Lagoon
WEST
Ocean
SOUTH
Source: USAKA Environmental Standards, 2011
EXPLANATION
0
750 1,500
3,000 Feet
Roads
Buildings
Kwajalein:
Classifications of
Coastal-Water Use
Installation Area
Water Classification
CLASS-AA
Kwajalein
CLASS-A
Figure 3-3
CLASS-B
3-46
December 2013
Classification of Coastal-Water Uses
Class A Water
1. The uses to be protected in Class A water are recreational (including fishing, swimming,
bathing, and other water-contact sports), aesthetic enjoyment, potential use as a
potable-water source, and support and propagation of aquatic life.
2. The use of this class of water for recreation and for aesthetic enjoyment shall not be
limited in any way. Such water shall be kept clean of trash, solid materials, and oil. No
mixing zone shall be allowed in Class A water.
Class B Water
1. The uses to be protected in Class B water are small-boat harbors, commercial and
industrial shipping, bait fishing, compatible recreation, support and propagation of
aquatic life, and aesthetic enjoyment.
2. The discharge of all pollutants shall be controlled to the extent necessary to achieve and
maintain the standards established for Class B water.
3. The Class B designation within harbors shall apply only to a limited area where
appropriate, such as next to docking facilities. The rest of the water area in such a bay
or harbor shall be Class A unless given another specific designation.
4. The total size of Class B waters authorized for all USAKA-leased islands has been set at
2,916,609 square yards. The Class B waters size measurements for each island are
shown on the water use classification figures in appendix 3-2A. If new Class B water
areas are created to encompass new or changed mixing zones resulting from pointsource discharges through revisions to the Standards, the existing Class B water size in
other areas shall be reduced by the same amount. There shall be no net increase in the
authorized total size of the Class B waters.
December 2013
3-47
3-48
December 2013
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This chapter describes the potential environmental consequences of the proposed activities by
comparing these activities with the potentially affected environment components provided in
Chapter 3.0. Sections 4.1 through 4.4 provide discussions of the potential environmental
consequences of performing these activities. The amount of detail presented in each section is
proportional to the potential for impacts. Section 4.5 provides a brief discussion of the effects of
the No-Action Alternative.
4.1
All transportation of equipment and materials required for the Echo Pier repair/renovation would
be conducted in accordance with DoD and Department of Transportation regulations. Prior to
use, all equipment would be inspected and cleaned of any petroleum-based product or other
potentially polluting material that could be released into the marine environment. In the unlikely
event of an accidental fuel spill, emergency response personnel would comply with the KEEP
prepared by USAKA in accordance with the UES. The KEEP is a contingency plan similar to a
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan and incorporates the hazardous
materials management plan. Adherence to these regulations and applicable SOPs for spill
prevention, control, and countermeasures while transporting equipment and materials would
preclude impacts to vegetation and wildlife.
The extensive development on Kwajalein Island has eliminated most of its natural vegetation;
thus, managed vegetation is dominant. Vegetation in the vicinity of Echo Pier and the areas
proposed for on-shore use is maintained by USAKA personnel.
UES (migratory birds, coral, mollusks, fish, sea turtles, and cetaceans) and to avoid areas
designated as nesting or roosting habitat. No critical habitat has been established at
USAKA/RTS.
4.1.1
4.1.1.1
Terrestrial
potentially be caused by the proposed activities. These stressors include direct impacts
including general disturbance by humans and loss or degradation of shelter and/or forage
resources; and exposure to noise.
4.1.1.1.1
Vegetation
Direct Impacts
Creation of a laydown area would impact any existing vegetation present at the area selected;
however, the area contains managed vegetation and would be restored to pre-project conditions
after any material remaining after use is removed. No threatened or endangered plant species
December 2013
4-1
have been identified within the region of influence. Any restoration activities would be
coordinated with USFWS as applicable.
4.1.1.1.2
Wildlife
Direct Impacts
Construction ground disturbance and personnel presence impacts would include loss of habitat,
displacement of wildlife, and short-term disruption of daily/seasonal behavior. Construction
activities could result in the temporary displacement of some seabirds (e.g., black noddies,
great crested terns, brown noddies, and white terns) and shorebirds (e.g., golden plovers and
ruddy turnstones) that could nest or roost in the area or forage in the water directly off the
populated with viable seabird or shorebird nests. Additional roosting and foraging habitat is
present on and off shore of the island. Other wildlife species present at or near the proposed
construction site such as rats, skinks, and crabs could also be temporarily displaced to other
areas on the island. These mobile species would likely return to the area after repairs and
facility construction are completed.
Noise
Construction ground disturbance and equipment noise-related impacts would include loss of
habitat, displacement of wildlife, and short-term disruption of daily/seasonal behavior. Typical
noise levels 50 feet from construction equipment generally range from 70 to 98 A-weighted
decibels. The combination of increased noise levels and human activity would likely displace
some small species of wildlife and birds that forage, feed, or nest within this 50-foot radius.
Although construction activities could cause flushing (birds suddenly flying up), this is a common
reaction to sudden natural sounds that only slightly increases the energy expenditure of
seabirds (e.g., black noddies, great crested terns, brown noddies, and white terns) and
shorebirds (e.g., golden plovers and ruddy turnstones) that could nest or roost in the area or
forage in the water directly off the proposed construction site. However, no designated nesting
or roosting habitat is located in the project area, and proposed activities in shoreline areas
would not be conducted in areas populated with viable seabird or shorebird nests. Other wildlife
species present at or near the proposed construction site such as rats, skinks, and crabs could
also be temporarily displaced to other areas on the island. These mobile species would likely
return to the area after repairs and facility construction are completed.
Additional roosting and foraging habitat is present on and off shore of the island. The presence
of personnel who may cause wildlife to avoid the area, at least temporarily, would indirectly
reduce the potential for impacts from the highest elevated noise levels. The disturbance from
the short-term noise associated with on-shore construction and pier repair is not expected to
alter migration patterns. Although no designated nesting or roosting habitat is located in the
project area, personnel would be instructed to avoid any such designated areas and to avoid all
contact with any nest that may be encountered.
4-2
December 2013
All activities would occur in developed areas and once in place, will not be disruptive; no
migratory bird species or other wildlife resources are expected to be taken as a result of this
activity.
4.1.1.2
Marine
wastes and discharges, general disturbance by human and natural factors, and loss or
degradation of shelter and/or forage resources. With regard to UES-protected species, the
region of influence for this project is limited to the marine waters in the lagoon north of Kwajalein
Island. For all work other than pile driving, the action area is estimated to be the in-water area
within a 50-yard arc around those activities, and the down-current extent of any plumes that
may result from mobilized sediments or discharges of wastes or toxic chemicals such as fuels
and/or lubricants associated with the machinery used for this activity. However, during the
proposed pile driving, the action area is extended northward up to about 5,140 yards from Echo
Pier to include the waters that may be ensonified by pile driving noise capable of eliciting
behavioral response in UES-protected marine species (Figure 4-1).
4.1.1.2.1
Vegetation
on the bottom of a body of water.
Halophila minor, a UES coordination seagrass species, was not observed in the vicinity of Echo
Pier during the 2010 survey (U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense
Command, 2012). The closest known distribution of Halophila minor is off the Barge Slip Ramp.
This marine plant has also been observed in deeper habitats fairly distant from Echo Pier. It
displayed fairly broad distribution at that site. No consultation marine vegetation species are
known to exist in the vicinity of Echo Pier.
4.1.1.2.2
Wildlife
Sheet pile driving would be done using a vibratory or impact hammer and would be expected to
generate some turbidity adjacent to the sheet piles being removed or installed. A turbidity
monitoring plan would be prepared, which would define unacceptable levels. Near Echo Pier
coarse sediments, rubble, and debris have been observed. Fine sediments were observed
beneath Echo Pier. The near-shore areas of the harbor are characterized by coarser grained
sediments, sand and rocks. Predominant grain size measurements for Kwajalein Harbor range
from fine sand (0.003 inch) to gravel (0.37 inch). The turbidity should decrease rapidly with the
cessation of the work since the materials in the project area are mainly soft silt sediment, which
(due to a high composition of sand) tends to rapidly settle from the water column.
December 2013
4-3
rds
ya
40
5,1
m)
4n
(2.
50 yards (150 ft)
EXPLANATION
Area Expected to be
Ensonified within the
Lagoon
ft = Feet
nm = Nautical Miles
Kwajalein Atoll
Figure 4-1
4-4
December 2013
The turbidity increase would be temporary and highly localized to the area where the work is
being done. During removal of debris within the footprint of the existing pier or dredging if
required and active sheet pile driving operations, turbidity monitoring would be conducted daily
at 164 feet from the site of the activity. Activities would cease when the turbidities exceed 10
NTUs above background as required by the Dredging and Filling DEP (U.S. Army Kwajalein
Atoll/Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, 2011). This would minimize the
potential for impacts to sessile species such as coral, sponges and other less mobile
invertebrates such as the black-lipped pearl oyster as well as more mobile species that could be
located within the 164-foot arc. Silt curtains would be in place at all times during activities that
could cause an increase in sedimentation and turbidity to limit their levels in the surrounding
waters. It may not be practical for the silt curtain to extend to the bottom due to tidal changes.
The curtains would blow inwards during a rising tide and out during an ebb tide. These silt
curtains would encompass the dogleg portion of the pier during dredging, so sediment impacts
are limited to the dredged areas, and all associated equipment and typically extend from the
water surface to a couple of feet from the bottom, without losing effectiveness or impacting
surrounding waters. During re-decking, the entire pier might be enclosed if needed.
Corals
A total of 127 coral species representing 36 genera were observed in the project area and
included 123 species of Scleractinia, 2 species of Alcyonacea, and 2 species of Milleporina. A
total of 14,723 colonies were counted and sized, and an additional 1,175 unattached fragments
were observed. Seventy-two percent of the colony counts (10,668 colonies) were represented
by a single cryptic species, Tubastrea sp. Species richness appeared highest on the longest
and most exposed structural elements of the pier, including the Echo Berth piles (predominantly
outer piles) and Foxtrot and Bravo walls (Table 4-1). (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013)
Species richness was also observed to be high along Bottom substrate bordering Foxtrot.
Measured colony and fragment densities varied within and between sites and displayed highest
concentrations along Echo Wall, Piles, and Foxtrot Wall and Bottom habitats. Tubastrea sp.
heavily influenced Echo Wall and Pile coral densities. The remaining density values tended to
be representative of a higher level of equity amongst a greater assortment of species.
Eleven candidate species of coral for listing under the Endangered Species Act and UES
consultation species were observed in the Echo Pier area during the 2010 Biological Inventory
survey (U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012) and
specialized survey (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013). Coral colonies appear at risk of
mortality from the activities proposed for Alternative 1. In accordance with the UES,
consultation on these species will be conducted between NMFS and USASMDC. The effect of
Echo Pier repair activities on protected coral species may be incidental (direct mortality
subsidiary to the action) or intentional (relocation of the species in an effort to minimize risk of
mortality).
December 2013
4-5
Table 4-1. Number of UES Consultation Corals Estimated at Risk of Project Related
Mortality at Echo Pier
Family,
Genus species
Acroporidae
Acropora aculeus
A. aspera
Morphology
Habitats
Corymbose
Staghorn
EOP
FB
A. microclados
Corymbose
A. speciosa
Corymbose
A. tenella
Flat Branch
EOP, EMP,
FB, FW
BW, EW,
EOP, EMP,
FW
BW, CMP,
FW, FB
A. vaughani
Branching
FB
Encrusting
BW, COP,
EOP, EMP
BW, CW,
COP, DW,
EOP, EMP
BB, CB, EB,
FW, FB
Agariciidae
Leptoseris
incrustans
Pavona bipartita
P. cactus
Faviidae
Cyphastrea
agassizi
Poritiidae
Porites
horizontalata
Echo Pier Total
Encrusting
Frond
Encrusting
FW
Mixed
BW, BB,
COP, FW,
FB
Avg.
Derived
Impact
(# Corals)
95 %
U.C.L.
Derived
Impact
(# Corals) *
99 %
U.C.L.
