ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE United States Department of Agriculture DUFFIELD PENINSULA, BARANOF ISLAND, ALASKA Forest Service Alaska Region Tongass National Forest R10-MB-754 Sitka Ranger District Sitka, Alaska November 2012
Prepared by:
United States Forest Service United States Coast Guard Sitka Ranger District Commanding Officer 204 Siginaka Way USCG Rescue 21 PRO Alaska Sitka, Alaska 99835 100 Savikko Road 907-747-4225 Douglas, Alaska 99824 907-463-2958
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT U.S. COAST GUARD SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE DUFFIELD PENINSULA, BARANOF ISLAND, ALASKA
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Scope of Environmental Analysis 3 1.3 Proposed Action 4 1.4 Purpose and Need 5 1.5 Forest Service Management Direction 6 1.6 Public Involvement 7 2.0 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 7 2.1 Issues 7 2.2 Alternative 1 (No Action) 8 2.3 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 8 2.4 Project Best Management Practices and Management Measures 17 2.5 Alternative Sites Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 19 2.6 Comparison of Alternatives 24 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 26 3.1 General Site Description 26 3.2 Public Health and Safety 26 3.3 Recreation Use 27 3.4 Scenery 28 3.5 Air Quality 32 3.6 Noise 33 3.7 Floodplains 35 3.8 Water Resources and Water Quality 35 3.9 Wetlands and Vegetation 36 3.10 Fish and Wildlife 38 3.11 Threatened and Endangered Species 42 3.12 Historical, Archaeological, or Cultural Resources 44 3.13 Socioeconomics 45 3.14 Environmental Justice 46
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page i ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.15 Hazardous Material and Waste Management 47 3.16 Roadless Resource 48 3.17 Subsistence 49 3.18 Cumulative Effects 50 4.0 PREPARERS, CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 52 5.0 REFERENCES CITED 54
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1-1 Proposed Locations for Rescue 21Communication and Mobilization Sites, Duffield Peninsula, Baranof Island, Alaska 2 Figure 2-1 Coverage Map of Proposed Duffield Peninsula Communication Site 9 Figure 2-2 Proposed Site Plan Drawing 10 Figure 2-3 Typical Small Wind Generator Installation 12 Figure 2-4 Existing AT&T Communication Link Facility, Mud Bay, Kruzof Island, Alaska 13 Figure 2-6 Proposed Helicopter Flight Routes from Goose Cove or Rodman Bay Staging Areas 15 Figure 2-7 Typical Temporary Camp Site 16 Figure 2-8 Coverage Map of Eliminated Moore Mountain Alternate Site 20 Figure 2-9 Coverage Map of Eliminated Upper Kruzof Alternate Site 21 Figure 2-10 Coverage Map of Eliminated Rodman Bay Alternate Site 22 Figure 2-11 Coverage Map of Eliminated Steelhead Alternate Site 23 Figure 3-1 Similar Communication Facility, Distant View 31
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternative Effects 24 Table 3-1. Tongass National Forest R-10 Plant Species 37 Table 3-2. Demographic Characteristics 46 Table 3-3. List of Cumulative Actions in the Project Area 51
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A U.S. COAST GUARD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COVER PAGE
APPENDIX B U.S. FOREST SERVICE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
APPENDIX C GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Page ii DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX D SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX E NOISE TERMINOLOGY, DESCRIPTORS, AND TEST RESULTS
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page iii ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
List of Acronyms
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ADCRA Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish & Game AFSC Alaska Fisheries Science Center ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act BA Boat Anchorage BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIS Community Information Summaries Clarus Clarus Technologies, LLC dB decibels dBA A-weighted decibels DPS Distinct population segment DSC Digital Selective Calling EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact Forest Plan Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 2008a) Forest Service U.S.D.A. Forest Service FSH Forest Service Handbook FSM Forest Service Manual GPS Global-Positioning System Hz Hertz IRA Inventoried Roadless Area kW Kilowatt Ldn Day-night sound level Leq Equivalent sound level LUD Land Use Designation MIS Management Indicator Species mph Miles per hour NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NDRS National Distress and Response System NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NFS National Forest System NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS National Park Service NSF National Science Foundation OHA Alaska Office of History and Archaeology
Page iv DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
List of Acronyms (continued)
R21 Rescue 21 RF Radio frequency SAGE SAGE Systems Technologies, LLC SAR Search and rescue SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIO Scenic Integrity Objective SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure SPEA Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment SUA Saltwater Use Area UHF Ultra-high frequency Unified Unified Soil Classification System URS URS Corporation USCG U.S. Coast Guard USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USF&WS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey VHF Very-high frequency VPR Visual Priority Route
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page v ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 Introduction
The Proposed Action consists of Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service) designation and authorization of a new communication site, and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) construction, operation, and maintenance of a search and rescue (SAR) communication facility within the Tongass National Forest on the Duffield Peninsula on Baranof Island in the City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska (see Figure 1-1). The proposed USCG project is part of the National Distress and Response System (NDRS) Modernization Project, now called Rescue 21 (R21), and would provide SAR service to portions of Peril Strait and Sergius Narrows not currently served by existing SAR communication facilities.
The proposed R21 facility would provide support for very-high frequency (VHF) communication (including Digital Selective Calling (DSC) and National Weather Service broadcasts), ultra-high frequency (UHF) antennas, and microwave communications in order to provide radio signal in the Peril Strait area. The proposed facility would occupy less than 1/2 acre and consist of a communication tower, communication hut, generator hut, propane fuel tanks, solar array, helicopter pad, and all necessary electronic equipment.
Rescue 21 is the Coast Guard’s advanced command and control communications system and was created to better locate mariners in distress and to save lives and property at sea and on navigable rivers. Rescue 21 allows the USCG to more accurately identify the location of callers in distress using DSC radio transmissions, thereby significantly reducing search time. The R21 Alaska program is designed to provide an integrated emergency communication system extending 20 nautical miles from the shoreline with the following services:
Monitoring of distress calls from vessels (MAYDAY); Improvement in communications for other operational missions, including search and rescue, maritime law enforcement, maritime pollution prevention and response, and homeland security/national defense; and Support for U.S. compliance with international treaties including DSC capability in Global Maritime Distress and Safety System, in accordance with the International Maritime Organization of Life at Sea Convention.
These services would be accomplished by the following actions:
Reducing coverage gaps in the current VHF system; Increasing channel capacity, which would allow for simultaneous communications on multiple channels (including VHF Channel 16); Having DSC capability that would quickly provide a vessel’s name, exact location, nature of distress, and other vital information when used in conjunction with an integrated global positioning system (GPS) receiver and properly registered Maritime Mobile Service Identity number;
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Figure 1-1
Digitally recording communications for instant playback; Reducing system “down time” and allowing “critical function” recovery; and Improving interoperability among the USCG and other federal, state, and local communications systems.
1.2 Scope of Environmental Analysis
This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (and subsequent amendments; PL 91-190) and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations dated November 1978 (40 CFR 1500-1508), and in accordance with Forest Service and USCG agency guidance, including the Forest Service Handbook, FSH 2909.11, Chapter 90 - Special Uses Handbook, FSH 1909.154 – National Environmental Policy Act Handbook, Forest Service Manual (FSM) Sections 1920, 1950, and 2700, and the Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and USCG Commandant’s Manual Instruction M16475.1D . The Forest Service and USCG are joint lead agencies for this EA.
This EA was prepared to evaluate potential effects of the proposed project in compliance with the NEPA, the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 2008a), and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EA identifies impacts of the proposed action and alternative and provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether there is potential for significant effect, thus requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or whether there is justification to prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The EA concisely describes the need for the proposed action, a reasonable range of alternatives, and potential environmental effects of the proposed action and the alternatives. The EA provides a list of the agencies and persons consulted during preparation of the EA.
This environmental analysis will provide the information necessary for the Forest Service’s Deciding Official to determine whether or not to amend the Forest Plan to designate a new communications site (a non-significant Plan Amendment), and whether or not the proposed use of the site would have a significant effect on the environment. This environmental analysis will also help the USCG to determine whether their proposed action to construct, operate, and maintain the SAR site would have a significant effect on the environment.
This EA hereby incorporates by reference the project planning record and reports of previous studies conducted as part of this project, including biological evaluations, botanical surveys and cultural resources survey. These surveys contain the detailed data, methods, analyses, conclusions, maps, photographs, references, and technical documentation that were relied upon to reach the conclusions of the EA. These documents are as follows:
Supplemental Program Environmental Assessment, National Distress and Response System Modernization Project (URS 2002). Biological Evaluation for Plants, Coast Guard Proposed VHF Site on Duffield Peninsula, Sitka Ranger District, Tongass National Forest (Forest Service 2006b). U.S. Coast Guard Communication Site Heritage Resource Report No. R2006100531018 (Forest Service 2007).
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
USCG Rescue 21 Alaska: Site Survey Report, Cross Mountain, (New Proposed Site), (Juneau Area) (SAGE 2007). U.S. Coast Guard SAR Radio Communication Site Designation and Permit Environmental Analysis, Project Introduction: Environmental Assessment Planning Begins (Forest Service 2010a). Biological Evaluation & Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, Management Indicator and Other Species Project Level Analysis, Proposed U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Communication Site, Duffield Peninsula, Sitka Ranger District, Tongass National Forest (Forest Service 2012b). Duffield Peninsula Search and Rescue Communication Site, Roadless Resource Report, Sitka Ranger District, Tongass National Forest (Forest Service 2012c). Duffield Peninsula Search and Rescue Communication Site, Roadless Analysis, Sitka Ranger District, Tongass National Forest (Forest Service 2012d). Duffield Peninsula Search and Rescue Communication Site, Subsistence Analysis, Sitka Ranger District, Tongass National Forest (Forest Service 2012e). Pre-Field Review Worksheet/Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plants USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Coast Guard Proposed Staging Area at Goose Cove (in support of proposed VHF Site) on Duffield Peninsula, Baranof Island, AK (Forest Service 2012f).
The planning record also contains information from public involvement efforts. The planning record is located at the Sitka Ranger District Office in Sitka, Alaska, and is available for review during regular business hours. Information from the planning record is available upon request.
1.3 Proposed Action
The USCG has submitted an application to the Tongass National Forest to develop a communication facility on an unnamed peak, marked with the benchmark “Cross” on topographic maps, located on the Duffield Peninsula at the northern part of Baranof Island. The applicant’s intent is to address the limitations of the current communications systems and improve maritime distress and response communications coverage in the area of Peril Strait, north of Sitka, Alaska. The proposed site is approximately 30 miles northwest of downtown Sitka, Alaska, within the Sitka Ranger District (NE quarter of Section 21, Township 50 South, Range 62 East of the Copper River Meridian; 57° 31’ 21.6” N, 135° 27’ 42.0” W).
The Forest Service is proposing to amend the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 2008a) to designate a new communication site at this location. The Forest Service is also considering whether or not to authorize the USCG to use National Forest System (NFS) lands to build, operate, and maintain a communication facility through the issuance of a Special Use Permit.
The USCG Responsible Official will decide whether to proceed with the proposed action to develop and operate the proposed communication facility at Duffield Peninsula in order to fulfill the USCG’s core mission to minimize the loss of life, injury, property damage or loss by rendering aid to persons in distress and property in the maritime environment. This decision will be based on a number of considerations, including environmental concerns identified in this EA and any conditions placed on the project as part of the Special Use Permit by Forest Service.
Page 4 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The SAR communication facility would be less than ½ acre in size and include the following:
A 60-foot self-supporting lattice tower supporting a microwave dish, six whip antennas, and three small wind generators. An 8-foot x 10-foot communications shelter. A 10-foot x 16-foot generator shelter. A 3-kilowatt (kW) solar array with a footprint of approximately 12-feet by 33-feet. Ten 500-gallon above ground propane tanks. A 16-foot x 16-foot helicopter landing pad. A 10-foot x 10-foot refueling pad.
A detailed description of the proposed communication facility can be found in Section 2.3. Construction materials would be transported to one of two staging areas, depending on conditions as discussed in this document. The two proposed staging sites are Goose Cove and Rodman Bay.
1.4 Purpose and Need
The USCG is required to evaluate and improve the safety of navigation for vessels. Congress has approved funding in the USCG budget for construction of facilities that would enhance VHF communications in the State of Alaska. Severe communication limitations would be eliminated by establishing new communication facilities to correct the current deficiency in this area.
The USCG has identified the need for improved maritime distress and response communication coverage in the Peril Strait and Sergius Narrows areas north and northeast of Baranof Island. This project would be for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a USCG search and rescue communication site to provide reliable communications coverage in the Peril Strait area which will enhance public safety.
Peril Strait has inherent dangers to navigation due to its narrowness, large tidal surges, and submerged rocks. In recent years, an Alaska Marine Highway (ferry) went aground in the area. Due to the lack of VHF distress system coverage in the area, the vessel was unable to communicate its distress directly to the USCG monitoring stations. As the number of both recreational and commercial users has increased in recent years, so has the number of cases of vessels in distress.
To improve the coverage area and reliability of USCG VHF communications and distress monitoring in Peril Strait and its surrounding area, the USCG analyzes the following indicators:
a. Measured area of improved VHF coverage; b. Proximity to Peril Strait; c. Reliability of communications to/from mariners; d. Accessibility for maintenance; and e. Cost of construction and maintenance.
If corrective action is not taken to improve communications in the Peril Strait area, mariners will continue to navigate through an inherently dangerous passage without communications. USCG responses to incidents will continue to be delayed due to inadequate communications. The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) is discussed further in this EA. DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1.5 Forest Service Management Direction
The 2008 Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 2008a) guides the management of the Tongass National Forest. The 2008 Forest Plan identifies land use designations (LUDs) which guide management of the Tongass National Forest. Each LUD provides goals and objectives which direct what kind of activities, practices, and uses can occur on parcels of National Forest. The proposed project site is located within an Old-growth Habitat LUD. The identified staging area at Goose Cove is in a Scenic Viewshed LUD. The desired conditions of these LUDs are described below. The Forest Plan contains a detailed description of the goals and objectives for these LUDs.
A communication site is an area of NFS land designated through the Forest land and resource management planning process for telecommunication uses. Sites approved for telecommunication facilities are characterized by antennas, electronic transmitters, equipment shelters, and a wide variety of electronic communication support equipment (Forest Service 2008a, E-1) Forest Service policy encourages co-location of communication equipment where proposed uses are compatible with existing uses at an electronic site (FSH 2709.11 Chapter 90). Electronic site designation is a land use allocation that is made through the Forest land and resource management planning process (FSM 1900). New sites may be added as non-significant Forest Plan amendments and shall be made through the Forest land and resource management planning process. A non- significant Forest Plan amendment would not:
alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management; affect opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of the management prescriptions; or have more than minor effects on management prescriptions, LUDs, or Forest-wide standards and guidelines for the LUD which would be changed.
All forested areas within the Old-growth Habitat LUD have attained old-growth forest characteristics. A diversity of old-growth habitat types and associated species and subspecies and ecological processes are represented (Forest Service 2008a, 3-57).
The Forest Plan desired condition of the Scenic Viewshed LUD is characterized by forest visitors, recreationists, and others using identified popular travel routes and use areas to view a natural- appearing landscape. Management activities in the foreground will not be evident to the casual observer. Activities in the middleground and background will be subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Areas topographically screened from Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas may be heavily modified. At any given point in time, roads, facilities, and other structure are either not visually evident or are subordinate to the landscape. A variety of successional stages providing wildlife habitat occur, although late successional stages predominate. Recreation and tourism opportunities in a range of settings are available. (Forest Service 2008a, 3-101).
Visual priority routes (VPRs) and use areas are identified in the Forest Plan. Routes are separated into several categories, including the Alaska Marine Highway, tour ship routes, roads, small boat and mid-size tour boat routes, and hiking trails. Priority routes identified within the project area include: Sitka to Chatham Strait via Olga and Neva Straits, Salisbury Sound, Sergius Narrows, and Peril Strait is an Alaska Marine Highway and Tour Ship Route, and Small Boat and Mid-Size
Page 6 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Tour Boat Route. Rodman Bay, Peril Strait from Kakul Narrows to Poison Cove, and Deadman’s Reach are Saltwater Use Areas (SUAs). Poison Cove is a Boat Anchorage (BA).
This proposed communication site and Goose Cove staging site are located within the North Baranof Roadless Area. The project does not involve road building, road reconstruction, or felling of trees. The area is not designated as Wilderness pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA). The proposed Rodman Bay staging site does not touch on NFS lands and would not be subject to Forest Service management direction.
1.6 Public Involvement
The proposal for a Search and Rescue site at this location was listed in the Forest Service's Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on April 1, 2007. The Forest Service met with the Sitka Tribe of Alaska regarding the proposed communication site. No concerns were raised by the Sitka Tribe of Alaska. The scoping process for the environmental review was started with a Public Mailing: A scoping letter, providing information on the proposed action and seeking public comment was mailed to 894 federal and state agencies, municipal offices, interest groups, tribal entities, individuals, and groups on April 30, 2010. Seventeen responses to the scoping letter were received. One response was from the Government of the Yukon Territory in Canada. The other 16 responses were from individuals. Seven respondents favored the proposed project. The remaining 10 respondents expressed concerns regarding the potential establishment of roads, the visibility and footprint of the communication site, re-seeding, erosion control, noise, wildlife, electrical grounding of the propane tanks, waste disposal, and potential air traffic interference. Comment letters received are part of the project record.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
This section describes and compares the alternatives considered for the proposed USCG SAR Communication Site at Duffield Peninsula. Other options that were considered but not evaluated in detail are mentioned at the end of this section. This section presents the alternative in comparative form, defining any options and the differences between each alternative.
