DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

for

DEVELOPMENT OF AN ENERGY SECURITY AND RESILIENCE PROJECT

at

NAVAL AIR STATION NORTH ISLAND SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

Abstract-i

Abstract

Abstract

Designation: Environmental Assessment

Title of Proposed Action: Development of an Energy Security and Resilience Project

Project Location: Naval Air Station North Island

Lead Agency for the EA: Department of the Navy

Cooperating Agency: None

Affected Region: San Diego, California

Action Proponent: Naval Base Coronado

Point of Contact: Rebecca Loomis

Senior Environmental Planner/Project Manager

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest

2730 McKean Street, Building 291

Naval Base San Diego, CA 92136

Email address: rebecca.l.loomis@navy.mil

Date: September 2017

The U.S. Department of the Navy (hereinafter referred to as the Navy) has prepared this Environmental 

Assessment in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, as implemented by the Council 

on Environmental Quality Regulations and Navy regulations for implementing National Environmental 

Policy Act. As part of the Proposed Action, the Navy would enter into an agreement with an energy 

provider (private partner) to construct, operate and maintain energy asset(s) to enhance energy security 

and resilience at Naval Air Station North Island with a contract duration of up to 37 years, with 35 years 

of system(s) service, approximately one year for construction and approximately one year for 

decommissioning. The agreement would ensure in-kind consideration for the use of Navy lands where 

such energy assets would be located, as well as help the Navy diversify its energy portfolio and supply 

safe, reliable, and affordable power at Naval Air Station North Island during grid outages. This 

Environmental Assessment evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the six action 

alternatives and the No Action Alternative to the following resource areas: air quality, visual resources, 

noise, infrastructure, transportation and public health and safety.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

Abstract-ii

Abstract

This page intentionally left blank.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

ES-1

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would include the construction and operation of an energy security and resilience 

project that may include a natural gas peaker plant, installation of grid-integrated battery storage or 

other energy assets at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) in Coronado, California. The Navy would 

enter into an agreement with a private partner to construct, operate and maintain energy asset(s) at 

NASNI with a contract duration of up to 37 years, with 35 years of system(s) service and approximately 

one year for construction and one year for decommissioning. The agreement would ensure fair 

compensation for the use of Navy lands where the proposed activities related to energy 

security/resilience and/or renewability would take place. The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) is the 

lead agency for the Proposed Action.

ES.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to increase Navy installation energy security, operational 

capability, strategic flexibility, and resource availability through the development of energy generating 

systems that would support secure/resilient and/or renewable energy.

The need for the Proposed Action is to:

• Ensure security and energy resilience at NASNI by providing an enhanced back-up power supply 

distribution system, to ensure sufficient power is available to support key functions;

• Ensure sufficient power is available to support key installation missions/facilities in a power 

outage or emergency situations affecting power supply and distribution; and

• Meet the energy security and energy reliability standards put forth by the Energy Policy of 2005, 

and the Secretary of the Navy’s goals and priorities for national energy resilience.

ES.3 Alternatives Considered

Alternatives were developed for analysis based upon the following reasonable alternative screening 

factors: consistency with current land use as identified in the Installation Master Plan; proximity to 

distribution substation, building switchgear, or distribution lines; avoidance of interference with NASNI 

mission and avoidance of creation of unsafe conditions; providing electricity at or below the current cost 

of traditional power; and, providing energy security and resilience regarding power distribution and inkind consideration. The Navy is considering six action alternatives that meet the purpose of and need for 

the Proposed Action and a No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 would result in the conversion of an 

existing 30-megawatt (MW) cogeneration plant to a natural gas peaker plant on Site 1. Alternative 2 

would result in the construction and operation of a natural gas peaker plant on Site 2. Alternative 3 

would result in the construction and operation of a large integrated battery facility with photovoltaic 

systems on Site 2. Alternative 4 would result in the construction and operation of a natural gas peaker 

plant on Site 3. Alternative 5 would result in the construction and operation of a large integrated battery 

facility with photovoltaic systems on Site 3. Alternative 6 would result in the full-time operation of the 

existing cogeneration power plant on Site 1 with some minor re-tooling, but no major upgrades would 

occur to the existing facility. The No Action Alternative would allow the lease to expire for the existing 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

ES-2

Executive Summary

30-MW steam cogeneration plant, which would involve decommissioning and removal by the 

operator/owner.

ES.4 Summary of Environmental Resources Evaluated in the EA

Council on Environmental Quality regulations, the National Environmental Policy Act, and Navy 

instructions for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, specify that an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) should address those resource areas potentially subject to more than negligible 

impacts. In addition, the level of analysis should be commensurate with the anticipated level of 

environmental impact. 

The following resource areas have been addressed in this EA: air quality, visual resources, noise, 

infrastructure, transportation, and public health and safety. Because potential impacts were considered 

to be negligible or nonexistent, the following resources have not been analyzed in detail in this EA:

water resources, coastal resources, geological resources, cultural resources, biological resources, land 

use, airspace, socioeconomics, and environmental justice.

ES.5 Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives and 

Major Mitigating Actions

Table ES-1 provides a tabular summary of the potential impacts to the resources associated with each of 

the alternative actions analyzed.

ES.6 Public Involvement

The Navy circulated the Draft EA for public review from October 2, 2017 to October 31, 2017.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

ES-3

Executive Summary

Table ES-1

Summary of Potential Impacts to Resource Areas

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative

Alternative 1 –

Convert Existing 

30-MW 

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Alternative 2 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 2

Alternative 3 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 2

Alternative 4 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 3

Alternative 5 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 3

Alternative 6 –

Operation of 

Existing 

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Air Quality Under the No Action 

Alternative, the 

Proposed Action 

would not occur and 

there would be no 

near-term change to 

baseline air quality.

Demolition of the 

existing plant was 

addressed under the 

previous 

environmental

documentation.

Alternative 1 would 

result in emissions of 

air pollutants during 

both construction 

and operations. 

Emissions would be 

below de minimis

levels. Therefore, 

implementation of 

Alternative 1 would 

not result in an 

adverse effect 

related to air quality. 

Alternative 2 would 

result in emissions of 

air pollutants during 

both construction 

and operations. 

Emissions would be 

below de minimis

levels. Therefore, 

implementation of 

Alternative 2 would 

not result in an 

adverse effect 

related to air quality.

Alternative 3 would 

result in emissions of 

air pollutants during 

construction only 

comparable to those 

estimated for 

Alternative 1. The 

photovoltaic system 

would replace the 

natural gas turbine, 

thereby eliminating 

the primary source of 

operations-phase 

emissions described 

under Alternative 1. 

Conversely, the 

energy generated by 

the proposed 

photovoltaic system 

would replace the 

energy consumption 

provided by burning 

of fossil fuels, 

thereby resulting in 

an indirect reduction 

of GHG emissions.

Alternative 4 would 

result in emissions of 

air pollutants during 

both construction 

and operations

essentially identical 

to those estimated 

for Alternative 1. 

Emissions would be 

below de minimis

levels. Therefore, 

implementation of 

Alternative 4 would 

not result in an

adverse effect 

related to air quality. 

Alternative 5 would 

result in emissions of 

air pollutants during 

construction only 

comparable to those 

estimated for 

Alternative 1. The 

photovoltaic system 

would replace the 

natural gas turbine, 

thereby eliminating 

the primary source of 

operations-phase 

emissions described 

under Alternative 1. 

Conversely, the 

energy generated by 

the proposed 

photovoltaic system 

would replace the 

energy consumption 

provided by burning 

of fossil fuels, 

thereby resulting in 

an indirect reduction 

of GHG emissions.

Alternative 6 would 

result in emissions of 

air pollutants during 

operations only, but 

in amounts 

considerably greater 

than for Alternative 

1. Decommissioning

and construction 

would not occur 

under this 

Alternative, which 

would result in some 

decrease in 

construction 

equipment and 

ultimately, to air 

emissions. Therefore, 

implementation of 

this action 

alternative would not 

result in significant 

impacts to air quality.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

ES-4

Executive Summary

Table ES-1

Summary of Potential Impacts to Resource Areas

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative

Alternative 1 –

Convert Existing 

30-MW 

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Alternative 2 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 2

Alternative 3 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 2

Alternative 4 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 3

Alternative 5 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 3

Alternative 6 –

Operation of 

Existing 

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Visual 

Resources

No significant 

impacts associated 

with visual resources 

would occur.

Due to the distance 

of the site from any 

surrounding areas 

outside of NASNI, as 

well as intervening 

development and 

landscaping, visual 

impacts are 

anticipated to be less 

than significant 

during construction.

Alternative 1 would 

not result in a 

noticeable change to 

existing conditions 

on-Base from any of 

the landscape units. 

No significant 

impacts associated 

with visual resources

would occur.

Due to the distance 

of the site from any 

surrounding areas 

outside of NASNI, as 

well as intervening 

development and 

landscaping, visual 

impacts are 

anticipated to be less 

than significant 

during construction. 

Alternative 2 would 

not result in a 

noticeable change to 

existing conditions 

on-Base from any of 

the landscape units. 

No significant 

impacts associated 

with visual resources

would occur.

Due to the distance 

of the site from any 

surrounding areas 

outside of NASNI, as 

well as intervening 

development and 

landscaping, visual 

impacts are 

anticipated to be less 

than significant 

during construction. 

Alternative 3 would 

not result in a 

noticeable change to 

existing conditions 

on-Base from any of 

the landscape units. 

No significant 

impacts associated 

with visual resources

would occur.

Due to the distance 

of the site from any 

surrounding areas 

outside of NASNI, as 

well as intervening 

development and 

landscaping, visual 

impacts are 

anticipated to be less 

than significant 

during construction. 

Alternative 4 would 

not result in a 

noticeable change to 

existing conditions 

on-Base from any of 

the landscape units. 

No significant 

impacts associated 

with visual resources

would occur.

Due to the distance 

of the alternative 

from any 

surrounding areas 

outside of NASNI, as 

well as intervening 

development and 

landscaping, visual 

impacts are 

anticipated to be less 

than significant 

during construction. 

Alternative 5 would 

not result in a 

noticeable change to 

existing conditions 

on-Base from any of 

the landscape units. 

No significant 

impacts associated 

with visual resources 

would occur.

Under Alternative 6, 

no new structures 

would be introduced 

in the area and the 

existing 

infrastructure would 

remain beyond the 

existing lease and no 

significant impacts 

associated with 

visual resources 

would occur.

Noise There would be no 

substantial change 

to baseline noise 

levels, although 

there would be 

some noise 

associated with the

Construction and 

operation of 

Alternative 1 would 

result in periodic and 

temporary 

generation of noise 

associated with 

Construction and 

operation of 

Alternative 2 would 

result in periodic and 

temporary 

generation of noise 

associated with 

Construction and 

operation of 

Alternative 3 would 

generate low levels 

of construction 

noise. Operation 

would largely involve 

Construction and 

operation of 

Alternative 4 would 

result in periodic and 

temporary 

generation of noise 

associated with 

Construction and 

operation of 

Alternative 5 would 

generate low levels 

of construction 

noise. Operation 

would largely involve

There would be no 

construction 

associated with 

Alternative 6 and no 

decommissioning of 

the existing 

cogeneration plant.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

ES-5

Executive Summary

Table ES-1

Summary of Potential Impacts to Resource Areas

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative

Alternative 1 –

Convert Existing 

30-MW 

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Alternative 2 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 2

Alternative 3 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 2

Alternative 4 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 3

Alternative 5 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 3

Alternative 6 –

Operation of 

Existing 

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Noise (cont.) decommissioning of 

the existing steam 

plant. Therefore, no 

significant impacts 

due to the noise 

environment would 

occur.

construction 

equipment and 

operation of the 

peaker plant 

equipment; 

however, there are 

no significant 

impacts associated 

with construction or 

operation noise.

construction 

equipment, and 

operation of the 

peaker plant 

equipment; 

however, no 

significant noise 

impacts would occur.

passive operation, 

without the use of 

motorized or other 

noise-generating 

equipment. Noise 

impacts would not 

be significant.

construction 

equipment, and

operation of the 

peaker plant 

equipment; 

however, no 

significant noise 

impacts would occur.

passive operation, 

without the use of 

motorized or other 

noise-generating 

equipment. Noise 

impacts would not 

be significant.

No significant 

increases in short- or 

long-term noise are 

anticipated.

Infrastructure The existing water, 

wastewater, and 

solid waste services 

would remain 

unchanged. 

Therefore, no 

impacts are 

anticipated.

Existing water, 

wastewater, solid 

waste, and energy 

services would 

remain unchanged 

under Alternative 1; 

therefore, there 

would be no 

significant impacts to 

these services and 

utilities. 

Existing water, 

wastewater, solid 

waste, and energy 

services would 

remain unchanged 

under Alternative 2; 

therefore, there 

would be no 

significant impacts to 

these services and 

utilities. 

