The U.S. Navy prepared an EIS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts from the proposed construction and operation of new security structures and for the proposed extension of the existing Service Pier on Naval Base Kitsap Bangor. Conducting this analysis is important because it allows the Navy to identify and consider the potential environmental impacts of major actions before a decision is made.

The Land-Water Interface and Service Pier Extension are independent actions, each fulfilling its own purpose and need; however, they were being analyzed in one EIS for efficiency due to their geographic proximity and because construction periods for the two projects were initially projected to overlap.

The LWI project will enhance security at the perimeter of the Waterfront Restricted Area (WRA) on Naval Base Kitsap Bangor by constructing physical barriers through shallow waters and onto the immediate upland areas at the northern and southern extent of the WRA. These structures will tie into the existing Port Security Barrier system and the on-land Waterfront Security Enclave system. The LWI project will involve in-water and on-land construction, including pile driving, pier construction, construction of shoreline abutments, and relocation of Port Security Barrier units and associated mooring anchors.

The protection of strategic military assets is of utmost importance. The LWI is needed to enhance security within the Waterfront Restricted Area on Naval Base Kitsap Bangor and comply with Department of Defense security requirements to protect TRIDENT submarines from increased and evolving threats and to prevent the seizure, damage or destruction of military assets.

The Navy selected Alternative 3, the Port Security Barrier Modifications (Preferred Alternative in the EIS):

• Under this alternative, the Navy will relocate and extend the existing Port Security Barrier system, rather than using pile-supported piers. The Port Security Barriers will be relocated and extend across the intertidal zone attaching to newly constructed shoreline concrete abutments. Three observation posts will be installed, one at each abutment and one on Marginal Wharf, located within the area enclosed by the Port Security Barriers. To meet security requirements, Alternative 3 will require a greater number of security personnel than Alternative 2; however, the frequency of security vessel operations would not increase.

The main difference between the two alternatives is that under the Port Security Barrier Modifications Alternative, the Land-Water Interface would be built solely by modifying the existing Port Security Barriers, rather than using pile-supported piers in combination with more modest modifications to the Port Security Barriers. The Land-Water Interface structures would be located at the same northern and southern locations as the Pile-Supported Pier Alternative. Both alternatives would include the abutments, while only Alternative 3 would include the observation posts.

Construction will occur over a two-year period (Fall 2016 through August 2018) and will include one in-water work season. Pile driving will take up to 30 days; however, there will be no in-water pile driving. It is important to note that the piles for the observation posts will be located in the water at high tide; however, these piles will be driven during low tides when water is not present.

The 2016 ROD was the last step in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for the LWI project and so yes, the Navy will proceed with construction and operation of the LWI project. Since the 2016 ROD deferred a decision on the SPE component of the EIS proposed actions, the Navy cannot proceed with the SPE project until further NEPA analysis is conducted. The Navy has decided to prepare a Supplemental EIS to continue the NEPA process for the SPE project.

The Navy is proposing to extend and operate the existing Service Pier and construct and operate support facilities to provide additional berthing for maintenance of existing homeported and visiting submarines.

The purpose of the SPE is to provide additional berthing capacity and improve associated support facilities for existing homeported and visiting submarines at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor. Construction and operation of the SPE and support facilities is needed to:

• Provide alternative opportunities for berthing to mitigate restrictions at Naval Base Kitsap Bremerton on navigating SEAWOLF Class submarines through Rich Passage under certain tidal conditions.
• Improve long-term operational effectiveness for the three SEAWOLF Class submarines at Naval Base Kitsap.
• Provide berthing and logistical support for SEAWOLF, LOS ANGELES and VIRGINIA submarine classes at the Navy's submarine research, development, test and evaluation hub, currently located at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor.
• Improve submarine crew training and readiness through co-location of command functions at the Naval Base Kitsap Bangor submarine training center.

