Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Proposed Kodiak Microwave Systems, LLC Telecommunications Project U.S. Fish United States Fish and Wildlife Service Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 1390 Buskin River Road Kodiak, AK 9961 May 2016 Photo by Yathin Krishnappa U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Proposed Kodiak Microwave Systems, LLC Telecommunications Project, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Kodiak Island, Alaska This preliminary Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in accordance with the US Department of Interior Departmental Manual 516, and is in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (and subsequent amendments) (P.L. 91-190) and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations dated November 1978 (40 CFR 1500-1508). This EA serves as a public document to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining the need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or a Finding of No Significant Impact. This EA concisely describes the need for the proposal, a reasonable range of alternatives, and potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives. The EA provides a list of the agencies and persons consulted during EA preparation. Comments may be sent to Tracy Fischbach, Natural Resources Planner, by: Email: [email protected]; or, Mail: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 231 Anchorage, AK 99503 ATTN: Tracy Fischbach Call Tracy Fischbach at (907)786-3369, if you have questions about the EA directly or about how to comment on this document. 1 Table of Contents 1 Introduction & Executive Summary 4 1.1 Purpose and Need 6 1.2 Criteria Being Used to Evaluate the Project 6 1.3 Key Environmental Requirements & Integration of Other Environmental Statutes & Regulations 6 1.4 Non-Federal Permits Required for the Project 8 1.5 Agency and Public Involvement 9 1.6 Government-to-Government Consultation with Federally Recognized Tribes 9 1.7 Summary of Issues 10 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives 13 2.1 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 13 2.2 No Action – Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) 13 2.3 Site Details Common to Both Action Alternatives 13 2.4 Construction Details Common to Both Action Alternatives 16 2.5 Operation and Maintenance Common to Each Tower Site 17 2.6 Site and Construction Details Unique to Each Action Alternative 18 2.7 Impact Summary Matrix 19 2.8 Recommended Conservation Measures 25 2.9 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed 26 3 Affected Environment 28 3.1 Physical Environment 29 3.1.1 Soils 29 3.1.2 Hazardous Materials 30 3.2 Biological Environment 30 3.2.1 Vegetation 30 3.2.5 Brown Bears 33 3.2.6 Marine Mammals (Steller’s sea lions and northern sea otters) 35 3.3 Social Environment 35 3.3.1 Cultural Resources 36 3.3.2 Socioeconomic 36 Karluk 36 3.3.3 Environmental Justice 37 3.3.4 Subsistence 38 3.3.5 Land Use 38 3.3.7 Lands with Wilderness Values 40 3.3.8 Noise 42 3.3.9 Visual 44 4 Environmental Consequences 58 5 Statement of Environmental Significance of the Proposed Action 83 6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 83 7 List of Preparers, Contributors, and Advisors 83 2 8 References 85 Appendix A. Public Scoping Notice Letter 88 Appendix B. Representative Scoping Letter to Native Tribes and Corporations 88 Appendix C. ESA Section 7 Intra-Agency Consultation 90 Appendix D. ESA Section 7 Consultation Letter to National Marine Fisheries Service 94 Appendix E. DRAFT Compatibility Determination 98 Appendix F. Proposed Right-of-Way Stipulations 109 Appendix G. ANILCA Section 810 Subsistence Analysis 119 3 1 Introduction & Executive Summary The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is considering an application from Kodiak Microwave System, LLC (KMS) to construct a telecommunication project, (KMS4), on the northwest end of Kodiak Island within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (Kodiak Refuge). The project would provide broadband telecommunication services to the remote communities of Larsen Bay and Karluk, which currently use private satellite networks. Although satellite service currently provides telecommunication services in these rural villages, its often slower speed, frequent delays in connectivity and low reliability limit its usefulness. Without access to broadband internet, Larsen Bay and Karluk lack access to modern education tools, telemedicine, and economic opportunities. This project would address the need for reliable broadband service in Larsen Bay and Karluk by providing high-capacity, high-speed, low delay connectivity. The improved internet connectivity and reliability would provide residents with opportunities to facilitate economic development, and would improve services for health care providers, schools, government, tribal and non-profit entities and residential users. As originally proposed, one tower would be located at Larsen Peak and another at Midridge Alternative 2 (Inner Route). In addition to the no action alternative, an additional alternative to build three towers closer to the coast at Spiridon, Uganik, and Z-Ridge has also been evaluated Alternative 3 (Outer Route). Construction of the project would occur in summer of 2016. Currently there are no developments on Midridge or Larsen Peak. Spiridon and Z-Ridge currently host a FWS radio repeater. If approved by the FWS, a Federal right-of-way (ROW) would be granted to KMS to build the telecommunication sites in the Kodiak Refuge along one of these two routes (Figure 1). Preliminary Preferred Alternative Selection After evaluation of the project and alternatives, the preliminary preferred alternative has been determined to be Alternative 2 (Inner Route), the originally proposed action to build towers at Midridge and Larsen Peak. Although the towers in Alternative 2 would be located in lands with wilderness values, the towers would be less visible, further from critical sea lion haul-outs and seabird colonies, and require many fewer helicopter trips for construction and maintenance over the life of the project than the tower sites evaluated in Alternative 3 (Outer Route). This preliminary decision is predicated on a final National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 determination of “no adverse effect” for the Village Islands staging area. 4 Figure 1-1 Map of Proposed Action (Preferred/Inner Route or Alternative 2) and Outer Route (Alternative 3) 5 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is for the FWS to respond to the application filed by KMS. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA, 16 USC 51), and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S. C. 668dd-668ee), FWS will evaluate the decision whether or not to issue a ROW permit to build and maintain telecommunication towers on the Refuge. This EA will provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether there is potential for significant impact, thus requiring an Environmental Impact Statement, or whether there is justification to prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). While the KMS4 Project includes additional components to be installed on State of Alaska and private lands, these other components are not the direct actions for which the ROW application is under review in this EA. Under the analysis of cumulative effects for this project, the contribution of all the project components, as well as other activities in the area, will be reviewed in order to understand the overall effect of this action on the human environment. 1.2 CRITERIA BEING USED TO EVALUATE THE PROJECT Kodiak Microwave Systems LLC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Project Project Objectives Objectives No new invasive species will be introduced to The project must cost less than $5 million. the Refuge. The towers must have a line of site route with Changes to the natural characteristic of the distances less than 35 miles between towers. interior refuge will be minimized. There will be no new developments in primary Placing towers on lower ridges is preferable bear habitat and disturbance to denning bears due to the lower maintenance costs. will be minimized. Disturbance to bird nesting habitat will be minimized. 1.3 KEY ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS & INTEGRATION OF OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES & REGULATIONS FWS reviews ROW applications under the terms of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S. C. 668dd-668ee) as amended, and the regulations found at 590 CFR Part 29. Additional requirements concerning a transportation and utility system within a National Wildlife Refuge are considered under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S. C. 3161 et seq.). These acts are described below along with other key environmental requirements that must be taken into consideration when evaluating the permit request. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (Refuge Administration Act) serves as the "organic act" for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 6 act, as amended, consolidated the various categories of lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) through the FWS into a single National Wildlife Refuge System. The act establishes a process for determining compatible uses of refuges, stating that first and foremost, that the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System be focused singularly on wildlife conservation,