Existing water, 

wastewater, solid 

waste, and energy 

services would 

remain unchanged 

under Alternative 3; 

therefore, there 

would be no 

significant impacts to 

these services and 

utilities. 

Existing water, 

wastewater, solid 

waste, and energy 

services would 

remain unchanged 

under Alternative 4; 

therefore, there 

would be no 

significant impacts to 

these services and 

utilities. 

Existing water, 

wastewater, solid 

waste, and energy 

services would 

remain unchanged 

under Alternative 5; 

therefore, there 

would be no 

significant impacts to 

these services and 

utilities. 

The existing water, 

wastewater, and 

solid waste services 

would remain 

unchanged. 

Therefore, no 

impacts are 

anticipated.

Transportation No new construction 

would occur; 

however, a small 

amount of truck 

traffic associated 

with the 

decommissioning of 

the existing steam

The addition of up to 

50 trips per day on a 

temporary basis 

during construction 

would not result in a 

significant impact on 

any of the 

surrounding

The addition of up to 

50 trips per day on a 

temporary basis 

during construction 

would not result in a 

significant impact on 

any of the 

surrounding 

The addition of up to 

50 trips per day on a 

temporary basis 

during construction 

would not result in a 

significant impact on 

any of the 

surrounding

The addition of up to 

50 trips per day on a 

temporary basis 

during construction 

would not result in a 

significant impact on 

any of the 

surrounding 

The addition of up to 

50 trips per day on a 

temporary basis 

during construction 

would not result in a 

significant impact on 

any of the 

surrounding 

No new construction 

would occur; 

however, operations 

would continue 

beyond the current 

lease and periodic 

trips associated with 

ongoing maintenance
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

ES-6

Executive Summary

Table ES-1

Summary of Potential Impacts to Resource Areas

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative

Alternative 1 –

Convert Existing 

30-MW 

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Alternative 2 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 2

Alternative 3 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 2

Alternative 4 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 3

Alternative 5 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 3

Alternative 6 –

Operation of 

Existing 

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Transportation 

(cont.)

plant would be 

assigned to the 

network. Therefore, 

no significant 

impacts would 

occur.

roadways during 

construction. To 

minimize potential 

temporary 

construction and 

demolition traffic 

impacts, a separate 

Traffic Control Plan 

would be prepared. 

No significant 

impacts would occur 

to transportation.

roadways during 

construction. To 

minimize potential 

temporary 

construction and 

demolition traffic 

impacts, a separate 

Traffic Control Plan 

would be prepared. 

No significant 

impacts would occur 

to transportation.

roadways during 

construction. To 

minimize potential 

temporary 

construction and 

demolition traffic 

impacts, a separate 

Traffic Control Plan 

would be prepared. 

No significant 

impacts would occur 

to transportation.

roadways during 

construction. To 

minimize potential 

temporary 

construction and 

demolition traffic 

impacts, a separate 

Traffic Control Plan 

would be prepared. 

No significant 

impacts would occur 

to transportation.

roadways during 

construction. To 

minimize potential 

temporary 

construction and 

demolition traffic 

impacts, a separate 

Traffic Control Plan 

would be prepared. 

No significant 

impacts would occur 

to transportation.

would continue. No 

significant impacts 

would occur to 

transportation.

Public Health 

and Safety

The Proposed Action 

would not occur and 

there would be no 

change to public 

health and safety, 

including hazardous 

materials and 

hazardous wastes. 

The existing 40-MW 

cogeneration plant 

would be 

decommissioned 

under the No Action 

Alternative 1 would 

result in the 

temporary increase 

of the use of 

hazardous wastes 

related to conversion 

and construction 

activities and would 

involve debris that 

would be removed 

and disposed of in 

compliance with the 

Navy's Sustainability

Similar to Alternative 

1, a temporary 

increase in the use of 

hazardous materials 

would occur related 

to construction of a 

natural gas peaker 

plant on Site 2. 

However, because 

Site 2 consists of 

paved areas with no 

structures, 

construction would

During construction, 

safety measures 

would be addressed 

in the Health and 

Safety Plan. The 

Health and Safety 

Plan, along with the 

Hazardous Waste 

Management Plan, 

would be 

implemented to 

address risks to 

construction workers 

Similar to Alternative 

1, a temporary 

increase in the use of 

hazardous materials 

would occur related 

to construction of a 

natural gas peaker 

plant on Site 2. 

However, because 

Site 2 consists of 

paved areas with no 

structures, 

construction would 

During construction, 

safety measures 

would be addressed 

in the Health and 

Safety Plan. The 

Health and Safety 

Plan, along with the 

Hazardous Waste 

Management Plan, 

would be 

implemented to 

address risks to 

construction workers 

No new construction 

would occur; 

however, operations 

would continue 

beyond the current 

lease and ongoing 

use of other 

hazardous materials 

would occur with 

operations, however, 

contractors would be 

required to properly 

store, transport, and 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

ES-7

Executive Summary

Table ES-1

Summary of Potential Impacts to Resource Areas

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative

Alternative 1 –

Convert Existing 

30-MW 

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Alternative 2 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 2

Alternative 3 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 2

Alternative 4 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 3

Alternative 5 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 3

Alternative 6 –

Operation of 

Existing 

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Public Health 

and Safety 

(cont.)

Alternative, and 

public health and 

safety issues have 

been addressed in a 

separate NEPA 

Categorical Exclusion 

for the existing plant 

and were considered 

not significant based 

on the protective 

measures outlined in 

Categorical 

Exclusion. Therefore, 

no significant 

impacts would 

occur.

and Environmental 

Management Policy 

Statement and 

sustainability goals. 

Ongoing use of other 

hazardous materials 

would occur with 

operations; however, 

contractors would be 

required to properly 

store, transport, and 

dispose of their 

hazardous waste, 

and therefore, would 

pose minimal risk to 

the human 

environment. 

Therefore, there 

would be no 

significant public 

health and safety 

impacts.

create a minimal 

amount of 

construction debris 

that would be 

removed and 

disposed of in 

compliance with the 

Navy's Sustainability 

and Environmental 

Management Policy 

Statement and 

sustainability goals. 

Ongoing use of other 

hazardous materials 

would occur with 

operations;

however, 

contractors would be 

required to properly 

store, transport, and 

dispose of their 

hazardous waste, 

and therefore, would 

pose minimal risk to 

the human 

environment. 

and surrounding 

sensitive receptors 

during operations, 

including children at 

the CDC facility. As a 

result, impacts 

related to hazards 

and public health and 

safety would not be 

significant.

create a minimal 

amount of 

construction debris 

that would be 

removed and 

disposed of in 

compliance with the 

Navy's Sustainability 

and Environmental 

Management Policy 

Statement and 

sustainability goals. 

Ongoing use of other 

hazardous materials 

would occur with 

operations;

however, 

contractors would be 

required to properly

store, transport, and 

dispose of their 

hazardous waste 

and surrounding 

sensitive receptors 

during operations, 

including children at 

the CDC facility. As a 

result, impacts 

related to hazards 

and public health and 

safety would not be 

significant.

dispose of their 

hazardous waste, 

and therefore, would 

pose minimal risk to 

the human 

environment. 

Therefore, there 

would be no 

significant public 

health and safety 

impacts.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

ES-8

Executive Summary

Table ES-1

Summary of Potential Impacts to Resource Areas

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative

Alternative 1 –

Convert Existing 

30-MW 

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Alternative 2 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 2

Alternative 3 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 2

Alternative 4 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 3

Alternative 5 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 3

Alternative 6 –

Operation of 

Existing 

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Public Health 

and Safety 

(cont.)

Therefore, there 

would be no 

significant public 

health and safety 

impacts.

and, therefore, 

would pose minimal 

risk to the human 

environment. 

Therefore, there 

would be no 

significant public 

health and safety 

impacts.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

i

Table of Contents

Environmental Assessment

Naval Air Station North Island San Diego, San Diego, California

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................... v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... ES-1

ES.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................................... ES-1

ES.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action .................................................................... ES-1

ES.3 Alternatives Considered ....................................................................................................... ES-1

ES.4 Summary of Environmental Resources Evaluated in the EA................................................ ES-2

ES.5 Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives and 

Major Mitigating Actions...................................................................................................... ES-2

ES.6 Public Involvement............................................................................................................... ES-2

1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION.............................................................. 1-1

1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Background............................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 Location .................................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.4 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action ......................................................................1-2

1.5 Scope of Environmental Analysis ........................................................................................... 1-4

1.6 Key Documents....................................................................................................................... 1-4

1.7 Relevant Laws and Regulations.............................................................................................. 1-4

1.8 Public and Agency Participation and Intergovernmental Coordination ................................1-5

2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Screening Factors ................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis..............................................................................2-3

2.3.1 No Action Alternative................................................................................................ 2-3

2.3.2 Alternative 1 – Convert Existing 30-MW Cogeneration Plant on Site 1....................2-3

2.3.3 Alternative 2 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 2...................................................2-4

2.3.4 Alternative 3 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic System on Site 2 .......2-5

2.3.5 Alternative 4 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 3...................................................2-5

2.3.6 Alternative 5 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic System on Site 3 .......2-6

2.3.7 Alternative 6 – Full Time Operation of Existing 30-MW Cogeneration Plant on 

Site 1.......................................................................................................................... 2-6

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis...............................2-7

2.5 Best Management Practices Included in Proposed Action ....................................................2-7
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

ii

Table of Contents

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES......................................... 3-1

3.1 Air Quality............................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.1.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................... 3-4

3.1.2 Affected Environment .............................................................................................3-12

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences.................................................................................3-12

3.2 Visual Resources................................................................................................................... 3-16

3.2.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................... 3-17

3.2.2 Affected Environment .............................................................................................3-19

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences.................................................................................3-22

3.3 Noise..................................................................................................................................... 3-28

3.3.1 Basics of Sound and A-Weighted Sound Level ........................................................3-28

3.3.2 Noise Metrics........................................................................................................... 3-30

3.3.3 Noise Effects............................................................................................................ 3-32

3.3.4 Nonauditory Health Effects.....................................................................................3-33

3.3.5 Noise Modeling ....................................................................................................... 3-33

3.3.6 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................... 3-34

3.3.7 Affected Environment .............................................................................................3-36

3.3.8 Environmental Consequences.................................................................................3-37

3.4 Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................... 3-45

3.4.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................... 3-45

3.4.2 Affected Environment .............................................................................................3-46

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences.................................................................................3-47

3.5 Transportation...................................................................................................................... 3-49

3.5.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................... 3-49

3.5.2 Affected Environment .............................................................................................3-50

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences.................................................................................3-51

3.6 Public Health and Safety....................................................................................................... 3-53

3.6.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................... 3-54

3.6.2 Affected Environment .............................................................................................3-55

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences.................................................................................3-58

3.7 Summary of Potential Impacts to Resources and Impact Avoidance and 

Minimization......................................................................................................................... 3-60

4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Scope of Cumulative Impacts Analysis................................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions..............................................................4-2
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

iii

Table of Contents

4.3.1 Past Actions............................................................................................................... 4-3

4.3.2 Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ..........................................................4-4

4.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................................................... 4-5

4.4.1 Air Quality.................................................................................................................. 4-6

4.4.2 Visual Resources........................................................................................................ 4-7

4.4.3 Noise.......................................................................................................................... 4-8

4.4.4 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 4-8

4.4.5 Transportation........................................................................................................... 4-9

4.4.6 Public Health and Safety .........................................................................................4-10

5 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY NEPA......................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Consistency with Other Federal, State, and Local Laws, Plans, Policies, and 

Regulations............................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Relationship between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term 

Productivity ............................................................................................................................ 5-2

6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................6-1

7 LIST OF PREPARERS.................................................................................................................. 7-1

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Location Map ......................................................................................................................1-3

Figure 2-1 Site Locations for Energy Security and Resilience Facility ..................................................2-2

Figure 3-1 Vehicular Routes for Focal Points at NASNI......................................................................3-18

Figure 3-2 A-Weighted Sound Levels from Typical Sources...............................................................3-30

Figure 3-3 IRP Sites.............................................................................................................................3-56
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

iv

Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table ES-1 Summary of Potential Impacts to Resource Areas............................................................ ES-3

Table 2-1 Best Management Practices ...............................................................................................2-8

Table 3-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards ...........................................................................................3-6

Table 3-2 San Diego Air Basin Attainment Status...............................................................................3-7

Table 3-3 General Conformity de minimis Levels...............................................................................3-8

Table 3-4 San Diego County Air Emissions Inventory (2011)............................................................3-12

Table 3-5 Estimated Emissions (tons per year) at NASNI and Comparison to General 

Conformity Under No Action Alternative..........................................................................3-13

Table 3-6 Estimated Emissions (tons per year) at NASNI and Comparison to General 

Conformity Under Alternative 1........................................................................................3-14

Table 3-7 Subjective Responses to Changes in A-weighted Decibels...............................................3-29

Table 3-8 Representative Sound Level Data for Peaker Plant ..........................................................3-34

Table 3-9 City of Coronado Exterior Noise Limits.............................................................................3-36

Table 3-10 Noise-Sensitive Receptor Distance from Alternative Site Locations ................................3-37

Table 3-11 Construction Equipment Noise Levels..............................................................................3-38

Table 3-12 Construction Equipment Noise Levels for Alternative 1...................................................3-38

Table 3-13 Estimated Peaker Plant Noise Levels for Alternative 1.....................................................3-40

Table 3-14 Construction Equipment Noise Levels for Alternative 2...................................................3-41

Table 3-15 Estimated Peaker Plant Noise Levels for Alternative 2.....................................................3-42

Table 3-16 Construction Equipment Noise Levels for Alternative 4...................................................3-43

Table 3-17 Estimated Peaker Plant Noise Levels for Alternative 4.....................................................3-44

Table 3-18 Summary of Potential Impacts to Resource Areas............................................................3-61

Table 4-1 Cumulative Action Evaluation.............................................................................................4-2

Table 5-1 Principal Federal and State Laws Applicable to the Proposed Action ................................5-1

Appendices

Appendix A Record of Non-Applicability

Appendix B Potential to Emit and Permitting Implications for the Development of an Energy Security 

and Resilience Project at Naval Air Station North Island

Appendix C Air Quality Methodology and Calculations

Appendix D Noise Calculations 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

v

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Acronym Definition

ACM asbestos-containing material

AICUZ Air Installation Compatible 

Use Zone

AE LLC Applied Energy, LLC

APZ Accident Potential Zone

AQCR Air Quality Control Region

ATFP Antiterrorism Force 

Protection

BMP best management practice

CAA Clean Air Act

CDC Child Development Center

cDCE cis-1,2-dichloroethene

CEQ Council on Environmental 

Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent 

Level

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent

SDAPCD County of San Diego Air 

Pollution Control District

CZMA Coastal Zone Management 

Act

dB decibel

dBA A-weighted sound level

DERP Defense Environmental 

Restoration Program

DNL day-night average sound 

level

DoD United States Department of 

Defense

DON United States Department of 

the Navy

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact 

Statement

EO Executive Order

FAR Federal Aviation Regulations

Acronym Definition

FHWA Federal Highway 

Administration

FONSI Finding of No Significant 

Impact

GHG greenhouse gas

HAP hazardous air pollutant

Hz Hertz

IRP Installation Restoration 

Program

km kilometer

LBP Lead-based paint

LEQ Equivalent Noise Level

mph miles per hour

MW megawatt

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

NASNI Naval Air Station North Island

NBC Naval Base Coronado

NEPA National Environmental 

Policy Act

NIOSH National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and 

Health

NIPTS Noise Induced Permanent 

Threshold Shift

NMCSD Naval Medical Center San 

Diego

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOX nitrogen oxide

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System

NRSW Navy Region Southwest

NSR new source review

OPNAV Office of the Chief of Naval 

Operations

OPNAVINST Office of the Chief of Naval 

Operations Instruction

OSHA Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

vi

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Acronym Definition

OU Operable Unit

Pb lead

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PM10 particulate matter less than 

or equal to 10 microns in 

diameter

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 

or equal to 2.5 microns in 

diameter

PSD Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration

RCNM Roadway Construction Noise 

Model

RCRA Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act

REPO Resilient Energy Program 

Office

ROI Region of Influence

RONA Record of Non-Applicability

Acronym Definition

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction

SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SR State Route

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution 

Prevention Plan

tpy tons per year

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

U.S.C. United States Code

USEPA U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

VC vinyl chloride

VOC volatile organic compound

μg/L micrograms per liter

μg/m3 microgram per cubic meter
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

1-1

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

1 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

1.1 Introduction

The United States Department of the Navy (hereinafter, referred to as the Navy or DON) would enter 

into an agreement with an energy provider (private partner) to construct, operate and maintain energy 

asset(s) to enhance energy security and resilience at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) with a 

contract duration of up to 37 years, with 35 years of system(s) service, approximately one year for 

construction and approximately one year for decommissioning. The agreement would ensure in-kind 

consideration for the use of Navy lands where such energy assets would be located, as well as help the 

Navy diversify its energy portfolio and supply safe, reliable, and affordable power at NASNI during grid 

outages.

The Navy has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 

and Navy regulations for implementing NEPA.

1.2 Background

To meet the energy security and energy reliability standards put forth by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

and the Secretary of the Navy’s (SECNAV) goals and priorities for national energy resilience, the 

Assistant SECNAV (Energy, Installations & Environment) has established a Resilient Energy Program 

Office (REPO) to help meet the SECNAV goals. The REPO and NASNI are proposing to implement a 

Model 2 out-grant, which provides on-Base generation and/or energy storage for off-Base consumption 

using the public utility grid, while enabling the Navy to receive direct energy benefits. 

Under a Model 2 acquisition strategy, the Navy and a private partner would enter into a lease 

agreement (or other real estate outgrant) to allow the private partner to use Navy land to construct, 

operate, maintain and own the resilient energy system. The private partner would sell the generated

power to customers outside of the Navy. The contract duration would be up to 37 years, with 35 years 

of operations, approximately one year for construction and approximately one year for decommission 

(returning the land to pre-construction condition). The acquisition strategy maximizes the total capacity 

(size) of the system based on available land and is not limited by NASNI’s electrical load. 

In support of the SECNAV energy goals, the Navy would use the real estate action in accordance with 

10 United States Code (U.S.C.) §2667 to ensure fair compensation in the form of in-kind consideration

for the use of Navy lands. The lease terms would enable the Navy to enhance NASNI’s capability and 

energy security by providing for the following:

• Legal access to power during regional grid outage

• No capital cost to the Navy to install the specified on-site energy source that would support 

secure/resilient and/or renewable energy

• No fees to access the power during emergency conditions (standard rates apply)

• A foundation to develop an on-base micro-grid

In keeping with the authority of U.S.C. §2667, outgrants under Model 2 shall provide for consideration 

(rent) to be paid in cash or in-kind consideration, in an amount not less than fair market value of the 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

1-2

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

lease. Potential projects provided by the private partner to apply towards rents as in-kind consideration 

would meet necessary environmental regulations and requirements under separate reporting.

NASNI currently has an approximately 30-megawatt (MW) cogeneration plant that is owned and 

operated by Applied Energy, LLC (AE LLC) on one of the sites being considered for the Proposed Action. 

Their 30-year contract with the Navy expires in 2018. In 2014, a NEPA EA for the Decentralization of 

Steam Systems at Naval Base Coronado was prepared and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was 

signed. The 2014 EA evaluated steam system decentralization alternatives that included the removal 

and demolition of the centralized steam plant. The associated decentralized steam project will support 

the steam requirements at the Base.

1.3 Location

Naval Base Coronado (NBC) is located in San Diego County, California, and is comprised of eight main 

properties including NASNI, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, Silver Strand Training Complex, Naval 

Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach, Naval Auxiliary Landing Field San Clemente Island, Camp Michael 

Monsoor, Camp Morena, and Remote Training Site Warner Springs.

The project would occur at only one of the NBC installations, NASNI, which serves as the Main Site for 

NBC (Figure 1-1). Some parts of NASNI are located in the City of San Diego and while others are in the 

City of Coronado. Bounded by San Diego Bay on the north and east and the Pacific Ocean on the west, 

NASNI comprises 970 hectares (2,397 acres) of land and 164 hectares (406 acres) of water. The 

installation is located on the northern end of a sand-spit that connects the City of Coronado to the City 

of Imperial Beach.

1.4 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to increase Navy installation energy security, operational 

capability, strategic flexibility, and resource availability through the development of energy generating 

systems that would support secure/resilient and/or renewable energy.

The need for the Proposed Action is to:

• Ensure security and energy resilience at NASNI by providing an enhanced back-up power supply 

distribution system, to ensure sufficient power is available to support key functions;

• Ensure sufficient power is available to support key installation missions/facilities in a power 

outage or emergency situations affecting power supply and distribution; and

• Meet the energy security and energy reliability standards put forth by the Energy Policy of 2005, 

and the Secretary of the Navy’s goals and priorities for national energy resilience.
San Diego

Bay

!"^$

San Diego Airport

North Harbor Rosecrans

3rd Street

4th

Street

I:\PROJECTS\N\NAV\NAV-03.10_EnergySecurity\Map\EA_NASNI\Fig1_1_LocationMap.mxd NAV-03.10 10/12/16 -EV

Figure 1-1

NAVAL AIR STATION NORTH ISLAND

Location Map

0 1,000

Meters N

Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) Boundary

Major Road

Poway

La Mesa

Coronado

National

City

Lemon

Grove

Solana

Beach

Del Mar

San Diego

Lake Poway

Miramar Reservoir

Lake Murray Pacific

Ocean

San Diego Bay

Project Site

La Jolla

WÛ

?z56 WÙ

?h

%&s(

AÀ

Aù !"_$

!"a$

!"^$

A×

?j

0 3,000

Feet
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

1-4

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

1.5 Scope of Environmental Analysis

This EA includes an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the six action 

alternatives and the No Action Alternative. The environmental resource areas analyzed in this EA 

include: air quality/climate change, visual resources, noise, transportation, public health and safety, and 

infrastructure. 

Eight additional resource areas were considered, but were not carried forward for detailed analysis in 

this EA because there would be no impacts (or only negligible impacts) on these resources from 

implementation of the alternatives. The introduction to Chapter 3 contains a brief description of these 

resource areas, their relationship to the action alternatives, and the basis for eliminating them from 

detailed analysis.

1.6 Key Documents

Key documents are sources of information incorporated into this EA. Documents are considered to be 

key because of similar actions, analyses, or impacts that may apply to this Proposed Action. Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance encourages incorporating documents by reference. Documents 

incorporated by reference in part or in whole include:

Final Environmental Assessment for the Decentralization of Steam Systems at Naval Base Coronado, 

April 2014. Under the 2014 EA proposed action discussed therein, the existing plant owner/operator 

would demolish the existing cogeneration plant after the lease expires in 2018. All existing components 

associated with the cogeneration plant would be removed. Refer to Section 1.2, Background. (Please 

note: the decommissioning and demolition of the existing plant is included as a cumulative project for 

analysis of cumulative impacts at Chapter 4, below. Please see the 2014 EA for analysis of the impacts to 

various resource areas associated with demolition of the existing cogeneration plant.)

Documents incorporated herein by reference are available upon request by contacting the Navy via the 

information provided in the Abstract.

1.7 Relevant Laws and Regulations

The Navy has prepared this EA based upon federal and state laws, statutes, regulations, and policies 

pertinent to the implementation of the Proposed Action, including the following:

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] sections 4321-4370h), 

which requires an environmental analysis for major federal actions that have the potential to 

significantly impact the quality of the human environment

• Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of 

NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508)

• Navy regulations for implementing NEPA (32 CFR part 775), which provides Navy policy for 

implementing Council on Environmental Quality regulations and NEPA

• Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. section 7401 et seq.)

• Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. section 1251 et seq.)

• Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. section 1451 et seq.)

• National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. section 306108 et seq.)
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

1-5

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

• EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards

• EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-income Populations

• EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

• EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

• EO 13514, Federal leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performances

• EO 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade

A description of the Proposed Action's consistency with these laws, policies and regulations, as well as 

the names of regulatory agencies responsible for their implementation, is presented in Chapter 5 

(Table 5-1).

1.8 Public and Agency Participation and Intergovernmental Coordination

The Navy has made this Draft EA available to inform the public of the Proposed Action and to allow the 

opportunity for public review and comment. The Draft EA review period begins with a public notice 

published in the Coronado Eagle and Journal and San Diego Union Tribune indicating the availability of 

the Draft EA and the locations where public review copies are available. The Draft EA will also be made 

available on the Navy Region Southwest website (http://cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrsw.html).

The Navy published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EA for two consecutive days in the San Diego 

Union Tribune on the dates of September 30 and October 1, 2017, and for one day in the Coronado 

Eagle and Journal on October 4, 2017. The notice described the Proposed Action, solicited public

comments on the Draft EA, provided dates of the public comment period, and announced that a copy of 

the EA would be available for review at the Coronado Public Library and the San Diego Central Library 

and posted on the Navy Region Southwest website.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

1-6

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

This page intentionally left blank.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

2-1

Proposed Action and Alternatives

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would include the construction and operation of an energy security and resilience 

project that may include a natural gas peaker plant, installation of grid-integrated battery storage or 

other energy assets, or maintenance of the existing cogeneration plant at Naval Air Station North Island 

(NASNI). The Navy would enter into an agreement with a private partner to construct, operate and 

maintain energy asset(s) at NASNI with a contract duration of up to 37 years, with 35 years of system(s) 

service and approximately one year for construction and one year for decommissioning. The agreement 

would be done in accordance with 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) §2667 lease authority (real estate 

outgrant) and would ensure fair compensation for the use of Navy lands where the proposed activities 

related to energy security/resilience and/or renewability would take place.