In the EIS, the Navy proposed the following three alternatives for the SPE (the design of Alternative 2 is subject to minor modifications in the SEIS):

• Alternative 1 - No Action: No Service Pier extension or associated support facilities would be built at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor. This alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action. It would not provide alternative opportunities for berthing to mitigate restrictions at Naval Base Kitsap Bremerton on navigating SEAWOLF Class submarines through Rich Passage under certain tidal conditions, or improve long-term operational effectiveness for the three SEAWOLF Class submarines on Naval Base Kitsap. The No Action Alternative would not provide berthing and logistical support for SEAWOLF, LOS ANGELES, and VIRGINIA submarine classes at the Navy's SSN research, development, test and evaluation hub, nor improve submarine crew training and readiness through co-location of command functions on the Naval Base Kitsap Bangor submarine training center. No environmental impacts would result from the No Action Alternative, as no construction or physical alteration to the waterfront would occur, and there would be no changes in operations.
• Alternative 2 - Short Pier Configuration (Preferred Alternative): As described in the LWI-SPE EIS, the Navy would construct and operate new support facilities and a 540-foot-long extension to the existing 500-foot-long Service Pier to accommodate the proposed submarine berthing and support services on Naval Base Kitsap Bangor. The Service Pier Extension would be capable of accommodating a side-by-side berthing configuration for submarine maintenance. The existing Port Security Barrier system would be re-configured to attach to the end of the new pier extension. Minor design modifications may be considered in the SEIS for this alternative.
• Alternative 3 - Long Pier Configuration: Includes all the same components as the Service Pier Extension Alternative 2, except the Navy would construct a 975-foot-long extension to the existing Service Pier. This design would allow two submarines to be berthed in an in-line configuration rather than side-by-side. Additionally, the Port Security Barrier relocation would differ so as to connect the Port Security Barriers to the end of the longer pier extension.

Construction dates for the Service Pier Extension have not been established. Construction of all proposed facilities would take approximately two years, including two in-water work seasons. Pile driving would last up to 161 days for Alternative 2 and up to 205 days for Alternative 3 (subject to change in the SEIS).

A Preferred Alternative is an alternative that best fulfills the purpose of and need for a proposed action, taking into consideration environmental, operational, technical, cost and other factors.

The Navy's Preferred Alternative for the Land-Water Interface was Alternative 3: Port Security Barrier Modifications, in part because it does not include in-water pile driving and it would have fewer environmental impacts and cost less than Alternative 2. This was the alternative selected for implementation in the 2016 ROD.

In the 2016 Final EIS, the Navy's Preferred Alternative for the Service Pier Extension was Alternative 2: Short Pier Configuration because it would have fewer environmental impacts and cost less than Alternative 3. This alternative is likely to remain the preferred alternative in the SEIS as well.

In preparing the Draft EIS, the Navy evaluated the potential environmental impacts the Proposed Actions may have on a range of resource areas and topics, including:

• Marine water resources
• Marine vegetation and invertebrates
• Threatened and endangered species
• Fish
• Marine mammals
• Marine birds
• Terrestrial biological resources
• Geology, soils, and water resources
• Land use and recreation
• Airborne acoustic environment
• Aesthetics and visual quality
• Socioeconomics
• Environmental justice and protection of children
• Cultural resources
• American Indian traditional resources
• Traffic
• Air quality
• Cumulative effects

Yes, as part of the SEIS process, all of the same resources from the 2016 EIS will be reconsidered relative to the implications of any modifications in the proposed SEIS alternatives, and with respect to any known changes in environmental conditions and/or regulatory requirements that would alter the impact analyses or conclusions that were made in the Final EIS. If, after due consideration of all relevant factors, it is determined that the EIS analyses and conclusions remain valid for specific resources, than those resources will not be carried forward for detailed analysis in the SEIS. Only resources for which new data or regulatory requirements would yield appreciable changes to the EIS impact analyses will be carried forward for detailed analysis in the SEIS. The process and rationale for any decisions regarding the level of additional resource discussion or analysis, or changes in impact conclusions, will be clearly explained in the SEIS.

Yes. The Navy is committed to protecting the environment and minimizing potential environmental effects, to the extent practicable, during the proposed construction and operation of the Land-Water Interface and Service Pier Extension projects. As part of the Proposed Actions, the Navy would implement appropriate measures and practices to minimize and mitigate impacts on the community and environment.

