DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Joint Task Force Red Hill and Defense Logistics Agency 

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) FOR RED HILL DEFUELING AND FUEL 

RELOCATION FROM JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, HONOLULU, HAWAII 

Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 

1500-1508) implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Department of the Navy 

(DON) NEPA regulations (32 CRF Part 775), Joint Task Force Red Hill (JTF-RH) and Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA) give notice that an Environmental AssessmenVOverseas Environmental Assessment 

(EA/OEA) has been prepared and an Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS/OEIS) is not required for Red Hill Defueling and Fuel Relocation from Joint Base Pearl 

Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH), Honolulu, Hawaii. This action will be implemented as set out in Alternative 3. 

The Fleet Logistics Center, Pearl Harbor and Navy Region Hawaii are cooperating agencies for this action. 

Proposed Action: JTF-RH and DLA propose the gravity-based defueling of Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage 

Facility (RHBFSF) underground storage tanks and associated pipelines, and relocation of the flowable fuel 

by tanker ship. The Proposed Action would include relocation of up to all of the flowable fuel to other United 

Slates Department of Defense (DoD) fuel supply locations in the Pacific region and/or sale of the fuel to 

commercial entities utilizing DoD contracting authorities. 

Purpose and Need: The purpose of the proposed gravity-based defueling and fuel relocation action is to 

drain the RHBFSF tanks and relocate the fuel in compliance with State of Hawaii Department of Health 

(DOH) Emergency Orders, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2023 Administrative Consent 

Order, and United States Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) Lloyd J. Austin Ill's order on March 7, 2022 to 

defuel and permanently close the RHBFSF. 

Defueling RHBFSF is needed to protect local water supplies from further contamination. Additionally, the 

DoD needs to defuel the facility as a first step in the process of full closure and remediation of RHBFSF. 

Alternatives Considered: The EA/OEA analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the No Action 

Alternative (Alternative 1) and two action alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3). Both the No Action Alternative 

and the two action alternatives utilize existing infrastructure at RHBFSF and JBPHH to remove the fuel from 

RHBFSF and load it onto tanker ships. The No Action Alternative and the two action alternatives include 

removal offlowable fuel from the associated pipelines (i.e., unpacking). Distribution of residual amounts of 

fuel products that do not flow under the force of gravity, such as fuel within low points of the facility and 

pipelines and sludge (unrecoverable tank bottoms), is not included in the scope of environmental analysis 

of this EA/OEA. 

Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, is the distribution of flowable fuel from RHBFSF to JBPHH 

customers at regular demand rates for routine use. As the facility would no longer receive any resupply of 

fuel, this alternative would ultimately remove all flowable fuel from RHBFSF. Under the No Action 

Alternative, it is estimated that flowable fuel would remain in the tanks at RHBFSF for approximately ten to 

fourteen months after DOH approval of the gravity-based defueling operation. 

Alternative 2 is the relocation of the approximately 106 million gallons of flowable fuel from RHBFSF to 

existing locations within the DoD fuel supply chain by ocean transit. The fuel removal operation involves 

gravity flow of the fuel from RHBFSF through existing DoD piping and associated infrastructure to a fuel 

loading pier at JBPHH. A maximum of eleven refined product tanker ship transits are required to receive 

and transport the flowable fuel from RHBFSF. After exiting Pearl Harbor, tanker ship transits one through 

ten would transit within existing commercial shipping lanes to one or more (up to nine) existing DoD fuel 

support points throughout the Pacific. The fuel deliveries to these locations would occur in lieu of routine or 

planned fuel supply deliveries. 

Page 1 of 6 
Potential receiving locations for the ten fuel deliveries include: 

• Campbell Industrial Park, West Oahu, Hawaii 

• Point Loma, California 

• Selby, California 

• Vancouver, Washington 

• Manchester, Washington 

• Sasebo, Japan 

• Subic Bay, Philippines 

• Port of Singapore 

• Darwin, Australia 

The quantity of fuel and number of deliveries to each location depends on DoD fuel inventory needs at the 

time of defueling. 

Alternative 3 is the commercial sale of a portion of the approximately 106 million gallons of flowable fuel 

from RHBFSF combined with the relocation of the remaining portion of the fuel to existing locations within 

the DoD fuel supply chain by ocean transit. A maximum of eleven tanker ships are required to receive and 

relocate the flowable fuel from RHBFSF. 

With Alternative 3, up to ten tanker loads of fuel from RHBFSF may be commercially sold in accordance 

with Section 2922e of Title 10, United States Code, which authorizes the sale of certain fuel sources. Sale 

of fuel would need to coincide with the defueling schedule. Therefore, the amount of fuel sold will be 

determined by commercial interest and purchasers' ability to receive the fuel at the time of gravity-based 

defueling. The portion of fuel that is not sold will be relocated from RHBFSF to existing locations within the 

DoD fuel supply chain by ocean transit. Relocation of fuel will be accomplished using the same process as 

Alternative 2. Potential DoD fuel supply chain receiving locations and maximum number of tanker transits 

to each location are the same as Alternative 2. 

Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, an eleventh tanker or barge would be staged at the JBPHH fueling pier 

for approximately two to five weeks to receive flowable tank bottoms and fuel from the underground surge 

tanks and pipeline unpacking process (estimated to be 2 million gallons of fuel or a portion thereof). Fleet 

Logistic Center, Pearl Harbor will sample and test this fuel to determine whether it meets specifications for 

DoD requirements and it will then be sold or relocated. 

All three alternatives incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the safe use transfer and 

relocation of fuel from RHBFSF that reduce potential environmental impacts by avoiding, minimizing, or 

eliminating impacts. 

Environmental Effects: No significant direct, indirect, or cumulative environmental impact would occur 

from the Proposed Action. Certain environmental resource areas including cultural resources, geological 

resources, terrestrial biological resources, visual resources, land use, utilities, airspace, noise, road 

transportation, socioeconomics, environmental justice, and climate change/resiliency were not analyzed in 

detail in this EA/OEA because the Proposed Action would not be likely to result in environmental impacts 

on these resources or impacts would be negligible. Potential environmental impacts on public health and 

safety, water resources, marine biological resources, hazardous materials and waste, and air quality and 

greenhouse gases were analyzed in detail and are summarized here. 

Public Health and Safety 

A minimal increase of demand for emergency services may result from the addition of approximately ten 

·workers per shift during the defueling and tanker ship loading operations with Alternatives 2 and 3. Demand 

would be extremely small and not likely to have measurable impacts to existing service capacity. Tanker 

loading would be accomplished by a team of trained military and civilian workers from FLC and Port 

Page 2 of6 
Operations. The use of BMPs, training, and adherence to occupational safety and health regulations, 

standards, and instructions would reduce the likelihood and severity of a potential workplace accident. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would add up to four vessel movements per week (i.e., two round-trip transits) in Pearl 

Harbor. The additional vessels would account for an approximate ten percent increase in vessel traffic 

during the period of defueling operations. BMPs including notifying the Harbormaster in advance of tanker 

arrival/departure, maintaining communications with the Harbormaster, and use of tugboats to assist tankers 

would reduce the risk of vessel accidents. Overall, with the use of BMPs and adherence to procedures, 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have less than significant effects to public health and safety. 

Water Resources 

The potential for spills within the RHBFSF, pipelines, and Underground Pump House (UGPH) during the 

defueling operation would be reduced through repairs and training. The potential for possible releases to 

occur would be less under Alternatives 2 or 3, which would defuel the tanks in approximately three to four 

months from the time DOH authorizes defueling, as compared to the longer period of time to defuel (ten to 

fourteen months) under the No Action Alternative. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, use of tanker ships may marginally increase potential for spills to affect marine 

waters around Oahu, in international waters, and at receiving locations. Vessel fueling at the JBPHH pier 

would follow standard operating procedures and BMPs to reduce the risk of spills. Although rare, a tanker 

ship spill has the potential to be a high-volume, extended duration (i.e., catastrophic) release of fuel into 

the marine environment. Tanker ships would be double-hulled in accordance with the International 

Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MAR POL) which reduces the potential for spills into 

the environment from accidental grounding and allision/collision. Tanker operators are required to follow 

applicable environmental and safety regulations which further reduces the likelihood of catastrophic spills. 

Fuel deliveries to receiving locations would be in lieu of regular deliveries, resulting in no overall risk 

increase from unloading the fuel from RHBFSF. Overall, with the use of BMPs for tanker fuel 

transfer/loading and adherence to provisions of the DOH order, Alternatives 2 and 3 would have less than 

significant effects to water resources. 