2.2 Screening Factors

The National Environmental Policy Act’s (NEPA) implementing regulations provide guidance on the 

consideration of alternatives to a federally proposed action and require rigorous exploration and 

objective evaluation of reasonable alternatives. Only those alternatives determined to be reasonable 

and to meet the purpose and need require detailed analysis.

Potential alternatives that meet the purpose and need were evaluated against the following screening 

factors:

• Consistency with current land use as identified in the Installation Master Plan

• Proximity to distribution substation, building switchgear or distribution lines

• Must not interfere with NASNI mission or create unsafe conditions

• Location and/or design capable of providing electricity at or below the current cost of traditional 

power

• Energy security and resilience project that provides best overall value to the Navy with regard to 

both power distribution and in-kind consideration 

• Meet the Secretary of the Navy’s timeline for energy resilience

Various alternatives were evaluated against the screening factors. Three parcels of land were identified 

at NASNI for potential siting of an energy security and resilience project (Figure 2-1). Site 1 is 

1.1 hectares (2.6 acres) and houses the existing 30-megawatt (MW) steam cogeneration plant and is 

located immediately south of Quay Road and west of Rogers Road. Site 2 is 0.4 hectare (1.1 acres) and is 

located directly adjacent to Site 1 to the west. Site 3 is 0.6 hectare (1.5 acres) and is located south of 

Quay Road and immediately west of Colorado Street.

The alternatives considered include:

• No Action Alternative

• Alternative 1 – Convert Existing 30-MW Cogeneration Plant on Site 1 

• Alternative 2 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 2

• Alternative 3 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic System on Site 2

• Alternative 4 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 3

• Alternative 5 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic System on Site 3

• Alternative 6 – Operation of Existing Cogeneration Plant on Site 1
3r

2nd Street

Tow Way

Mc Cain Boulevard

S R Avenue

J Avenue

Alameda

Boulevard

Rogers

Road

Wright A

ven

ue

Colorado

Street

South

O Street

Palm

Avenue

1st Street

3rd Street

Wrig

ht A

ven

ue

2nd Street

Quay Road

I:\PROJECTS\N\NAV\NAV-03.10_EnergySecurity\Map\EA_NASNI\Fig2_1_Sites.mxd NAV-03.10 11/22/16 -EV

Figure 2-1

NAVAL AIR STATION NORTH ISLAND

Site Locations for Energy Security and Resilience Facility

Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) Boundary

50' Wide Utility Corridor

Site 1 (Existing Steam Plant)

Site 2

Site 3

SDG&E Interconnection Station and NBC Main Substation

eConduit System Duct Bank

Gas Line

San Diego Bay KEY MAP

0 200

Meters N

0 500

Feet
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

2-3

Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.3 Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis

Based on the reasonable alternative screening factors and meeting the purpose and need for the 

Proposed Action, six action alternatives were identified and will be analyzed within this EA.

2.3.1 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur. The No Action alternative would 

involve letting the lease expire for the existing 30-MW steam cogeneration plant. Per an existing 

contract action, the existing cogeneration facility on Site 1 would be decommissioned and removed by 

the owner/operator. Sites 2 and 3 would retain their current uses as parking. The No Action Alternative 

would not meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action; however, as required by NEPA, the No 

Action Alternative is carried forward for analysis in this EA. The No Action Alternative will be used to 

analyze the consequences of not undertaking the Proposed Action, and will serve to establish a 

comparative baseline for analysis. As a practical matter, decommissioning of the existing cogeneration 

plant would occur under Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 as well as the No Action Alternative.

2.3.2 Alternative 1 – Convert Existing 30-MW Cogeneration Plant on Site 1

Under Alternative 1, the existing 30-MW steam cogeneration plant located on Site 1 would be converted 

to a natural gas peaker plant under a Model 2 acquisition strategy (see Section 1.2). As discussed in 

Section 1.2, the plant is currently operated by Applied Energy, LLC (AE LLC), and their 43-year contract 

with the Navy expires in 2018. A NEPA EA was prepared in 2014 and a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) was signed to remove and demolish the centralized steam plant.

Under this alternative, the centralized steam distribution system would be eliminated; however, the 

existing cogeneration plant would remain and be retrofitted into a natural gas peaker plant. A peaker 

plant generally runs only when there is a high demand, known as peak demand, for electricity. For the 

proposed peaker plant, the following assumptions were included: 120 startups and 120 shut downs per 

year, 11 operating hours per day, and 1,416 operating hours per year (these assumptions were based on 

a similarly sized peaker facility for Southern California Edison where demand would be comparable). 

In addition, it is assumed that the existing underground utility lines to the San Diego Gas and Electric 

(SDG&E) interconnection substation would be utilized, and some upgrades may be necessary. A 

potential utility corridor location from the SDG&E interconnection station to Site 1, shown on Figure 2-1, 

is located within Quay Road. However, the exact location of the utility corridor would be subject to 

change during the design process. In any case, the corridor would be located within an existing paved 

area within the Station boundaries.

The Navy would enter into an agreement with a private partner to upgrade the existing facility and 

operate and maintain a natural gas peaker plant (up to 50 MW) on the 1.1-hectare (2.6-acre) site at 

NASNI. The lease would support on-Base generation of energy for off-Base consumption via a private 

partner in accordance with 10 U.S.C. §2667 (i.e., utility purchase or private off taker). At this time, the 

Navy does not intend to purchase energy from a proposed project.

In lieu of cash rents for a potential lease, the Navy may seek in-kind consideration in the form of 

emergency/back-up generation from the proposed project, for use only in the case of a utility grid 

outage. Legal and physical access to the energy asset positions the Navy as an off taker only

during times of grid outage, at mutual benefit to both the Navy and the developer.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

2-4

Proposed Action and Alternatives

The peaker plant would not exceed 15.2 meters (50 feet) in height. The facility would be designed in 

accordance with the Naval Base Coronado Installation Appearance Plan (NAVFAC, 2008) that specifies 

the look of buildings as well as vegetation. 

The natural gas peaker plant would be upgraded in accordance with industry standards and all 

applicable local, state and federal design standards commonly used in the design of peaking generation 

facilities. These standards would include specific criteria as they apply to the International Building Code 

(International Code Council, 2015), and would encompass seismic design standards as they pertain to 

the project site. The private partner would be required to comply with federal, state and local 

regulations, policies, and/or permits required to operate the facility. 

The retrofit of the existing facility to a peaker plant would take up to six months and would be 

operational no later than August 2018.

In October 2006, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued Instruction number 2000.16, “DoD 

Antiterrorism Standards,” requiring all DoD Components to adopt and adhere to common criteria and 

minimum construction standards to mitigate antiterrorism vulnerabilities and terrorist threats. The 

intent of these building standards is to integrate greater resistance to a terrorist attack into all inhabited 

buildings. That philosophy affects the general practice of designing inhabited buildings. Anti-terrorism

Force Protection (ATFP) standards consist of restrictions for on-site planning, including stand-off 

distances, building separation, unobstructed space, drive-up and drop-off areas, access roads, and 

parking; structural design; structural isolation; and electrical and mechanical design. ATFP standards 

would be incorporated into the design of the new administrative space, where applicable.

Construction projects would incorporate Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, commonly 

referred to as LEED, and sustainable development concepts to achieve optimum resource efficiency, 

sustainability, and energy conservation.

2.3.3 Alternative 2 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 2

Under Alternative 2, a natural gas peaker plant (up to 50 MW) would be constructed and operated on 

Site 2 under a Model 2 acquisition strategy (see Section 1.2). As noted for Alternative 1, a peaker plant 

generally runs only when there is a high demand, known as peak demand, for electricity. For the 

proposed peaker plant, the following assumptions were included: 120 startups and 120 shut downs per 

year, 11 operating hours per day, and 1,416 operating hours per year. In addition, an underground 

utility corridor to the SDG&E interconnection substation would be constructed. A potential utility 

corridor location from the SDG&E interconnection station to Site 2, shown on Figure 2-1, is located 

within Quay Road. However, the exact location of the utility corridor would be subject to change during 

the design process. In any case, the corridor would be located within an existing paved area within the 

Station boundaries.

Site 2 is currently paved and used for parking. There are no existing structures. The peaker plant would 

be housed in a facility that would not exceed 15.2 meters (50 feet) in height. The facility would be 

designed in accordance with the Naval Base Coronado Installation Appearance Plan (NAVFAC, 2008). 

The Navy would enter into an agreement with a private partner to construct, operate, and maintain the 

up to 50 MW natural gas peaker plant on the 0.4-hectare (1.1-acre) site at NASNI. The lease would 

support on-Base generation of energy for off-Base consumption via a private partner in accordance with 

10 U.S.C. §2667 as outlined in Alternative 1. 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

2-5

Proposed Action and Alternatives

Similar to Alternative 1, the natural gas peaker plant would be constructed in accordance with industry 

standards and all applicable local, state and federal design standards commonly used in the design of 

peaking generation facilities. These standards would include specific criteria as they apply to the 

International Building Code, and would encompass seismic design standards as they pertain to the 

project site. ATFP standards would be incorporated into the design of the new administrative space, 

where applicable. The private partner would be required to comply with federal, state and local 

regulations, policies, and/or permits required to operate the facility.

The construction of the peaker plant would take approximately one year to complete and would be 

operational no later than February 2019.

2.3.4 Alternative 3 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic System on Site 2

Under Alternative 3, a battery energy storage system would be constructed and operated on Site 2 

under a Model 2 acquisition strategy (see Section 1.2). A small photovoltaic system might also be 

constructed to provide power for the battery energy storage system, and an energy inverter might also 

be constructed. The battery storage system might be comprised of technologies such as lithium-ion cell 

chemistries and/or low flow battery chemistries utilizing proprietary solutions such as vanadium sulfate 

chloride, zinc-bromine, zinc-chloride, or other electrolytes. Acid-based batteries would not be utilized. 

The batteries would be housed in large containers to protect them from the elements. The battery 

energy storage facility would not exceed 15.2 meters (50 feet) in height. Construction on the site would 

comply with all installation and safety requirements. Each container would be painted in earth-tone 

colors to blend in with the surrounding environment. In addition, an underground utility corridor to the 

SDG&E interconnection substation would be constructed. A potential utility corridor location from the

SDG&E interconnection station to Site 2, shown on Figure 2-1, is located within Quay Road. However, 

the exact location of the utility corridor would be subject to change during the design process. In any 

case, the corridor would be located within an existing paved area within the Station boundaries.

The Navy would enter into an agreement with a private partner to construct, operate, and maintain the 

battery energy storage system on the 0.4-hectare (1.1-acre) site at NASNI. The lease would support 

on-Base storage of energy for off-Base consumption via a private partner in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 

§2667 as outlined in Alternative 1 above.

The construction of the battery energy storage system would take approximately one year to complete 

and would be operational no later than February 2019.

2.3.5 Alternative 4 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 3

Under Alternative 4, a natural gas peaker plant (up to 50 MW) would be constructed and operated on 

Site 3 under a Model 2 acquisition strategy (see Section 1.2). For the proposed peaker plant, the 

following assumptions were included: 120 startups and 120 shut downs per year, 11 operating hours per 

day, and 1,416 operating hours per year. In addition, an underground utility corridor to the SDG&E 

interconnection substation would be constructed. A potential utility corridor location from the SDG&E 

interconnection station to Site 3, shown on Figure 2-1, is located within Quay Road. However, the exact 

location of the utility corridor would be subject to change during the design process. In any case, the 

corridor would be located within an existing paved area within the Station boundaries.

Site 3 is currently paved and used for parking. There are no existing structures. The peaker plant would 

be housed in a facility that would not exceed 15.2 meters (50 feet) in height and would be designed in 

accordance with the Naval Base Coronado Installation Appearance Plan (NAVFAC, 2008).
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

2-6

Proposed Action and Alternatives

The Navy would enter into an agreement with a private partner to construct, operate, and maintain the 

natural gas peaker plant on the 0.6-hectare (1.5-acre) site at NASNI. The lease would support on-Base 

generation of energy for off-Base consumption via a private partner in accordance with 10 U.S.C. §2667

as outlined in Alternative 1. 

The natural gas peaker plant would be constructed in accordance with industry standards and all 

applicable local, state and federal design standards commonly used in the design of peaking generation 

facilities. These standards would include specific criteria as they apply to the International Building 

Code, and would encompass seismic design standards as they pertain to the project site. ATFP standards 

would be incorporated into the design of the new administrative space, where applicable. The private 

partner would be required to comply with federal, state and local regulations, policies, and/or permits 

required to operate the facility.

The construction of the peaker plant would take approximately one year to complete and would be 

operational no later than February 2019.

2.3.6 Alternative 5 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic System on Site 3

Under Alternative 5, a battery energy storage system would be constructed and operated on Site 3 

under a Model 2 acquisition strategy (see Section 1.2). A small photovoltaic system might also be 

constructed to provide power for the battery energy storage system, and an energy inverter might also 

be constructed. The battery storage system might be comprised of technologies such as lithium-ion cell 

chemistries and/or low flow battery chemistries utilizing proprietary solutions based on vanadium 

sulfate chloride, zinc-bromine, zinc-chloride, or other electrolytes. Acid-based batteries would not be 

utilized. The batteries would be housed in large containers to protect them from the elements. The 

battery energy storage facility would not exceed 15.2 meters (50 feet) in height. Construction on the site 

would comply with all installation and safety requirements. Each container would be painted in earthtone colors to blend in with the surrounding environment. In addition, an underground utility corridor to 

the SDG&E interconnection substation would be constructed. A potential utility corridor location from 

the SDG&E interconnection station to Site 3, shown on Figure 2-1, is located within Quay Road. 

However, the exact location of the utility corridor would be subject to change during the design process. 

In any case, the corridor would be located within an existing paved area within the Station boundaries.

The Navy would enter into an agreement with a private partner to construct, operate, and maintain the 

battery energy storage system on the 0.6-hectare (1.5-acre) site at NASNI. The lease would support 

on-Base storage of energy for off-Base consumption via a private partner in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 

§2667 as outlined in Alternative 1.

The construction of the battery energy storage system would take approximately one year to complete 

and would be operational no later than February 2019.

2.3.7 Alternative 6 – Full time Operation of Existing Cogeneration Plant on Site 1

Under Alternative 6, the lease at the existing 30-MW steam cogeneration plant on Site 1 would be 

renewed and decommissioning and removal by the owner/operator would not occur. The existing 

cogeneration plant could operate full time (up to 8,760 hours per year). Minor retooling of the existing 

plant may occur; however, no major upgrades to the facility would be anticipated. It is assumed that retooling of the existing cogeneration plant would take up to six months to complete and would be 

operational no later than August 2018.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

2-7

Proposed Action and Alternatives

As discussed in Section 1.2, the plant is currently operated by Applied Energy, LLC (AE LLC), and their 

40-year contract with the Navy expires in 2018. Under this alternative, the Navy would enter into a new 

the agreement with AE LLC for the existing facility to operate and maintain the existing plant (up to 

50 MW) on the 1.1-hectare (2.6-acre) site at NASNI. The lease would support on-Base generation of 

energy for off-Base consumption via a private partner in accordance with 10 U.S.C. §2667 as outlined in 

Alternative 1.

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis

The following alternatives were considered, but not carried forward for detailed analysis in this EA as 

they did not meet the purpose and need for the project and satisfy the reasonable alternative screening 

factors presented in Section 2.2.

Large Integrated Batteries on Site 1

Under this alternative, the existing cogeneration facility on Site 1 would need to be decommissioned 

and demolished prior to the construction of a battery energy storage system. Similar to Alternatives 3 

and 5, the battery energy storage system would be operated under a Model 2 acquisition strategy (see 

Sections 2.3.4 and 2.3.6, respectively). This alternative was considered but is not being carried forward 

for detailed analysis in the EA because Site 1 is currently encumbered with the existing 30-MW 

cogeneration facility and the decommissioning and demolition are the responsibility of the current 

operator. The lease is not set to expire until February 2018, and there is no current schedule for 

decommissioning and demolition. Due to the unavailability of such a schedule at this time, an 

alternative involving battery storage and photovoltaic system at Site 1 would not meet the timeline set 

forth under the Secretary of the Navy’s goals and priorities for national energy resilience and would 

therefore not meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Action.

Photovoltaic System Only at Sites 1, 2 and/or 3

Under this alternative, a ground-mounted photovoltaic system would be constructed and operated at 

Sites 1, 2 or 3 (or at a combination of the sites) under a Model 2 acquisition strategy. This alternative 

was considered but is not being carried forward for detailed analysis in the EA because the small size of 

the three parcels (2.1 hectares [5.2 acres] total for all three sites) would only generate approximately 

0.5 MW. In general, 4 hectares (10 acres) of photovoltaic are required to produce one MW of power. 

NASNI is served by San Diego Gas and Electric. The Base load is approximately 50 MW, the Ship load is 

approximately 38.7 MW, and the peak load is approximately 70 MW. Therefore, 0.5 MW provided by 

the proposed photovoltaic system would not meet critical load. Absent a storage component (such as 

batteries), a ground-mounted photovoltaic-only alternative would not be chosen since it would not 

provide sufficient energy resiliency and security and would not meet the purpose and need of the 

Proposed Action.

2.5 Best Management Practices Included in Proposed Action 

This section presents an overview of the best management practices (BMPs) that are incorporated into 

the Proposed Action in this document. BMPs are existing policies, practices, and measures that the Navy 

would adopt to reduce the environmental impacts of designated activities, functions, or processes. 

Although BMPs mitigate potential impacts by avoiding, minimizing or reducing/eliminating impacts, 

BMPs are distinguished from potential mitigation measures because BMPs are (1) existing requirements 

for the Proposed Action, (2) ongoing, regularly occurring practices, or (3) not unique to this Proposed 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

2-8

Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action. In other words, the BMPs identified in this document are inherently part of the Proposed Action 

and are not potential mitigation measures proposed as a function of the NEPA environmental review 

process for the Proposed Action. Table 2-1 includes a list of BMPs. Mitigation measures are discussed 

separately in Chapter 3.

Table 2-1

Best Management Practices

BMP Description Impacts 

Reduced/Avoided

Compliance with 

regulatory and industry 

geotechnical standards 

and site-specific 

geotechnical 

investigation

The Proposed Action would comply with applicable 

regulatory and industry standards, as well as 

recommendations from site-specific geotechnical 

investigations. BMPs would potentially include the 

removal/compaction or replacement of unsuitable 

materials (e.g., compressible or expansive soils) with 

properly engineered fill; use of appropriate slope 

design (e.g., grade limitations), drainage, and 

landscaping (e.g., native and drought-tolerant 

varieties) as applicable; use of appropriate 

foundation/footing pavement dimensions and 

reinforcing; provision of positive surface drainage 

and/or use of sub drains; incorporation of projected 

ground acceleration and International Building 

Code/California Building Code seismic parameters 

into the project design (e.g., seismic zone, subsurface 

profile types, seismic and near-source coefficients for 

acceleration and velocity, and seismic source); 

removal/replacement of unsuitable surficial materials; 

and slope stabilization if applicable.

Geology (soil 

compression/settlement; 

manufactured slope 

stability/retaining wall 

design; foundation/

footing, building pad, and 

pavement design; fill 

composition/placement 

methodology; soil 

instability, shallow 

groundwater/drainage; 

and seismic issues from 

ground shaking and 

liquefaction)

Storm Water Pollution 

Prevention Plans 

(SWPPPs)

The Proposed Action would conform with applicable 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) requirements including implementation of 

one or more SWPPPs and associated BMPs. BMPs may 

include erosion control blankets, soil stabilizers, 

temporary seeding, silt fencing, hay bales, sand bags, 

and storm drain inlet protection devices.

Soils (erosion and off-site 

sediment transport); 

Water Resources (water 

quality)

Low Impact 

Development

The Proposed Action would conform with applicable 

requirements related to Low Impact Development 

design and control of runoff rates/amounts. This may 

include site-specific measures such as minimizing 

impervious areas and preserving existing vegetation 

to the Maximum Extent Technically Feasible, the use 

of bioretention or infiltration facilities, diverting flow 

from impervious areas to vegetated/landscaped sites, 

use of pervious pavement and drainage facilities 

(e.g., swales/ channels) in applicable areas, and storm 

flow capture/reuse (e.g., via rain barrels).

Water Resources (surface 

water and water quality)
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

2-9

Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 2-1

Best Management Practices

BMP Description Impacts 

Reduced/Avoided

Traffic Control Plan The Proposed Action would implement a Traffic 

Control Plan that would specify the following:

• Truck and worker trips associated with 

demolition and construction activities would be 

scheduled outside of the peak commuting 

periods of 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 

6:00 p.m. to the maximum extent practicable in 

order to minimize the potential for peak hour 

traffic congestion;

• No oversized construction vehicles would be 

used on public roadways (i.e., all vehicles will 

comply with the size and weight limits specified 

in the California Vehicle Code);

• Only designated truck routes would be used; and

• Specific traffic control measures would be 

developed for circumstances where trucks would 

be temporarily stacked in the right-of-way.

Traffic (Temporary 

construction and 

demolition traffic impacts)

Hazardous Waste 

Management Plan

The construction contractor for the private partner 

would implement a Hazardous Waste Management 

Plan to ensure appropriate procedures are in place if 

any contaminated soil is encountered during 

construction.

Public Health and Safety 

(Hazardous Waste)

Health and Safety Plan The construction contractor for the private partner 

would implement a Health and Safety Plan to ensure 

appropriate safety measures are implemented during 

construction.

Public Health and Safety 

(Safety)
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

2-10

Proposed Action and Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-1

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This chapter presents a description of the environmental resources and baseline conditions that could 

be affected from implementing any of the alternatives and an analysis of the potential direct and 

indirect effects of each alternative.

All potentially relevant environmental resource areas were initially considered for analysis in this 

Environmental Assessment (EA). In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and Department of Navy guidelines; the discussion of the 

affected environment (i.e., existing conditions) focuses only on those resource areas potentially subject 

to impacts. Additionally, the level of detail used in describing a resource is commensurate with the 

anticipated level of potential environmental impact. 

“Significantly,” as used in NEPA, requires considerations of both context and intensity. Context means 

that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole 

(e.g., human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies 

with the setting of a proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance 

would usually depend on the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and 

long-term effects are relevant. Intensity refers to the severity or extent of the potential environmental 

impact, which can be thought of in terms of the potential amount of the likely change. In general, the 

more sensitive the context, the less intense a potential impact needs to be in order to be considered 

significant. Likewise, the less sensitive the context, the more intense a potential impact would need to 

be to expected to be significant.

This section includes air quality, visual resources, noise, infrastructure, transportation (construction 

only), and public health and safety.

The potential impacts to the following resource areas are considered to be negligible or non-existent so 

they were not analyzed in detail in this EA:

Water Resources: Since the project’s construction phase would disturb more than 1 acre (0.4 hectare), 

coverage under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for 

Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (“General Permit”) would be required 

prior to project construction. The General Permit is issued by the California Environmental Protection 

Agency’s State Water Resources Control Board for construction-related discharges as regulated by the 

Board pursuant to the Department of Water Quality Order 2009-009-DWQ. As part of the permit, a 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) incorporating best management practices (BMPs), 

outlined in Section 2.5, would be implemented by the private partner. All construction activities with the 

potential of affecting water quality due to runoff would be conducted in accordance with the SWPPP 

requirements. 

The private partner would be required to prepare a Notice of Intent for the SWPPP and pay appropriate 

NPDES fees and surcharges to the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain a waste discharge 

number for implementation of the Proposed Action. At the completion of work, the private partner 

would prepare and file a Notice of Termination.

The potential increase in stormwater runoff as a result of the Proposed Action would be managed such 

that discharge exiting the site post-construction would be equal to or less than existing conditions 

through the use of appropriately designed conveyance structures and BMPs. Therefore, only negligible 

impacts on water resources would occur.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-2

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Coastal Resources: The Coastal Zone Management Act (CMZA of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §1451)) encourages 

coastal states to be proactive in managing coastal zone uses and resources. CZMA established a 

voluntary coastal planning program where participating states submit a Coastal Zone Management Plan 

to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric administration for approval. California has an approved 

Coastal Management Plan. Each state defines its coastal zone in accordance with the CZMA. Excluded 

from any coastal zone are lands, the use of which by law is subject solely to the discretion of the federal 

government or which is held in trust by the federal government (16 U.S.C. §1453). The proposed project 

is entirely contained within the boundaries of NASNI and is federal government property, thus 

specifically excluded from the coastal zone. 

Under the CZMA, federal agency actions within or outside the coastal zone that may affect any land or 

water use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner that is consistent to 

the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved state management 

programs. The Navy conducted an effects analysis as part of its determination of the action’s effects to 

coastal uses or resources for purposes of federal consistency review under the CZMA. This was done to 

factually determine whether the action (even if conducted entirely within a federal enclave) would 

affect any coastal use or resource. None of the alternatives would have any effects on public access or 

public recreation since the sites are restricted from public access and there is no recreational use of the 

proposed sites. None of the alternatives would affect biological productivity, water quality, or sensitive 

biological species since the sites are devoid of endangered or threatened species and any sensitive 

habitats or species. None of the alternatives would increase human health risk or environmental 

exposure to hazardous materials or hazardous wastes. None of the alternatives would disturb 

archaeological sites or other cultural resources, substantially alter the visual character of the area, or 

generate regionally significant air emissions. Therefore, none of the alternatives would result in impacts 

to coastal uses and resources. 

Geological Resources: The alternative sites considered for the construction and operation of a new 

energy asset (such as a natural gas peaker plant or large grid-integrated batteries) on NASNI have been 

previously graded, paved, or otherwise disturbed. Only minimal additional grading might be required 

during construction. It is anticipated that the proposed utility corridor would utilize the existing SDG&E 

corridor and some minor trenching may be required. The exact location of the utility corridor could be 

subject to change during the design process; however, the corridor would be located within a paved 

area within the Base boundaries, probably within Cummings Road. BMPs outlined in Section 2.5, 

including silt fencing, fiber rolls, and minimizing points of access to construction sites, would be 

implemented to minimize soil erosion potential. The private partner would adhere to all applicable state 

laws for erosion and sediment control and would monitor the effectiveness of temporary erosion 

control measures. Therefore, there would be no impacts on geological resources.

Cultural Resources: All three action alternative sites are located over former wetlands or former open 

bay and have been filled with imported material (fill); therefore, there would be no impacts to 

archaeological resources. In addition, none of the sites contain historical structures; therefore, there 

would be no effects on historic properties. All three sites would be covered by the Naval Base Coronado 

Programmatic Agreement dated May 2014 (Naval Base Coronado [NBC], 2014).

Biological Resources: All of the action alternatives are located on previously disturbed or paved 

property and support no native vegetation communities or habitats. No wetlands or other Clean Water 

Act regulated waters occur on sites 1, 2 or 3. Design measures would be implemented to avoid impacts 

to wildlife. These measures would ensure that light posts and permanent nighttime lighting to support 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-3

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

operations would be selected to provide the lowest illumination possible while still allowing for safe 

operations. The façade of the energy facility would also be designed to minimize perching surfaces. 

Therefore, only negligible impacts on biological resources would occur.

Land Use: None of the proposed action alternative sites, as described in Chapter 2, would affect land 

use. NASNI is owned and operated by the U.S. government and is under the jurisdiction of the Navy. The 

Navy Region Southwest (NRSW) Regional Integrated Plan is intended to balance operational and shore 

investment requirements for achieving increased efficiency and to better align the shore establishment 

with the fleet (DON, 2010). The document contains overall land management guidelines for NRSW 

installations, including NASNI, which are designed to place operational activities in those areas where 

they are most suitable and compatible with land (or marine) conditions, other activities in the same 

areas, and adjacent operations. Therefore, no land use impacts would occur.

Socioeconomics: Construction and operation of a new energy asset (such as a natural gas peaker plant 

or large grid-integrated batteries) on NASNI would have no demonstrable long-term socioeconomic 

effect on the surrounding community. It would not attract a long-term worker population to the project 

vicinity nor affect the need for housing in the area. It is expected that the crews required for proposed 

construction activities would be comprised of local contractors in the surrounding area. Proposed 

operations would not require more than a minimal staff of on-Base workers (fewer than 10). 

Implementation of the Action alternatives would have short-term beneficial effects to the economy, as 

temporary construction jobs would be created. The overall effects on the local and regional economy 

and socioeconomic environment would be negligible and no impacts would occur. 

Environmental Justice: Executive Order (EO) 12898 – Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations – directs federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority 

and low-income populations, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The EO is also 

intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs that affect humans and the environment, as 

well as provide minority and low-income communities access to public information and public 

participation.

As all of the action alternatives would take place within NASNI property boundaries and none of the 

alternatives would cause adverse human health or environmental effects, there would be no 

disproportionately high environmental or health impacts on low-income or minority populations. 

Therefore, EO 12898 impacts would not occur. 

3.1 Air Quality

This discussion of air quality includes criteria pollutants, standards, sources, permitting, and greenhouse 

gases. Air quality in a given location is defined by the concentration of various pollutants in the 

atmosphere. A region’s air quality is influenced by many factors, including the type and amount of 

pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, and the prevailing 

meteorological conditions.

Most air pollutants originate from human-made sources, including mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, 

buses) and stationary sources (e.g., factories, refineries, power plants), as well as indoor sources 

(e.g., some building materials and cleaning solvents). Air pollutants are also released from natural 

sources such as volcanic eruptions and forest fires.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-4

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1.1 Regulatory Setting

3.1.1.1 Criteria Pollutants and National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The principal pollutants defining the air quality, called “criteria pollutants,” include carbon monoxide 

(CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone, suspended particulate matter less than or 

equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10), fine particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in 

diameter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). CO, SO2, Pb, and some particulates are emitted directly into the 

atmosphere from emissions sources. Ozone, NO2, and some particulates are formed through 

atmospheric chemical reactions that are influenced by weather, ultraviolet light, and other atmospheric 

processes.

Criteria pollutants are defined by state and federal law as a risk to the health and welfare of the general 

public. In general, air pollutants include the following compounds: 

• Ozone (O3)

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

• Carbon Monoxide (CO)

• Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

• Respirable Particulate Matter and Fine Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

• Lead (Pb)

The following specific descriptions of health effects for each of the air pollutants potentially associated 

with project construction and operation are based on information provided by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB; 2009) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA; 2017).

Ozone. Ozone is considered a photochemical oxidant, which is a chemical that is formed when VOCs and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), both by-products of fuel combustion, react in the presence of ultraviolet light. 

Ozone is considered a respiratory irritant and prolonged exposure can reduce lung function, aggravate 

asthma, and increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. Children and those with existing respiratory 

diseases are at greatest risk from exposure to ozone. 

Volatile Organic Compounds. VOCs are compounds composed primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms. 

Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of VOCs. Other sources of 

VOCs include evaporative emissions from paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the 

use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are not caused 

directly by VOCs, but rather by reactions of VOCs to form secondary pollutants such as ozone. 

Carbon Monoxide. CO is a by-product of fuel combustion. CO is an odorless, colorless gas. CO affects red 

blood cells in the body by binding to hemoglobin and reducing the amount of oxygen that can be carried 

to the body’s organs and tissues. CO can cause health effects to those with cardiovascular disease and 

can also affect mental alertness and vision. 

Nitrogen Dioxide. NO2 is also a by-product of fuel combustion and is formed both directly as a product 

of combustion and in the atmosphere through the reaction of nitrogen oxide (NO) with oxygen. NO2 is a 

respiratory irritant and may affect those with existing respiratory illness, including asthma. NO2 can also 

increase the risk of respiratory illness. 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-5

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Respirable Particulate Matter and Fine Particulate Matter. Respirable particulate matter, or PM10, 

refers to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less. Fine particulate matter, 

or PM2.5, refers to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less. Particulate 

matter in these size ranges have been determined to have the potential to lodge in the lungs and 

contribute to respiratory problems. PM10 and PM2.5 arise from a variety of sources, including road dust, 

diesel exhaust, fuel combustion, tire and brake wear, construction operations, and windblown dust. 

PM10 and PM2.5 can increase susceptibility to respiratory infections and can aggravate existing 

respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic bronchitis. PM2.5 is considered to have the potential to 

lodge deeper in the lungs. Diesel particulate matter is classified a carcinogen by CARB. 

Sulfur dioxide. SO2 is a colorless, reactive gas that is produced from the burning of sulfur-containing 

fuels such as coal and oil and by other industrial processes. Generally, the highest concentrations of SO2

are found near large industrial sources. SO2 is a respiratory irritant that can cause narrowing of the 

airways leading to wheezing and shortness of breath. Long-term exposure to SO2 can cause respiratory 

illness and aggravate existing cardiovascular disease. 

Lead. Lead in the atmosphere occurs as particulate matter. With the phase-out of leaded gasoline, large 

manufacturing facilities are the sources of the largest amounts of lead emissions. Lead has the potential 

to cause gastrointestinal, central nervous system, kidney and blood diseases upon prolonged exposure. 

Lead is also classified as a probable human carcinogen. Because emissions of lead are found only in 

projects that are permitted by the local air district, lead is not an air quality of concern for the proposed 

project.

Federal and State ambient air quality standards have been set to protect the most sensitive persons 

from illness or discomfort. Residential areas, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, athletic facilities, 

hospitals, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement 

homes are especially likely to include persons sensitive to air pollutants. Air quality is defined by 

ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants identified by the USEPA to be of concern with respect 

to health and welfare of the general public. The USEPA is responsible for enforcing the Federal Clean Air 

Act (CAA) of 1970 and its 1977 and 1990 Amendments. Under the CAA, the USEPA has established 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR part 50) for these pollutants, which identify 

concentrations of pollutants in the ambient air below which no adverse effects on the public health and 

welfare are anticipated. NAAQS are classified as primary or secondary. Primary standards protect 

against adverse health effects; secondary standards protect against welfare effects, such as damage to 

farm crops and vegetation and damage to buildings. Some pollutants have long-term and short-term 

standards. Short-term standards are designed to protect against acute, or short-term, health effects, 

while long-term standards were established to protect against chronic health effects.

The CAA allows states to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided they are at 

least as stringent as federal standards. CARB has established the more stringent California Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (CAAQS) for the six criteria pollutants through the California Clean Air Act of 1988 

(CCAA), and also has established CAAQS for additional pollutants, including sulfates, hydrogen sulfide 

(H2S), vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. Table 3-1, Ambient Air Quality Standards, shows 

the federal and state ambient air quality standards for these pollutants.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-6

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-1

Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging 

Time

California

Standards

Federal Standards

Primary1 Secondary2

O3

1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) – –

8 Hour 0.070 ppm 

(137 μg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3

) Same as Primary

PM10

24 Hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Same as Primary

AAM 20 μg/m3 – Same as Primary

PM2.5

24 Hour – 35 μg/m3 Same as Primary

AAM 12 μg/m3 12.0 μg/m3 15.0 μg/m3

CO

1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) –

8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) –

8 Hour

(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3

) – –

NO2

1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) 0.100 ppm (188 μg/m3) –

AAM 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) Same as Primary

SO2

1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 μg/m3) –

3 Hour – – 0.5 ppm

(1,300 μg/m3)

24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) – –

Lead

30-day Avg. 1.5 μg/m3 – –

Calendar 

Quarter – 1.5 μg/m3

Same as Primary Rolling

3-month Avg. – 0.15 μg/m3

Visibility 

Reducing 

Particles

8 Hour

Extinction coefficient 

of 0.23 per km –

visibility ≥ 10 miles

(0.07 per km – ≥30 

miles for Lake Tahoe)

No

Federal

Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m Standards 3

Hydrogen 

Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3

)

Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3)

Source: CARB 2016 

1 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, within an adequate margin of safety, to protect the 

public health. 2 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or 

anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

O3: ozone; ppm: parts per million; μg/m3

: micrograms per cubic meter; PM10: large particulate matter; 

AAM: Annual Arithmetic Mean; PM2.5: fine particulate matter; CO: carbon monoxide; mg/m3: milligrams per cubic 

meter; NO2 nitrogen dioxide; SO2: sulfur dioxide; km: kilometer; –: No Standard.

Areas that are and have historically been in compliance with the NAAQS are designated as attainment 

areas. Areas that violate a federal air quality standard are designated as nonattainment areas. Areas 

that have transitioned from nonattainment to attainment are designated as maintenance areas and are 

required to adhere to maintenance plans to ensure continued attainment. On December 19, 2019, the 

San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) was classified as a moderate nonattainment area for the 8-hour NAAQS for 

ozone. The SDAB is an attainment area under the NAAQS for all other criteria pollutants. The SDAB is 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-7

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

currently classified as a nonattainment area under the CAAQS for ozone (serious nonattainment), PM10, 

and PM2.5.

The CAA requires states to develop a general plan to attain and maintain the NAAQS in all areas of the 

country and a specific plan to attain the standards for each area designated nonattainment for a NAAQS. 

These plans, known as State Implementation Plans (SIPs), are developed by state and local air quality 

management agencies and submitted to USEPA for approval.

The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) is the local agency responsible for the 

administration and enforcement of air quality regulations for San Diego County (County). The SDAPCD 

and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are responsible for developing and implementing 

the clean air plan for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the SDAB. The 

County’s Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) was initially adopted in 1991, and is updated on a 

triennial basis. The most recent version of the RAQS was adopted in 2016 (SDAPCD 2016). The local 

RAQS, in combination with those from all other California nonattainment areas with serious (or worse) 

air quality problems, is submitted to CARB, which develops the SIP. The SIP relies on the same 

information from SANDAG to develop emission inventories and emission reduction strategies that are 

included in the attainment demonstration for the air basin. The current federal and state attainment 

status for San Diego County is presented in Table 3-2, San Diego Air Basin Attainment Status.

Table 3-2

San Diego Air Basin Attainment Status

Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation

O3 (1-hour) (No federal standard) Nonattainment

O3 (8-hour) Marginal Nonattainment Nonattainment

CO Attainment Attainment

PM10 Unclassifiable Nonattainment

PM2.5 Attainment Nonattainment

NO2 Attainment Attainment

SO2 Attainment Attainment

Lead Attainment Attainment

Sulfates (No federal standard) Attainment

Hydrogen Sulfide (No federal standard) Unclassifiable

Visibility (No federal standard) Unclassifiable

Source: SDAPCD 2017

3.1.1.2 General Conformity

The USEPA General Conformity Rule applies to federal actions occurring in nonattainment or 

maintenance areas when the total direct and indirect emissions of nonattainment pollutants (or their 

precursors) exceed specified thresholds. The emissions thresholds that trigger requirements for a 

conformity analysis are called de minimis levels. De minimis levels (in tons per year [tpy]) vary by 

pollutant and also depend on the severity of the nonattainment status for the air quality management 

area in question.

A conformity applicability analysis is the first step of a conformity evaluation and assesses if a federal 

action must be supported by a conformity determination. This is typically done by quantifying applicable 

direct and indirect emissions that are projected to result due to implementation of the federal action. 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-8

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Indirect emissions are those emissions caused by the federal action and originating in the region of 

interest, but which can occur at a later time or in a different location from the action itself and are 

reasonably foreseeable. The federal agency can control and will maintain control over the indirect action 

due to a continuing program responsibility of the federal agency. Reasonably foreseeable emissions are 

projected future direct and indirect emissions that are identified at the time the conformity evaluation is 

performed. The location of such emissions is known and the emissions are quantifiable, as described and 

documented by the federal agency based on its own information and after reviewing any information 

presented to the federal agency. If the results of the applicability analysis indicate that the total 

emissions would not exceed the de minimis emissions thresholds, then the conformity evaluation 

process is completed. De minimis threshold emissions are presented in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3

General Conformity de minimis Levels

Pollutant Area Type Tons per 

Year

Ozone (VOC or NOX)

Serious nonattainment 50

Severe nonattainment 25

Extreme nonattainment 10

Other areas outside an ozone transport 

region 100

Ozone (NOX)

Marginal and moderate nonattainment 

inside an ozone transport region 100

Maintenance 100

Ozone (VOC)

Marginal and moderate nonattainment 

inside an ozone transport region 50

Maintenance within an ozone transport 

region 50

Maintenance outside an ozone 

transport region 100

Carbon monoxide, SO2 and NO2 All nonattainment and maintenance 100

PM10

Serious nonattainment 70

Moderate nonattainment and 

maintenance 100

PM2.5

Direct emissions, SO2, NOX (unless determined not 

to be a significant precursor), VOC or ammonia (if 

determined to be significant precursors)

All nonattainment & maintenance 100

Lead (Pb) All nonattainment and maintenance 25

Source: 40 CFR 93.153(b)

3.1.1.3 Permitting 

New Source Review (Preconstruction Permit)

New major stationary sources and major modifications at existing major stationary sources are required 

by the CAA to obtain an air pollution permit before commencing construction. This permitting process 

for major stationary sources is called New Source Review and is required whether the major source or 

major modification is planned for nonattainment areas or attainment and unclassifiable areas. New 

Source Review is governed in the County by SDAPCD Regulation II Rules 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, and 20.4. In 

general, permits for sources in attainment areas and for other pollutants regulated under the major 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-9

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

source program are referred to as Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits, while permits 

for major sources emitting nonattainment pollutants and located in nonattainment areas are referred to 

as nonattainment new source review permits. In addition, a proposed project may have to meet the 

requirements of nonattainment new source review for the pollutants for which the area is designated as 

nonattainment and PSD for the pollutants for which the area is attainment. Additional PSD permitting 

thresholds apply to increases in stationary source greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. PSD permitting can 

also apply to a new major stationary source (or any net emissions increase associated with a 

modification to an existing major stationary source) that is constructed within 6.2 miles of a Class I area, 

and which would increase the 24-hour average concentration of any regulated pollutant in the Class I 

area by 1 microgram per cubic meter (μg/m3

) or more. Navy installations comply with applicable permit 

requirements under the PSD program per 40 CFR section 51.166. NSR permitting would be the 

responsibility of the private partner.

Title V (Operating Permit)

The Title V Operating Permit Program consolidates all CAA requirements applicable to the operation of a 

source, including requirements from the SIP, preconstruction permits, and the air toxics program. It 

applies to stationary sources of air pollution that exceed the major stationary source emission 

thresholds, as well as other non-major sources specified in a particular regulation. The program includes 

a requirement for payment of permit fees to finance the operating permit program whether 

implemented by USEPA or a state or local regulator. Title V permits is governed in the County by 

SDAPCD Regulation XIV. Navy installations subject to Title V permitting shall comply with the 

requirements of the Title V Operating Permit Program, which are detailed in 40 CFR Part 70 and all 

specific requirements contained in their individual permits. Title V permitting would be the 

responsibility of the private partner.

3.1.1.4 Hazardous Air Pollutants

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) are a category of air pollutants that have been shown to have an impact 

on human health but are not classified as criteria pollutants. Examples include certain aromatic and 

chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain metals, and asbestos. HAPs are generated by a number of sources, 

including stationary ones such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion sources, and laboratories; 

mobile ones such as automobiles; and area sources such as farms, landfills, construction sites, and 

residential areas. In addition to the NAAQS for criteria pollutants, national standards exist for HAPs, 

which are regulated under Section 112(b) of the 1990 CAA Amendments. The National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulate HAP emissions from stationary sources (40 CFR part 61).

A detailed health risk assessment would be required as part of the permitting processes to ensure the 

surrounding population is not exposed to unhealthful levels of HAPs. If potentially harmful levels may 

occur, the SDAPCD may impose limits and prescribe reduction measures, such as Toxics-Best Available 

Control Technologies (T-BACTs), to ensure the health of the surrounding area. Adverse health effects of 

HAPs can be carcinogenic (cancer-causing), short-term (acute) noncarcinogenic, and long-term (chronic) 

noncarcinogenic. Public exposure to HAPs is a significant environmental health issue in California.

3.1.1.5 Greenhouse Gases

GHGs are greenhouse gas emissions that trap heat in the atmosphere. These emissions occur from 

natural processes and human activities. Scientific evidence indicates a trend of increasing global 

temperature over the past century due to an increase in GHG emissions from human activities. The 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-10

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

climate change associated with this global warming is predicted to produce negative economic and 

social consequences across the globe.

USEPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule on September 22, 2009. GHGs 

covered under the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule are carbon dioxide (CO2), 

methane, nitrogen oxide (NOx), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and other 

fluorinated gases including nitrogen trifluoride and hydrofluorinated ethers. Each GHG is assigned a 

global warming potential. The global warming potential is the ability of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in 

the atmosphere. The global warming potential rating system is standardized to CO2, which has a value of 

one. The equivalent CO2 rate is calculated by multiplying the emissions of each GHG by its global 

warming potential and adding the results together to produce a single, combined emissions rate 

representing all GHGs. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of 

mobile sources and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG 

emissions as CO2e are required to submit annual reports to USEPA.

GHG emissions are also regulated under PSD and Title V permitting programs, which was initiated by a 

USEPA rulemaking issued on June 3, 2010 known as the GHG Tailoring Rule (75 Federal Register 31514). 

GHG emissions thresholds for permitting of stationary sources are an increase of 75,000 tpy of CO2e at 

existing major sources and facility-wide emissions of 100,000 tpy of CO2e for a new source or a 

modification of an existing minor source. The 100,000 tpy of CO2e threshold defines a major GHG source 

for both construction (PSD) and operating (Title V) permitting, respectively. However, on June 23, 2014, 

the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. USEPA (No. 12-1146). As a 

result of the decision USEPA will no longer apply or enforce federal regulatory provisions or the USEPA 

approved PSD SIP provisions that require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if GHGs are the only 

pollutant that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or for 

which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a 

modification (e.g., 40 CFR section 52.21 (b)(49)(v)). Nor does USEPA intend to continue applying 

regulations that would require that states include in their SIP a requirement that such sources obtain 

PSD permits.

Similarly, USEPA will no longer apply or enforce federal regulatory provisions or provisions of the USEPA 

approved Title V programs that require a stationary source to obtain a Title V permit solely because the 

source emits or has the potential to emit GHGs above the major source thresholds (e.g., the regulatory 

provision relating to GHG subject to regulation in 40 CFR section 71.2). USEPA also does not intend to 

continue applying regulations that would require Title V programs submitted for approval by USEPA to 

require that such sources obtain Title V permits.

There are numerous State plans, policies, regulations, and laws related to GHGs and global climate 

change. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires that the 

CARB develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. 

CARB is directed to set a GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill 

requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum 

technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG reductions.

On April 29, 2015, EO B-30-15 established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 

levels by 2030. The EO aligns California's GHG reduction targets with those of leading international 

governments, including the 28 nation European Union. California is on track to meet or exceed the 

target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in AB 32. California's 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-11

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 will make it possible to reach 

the ultimate goal established by EO S-3-05 of reducing emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050.

As a follow-up to AB 32 and in response to EO-B-30-15, Senate Bill (SB) 32 was passed by the California 

legislature in August 2016 to codify the EO’s California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 

levels by 2030.

On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted the Scoping Plan (CARB 2008) as directed by AB 32. The Scoping 

Plan proposes a set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California to the levels 

required by AB 32. Measures applicable to development projects include those related to energyefficiency building and appliance standards, the use of renewable sources for electricity generation, 

regional transportation targets, and green building strategy. Relative to transportation, the Scoping Plan 

includes nine measures or recommended actions related to reducing vehicle miles traveled and vehicle 

GHGs through fuel and efficiency measures. These measures would be implemented statewide rather 

than on a project by project basis. 

CARB released the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan in May 2014 to provide information 

on the development of measure-specific regulations and to adjust projections in consideration of the 

economic recession (CARB 2014). To determine the amount of GHG emission reductions needed to 

achieve the goal of AB 32 (i.e., 1990 levels by 2020) CARB developed a forecast of the AB 32 Baseline 

2020 emissions, which is an estimate of the emissions expected to occur in the year 2020 if none of the 

foreseeable measures included in the Scoping Plan were implemented. CARB estimated the AB 32 

Baseline 2020 to be 509 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). The Scoping 

Plan’s current estimate of the necessary GHG emission reductions is 78 MMT CO2e (CARB 2014). This 

represents an approximately 15 percent reduction. CARB is forecasting that this would be achieved 

through the following reductions by sector: 25 MMT CO2e for energy, 23 MMT CO2e for transportation, 

5 MMT CO2e for high-global warming potential GHGs, and 2 MMT CO2e for waste. The remaining 

23 MMT CO2e would be achieved through Cap-and-Trade Program reductions. This reduction is 

flexible—if CARB receives new information and changes the other sectors’ reductions to be less than 

expected, the agency can increase the Cap-and-Trade reduction (and vice versa).

In response to EO B-30-15 and SB 32, all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions 

were directed to implement measures to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 

2050 targets. CARB was directed to update the Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target and, therefore, is 

moving forward with the update process. The mid-term target is critical to help frame the suite of policy 

measures, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure 

needed to continue driving down emissions. CARB is moving forward with a second update to the 

Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. The 2017 

Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas 

Target, was released in draft form on January 20, 2017.

In an effort to reduce energy consumption, reduce GHGs, reduce dependence on petroleum, and 

increase the use of renewable energy resources the Navy has implemented a number of renewable 

energy projects. The Navy has established Fiscal Year 2020 GHG emissions reduction targets of 

34 percent from a FY 2008 baseline for direct GHG emissions and 13.5 percent for indirect emissions. 

Examples of Navy-wide GHG reduction projects include energy efficient construction, thermal and 

photovoltaic solar systems, geothermal power plants, and the generation of electricity with wind 

energy. The Navy continues to promote and install new renewable energy projects.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-12

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1.2 Affected Environment

Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) is in San Diego County, which is within the San Diego Intrastate 

Air Quality Control Region (AQCR). The SDAPCD is responsible for implementing and enforcing state and 

federal air quality regulations in San Diego County. San Diego has been determined by the USEPA to be a 

nonattainment area for 8-hour ozone, with a classification of Moderate under the 2008 standard and 

Maintenance under the 1997 standard. San Diego is also on maintenance for CO. The County is classified 

by the USEPA as unclassified/ attainment for all other criteria pollutants. Because San Diego County is in 

nonattainment for ozone and on maintenance for CO, a General Conformity evaluation is required.

The most recent emissions inventory for San Diego County is shown in Table 3-4. VOC and NOX

emissions are used to represent ozone generation because they are precursors of ozone.