The Proposed Actions would require pile driving, which may result in adverse effects on the community, wildlife and marine life. The Navy would implement several mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts, including:

• Performing in-water construction work from July 16 to January 15 to minimize interference with migrating endangered Pacific salmon and salmon-related species, and sensitive life stages of these and other protected species.
• Using vibratory methods for pile installation rather than impact methods to reduce sound levels, whenever possible.
• Using air bubble curtains or other noise attenuating devices to reduce underwater pile driving noise.
• Using a "soft-start" approach for impact pile driving to allow marine mammals to leave the immediate pile driving area.
• Restricting the time of day for construction and pile-driving activities.
• Implementing a monitoring program during construction to reduce impacts on protected species.

Land-Water Interface: Nearby residential and recreational areas would experience temporary and intermittent exposure to elevated noise levels. Impacts for Alternative 3 would be of a shorter duration than the impacts for Alternative 2. Construction and pile-driving time restrictions would occur, as well as notices to the public prior to construction.

Service Pier Extension: Nearby residential and recreational areas would experience temporary and intermittent exposure to elevated noise levels; however, impacts from Alternative 2 would be for a shorter duration than from Alternative 3. Construction and pile-driving time restrictions would occur, as well as notices to the public prior to construction.

Land-Water Interface: The local economy is expected to benefit from construction activities and there are no anticipated impacts on commercial or recreational fishing. Potential long-term socioeconomic impacts on tribes from lack of access to some shellfish beds for commercial harvest are expected. Mitigation actions are under development in consultation with affected tribes.

Service Pier Extension: The local economy would benefit from construction activities and there are no anticipated impacts on commercial or recreational fishing.

Land-Water Interface: The Proposed Action is expected to result in temporary restricted access to tribal shellfish harvest area within the immediate construction zone, temporary exposure of tribal harvesters to elevated noise levels from construction, and long-term loss of tribal shellfish beds. No population-level impacts on salmon and steelhead stocks harvested by tribes are expected. Construction vessels could interfere with tribal fishing vessels.

Service Pier Extension: No population level impacts on salmon stocks or effects on tribal shellfish beds or harvest are expected. Construction vessels could interfere with tribal fishing vessels.

The Navy, as part of our ongoing government-to-government consultations, has developed mitigation measures in consultation with affected tribes.

Land-Water Interface: During Construction, the Proposed Action is expected to result in traffic delays at the Hood Canal Bridge, where impacts under Alternative 3 would be less than under Alternative 2); a temporary increase in marine vessel traffic during the in-water work seasons, and a temporary increase in on-base traffic and delays at base gates during peak hours. There will be no traffic-related impacts during operation.

Service Pier Extension: During construction, the Proposed Action would increase the frequency of openings of the Hood Canal Bridge, an adverse impact to travelers on SR-104; this impact would last longer for Alternative 3 than for Alternative 2. Over the long term, there would be an estimated two additional openings of the Hood Canal Bridge per month under either action alternative. To minimize traffic impacts, the Navy would schedule barge trips to avoid the commuting hours to the maximum extent possible.

The Navy has developed a Mitigation Action Plan, which includes current practices, best management practices and specific mitigation measures to avoid, reduce and mitigate the potential effects of the proposed construction and operation from the Proposed Actions.

For each category of current practices, best management practices and mitigation measures, the Mitigation Action Plan provides the following information:

• Description of the measure
• Parties responsible for implementation
• Planned implementation schedule
• Planned funding
• Mitigation-specific performance criteria
• Monitoring and tracking mechanisms
• Enforcement measures

• To offset unavoidable impacts on aquatic resources, the Navy proposes to purchase habitat credits from the Hood Canal In-Lieu Fee Program, which would implement appropriate mitigation in the Hood Canal Watershed. The In-Lieu Fee program is described in Section 6 of the Mitigation Action Plan.
• The Navy would undertake mitigation projects to address potential effects of the Proposed Actions on reserved Treaty rights and resources of affected American Indian Tribes. These projects have been planned in consultation with the affected tribes. The Navy's proposed Treaty mitigation projects are described in Section 9 of the Mitigation Action Plan.

The Navy coordinated with many state and federal agencies in the development of the EIS and the Mitigation Action Plan. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, and the National Marine Fisheries Service Headquarters are cooperating agencies for the Proposed Actions. Agencies that have permitting authority or jurisdictional responsibilities include:

• National Marine Fisheries Service
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• Washington Department of Ecology

The Navy also invited comments on the Draft EIS from other federal and state regulatory agencies, including:

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• U.S. Geological Survey
• Washington State Department of Natural Resources
• Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife