[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35599-35601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16960]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Record of Decision for Outfall Replacement for Wastewater 
Treatment Plant at Fort Kamehameha, Navy Public Works Center, Pearl 
Harbor, HI

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of record of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy, after weighing the operational, 
environmental, and cost implications of alternatives to the existing 
outfall for the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) at Fort Kamehameha, 
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, announces its decision to construct a deep ocean 
outfall replacement that will discharge effluent into the open coastal 
waters of Mamala Bay to the south of the island of Oahu.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Melvin Kaku, Pacific Division 
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (PLN23), 258 Makalapa Drive, Suite 
100, Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-3134, telephone (808) 471-9338, facsimile 
(808) 474-5909.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Record of Decision (ROD) in its entirety 
is provided as follows:
    Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c), and the regulations of the 
Council on Environmental Quality that implement NEPA procedures, 40 CFR 
Parts 1500-1508, the Department of the Navy (DON) announces its 
decision to replace a physically deteriorating effluent outfall that 
discharges wastewater into the entrance channel of the Pearl Harbor 
Estuary with a deep ocean outfall into the open coastal waters of 
Mamala Bay where the effluent loading is less likely to adversely 
impact the environment.
    The existing outfall has been operating under an administrative 
extension to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
monitoring permit that expired on February 28, 1993. The Navy was 
advised by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 on 
January 24, 1997, that a new NPDES permit will limit the discharge of 
nutrients and metals to levels below those presently permitted. 
Replacement of the existing outfall will reduce pollutant loadings and 
water quality deterioration in the Pearl Harbor Estuary, and enable DON 
to be in compliance. As described in the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (FEIS), the DON will construct and operate a new deep ocean 
outfall. The new outfall will provide an effluent disposal system that 
meets environmental and other regulatory constraints. All practicable 
means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative 
selected have been adopted.

Process

    On September 11, 1996, the DON published in the Federal Register 
(61 FR 47898) a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS). On September 23, 1996, an EIS Preparation Notice was 
published in The Environmental Notice, a semi-monthly bulletin of the 
Hawaii State Department of Health (DOH). DON held two public scoping 
meetings on October 1 and October 2, 1996, in Honolulu, HI at 
Washington Intermediate School and Makalapa Elementary School, 
respectively. The EPA published a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the 
Draft EIS (DEIS) in the Federal Register on November 21, 1997 (62 FR 
62303). An announcement was also placed in the December 8, 1997, issue 
of The Environmental Notice. DON held a public hearing to receive 
comments on the DEIS at Radford High School, Honolulu, HI, on December 
17, 1997. In addition, DON distributed the DEIS to 124 government 
agencies, groups, and individuals. DON considered all oral and written 
comments in preparation of the FEIS. The EPA published a NOA for the 
FEIS in the Federal Register on May 4, 2001 (66 FR 22551). A NOA was 
also published in two local newspapers on May 4, May 5, and May 6, 
2001. An announcement was also placed in the May 8, 2001, issue of The 
Environmental Notice.

Alternatives Considered

    DON initially considered six alternative methods for reducing the 
discharge of pollutant loadings from the effluent discharge into the 
Pearl Harbor Estuary. DON developed conceptual designs for the six 
alternative methods and conducted a preliminary analysis based on the 
following: (1) Purpose and need of the project; (2) 30-year life-cycle 
costs; and (3) feasibility of implementation including construction, 
operation, and maintenance. DON determined that of the six alternative 
methods, only the deep ocean outfall and the underground injection 
alternatives were reasonable. These two

[[Page 35600]]

alternatives and the ``no action'' alternative were carried forward for 
further analysis, with the deep ocean outfall alternative being 
identified as the preferred alternative. The analysis of the deep ocean 
outfall alternative included an evaluation of the environmental impacts 
of various alignments and construction methods that included trenching, 
microtunneling, and pile-supported pipe above the ocean floor.
    Based upon this analysis, DON has chosen to construct a deep ocean 
outfall that will discharge the wastewater into the open coastal waters 
of Mamala Bay. The ``no action'' alternative was rejected as it would 
not enable the Navy to satisfy reasonably foreseeable regulatory 
requirements. The underground injection alternative was ultimately 
rejected in favor of the deep ocean outfall alternative because of its 
higher 30-year life cycle cost, the fair to poor reliability of the 
technology involved, and uncertain impacts on adjacent water bodies. 
The deep ocean outfall alternative is the environmentally preferred 
alternative.

Environmental Impacts

    DON analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of each 
alternative on environmental resources involving land use and airspace; 
visual resources; socioeconomics; cultural resources; traffic and 
circulation; air quality; noise; biological resources; hydrological 
resources; utilities and services; public health and safety; and 
hazardous materials and waste. The only significant impacts that could 
result from the construction of the new WWTP outfall are discussed 
below.