2.1 Issues
For the purposes of this analysis, issues identified during the public involvement process are categorized as one of the following:
Those directly or indirectly caused by the implementation of the proposed action are used to formulate and design alternatives. Those: 1) outside the scope (not related to the effects) of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher-level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence are identified and eliminated from detailed study.
Issues identified during the scoping process include: noise, impacts to the scenic viewshed, impacts to wildlife, impacts to the roadless character of the area, and the potential loss of vegetation at the site. These issues have been considered in Section 3.0 of this EA. DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
2.2 Alternative 1 (No Action)
In Alternative 1, the Forest Service would not complete a non-significant amendment to the Forest Plan or issue a permit to the USCG for the proposed facility. Respectively, the USCG would not build, operate, and maintain a new communication site at Duffield Peninsula. Under the No Action Alternative, the system would continue to operate with the existing network of analog transceivers located at existing tower sites. No new communication equipment would be installed and no new antenna tower sites would be constructed. There would continue to be gaps in the communication coverage in Peril Strait and Sergius Narrows.
The No Action Alternative would not satisfy the need of the USCG for a more technologically advanced NDRS. Existing NDRS operational deficiencies would not be corrected, leaving the USCG without a reliable means of meeting its multi-mission requirements. Lack of new equipment, existing coverage gaps, and inadequate channel capacity would contribute to continued degraded command and control, inferior communications, and unanswered calls for assistance. Eventually the system could experience frequent and widespread failure. The system’s inability to determine the location of distressed vessels could result in lost lives and wasted resources.
2.3 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
The Proposed Action consists of the Forest Service completing a non-significant Forest Plan amendment and authorizing a new communication site and the USCG constructing, operating, and maintaining a SAR communication facility atop a 2,860-foot peak shown on maps with a cross, on the Duffield Peninsula on Baranof Island within the City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska.
The proposed site is approximately 30 miles northwest of downtown Sitka, Alaska, within the Sitka Ranger District, in the northeast quarter of Section 21, Township 50 South, Range 62 East of the Copper River Meridian, at 57o 31’ 21.6” North, 135o 27’ 42.0” West. The proposed Duffield Peninsula site would provide coverage both up and down Peril Straits and Sergius Narrows, to include the entire Alaska Marine Highway route through this area (see Figure 2-1). No other site can provide that coverage (SAGE 2007).
Page 8 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Figure 2-1 Coverage Map of Proposed Duffield Peninsula Communication Site
Note: The red triangle in the figure indicates the location of the proposed Duffield Peninsula site. The dark blue shading indicates the coverage area in Peril Strait and beyond that this site would provide. The black dot indicates where an Alaska Marine Highway ferry went aground in 2004.
2.3.1 Proposed Communication Facility
The proposed communication facility would consist of a communication tower, communication hut, generator hut, propane fuel tanks, solar array, helicopter pad, refueling pad, and all necessary electronic equipment capable of receiving and transmitting radio signals. One of these radio signals would include the transmission of weather broadcasts that are standard at the other USCG sites, connecting 24/7 to a National Weather Service link at Mud Bay via microwave.
The site would occupy less than 1/2 acre. The proposed site plan drawing is shown in Figure 2-2. Details for each component of the proposed facility are described below (all measurements are approximate):
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Figure 2-2 Proposed Site Plan Drawing
Communication Tower – An unlighted and unpainted 60-foot-tall, self-supporting, galvanized- steel, lattice tower on single leg foundations with an approximately 64- to 100-square-foot footprint. Each of the three sides of the tower would be 8 to 10 feet in width. A steel climbing ladder would be inside the structure. The tower would provide support for VHF (including DSC and National Weather Service broadcasts), UHF antennas, a microwave dish, and three small wind generators (as discussed further below). A 4-foot diameter microwave dish would be placed as low as possible on the structure, but high enough to clear natural obstructions. Six 4-foot whip antennas would be installed on the tower. The tower would include lightning protection, ice shield, and an ice bridge connecting the tower to the communication hut. A grounding loop with 5 to 10 grounding rods would be installed around the tower and structures. The color of all structures that would be seen above the ridgeline will be a dull matte light grey to lessen contrast with the typical cloudy sky. Galvanized steel surfaces are acceptable for both skyline and non- skyline applications so long as the surface is a shade of dull gray and is sufficiently weathered to be non-reflective.
Communication Shelter – An 8-foot by 10-foot by 8-foot-tall fiberglass shelter would house the electronics equipment required to transmit and receive signals and transfer these signals between the site and its control center. The hut foundation would consist of four 12-inch to 18-inch- diamater concrete pedestals anchored to bedrock. The floor of the hut would vary from approximately 1 foot to 3 feet above the natural ground surface. The shelter and all other structures would be painted a dull, matte shade of gray to blend with the surrounding landscape.
Generator Shelter – A 10-foot by 16-foot by 8-foot-tall metal shelter would house two generators and two sets of battery packs to provide power to the communication hut and its electronic equipment. A 4-foot porch would extend from each end of the shelter for removal or replacement of generators or batteries, making the total length of the shelter and porch structure approximately 24 feet. The generator hut foundation would consist of six to eight 12-inch to 18-inch-diameter concrete pedestals anchored to bedrock. The floor of the hut would vary from approximately 1 foot to 3 feet above the natural ground surface. The shelter would be painted a dull, matte gray to blend with the surrounding landscape.
Solar Array – An approximately 364 square foot solar array would be installed with a face area of ~ 315 ft2. The solar array would provide the majority of the site power during the summer months. The foundations for the array would be mounted on concrete pedestals anchored to bedrock. The solar collector surfaces are non-reflective.
Propane Tanks – Ten 500-gallon aboveground propane tanks would be installed at the facility to provide fuel for the generators. The approximate footprint for the 10 tanks would be 600 square feet. The foundations for the tanks would consist of 16 to 20, 12-inch to 18-inch-diameter concrete pedestals anchored to bedrock and treated lumber cribbing.
Helicopter Landing Pad – A 16-foot x 16-foot (256 ft2) helicopter landing pad made from either pressure-treated lumber or galvanized expanded metal would be installed. The foundation would consist of concrete pedestals anchored to bedrock. The helicopter pad colors will conform to USCG operational and safety standards, and would be unpainted wood or galvanized steel. This landing pad area would be used during both the construction process and permanent operation.
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 11 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Refueling Pad – A 10-foot x 10-foot (100 ft2) refueling pad made from pressure-treated lumber would be installed near the propane tanks. This pad would provide a level and stable surface on which transfer tanks could be set during refueling operations. The foundation would consist of concrete pedestals anchored to bedrock.
Wind Generators – Three small horizontal axis wind generators would be installed on the communications tower, one on the top of each tower leg (see example of installed wind generators in Figure 2-3). The 22-inch wind generator blades have a total diameter of about 4 feet including the hub. The blades include a special high visibility “Anti-bird” coating on the tips of the blades. The wind generators would be an alternate power source for charging the batteries and running the communications equipment thereby minimizing generator run times and fuel use.
Figure 2-3 Typical Small Wind Generator Installation
2.3.2 Mud Bay (Kruzof Island) Telecommunication Facility Link
The proposed Search and Rescue communications facility on Duffield Peninsula would connect to the USCG Operations Center in Juneau via a microwave link to the existing AT&T Mud Bay communications facility on Kruzof Island, approximately 25 miles southwest of the proposed communications site (see Figure 2-4), and then thru commercial circuits. The USCG would install a 4-foot microwave dish on the existing AT&T tower, install electronics inside the existing facility, and use the existing AT&T power sources. The Mud Bay telecommunication facility link is not part of the Forest Service’s decision; however it is part of the USCG’s decision.
Page 12 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Figure 2-4
2.3.3 Project Construction
Construction is proposed to take approximately 6 to 8 weeks and take place between July and September 2013 (depending on site access), with site operation commencing late September 2013. Construction and installation would occur in three phases. Phase I would be installing the rock anchors and foundations, phase II would be infrastructure installation (tower, shelters, and power systems), and phase III would be electronics installation, testing, and activation. Equipment would be transported to a staging area, as described further below, and then flown up to the proposed communications site by helicopter. Site construction would require use of hand tools, small power tools, a medium sized rock drill, a cement mixer, and a generator(s).
Construction materials would be transported by barge or landing craft to one of two staging areas for subsequent transport up to the proposed communications site by helicopter. The two proposed staging sites are Goose Cove, approximately 3 miles southwest of the proposed communication facility, and Rodman Bay, approximately 4 miles southeast of the proposed communication facility (see Figure 1 and Appendix D, photographs 5 and 6, respectively).
If a landing craft is available for transport of construction materials, the Goose Cove site would be used for staging. This area was formerly used as a staging area for logging and consists of tall grasses below the level of extreme storm surges. The site is an open, grassy area such that no brush removal, grubbing, earthwork or logging would be required for use as a staging area. The landing craft would beach at the site and materials would be off-loaded using a small forklift for staging prior to helicopter transport to the proposed communications site. A temporary electrified perimeter fence may be installed at Goose Cove to deter bears from damaging the construction materials. No camping, fuel transfer, food preparation, or food storage would occur at the staging area.
If a barge is available for transport of construction materials, the Rodman Bay site would be used for staging. The barge would be anchored in Rodman Bay and a helicopter would transport the materials directly from the barge to the proposed communications site. No terrestrial staging area would be necessary if the Rodman Bay staging alternative is chosen.
Approximately 30 helicopter flights would be required to transport materials from either staging area to the proposed communication site. An additional 5 helicopter trips would be required to bring construction equipment back to the staging area following completion of site construction. Helicopter refueling would take place at the existing refueling station on False Island, approximately 10 miles northwest of the proposed communications site. If weather conditions are favorable, helicopter transport of construction materials would require approximately 2 days over the estimated 6 to 8 week construction period. The helicopter flight paths from either Goose Cove or Rodman Bay would depend on wind and weather conditions; however, the likely flight paths are shown in Figure 2-5. The helicopter would generally be at least 500 ft above ground level within ½ mile of the staging site and would proceed to climb as quickly as possible to ensure adequate altitude over obstacles and achieve the communication site elevation. If prevailing winds dictate, the helicopter route from Goose Cove would be clockwise over Peril Strait and up to the site; however, this flight route is less desirable because much of it would be over water where the consequences of a failure in the lift would be more serious.
Page 14 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Figure 2-5 Proposed Helicopter Flight Routes from Goose Cove or Rodman Bay Staging Areas
After completion of phase II, the propane tanks would be filled with propane by helicopter. A separate landing craft or barge would anchor in one of the nearby bays and a helicopter would sling transportable propane tanks up to the site where the propane would be transferred into the stationary 500-gallon tanks at the communications site. Depending on the size of transportable propane tanks used, approximately 20 helicopter trips would be necessary. The propane capacity at the site is designed for refueling every two years or longer depending on availability of solar and wind power. Although not required, it would be advantageous for the contractor to use the same landing craft or barge and helicopter for removal of the construction equipment.
The onsite work force would be up to eight workers, depending on the phase. The construction crews would be transported by helicopter from Juneau or Sitka directly to the site where they would camp, returning to Juneau or Sitka periodically for days off or specialty crew changes. With the proposed site at an elevation of 2,860-feet, helicopter transport of personnel and logistics from Juneau or Sitka would be at high elevation.
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 15 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Prior to construction, the contractor would be required to provide the Forest Service and Coast Guard a detailed camp plan for approval. A typical temporary camp site setup similar to Figure 2- 6 consists of shelter(s) on wood platforms with blocking for leveling and to minimize ground contact. Heating of the crew quarters is typically a small propane heater, with cooking utilizing a Coleman type stove using either propane or Coleman fuel. Camp supplies would also include first aid, fire, safety, and communications equipment. A portable toilet would be placed within the construction site. All waste would be containerized and removed from the site when transport is available, or as required. An electric bear fence would be installed around the perimeter of the site area to discourage bears. In addition, all food, refuse or other attractants would be properly stored unless it is being prepared for eating, being eaten, being transported, or being prepared for acceptable storage. The storage of all petroleum fuels, oils, and hydraulic fluids for construction would utilize secondary containment. Fuels and lubricants would be stored in containment with absorbents available for use during fuel transfer to the construction equipment. Trash would be contained to prevent waste from being dispersed by wind.
Figure 2-6 Typical Temporary Camp Site
Page 16 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
2.3.4 Operation
The site would be accessed by the USCG or USCG contractors approximately two times a year for preventive maintenance and to ensure the systems are operating as designed. The propane tanks would be refueled by helicopter once every two years, most likely during the summer. The USCG will leave the generator hut doors unlocked year round for emergency access for people in distress.
2.4 Project Best Management Practices and Management Measures
The proposed action is designed to avoid or minimize environmental effects and to meet local and national Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Implementation would adhere to Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in the Alaska Region’s Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (Forest Service, 2006a) and Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands (Forest Service, 2012a). These BMPs are described in Appendix B.
In addition, a number of additional management measures and Forest-wide standards and guidelines are included in the proposed action to ensure that potential impacts are avoided or minimized. These measures are described further below.
Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts to Soils 1. A site survey will be conducted by the USCG (in conjunction with the Forest Service) in early April 2013 to evaluate the soils at the proposed landing and staging areas at Goose Cove. Soils containing less than 35% gravels within the top 12 inches would require: 2. If soils are less than 35% gravels but are otherwise deemed competent (coarse sand under Unified/AASHTO), then materials will be off-loaded using a small forklift with tracks for staging prior to helicopter transport. 3. If soils are silt or silt loam without coarse material (fine sand or finer under Unified/AASHTO), then in addition to tracked equipment, energy dissipation systems (e.g. log matting, tire grid, steel plates) will be deployed to prevent rutting.
Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts from Invasive Weeds 1. Shovels, picks, forklift(s) or other earth moving tools shall be cleaned of soil before leaving the contractor’s yard to prevent the accidental transfer of invasive species seeds to the site. This cleaning shall be done by power-washing all of the surfaces of the hand tools and the undersurface including tires or tracks of the forklift.
Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species or Habitat 1. A site survey will be conducted by the USCG, (in conjunction with the Forest Service), in early June 2013 to determine if moonworts (Botrychium spp.) and/or lichen (Lobaria amplissima) (or any other sensitive plants species) are within the proposed Goose Cove staging area. If these or any other R-10 plants are found, the staging area would be moved to avoid them or would be flagged to ensure that there would be no damage to them or within a meter of any stalk. 2. Staging area site placement shall avoid areas that have Cowardin classification parameters of wetland soils, wetland plants and/or presence of water. 3. Staging area site placement shall avoid wetland small trees such as Alnus rubra, Salix spp., etc.
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 17 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts to Marine Mammals 1. The Coast Guard, as a condition of contract specifications, and through monitoring by Coast Guard personnel, would ensure that should Humpback whale, Steller sea lions, or any other marine mammal be sighted within 100 yards of the staging barge at Rodman Bay, staging operations, including helicopter flights, shall be delayed until the marine mammal(s) has left the area of its own accord. 2. The USCG would adhere to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidelines for marine mammal protection in Alaska, which recommend that all aircraft maintain a minimum of 1,500 feet from individuals that are encountered and a minimum of 3,000 feet from important haulouts.
Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts to Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanas) 1. The USCG would conduct visual surveys of the construction site within two weeks of start of construction to determine if mountain goats are present at the site or in the vicinity. Visual surveys would be done from helicopters and would typically be conducted from at least 1,500 feet vertical clearance to ensure mountain goats, if present, would not be impacted by noise and presence. If mountain goats are present at the site, the Coast Guard will work with the Forest Service to devise measures to ensure that these animals will not be disturbed by the construction activities. Methods may include constructing exclusion fencing around the site. This fencing shall be large enough to include the helicopter landing area(s) and all other equipment and supplies. The fencing would be placed in a manner that does not exclude mountain goat dispersal and/or block animal corridors. 2. Helicopter flights, including for transport of materials to or from the staging site or transport of personnel to/from Sitka, shall avoid flying within 1,500 feet of any mountain goats. Helicopter flights from either the Goose Cove or Rodman Bay staging area would all ultimately approach the construction site from the north such that, should any mountain goats be present that were previously not known, the mountain goats would likely move south and east, away from the site/helicopter and toward Rodman Bay, which is their general travel route and is away from steeper slopes to the north.
Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts to Queen Charlotte Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laing) 1. Helicopter pilots would avoid flying within known goshawk nest sites during the fledgling stages, between June 1 to August 15 during construction or continued operation of the site. 2. The proposed helicopter flight paths from the staging area to the construction site would not affect the one known goshawk nest site on the northern tip of the Duffield Peninsula. If the proposed helicopter paths change substantially and would enter areas further north, near the known nest site, preconstruction surveys for goshawks shall occur within two weeks of start of construction to determine if these species are present in the vicinity. 3. Helicopter flights shall maintain an altitude of at least 500-foot vertical clearance, and when possible, 1,000-foot vertical clearance to avoid or minimize any potential impacts to any goshawk foraging areas or unknown goshawk nest sites.
Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts to Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 1. Preconstruction surveys shall occur within two weeks of start of construction to determine if bald eagles are present at or in the vicinity of the staging site(s) (Goose Cove or Rodman Bay). 2. All activities, including helicopter landings, shall be at least 0.25 mile from any active nest site. Page 18 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3. Helicopter flights shall maintain an altitude of at least 500-feet vertical clearance, and when possible, 1,000–feet vertical clearance to avoid potential impacts to any bald eagle foraging areas or unknown bald eagle nest sites.
Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts to Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) 1. Presence of brown bears is assumed and, therefore, the staging area and possibly the construction site shall be surrounded by an electrified bear exclusion fence. 2. The staging area shall be located at least 500 feet from any anadromous streams. 3. Good housekeeping BMPs will be adhered to, including not storing food at the staging site. At the construction site, using sealed bear proof containers and cleaning the construction site daily of trash and food scraps will be conducted. 4. Bear safety education shall be provided to all employees. The bear safety program shall emphasize construction site sanitation, basic bear biology and behavior, how to avoid contact with bears in the field, and what to do in the event of a bear encounter.
Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts to Cultural Resources 1. The cultural resource near the site of the proposed communication facility shall be flagged and avoided. 2. The cultural resource located near Goose Cove shall be avoided with a buffer zone, as determined by a qualified archaeologist. The buffer area would be flagged by the archaeologist prior to materials arriving at the site. 3. In accordance with standard USCG contract specifications, 36 CFR 800.13(a) and (b)(1) (Section 106 Guidelines), if cultural resources were to be encountered during construction, work would stop, the District Ranger would be notified and appropriate action would be taken by a Forest Service archaeologist to assess the nature and character of the resources. Alternatives would be evaluated in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and affected stakeholders, including Alaska Native tribes and organizations, and the project would be modified to avoid such resources, or a program of conservation and preservation would be implemented.
2.5 Alternative Sites Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis
Several alternative sites were considered during the planning process but were eliminated from detailed evaluation in this EA. These alternatives are described below, along with the reasons for not considering them further.
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 19 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Moore Mountain – Construction, operation, and maintenance of a communication facility adjacent to the existing Forest Service communication facility atop Moore Mountain, a 3,075-foot peak in the Moore Mountains on Chichagof Island approximately 11 miles east-northeast of the location of the proposed communication facility. The Moore Mountain site provided coverage of some of the Peril Strait area but did not provide coverage of some areas just below the mountain, the northwest end of Hoonah Sound, the southeast end of Peril Strait where it joins Chatham Strait, and the Sergius Narrows/Kakul Narrows portions of Peril Strait (see Figure 2-7). In addition, because of intervening high ridges, the Moore Mountain could not accomplish a microwave link to the existing Mud Bay site on Kruzof Island or the Rodman Bay AT&T site. Moore Mountain was eliminated from further consideration because the location did not fulfill the purpose and need of the proposed action to provide VHF communications in Sergius Narrows and Peril Strait.
Figure 2-7 Coverage Map of Eliminated Moore Mountain Alternate Site
Note: The red triangle in the figure indicates the location of the eliminated Moore Mountain alternate site. The dark blue shading indicates the coverage area in Peril Strait and beyond that this site would provide. The black dot indicates where an Alaska Marine Highway ferry went aground in 2004.
Page 20 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Upper Kruzof – Construction, operation, and maintenance of a communication facility adjacent to an existing Forest Service communication facility on northern Kruzof Island, approximately 21 miles southwest of the proposed communication facility. This facility would provide coverage of the southeast portion of Peril Strait and some of the Sergius Narrows/Kakul Narrows, but would not provide coverage of the Hoonah Sound South and North Arms, or the area of Peril Strait where the ferry, LeConte, went aground. Upper Kruzof was eliminated from further consideration because the location did not fulfill the purpose and need of the proposed action to provide VHF communications in Sergius Narrows and Peril Strait (see Figure 2-8).
Figure 2-8 Coverage Map of Eliminated Upper Kruzof Alternate Site
Note: The red triangle in the figure indicates the location of the eliminated Upper Kruzof alternate site. The dark blue shading indicates the coverage area in Peril Strait and beyond that this site would provide. The black dot indicates where an Alaska Marine Highway ferry went aground in 2004.
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 21 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Rodman Bay (AT&T/Alascom) – Construction, operation, and maintenance of a communication facility adjacent to an existing commercial communication facility northeast of Rodman Creek on Baranof Island, approximately 11 miles south-southeast of the proposed communication facility. This facility would provide coverage of the Sergius Narrows/Kakul Narrows area, but would not provide coverage for any other areas except a very small portion of Peril Strait. Rodman Bay was eliminated from further consideration because the location did not fulfill the purpose and need of the proposed action to provide VHF communications in Sergius Narrows and Peril Strait (see Figure 2-9).
Figure 2-9 Coverage Map of Eliminated Rodman Bay Alternate Site
Note: The red triangle in the figure indicates the location of the eliminated Rodman Bay alternate site. The dark blue shading indicates the coverage area in Peril Strait and beyond that this site would provide. The black dot indicates where an Alaska Marine Highway ferry went aground in 2004.
Page 22 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Steelhead – Construction, operation, and maintenance of a communication facility adjacent to the existing Forest Service Steelhead communication facility between Granite Creek and the Lisianski River on Chichagof Island, approximately 26 miles northwest of the proposed communication facility. This location would provide adequate coverage of the Peril Strait area, but would not provide coverage of the Sergius Narrows/Kakul Narrows area. Steelhead was eliminated from further consideration because the location did not fulfill the purpose and need of the proposed action to provide VHF communications in Sergius Narrows and Peril Strait (see Figure 2-10).
Figure 2-10 Coverage Map of Eliminated Steelhead Alternate Site
Note: The red triangle in the figure indicates the location of the eliminated Steelhead alternate site. The dark blue shading indicates the coverage area in Peril Strait and beyond that this site would provide. The black dot indicates where an Alaska Marine Highway ferry went aground in 2004.
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 23 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Duffield Peninsula Alternate – Construction, operation, and maintenance of a communication facility on the ridge approximately 1/2 mile southwest of the proposed site on Duffield Peninsula. This location would not provide coverage of a substantial portion of Peril Strait. Duffield Peninsula Alternate was eliminated from further consideration because the location did not fulfill the purpose and need of the proposed action to provide VHF communications in Sergius Narrows and Peril Strait.
Staging at Nismeni Cove – Use of a floating barge in Nismeni Cove, approximately 3 miles northwest of the proposed communication facility on the Duffield Peninsula, for staging during construction activities associated with the proposed Duffield Peninsula communication facility. Nismeni Cove staging was eliminated from further consideration because of the potential for waves, currents, and tidal movement to adversely affect helicopter sling-loading operations.
Staging at Appleton Cove – Staging at the Appleton Cove site, which is a former log transfer facility approximately 7 miles southeast of the proposed communications facility. Appleton Cove staging was eliminated from further consideration because it is on an island that is mostly vegetated and does not offer an open, land area for safe lift off and transition of helicopters.
2.6 Comparison of Alternatives
This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative.
Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternative Effects
Environmental Consequences Affected Alternative 1 Environment Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) (No Action) Public Health and No impacts. The proposed action would have substantial beneficial effects on Safety Public Health and Safety from the improved SAR and other communications coverage in the area.
Recreation Use No impacts. Implementing the proposed alternative would have temporary impact on recreation use during construction. Some beneficial effects on Recreational use may result from the improved SAR and other communications coverage in the area Scenery No impacts. At times, the tower would be visible from Peril Strait, Sergius Narrows, and land areas around the site. Small areas of non- conforming development are accounted for in the Forest Plan.
Air Quality No impacts. Generators and helicopters would be the only source of air emissions. Helicopter and generator operations would be infrequent and intermittent. Noise No impacts. Construction activities would result in temporary increases in noise levels in the area. Use of helicopters and generators during site operation would also result in intermittent noise. All noise sources would be temporary or intermittent.
Page 24 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Floodplains No impacts. There are no floodplains at the proposed communication site. Temporary use of the floodplain at the Goose Cove staging area, if selected, would have no long-term impact on the function of the floodplain. Water Resources and No impacts. There are no water resources at the proposed communication site. Water Quality I mpacts on coastal waters near the potential staging areas, if any, would be temporary.
Wetlands and No impacts. Best Management Practices will avoid or minimize impacts of Vegetation construction activities. Facility structures will affect individual plants.
Fish and Wildlife No impacts. The project would have negligible impact on fish and wildlife because it is consistent with the Forest Plan conservation strategy.
Threatened and No impacts. The proposed action would not affect threatened or endangered Endangered Species species.
Historical, No impacts. The communication and staging sites would not have an adverse Archaeological, or effect on historic, archaeological, or cultural resources. Work Cultural Resources would be stopped if any cultural resources were encountered.
Socioeconomics No impacts. Some beneficial effects on socioeconomics could occur from construction and maintenance employment.
Environmental Justice No impacts. No impacts.
Hazardous Materials No impacts. All hazardous materials used during construction or operation of the and Waste facility would be managed appropriately to avoid adverse effects. Management All waste would be removed following construction and disposed of appropriately.
Roadless Resources No impacts. The proposed action would not include road construction or reconstruction or felling of trees. Subsistence No impacts. The proposed action would have no effects on subsistence uses.
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 25 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
3.1 General Site Description
The proposed Duffield Peninsula communication site is located atop a 2,860-foot peak approximately 1.5 miles inland from Peril Strait (see Figure 1). The lower slopes adjacent to the shoreline (below about 500 feet elevation) are dominated by continuous mature hemlock and spruce forest cover. Above this, the vegetation consists mostly of shrubs with patches of short trees and open alpine grasses and forbs. The surface cover at the proposed communication site is largely comprised of rough areas of exposed fractured rock (40%) and areas of alpine tundra exhibiting low-growing scrubs and mixed grasses (60%) (SAGE, 2007). Photographs of the proposed site are provided in Appendix D, photographs 1 through 4. Typically, the proposed communication site is snow-covered for much of the year. There is no sign of development or human occupation near Duffield Peninsula other than recreational and commercial fishing boats in Peril Strait, Sergius Narrows and Rodman Bay.
According to the geotechnical report prepared for this project (See Appendix C), the mountain top is roughly conical in shape. Based on visual classification of rock fragments collected from the ground surface and rock outcrops, the rock appears to be a metamorphosed quartz diorite. In general, the rock is dark gray to black with occasional, lighter colored zones containing moderately magnetic minerals within a predominantly quartz matrix. These zones have a moderate “flow” texture, bordering on gneissic, which may indicate that the rock was subjected to regional metamorphism after or concurrent with emplacement. The peninsula is not volcanic and no geothermal activity has been reported.
3.2 Public Health and Safety
3.2.1 Affected Environment
There is an existing gap in the coverage areas of VHF communication sites in southeastern Alaska. Peril Strait has a high volume of traffic by the Alaska Marine Highway System (e.g., ferries), other commercial vessels, recreational vessels, and other small boats. The lack of adequate communication facilities in this area constitutes a potential public safety problem for vessels in distress."
3.2.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action Alternative, modification of the site would not occur and improvements to public health and safety would not occur. The existing communication gap in Peril Strait would remain.
Page 26 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
The shelter at the proposed communication site would provide a minor public safety benefit since it would remain unlocked to provide emergency shelter for people in distress. The proposed action would not adversely affect public health and safety. Beneficial effects resulting from the installation of the system would include:
1. The communication coverage gap in Peril Strait would be reduced, a beneficial impact affecting both the local area and having regional influence. 2. Channel capacity would be improved. The proposed system includes Digital Selective Calling capability, which would aid in determining the location of a vessel in distress. 3. Instant playback capability would be provided, thus improving the recording capability of the system. 4. System down-time and critical function restoration following natural disaster, accidents, and the like would be improved by reducing the time required for communication system restoration. 5. The system would be set up to improve interoperability among the USCG and other federal, state, and local communication systems. The USCG would have an improved capability to receive distress calls and to call upon resources. The system would be monitored 24 hours a day, 365 days a year by the USCG, thus alleviating the existing communication gap. 6. The system would provide improved weather notifications for the general boating public by installing a weather transmitter at the site which would connect to the National Weather Service feed. 7. Safety response times for searches and rescues or environmental incident responses are critically affected by the existing lack of communication ability. Implementation of the proposed action would quicken the response times to such incidents.
The USCG has submitted a Notice of Proposed Construction (Form 7460-1) to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the proposed tower for FAA obstruction analysis and review. The FAA determined that the structure would not exceed obstruction standards and would not present a hazard to air navigation.
3.3 Recreation Use
3.3.1 Affected Environment
Recreational use in the broader vicinity of the Duffield Peninsula includes hunting, fishing, and boating. Hunting occurs throughout much of Baranof Island. Target species include Sitka black- tailed deer, brown bear, and mountain goats. Hunting for waterfowl also occurs. Ocean fishing occurs throughout Hoonah Sound, Peril Strait, and Rodman Bay. The ferries of the Alaska Marine Highway System, cruise ships, charter vessels, kayaks, and other small private craft travel through Peril Strait, bringing visitors within sight of the proposed communication site. For the purpose of this analysis, persons on cruise ships, ferries, charter vessels, and private boats are considered to be engaged in sightseeing as a recreational use. Charter vessel and private boat users may also engage in other activities, such as fishing.
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 27 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
There are no roads in the vicinity; access is by helicopter only or a long climb from sea level across heavily vegetated terrain. The occurrence of mountain goats in the area provides potential use of the area by hunters.
3.3.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action Alternative, construction of the Duffield Peninsula site would not occur and changes to recreational use in the area would not occur.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Implementation of the proposed alternative would provide enhanced capability for emergency rescue or quicker response in case of unanticipated events, and the enhanced capabilities to receive weather updates while in Peril Strait. Boaters transiting Peril Strait could take advantage of the Digital Selective Calling capabilities of the new generation of marine radios. The recreational user would have an enhanced capability for routine hailing for non-emergency assistance by using marine channel 16.
During construction, visitors would be less likely to use the Goose Cove staging site or the construction site. Helicopter routes would also discourage some visitor use in the larger Duffield Peninsula/Peril Straits area. Adverse effects on recreation would be temporary for the extent of the construction period and then limited to semi-annual maintenance visits.
The proposed communication facility would be visible to recreational users of Peril Strait. The staging areas at Goose Cove or on the barge in Rodman Bay would also be visible to recreational users in the immediate vicinity of these sites for the short term. The effects on recreational use posed by the location of the proposed communication facility would last for the life of the facility. The effect on the recreational experience by these users would be minimal because of the distance of the facility to users, and consequently the limited effect on the aesthetic component of the recreational experience, and the limited duration of the effect in the staging sites. The proposed alternative would present both minor adverse and positive effects on recreation use in the Peril Strait and Duffield Peninsula areas.
3.4 Scenery
3.4.1 Affected Environment
The proposed communication site on the Duffield Peninsula is within an Old-growth Habitat LUD. The SIO that applies to this LUD is “High” at all distance zones, which emphasizes that the landscape character “appears” intact. Structures must blend with the environment such that they are not evident to the casual observer (Forest Service 2008a). The site is located atop a mountain along a major ferry route that is defined as a VPR in the Forest Plan.
The Duffield Peninsula site would be seen predominately from water VPRs and saltwater use areas along Peril Strait, which would place the site in the middleground and background zones
Page 28 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
from the observer. The Old-growth Habitat LUD requires the application of Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for the “High” SIO at foreground, middleground, and background distance zones. Activities must be designed such that they are not visually evident to the casual observer. This objective should be accomplished within 6 months following project completion. In regard to facilities, Standards and Guidelines require clearing of vegetation be kept to a minimum and within close proximity of the site; selection of materials and colors that blend with those found in the natural environment; and screening should be used from viewpoints and travel routes if feasible.
The majority of the potential viewers of the proposed Duffield Peninsula communication facility would likely be aboard vessels transiting Peril Strait. The Alaska Marine Highway and Tour Ship Route is approximately 3.0 miles distant (northwest) at its nearest to the proposed site. Other vessels in Peril Strait can travel no closer than approximately 1.5 miles (northwest) from the site of the proposed communication facility. Thus, the majority of potential viewers of the proposed communication facility would be viewing the facility from 1.5 miles or farther. The location of the proposed communication site on a peak at 2,860-feet elevation would place it at the middleground zone from Peril Strait, and in the background zone from all other visual priority areas.
The fuel tanks, refueling pad, and solar array would not likely be visible from the nearest VPR and SUA northwest of the project site. The color of all structures that would be seen above the ridgeline from any VPR and use area would be a dull matte, light gray to lessen contrast with the typical cloudy sky. All other structures potentially visible from VPRs and use areas, including the fuel tanks, solar array (except for the solar collector surfaces), shelters and structure foundations, would be a dull matte shade of gray to blend with the native rock and snow-cover in the surrounding landscape. The antennae tower (and ancillary equipment like stiff arms, ice bridge and ice shields) would be unpainted and would retain a gray, non-reflective appearance resulting from the galvanized steel structure. The microwave dish would be a non-reflective, light gray color to blend with a cloudy or overcast skyline. The helicopter pad colors would conform to USCG operational and safety standards. The facility would occupy less than ½ acre.
3.4.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action Alternative, modification of the site would not take place and changes would not occur to the scenery.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
The proposed site lies within an Old-growth Habitat LUD that has a scenic integrity objective (SIO) of “High” for all distance zones (foreground, middleground and background) as defined in the Forest Plan. In order to comply with a “High” SIO, management activities and facilities must not be evident to the casual observer. The Forest Plan portrays defined VPRs and use areas as the relevant viewing locations to determine distance to the facility. Nearby VPRs include a line down the middle of Peril Strait for the Alaska Marine Highway and Tour Ship Route. Nearby SUAs include Deadman’s Reach in Peril Strait. At 3.0 miles (“middleground” is ½ to 5 miles from the
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 29 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
viewer) from the proposed facility, the Peril Strait VPR is the closest designated VPR to the site. At 1.5 miles from the proposed facility, the Deadman’s Reach SUA is the closest designated use area to the site. The Poison Cove BA is approximately 4.0 miles from the site. The proposed facility would be visible from other VPRs and use areas in the Duffield Peninsula vicinity from background locations greater than 5 miles from the site.
Experience has shown (refer to Appendix D, photographs #7, 8 and 9 of the Cape Fanshaw Communication Facility for examples) that facilities of this type and scale are not visible to most casual observers at background distances (5 miles or more distance). However, at 3.0 miles and 1.5 miles distance and positioned as it is on a ridgeline, the tower structure might be visible as a silhouette against a clear sky to a casual observer aboard a boat or ship in the middle of Peril Strait on the VPR northwest of the proposed communication site or near the southeast shore of the nearby SUA.
The general location of the proposed communication site is on a peak approximately 1.5 miles inland from Peril Strait. The antennae tower near the peak would extend above any nearby vegetation; therefore, the tower could be visible to observers in Peril Strait. The two modular shelters, fuel tanks, solar array, and refueling pad would be set back at a lower elevation on the east side of the peak. The helicopter pad would be located at a lower elevation on the west side of the peak. The peak would shield the two modular shelters, fuel tanks, solar array, and refueling pad when observed in an area in Peril Strait west of the project site. The shelters would be visible from areas in Peril Strait north, south and east of the project site, placing these structures in the middleground distance zone from these observation sites. The topographic characteristics of the site (slope, aspect, and adjacent terrain features) would partially screen the shelters from viewers in most directions. The visibility of the two shelters would be limited to a few viewing angles at the middleground and background distance zones. The shelters and fuel tanks would be painted a dull matte gray color that would assist with blending the structures into the natural landscape.
An assessment of potential visual effects also must consider interference with visibility due to weather conditions. The Duffield Peninsula site is subject to frequent fog and low-lying cloud cover caused by the confluence of cold Arctic air with the warmer air associated with the waters of the nearby Japanese Current. Additionally, rain often obscures the view of the proposed communication site atop the 2,860-foot peak on the Duffield Peninsula.
In the scope of views available from Peril Strait or the adjacent onshore lowland areas in the vicinity of the project site, the proposed communication facility would not stand out as a prominent feature. The proposed 60-foot tower would be barely distinguishable at a distance of 1.5 miles (see Figure 3-1 and Appendix D, photographs # 7, 8 and 9 for views of a similar communication site at varying distances). Because of the site’s location above timberline, the top of the 60-foot tower might be visible from Peril Strait and the adjacent onshore lowland areas. On clear days the tower might be silhouetted against the sky. As the sole vertical element in a location above timberline, it would contrast with the natural lines of the mountaintop terrain. It would, however, be a very small portion of any view of the terrain visible from Peril Strait or the adjacent onshore lowland areas and not distinct enough to draw attention from other elements of the landscape. On clear days, the facility would be a minor element as compared with the surrounding forests and mountainous terrain. The microwave dish on the tower would be a feature that some observers might notice if they were in line with the line-of-sight path from the site to the Mud Bay communication link on Kruzof Island. Page 30 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Figure 3-1 Similar Communication Facility, Distant View
Notes: 1) Photo Site A: 57 degrees, 15.58 minutes North, 133 degrees, 31.53 minutes West. Distance from Photo Site A to Cape Fanshaw communication site (H) is 4.5 miles. Camera: 70-mm lens, Canon DSLR. 2) Cannot distinguish the tower because of the faded gray, galvanized steel lattice structure. Cannot see the microwave dish.
There would be no lights on the tower, so there would not be any interference from glare with night sky views.
The landscape character and the SIOs of the Duffield Peninsula area would not be substantially altered by the installation of the proposed communication facility at this location. There would be no clearing of vegetation. The selection of materials and colors of the communication facility are designed to blend into the natural landscape. Use of the terrain in site design helps screen much of the facility from VPR and saltwater use areas.
In summary, the proposed action would have very little effect on scenery in the Duffield Peninsula area. Every effort would be made to blend the facility into the landscape through careful placement of structures and use of local colors on all surfaces. The potential visibility of the site at the prescribed distances of 3.0 miles to the closest VPR and 1.5 miles to the closest SUA makes it possible that the facility might be “evident” to a casual observer.
Exceptions for small areas of non-conforming developments may be considered on a case-by- case basis (Forest Service, 2008). The proposed action alternative with implementation of the measures discussed in this analysis to avoid impacts on scenery would blend sufficiently with
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 31 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
the local landscape to be largely unnoticed by people traveling and recreating in the adjacent waters. Therefore; the proposed facility would meet the intent of the scenery management objectives prescribed in the Forest Plan.
3.5 Air Quality
3.5.1 Affected Environment
The air quality in southeastern Alaska is classified as unimpaired. Stationary sources of air emissions that could adversely affect air quality consist largely of wood-processing facilities and space heating. The major mobile sources of emissions are vessels and aircraft.
The dispersion of air pollutants in the Inside Passage and the Gulf of Alaska is based on factors such as atmospheric stability, wind speed, and surface roughness. Average wind speeds at Sitka are about 10 miles per hour (mph), with predominant wind direction from the east-southeast (Windfinder 2011).
The proposed Duffield Peninsula communication site is classified as an attainment area with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). All geographic areas in the state of Alaska are designated by the federal administrator as "attainment," "nonattainment," or "unclassifiable." An area is designated "attainment" for a particular air pollutant if its air quality meets the ambient air quality standard for that air pollutant. If air quality does not meet the ambient standard for a particular air pollutant, that area is designated "nonattainment" for that air pollutant. If there is insufficient information to classify an area as attainment or nonattainment for a particular air pollutant, the area is designated "unclassifiable" for that air pollutant (EPA 2011).
3.5.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action Alternative, modification of the site would not take place and changes to air quality would not occur in the area from a localized (on-site) source.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Propane generators and occasional helicopter trips would be the only sources of air emissions from the project during site operations. The generators proposed to be installed at the Duffield Peninsula site would be compliant with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions standards. For project operation, typical generator run times are expected to be six to eight hours once every three days during the winter months. The frequency of generator run times would be substantially reduced during periods when solar radiation is available (spring, summer, & fall). Wind turbines, if viable in the long run at the Duffield Peninsula site, would be expected to reduce generator run times to an estimated once every five or more days. Thus, it is concluded that the level of change to air quality from generator emissions would be a short-term, negligible effect.
Helicopter visits to the site would be greatest during construction, when an approximately 50 transits would occur. Helicopter trips to the site during site operations would be one or two times
Page 32 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
a year. Helicopters would be short-term source of emissions during construction and infrequent during operations. Helicopter emissions would also be at varying locations and elevations such that emissions would be more dispersed and have lower effects at the site or immediate area.
The very small level of emissions from these sources would have no detectable effect on air quality in the region or the site since the nearly constant winds in the area would readily disperse any pollutants. There would be no appreciable changes in the overall air quality at the proposed Duffield Peninsula communication facility or at either of the staging area alternate sites.
3.6 Noise
3.6.1 Affected Environment
Background information on noise terminology and descriptors as well as a regulatory overview are provided in Appendix E. Sound levels in areas without human influence are considered to be in the range of 20 to 40 A-weighted decibels (dBA) in calm weather. Measurement of sound levels at other potential R21 sites ranged from 25 to 37 dBA during calm weather (wind at 0 mph).
A number of natural phenomena can produce substantial noise levels. The most pervasive source of natural sound is the wind. Wind through foliage or over bare surfaces generates noise levels that relate to the speed of the wind and, to a lesser degree, the extent to which topography or other features channel winds. The noise associated with winds on level ground has been measured at about 35 to 45 dBA at wind speeds of 5 to 10 mph and at 55 to 65 dBA at wind speeds of 20 to 30 mph (Bolin 2006; Illingworth and Rodkin 2006). Rain and marine water movement are also common elements of background sound in southeastern Alaska.
Anthropogenic noise sources in the area would include aircraft and vessels traveling through the area. The loudest potential source of noise in the area is likely to be low-altitude aircraft over flights. A single-engine airplane flyover 1,000 feet above an observer can have a peak noise level of 80 dBA for a very short period, with a more extended period of lower noise levels when the airplane is at a greater distance (Schulten 1997). Noise from vessel traffic is highly variable, depending upon the size of the vessel and type of propulsion. Generally, noise from ships is related to engines, propellers, whistles, and signals. Vessel noise levels at a distance of 500 feet are typically in the range of 55 to 60 dBA, falling to 35 to 45 dBA at distances of a quarter mile to a half mile (Miller 2008). Topography, vegetation, and weather also influence the distance from which vessels may be heard.
3.6.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action Alternative, modification of the site would not take place and soundscape changes would not occur.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Both the proposed communication site and the selected staging site would experience noise from helicopter trips during construction. The proposed communication site would experience DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 33 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
additional noise from helicopter trips for maintenance visits approximately twice per year and for recharge of the propane tanks every two years. The noise level produced by a typical helicopter is about 90 dBA at 300 feet (FAA 2004).
The noise effect from the helicopter slinging operations is a local effect, but helicopter over-flights to the site would be considered a regional effect (albeit much smaller). Noise from construction of the tower and related facilities would involve portable battery- and gasoline-powered equipment, voices, and a variety of sounds associated with a construction camp (a site-specific effect). The sound levels would be higher than ambient natural levels, but temporary. This would be a minor effect.
Operational noise would be produced primarily from the generators used to recharge the batteries. A similar facility at the USCG R21 facility near Juneau created noise levels on the side opposite the exhaust of 76 dBA at a distance of 10 feet and 55 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. On the side adjacent to the exhaust discharge, noise levels were 85 dBA at 10 feet and 57 dBA at 50 feet. Generator noise can be expected to attenuate to near background levels of 30 to 35 dBA at a distance of 500 to 550 feet.
Noise from the proposed wind generators is expected to be low, in the range of 44 to 56 dBA at 10-meters during wind speeds of 6 – 14 m/s. At wind speeds greater than 10 m/s, ambient noise of the wind is generally greater than noise generated by the wind generators. (Refer to Appendix E, Superwind test results July 2009).
Noise from helicopter visits would be the most noticeable, temporary, intermittent effect in the vicinity of the site. The noise produced during slinging of equipment from the staging site to the tower site for construction would last one or two days. As many as 30 trips would be required during that period. Depending upon the distance required for slinging materials, the noise might be continuous, or nearly so, during daylight hours. But once all the necessary materials were moved to the construction site, the number of flights would be substantially reduced.
In addition, a work camp would be needed at the proposed communications site for construction of the facility. Construction crews typically live at the site for 5 – 7 day periods and are then flown out by helicopter for a rest period before returning for another work period. Helicopter flights for crew breaks to either Sitka or Juneau would be at high elevations (~ 3,000-ft) and would be a minor effect. Camp and construction noise would be temporary, minor, localized effect.
Battery charging in fall and winter typically involves running the propane-powered internal combustion engine for six hours at intervals of about three days. During the spring, summer, and fall a substantial portion of the electrical needs would be met by solar and wind resulting in much less propane-powered generators run time. In some cases, propane-powered generator units may not operate for several weeks. Generator noise would be a minor effect.
Noise from the proposed wind generators is expected to be low, in the range of 44 to 56 dBA at 10-meters during wind speeds of 6 – 14 m/s, and not audible beyond the immediate mountain peak area.
Page 34 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.7 Floodplains
3.7.1 Affected Environment
The proposed Duffield Peninsula SAR site on Baranof Island area is atop the summit of an unnamed peak and therefore not within a floodplain. The potential staging area near Goose Cove located near the ocean and adjacent to brackish and freshwater streams and wetlands. All materials at the Goose Cove site would be stored above the highest water marks during the temporary staging during mobilization and construction. The potential staging area on a barge in Rodman Bay would be located in the ocean, thus not on any floodplain.
3.7.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action Alternative, modification of the site would not take place and changes would not occur to floodplains.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Because the SAR site is not within a floodplain, there would be no effects to any floodplains at this location.
Although the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) has not mapped floodplains on the Duffield Peninsula, the potential staging area at Goose Cove is located adjacent to coastal embayment that could be subject to coastal flooding.
If the Goose Cove staging site is chosen, the activities would be temporary and thus there would be no permanent facilities constructed within the floodplain. Furthermore, all materials would be stored above the highest water marks during the temporary staging during mobilization and construction. Any effect on the coastal floodplain would be negligible and temporary. The staging concept on a barge in Rodman Bay would have no effect on any floodplains.
3.8 Water Resources and Water Quality
3.8.1 Affected Environment
The Duffield Peninsula site is located on a mountain summit and no standing water is present. Additionally, there are no streams, rivers, lakes, or other water bodies within a half mile of the Duffield Peninsula site. The Goose Cove staging site is adjacent to both freshwater and brackish water in the form of standing water and streams, and a saltwater embayment. The Rodman Bay site is located in the saltwater embayment.
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 35 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.8.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action Alternative, modification of the sites would not take place and changes to water resources would not occur.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
The objectives Alaska Region BMP 12.8 (Oil Pollution Prevention and Servicing/Refueling Operations) and BMP 12.9 (Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Planning) are to prevent contamination of surface and subsurface soil and water resources from spills of petroleum products. Fuel for equipment will be stored within a secondary means of containment large enough to hold the entire contents of the largest single tank plus sufficient freeboard to allow for precipitation. Service and refueling sites will be located well away from wetlands and stream channels. Minor oil spills will be prevented by using good housekeeping techniques including:
Collecting used oil, oil filters, and grease tubes Requiring equipment operators to carry absorbent pads Provide containment and cleanup for portable fuel tanks (including hose and nozzle) Following approved disposal methods for waste products Repair equipment leaks promptly
If the total, oil and hazardous substances exceed the limits listed in 40 CFR 112, the contractor will develop and provide a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan signed by a registered Engineer, and posted on the site.
The objectives of BMP 12.15 (Management of Sanitary Facilities and Sanitary Guidelines for Temporary Camps and Primitive Developments) and 12.16 (Control of Solid Waste Disposal) are to ensure proper disposal of sewage and protect surface and subsurface soil and water resources from harmful nutrients, bacteria, and chemicals.
Due to the distances from the communication site to surface water bodies and due to the very limited use of hazardous materials, very limited ground disturbance, and use of the aforementioned best management practices, there would be no temporary or long-term effects to nearby water resources or water quality.
3.9 Wetlands and Vegetation
3.9.1 Affected Environment
The proposed site is located along a sparsely vegetated ridgeline, consisting of exposed rock with small patches of low vegetation. Neither trees nor designated wetlands are present at the site. A site survey conducted in August 2007 found that the surface cover at the site was largely comprised of rough areas of exposed fractured rock (40%) and areas of alpine tundra exhibiting low-growing scrubs and mixed grasses (60%) (SAGE 2007). The site evaluation for plants determined that site vegetation consisted of common alpine vegetation in southeastern Alaska,
Page 36 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
described in the Alaska Vegetation Classification as Mountain-Heath Dwarf Shrub Tundra (Forest Service 2006b). No wetlands occur at the site.
The two potential staging areas are located on the northwest and southern coast lines of the Duffield Peninsula. Staging at Rodman Bay would be conducted from a barge and thus no vegetation is present.
A portion of Goose Cove, site of one proposed staging area is mapped as an estuarine and coastal wetland (USF&WS 2010a). The other plant communities within Goose Cove are tideflats, beach meadows and mesic/upper beach meadow. Generally, the plants associated with these plant communities are not rare or endangered. Tideflats are found at the heads of many of the bays and estuaries and are usually associated with stream estuaries. The tideflats support sea milkwort (Glaux maritima), glasswort (Salicornia spp.), and algae (Chorophyta spp.) Beach meadows occur between the shore and the forest. Lower beach meadows are composed of beach ryegrass (Elymus mollis), reed bent grass (Calamagrostis nutkaensis), hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa), fescue grass (Festuca spp.), beach lovage (Ligusticum scoticum), goose tongue (Plantago maritima), and sedges (Carex spp). Upper beach meadow plants include yarrow (Achillea millefolium), bedstraw (Galium spp), starwort (Stellaria alaskana), ferns, western columbine (Aquilegia formosa), and cow parsnip (Heracleum maximum). Oregon crabapple (Malus fusca), alder (Alnus rubra), devil's club (Oplopanax horridus), and blueberry (Vaccinium alaskensis) occur along the border of the beach meadow and the forest.
Table 3-1 indicates Tongass National Forest (R-10) plants that may potentially occur within the proposed Goose Cove staging area. Of these species, it is believed that only the moonworts (Botrychium spp.) and/or lichen (Lobaria amplissima) have substantial potential for occurrence.
Table 3-1. Tongass National Forest R-10 Plant Species Aphragmus eschscholtzianus Ligusticum calderi Botrychium spathulatum Lobaria amplissima Botrychium tunux Papaver alboroseum Botrychium yaaxudakeit Piperia unalascensis Cochlearia sessilifolia Platanthera orbiculata Cirsium edule var. macounii Polystichum kruckebergii Cypripedium guttatum Romanzoffia unalaschcensis Cypripedium montanum Sidalcea hendersonii Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens Tanacetum bipinnatum subsp. huronense
Forest Service Manual (2080) requires identifying invasive plant prevention and control measures to ensure that invasive plants are not spread to new locations. A plant survey of the proposed site did not find any invasive plants currently at the site (USFS 2006b). A Pre-Field Review Worksheet for Sensitive Plants/Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plants was prepared for the Goose Cove staging site and no invasive plants species were identified.
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 37 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.9.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action Alternative, no modification of the site would take place and no changes to wetlands or vegetation would occur.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Construction at the proposed site would not affect any wetlands. Minimal alpine tundra vegetation would be permanently disturbed by construction; however, the footprint of the proposed facility would be small relative to the surrounding area. Only the areas where the shelters, pads, tank cradles, and footings would be constructed would vegetation be entirely removed (anticipated being less than 1,300 square feet). Footings are usually installed on bare rock where they can easily be anchored to bedrock. BMPs and management measures, as listed in Section 2.4 and incorporated into the project design, would avoid or reduce impacts.
Once construction is complete and the facility is in place, operation and maintenance of the site would not disturb additional vegetation. The site would be accessed by helicopter approximately twice a year for maintenance, with most activity occurring on the helipad, the refueling pad, or inside a building.
Vegetation under the footprints of the shelters, solar array, the propane tanks, the refueling pad, and the helipad may not grow as robustly as presently occurring because of shading from the above mentioned proposed site features. However, if this infrastructure (and the footings) were removed, then any existing vegetation would re-establish its previous vigor. The average working life of a USCG facility in Alaska exceeds 30 years.
Use of the selected staging area would not permanently affect any wetlands in the Goose Cove area. Some grasses and shrubs above the high-water mark would be temporarily disturbed during the mobilization and staging phases of the project. BMPs and project avoidance measures, as described in Section 2.4 of this document, would ensure that the staging area is sited on the driest area of this site, away from shrubs and small trees, including willows and alders. Measures to minimize impacts on soils would dissipate energy from landing equipment at the staging area avoiding rutting and other damage to sensitive soils. In addition, as described in Section 2.4, a pre-construction site survey would be conducted to ensure that should any of the R-10 plants be discovered at Goose Cove, they would be avoided by moving the staging area, or they would be flagged to avoid any damage to them or within a meter of any stalk.
The BMPs listed in Appendix B would also ensure that no nonnative species are introduced into the project work areas.
3.10 Fish and Wildlife
3.10.1 Affected Environment
A Biological Evaluation (BE) for both the proposed communication site and the Goose Cove staging site, were prepared in 2006 and 2012, respectively. In accordance with the Forest Service Page 38 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Manual (FSM) direction, the effects of a proposed action to management indicator species (MIS) and threatened, endangered, proposed or sensitive (TEPS) species is assessed and the Forest Plan requirements, goals and objectives for these species are met at the project level (FSM 2621.3, 2621.4 and 2672.4). MIS are vertebrates or invertebrate species whose response to land management activities can be used to predict the likely response of other species with similar habitat requirements. This section discusses MIS and Section 3.11 discusses TEPS species.
The BEs provide a description of the proposed action and disclose the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of this action on MIS, TEPS, and other species. To meet the requirements for BE, as described in FSM, and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the analysis requirements for the National Environmental Policy Act, this document tiers from the Fish and Wildlife Resource Report for the Preparation of Biological Evaluations & Fish & Wildlife Project Level Analysis for the Tongass National Forest, which provides additional information on current management direction, desired future conditions and the affected environment for species addressed.
Fish
As stated above in section 3.9.1, the proposed site is on top of a mountain and no wetlands or streams occur at the site. Freshwater streams, brackish water and saltwater embayment all occur within the vicinity of the Goose Cove staging site, and the barge site in Rodman Bay, if chosen as the staging alternative, would be located in the saltwater embayment of Rodman Bay.
Pink salmon, coho salmon, Dolly Varden, and cutthroat trout are the designated management indicator species of fish for the Tongass National Forest. The Goose Cove staging site on the Duffield Peninsula may contain spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous and resident fish species which include: coho salmon, steelhead trout, pink salmon, chum salmon, cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden, and sculpin (Forest Service 2008d).
Terrestrial Species
As stated in the BE, twelve terrestrial MIS have been identified within the Tongass National Forest, including the American marten, bald eagle, black bear, brown bear, brown creeper, hairy woodpecker, mountain goat, red-breasted sapsucker, red squirrel, river otter, Sitka black-tailed deer, and the Vancouver Canada goose (Forest Service 2009).
The areas of the proposed communication site and the potential staging areas are known to have populations of brown bear, Sitka black-tailed deer, mountain goat, red squirrel, beaver, mink, land otter, marten, and brown bat (ADF&G 2010b). In addition, one native mouse (northwestern deermouse); and one vole (root vole) occur on Baranof Island (MacDonald and Cook 2007). Two nonnative species occur within the Sitka area, the house mouse and the brown rat. These two species are commensal with humans, and have not been documented outside of human settlements on Baranof Island or within other parts of Southeast Alaska.
Marine Species
Humpback Whale and Steller sea lion, as well as other marine mammals are known to occur in the marine waters surrounding Duffield Peninsula. DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 39 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.10.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action Alternative, no modification of the site would take place and no changes to fish or wildlife populations would occur.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Fish
Since there are no streams in the immediate vicinity or downstream of the proposed site, no impacts to any fish species would occur. Minimal ground disturbance would occur in this area, and the native substrate is 40% rock with 60% alpine tundra, thus no streams downstream of the operations site would be negatively affected by sediment or any other contaminant contained in runoff water.
While the Goose Cove area contains soils meeting the Cowardin classification of wetland soils and/or wetland-obligate plants, the proposed staging area would be located on uplands. The proposed project does not include any in-water work other than use of a landing craft at Goose Cove or a barge at Rodman Bay.
There would be no effects on fish because the proposed locations and actions would not affect water or fish habitat and no effects would be transported to the marine or freshwater environments during activities associated with this project.
Terrestrial Species
For most of the species listed above, no effect would occur as a result of the project activities associated with operating the SAR facility. This project poses no reduction or alteration of any productive old-growth forest which are the habitat for many of the MIS. Any disturbance potential is slight, and project activities would not occur during critical timing or in critical habitat (Forest Service 2009).
Bald eagles and nest sites are known to occur in the vicinity of both the Goose Cove and Rodman Bay staging areas (Forest Service 2012b). Eagles may also forage or roost along the helicopter transit route(s) from the staging areas to the proposed communications site. Three bald eagle nests are known to be in the vicinity of the Goose Cove staging area (USF&WS 2007). It is not known if any of these nests remain, if any additional nests have been established, or if any of these nests will be active during 2013 when construction is proposed to occur. Four nests are located on-shore in the vicinity of Rodman Bay where the staging barge would be anchored if this staging alternative is chosen. Similarly, it is not known if these nests remain, if additional nests have been established, or if any of these nests will be active during 2013 when construction is proposed to occur.
The proposed action would occur in August and September, during the hatching/rearing/fledging periods for bald eagles, which are considered to be periods that are very sensitive to disturbance (USF&WS 2007). USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines recommend aircraft Page 40 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
avoid operation within 1,000 feet of nest sites. All nest sites are at least ¼ mile (1,300 feet) from the proposed staging areas and helicopter transit routes. The Coast Guard would conduct a confirmation survey of the chosen staging area for active eagle nests prior to commencement of construction in 2014, and should any nests be found, ensure that all helicopter operations avoid these sites by at least 1,000 ft.
Queen Charlotte Goshawks generally nest and forage in dense, wet, coastal rainforests and avoid non-forested and clear cut areas. Nest activity varies annually with prey availability and weather. Goshawks have been reported near nests as early as March, with estimates for egg-laying between April 12 and May 24. Hatching is estimated to occur between May 12 and June 23, and post- fledging dispersal between August 2 and September 13 (USDA 1996). The primary threat to Goshawks is loss of suitable habitat due to logging. Goshawks actively defend their nest site against intrusion by humans; however, the impact of disturbance on occupancy and productivity has not been established (Forest Service 1996).
A Queen Charlotte Goshawk nest site is known to occur on the eastern end of the Duffield Peninsula (Forest Service 2012b). No activities associated with the proposed action would occur in this area and the planned routes for helicopters transiting from the staging area to the proposed communications site would be at least 1.5 miles from this nest site. The most likely helicopter transit routes would be more than 3 miles from the nest site.
In 1923, mountain goats were introduced to Baranof Island (MacDonald and Cook 2007) and mountain goats and/or mountain goat habitat are present in the surrounding area of the proposed communications site. According to aerial census surveys taken since 1990, seven to nine goats are typically counted in the Duffield Peninsula area. Ten to 12 goats are typically counted on the ridge southeast of Rodman Bay, and between 12 and 21 are typically counted on the ridge between Rodman Bay and Saook Bay during summer surveys (ADF&G 2008). An extensive survey of Baranof Island in 2004 counted 1,300 mountain goats, with a total estimated population of 1,500 mountain goats (ADF&G 2008). The population was determined to be secure at that time.
The presence of Mountain goat at the site, or evidence of previous use of the site (i.e., scat) was specifically evaluated during the Coast Guard site visits in August 2007 and October 2009. No evidence of Mountain goat at the site was detected. Duffield Peninsula offers limited suitable habitat for Mountain goat. Although the proposed site development would alter existing habitat at this site, effects are expected to be minor to mountain goats because the habitat at this location is not well suited to mountain goat use, and there remains a large amount of more suitable habitat in the surrounding area. The footprint of the proposed communication site would be small and would result in the loss of a negligible amount of mountain goat habitat. Loss of a small area of suitable mountain goat habitat and operation of the facility would have a negligible effect on the mountain goat population in the area. Construction would occur outside the kidding period for mountain goats.
Helicopter flights to the site during construction or operation of the facility could result in temporary disturbance to mountain goats (Goldstein et al. 2005). Coast Guard personnel would be expected to visit the site by helicopter 1 to 2 times during site planning, a number of times during a 6 week period of construction, and 1 to 2 times each year for site maintenance/refueling. Disturbed mountain goats may become alert, vigilant, seek cover, or run away due to disturbance from the helicopter or workers, though goats in SE Alaska show more tolerance for disturbance DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 41 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
than goats in other parts of Alaska (Goldstein et al. 2005). Where feasible, flight paths would avoid known mountain goat kidding areas from May 15 through June 15 (the construction phase is scheduled for July through September). Helicopter flights would maintain a 1,500-foot vertical or horizontal clearance from traditional summer and kidding habitat, and animals whenever feasible. As such, while helicopter activity could cause temporary disturbance, the overall effect should be negligible. In addition, if mountain goats are present during the site maintenance times, there would be adequate dispersal opportunities for mountain goats to the west and south of the proposed action area.
The selected staging area would be occupied for a short period during which time wildlife would likely avoid the area. Therefore, effects are expected to be of small scale, site-specific, negligible, and temporary.
Construction and helicopter noise could disturb migratory birds in or flying near the proposed construction site, but only temporarily; such disturbance would not have long-term adverse effects.
Marine Species
See marine species discussion in section 3.11.2.
3.11 Threatened and Endangered Species
3.11.1 Affected Environment
There are 14 species that are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that have been reported to occur in Alaska. Of these, only the western population of Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) and humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae; NOAA 2010a) are known to occur in the project area. Three candidate species – the yellow-billed loon, Kittlitz’s murrelet, and the southeast Alaska population of Pacific herring – are also found in the project area (USF&WS 2001, ADF&G 2009, NOAA 2010b, AFSC 2010, USF&WS 2009, USF&WS 2006, and NOAA 2011b).
Birds
The Kittlitz’s murrelet, a small diving seabird, has been identified as a candidate species for protection under the ESA. The Kittlitz’s murrelet breeding season normally extends from egg laying in early June to fledging in mid-August (Johnsgard 1987). This species lives in Alaskan coastal waters from Point Lay to southeast Alaska. They prefer habitats near tidewater glaciers, forage around tidewater glaciers, and feed along coasts where waters are influenced by glacial outwash. Nearest to the project site is the Glacier Bay nest site, with a surrounding population distribution. Due to the Kittlitz’s murrelet’s association with glacial habitat, this species occupies only very specific areas in the Tongass National Forest (USF&WS 2006). Neither the proposed communication site or the Goose Cove staging site support this habitat, therefore, no impacts to this species are expected.
The yellow-billed loon nests within 1 meter of water, usually on islands, peninsulas, and low- lying shorelines. Their breeding range is northwestern Alaska, and their wintering range includes
Page 42 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
the coastal waters of southern Alaska, extending from the Aleutian Islands to Puget Sound in Washington (USF&WS 2009).
Marine Species
The endangered humpback whales are baleen whales, with stocky bodies and flat, broad heads.
The local distribution of humpbacks in southeast Alaska appears to be correlated with the density and seasonal availability of prey, particularly herring and euphausiids. They feed in southeast Alaskan waters primarily from May through December, although some have been seen every month of the year. Peak numbers of whales are usually found in nearshore waters during late August and September, but substantial numbers usually remain until early winter. Critical habitats have not been designated for humpback whales.
Steller sea lions range along the North Pacific Rim from northern Japan to California, but most are found in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. Steller sea lions are divided into two stocks at 144º West longitude. The western population is classified as endangered and the eastern population as threatened. During the May-to-July breeding season, Steller sea lions congregate at more than 40 rookeries, where adult males defend territories, pups are born, and mating takes place. Three rookeries and 11 haul-outs have been designated as critical habitats for the eastern population of the Steller sea lions, but none of these critical habitats are located near the Duffield Peninsula (NOAA 2010c).
The southeast Alaska distinct population segment (DPS) of Pacific herring extends from Dixon Entrance northward to Cape Fairweather and Icy Point, including all Pacific herring stocks in southeast Alaska. At least five major herring populations were identified in southeast Alaska: Sitka, Auke Bay, Craig-Hydaburg, Deer Island-Etolin Island, and Ketchikan. Their habitat occurs from the surface to depths of 1,300 feet (400 meters) in open ocean water of the Pacific coastal areas (NOAA 2011b).
3.11.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action Alternative, no modification of the site would take place and no changes to threatened or endangered species populations would occur.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Birds
The Proposed Action would have no effect to Kittlitz’s murrelet populations because there would be no altering to any recently deglaciated areas or shoreline habitat. Because the construction of the communications facility would occur during the summer months, it would have no effect on the nesting populations of yellow-billed loons. Operation and maintenance activities would similarly have no effect on yellow-billed loon populations or habitat.
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 43 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Marine Species
Because no in-water construction activities are planned, construction of the communication facility would have no effect on habitats or populations of marine species. Humpback whale and Steller sea lion, as well as other marine mammals, are known to occur in the marine waters surrounding Duffield Peninsula. The proposed onshore activities would not occur near Steller sea lion rookeries or critical haul-outs.
In the event that the construction contractor can only acquire a barge to support construction staging, the barge would be anchored in Rodman Bay where humpback whale, Steller sea lion and Pacific herring may be present. Pacific herring would not be affected by above-water staging activities. Waters where the barge would be anchored would likely be fairly shallow (approximately 20 feet) such that marine mammals would be less likely to be present. The Coast Guard, as a condition of contract specifications, and through monitoring by Coast Guard personnel, would ensure that all staging activities are conducted to avoid affects to these species. Should Humpback whale or Steller sea lions, or any other marine mammal, be sighted within 100 yards of the staging barge at Rodman Bay, staging operations, including helicopter flights, shall be delayed until the marine mammal(s) has left the area of its own accord.
3.12 Historical, Archaeological, or Cultural Resources
3.12.1 Affected Environment
Baranof Island is recognized as being within the traditional territory of the Tlingit (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998).
Two discrete areas of cultural resources have been documented in the vicinity of the proposed communication facility on the Duffield Peninsula. The first approximately 0.75 mile distance from the site of the proposed communication facility. An additional isolated resource is located less than 0.25 mile of the site of the proposed communication facility. The proposed placement of the communication facility would not physically disturb or destroy any of the resources (OHA 2010).
There is one known archaeological site located near the potential Goose Cove staging area that has been found to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
There are no known underwater archaeological or historical resources present in the area of Rodman Bay where the staging barge would be anchored.
3.12.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action Alternative, no modification of the site would take place and no changes to historical, archaeological, or cultural resources would occur.
Page 44 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Under the Proposed Action, the communication facility would not have any direct effect on known resources. A 2007 Heritage Resources Report (Forest Service 2007) determined that the proposed construction of the communication site would not adversely affect the resource situated nearest the proposed communications site.
While no physical damage is expected to occur as a result of the proposed construction of the communications site, there is the potential for visual effects, should the resources be determined to derive their significance from a visual context. The nature of the resource is not well understood such that empirical evaluation of visual effects is not possible. The Forest Service has consulted with the Tlingit tribes in the area regarding the significance of these cairns and no concerns have been raised.
If the Goose Cove site were selected as the staging area, the known resource would be avoided with a buffer zone. As an avoidance measure the buffer area would be flagged by a qualified archaeologist prior to materials arriving at the site. Because the staging area would be used only for a one or two day pre-construction and one day post-construction period and the resource would be avoided, use of the potential Goose Cove staging area would have no long-term effect on historical, archaeological, or cultural resources.
If the Rodman Bay site were selected as the staging area, implementation of the Proposed Alternative would have no effect on historical, archaeological, or cultural resources.
In accordance with standard USCG contract specifications, if previously unknown cultural resources were to be encountered during construction, work would stop, the District Ranger would be notified and appropriate action taken by a Forest Service archaeologist to assess the nature and character of the resources. Alternatives would be evaluated in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and affected stakeholders, including Alaska Native tribes and organizations, and the project would be modified to avoid such resources, or a program of conservation and preservation would be implemented.
3.13 Socioeconomics
3.13.1 Affected Environment
There is no permanent human habitation at or in the immediate vicinity of the Duffield Peninsula site, or either of the potential staging areas. Sitka is the only community near to the site that might be affected by the proposal.
Sitka is located on the west shore of Baranof Island on the east side of Sitka Sound south of the western end of Peril Strait, 95 air miles southwest of Juneau and 185 miles northwest of Ketchikan. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the population of Sitka was 8,881, of which 24.7 percent were Alaska Native or part Alaska Native (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). During the 2000 U.S. Census, total housing units numbered 3,650 and vacant housing units numbered 372. Vacant housing units used only seasonally numbered 169. According to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey, approximately 4,652 residents were employed. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the unemployment rate in 2000 was 7.78 percent, although 31.84 percent of all adults DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 45 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
were not in the work force. According to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey, the median household income was $58,895; per capita income was $30,013 (ADCRA 2011a).
3.13.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action Alternative, no modification of the site would take place and no changes to the socioeconomics of the area would occur.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
The proposed communication facility is likely to have a slightly beneficial effect on the socioeconomic character of the affected community of Sitka. Construction and operation of the proposed facility would provide few opportunities for employment of local residents. The type of contractor and personnel engaged in communication facility construction are specialized. A skilled and experienced team would perform the construction. Workers might be hired locally for some jobs, such as transporting materials to the sites as a supplement to the construction team. There would not be any significant effects or changes in the socioeconomics of the area on a temporary basis because there would be few opportunities for employment of local residents.
3.14 Environmental Justice
3.14.1 Affected Environment
Demographic information from the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau and the Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs (ADCRA 2011a; ADCRA 2011b) are reported in the Socioeconomics Section. Approximately 40 percent of the population of Sitka are of African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, or other non-white or mixed race ancestry, with Alaska Natives and American Indians comprising the largest fraction of the minority populations. Table 3-2 summarizes the demographic characteristics of Sitka.
Table 3-2. Demographic Characteristics1
Demographic Characteristic Sitka Total Population 8,881 Non-white, non-Hispanic Population 3,083 Percentage non-white, non-Hispanic 35% Median Household Income $58,895 Per Capita Income $30,013 Unemployment Rate 7.78%
1. Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs (ADCRA 2011a; ADCRA 2011b).
Page 46 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.14.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action Alternative, no modification of the site would take place and no changes to the environmental justice or demographics characteristics of the area would occur.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
If the Proposed Action were implemented, the only direct effects on local employment in Sitka would be minor and beneficial. There would not be any significant, adverse effects that would fall disproportionately on minority or low-income populations of the area.
3.15 Hazardous Material and Waste Management
3.15.1 Affected Environment
A site survey conducted in 2007 found a small abandoned battery at the proposed communication facility site. The battery was presumed to have been discarded during an earlier U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) survey visit. No other hazardous materials or wastes were noted in the site survey report (SAGE 2007).
No hazardous materials or waste has been identified at the potential Goose Cove staging area.
3.15.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action Alternative, no modification of the site would take place and no changes to hazardous materials or waste management would occur.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Under the Proposed Action all excess materials from construction would be removed and disposed of properly upon completion of the facility. Wastes from the staging area would also be removed from the site and disposed of properly.
Long-term operations of the site would require storage and use of potentially hazardous materials, specifically batteries, propane, lube oil, and antifreeze for the generators. The batteries would be the non-spillage glass mat type and the antifreeze would be of the low-toxicity variety.
Maintenance activities would result in occasionally changing out the batteries, the lube oil, and the antifreeze in the generators. Best management practices would be used during the handling and management of these materials, thereby reducing the potential for releases of hazardous materials.
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 47 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.16 Roadless Resource
3.16.1 Affected Environment
The Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule) was adopted on January 12, 2001 and has been the subject of numerous lawsuits since that time. At the time of adoption, the Tongass was exempted from the 2001 Roadless Rule. In May 2011 the order was vacated and the Tongass is no longer exempt.
The proposed Duffield Peninsula SAR Communication site is located within the North Baranof Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) 330. This IRA encompasses approximately 324,317 acres. The proposed project would occupy 0.5 acres of NFS lands, or about 0.00015 percent of the IRA.
On May 30, 2011, the Secretary of Agriculture renewed his reservation of final decision authority over certain forest management actions in inventoried roadless areas by issuing Secretarial Memo 1042-156. The proposed project does not include road construction or reconstruction, or the cutting, sale, or removal of timber within an IRA.
3.16.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action Alternative, no modification of the site would take place and no changes to the roadless characteristics would occur.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Nine roadless characteristics (i.e., values or features that characterize inventoried roadless areas) are described in the 2000 Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation FEIS (USDA 2000 Vol. 1, 3– 3 to 3–7) and 2001 Roadless Rule (66 FR 3244). The following analysis is summarized from the Duffield Peninsula Search and Rescue Communication Site Project Roadless Resource Report, prepared by the Forest Service in October 2012, and briefly discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to these nine roadless area characteristics.
1. High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air. Direct and indirect impacts to soil and water in the analysis area were anticipated during the planning phase. Project design incorporating best management practices (BMP) and other management measures consistent with Forest-wide standards and guidelines minimize or avoid potential adverse effects. 2. Diversity of plant and animal communities. Direct and indirect impacts to plant and animal diversity would occur during and after the construction phase. The primary effects on plant and animal communities would occur through construction activities and the increased presence of workers in the project area. Specific areas would be cleared of vegetation. Approximately 50 construction-related and twice annual maintenance helicopter flights could result in temporary disturbance to wildlife. Direct and indirect impacts to vegetation and wildlife habitat would be minimized by implementing the management measures and BMP that are included in the proposed action.
Page 48 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3. Habitat for endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species, and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land. There would be no direct or indirect effects to any federally listed threatened, endangered, or proposed species or their habitat. Thorough surveys (Level 6) were conducted in the project area and no sensitive plants were found. Any long-term effects are expected to be limited to local individuals or small populations and would not jeopardize species viability. 4. Sources of public drinking water. Not applicable. None were identified. 5. Other locally identified unique characteristics. Not applicable. None were identified. 6. Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation. Direct and indirect impacts include a potential reduction in dispersed recreation use due to construction activities including helicopter flights. Overall recreational use of the area is relatively limited and dispersed. Adverse effects on recreation would be temporary for the extent of the construction period, expected to be 6-8 weeks. Changes to dispersed recreation are expected to be minimal. 7. Reference landscapes. Not applicable. None were identified. 8. Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality. Direct and indirect effects to the scenic quality of the area would be minimal, short-term, and occur primarily during construction when work crews and construction activity would be visible. Approximately 50 construction-related and twice annual maintenance helicopter flights are proposed during construction, noise from human and mechanical activity, as well as periodic blasting, would also reduce the aesthetic appeal of the area. The unnamed peak would continue to be a prominent view for visitors that travel the Alaska Marine Highway and tour ship route. Mitigation of visual impacts as set out by Forest Service standards and guidelines will minimize the communication site impact on the visual appearance of the site. 9. Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites. It is unlikely that direct and indirect effects to traditional cultural properties and sacred sites would result from this project. However, mitigation including avoidance of the Goose Cove cultural resource and response to discovery of new cultural resources or items protected by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act would provide sufficient guidance and protection of newly-discovered cultural materials and provide a plan for future consultation with the Forest Service, Alaska SHPO, and the Sitka Tribe of Alaska.
The potential direct and indirect effects of the Duffield Peninsula Search and Rescue Communication Site project, on the North Baranof IRA roadless area characteristics would occur during the construction phase and are temporary in nature. This conclusion includes the implementation of all required mitigation and is based upon the analysis in the Forest Service’s October 4, 2012 Duffield Peninsula Search and Rescue Communication Site Project Roadless Resource Report.
3.17 Subsistence
3.17.1 Affected Environment
Section 810(a) of ANILCA requires that an evaluation of subsistence uses and needs be completed for any federal determination to “withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy or disposition of public lands.” As such, an evaluation of potential impacts to subsistence under ANILCA § 810(a) must be completed for the proposed Duffield Peninsula project.
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 49 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Section 811(a) of ANILCA ensures that rural residents engaged in subsistence uses shall have reasonable access to subsistence resources on the public lands.
Consistent with § 810(a) and § 811(a) of ANILCA, this project was evaluated to determine potential effects on subsistence opportunities and resources and rural resident access. Mountain goats and Sitka Black-tailed deer are subsistence animals in the Duffield Peninsula project area. Deer hunting is secondary to goat hunting in this area. Overall, subsistence use is low in the Duffield Peninsula watershed in context with Game Management Unit 4 (Admiralty-Baranof- Chichagof Islands) as a whole.
Due to construction of a communication site, 0.5 acres of National Forest System land will be unavailable in the Duffield Peninsula. This will decrease some habitat connectivity for mountain goats in the Duffield Peninsula. The Duffield Peninsula is part of a larger roadless land area that stretches the length of Baranof Island. There would be no change in abundance and distribution of subsistence resources.
3.17.2 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action Alternative, no modification of the site would take place and no changes to the subsistence resource would occur.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Consistent with § 810(a) and § 811(a) of ANILCA, the potential effects of this project on subsistence opportunities and resources were evaluated. While there would be a potential temporary displacement of subsistence resources in the Duffield Peninsula during construction, here would be no overall change of access to and competition for subsistence resources for rural residents of Game Unit 4 as a whole; the proposed project would not result in a significant restriction of subsistence uses.
3.18 Cumulative Effects
NEPA requires an analysis of the incremental effects of an action that are considered cumulatively with those of other closely related recent past, present, planned, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The contribution of a proposed action to the overall cumulative effects in the region is of particular concern.
Project-related actions that could contribute to cumulative effects are described in Section 2.3. Other past, present or reasonably foreseeable projects in the area that could potentially contribute to the cumulative effects are listed in Table 3-3 below.
Page 50 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Table 3-3. List of Cumulative Actions in the Project Area
Description of Project Project Proponent Project Details Exploratory Study of National Science Summer 2013. Researchers will study rock Alpine Cairns, Baranof Foundation (Forest cairns in the immediate and general area of the Island, Alaska Service approval proposed Duffield Peninsula communications for use of NFS site. Helicopter transport will be used for lands) access to the area. Replacement of Finger FAA (Forest Summer 2013. Replacement of the existing Mountain Service approval Finger Mountain communication facility. Communication Facility, for use of NFS Helicopter transport will be used during Chichagof Island, Alaska lands) construction and operation.
In addition to the specific project listed above, it is anticipated that general activities in the area would continue at approximately the same level as at present, such as vessel traffic in surrounding waters, aircraft traffic in the area, and activities on the Tongass National Forest including timber harvest, road construction, and mining.
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action Alternative, no cumulative effects would occur because no modification of the site would take place that would contribute to potential cumulative effects.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Although the Duffield Peninsula SAR project, National Science Foundation (NSF) research project, and the FAA communication facility replacement may occur at approximately the same time and, in the case of the NSF research project, approximately the same location, the overall effect of these actions would be minor, resulting largely from temporary and intermittent noise from helicopter use or other human activities during construction.
It is assumed that, similar to the Duffield Peninsula project, all projects would include avoidance measures and would adhere to Forest Service standards and guidelines to maintain required flight distances from wildlife, thus minimizing the potential cumulative effects to wildlife.
Permanent cumulative effects from these actions would be comparable to those of the Duffield Peninsula project alone as the NSF and FAA projects would not result in any increase in permanent features or operational activities.
Development of the Duffield SAR site and FAA replacement of Finger Mountain communication site may result in indirect cumulative effects by providing improved communications in the area. These effects may be adverse, such as effects on wildlife from increased vessel traffic, or beneficial, such as improved recreational opportunities or public safety; however in all cases the degree of cumulative effect, whether adverse or beneficial, would not be significant.
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 51 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
4.0 PREPARERS, CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Preparers
Clarus Technologies, LLC
Jake Anders, Cultural Resources Specialist
Aspen Clark, Environmental Scientist
Braden Galloway, P.E., Environmental Engineer
Steven Gruhn, P.E., Environmental Engineer
William Watts, Project Manager/Senior Scientist
U.S. Forest Service
Jim Beard, Landscape Architect Program Manager
Clay Davis, Lands Specialist
Jeremy Karchut, Zone Archeologist
Brad Krieckhaus, Zone Botanist
Chris Leeseberg, Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Coast Guard
Dean Amundson, Environmental Protection Specialist
William Freeland, Environmental Protection Specialist
Christine Schneider, Environmental Protection Specialist
Page 52 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Consultation and Coordination
The following Federal, State, and local agencies were consulted during the development of this EA.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development
Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs
Alaska Fisheries Science Center
Alaska Office of History and Archaeology
Bureau of Land Management
City and Borough of Sitka
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Park Service
Sitka Tribe of Alaska
U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 53 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
5.0 REFERENCES CITED
ADEC. 2005a. Air Quality Monitoring of Commercial Passenger Vessels Operating in Alaska Waters.
ADEC. 2005b. No Further Remedial Action Determination, Rodman Bay LTF, Database ID Number 2002120127812. November 18.
ADEC. 2011c. Contaminated Sites Database: Cleanup Chronology Report for APC – Rodman Bay LTF [online]. Cited April 22, 2011. Available at: http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/search/IC_Tracking/Site_Report.aspx?Hazard_ID=3879.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). 2008. Mountain Goat Management Report of Survey- Inventory Activities 1 July 2005 – 30 June 2007. October.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2000. Southeast Alaska Unit 4 Brown Bear Management Strategy.
ADF&G. 2008. Mountain Goat Management Report.
ADF&G. 2009. Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangilae) [online]. Updated November 10. Cited June 28, 2010. Available at: http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/esa/whale_humpback/humpback_whale.php.
ADF&G. 2010a. Endangered species in Alaska [online]. Updated March 26. Cited June 25, 2010. Available at: http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/esa/.
ADF&G. 2010b. Personal email communication from the ADF&G’s Philip W. Mooney to Clarus’ Steven Gruhn entitled “Re: test message – please respond.” June 28.
ADF&G. 2011a. Federal Special Status Species: Federal Endangered Species [online]. Cited March 18, 2011. Available at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=specialstatus.fedendangered.
ADF&G. 2011b. Federal Special Status Species: Threatened Species [online]. Cited March 18, 2011. Available at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=specialstatus.fedthreatened.
ADF&G. 2011c. Federal Special Status Species: Under Consideration for Protection [online]. Cited March 18, 2011. Available at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=specialstatus.fedconsideration.
ADF&G. 2011d. Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas), Species Profile [online]. Cited March 31, 2011. Available at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=greenseaturtle.main.
ADF&G. 2011e. Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta), Species Profile [online]. Cited March 31, 2011. Available at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=loggerheadseaturtle.main.
Page 54 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs (ADCRA). 2011a. Alaska Community Database Community Information Summaries (CIS): Sitka [online]. Cited April 15, 2011. Available at: http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CIS.cfm.
Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC). 2010. National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Steller Sea Lions. NMML Research – Biology [online]. Cited June 14, 2010. Available at: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/nmml/alaska/sslhome/biology.php.
Alaska Office of History and Archaeology (OHA). 2010. Alaska Heritage Resources Survey. Site Nos. SIT-00058, SIT-00432, SIT-00737, SIT-00768, SIT-00769, SIT-00770, SIT-00771, SIT-00772, SIT-00773, and SIT-00774. May 4.
Bolin, Karl. 2006. Masking of Wind Turbine Sound by Ambient Noise. November.
Coeur Alaska, Inc. 2008. Kensington Gold Project 2008 Annual Report. Prepared for the U.S. Forest Service Alaska Region (R-10) Tongass Minerals Group Juneau Ranger District. Accessed at http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/mining/largemine/kensington/pdf/kensar08.pdf.
Feare, Chris J., Elvina Henriette, and Simon E.A. Feare. 2003. “Variation in Sound Levels Produced within a Sooty Tern Colony.” Waterbirds: The International Journal of Waterbird Biology. 26(4):424-428.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2004. Report to Congress: Nonmilitary Helicopter Urban Noise Study. December.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1988. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. FHWA Publication HI-88-054.
Goldstein, Michael I, Aaron J. Poe, Erin Cooper, Don Youkey, Bridget A. Brown, and Trent L. McDonald 2005. Mountain goat response to helicopter overflights in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005, 33(2):688–699.
Goldschmidt, Walter R., and Theodore H. Haas. 1998. Haa Aani, Our Land: Tlingit and Haida Land Rights and Use.
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2006. PdV Wind Energy Project, Kern County, California. August 29.
Jacques, J.L. 1980. “Landscape Appraisal: The Case for a Subjective Theory.” Journal of Environmental Management. 10:117-113.
Johnsgard, Paul A. 1987. Diving Birds of North America. April.
Kaplan, R. 1985. “The Analysis of Perception via Preference: A Strategy for Studying How the Environment is Experienced.” Landscape Planning. 12:161-176.
LaRoche and Associates (LaRoche). 2006. City and Borough of Sitka Coastal Management Plan. Final Plan Amendment. December.
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 55 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MacDonald, Stephen O., and Joseph A. Cook. 2007. Mammals and Amphibians of Southeast Alaska.
Miller, Nicholas P. 2008. “US National Parks and Management of Park Soundscapes: A Review.” Applied Acoustics. 69(2):77-92.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010a. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate, and Delisted Species in Alaska [online]. Updated May 11. Cited March
18, 2011. Available at: www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/esa/ak_specieslst051110.pdf.
NOAA. 2010b. Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) [online]. Cited June 18, 2010. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/leatherback.htm.
NOAA. 2010c. Personal communication from NOAA Fisheries Service’s Aleria Jensen to Clarus’ Aspen Clark entitled “Re: Duffield Peninsula Habitat information request.” June 21.
NOAA. 2010d. Cetaceans: Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises [online]. Cited June 25, 2010. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/.
NOAA. 2010e. NOAA Ark – Animals Collection Catalog of Images. Photographs 1019 through 1023. Photo Date: October 18, 2005. [online]. December 10. Cited March 31, 2011. Available at: http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/brs/anind21.htm.
NOAA. 2011a. Alaska ESA Section 6 Program [online]. Cited March 18, 2011. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/conservation/states/alaska.htm.
NOAA. 2011b. Pacific Herring (Clupea pallasii). ESA Candidate Species – Southeast Alaska DPS [online]. Cited March 30, 2011. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/pacificherring.htm
National Park Service (NPS). 2011. Technical Guidance on Assessing Impacts to Air Quality in NEPA and Planning Documents. January.
National Research Council. 1993. Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. Pohl, John. 2008. Sea Turtles in Southeast Alaska: Surprisingly, These Marine Reptiles Are Sometimes Seen off Alaska [online]. July 24. Cited March 31, 2011. Available at: http://www.suite101.com/content/sea-turtles-in-southeast-alaska-a61683#ixzz1IDTMU2LF.
Real, Eulogio, Constantino Arce, and Jose Manuel Sabucedo. 2000. “Classification of Landscapes Using Quantitative and Categorical Data, and Prediction of Their Scenic Beauty in North-Western Spain.” Journal of Environmental Psychology. 20(4):355-373.
SAGE Systems Technologies, LLC (SAGE). 2007. USCG Rescue 21 Alaska: Site Survey Report, Cross Mountain, (New Proposed Site), (Juneau Area). December 17.
Page 56 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Schulten, J.B.H.M. 1997. Computation of Aircraft Noise Propagation through the Atmospheric Boundary Layer. National Aerospace Laboratory NLR (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). NLR TP 97374. Fifth International Congress on Sound and Vibration, December 15-18, University of Adelaide, Australia.
URS Corporation (URS). 2002. Supplemental Program Environmental Assessment, National Distress and Response System Modernization Project.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. 2010 Census Tables [online]. Cited April 18, 2011. Available at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 2000. Commandant Instruction M16475 National Environmental Policy Act, Implementing Procedures and Policy for Considering Environmental Impacts. November 29.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2006. Northern Goshawk Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide Gen. Tech. Report WO-71 Accessed at http://www.fs.fed.us/wildecology/GoshawkTechGuideJuly06.pdf .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Clean Air Act [online]. March 1. Cited November 23, 2012. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS). 2001. Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus), Threatened and Endangered Species Fact Sheet [online]. February. Cited May 2, 2011. Available at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/pdf/STALfactsheet.pdf.
USF&WS. 2006. Kittlitz's murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris), Threatened and Endangered Species Fact Sheet [online]. June. Cited May 2, 2011. Available at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/pdf/consultation_guide/60_KIMU_Factsheet.pdf.
USF&WS. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines [online]. May. Cited October 17, 2012. Available at: http://alaska.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines. pdf.
USF&WS. 2009. Yellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsii), Threatened and Endangered Species Fact Sheet [online]. March. Available at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/pdf/ybl_factsheet.pdf.
USF&WS. 2010a. National Wetlands Inventory [online]. Cited June 10, 2010. Available at: http://137.227.242.85/wetland/wetland.html.
USF&WS. 2010b. Personal email communication from the USF&WS’ Julie Michaelson to Clarus’ Aspen Clark entitled “Re: FW: Duffield Peninsula Habitat information request.” June 16.
USF&WS. 2011. Species Reports: Environmental Conservation Online System: Listings and occurrences for Alaska [online]. Cited March 18, 2011. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingAndOccurrenceIndividual.jsp?state=AK.
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 57 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1980. Predicting Impact of Noise on Recreationists. Project Record. Forest Service – U.S. Department of Agriculture Equipment Development Center – San Dimas. April.
Forest Service. 1995. Agriculture Handbook 701 – Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management. December.
Forest Service. 1996. Conservation Assessment for the Northern Goshawk in Southeast Alaska. November.
Forest Service. 2006a. FSH 2509.22 – Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Alaska Region (Region 10), Juneau, Alaska. R-10 Amendment 2509.22. July 14.
Forest Service. 2006b. Biological Evaluation for Plants, Coast Guard Proposed VHF Site on Duffield Peninsula, Sitka Ranger District, Tongass National Forest. October 5.
Forest Service. 2007. U.S. Coast Guard Communication Site Heritage Resource Report No. R2006100531018. January 16.
Forest Service. 2008a. Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. January.
Forest Service. 2008b. Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Plan Amendment, Record of Decision. January.
Forest Service. 2008c. Tongass National Forest Land Use Designations [online]. January. Cited October 5, 2010. Available at: http://tongass- fpadjust.net/Documents/Media Files/ROD_887040_300dpi.pdf.
Forest Service. 2008d. Duffield Riparian Thinning and Stream Improvements on Sitka Ranger District [online]. Updated April 25. Cited June 11, 2010. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/districts/sitka/fwwbs/duffield_thinning/duffield_riparian_thinin g.shtml.
Forest Service. 2008e. Endicott Ridge Electronic Site, Environmental Assessment, Tongass National Forest, Juneau Ranger District, Juneau, Alaska. July.
Forest Service. 2009. Fish and Wildlife Resource Information For the Preparation of Biological Evaluations & Fish & Wildlife Project Level Analysis. Updated September 22.
Forest Service. 2010a. U.S. Coast Guard SAR Radio Communication Site Designation and Permit Environmental Analysis, Project Introduction: Environmental Assessment Planning Begins. April 30.
Forest Service. 2010b. Radio Communication Site Upgrades: Environmental Assessment, Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan, Alaska. June.
Page 58 DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Forest Service. 2012a. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. April.
Forest Service. 2012b. Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, Management Indicator and Other Species Project Level Analysis, Proposed U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Communication Site, Duffield Peninsula, Sitka Ranger District, Tongass National Forest. April 18.
Forest Service. 2012c. Duffield Peninsula Search and Rescue Communication Site, Roadless Resource Report, Sitka Ranger District, Tongass National Forest. October 4.
Forest Service. 2012d. Duffield Peninsula Search and Rescue Communication Site, Roadless Analysis, Sitka Ranger District, Tongass National Forest. October 4.
Forest Service. 2012e. Duffield Peninsula Search and Rescue Communication Site, Subsistence Analysis, Sitka Ranger District, Tongass National Forest. October 4.
Forest Service. 2012f. Pre-Field Review Worksheet/Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plants USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Coast Guard Proposed Staging Area at Goose Cove (in support of proposed VHF Site) on Duffield Peninsula, Baranof Island, AK. October.
Windfinder. 2011. Windfinder – Wind & Weather Statistic Sitka Airport [online]. Cited January 20, 2011. Available at: http://www.windfinder.com/windstats/windstatistic_sitka_airport.htm.
Windside. 2011. Technical Data [online]. Cited May 11, 2011. Available at: http://www.windside.com/technical.html#WS-0,30C.
Windward Environmental LLC. 2010a. Environmental Assessment for Proposed US Coast Guard Communications Sites at Middle Cape and Akhiok, Kodiak Island, Alaska. March 1.
Windward Environmental LLC. 2010b. Environmental Assessment for the US Coast Guard Rescue 21 Communication Sites in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska. April 19.
DUFFIELD PENINSULA SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMUNICATION SITE Page 59 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX A
U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Assessment Cover Sheet
APPENDIX B
U.S. Forest Service Best Management Practices
Applicable to the Proposed Action
U.S. Forest Service Best Management Practices Applicable to the Proposed Action
Alaska Region National Core Description and Applicability BMPs BMPs 12.4 Floodplain Veg-1: BMP 12.4 and Veg-1: Proposed action would not involve any Identification, Vegetation permanent change to the floodplain; however, a preconstruction Evaluation and Management survey at the Goose Cove staging site would identify and, as Protection Planning necessary, move the staging location or flag sensitive resources avoid or minimize potential adverse effects. 12.5 Wetland Veg-1: Veg. BMPs 12.5, Veg-1 and Veg-3: A preconstruction site survey at Identification, Management the Goose Cove site would identify nearby wetlands and flag Evaluation, and Planning them for avoidance. Measures to avoid impacts on soils are Protection Veg-3: Aquatic elements of the project design. No effects to wetlands would Management occur. Zones 12.8: Oil Fac-6: Hazardous BMP 12.8: To ensure that the surface and subsurface soil and Pollution Materials water would not be affected by fuel leaks or spills, all fuel, oil, Prevention and Road-10: and hydraulic fluid would use secondary containment and Servicing/ Equipment absorbents would be available. All oil changes would be Refueling Refueling and performed annually and the used oil flown out with the Operations Servicing maintenance crew for recycling. See Section 2.3.3. Fac-6 and Road -10: Propane tanks would be installed and maintained in accordance with Federal, State and local regulations. 12.9: Oil and Fac-6: Hazardous BMP 12.9 and Fac-6: Site operation would only use propane, Hazardous Materials which is vaporized and dissipates quickly into the air, therefore, Substances a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan Pollution would not be necessary. Should use of hazardous substances Contingency change in the future, a SPCC may be required as a contingency. Planning 12.10: Control of Fac-1: Facilities BMP 12.10: The USCG would adhere to all recommendations Activities Under and contained in the Forest Service’s Special Use Permit in Special Use Nonrecreation construction and operation of the proposed communications Permit Special Uses facility. Planning Fac-1 and Fac-8: USCG proposes to locate the communications Fac-8: facility away from environmentally sensitive areas, including Nonrecreation Waters of the US and unstable slopes or soils, and to minimize Special Use the disturbance footprint and nonpoint source pollution from Authorizations ground disturbance. 12.15 Fac-4: Sanitation BMP 12.15 and Fac-4: The portable toilet placed at the site Management of Systems during construction would be adequately maintained and Sanitary managed, and all wastes removed after construction is complete, Facilities and to ensure that subsurface and surface water quality is not Sanitary adversely affected. Guidelines for Temporary Camps and Primitive Alaska Region National Core Description and Applicability BMPs BMPs Developments 12.16: Control of Fac-5: Solid BMP 12.16 and Fac-5: All waste would be containerized and Solid Waste Waste removed from the site upon completion of construction. Disposal Management 12.17: Fac-2: Facility BMP 12.17 and Fac-2: The proposed action does not include Revegetation of Construction and substantial disturbance of vegetation; however, should Disturbed Areas Stormwater unanticipated disturbance occur, the USCG would revegetate the Control area in coordination with the Forest Service. Fac-7 Vehicle BMP Fac-7: USCG contractor washing of all vehicles and and Equipment equipment would be required prior to transport on to Forest Wash Water Service lands, and would be conducted either at the contractor’s facility or a commercial washing facility. 14.1: Road-9: Parking BMP 14.1 and 14.2: Use of helicopter for construction and Transportation and Staging ongoing operations would be conducted to avoid potential effects Planning, Areas on sensitive species, and would avoid the need for road 14.2: Location of construction. Transportation BMP Road-9: USCG proposes to use existing unvegetated areas, Facilities sites away from water bodies, and areas that are apt to be more easily restored to the extent practicable; and by using temporary stormwater and erosion control measures as needed. 14.6: Timing Veg-2: Erosion BMP 14.6: USCG would conduct construction when no snow or Restrictions for Prevention and standing water is in the area. Construction Control BMP Veg-2: USCG proposed action would not result in large Activities amounts of ground disturbance (larger than an acre) and would not alter natural drainage patterns. 14.11: Timely Fac-2: Facility BMP 14.11 and Fac-2: The proposed action would implement Erosion Control Construction and these BMPs by minimally disturbing erodible soils, maintaining for Incomplete Stormwater the natural drainage pattern of the area, using designated staging Projects Control areas, and diverting surface runoff or applying soil protective 14.25: Surface Veg-2: Erosion cover, as necessary. Erosion Control Prevention and at Facilities Control
APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Report
Geotechnical Report USCG Rescue 21 High Sites Cross Mountain Tower Baranof Island, Alaska
October 2012
Submitted To: ECH Architecture 1415 Western Avenue, Suite 418 Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone: 206-682-2857
By: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 5430 Fairbanks Street, Suite 3 Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Phone: 907-561-2120 Fax: 907:561-4483 Email: [email protected]
32-1-02257-001
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 1 3.0 SURFACE RECONNAISSANCE ...... 2 4.0 LABORATORY TESTING ...... 2 5.0 OBSERVED SURFACE CONDITIONS ...... 3 6.0 ROCK STRENGTH ...... 4 7.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 4 7.1 Structure Foundations ...... 4 7.2 Foundation Settlements ...... 6 7.3 Drainage ...... 6 8.0 CLOSURE/LIMITATIONS ...... 7
FIGURES
1 Vicinity Map 2 Site Plan 3 Point Load Test Results
APPENDICES
A Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report
USCG Rescue 21 Cross Mountain Tower, Baranof Island, Alaska 32-1-02257-001 i
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT USCG RESCUE 21 HIGH SITES CROSS MOUNTAIN TOWER BARANOF ISLAND, ALASKA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of surface reconnaissance, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering studies conducted to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for the foundation of a proposed new tower on Cross Mountain on Baranof Island, Alaska. The purpose of the field work was to evaluate the near surface soil and rock conditions in the areas to receive the new tower and other support structures. To accomplish this, we visited the site, made observations of nearby rock outcrops, and conducted laboratory testing on rock samples recovered from the site. Included in this report are descriptions of the site and project, surface observations, interpretation of the likely subsurface conditions, and conclusions and recommendations from our engineering studies.
We understand that the project to install the new tower and support hardware will be undertaken as a design-build effort. As such, the project features have not been specified and our analyses and recommendations are generalized for use in preliminary design and construction. We assume that each design-build team will be responsible for determining whether the data contained herein is sufficient to conduct the necessary final engineering analyses for the project.
Authorization to proceed with this work was received in the form of a signed agreement by Michael Heidenreich of ECH Architecture, LLC. on July 19, 2012. The work was generally performed according to our June 18, 2012 proposal.
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed tower site is situated on top of Cross Mountain, a prominent feature on the Duffield Peninsula at the northern end of Baranof Island, Alaska. The site is located approximately 32 air-miles north of Sitka, Alaska. According to the USGS Sitka C-5
Quadrangle map, this project is located in the southeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4, Section 21, Township 50 South, Range 62 East, Copper River Meridian and is within the Tongass National Forest. The mountain top is roughly conical in shape with a maximum elevation of approximately 2,841 feet. At the time of our visit the site was undeveloped and access was only available via helicopter or on foot. The site is above the tree/brushline and sparsely vegetated with only a thin veneer of moss or lichen on the ground surface. A vicinity map depicting the general project area is included as Figure 1.
USCG Rescue 21 Cross Mountain Tower, Baranof Island, Alaska 32-1-02257-001 1
The overall goal of the project is to enhance and expand the United States Coast Guard’s (USCG) Rescue 21 network. We understand that the project consists of the construction of a self- supporting tower that will likely be supported on reinforced concrete piers anchored into shallow bedrock. The project will also incorporate other hardware that may include equipment and generator enclosures, propane tank storage, solar array, and a helipad. Schematic drawings were unavailable at the time of this report however similar towers constructed on a similar substrate typically consist of a concrete block or multiple piers that are anchored to competent bedrock with grouted rebar anchors. Ultimately, the foundations of the towers and other improvements will need to be designed to resist relatively significant overturning, shear, and vertical forces (tension and compression).
3.0 SURFACE RECONNAISSANCE
Field activities consisted of visiting the site and observing local rock outcrops on August 29, 2012. Mr. Dennis Evans, P.E. of the USCG accompanied our representative to the site and located the desired area for the proposed tower and other planned site features. Our representative made general observations of the local terrain and rock exposures at each site and conducted limited hand probing. Observations made at nearby rock outcrops generally consisted of identification of rock type, structure, and included measurements of the orientations of observed structural features. Rock samples were collected from the ground surface near the proposed tower site and nearby rock outcrops. The rock samples were packaged and transported to our Anchorage laboratory for testing. Probing was conducted using a 5-foot long, ½ inch diameter rod that was pushed into the ground by hand. The approximate locations of the proposed site features, rock outcrops, and hand probe are shown on Figure 2.
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing focused on strength index testing of the rock samples collected from the ground surface and rock outcrops at each site. This data provided information that was considered in formulating our recommendations. We did not observe sufficient soil deposits on the site to warrant collection and testing of soil samples.
Point load tests were used to estimate strength of rock samples collected. Testing was conducted in general accordance with method ASTM International (ASTM) D5731. In this destructive test, the rock sample is placed in a compression machine with points pressing on opposite but near parallel locations on each side of the sample. The points are then pressed into the rock until the sample breaks apart. The force required to break the sample is recorded and through empirical
USCG Rescue 21 Cross Mountain Tower, Baranof Island, Alaska 32-1-02257-001 2
correlations can be used to estimate the material’s compressive strength. Note that the strength values yielded by point load testing should be considered primarily for classification purposes and should not be treated as precise values or used for design purposes. The results of these tests are summarized on Figure 3.
5.0 OBSERVED SURFACE CONDITIONS
Conditions at the site are shown graphically in Figure 2. The figure includes photographs of the site, general descriptions of the terrain and geology, and rock structure measurements as observed by our representative. It is important to note that the conditions below the ground surface as described on the figures and discussed in the report text are inferred from observations of the conditions exposed at the ground surface at the time of our site visits. Conditions below the ground surface could be different from what was observable during our site visit. As such, we recommend that a contingency be maintained to account for potentially different conditions and that we be retained to observe conditions during construction to verify that actual conditions are consistent with what is described in this report.
In general, the ground surface comprised numerous outcrops of exposed bedrock that was obscured over 30 to 40 percent of the area by about 6 to 12 inches of lichen or moss. Based on visual classification of rock fragments collected from the ground surface and rock outcrops, we believe the rock is a metamorphosed quartz diorite; however, due to the overall fine-grained crystal structure, the mineralogy and rock type was difficult to confirm through visual observation. In general, the rock is dark gray to black with occasional, lighter colored zones containing moderately magnetic minerals within a predominantly quartz matrix. These zones have a moderate “flow” texture, bordering on gneissic, which may indicate that the rock was subjected to regional metamorphism after or concurrent with emplacement.
The weathering pattern of the rock yielded an overall blocky appearance, which appears to be defined by sets of irregularly spaced (approximately 1 to 8 feet apart), orthogonal joints. The most prominent joint set dipped at an angle of about 55 to 60 degrees to the east and appeared to correspond to the general slope angles observed on the eastern slope of the mountain. Less prominent, secondary joint sets dipped at about 70 degrees west-northwest and 45 degrees southwest. In general, the rock observed in the outcrops appeared to be relatively resistive to chemical weathering; however a very thin (less than 1/32 inch thick) weathering rind was observed after several specimens were broken for laboratory testing. This weathering rind suggests that the rock is weakly susceptible to chemical weathering processes. The talus present on the northeastern slope of the mountain suggests that the rock mass may be moderately
USCG Rescue 21 Cross Mountain Tower, Baranof Island, Alaska 32-1-02257-001 3
susceptible to mechanical weathering. It appears that the pronounced mechanical weathering observed on this slope aspect is predominantly structurally related to a prominent joint set “daylighting” at the surface. The overall condition of the rock observed on other slope aspects and in the exposed outcrops near the proposed tower site suggests that overall, the in-situ rock is relatively resistant to mechanical weathering.
6.0 ROCK STRENGTH
Based on the point load testing, the strength of the intact rock samples recovered from the project area was found to be somewhat variable in nature with estimated uniaxial compressive strengths ranging from 21.0 to 31.1 kips per square inch (ksi). The lowest value was obtained from a sample that fractured along a random joint in the rock. Excluding the lowest value, the average estimated uniaxial compressive strength was about 28.5 ksi. The results of point load testing are included as Figure 3. This laboratory testing confirms our general strength observations in the field and it is our opinion that the strengths yielded through testing are consistent with what we expect for the rock material encountered during our visit.
Note that the strength values yielded by point load testing are typically used for classification purposes and are not considered to be precise values. Therefore, point load testing results alone are not typically used for design purposes. The values obtained though point load testing are normally confirmed by performing uniaxial compression tests on rock cores. Since coring has not been conducted for this project, we have used the strength values from the point load tests to approximate bonding strengths and bearing capacities for designing the tower foundations with the understanding that anchor capacities will be confirmed in the field by conducting pull-out testing during construction.
7.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
Design of the foundations for the proposed tower and other structures should consider the interaction of the structure with the subsurface in addition to constructability issues. The following subsections provide our recommendations for foundation type and sizing, settlement, and drainage.
7.1 Structure Foundations
Our observations suggest that, where bedrock is not exposed, competent bedrock is within 6 to 12 inches of the ground surface. Based on these observations, we assume that the towers and
USCG Rescue 21 Cross Mountain Tower, Baranof Island, Alaska 32-1-02257-001 4
other improvements at the site will be founded directly on bedrock. As a design-build project, foundation configurations were not available at the time of this report. Based on our observations and the estimated rock strengths, we do not believe that the bedrock will be ripable however boulders will likely be present on the ground surface and will need to be moved. Based on our observations and laboratory testing, the rock mass should act relatively uniform while drilling; however variations in the rock mass may be present at depth that could cause difficult drilling (ie. steeply dipping joints, areas of varying strength within the rock). The contractor should be prepared to address these, and other, unforeseen conditions on a case by case basis during construction.
Prior to constructing forms for foundations we recommend that the foundation site be prepared by excavating and clearing the organic and soil overburden (if present), moving loose rock or boulders, cleaning the exposed rock surface, shaping the rock for a horizontal surface in the footprint, and sloping outside of the footprint for drainage purposes. Assuming concrete foundation elements bear on clean, fresh bedrock, we recommend that they be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 10,000 psf. The value may be increased by 1/3 for short-term wind or seismic loading. We recommend that a qualified geotechnical engineer be retained to check the rock surface to look for loose or disturbed zones beneath the foundation that may need to be treated with grout or structural fill to provide a smooth surface for the concrete before constructing the footings.
The uplift resistance of the foundations should be provided by tensioned rock anchors that are embedded into competent rock. We assume that the size, number and bonded length of the anchors will be designed appropriately by the design-build contractor to support the anticipated loads. We recommend designing the anchor embedment to resist the calculated, factored uplift loads using allowable bond strength between the grout and rock of 150 pounds per square inch. This value assumes that the anchor holes are drilled with a percussion type rock drill and the contractor is able to obtain drill holes that are largely clear of debris. The value may need to be adjusted depending on drilling techniques, if zones of loose or fractured rock are encountered, or if the drill cuttings become smeared on the drill hole walls. Additionally, the anchors should be placed and grouted into a hole with a diameter between 2 to 2.5 times greater than the anchor diameter. We recommend that a geotechnical engineer experienced in tensioned rock anchoring be retained to review the final plans and specifications to verify that the documents generally conform to the above recommendations. Tensioned rock anchors should be designed with a minimum free stressing length of 10 feet (measured from the base of the foundation to the top of the bond zone) or as needed to provide sufficient rock mass pull out capacity, whichever is
USCG Rescue 21 Cross Mountain Tower, Baranof Island, Alaska 32-1-02257-001 5
greater. Tensioned bolts should also be designed to resist structure uplift loads within the bonded zone of the anchor. The use of pre-stressed, mechanical anchors may be considered for elements with lighter design loads that are less cyclic in nature than the presumed tower loads. In our opinion, mechanical anchorage systems should not be used for the tower anchors.
We assume that individual foundation elements of the tower and other structures will be relatively small (less than about 5 feet in cross-section) therefore we recommend that the anchors be installed at a 2 horizontal (H) or 3H to 10 vertical (V) batter in opposite directions to spread the anchor bond zones. We recommend that the anchors installed for each structure be stress tested to verify their capacity. The testing should be conducted according to guidelines set forth by the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) in their Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors. The anchors should incorporate the appropriate corrosion protection to ensure that they maintain capacity over the life of the structure.
We recommend that below grade foundation elements be buried with imported granular fill or shot rock generated from leveling the sites. The fill should be tracked in place in 10 to 12 inch thick lifts to create a stable mass that will be relatively free draining. Excavation spoils can be placed around the tower site as landscaping in non-structural areas. Fills placed in this manner are largely intended for site contouring and drainage and the weight of fills should not be included in calculations for uplift capacity.
7.2 Foundation Settlements
The magnitudes of the settlements that will develop at the tower site are dependent upon the applied loads and the care with which the concrete base is constructed. We estimate that total maximum settlements will be about 1/2 inch or less with differential settlements being about 1/2 of the total settlements within the tower footprint. These settlements will likely occur during construction and initial application of the tower and anchor loads such that long-term settlements should be negligible.
7.3 Drainage
We recommend that the rock surface to receive foundation elements be contoured to drain infiltration waters away from the structure and off the site. Carefully contouring the site for positive drainage will minimize ponding of surface waters during periods of rainfall or rapid snow melting. This in turn will limit moisture contents in the site soils and rock, which should reduce the potential for frost wedging.
USCG Rescue 21 Cross Mountain Tower, Baranof Island, Alaska 32-1-02257-001 6
8.0 CLOSURE/LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of our client and their representatives for evaluating the site as it relates to the geotechnical aspects discussed herein. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on information provided from the observed site conditions and other conditions described herein. The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they presently exist. It is assumed that the conditions observed in the exploratory test pit and nearby rock outcrops are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site, i.e., the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the explorations.
We understand that the information contained in this report will be used by design-build teams to develop proposals to design and construct the proposed improvements. It is the responsibility of the design-build contractor to review the information contained herein and determine the applicability of the available information as it pertains to their design. The intent of this report is to provide a baseline of information for the design-build contractors, on which they will rely at their own risk.
If, during construction, conditions different from those encountered in these explorations are observed or appear to be present, Shannon & Wilson, Inc. should be advised at once so that these conditions can be reviewed and recommendations can be reconsidered where necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between the submittal of this report and the start of work at the site, or if conditions have changed due to natural causes or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, it is recommended that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations considering the changed conditions and time lapse.
We recommend that we be retained to review those portions of the plans and specifications pertaining to earthwork and foundations to determine if they are consistent with our recommendations.
Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot fully be determined by merely taking soil samples or excavating test pits. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project. Therefore, some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra costs. Shannon & Wilson has prepared the attachments in Appendix A Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of the reports.
USCG Rescue 21 Cross Mountain Tower, Baranof Island, Alaska 32-1-02257-001 7
Alaska Canada
Anchorage
Duffield Peninsula
t h ig a r t Approximate P S e f ri o Project Location l S k t li ra e it Sh
Gulf of Alaska
Map adapted from All Topo Maps USGS Sitka B-4, B-5, C-4, and C-5 63K Quadrangle maps
USCG Rescue 21 High Sites Cross Mountain Tower Baranof Island, Alaska
VICINITY MAP
0 8,000 16,000 October 2012 32-1-02257-001 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical & Environmental Consultants FIG. 1
APPENDIX A
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
32-1-02257-001
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Attachment to 32-1-02257 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Date: October 2012 To: ECH Architecture Re: USCG Rescue 21 High Sites, Cross Mountain Tower, Baranof Island, Alaska
Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report
CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS.
Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the consultant.
THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS.
A geotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project-specific factors. Depending on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: (1) when the nature of the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); (2) when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3) when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; (4) when there is a change of ownership; or (5) for application to an adjacent site. Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors, which were considered in the development of the report, have changed.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE.
Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotechnical/environmental report is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts; for example, groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical/environmental report. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary.
MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS.
Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your consultant, who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your consultant can work together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly beneficial in this respect.
Page 1 of 2 3/2004
A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY.
The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by applicable recommendations. The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction.
THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION.
Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretation of a geotechnical/environmental report. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other project design professionals to explain relevant geotechnical, geological, hydrogeological, and environmental findings, and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to these issues.
BORING LOGS AND/OR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT.
Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data. Only final boring logs and data are customarily included in geotechnical/environmental reports. These final logs should not, under any circumstances, be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.
To reduce the likelihood of boring log or monitoring well misinterpretation, contractors should be given ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering/environmental report prepared or authorized for their use. If access is provided only to the report prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for whom the report was prepared, and that developing construction cost estimates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was prepared. While a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss the report with your consultant and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes. Some clients hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY.
Because geotechnical/environmental engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem, consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports and other documents. These responsibility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consultant's liabilities to other parties; rather, they are definitive clauses that identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions.
The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the ASFE/Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland
Page 2 of 2 3/2004
APPENDIX D
Site Photographs
Photograph 1. Oblique aerial view of the proposed Duffield Peninsula communication site.
Photograph 2. Oblique aerial view of proposed Duffield Peninsula communication site.
Photograph 3. Proposed location of Duffield Peninsula communication facility, as viewed from the southwest ridge.
Photograph 4. Proposed Duffield Peninsula communication site. Note surveyor’s tripod for scale.
Photograph 5. Location of potential staging area at Goose Cove.
Photograph 6. Location of potential barge anchorage in Rodman Bay near former Rodman Bay Log Transfer Facility.
Photograph 7. Oblique aerial view of existing Cape Fanshaw communication facility from 1 mile. The proposed Duffield Peninsula communication facility would be of similar size, layout, and construction.
Existing Cape Fanshaw Communication Facility
Photograph 8. View of existing Cape Fanshaw communication facility from shore 4.3 miles away.
Wind Generator Generator and Propane and Tower Communication Tanks Shelters Microwave Dish
Solar Array
Photograph 9. Oblique aerial view of existing Cape Fanshaw communication facility from ¼ mile away. Note that shelter is painted to match surrounding vegetation. Solar array is blue, but does not reflect sunlight.
APPENDIX E
Noise Terminology, Descriptors, and Test Results
Noise Terminology and Descriptors
The decibel (dB) scale used to describe sound is a logarithmic scale that provides a convenient system for considering the large differences in audible sound intensities. When addressing the effects of noise on people, one must consider the “frequency response” of the human ear, or those sounds that people are most able to hear. To address the frequency response, instruments that measure sounds are designed to “weight” measured sound levels based on emphasizing the frequencies most able to be heard and de-emphasizing those frequencies that cannot be heard as well. The frequency-weighting most often used to evaluate environmental noise is A-weighting. Measurements from instruments using this system are reported in “A-weighted decibels” or dBA. All sound levels in this evaluation are reported in dBA.
Many regulatory agencies use the equivalent sound level (Leq) to evaluate noise effects and potential community response to noise. The Leq is the level of a constant sound that has the same sound energy as the actual fluctuating sound. As such, the Leq can be considered an energy-average sound level. When referring to sound levels, it is important to identify the time period being considered, with Leq(24), for example, being the equivalent sound level for a 24- hour period. The day-night sound level (Ldn) is similar to a Leq(24), except that the calculation involves adding 10dBA to sound levels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. to account for potential sleep interference.
Regulatory Overview
The proposed Duffield Peninsula communication facility and staging areas, and the existing Mud Bay communication link facility are both located within the Tongass National Forest, within the jurisdiction of the City and Borough of Sitka.
The Noise Control Act was passed in 1972 in response to a congressional finding that unchecked noise presents a danger to the nation’s health and welfare. According to Title 42 of the U.S. Code, Part 4901, “the major sources of noise include transportation vehicles and equipment, machinery, appliances, and other products in commerce.” The Noise Control Act directs federal agencies to comply with all regulations aimed at noise reduction, but allows the President to exempt any activity or facility of the executive branch, including noise emission sources, if the paramount interest of the country would be served.
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Commandant Instruction M16475.1D relates to implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and includes both procedures and policy for considering environmental effects. In relation to noise, Chapter 2, Subsection D Special Areas of Consideration, Item 9.c, directs consideration of conformity to adopted noise standards and compatibility, if appropriate, with different land uses (USCG 2000).
Neither the State of Alaska nor the City and Borough of Sitka has adopted noise standards. In the absence of specific USCG standards for noise compatible with different land uses, the following standards developed by other agencies are presented for reference only. To protect public health and welfare, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recommended that the Ldn and Leq should not exceed certain limits, as indicated in Table E-1.
Table E-1. EPA Recommended Noise Limits
Effect Noise Level Area Hearing Leq(24) < 70 dBA All areas Outdoor activity Ldn < 55 dBA Outdoors in residential areas and farms where people interference and spend varying amounts of time in which quiet is a basis annoyance for use Leq(24) < 55 dBA Outdoor areas where people spend limited time, such as schoolyard playgrounds Indoor activity Ldn < 45 dBA Indoor residential areas interference and Leq(24) < 45 dBA Indoor areas with human activities, such as schools annoyance dBA – A-weighted decibel
EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ldn – Day-night sound level
Leq – Equivalent sound level
These limits, however, address impacts on people. Potential impacts on other resources are addressed in the Fish and Wildlife section.
Sound level of wind turbine Superwind 350 with Silent Power Blades (standard since Oct. 2009)
Distance 2.4 m in front of the rotor:
Vwind: 6m/s 10 m/s 14 m/s Sound level : 53,8dB(A) 58,2 dB(A) 66,0 dB(A)
Distance 10.0 m in front of the rotor:
Vwind: 6m/s 10 m/s 14 m/s Sound level : 43,9dB(A) 48,3 dB(A) 56,1,0 dB(A)
Remark: at a wind speed of 10 m/s or higher, the ambient noise of the wind generally outreaches the wind turbine noise.
The values of the sound levels are the results of scientific wind tunnel measurements:
Place of measurements: Wind tunnel of Technische Universität Hamburg Harburg Measurement performed by: Professor Dr.-Ing. Werner Leschnik TUHH Date of measurements 29 July 2009
superwind GmbH Tel. + 49-2232-577357 Am Rankewerk 2-4 Fax + 49-2232-577368 D-50321 Brühl e-mail: [email protected] Germany web-site: www.superwind.com