Marine Biological Resources 

Potential stressors to marine biological resources from the Proposed Action include elevated underwater 

noise from vessels and vessel collisions with marine species. Although not considered reasonably likely to 

occur, the risk of a fuel spill was also considered. The temporary, low-frequency and lower intensity sound 

levels of the tanker ships that would be used for Alternatives 2 and 3 would not result in an increased 

likelihood of acoustic injury to marine mammals, sea turtles, or fishes. Sound levels would. not significantly 

disrupt breeding, feeding, or sheltering for any Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species encountered. 

The likelihood of a vessel collision with a protected marine species is extremely remote because of the low 

probability that individual animals would overlap in space and time with the eleven one-way tanker transits. 

Additionally, the relatively slow speed of the vessels further reduces the chance of ship strike with marine 

mammals, sea turtles, and fishes. Vessels would employ measures to avoid and reduce the potential for 

vessel collisions and interactions with protected species. A tanker spill during transit has a low probability 

of occurrence, and the response teams and BMPs available at all ports further reduce the potential for a 

spill during fuel loading and unloading. Overall, with the use of BMPs, Alternatives 2 and 3 would have less 

than significant effects to marine biological resources. 

JTF-RH and DLA completed informal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA for the Proposed Action. JTF-RH and DLA developed a Biological 

Evaluation (BE) to assess the potential impacts to federally listed threatened and endangered species and 

submitted the BE to NMFS on May 19, 2023. NMFS reviewed the BE and provided questions for further 

discussion and recommendations for additional BMPs. JTF-RH and DLA submitted a revised BE to NMFS 

on June 9, 2023. Based on the best available data and utilizing the best available science, along with the 

Page 3 of6 
implementation of BMPs, JTF-RH and DLA determined that the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely 

to adversely affect ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat in the action area. NMFS concurred 

with the JTF-RH and DLA determination that the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat in the action area in a Letter of Concurrence dated 

August 15, 2023. 

NMFS' Letter of Concurrence considered additional stressors beyond what JTF-RH and DLA considered 

in the BE, including stressors associated with an oil spill resulting from the Proposed Action. Based on best 

available information, NMFS determined that the effects of oil spill-related stressors to ESA-listed species 

and critical habitat due to the Proposed Action are extremely unlikely to occur, and, therefore, discountable. 

Thus, the stressors associated with an oil spill resulting from the Proposed Action may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect any ESA-listed species or critical habitat in the action area. The Proposed Action 

includes robust standard operations procedures and BMPs for prevention and response to potential fuel 

spills. 

NMFS' analysis in their Letter of Concurrence also considered additional ESA-listed foreign species not 

included in the final species list or BE submitted by JTF-RH and DLA. NMFS' Letter of Concurrence explains 

that NMFS considered these foreign species in their analysis because impacts to these species could occur 

as part of the Proposed Action given that the action area and influence of stressors from the Proposed 

Action are within the range of these species. It is NMFS' position that if a Federal action with stressors that 

extend from United States (U.S.) waters or the high seas into a foreign country's exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ) or territorial waters, the Federal action agency is obligated to meet its ESA section 7(a)(2) 

responsibility and consult on the action as a whole, including the effects of the action on foreign ESA-listed 

species. JTF-RH and DLA reaffirm that ESA section 7 consultation does not apply to species that occur 

only within a foreign country's EEZ or territorial waters. NMFS' addition of ESA-listed foreign species did 

not result in additional BMPs beyond those already included in the Proposed Action by JTF-RH and DLA. 

Additionally, the JTF-RH/DLA determination in the BE (i.e., may affect, but not likely to adversely affect) did 

not change based on the addition of ESA-listed foreign species. 

Reinitiation of consultation with NMFS will be required if fuel in the eleventh tanker or barge is sold or 

relocated to a receiving port that was not one of the ten potential fuel receiving locations identified and 

assessed in the EA/OEA. 

Hazardous Materials and Waste 

In the event of a fuel release, workers could be exposed to the fuel during incident response and spill 

cleanup activities. JBPHH has spill response procedures to address potential spills and to limit their effects 

to human health and the environment. Spilled fuel and contaminated absorbents or debris would be 

managed in accordance with the waste management plan. Propeller wash from tanker ships and tugboats 

could temporarily resuspend contaminated sediments in Pearl Harbor. BMPs limiting the disturbance of 

sediments, including low ship speed and use of tugboats to assist tanker ships through Pearl Harbor, would 

minimize environmental exposure to the extent that no significant adverse effects related to contaminated 

sediments are expected to occur. With the use of BMPs, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in a less than 

significant increase to the potential for human or environmental exposure to hazardous materials or waste. 

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases 

Emissions from tanker ship transits would be temporary and would not significantly affect air quality at 

JBPHH or any of the receiving locations. Ports in California (Point Loma and Selby) are non-attainment for 

some air pollutants. However, emissions at those sites from the Proposed Action would fall below de 

minimis levels and Records of Non-Applicability for Clean Air Act General Conformity are provided in 

Appendix E of the EA/OEA. Tanker ship operators would follow MARPOL regulations for low sulfur fuels 

and the lower sulfur content fuels required within 200 nautical miles of the U.S. pursuant to the North 

American Environmental Control Area. Under the minimum transit case (i.e., the eleven transits with the 

Page 4 of 6 
least emissions), the action would emit 13,994 tons of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide equivalent). 

Under the maximum case (i.e., the eleven transits with the most emissions), the action would emit 50,792 

tons, equivalent to the annual operation of 6,429 U.S. homes. Anticipated air quality impacts from 

Alternatives 2 and 3 are not expected to interfere with the attainment of National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), hinder a nonattainment area's progress to attainment, increase the frequency or 

severity of existing poor air quality, or appreciably increase human health risks from hazardous air pollutant 

(HAP) exposure in areas where sensitive receptors and/or public presence are expected. 

Coastal Zone Management Act: JTF-RH and DLA notified the State of Hawaii Office of Planning and 

Sustainable Development on June 14, 2023 by email that the Proposed Action would be consistent with 

the de minim is Activities List under the Coastal Zone Management Act, and therefore not subject to further 

review by the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program. The Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program 

acknowledged receipt of the notification on June 19, 2023. 

Cumulative Impacts: Projects proposed, underway, or recently completed at RHBFSF, JBPHH, and other 

actions related to the action alternatives were analyzed in the EA/OEA to determine the potential for 

cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action. Some projects and actions considered include the 

construction of Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard (PHNSY) Dry Dock 5, remediation of the Pearl Harbor 

Sediment Site, and ongoing ship traffic in Pearl Harbor. Additive effects from the increase in vessel traffic 

in Pearl Harbor associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts 

to public health and safety, water resources, marine biological resources, hazardous materials and waste, 

or air quality and greenhouse gases. 

Projects at potential fuel receiving locations were not considered for the cumulative impact analysis 

because fuel deliveries associated with the Proposed Action would occur in lieu of routine or planned fuel 

deliveries; therefore, effects from tanker transits and fuel unloading at these locations would not contribute 

to cumulative impacts. 

Mitigation Measures: BMPs identified in the EA/OEA are sufficient to avoid and minimize anticipated 

adverse impacts from the Proposed Action. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required for the 

Proposed Action. 

Public Outreach: JTF-RH and DLA released the Draft EA/OEA (DEA/DOEA) for public and agency 

comment on June 9, 2023. The DEA/DOEA was made available on the JTF-RH website. A notice of 

availability was published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on June 9, 11, and 14, 2023. The public comment 

period ran from June 9, 2023 to June 30, 2023. 

A public meeting was held on June 15, 2023 between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. at the Keehi Lagoon Memorial, 

Harry and Jeannette Weinberg Memorial Hall, 2685 N. Nimitz Hwy, Honolulu, HI 96819. Twenty-seven 

individuals attended the public meeting. Public meeting attendees were provided the opportunity to submit 

written comments or record verbal comments. Comments were also accepted online through the JTF-RH 

website and in writing by mail. 

A total of 29 substantive comments were received during the DEA/DOEA public comment period. All 

substantive comments were fully considered by JTF-RH and DLA during preparation of the Final EA/OEA 

and prior to rendering a decision on the Proposed Action. Comments received resulted in minor 

clarifications to the Proposed Action and analyses. Public comments and responses are included in 

Appendix A of the EA/OEA. 

Page 5 of6 
Finding: Based on the analysis presented in the EA/OEA, which has been prepared in accordance with 

the requirements of NEPA and DON policies and procedures (32 CFR Part 775), and in coordination with 

. the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Hawaii CZM Program, JTF-RH and DLA find that the 

Proposed Action as set out in Alternative 3 will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. 

Therefore an EIS/OE IS will not be prepared. 

Electronic copies of the EA/OEA and 

htlps://www.pacom.mil/JTF-Red-Hill/FONSI/. 

FONSI are available on the JTF-RH webpage: 

J ,,.fl, r"' w oh ,:,,.., .,,., aGF.WADE 

ce Admiral, U.S. Navy 

Commander, Joint Task Force Red Hill 

Page6of6