Derived
Impact
(# Corals) *
Range*
1 to 5
0 to
1 to 14
0 to 1
1 to 18
0 to 1
1 to 18
0 to 1
22 to 31
48 to 73
55 to 89
22 to 89
7 to 17
22 to 47
28 to 62
7 to 62
2 to 8
3 to 19
4 to 25
2 to 25
4
10
10
4 to 10
121 to 124
321 to 332
420 to 436
13 to 26
35 to 78
46 to 97
121 to
436
13 to 97
696 to 699
1,194 to
1,196
1,365 to
1,369
696 to
1,369
1
2
3
1 to 3
2 to 8
4 to 17
6 to 26
2 to 26
869 to
924
1,640 to
1,789
1,938 to
2,136
869 to
2,136
Notes: (Avg. = average; # = number; U.C.L = upper confidence limit; BB = Bravo Bottom; BW = Bravo Wall; CB =
Charlie Bottom; COP = Charlie Outer Piles; CMP = Charlie Middle Piles; CW = Charlie Wall; DB = Delta Bottom; EB =
Echo Bottom; EOP = Echo Outer Piles; EMP = Echo Middle Piles; EW = Echo Wall; FB = Foxtrot Bottom; FW =
Foxtrot Wall; * = summation of confidence limit derived estimates across habitats and pier faces may affect
associated levels of confidence)
Echo Pier repair activities have the potential for increasing the turbidity in surrounding waters.
Care would be taken to minimize breaking off large pieces of substrate that could move and
impact other coral, mollusks, and sponges. Turbidity from the removal of the existing piles and
tie rods and placement of new sheet pile could temporarily degrade water quality in the vicinity
and result in sedimentation as particles settle. Effects to foraging birds and benthic species
such as crabs, and fish from increased turbidity or sedimentation would be temporary since
these species are mobile. Activities would cease when the turbidities exceed 10 NTUs above
background levels.
4-6
December 2013
Sediments suspended from the proposed Echo Pier refurbishment activities could settle on
corals within the project area. According to a laboratory experiment performed on the effects of
sand deposition on scleractinian (hard corals including but not limited to Acropora, Montipora,
and Pavona species) and alcyonacean (soft) corals, sedimentation can interfere with corals
directly by influencing growth rates, metabolism and fecundity, and histopathological damage. It
can also indirectly impact the population level by either reducing or facilitating larval settlement.
Corals have developed various defense mechanisms to sedimentation. Scleractinia can reject
sediment to a certain degree by means of morphological adaptations and by directed behavior.
The experiment tested coral’s reaction to sand deposition without the interference of natural
factors such as inclination of the substratum or water movement. The laboratory environment
simulated extreme conditions, such as high sedimentation and practically zero water motion.
Both Scleractinia and Alcyonacea were well able to withstand short-term episodic sand
application, while continuous sand application resulted in various stress responses or death of
entire colonies. Overall, Scleractinia coped better with continuous sand cover than Alcyonacea.
(Riegl, 1994)
Executive Order 13089 (Coral Reef Protection) requires all federal agencies whose actions may
affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems to identify the actions that may harm coral reefs; use their
programs and authorities to protect and enhance the ecosystems; and, to the extent permitted
by law, ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not degrade the conditions
of such ecosystems. The Proposed Action incorporates procedures to minimize potential
impacts of the installation on live coral (Section 4.1.3).
The NMFS modeled a 100 percent loss of coral on Charlie, Delta and Echo berths, and a 5
percent loss on Bravo and Foxtrot. The analysis report recommends coral transplantation
specific to Charlie, Delta and Echo, and suggests that consideration also be given to high risk
areas of Bravo and Foxtrot (such as those directly bordering Charlie and Echo). Consultation
coral colonies would be removed and transplanted elsewhere prior to initiation of repair activities
to the extent practicable. Corals would also be moved prior to placement of the spuds on the
lagoon floor if a spud barge is used. Periodically fanning the sand particles off the corals in the
immediate area if heavy sedimentation occurs could also minimize the potential for impacts.
However, use of silt curtains would minimize the amount of sedimentation that could occur.
Care would be taken to ensure that coral would not be located within the silt curtains whenever
possible. Most of the consultation species of coral present appear to be fairly broadly
distributed across the USAKA/RTS islands and the rest of the Marshall Islands area.
Four of the coral consultation species; however, appeared to be distributionally limited, with one
species, Pavona bipartita, only known at USAKA on Echo Pier. Pavona bipartita is not known to
have been previously recorded at USAKA outside its present occurrence in Echo Pier habitats
along Bravo, Charlie, Delta and Echo; however, it has a moderate tolerance of sediment stress
(Brainard, et al., 2011). Noted observations of Porites horizontalata at USAKA include three of
the pier faces at Echo Pier and a single patch reef northeast of Illeginni Islet. It has a high
tolerance of sediment stress and turbid water (Brainard, et al., 2011). Rare species distributions
over large areas such as USAKA are often difficult to determine. Limited sampling, complex
underwater topography, potential deepness of occupied habitable surfaces and similarities in
species appearances all complicate efforts to better understand geographic distributions,
particularly for uncommon organisms. Appropriate management of species is often limited by
the data available to make decisions. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013)
December 2013
4-7
Acropora tenella, A. speciosa, Pavona bipartita and Porites horizontalata were identified on
multiple Echo Pier faces including Foxtrot and Bravo for the two Acropora and P. horizontalata
and Bravo for P. bipartita. Transplantation of these and other UES protected species from
Charlie, Delta, and Echo should help reduce project related mortalities due to turbidity and/or
sedimentation.
While moving coral and exposure of coral within a silt curtain are considered adverse effects,
project related jeopardy to any particular species’ existence at USAKA/RTS appears unlikely
due to implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs)/mitigations (e.g., silt curtains),
favorable distribution data, and site abundance. However as a worse case, approximately
9,950 SOSC and 2,140 consultation coral species are at risk of project related mortality
(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013).
Non-Coral Macroinvertebrates
Approximately 162,100 non-coral macroinvertebrates may be adversely affected by
proposed renovation activities at Echo Pier (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013). No
artificially planted or cultivated sponges which would require consultation under the UES were
observed within the project area. Project related jeopardy to any particular sponge species’
existence at USAKA/RTS appears unlikely. Various non-encrusting sponge species may be
suitable for transplantation. The potential impacts from turbidity and vessel strike would be
similar to those discussed above for corals.
Table 4-2 provides an estimate of potential Pinctada margaritifera loss associated with the Echo
Pier renovation. P. margaritifera might be considered as observationally rare based on previous
USAKA surveys, but it is broad in its geographic distribution amongst USAKA islets.
Table 4-2. Estimated Number of Pinctada margaritifera at Risk of Project Related
Mortality at Echo Pier
Pier Face,
Habitat
Charlie Wall
Impact
Area
(square
feet)
416
Average
Density
(square
feet)
< 0.031
95%
U.C.L.
< 0.094
99%
U.C.L.
Avg.
Derived
Impact
(# Corals)
< 0.125
< 13
95 %
U.C.L.
Derived
Impact
(# Corals)
< 39
99 %
U.C.L.
Derived
Impact
(# Corals)
< 52
Note: Avg. = average; U.C.L = upper confidence limit; # = number; < = less than
P. margaritifera is a suspension filter feeder found in water that has a deficiency of plant
nutrients and that is usually accompanied by an abundance of dissolved oxygen with low
phytoplankton densities. Studies have shown it grows best in waters with low turbidities
(Yukihira, et al., 1999). Therefore, increased turbidity could adversely affect this oyster species.
If observed, individuals will be translocated to a suitable area outside the project area as
applicable. Based on the best available information, NMFS expects that after being relocated
on a suitable reef area away from the project site, and left undisturbed for a brief period, blacklipped pearl oysters would resume normal behaviors with no measurable impacts expected to
occur on those animals’ ability to forage. However, there would be a period of vulnerability to
displacement while the affected individuals are unattached to the reef and their ability to shelter
and avoid predators would be at least temporarily affected. Some species of scallops and some
4-8
December 2013
mussels can regenerate parted byssal threads. However, the literature is unclear about the
regeneration and reattachment of severed byssal threads in black-lipped pearl oysters. As
such, NMFS expects that some or all of the relocated pearl oysters may remain unattached
following relocation, and some of those individuals could experience mortality should they
become dislodged and exposed to predators or relocated to unfavorable conditions, such as
buried in silt. Less than 52 of these oysters are at risk of project-related mortality (National
Marine Fisheries Service, 2013). The College of The Marshall Islands has a Pinctada hatchery
for use in the commercial cultivation of the species in the RMI (Marshall Islands Journal, 2012).
The species has been shown to be adaptable to cultivation (handling and transport) with
success, so the probability of successful transplantation is good for this project. Any observed
individuals potentially at risk would be transplanted to suitable habitat which, while considered
an adverse effect, would minimize this number and thus limit the potential for Echo Pier
project related jeopardy to their continued existence. (National Marine Fisheries Service,
2012b)
A single Pinctada margaritifera was observed on Wall habitat at Charlie outside the transected
areas. Less than 52 of these oysters are at risk of project-related mortality. P. margaritifera
presence is broad in its geographic distribution amongst USAKA islets. Any observed
individuals potentially at risk would be transplanted to suitable habitat which would minimize this
number and thus limit the potential for Echo Pier project related jeopardy to their continued
existence. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013)
Fish, Sea Turtles, and Marine Mammals
Listed species of reef fish, scalloped hammerhead sharks, sea turtles, and cetaceans transiting
the project area could be affected by increased turbidities such as having limited foraging
success. Based on the description of the proposed action and on green sea turtle life history
characteristics, post-recruitment juvenile and adult green turtles sheltering and foraging on the
lagoon side of Kwajalein Islet are the life stages most likely to be affected by the expected high
intensity noise from pile driving. Based on the reported occurrence of hawksbill sea turtles in
island groups on all sides of the RMI, it is likely that they occur in low abundance around other
atolls and islands of the RMI, including Kwajalein. Since sea turtles and dolphins breathe air
instead of water, exposure to increased turbidity should not adversely affect their respiration or
other biological functions. The effects of exposure to increased turbidity are uncertain for
sharks and top snails, but exposure may have some energetic cost related to affected
respiration, with the adversity of the impact being directly proportional to the intensity and
duration of the exposure. Since project personnel would search the areas for presence of these
species prior to initiation of activities, they are all mobile species, and adjacent foraging areas
are present, there should be little change to foraging by the proposed activities. Ceasing
activities when the turbidities exceed 10 NTUs above background, containing the project areas
through the use of silt curtains, and having the project work area examined for the presence of
turtles, marine mammals, and scalloped hammerhead sharks before initiating project activities
should exclude these species from areas of high turbidities. (National Marine Fisheries Service,
2012a)
Only small amounts of sediment are expected to be periodically mobilized by the planned
sheetpile driving. Thus, it is expected that any elevated turbidity would be small in scope, short
in duration, and likely to remain completely within the silt curtain. Based on the expectation that
areal avoidance due to pile driving and other activities would be greater than the extent of
detectable turbidity plumes, it is unlikely that any sea turtles, dolphins, or sharks would
December 2013
4-9
approach close enough to the work area to be exposed to project-related elevated turbidity.
Based on this information, it is expected that exposure to elevated turbidity would have limited
effect on these UES-protected marine species. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a)
The methods for estimating impacts to Chromis viridis and the two Plectroglyphidodon species
differed slightly based on their distributional tendencies. Chromis viridis often aggregate in
branching corals whereas P. dickii and P. johnstonianus defend individual territories from
conspecifics and other species. Numbers of Chromis per colony were not measured but counts
on transects appeared to be fairly small. Chromis viridis recruits will settle in, but do not appear
to show preference for colonies occupied by adult conspecifics. Settlement of P. dickii and P.
johnstonianus is presumed to occur in suitable unoccupied corals for territory establishment. As
such, estimates for new recruits and egg numbers were based off every two individuals for
Chromis viridis and one individual for P. dickii and P. johnstonianus. Assuming 1,000 eggs and
a recruitment pulse 42 times the number of adult pairs/adults observed, estimates of Echo Pier
proposed impacts to the three UES consultation fish species are provided in Table 4-3.
Alternative 1 activities may adversely affect a low, but indeterminable number of Candidate reef
fish as shown in Table 4-3, but would not result in Echo Pier project related jeopardy to their
continued existence. (National Marine Fisheries, 2013)
Impacts to UES-protected fish are anticipated to be minimal, although any occupied colonies
encountered during coral translocation activities at Charlie, Delta and Echo will be relocated out
of harm’s way.
Table 4-3. Estimated Number of UES-Protected Fish at Risk of Echo Pier RenovationRelated Impact
Genus species
Chromis viridis
Plectroglyphidodon
dickii
Plectroglyphidodon
johnstonianus
Average.
No. Fish
4
95 %
U.C.L
9
99 %
U.C.L.
11
New
Recruits
84 to 252
No.
Eggs
2,000 to 6,000
≤3
≤8
≤8
≤ 168
≤ 4,000
≤ 41
≤ 122
≤ 162
≤ 81,000
Total:
≤ 48
≤ 139*
≤ 181*
≤ 3,402
84 to
3,822*
Foxtrot Bottom
(AZ)
Foxtrot Bottom
(MZ)
≤3
≤9
≤ 11
≤ 462
≤ 11,000
≤3
≤9
≤ 11
≤ 462
≤ 11,000
Habitat
Echo Bottom
Foxtrot Bottom
(PZ)
Foxtrot Bottom
(SZ)
2,000 to 91,000*
Source: National Marine Fisheries, 2013
Notes: (U.C.L. = upper confidence limit; No. = number; PZ = Porites Zone; SZ = Sand Zone; AZ = Acropora Zone; MZ
= Montipora Zone; * = summation of confidence limit derived estimates across habitats may affect associated levels
of confidence).