Aquatic Environment

    There is potential for significant impacts on the aquatic 
environment from normal construction activities. DON and its 
contractor(s) will employ standard Best Management Practices for 
construction in coastal waters, such as daily inspection of equipment 
for conditions that could cause spills or leaks; cleaning of equipment 
prior to deployment in the water; proper location of storage, 
refueling, and servicing sites; and implementation of adequate spill 
response, storm weather preparation plans, and the use of silt curtains 
to minimize the potential impact.
    There is potential for impacts on the marine environment from the 
expected increase in turbidity and suspended solids in the water during 
the construction phase. Turbidity from construction in shallow waters, 
which tend to be relatively calm, will be contained by the use of silt 
curtains. Strong wave and current actions in the deep water portions of 
the project area will act to minimize increased turbidity in those 
areas. Water quality monitoring will be conducted during the 
construction period to ensure that water quality standards are not 
exceeded. Pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act, DON will 
obtain and comply with the conditions of a Water Quality Certification 
from the DOH. The proposed action is expected to meet the conditions of 
the NPDES permit required by the Hawaii DOH.
    There is potential for minor impacts on corals from construction 
activities associated with the replacement outfall. Construction 
impacts to areas supporting coral growth have been minimized by careful 
selection of the preferred outfall alignment and construction 
methodologies. The aggregate coral coverage impacted by the replacement 
outfall along its entire length is expected to be less than one-fifth 
of one percent (i.e., 0.2 percent) of the total coral on the reef flat 
within the construction area. The corals that would be affected are not 
unique and are readily found off the southern shore of Oahu at similar 
depths.

Protected Species and Habitat

    There is potential danger from construction activities to marine 
species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species 
Act. Construction activities will cease if listed marine species are 
observed entering the active project construction site, and work will 
be allowed to resume only after the listed species departs the 
construction site on its own volition. The Pacific Islands Area Office 
of National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will be notified of each 
such occurrence. Both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS have 
concurred that neither listed species nor their habitat would be 
adversely impacted by normal construction activities associated with 
the deep ocean outfall. In the unlikely event that ordnance material is 
encountered that DON cannot safely remove or avoid, DON will, as 
appropriate, confer with NMFS before proceeding with construction in 
the area of the discovered ordnance material.

Public Health and Safety

    There is potential for impacts on public health and safety from 
encountering ordnance items in the construction corridor. Approximately 
two hundred dives were performed between November 1999 and December 
2000 along the proposed construction corridor and along the Pearl 
Harbor Entrance Channel (PHEC). These dives identified six projectiles 
within the proposed construction corridor. These six projectiles were 
subsequently removed safely without in-water detonation. Based on 
information collected from these dives, it is likely that ordnance can 
be safely removed or avoided if it is encountered. The construction 
contractor will perform an independent survey for ordnance items by 
visual and/or remote metallic detection methods prior to construction. 
All workers will be informed of the ordnance hazards before 
construction activities begin. Public access to construction areas will 
be restricted. If an ordnance item is encountered during construction, 
work will stop in the affected area pending DON clearance.

Response to Comments Received Regarding the Feis

    EPA and a commercial entity provided comment letters. EPA's 
comments focused on construction related impacts to living coral and 
suitability of dredged material for ocean disposal.
    EPA requested that DON include the following mitigation: take 
``appropriate and practicable steps'' to minimize adverse impacts to 
corals; transplant living corals away from project area; and remove 
marine debris from the vicinity of the PHEC to generally enhance marine 
habitat. No exceptional, unusual, or large coral colonies are within 
the project area and, as discussed in the FEIS, potential impacts to 
the coral that is present have been minimized by careful selection of 
the outfall alignment and construction methodology (e.g., 
microtunneling and the use of silt curtains). Transplanting the small 
number of corals in the construction corridor that cannot be avoided is 
considered impracticable. The removal of marine debris from the 
vicinity of the PHEC would eliminate and degrade fish and threatened 
green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) habitat because it is heavily 
utilized by these species.
    EPA also requested additional discussions on the suitability of the 
dredged material for ocean disposal. Pursuant to Section 103 of the 
Marine Protection Research Sanctuaries Act, DON has provided this 
information as part of the permitting process regulated by the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the EPA. The COE permit application 
included data indicating that the material proposed for disposal will 
be substantially the same as the existing substrate at the EPA 
designated South Oahu Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site and that the 
proposed

[[Page 35601]]

dredged material site is located far from known pollution sources, 
therefore providing reasonable assurance that the material has not been 
contaminated. The COE permit will address concernns regarding ocean 
disposal.
    The F.O.G. Corporation recommended use of its liquid bio-polymer to 
meet EPA discharge requirements and avoid construction of the outfall. 
The recommended bio-polymer product does not include removal of 
dissolved nutrients and therefore is not a viable alternative to the 
proposed action.

Conclusion

    In determining how to dispose of wastewater effluent from the WWTP 
at Fort Kamehameha, I considered the following: present ability of the 
WWTP to comply with more stringent anticipated discharge wastewater 
effluent limits; technical feasibility; operational reliability; 
environmental impacts; costs associated with construction, operation, 
and maintenance of facilities; and comments received during the DEIS 
and FEIS public involvement periods.
    After carefully weighing all of these factors and analyzing the 
data presented in the FEIS, I have determined that the preferred 
alternative, constructing a deep ocean outfall to replace the existing 
outfall, best meets the requirements for the disposal of wastewater 
effluent from the WWTP at Fort Kamehameha. Therefore, on behalf of the 
DON, I have decided to implement the proposed action by constructing a 
deep ocean replacement outfall and to retain the existing outfall for 
emergency bypass purposes. In addition to the specific mitigation 
measures identified in this ROD, the DON will continue to review its 
operational procedures and coordinate with other federal, state, and 
local entities as necessary to determine if any additional mitigation 
measure are feasible and practicable.

    Dated: June 22, 2001.
Duncan Holady,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Facilities).
[FR Doc. 01-16960 Filed 7-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M