4-10
December 2013
Kwajalein Harbor contains stormwater drainage basins that flow into the harbor. The drainage
basins are a possible source of the PCBs/pesticides found in fish tissue. Kwajalein Harbor and
storm drains are located on the lagoon side of Kwajalein Island directly inland from Echo Pier.
This location has been the primary embarkation point for barges and ships for all of the islets in
the Kwajalein Atoll since the U.S. military assumed control of the atoll in 1944.
During the last several decades, human activities and industrial processes have contributed to
contaminants entering the harbor. The corrosive environment at Kwajalein necessitates routine
sandblasting to remove rust from equipment; previous investigations indicate that sandblasting
activities at the dry dock, the former vehicle paint and preparation shop, and sandblasting right
at Echo Pier provided the primary source of contamination into the harbor (U.S. Army
Environmental Hygiene Agency, 1991). Marine vessel coatings contain copper, butyltins, and/or
pesticides (as antifouling agents), lead (as a stabilizer), and PCBs (as a component of
coatings). Additionally, contaminants are suspected to migrate to the harbor via wind and
nonpoint-source runoff.
According to the U.S. Army Public Health Command (2012), harbor sediments contain metals
(chromium, lead, copper, and zinc), PCBs, and pesticides. PCBs and pesticides have been
detected in limited sections of the Kwajalein islet stormwater basins, and stormwater discharge
may be contributing to the contamination of harbor sediments. Sediment toxicity tests showed
that Kwajalein Harbor sediment was not toxic to a representative amphipod species.
Concentrations of metals in Halimeda algae were in line with concentrations reported in the
literature. Counts of Callianassa shrimp (volcano shrimp) were different in the three study
areas, but depth and distance from shore appeared to control the distribution, not the
concentration of metals. In addition to the turbidity monitoring that is required by the permit,
sediment samples should be collected after project completion and analyzed for metal,
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon and total organic carbon content. Post-construction sampling
will determine if contaminated sediment was dispersed to other previously clean locations within
and outside of the harbor. Any dredge spoils to be removed would be tested for the presence of
contaminants and handled in accordance with the KEEP and UES policy. All collected
contaminated concrete, soil, and sediments will be properly containerized and shipped to an offsite approved landfill for disposal/treatment. Hazardous wastes are consolidated at the
hazardous waste facility on Kwajalein (Facility No. 1521), packaged for shipment, and shipped
to the United States for disposal.
Construction wastes may include plastic trash and bags that may be ingested and cause
digestive blockage or suffocation, or if large enough, along with discarded sections of ropes and
lines, may entangle marine life. Equipment spills, discharges, and run-off from the project area
could contain hydrocarbon-based chemicals such as fuel oils, gasoline, lubricants, hydraulic
fluids and other toxicants, which could expose protected species to toxic chemicals. Depending
on the chemicals and their concentration, the effects of exposure may range between animals
temporarily avoiding an area, to death of the exposed animals. Local and Federal regulations
prohibit the intentional discharge of toxic wastes and plastics into the marine environment.
(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a) Section 4.1.4 lists Best Management
Practices/Mitigation Measures designed to ensure maximum protection to UES protected
species prior to initiation of project construct work and during project construction work.
December 2013
4-11
Additionally, USAKA has incorporated into their proposed action, conservation measures that
include measures intended to prevent the introduction of wastes and toxicants into the marine
environment (U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012a). Based on the
information above, we expect that construction-related discharges and spills would be
infrequent, small, and quickly cleaned if they do occur. Therefore, exposure to constructionrelated wastes and discharges may affect but would not adversely affect UES-protected marine
species.
Vessel Strike
Coral and Mollusk
The potential for vessel strike to species of coral or mollusk species requiring consultation in the
project area is discountable since they are found at depths that preclude collision.
Fish, Sea Turtles, and Marine Mammals
Fish are quick and agile swimmers and would likely avoid the work vessels. The smaller reef
fish present are associated with coral and thus would be at depths that preclude collision.
Vessel operators would alter course to remain at least 150 feet from visible scalloped
hammerhead sharks, sea turtles, and marine mammals. They would also reduce speed to 10
knots or less when in proximity to these species and less than 5 knots when in areas of known
or suspected scalloped hammerhead shark, sea turtle, or marine mammal presence.
Sea turtles and dolphins must surface to breathe, and they are known to rest or bask at or near
the surface. Therefore, when at or near the surface, they are at risk of being struck by projectrelated vessels or their propellers as the vessels transit to and from the project site. Potential
injuries and their severity will depend on the speed of the vessel, the part of the vessel that
strikes the animal, and the body part impacted. Injuries from boat strikes may include bruising,
broken bones or carapaces, and lacerations. The recovery plan for green sea turtles indicates
that boat collision is a major threat around the MHI. Although not identified as a significant risk
for either species in the RMI, the recovery plans for both turtle species suggest that the
incidence of collision is expected to increase as vessel size, speed, and traffic density
increases, or as animal density increases (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1998a; b). Existing information about sea turtle sensory biology suggests that
sea turtles rely more heavily on visual cues, rather than auditory input, to initiate threat
avoidance. Research also suggests that sea turtles cannot be expected to consistently notice
and avoid vessels that are traveling faster than 2 nm per hour. Consequently, vessel operators
must be responsible to actively watch for and avoid sea turtles, and to adjust their speed based
on expected animal density and on lighting and turbidity conditions to allow adequate reaction
time to avoid them. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a)
Any marine mammals in the immediate vicinity could exhibit behavioral changes as a result of
encountering vessels or noise associated with the Proposed Action. These changes could be
increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging. Most likely, the
marine mammals would move away from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from
the operations areas. Smaller marine mammals such as bottlenose and spotted dolphins move
quickly throughout the water column and are often seen riding the bow wave of large ships.
(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a)
4-12
December 2013
Based on the expected low density of scalloped hammerhead sharks, sea turtles, and small
cetaceans in the action area, the limited number of work vessels involved, low incidence of
previous collisions, protective measures to watch for and avoid protected species, and
adjustment of speeds when animals are present or suspected, the risk of collisions between
project-related vessels and protected species appears to be discountable.
Direct Impact
levels and relocation. Pavona bipartita and Porites horizontalata were identified on multiple
Echo Pier faces including Foxtrot and Bravo for P. horizontalata and Bravo for P. bipartita.
Transplantation of these and other UES protected species from Charlie, Delta, and Echo berths
should help reduce project related mortalities. The potential for impacts along Foxtrot and
Bravo have primarily been defined by the probability of falling construction debris hitting
resources, which may be very low (projected as 5 percent in the impact analysis). Thus,
transplantation of species from Bravo and Foxtrot may not be warranted particularly for corals a
fair distance from Wall replacement activities. However, specific construction protocols, such as
netting along Bravo and Foxtrot that could reduce the potential for deck debris to enter the
marine environment would be implemented. Thus while moving coral is considered an adverse
impact, project related jeopardy to any particular species’ existence at USAKA/RTS appears
unlikely due to favorable distribution data and site abundance.
Exposure to construction activities may startle sea turtles, dolphins, or sharks should they
encounter them. Sea turtle density is considered low in the proposed construction area, and no
hammerhead sharks have been reported during any of the in-water surveys of the area. The
sea turtles must be directly beneath the equipment in order to be injured or killed by direct
impact. Few sea turtles are expected to be near the pier under undisturbed conditions, and they
are likely to avoid the area due to the high level of in-water noise and human activity expected
to result from this action. Also, project personnel would watch for turtles, starting 30 minutes
prior to commencing work, with work being postponed or halted when turtles are within 150 feet.
It is expected that dolphins and scalloped hammerhead sharks would likely also avoid the pier
area, particularly during periods of work activity. Based on this, the most likely effect of this
interaction would be an avoidance behavior leading to an exposed animal temporarily leaving
the project area without injury. Additionally, the contractor would reduce the likelihood of this
interaction by watching for and avoiding protected species before commencing work and by
postponing or halting operations when protected species are within 150 feet (U.S. Army Space
and Missile Defense Command, 2012b). Based on the information above, we expect that
disturbances from human activity and equipment operation would be infrequent and thus may
affect, but would likely not adversely affect sea turtles, dolphins, or sharks. (National Marine
Fisheries Service, 2012a)
Entrapment
buried under fill) is unlikely to occur or affect the species present on existing piles and
sheetpiling since the areas would be checked for corals, mollusks, and small reef fish prior to
initiation of the activity. Any consultation species observed would be removed and transplanted
to suitable habitat. As a reasonable and prudent measure, the relocation of these species to
suitable substrate outside of the project area should reduce the impacts this stressor is
expected to have. Thus while moving coral is considered an adverse impact, project related
December 2013
4-13
jeopardy to any particular species’ existence at USAKA/RTS appears unlikely due to favorable
distribution data and site abundance.
Removal from Water
The proposed action is expected to result in the removal of underwater structures, the removal
sessile organisms from the dredging area. Black-lipped pearl oysters and coral are known to be
attached to structural members that would be removed or cleaned, and/or they are on the sea
floor where they may be affected by the debris removal. The project’s protective measures and
BMPs require that any individuals of these species would be carefully removed and relocated
outside of the construction area. The handling of these organisms is expected to cause some
level of stress and may also result in some level of injury. However, these species would be
handled in accordance with all applicable regulations and quickly re-submerged in water. Thus
the activities may affect coral and oysters, but are not expected to adversely affect them.
Exposure to Noise
The proposed action would result in temporary increased underwater noise levels. The
following sections give a description of the background or ambient noise within the Kwajalein
Lagoon, and the underwater noise sources expected to result from the proposed action. The
most significant sound sources are identified below, and have been analyzed for potential
effects to biological resources. Applicable biological thresholds and results from the analysis
are included.
Underwater Ambient Noise In the Kwajalein Lagoon, the underwater ambient noise level varies based upon the existing
noise sources present. Common sources of underwater noise include tidal currents and waves;
rain over the water surface; biological sources (e.g., marine mammals); and human-made
sounds (e.g., ships and boats). According to Richardson et al. (1995), ambient noise levels from natural sources typically vary
by as much as 20 decibels (dB) or more in response to numerous factors including wind and
sea conditions, seasonal biological cycles, and other physical conditions. At Kwajalein, ocean
currents and waves come primarily from the northeast, and can be severe during major storms
(U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, 2011). Noise
levels from natural sources can be as loud as 120 dB (re: 1 micropascal [μPa] at 1 meter) in
major storms (U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1998). Significant human-made noise sources within the region of influence are ship and vessel traffic
(see Figure 2-2). Vessel noise is primarily associated with the vessel’s propeller and propulsion
machinery. In general, noise levels increase with vessel size, speed, and load. Noise levels
from large ships can reach levels of 180-190 dB (re 1 μPa at 1 meter), whereas smaller vessels
range from approximately 100-160 dB (re 1 μPa at 1 meter) (U.S. Department of the Air Force,
1998). At distances greater than 3.3 feet, noise levels received diminish rapidly with increasing
distance (Richardson et al., 1995). 4-14
December 2013
Because Echo Pier is located in relatively shallow water (at a depth of approximately 37 feet at
mean low water), the underwater ambient noise level should also be estimated at 5 to 10 dB
higher than its deep water spectra counterparts (for frequencies higher than 500 Hz such as
shipping, sea state, and wind speed). (U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Ronald Reagan Ballistic
Missile Defense Test Site, 2011; Au and Hastings, 2008)
Proposed Action Underwater Noise Sources
Implementation of the Proposed Action would cause a temporarily increase in underwater noise
levels in the Kwajalein Lagoon. Expected sound sources resulting from the Proposed Action
include:








Vibratory Pile Driving (With Limited Use of Impact Pile Driving)
Existing Pile Cut-off (e.g., Saw or Torch)
Cap Beam and Pavement Concrete Work (Cast in Place)
Hydraulic Clam Shell Device (Debris Removal)
Presence of Divers/Human Activity
Movement of Equipment
Pneumatic Drills
Other Small Tools
The most significant sound source resulting from the proposed action is pile driving. Typical
piles that would be anticipated to be driven include: a king pile (12-inch steel H-pile) and a
sheet pile (24-inch steel AZ-pile). Because no site-specific noise measurements exist for pile
driving at Kwajalein Islet, this EA refers to the California Department of Transportation
(CALTRANS) Compendium with the expectation that reported sound levels would closely
approximate sound levels for similar piles, driven in a similar manner for this action.
Per the CALTRANS Compendium, the peak sound pressures from impact and vibratory driving
of a king pile would be approximately 195 dB and 165 dB respectively (California Department of
Transportation, 2007). Impact and vibratory driving of the sheet pile would result in 205 dB and
175 dB peak sound pressures respectively (California Department of Transportation, 2007).
Thus, because the sheet pile has much larger noise source levels when driven than the king
pile, this EA considers sheet pile driving to be the most significant sound source overall. The
action area as it is related to this proposed noise source is described below.
For all work other than pile driving, the action area is estimated to be the in-water area within a
50-yard arc around Echo Pier (in the Lagoon). During the proposed pile driving, the action area
is extended northward up to about 5,140 yards from the Pier to include the waters that may be
ensonified by pile driving noise capable of eliciting behavioral response in UES-protected
marine species (see Figure 4-1). This action area estimation stems from similar, previous work
completed for the Kwajalein BSR Biological Opinion (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a).
The information below is also derived from this resource.
This action area was calculated based on the assumption that pile driving (considered the most
significant sound source resulting from the Proposed Action) would be primarily completed
using a vibratory hammer. When necessary, an impact driver may be used in lieu of the
vibratory hammer to complete the driving of individual piles that encounter substantial
resistance but impact pile driving is expected to be limited.
December 2013
4-15
The in-water source level (SL) (i.e., the sound energy at 3.3 feet from the source) of impact pile
driving can be high, sometimes in excess of 200 dB (California Department of Transportation,
2007). Frequencies vary according to several factors, including the pile type, the substrate, and
the intensity of impact. The SL is also affected by pile type and the substrate, as well as the
impact energy. However, measured sound levels for individual pile driving events may vary
over time.
As previously mentioned, no site-specific noise measurements exist for pile driving at Kwajalein
Islet. Per the CALTRANS Compendium, impact-driving 24-inch steel sheet piles results in a
relatively broadband impulsive signal with most of the energy between 25 and 4,000 Hz, and a
source level of 205 dB peak, 190 dB root-mean-square (rms), and 180 dB Sound Exposure
Level (SEL). Signal analysis of vibratory-driving sheet piles indicates continuous broadband
sound between 400 and 2,500 Hz, and a source level of 175 dB peak, 160 dB rms, and 160 dB
SEL.
Using this peak source level information, back-calculations (based on RL = SL -15logR) from
received levels measured at 33 feet from representative pile types and drivers suggest the
isopleth ranges given in Table 4-4:
Table 4-4. Estimated Source Levels and Ranges to Effects Threshold
Isopleths for Proposed Pile Driving
Piling
24-inch Sheet
24-inch Sheet
Driver
Impact
Vibratory
SL
205 dB
175 dB
Range to 180 dB
154 feet
N/A
Range to 160 dB
3,281 feet
N/A
Range to 120 dB
N/A
5,140 yards
The source levels and isopleths (line drawn on a map through all points of equal value) noted in
Table 4-4 are expected to be conservative. Kwajalein Harbor is situated in shallow water on the
lagoon side of the island and is protected from strong currents and large waves, although some
tidal fluctuations occur. The harbor substrate is primarily sand; however, it varies from finedgrained soft sediments to rock and coral substrates. Near Echo Pier coarse sediments, rubble,
and debris were observed. Fine sediments were observed beneath Echo Pier. The near-shore
areas of the harbor are characterized by coarser grained sediments, sand and rocks. Because
the consolidated carbonate-based substrate at Kwajalein is relatively soft compared to the
substrates at the project sites described in the CALTRANS Compendium, the estimated source
levels are probably louder that what would actually occur at Echo Pier. As such, the use of the
CALTRANS source levels in calculating isopleths is considered conservative. Ranges to the
isopleths were calculated according to applicable biological thresholds.
Applicable Biological Thresholds
intensity, and duration of the sound source, and the hearing characteristics of the exposed
animal. Exposure to very high levels of sound can cause soft tissue injuries that could directly
result in fatality. Exposure to lower levels may cause injury in the form of permanent hearing
damage, also referred to as permanent threshold shift (PTS). Exposure to lower levels may
cause behavioral effects that include temporary threshold shifts (TTS), temporarily masked
communications and/or acoustic environmental cues, and areal avoidance.
4-16
December 2013
To assess the potential impact of a sound on marine resources, impacts will be assessed based
on the dB rms of an acoustic pulse. This is the portion of a pulse that contains 90 percent of the
sound pressure.
The cetacean PTS threshold for exposure to in-water sounds is ≥180 dB rms (i.e., Level A
Harassment - zone of hearing loss, discomfort, or injury). Exposure to impulsive in-water
sounds at ≥160 dB rms is the TTS threshold for all marine mammals, whereas the TTS
threshold for exposure to non-impulsive sound (continuous noise) is ≥120 dB rms (i.e., Level B
Harassment-inducing behavioral reactions) per Table 4-5.
Table 4-5. In-Water Sounds - Biological Thresholds Under MMPA
Biological
Resource
Level A
Harassment
Level
Level B Harassment Level
All Marine
Mammals and
Sea Turtles
≥180 dB rms re.
1 μPa
≥160 dB rms re. 1 μPa Impulsive
Sound
≥120 dB rms re. 1 μPa
Non-Impulsive Sound
Pinnipeds
≥190 dB rms re.
1 μPa
See All Marine Mammals
Applicable to the
Proposed Action?
Yes
Yes
N/A – No seals or sea
lions expected to be
exposed to this action.
In the absence of specific threshold criteria for turtles, this EA follows NMFS’ approach in
applying the marine mammal thresholds (a conservative approach in favor of the turtles). Table
4-6 lists the applicable biological thresholds for fish.
Table 4-6. In-Water Sounds - Biological Thresholds For Fish
Biological
Resource
Fish
Fish (2 grams or
larger)
Fish (under 2
grams)
Onset of TTS or Adverse Effects
SPL ≥206 dB Peak re. 1 μPa Impulsive Sound
SEL of 187 dB Peak re. 1 μPa2*sec
Impulsive Sound
SEL of 183 dB Peak re. 1 μPa2*sec
Non-Impulsive Sound
Applicable to the Proposed
Action?
Yes
Yes
Yes
In this table, SPL is the peak sound pressure level and SEL is the cumulative sound exposure
level or the accumulated exposure over all pile strikes, typically over the entire day (Stadler and
Woodbury, 2009).
Potential Effects to Biological Resources
This EA addresses the expected behavioral responses of corals, mollusks, fish, marine
mammals, and sea turtles to noise created by the Proposed Action, assesses the likelihood of
effects and notes the appropriate mitigation techniques to be employed.
December 2013
4-17
Coral and Mollusks. Corals and oysters, with limited capacity for sound detection, would not
be affected by the acoustic energy imparted to the water by the use of hydraulic vibratory pile
driving or any required clam-shell dredging and are thus not addressed in this analysis.
Fish/Sharks. There are no criteria for assessing injurious or behavioral effects to fish from
acoustic energy. Results of long-duration studies of fish exposed to increases in background
anthropogenic noises suggest little to no effect to hearing generalists such as sharks. (National
Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a)
Based on the description of the proposed action and on scalloped hammerhead life history
characteristics, juvenile scalloped hammerheads sheltering and foraging in the shallow waters
on the lagoon side of Kwajalein Islet is the life stage most likely to be affected by the expected
high intensity noise from pile driving (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a). Research into
scalloped hammerhead hearing is limited. However, like all fish, sharks have two sensory
systems used to detect sound in the water; the inner ear, and the lateral line. The inner ear
generally detects higher frequency sounds while the lateral line is sensitive to low-frequency
water movement (below a few hundred hertz). Data collected to date suggest shark hearing is
specialized for low frequencies, with a hearing range of 200 to 1,000 Hz. Sharks are also
considered hearing generalists, which are limited to detection of the particle motion component
of low frequency sounds at relatively high sound intensities. (National Marine Fisheries Service,
2012a)
Because the hearing range of scalloped hammerheads likely overlaps with the expected
frequency range of the pile driving signals, NMFS considers it likely that these sharks can hear
and respond to pile driving noise. Based on the description of the proposed action and on
scalloped hammerhead life history characteristics, juvenile scalloped hammerheads sheltering
and foraging in the shallow waters on the lagoon side of Kwajalein Islet is the life stage most
likely to be affected by the expected high intensity noise from pile driving. Information is
currently unavailable to estimate the number of hammerhead sharks within the action area.
Based on the available information about these animals in the RMI, NMFS expects that a low
but unknowable number of scalloped hammerheads may occur in the action area. (National
Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a)
However, it is unlikely that scalloped hammerhead sharks would get close enough to the project
area to be exposed to injurious noise using the BMPs and mitigation measures listed previously,
and in Section 4.1.4. Additionally, since there are no behavioral take criteria, none are
anticipated as a result of the project. Results of long-duration studies of fish exposed to
increases in background anthropogenic noises suggest little to no effect to hearing generalists.
Thus, it is expected that although the increase in noise created by the pier repair may affect
scalloped hammerhead sharks, it is unlikely to adversely affect them. No injurious effects are
anticipated. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a)
Sea Turtles. No turtles or marine mammals were observed during the surveys. However,
green and hawksbill sea turtles have been previously noted within the harbor area (National
Marine Fisheries Service, 2013). Although sea turtle hearing research is limited, available
information about sea turtle sensory biology suggests that they are low frequency specialists,
with greens thought to be most acoustically sensitive between 200 and 700Hz. Existing
information also suggests that sea turtles rely more heavily on visual cues, rather than auditory,
to initiate threat avoidance (Hazel, 2009). However, because the hearing range of green sea
4-18
December 2013
turtles overlaps with the expected frequency range of the pile driving signals, NMFS considers it
likely that they can hear and respond to pile driving noise. (National Marine Fisheries Service,
2012a)
Based on the description of the Proposed Action and on green sea turtle life history
characteristics, post-recruitment juveniles and adults sheltering and foraging on the lagoon side
of Kwajalein Islet are the life stages most likely to be affected by the expected high intensity
noise from pile driving. Because the green sea turtles found around Kwajalein Islet are likely to
migrate widely between their preferred forage and nesting areas, the proposed action may
affect green sea turtles from multiple Nesting Aggregations across a broad area of the south
and western Pacific. Information is currently unavailable to estimate the number of sea turtles,
but NMFS expects that low but unknowable numbers of green and hawksbill sea turtles occur
regularly within the action area. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a)
To mitigate any potential effects, observers, using binoculars, will be posted along the shore in
the immediate vicinity of Echo Pier and will focus the majority of their attention on the area
within the mandatory shutdown safety zone, with periodic scans beyond 150 feet to maintain
situational awareness. It is also possible that sea turtles in the vicinity of Echo Pier are already
habituated to moderate levels of anthropogenic noise, such as from vessels in transit, in excess
of 120 dB. Continuous noise will only occur intermittently within the repair period (a few hours a
day); therefore, permanent displacement or long-term effects are unlikely.
Observations will be made starting 60 minutes prior to the initiation of pile driving, prior to the
resumption of any work following any break of more than 30 minutes, and periodically
throughout the work day.
If a sea turtle is seen in the water within the safety zone, in-water work will cease until the
animal has exited the safety zone or 15 minutes has passed without redetection of the animal in
the safety zone. With the exception of pile begun, that work may continue if, in the best
judgment of the project supervisor, the animal(s) will not be adversely affected by the activity.
For example; divers performing surveys or minor underwater work would likely be permissible,
whereas operation of heavy equipment is not.
The repair activities could affect any green or hawksbill sea turtles present in the project
ensonification area. However, with the use of BMPs/mitigations, the activities may affect but are
not likely to injuriously affect individual sea turtles.
Cetaceans. The behavioral responses of marine mammals to sound depend on a number of
factors, including (1) the acoustic characteristics of the noise source of interest, (2) the physical
and behavioral state of the animals at the time of exposure, (3) the ambient acoustic and
ecological characteristics of the environment, and (4) the context of the sound (e.g., does it
sound like a predator) (California Department of Transportation, 2007; Richardson, et al., 1995;
Southall, et al. 2007; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a).
Bottlenose, Common, Risso’s, Spinner, Pantropical spotted, and Striped dolphins use
echolocation to locate and capture prey. Melon-headed whales also rely heavily on the acoustic
environment. The BSR Biological Opinion notes that for each of the above species listed, the
range of their acoustic sensitivity overlaps with the expected frequency range of the proposed
December 2013
4-19
pile driving signals. As such, NMFS considers it likely that these dolphins can hear and respond
to pile driving noise. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a)
Information is currently unavailable to estimate the number of dolphins within the action area.
Based on the available information about these animals in the RMI, NMFS expects that dolphins
are uncommon within the action area. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a)
Small cetaceans (dolphins) have only been anecdotally seen in the lagoon near Kwajalein. Yet
because of the potential to affect these species, several mitigation measures (see Section 4.1.3)
would be undertaken to reduce and/or minimize exposure. These include looking for the
species in the project area (out to 150 feet) prior to beginning pile driving and not initiating the
actions unless clear of these species or until the organisms have exited the area for some time
(e.g., 15 minutes); using a “soft start” technique for pile driving by beginning a driving session
with the lowest power possible and hammering at a low rate, then increasing energy and rate to
that desired; and maintaining a watch for the species in the project area out to 150 feet while
pile driving and if they enter the area to cease the activities until the animals exit the project
area. If sea turtles or small cetaceans are sighted in the project area, all vessels transiting or
working in the area would be notified of their presence. Construction crews would undergo site
introductions and briefings by appropriately qualified personnel that would cover the procedures
to be used to mitigate potential effects. In addition, pile driving would occur during daylight
hours only.
Construction crews would undergo site introductions and briefings by appropriately qualified
personnel that would cover the procedures to be used to mitigate or minimize potential effects.
Observers will be tasked with recording all sightings of scalloped hammerhead sharks, sea
turtles, or marine mammals that occur during the proposed project. Information collected will
include species, any recognizable individual characteristics, if possible to discern; time, location
and approximated distance from the observer to the species; species behavior; any impact the
sighting had on work activities such as delays or shutdowns, and whether the species was at a
sufficient distance that work continued. The project area would be scanned for the presence of
scalloped hammerhead sharks, sea turtles, and small cetaceans during the renovation activities.
When any of these are present (within 150 feet) of the project area, activities would cease until
they exit the area and 15 minutes have passed without re-detection. The repair activities could
affect any marine mammal present in the project ensonification area. However, with the use of
BMPs/mitigations, the activities may affect but are not likely to injuriously affect individual
marine mammals.
The past and present impacts of human and natural factors leading to the status of UESprotected species within the action area include coastal development, direct take (described
above), fishing interactions, vessel strikes (described above), marine debris, and climate
change. Kwajalein is highly developed, and largely covered by an airfield, housing, and other
facilities. Kwajalein Harbor is situated in shallow water on the lagoon side of the island and is
protected from strong currents and large waves, although some tidal fluctuations occur. The
harbor substrate is primarily sand; however, it varies from fined-grained soft sediments to rock
and coral substrates. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a)
4-20
December 2013
The sea floor adjacent to Echo Pier has been dredged for the supply barges and other vessels
(Figure 2-2) that access the pier, and consists primarily of coarse sediments, rubble, and debris.
Fine sediments were observed beneath Echo Pier.
Direct take through harvest continues in the RMI for several of the species covered by this
consultation, but no information is currently available to quantify the level of impact direct take is
having on consultation species in the action area. Sea turtles are considered a food source in
the RMI, and turtles continue to play an important cultural role in the lives of the Marshallese.
However, the level of exploitation is unknown, and no concerted research or management effort
has been made to conserve turtles in the RMI. The harvest of turtles and their eggs is believed
to continue on most of the inhabited islands and islets of the RMI, with the possible exception of
the USAKA-controlled islets, where access is limited and the UES prohibits those activities.
Although RMI nationals are unlikely to take mollusk species from USAKA-controlled islets, some
of these mollusks are likely taken by U.S. personnel who are unaware of their status as UESprotected species. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a)
fishing for coral reef and pelagic species. Contemporary fishing methods include: boat-based
and land-based hook-and-line fishing (handline or rod-and-reel), net fishing (cast, gill, drag, and
surround net), spear fishing, hook and gaff, and gleaning. Nearshore fisheries occasionally
result in entanglement and drowning of sea turtles. Gillnets are the most problematic for turtles,
because the nets are left untended, and entangled animals usually drown. Hook-and-line
fishing also hooks or entangles turtles, but the chance of survival is higher than if caught in a
gillnet. In a study of stranded green sea turtles in Hawaii (stranded turtles are injured, sick, or
dead turtles found on shore), the second and third most common known causes of stranding
were fishing related. Hook-and-line fishing gear-induced trauma accounted for 7 percent, and
gillnet fishing gear-induced trauma was responsible for 5 percent. However, most sea turtles
drowned in fishing gear probably sink rather than strand, making it very difficult to estimate the
total number of green sea turtles killed annually by nearshore fishing interactions, even in
Hawaii where turtles are much better monitored and studied than in the RMI (National Marine
Fisheries Service, 2008). These fisheries could also interact with scalloped hammerhead
sharks and dolphins, but there is currently no evidence to suggest that this has yet occurred in
or near the action area. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a)
Marine debris continues to accumulate in the ocean and along shorelines within the action area.
Turtles may become entangled and drown, and ingested trash may cause intestinal blockage
and death. Between October 2004 and September 2008, the American Samoa Department of
Marine and Wildlife Resources necropsied four green sea turtles that stranded on Tutuila. Two
of those turtles had plastic and aluminum in their guts. However, because only a small percent
of dead or dying sea turtles strand, little information is available to adequately quantify the
impacts on green and hawksbill sea turtles that may result from ingestion of marine debris.
Although no documentation is available to describe ingestion for turtles in the RMI, it is
reasonable to expect that turtles here and elsewhere are equally likely to ingest marine debris
they encounter as are turtles in American Samoa. Sharks and marine mammals are also known
to ingest marine debris and trash they mistake for food, or in the case of dolphins, they may
ingest debris they play with. Accumulated marine debris on nesting beaches can also impede
nesting success by altering nest excavation and through potential entrapment of hatchlings
under debris that is inadvertently buried over them when the nesting female covers the clutch.
December 2013
4-21
Climate change refers to distinct long-term changes in measures of climate, such as
temperature, rainfall, snow, or wind patterns lasting for decades or longer. Climate change may
result from natural factors, such as changes in the Sun’s energy or slow changes in the Earth’s
orbit around the Sun; natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean
circulation); and human activities that change the atmosphere’s makeup (e.g., burning fossil
fuels) and the land surface (e.g., cutting down forests, planting trees, building developments in
cities and suburbs, etc.), also known as anthropogenic climate change. The global mean
temperature has risen 1.4 oF over the last 150 years, and the linear trend over the last 50 years
is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. Sea level rose approximately 6.7 inches during the
20th century and further increases are expected. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a)
Climate change is a global phenomenon, so resultant impacts have likely been occurring in the
action area. However, scientific data describing impacts in the action area are lacking, and no
climate change-related impacts on UES-protected species within the action area have been
reported to date. Climate change is likely beginning to affect sea turtles found in the action area
through the impacts of rising sand temperatures, rising sea level, and changes in ocean
temperature and chemistry. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a)
Climate change-induced elevated water temperatures, altered oceanic chemistry, and rising sea
level may be contributing to changes to coral reef and seagrass ecosystems that provide resting
and foraging habitat for some sea turtles, although it is difficult to distinguish impacts of climaterelated stresses from other stresses that produce more prominent short term effects. Climate
change-induced shifts in ocean productivity linked to temperature changes may affect foraging
strategies and therefore reproductive capacity for sea turtles, similar to what has been observed
during El Niño events in the Pacific. These shifts in abundance of foraging resources are also
directly linked to observed modifications in phenology for sea turtles such as longer re-migration
intervals. However, at this time it is only possible to speculate as to the implications of such
impacts. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a)
Changes in reproductive capacity and temporal shifts of nesting activity associated with
changing environmental conditions have not been studied specifically in the action area.
Climate change may affect sea turtles through range expansion or reduction and changes in
migration routes. Leatherbacks have extended their northern range in the Atlantic by 178 nm in
the last 17 years as warming has caused the northerly migration of the 59°F sea surface
temperature isotherm, the lower limit of their thermal tolerance (McMahon and Hays 2006).
Similar studies on changes in migration routes have not been done for green and hawksbill sea
turtles in the Pacific. Therefore, it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty whether or
not, or to what degree their migration routes and ranges have been or may be affected.
Climate change is likely beginning to affect dolphins and sharks found in the action area through
the impacts of changes in ocean temperature and chemistry, and possibly by rising sea level.
As with sea turtles, the ranges of cetaceans and sharks may be affected by changes in water
temperature resulting from global climate change. Changes in ocean productivity linked to
temperature changes, as described above for sea turtles, could also affect the dolphins and
shark considered in this consultation. Dolphins and sharks may encounter reduced prey in
current foraging areas. Although oceanic cetaceans are unlikely to be directly affected by sea
level rise, important habitats for coastal species and species that require coastal bays and
lagoons could be adversely affected in the future. Loss of shallow coastal habitats could impact
4-22
December 2013
scalloped hammerhead reproduction through its dependence on shallow inshore waters to give
birth and to support their young. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a)
Changes in ocean temperature and chemistry, and rising sea level, may be affecting top-shell
snails in the action area, but no specific information is currently available to assess the impacts.
Globally, thermal stress due to rising water temperatures has already had significant effects on
the coral reefs around the world, and top-shell snails depend on those reefs. As the
atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased, there has been a corresponding
reduction in the pH of ocean waters (acidification). As ocean acidity increases, the calcium
carbonate saturation state of the water decreases. Increased ocean acidity has the potential to
lower the calcium carbonate saturation state enough to slow calcification in most corals and
may increase bioerosion of coral reefs. It is thought to adversely affect fertilization and larval
settlement for corals, and tends to decrease growth and calcification rates. (National Marine
Attempting to determine whether recent biological trends are causally related to anthropogenic
climate change is complicated because non-climatic influences dominate local, short-term
biological changes. However, the meta-analyses of 334 species and the global analyses of
1,570 species show highly significant, nonrandom patterns of change in accord with observed
climate warming in the twentieth century. In other words, it appears that these trends are being
influenced by climate change-related phenomena, rather than being explained by natural
variability or other factors. However, the implications of these changes are not clear in terms of
population level impacts, and data specific to the action area are lacking. Over the long-term,
climate change-related impacts could influence the biological trajectories of UES-protected
species on a century scale. However, due to a lack of scientific data, the specific effects climate
change could have on these species in the future are not predictable or quantifiable to any
degree that would allow for more detailed analysis in this consultation. (National Marine
those resources. The proposed reconstructed pier would remain within the current pier
footprint. The benthic habitat in that area consists primarily of course sands and rubble. It
provides little to no forage value for turtles, dolphins, or sharks, but may provide some resource
value for the black-lipped oyster. The existing seawall to be enclosed within the new seawall is
covered by various species of corals, turf algae, sponges, and tunicates. This likely provides
some forage resources for sea turtles and top snails. However, higher value habitats for all of
these species are readily available on the natural reef areas immediately nearby, and the loss of
resources on the seawall is expected to be temporary because the resources would likely grow
back over time. Because the area of permanently lost habitat would be small and it provides
low-value habitat for the protected species under consideration, and because high value natural
habitat is readily available nearby, the loss or degradation of the small amount of sheltering and
forage habitat due to this action should have limited adverse effects on UES-protected marine
species. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a)
December 2013
4-23
It is anticipated that a mechanical clamshell would be used for debris removal. All debris
removal activities within the existing footprint of the pier and an area 200 feet out from the pier
would be in an area previously dredged and must meet the requirements and limitations of the
existing Dredging and Filling DEP (U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile
Defense Test Site, 2011). As part of this method, silt curtains would be in place at all times to
limit turbidity levels in the surrounding waters. The debris removed from under the pier could be
placed on a barge stationed just outside of, and against, the silt curtain for disposal or moved
temporarily to an area suggested by USAKA Environmental adjacent to the existing pier location
to allow for some drying of the material prior to reloading and transportation to the proposed
containment site by truck.
The full length of the dogleg portion of Echo Pier, approximately 800 feet, would be repaired by
installing new perimeter steel sheet piles, and backfilling behind them to create a fill pier. The
sheet pilings would be driven into the seabed. To reduce the amount of potential settlement of
the backfill, soft and loose harbor deposits at the mudline may need to be removed from within
the new sheet pile areas before backfilling. The area proposed for backfilling would be
inspected prior to its onset, and any species identified there would be moved and transplanted
to other suitable habitat to the maximum extent possible. Proposed activities may thus
adversely affect a low, but indeterminable number of UES-protected marine species, but would
not result in Echo Pier project related jeopardy to their continued existence.
associated with the project, isolated protected coral colonies on the bottom under or adjacent to
the pier along most of Bravo and Foxtrot should be avoided through means (like netting) other
than transplantation minimization efforts where possible. No critical habitat has been
established at USAKA/RTS.
4.1.2
filling in marine habitat under Charlie and Echo, while Alternative 2 removes and replaces the
piles. In terms of potential loss of marine organisms within the direct footprint, the immediate
impacts were proposed and were modeled to be the same. There may be some disparity in
levels and types of noise produced. However, the obvious difference in temporal loss of marine
habitat with Alternative 1 being “permanent” fill may make Alternative 2 the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013)
Vegetation
Impacts to marine vegetation would be the same as those resulting from implementation of
Alternative 1 since the same laydown and building sites would be used.
Wildlife
Marine
Impacts to marine species such as corals, mollusks, fish, sea turtles, and cetaceans would be
similar to those resulting from implementation of Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would require
4-24
December 2013
replacing deteriorated existing pile foundations in the dogleg portion of the pier with 24-inch
octagonal piles using hydraulic or diesel impact hammers thus resulting in noise spread over an
additional period of time.
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species
Impacts to consultation marine species such as corals, mollusks, fish, sea turtles, and
cetaceans would be similar to those resulting from implementation of Alternative 1. Driven pile
foundations as part of Alternative 2 would be installed in the dogleg portion of the pier using
hydraulic or diesel impact hammers. Pile driving would occur during daylight hours only.
associated with the project, isolated protected coral colonies along most of Bravo and Foxtrot
should be avoided through means (like netting) other than transplantation minimization efforts
where possible.. No critical habitat has been established at USAKA/RTS.
4.1.3
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Table 4-7 provides a summary of the potential for impacts to UES-protected marine species as
a result of proposed Echo Pier repair activities.
Table 4-7. Summary of Potential Echo Pier Renovation-Related Impacts
Stressor
Turbidity and/or
Sedimentation
Vessel Strike
December 2013
Species Type
Coral
Mollusk
Fish
Sea Turtle
Marine Mammal
Coral
Mollusk
Fish
Sea Turtle
Marine Mammal
No
Effect
May Affect but
Not Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Likely to
Result in
Jeopardy to
Species
X1
X1
No
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-25
Table 4-7. Summary of Potential Echo Pier Renovation-Related Impacts (Continued)
Stressor
Direct Impacts
Entrapment
Species Type
Coral
Mollusk
Fish
Sea Turtle
Marine Mammal
Coral
No
Effect
Exposure to Noise
Exposure to
Wastes and
Discharges
General
Disturbance
Loss or
Degradation of
Shelter and/or
Forage Resources
Coral
Mollusk
Fish
Sea Turtle
Marine Mammal
Coral
Mollusk
Fish
Sea Turtle
Marine Mammal
Note:
4-26
Likely to
Result in
Jeopardy to
Species
No
No
X1
X1
X1
No
No
No
X1
X1
No
No
X
X
X
No
No
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Coral
X
Mollusk
Fish
Sea Turtle
Marine Mammal
X
X
X
X
Coral
Mollusk
Fish
Sea Turtle
Marine Mammal
X
X
X
X
X
Coral
X
Mollusk
Fish
Sea Turtle
X
X
X
Marine Mammal
1
Likely to
Adversely
Affect
X1
X1
X
X
X
Mollusk
Fish
Sea Turtle
Marine Mammal
Removal from
Water
May Affect but
Not Likely to
Adversely
Affect
X
December 2013
4.1.4
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/MITIGATION MEASURES
The following are lists of specific BMPs/mitigation measures to be used for the Echo Pier repair.
Their implementation should ensure maximum protection to UES protected species, such as
coral, Pinctada margaritifera, Candidate species of reef fish, scalloped hammerhead sharks,
sea turtles, and marine mammals.
a. Large non-UES-protected coral colonies and mollusks present in the project area
and deemed easily movable by divers will be translocated to a suitable area outside
of the project area in accordance with agency regulations or direction.
b. After completion of the Biological Opinion, and with NMFS concurrence and
guidance, UES-protected coral colonies and mollusks will be translocated to a
suitable area outside of the project area.
out of the water, contractors will ensure that absorbent containment booms will
be employed to contain any potential spills and that any fuel spilled will be
cleaned up immediately;
(4) Develop and implement a plan to prevent construction debris from entering or
protocols, such as netting along Bravo and Foxtrot, could reduce the potential for
deck debris to enter the marine environment would be implemented;
(5) Develop and implement a contingency plan for the removal and adequate
securing of equipment in the event of approaching storms; and
December 2013
4-27
during pier repair activities (particularly pile driving) and will focus the majority of their
attention on the area within 150 feet of the pier, with periodic scans beyond 150 feet
to maintain situational awareness. Observations will be made starting 60 minutes
prior to the initiation of pile driving, prior to the resumption of any work following any
break of more than 30 minutes, and periodically throughout the work day.
With the exception of pile driving, if UES-protected marine species are noticed within
150 feet after work has already begun, that work may continue if, in the best
judgment of the project supervisor, the animal(s) will not be adversely affected by the
activity. For example, divers performing surveys or minor underwater work would
likely be permissible, whereas operation of heavy equipment is not.
sharks sea turtles, or marine mammals that occur during the proposed project.
continued.
curtains would be in place at all times as required to limit turbidity levels in the
surrounding waters. It may not be practical for the turbidity curtain to extend to the
bottom due to tidal changes. The curtains would blow inwards during a rising tide
and out during an ebb tide. These silt curtains would encompass the dogleg portion
of the pier during dredging, so sediment impacts are limited to the dredged areas,
and all associated equipment and typically extend from the water surface to a couple
of feet from the bottom, without losing effectiveness or impacting surrounding waters.
During re-decking, the entire pier might be enclosed if needed.
f.
Turbidity will be monitored within 164 feet of the pier on at least a daily basis. If the
water surface.
h. When piloting construction related vessels within the Echo Pier area, construction
related vessel operators shall alter course to remain at least 150 feet from visible
scalloped hammerhead sharks, sea turtles, or marine mammals and 300 feet from
whales.
i.
4-28
Within the Echo Pier area, construction-related vessel speed will be reduced to 10
December 2013
be reduced to 5 knots or less when piloting vessels in areas of known or suspected
sea turtle or marine mammal activity.
j.
If approached by a scalloped hammerhead shark, sea turtle, or marine mammal
within the lagoon, construction-related vessel operators will put the vessel engine in
neutral and allow the animal to pass.
k. Scalloped hammerhead sharks, sea turtles, or marine mammals will not be
intentionally encircled or trapped among multiple vessels or between vessels and the
shore;
l.
All objects to be placed in the water or substrate will be lowered to the bottom in a
m. In-water tethers, as well as mooring lines for vessels, marker buoys or other devices
remains, if needed.
that work.
hour or less.
minutes to ensure it is clear of scalloped hammerhead sharks, sea turtles, and
marine mammals. Pile driving will not commence until the observers have declared
the safety zone clear of any of these species.
shall cease immediately, regardless of their effect to the noted injured organism.
The contractor will immediately report to USAKA all incidents of known or possible
December 2013
4-29
f.
USAKA will report any scalloped hammerhead shark, sea turtle, or marine mammal
if needed.
4.2
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The RMI Historic Preservation Officer (RMI HPO) has been consulted about the proposed
rehabilitation of Echo Pier and has expressed a preference for rehabilitation Alternative 1 (see
Section 2.2.1). To the extent feasible, renovation of Echo Pier will be undertaken in accordance
with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The RMI HPO has
concurred with all aspects of the cultural resources analysis, including both a Historic
Engineering Record (HER ) report and a CRE, for the rehabilitation of Echo Pier and a copy of
the consultation letter is provided in Appendix B, Correspondence.
4.2.1
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As proposed, project activities that would require ground disturbing activities include
construction of the new onshore stevedore facility and demolition and removal of 1,660 square
feet of concrete along Marine Road. Use of two construction staging (laydown) areas would not
require ground disturbance. With the exception of laydown Option 2, all of these areas are
heavily disturbed from previous construction and/or facility demolition and situated within an
area of Kwajalein Island that was dredged and filled after 1944. These areas have no potential
for subsurface archaeological remains; therefore, no historic properties will be affected and no
archaeological monitoring is required.
Laydown Option 2 is situated within the original shoreline of Kwajalein Island in an area that has
been determined to be low sensitivity for archaeological resources (Environmental Office,
United States Army Kwajalein Atoll 2006). Three archaeological sites have been identified
within the general area; however, none are within the staging area footprint and there is no
ground disturbance proposed. In accordance with the USAKA Historic Preservation Plan
(Environmental Office, United States Army Kwajalein Atoll 2006), areas of low archaeological
sensitivity do not require pre-project inspection or archaeological monitoring; however, the
project supervisor is responsible for reporting any cultural resources encountered during project
activities. As a result, the potential for this project to affect historic properties is extremely low.
4.2.2
HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
Echo Pier
Battlefield (a U.S. National Historic Landmark) (Thompson, 1985) that is also listed in the RMI
National Register as a historic structure (Mead 2012a and b; Messing, 2012). During this
project, Echo Pier will undergo significant structural repair and renovation and the installation of
4-30
December 2013
new utility lines; however, the structure has necessarily experienced repeated renovations since
its original construction (see Figure 1-4 and Figure 4-2, including a $3.2 million renovation in the
1970s (Thompson, 1985). Many of the original features have been repaired or replaced and the
entire pier has been resurfaced. The original World War II Japanese gun emplacement was
demolished because of damage suffered during the Operation Flintlock invasion in 1944 and
none of the facilities currently located atop the pier are elements of the structure’s original
construction. Other than a few remnants of the pier’s original submerged foundation and the
overall shape of the structure, which will not be altered during the rehabilitation, very few original
features remain. During a U.S. National Park Service visit to Kwajalein Island in 1989, the
Maritime Historian noted that “Kwajalein bears no resemblance to its World War II appearance:
the scattered, isolated wartime resources that remain convey a limited sense of what happened
there” (Delgado, 1989).
Proactively, the existing conditions of the structure have been documented using the general
guidelines and format developed by the U.S. National Park Service for short form HER Reports.
The report includes a historical and construction narrative and historical and modern
photographs and maps (KAYA Associates, Inc., 2013a). Both the HER Report and a CRE
prepared specifically for the rehabilitation of the pier were submitted to the RMI HPO for review
and the RMI concurred with both reports. As a result, the proposed rehabilitation of Echo Pier
will have no adverse effects on Echo Pier.
Facility Demolition
FNs 605, 620, 621, and an unnumbered pier shed are proposed for demolition as part of this
project. To determine the appropriate APE, all of these facilities have been assessed for
possible historical significance in a CRE specifically prepared for this project and determined to
be not eligible for inclusion in either the U.S. or RMI National Registers (KAYA Associates, Inc.,
2013a). Based on a lack of architectural and historical significance, the proposed demolition of
FNs 605, 620, 621, and the unnumbered shed would have no effect on historic properties.
Facility Relocation/Reinstallation
FN 611 is proposed for temporary relocation and then reinstallation following pier completion.
To determine the appropriate APE, this facility has been assessed for possible historical
significance in a CRE specifically prepared for this project and determined to be not eligible for
inclusion in either the U.S. or RMI National Registers (KAYA Associates, Inc., 2013a). Based
on a lack of architectural and historical significance, the proposed temporary relocation/
reinstallation of FN 611 would have no effect on historic properties.
Modification of FN 783 (Finger Piers)
FN 783 (Alpha Pier) is a grouping of finger piers that will be used to temporarily moor ships
while Echo Pier is being renovated. To accommodate this use, minor, temporary modifications
to the piers will be required. The historical significance of the piers was evaluated in the CRE
along with the facilities that will be demolished and, based on a lack of architectural and
historical significance, determined to be not eligible for inclusion in either the U.S. or RMI
National Registers (KAYA Associates, Inc., 2013a). As a result, modification of FN 783 will
have no effect on historic properties.
December 2013
4-31
EXPLANATION
Echo Pier Historic
Alterations
Kauai, Hawaii
Figure 4-2
4-32
December 2013
4.2.3
UNDERWATER RESOURCES
Hydrographic surveys within a 200-foot area around Echo Pier were conducted in August 2012
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District, 2012a). Magnetometer, side scan sonar, and
diver-in-water methods were all utilized for the survey. The survey noted a variety of derelict
items situated in the vicinity of the pier foundation and photographs of the items were included
in the report. As described in the CRE prepared for this project (KAYA Associates, Inc., 2013a),
among the items noted were remnants of chain, nylon and wire rope, pier fenders, tires, timber
stubs, ladders, anchors of varying sizes, and miscellaneous construction debris (sheet metal,
pipe, etc.). The area surrounding Echo Pier has been dredged previously and all of the debris
currently within 200 feet of the structure’s foundation appears to be of modern origin. As a
result, no underwater archaeological properties will be affected by the subsurface rehabilitation
of Echo Pier.
Although there are no known terrestrial or submerged archaeological remains within any of the
project area footprints, the potential for these materials to be unexpectedly encountered exists
be halted and the USAKA/RTS environmental office notified. Coordination/consultation required
by the UES would be conducted by the USAKA/RTS environmental office as appropriate to the
find.
4.2.4
MITIGATION MEASURES/BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
To the extent feasible, renovation of Echo Pier will be undertaken in accordance with the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. This guidance is available on the U.S.
National Park Service website at: http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/rehab/
rehab_standards.htm. The project supervisor would report any cultural resources encountered
during project activities. Project personnel will be briefed during routine construction briefings
regarding the significance of cultural resources and the penalties associated with their
be halted and the USAKA/RTS environmental office notified.
4.3
WATER RESOURCES (MARINE)
This section addresses the potential impacts to marine water resources due to the Proposed
Activities. Use of Echo Pier for on-loading and unloading materials may be temporarily
impacted during the repair process. Construction would be performed in accordance with Army
regulations and the UES to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to Kwajalein Island
lagoon water quality. The direct impacts from turbidity, spillage, acoustics in water, and the
Echo Pier shore area demolition are discussed below.
December 2013
4-33
4.3.1
TURBIDITY
Turbidity is a measure of the degree to which the water loses its transparency due to the
presence of suspended solids (silt or sediment) in the water. It is a measure of the water clarity
and how much the material suspended in water decreases the passage of light through the
water. The more total suspended solids are in the water, the murkier it appears and thus the
higher the turbidity. Higher turbidity increases water temperature because suspended solids
absorb more heat. This in turn reduces the concentration of dissolved oxygen because warm
water holds less dissolved oxygen than cold. The installation of the new king piles, sheet piles
or pile support, work on the pile foundation, and the dredging process has the potential to
temporarily increase the turbidity of the Class B water (see Figure 3-3) at Echo Pier by
increasing the amount of total suspended solids that are in the water.
During the installation of the new king piles, sheet piles or pile support and work on the pile
foundation, the turbidity levels would be monitored for the detection of levels that would exceed
10 NTUs above background. A turbidity or silt curtain would be installed prior to, and outside of
the footprint of, the sheet piles or other disturbance to the sediments. The turbidity levels of
Class AA and Class A waters are not anticipated to be affected by the Proposed Action.
In accordance with DEP-10-002.0, baseline turbidity monitoring would be conducted
approximately 164 feet from the dredging site prior to dredging activities. During dredging
activities, turbidity monitoring would be conducted daily approximately 164 feet from the site of
activity. In the event turbidity levels exceed 10 NTUs from the baseline measurement, work
would cease until the turbidity level returns below the 10 NTUs above the baseline turbidity
values. (U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, 2011)
Nephelometric refers to the way the measuring instrument or nephelometer, also called a
turbidimeter, estimates how suspended particulate material in the water scatters light or
prevents light penetration; the higher the turbidity, the higher the NTU value.
For the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts from the use of the clamshell machinery,
silt curtains would be in place at all times to limit turbidity levels in the surrounding waters. Prior
to removal of the silt curtains, the turbidity within the silt curtains would not exceed the 10 NTUs
of background per DEP-10-002.0.
4.3.2
SPILLAGE
The Class B waters of the lagoon could be affected if spillage occurs during installation of fill
material and the new reinforced concrete decking (cap) in the Echo Pier area. The impacts (if
any) of turbidity and spillage on marine biological resources (e.g., marine algae and plants,
corals, non-coral macroinvertebrates, fish, sea turtles foraging in adjacent lagoon waters, and
birds) are addressed above in Section 4.1 (Biological Resources).
The new stormwater drainage system for all replaced impervious surfaces should include
treatment systems (oil/water separators with debris/sediment traps, etc), with required
maintenance of those systems to ensure their functionality after construction.
4-34
December 2013
4.3.3
ECHO PIER REPAIR DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL/REINSTALLATION
The demolition of the existing stevedore/warehouse building (Building 605) and associated
buildings on the pier and the temporary relocation/reinstallation of Building 611 at the
Echo/Charlie Berths could result in debris (e.g., concrete and asphalt materials, metal pieces,
dust, etc.) entering the Class B waters. The turbidity of the Class B waters could be impacted if
any material is allowed to enter the lagoon area. Short-term inlet filters and a new gravel swale
would be used to filter runoff from the new onshore construction before discharge. During the
demolition process the water would also be monitored for the detection of levels that would
exceed 10 NTUs above background.
4.3.4
MITIGATION MEASURES/BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
In addition to the turbidity monitoring that is required by the permit, sediment samples should be
collected after project completion and analyzed for metal, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
and total organic carbon content. Post-construction sampling will determine if contaminated
sediment was dispersed to other previously clean locations within and outside of the harbor.
Turbidity
As previously mentioned, short-term inlet filters and a new gravel swale would be used to filter
runoff before discharge. A turbidity monitoring plan would also be prepared, which would define
the action to be taken if turbidity levels exceed 10 NTUs above background. Turbidity
Spillage
BMPs should be in place to prevent the overflow of concrete or fill materials from entering into
the lagoon from the top. Additionally, concrete type forms should be used to contain and
prevent the cap material from entering the lagoon.
Echo Pier Demolition
BMPs should be in place to prevent demolition debris from entering into the lagoon. Typical
pollution control practices to prevent pollutants entering stormwater systems including grit
collection chambers, grit filters, and oil absorbent materials will be a requirement for the
contractor. Prior to any work, all hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos-containing materials, leadbased paint, mercury in thermometers, fluorescent lights, etc.) would be removed. At all times,
proper engineering controls shall be maintained to safeguard the marine water and the
environment.
Stormwater and Ocean Spray Runoff
Grated drain inlets would be located at low spots along the pier. The inlets will be fitted with
permanent filter inserts to mitigate any pollutants and sediments within the stormwater and
ocean spray runoff prior to discharging to the lagoon. Typical pollution control practices to
prevent pollutants entering stormwater systems including grit collection chambers, grit filters,
and oil absorbent materials will be a requirement for the contractor.
December 2013
4-35
4.4
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The NEPA requires an assessment of cumulative impacts arising from the Proposed Action and
alternatives. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations defines “cumulative effects” as:
“. . . 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” (40 CFR 1508.7).
4.4.1
4.4.1.1
CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Biological Resources
The limited construction planned for the Echo Pier repair project and its future use would not
likely result in cumulative impacts to biological resources. Other than the potential for additional
vessels and noise in the area associated with the fuel pier replacement on Roi-Namur, outfall
repair offshore of Roi-Namur, BSR repairs on Kwajalein Island, and the hydrophone
replacement offshore of Gagan, there are no other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable
future programs identified within the region of influence that, when added to the potential
impacts of the Proposed Action, would result in cumulative impacts. These activities would be
performed at varying times and locations.
4.4.1.2
Cultural Resources
The potential for this project to affect cultural resources, such as historic properties and
submerged archaeological remains, when combined with other projects in the area is
considered low. Proposed regional activities would be performed at varying times and
locations.
4.4.1.3
Water Resources (Marine)
No cumulative impacts to water quality are anticipated as a result of implementing the Proposed
Action. No long-term adverse effects to water resources are anticipated. There are no other
past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future programs identified within the region of influence
that, when added to the potential impacts of the Proposed Action, would result in cumulative
impacts.
4.5
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No-action Alternative, no environmental consequences associated with the Echo Pier
repair activities would occur. However, impacts regarding use of the pier would continue and
could worsen from current conditions.
4-36
December 2013
4.6
FEDERAL ACTIONS TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN
MINORITY POPULATIONS AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS
(EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898)
Proposed activities would be conducted in a manner that would not substantially affect human
health and the environment. This EA has identified no effects that would result in a
disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority or low-income populations in the area. The
activities would also be conducted in a manner that would not exclude persons from
participating in, deny persons the benefits of, or subject persons to discrimination because of
their race, color, national origin, or socioeconomic status.
4.7
FEDERAL ACTIONS TO ADDRESS PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RISKS AND SAFETY RISKS
(EXECUTIVE ORDER 13045, AS AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER
13229)
This EA has not identified any environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately
affect children, in compliance with Executive Order 13045, as amended by Executive Order
13229.
December 2013
4-37
4-38
December 2013
5.0 References
5.0 REFERENCES
Animal Life Resource, 2012. Bivalves: Bivalvia - Black-lipped Pearl Oyster (Pinctada
margaritifera): Species Accounts [Online]. Available:
http://animals.jrank.org/pages/1903/Bivalves-Bivalvia-BLACK-LIPPED-PEARLOYSTER-Pinctada-margaritifera-SPECIES-ACCOUNTS.html#ixzz2fkn6M1gM.
Au, W.W.L. and M.C. Hastings, 2008. Principles of Marine Bioacoustics, Springer
Science+Business Media, LLC.
Beardsley, F.R., 1994. Archaeological Investigation on Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands.
International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., for the U.S. Army Engineer District,
Pacific Ocean Division, Fort Shafter, Hawaii (Contract No. DACA83-87-C-0042).
Beger, M., D. Jacobson, S. Pinca, Z. Richards, D. Hess, F. Harriss, C. Page, E. Peterson, and
N. Baker, 2008 (est.). The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the Republic of the
Marshall Islands.
Brainard, R.E., C. Birkeland, C.M. Eakin, P. McElhany, M.W. Miller, M. Patterson, and G.A.
Piniak, 2011. Status review report of 82 candidate coral species petitioned under the
U.S. Endangered Species Act. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical
Memorandum, NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-27, 530 p. +1 Appendix.
Cable News Network, 2010. Sea Turtle Release on Kwajalein, RMI [Online]. Available:
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-504131, 17 October.
California Department of Transportation, 2007. Compendium of Pile Driving Sound Data
[Online]. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/bio/files/ pile_driving_snd_
comp9_27_07.pdf.
Carucci, L.M., 1997. In anxious anticipation of the uneven fruits of Kwajalein Atoll: A Survey of
Locations and Resources of Value to the People of Kwajalein Atoll. Report prepared for
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, Huntsville, Alabama.
Center for Biological Diversity, 2009. Petition to List 83 Coral Species under the Endangered
Species Act [Online]. Available: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/pdf/091020_CBD_
Coral_Petition.pdf, 20 October.
Colorado DataScapes, 2011. PN 59779 – Echo Pier, Tab C – Charrette Discussions, 31 March.
Delgado, J.P., 1989. Trip Report filed by J.P. Delgado, Maritime Historian. Report of activities,
observations, and recommendations made by the U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service to San Francisco, Honolulu, Kwajalein, Bikini, and Guam, August
4 through September 2, 1989, 7 September.
Environmental Office, United States Army Kwajalein Atoll, 2006. Historic Preservation Plan for
United States Army Kwajalein Atoll, 16 August.
GRL Engineers, Inc., 2011. Pile Driving Contractors Association, Pile Driving Equipment.
December 2013
5-1
Hastings, M.C. and A.N. Popper, 2008. Evolution of noise exposure criteria for fishes. Animals:
9th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN), Foxwoods, CT.
Hazel, J., 2009. Turtles and vessels: threat evaluation and behavioural studies of green turtles
in near-shore foraging grounds [Online]. PhD thesis, James Cook University. Available:
http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/10680/.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2013. The IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species, July.
KAYA Associates, Inc., 2013a. Preparation of Environmental Assessment and Cultural
Resources Mitigation for Echo Pier, U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll: Cultural Resources
Evaluation, April.
KAYA Associates, Inc., 2013b. Historic Engineer Record Echo Pier (Nob Pier; USAKA Facility
Number 1385; RMI Site Number MI-KW-KW-006), U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll, Republic
of the Marshall Islands. Prepared for U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense
Command/Army Forces Strategic Command, Huntsville, Alabama, 30 January.
The Marshall Islands Journal, 2012. “Namdrik plans Majuro pearl sale,” Friday, June 15, 2012.
Mead, L.A., 2008. Cultural Resources Assessment: Installation Information Modernization
Program (13MP). Document Number ESH-CRA-KWAJ-08-72, 30 August.
Mead, L.A, .2012a. Cultural Resource Review Checklist: Build/Install Ladders on Echo Pier
(FN 1385). Project Number LMS0186112R, Cultural Resource Doc. No.: Kwaj-12-196,
12 October.
Mead, L.A., 2012b. Cultural Resource Review Checklist: Build/Install Cleats on Echo Pier (FN
1385). Project Number LMS0180312J, Cultural Resource Doc. No.: Kwaj-12-197, 12
October.
Messing, C.H., 2012. Personal communication between Christine Messing, National Park
Service and Paige Peyton, KAYA Associates Inc., regarding the National Register of
Historic Places and National Historic Landmark status of the Kwajalein and Roi-Namur
Island Battlefields, 18 September.
National Geographic, undated. Green Sea Turtle, Chelonia mydas [Online]. Available:
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/reptiles/green-turtle/.
National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013. Biological Survey and Impact Analysis for Kwajalein
Echo Pier Refurbishment, United States Army at Kwajalein Atoll, Draft Report, August.
National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a. Biological Opinion on Kwajalein Barge Ramp Repair
at Kwajalein Islet, Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Formal Consultation
under the Environmental Standards for United States Army Kwajalein Atoll Activities in
the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 24 July.
National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012b. Biological Opinion on Roi-Namur Sewer Outfall
Repair, Roi-Namur Islet, Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Formal
Consultation under the Environmental Standards for United States Army Kwajalein Atoll
Activities in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 29 November.
5-2
December 2013
National Marine Fisheries Service, 2008. March 18, 2008, biological opinion on effects of
Implementation of Bottomfish Fishing Regulations within Federal Waters of the Main
Hawaiian Islands on ESA-listed marine [Online}. Pacific Islands Regional Office, 35 p.
Available: http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/Library/PUBDOCs/biological_opinions/bio_op_3-1808_bottomfish.pdf species.
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013. Hawksbill Sea
Turtle (Eretmochelys Imbricata) 5-Year Review: Summary And Evaluation [Online].
Available: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/
hawksbillseaturtle2013_5yearreview.pdf, June.
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012. Biological Survey
and Impact Analysis for the Roi-Namur Outfall Replacement Trenching Alternative
United States Army at Kwajalein Atoll Final Report, 31 March.
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Green Sea Turtle
(Chelonia mydas). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 105 p. [Online]. Available
at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/greenturtle_5yearreview.pdf.
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Hawksbill Sea
Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). 5-Year Review. 93 pp. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/hawksbill_5yearreview.pdf.
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998a. Recovery Plan for
U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine
Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 97 pp.[Online]. Available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle_green_pacific.pdf
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998b. Recovery Plan for
U.S. Pacific Populations of the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) [Online].
Available at:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle_hawksbill_pacific.pdf.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, 2012. Hawksbill Turtle
(Eretmochelys imbricata), 27 February.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012a. Sperm Whale (Physeter
macrocephalus) [Online]. Available: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/
cetaceans/spermwhale.htm. Accessed 25 June 2012.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012b. Pantropical Spotted Dolphin
(Stenella attenuata) [Online]. Available: http:// www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/
mammals/cetaceans/spotteddolphin_pantropical.htm.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012c. Spinner Dolphin (Stenella
longirostris) [Online]. Available: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/
mammals/cetaceans/spinnerdolphin.htm.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012d. Striped Dolphin (Stenella
coeruleoalba) [Online]. Available: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/
cetaceans/stripeddolphin.htm.
December 2013
5-3
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012e. Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops
truncatus) [Online]. Available: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/
cetaceans/bottlenosedolphin.htm.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012f. Risso's Dolphin (Grampus griseus)
[Online]. Available: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/
rissosdolphin.htm.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012g. Short-Beaked Common Dolphin
(Delphinus delphis) [Online]. Available: http:// www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/
mammals/cetaceans/commondolphin_shortbeaked.htm.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012h. Melon-headed Whale
(Peponocephala electra) [Online]. Available: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
species/mammals/cetaceans/melonheadedwhale.htm.
Panamerican Consultants, Inc., 1994. Comprehensive Resource Inventory and Preservation
Planning Study for World War II Cultural Resources at the United States Army Kwajalein
Atoll. Huntsville, Alabama: Earth Tech, Inc.
Richards, Z., J.C. Delbeek, E. Lovell, D. Bass, G. Aeby, and C. Reboton, 2008. Acropora
speciosa. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.
[Online]. Available: www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 3 September 2013.
Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson, 1995. Marine Mammals and
Noise.
Riegl, B., 1994. Effects of sand deposition on scleractinian and alcyonacean corals, Marine
Biology (1995) 121: 517-526 [Online]. Available: http://www.nova.edu/ocean/forms/
bernhard_riegl_effects-sand-deposition-scleractinian-alcyonacean-corals.pdf. Accessed
26 June 2012.
Riseman, D., 1999. “Stenella attenuate,” Animal Diversity Web [Online]. Available:
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/
Stenella_attenuata.html. Accessed 1 March 2012.
Southall, B., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Green, Jr., D. Kastak,
D. Ketten, J. Miller, P. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J. Thomas and P. Tyack, 2007.
“Marine Mammals Noise Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations,” Aquatic Mammals,
33(4):411-521.
Southeast and Pacific Islands Regional Offices National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012.
Supplemental Information Report on Status Review Report And Draft Management
Report For 82 Coral Candidate Species, November.
Thompson, Erwin N., 1985. National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form:
Kwajalein Island Battlefield. Denver Service Center: National Park Service.
Underwater Kwajalein, undated. Scott and Jeanette Johnson, [Online]. Available:
http://www.underwaterkwaj.com/.
U.S. Army, 2011. Soldiers, Volume 66, No. 3, March.
5-4
December 2013
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District, 2012a. Final Hydrographic Survey Echo Pier,
Kwajalein Atoll, October.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District, 2012b. Final Bravo and Foxtrot Berths –
Underwater Inspection and Assessment Echo Pier, Kwajalein Atoll. October.
U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, 2011. Routine
Maintenance Dredging and Filling Document of Environmental Protection, (DEP)-10002.0.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1994. Engineering and Design of Sheet Pile Walls, 31 March.
U.S. Army Public Health Command, 2012. Draft Kwajalein Harbor Ecological Effects
Investigation Report U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll Project No. 32-EE-0C0A-12, April.
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command, 2011.
Environmental Standards and Procedures for United States Army Kwajalein Atoll
(USAKA) Activities in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 12th Edition, August.
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012a. Draft Kwajalein Harbor Stormwater
Drains Site Investigation & Data Evaluation Report, U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll / Reagan
Test Site, Republic of Marshall Islands, prepared by WHPacific, October.
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012b. Kwajalein Barge Slip Ramp Repair –
Biological Assessment. April 2012 enclosure sent with the May 2, 2012, SMDC
consultation request letter. 46 pp.
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2002. Theater High Altitude Are Defense
(THAAD) Pacific Test Flights Environmental Assessment, 20 December
U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1998. Andersen Air Force Base, Territory of Guam, Air
Installation Compatible Use Zone Report, Vol 1, April 1998.
U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2012. FINAL 2010
Inventory Report Endangered Species and Other Wildlife Resources Ronald Reagan
Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall
Islands (For Official Use Only), December.
U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2011. FINAL 2008
Inventory Endangered Species and Other Wildlife Resources Ronald Reagan Ballistic
Missile Defense Test Site U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands
(For Official Use Only), May.
U.S. Department of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 2006. Final 2004
Inventory Endangered Species and Other Wildlife Resources Ronald Reagan Ballistic
Missile Defense Test Site U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands
(For Official Use Only), December.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010. Endangered Species in the Pacific Islands, Green Turtle /
Chelonia mydas / Honu, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office [Online]. Available:
http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/fauna/honu.html, 25 March.
December 2013
5-5
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002. Final 2000 Inventory
Endangered Species and Wildlife Resources Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense
Test Site U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service (For Official Use Only), July.
Wikipedia, 2012. Spinner Dolphin [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Spinner_dolphin. Accessed 15 February 2012.
Yukihira, H, J.S. Lucas, and D.W. Klumpp, 2000. Comparative effects of temperature on
suspension feeding and energy budgets of the pearl oysters Pinctada margaritifera and
P. maxima. Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 195, pp. 179–188.
5-6
December 2013
6.0 List of Preparers
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Government Preparers
Mark Hubbs, Environmental Protection Specialist/Archaeologist, U.S. Army Space and Missile
Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command
M.A., Archaeology and Heritage, University of Leicester, UK
M.S., Environmental Management, Samford University
B.A., History, Henderson State University
Years of Experience: 21
Contractor Preparers
Karen L. Barnes, Environmental Scientist, KAYA Associates, Inc.
Ed.D., 2009, Higher Education Administration (Policy Analysis), George Washington
University
M.S., 1998, Environmental Sciences–Policy and Management, Florida A&M University
B.S., 1989, Natural Science and Mathematics, University of Alabama, Birmingham
Greg Denish, Graphic Artist, KAYA Associates, Inc.
B.A., 2002, Studio Art, Design Emphasis, University of Tennessee
Rachel Y. Jordan, Senior Environmental Scientist, KAYA Associates, Inc.
B.S., 1972, Biology, Christopher Newport College, Virginia
Edd V. Joy, Senior Environmental Planner, KAYA Associates, Inc.
B.A., 1974, Geography, California State University, Northridge
Amy McEniry, Technical Editor, KAYA Associates, Inc.
B.S., 1988, Biology, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Paige M. Peyton, Senior Cultural Resources Manager, KAYA Associates, Inc.
PhD., 2012, Archaeology, University of Leicester, United Kingdom
M.A., 1990, Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino
B.A., 1987, Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino
Jacqueline M. Wilson, I.E., Civil-Environmental Engineer, KAYA Associates, Inc.
B.S., 2012, Civil Engineering (Environmental), University of Alabama, Huntsville
December 2013
6-1
6-2
December 2013
7.0 Agencies and Individuals Contacted
7.0 AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS
CONTACTED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region IX
Pacific Islands Office
San Francisco, CA
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office
Honolulu, HI
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District (USACE)
Ft. Shafter, HI
National Marine Fisheries Service/Pacific Islands Regional Office (NMFS)
Habitat Conservation Division
Honolulu, HI
Republic of the Marshall Islands Environmental Protection Authority (RMIEPA)
Majuro, MH
U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/ Reagan Test Site (USAKA/RTS)
USAKA Directorate of Public Works
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command
(USASMDC/ARSTRAT)
Huntsville, AL
December 2013
7-1
7-2
December 2013
Appendix A
Distribution List
APPENDIX A
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Mr. W. Norwood Scott
UES Project Team Co-Chairperson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region IX
Pacific Islands Office
San Francisco, CA
Loyal Mehrhoff, Ph.D.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office
Honolulu, HI
Ms. Helene Y. Takemoto
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District (USACE)
Ft. Shafter, HI
Steven P. Kolinski, Ph.D.
Habitat Conservation Division
Honolulu, HI
Mr. Donald Hubner
Protected Resources Division
Honolulu, HI
Mr. Lowell Alik
Republic of the Marshall Islands Environmental Protection Authority (RMIEPA)
Deputy General Manager
Majuro, MH
U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/ Reagan Test Site (USAKA/RTS)
USAKA Directorate of Public Works
APO AP
Mr. Mark Hubbs
Army Forces Strategic Command (USASMDC/ARSTRAT)
Huntsville, AL
December 2013
A-1
LIBRARIES AND REPOSITORIES
Grace Sherwood Library
Kwajalein, MH
Roi-Namur Library
Roi-Namur, MH
Republic of the Marshall Islands Environmental Protection Authority
Office Lobby
Delap, Majuro, MH
Republic of the Marshall Islands Environmental Protection Authority
Office Lobby
Ebeye, MH
A-2
December 2013
Appendix B
Correspondence
APPENDIX B
CORRESPONDENCE
December 2013
B-1
B-2
December 2013
December 2013
B-3
B-4
December 2013
December 2013
B-5
B-6
December 2013
December 2013
B-7
B-8
December 2013
December 2013
B-9
B-10
December 2013
December 2013
B-11
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Takemoto, Helene Y POH Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 6:46 PM To: Hubbs, Mark Edward CIV USARMY SMDC (US); Heidle, James L CIV (US) Subject: RE: USAKA Echo Pier Env Assessment (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Mark, I have reviewed the subject EA and do not have any comments. Helene ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Hubbs, Mark Edward CIV USARMY SMDC (US) Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 10:32 AM To: Takemoto, Helene Y POH; Heidle, James L CIV (US) Subject: RE: USAKA Echo Pier Env Assessment (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Helene, Jamie, With attachments this time! Please find attached a transmittal letter and coordinating draft environmental assessment (CDEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for proposed renovations of Echo Pier at the US Army Kwajalein Atoll. A comment sheet is also provided for you convenience. A paper copy of these documents will also go out to you today. Thank you Mark Hubbs US Army Space & Missile Defense Command Env. Protection Specialist/Archaeologist 256‐955‐2608 Office Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE B-12
December 2013
December 2013
B-13
B-14
December 2013
December 2013
B-15
B-16
December 2013
December 2013
B-17
B-18
December 2013
December 2013
B-19
B-20
December 2013

Kwajalein Echo Pier Repair

Transcription

Similar documents

Pier 1 Imports Building

Sanderling Amenities - Real Escapes Properties

radisson hotel fisherman`s wharf

fundraiser flier.pub - Friends of Redondo Beach Arts

Here - CESS

Businesses at Harbourside Commercial Park Commercial Park

1989 Bayliner 2958 Command Bridge

Riva Crabhouse - Chicago Jewelers` Association

2016 DRAFT II Celebrant Certification Key West.qxd - In

amazonia open sky international museum: biodiversity