Table 3-4

San Diego County Air Emissions Inventory (2011)

Location NOX

(tpy)

VOC

(tpy)

CO

(tpy)

SO2

(tpy)

PM10

(tpy)

PM2.5

(tpy)

San Diego 42,845 156,407 270,195 1,100 31,251 10,918

Source: EPA, 2013

Key: tpy = tons per year

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences

Effects on air quality are based on estimated direct and indirect emissions associated with the action 

alternatives. The Region of Influence (ROI) for assessing air quality impacts is the air basin in which the 

project is located, the San Diego Air Basin.

Estimated emissions from a proposed federal action are typically compared with the relevant national 

and state standards to assess the potential for increases in pollutant concentrations.

Based on the discussion provided in Section 3.1.1, Regulatory Setting, this analysis is aimed at 

demonstrating the selected Alternative’s potential to interfere with the State’s ability to attain the 

NAAQS.

3.1.3.1 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur and there would be no near-term 

change to baseline air quality. However, the existing 30-MW cogeneration plant would be 

decommissioned in accordance with the plant’s existing decommissioning plan resulting in minor, 

localized, short-term effects on air quality. Emission estimates as analyzed in the Final Environmental 

Assessment for the Decentralization of the Steam System at Naval Base Coronado are provided in 

Table 3-5, below. (For more information on emissions associated with the demolition of the existing 

cogeneration plant, please see the 2014 Final EA for the Decentralization of Steam Systems at Naval 

Base Coronado.) As shown therein, emissions of pollutants subject to General Conformity are below 

their respective de minimis values. Therefore, no significant impacts to air quality or air resources would 

occur with implementation of the No Action Alternative.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-13

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-5

Estimated Emissions (tons per year) at NASNI and Comparison 

to General Conformity Under No Action Alternative

Year VOC CO NOX SO2 PM10 PM2.5

2017 0.39 0.31 0.60 0.02 0.04 0.03

General Conformity de minimis 

Threshold 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: DON, 2014

3.1.3.2 Alternative 1 – Convert Existing 30-MW Cogeneration Plant on Site 1 

Potential Impacts

Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in conversion of an existing steam cogeneration plant to a 

natural gas peaker plant at Site 1 at NASNI, near the intersection of Quay Road and Rogers Road (refer 

to Figure 2-1). The retrofit of the existing facility to a peaker plant would take up to six months and 

would be operational no later than August 2018. Alternative 1 would result in emissions of air pollutants 

during both construction and operations. 

Criteria Pollutants

Construction emissions would include emissions associated with off-road and on-road construction 

equipment and worker vehicles. Construction is assumed to begin in 2017 and last approximately 

six months. The main source of operational emissions associated with Alternative 1 would include 

exhaust emissions associated with the natural gas turbine already in use at the existing cogeneration 

plant. However, as stated in 40 CFR 93.153 - Applicability Subsection (d)(1), a conformity determination 

is not required for "The portion of an action that includes major or minor new or modified stationary 

sources that require a permit under the new source review (NSR) program." This is because emissions of 

all permitted sources are, by definition, consistent with the SIP. Therefore, permitted emissions do not 

interfere with the State’s ability to attain the NAAQS and are not considered as contributing to a 

significant air quality impact under NEPA. The stationary sources at the new peaker plant would be 

required to obtain a permit to operate under the USEPA and SDAPCD's New Source Review 

requirements. Emissions associated with the turbine are therefore not subject to the requirements of 

general conformity. Therefore, operational emissions estimated and presented below do not include 

turbine emissions. Additional potential to emit calculations and implications to the permitting process 

have been included in Appendix B to provide both (i) a complete background of the current situation;

and (ii) the emissions information needed to inform the decision(s) to be made.

Table 3-6 shows the estimated construction and operational emissions generated under Alternative 1

that would be subject to General Conformity. Emissions of pollutants subject to General Conformity are 

below their respective de minimis values; therefore, a Record of Non-Applicability has been prepared 

and is included in Appendix A. Detailed construction and operational assumptions and emissions 

calculations are provided in Appendix C.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-14

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-6

Estimated Emissions (tons per year) at NASNI and Comparison

to General Conformity Under Alternative 1

Year VOC CO NOX SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Construction – 2017 0.09 0.48 0.74 <0.01 0.05 0.05

Operations – 2018 0.01 0.02 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01

General Conformity de minimis 

Threshold 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: DON, 2014

Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in emissions of air pollutants during both construction and 

operations. As shown in Table 3-6 emissions not previously analyzed and/or accounted for via permit 

would be below de minimis levels. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in an 

adverse effect related to air quality. 

Hazardous Air Pollutants

Implementation of Alternative 1 would contribute directly to emissions of HAPs from the combustion of 

fossil fuels.

Construction activities would result in short-term, Project-generated emissions of diesel particulate 

matter (DPM) from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment. DPM contains gaseous 

hazardous air pollutants including acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde and 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to 

determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the 

environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Thus, the risks estimated for a maximally 

exposed individual (MEI) are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer time period. Health risk 

assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to HAP emissions, are typically based 

on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of 

activities associated with the Project.

There are no sensitive receptors within one-half mile of Site 1. Additionally, as presented earlier in 

Table 3-6, maximum daily particulate emissions, which include DPM, would be relatively low when 

compared to the threshold. Furthermore, the construction period would be relatively short 

(approximately 6 months), especially when compared to 70 years. Combined with the highly dispersive 

properties of DPM, construction-related emissions of HAPs would not expose sensitive receptors to 

substantial emissions of HAPs. 

As with criteria pollutants, the main source of operational emissions associated with Alternative 1 would 

include exhaust emissions associated with the natural gas turbine. Details required to accurately 

quantify turbine emissions are not known at this time. Turbine emissions vary based on the efficiency, 

energy output, and annual operating hours. A detailed health risk assessment would be required as part 

of the permitting processes to ensure the surrounding population is not exposed to unhealthful levels of 

HAPs. If potentially harmful levels may occur, the SDAPCD may impose limits and prescribe reduction 

measures, such as Toxics-Best Available Control Technologies (T-BACTs), to ensure the health of the 

surrounding area. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in an adverse effect 

related to HAPs.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-15

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Greenhouse Gases

Implementation of Alternative 1 would contribute directly to emissions of GHGs from the combustion of 

fossil fuels. Construction activities would generate approximately 64 metric tons (MT) of CO2e assuming 

the proposed activities occurred during 2017. Once the facility is operational, the new peaker plant 

would be subject to the requirements of CARB’s Mandatory Reporting Regulation and the USEPA’s 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. CARB’s regulation requires facilities emitting more than 10,000 MT 

CO2e to report their emissions and participate in the Cap-and-Trade program. USEPA’s program requires 

facilities emitting more than 25,000 MT CO2e to report their emissions. As with the Title V and NSR 

permits, reporting the peaker plant’s emissions would be the responsibility of the private partner. 

Details required to accurately quantify turbine emissions are not known at this time. Turbine GHG 

emissions vary based on the efficiency, energy output, and annual operating hours. Current technologies 

are reliably able to achieve an efficiency ranging from 30 to 40 percent. Turbines with efficiencies up to 

60 percent are expected to be commercially available in the next couple of years. Based on the 

assumptions described in Section 2.3, a 50 MW natural gas turbine operating 1,416 hours per year with 

an efficiency of 35 percent would generate approximately 35,000 MT CO2e per year. If the efficiency is 

increased to 60 percent, the emissions drop to approximately 20,000 MT CO2e per year. Likewise, if the 

operating hours or energy output were increased or decreased, so too would the emissions. The

quantification of the peaker plant’s emissions would be refined by the private partner in the future and 

would be reported and minimized as required by the mandatory reporting regulations issued by CARB 

and the USEPA.

Implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to air quality.

3.1.3.3 Alternative 2 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 2

Potential Impacts

Facilities developed under Alternative 2 would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 1; 

however, the proposed natural gas peaker plant would be constructed on an existing paved parking lot 

adjacent to Site 1 instead of converting an existing steam cogeneration plant. 

Alternative 2 would result in emissions of air pollutants during both construction and operations similar 

to those estimated for Alternative 1. Therefore, implementation of this action alternative would not 

result in significant impacts to air quality.

3.1.3.4 Alternative 3 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic System on Site 2

Potential Impacts

Facilities developed under Alternative 3 would involve a large integrated battery facility with a small 

photovoltaic system on Site 2.

Alternative 3 would result in emissions of air pollutants during construction only similar to those 

estimated for Alternative 1. The photovoltaic system would replace the natural gas turbine, thereby 

eliminating the primary source of operations-phase emissions described under Alternative 1.

Conversely, the energy generated by the proposed photovoltaic system would replace the energy 

consumption provided by burning of fossil fuels, thereby resulting in an indirect reduction of GHG 

emissions.

Therefore, implementation of this action alternative would not result in significant impacts to air quality.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-16

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1.3.5 Alternative 4 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 3

Potential Impacts

Facilities developed under Alternative 4 would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 2; 

however, the proposed natural gas peaker plant would be constructed on an existing parking lot about 

0.5 km (0.3 mile) south of Site 2.

Alternative 4 would result in emissions of air pollutants during both construction and operations similar 

to those estimated for Alternative 1.

Therefore, implementation of this action alternative would not result in significant impacts to air quality.

3.1.3.6 Alternative 5 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic on Site 3

Potential Impacts

Facilities developed under Alternative 5 would involve a large integrated battery facility with a small 

photovoltaic system on Site 3. Alternative 5 would result in emissions of air pollutants similar to the 

development included in Alternative 3. Similar to the discussion for Alternative 3, implementation of 

Alternative 5 would not result in any significant impacts to air quality.

3.1.3.7 Alternative 6 – Operation of Existing Cogeneration Plant on Site 1

Potential Impacts

Facilities developed under Alternative 6 would involve the continued operation of the existing 30-MW 

cogeneration plant on Site 1. As with Alternative 1, the main source of operational emissions associated 

with Alternative 6 would include exhaust emissions associated with the natural gas turbine. The turbine 

would be required to operate under the requirements of a new, modified, or existing permit. As detailed 

for Alternative 1, emissions of all permitted sources are, by definition, consistent with the SIP. 

Therefore, permitted emissions do not interfere with the State’s ability to attain the NAAQS and are not 

considered as contributing to a significant air quality impact under NEPA. Additional potential to emit 

calculations and implications to the permitting process have been included in Appendix B to provide 

both (i) a complete background of the current situation; and (ii) the emissions information needed to 

inform the decision(s) to be made. As shown therein, fulltime operation of the natural gas turbine could 

result in a more than six-fold increase to the emissions released from the turbine when compared to the 

part-time operation assumed under Alternative 1. Alternative 6 would result in emissions of air 

pollutants during operations only, similar to those described for Alternative 1. Decommissioning and 

construction would not occur under this Alternative, which would result in some decrease in 

construction equipment and ultimately, to air emissions. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 6 

would not result in significant impacts to air quality.

3.2 Visual Resources

This discussion of visual resources includes the natural and built features of the landscape visible from 

public views that contribute to an area’s visual quality. Visual perception is an important component of 

environmental quality that can be impacted through changes created by various projects. Visual impacts 

occur as a result of the relationship between people and the physical environment.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-17

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.2.1 Regulatory Setting

3.2.1.1 Naval Base Coronado Installation Appearance Plan

The NBC Installation Appearance Plan provides guidance for the design, development, and review of all 

construction and renovation projects at NBC (NAVFAC, 2008). The purpose of the document is to direct 

new development and restoration, as well as protect natural and historic resources. The document also 

includes information related to wayfinding, visual assets and liabilities at NBC, and recommends 

materials and construction elements be maintained by local resources when possible. The document 

addresses all properties that are part of NBC, and describes NASNI as a densely developed, industrial 

oriented facility with a few major boulevards and buildings. The overall aesthetic of NASNI comprises 

“pavement and functionality.” Landscaping between the City of Coronado and NASNI is characterized as 

“good to fair,” and the majority of industrial landscaping is “of poor quality.” Figure 3-1 depicts vehicular 

routes and focal points throughout NASNI. The action alternatives are located just south of Quay Road, 

which is identified within the Base as a Secondary Vehicular Route. The nearest focal point to the action 

alternatives is at the roundabout where Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, 4th Street, McCain Boulevard, 

Gowan Street, and Wright Avenue converge just south of and adjacent to the airfield. The NASNI historic 

district is identified more than 0.8 kilometer (km) (0.5 mile) north of the action alternatives. According 

to the Installation Appearance Plan, all action alternatives are located within areas identified as a 

“visually poor area.”
Vehicular Routes and Focal Points at NASNI

NAVAL AIR STATION NORTH ISLAND

Figure 3-1

Source: Naval Base Coronado Installation Appearance Plan, 2008

I:\PROJECTS\N\NAV\NAV-03.10_EnergySecurity\Map\EA_NASNI\Fig3_1_VehicularRoutes.indd NAV-03.10 12/12/16 -EV

0 725m

Site 2

Site 3

Site 1
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-19

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The following subsections discuss local municipal plans. Although not formally subject to such plans, the 

Navy attempts to substantively comply with them as a matter of policy to the maximum extent 

practicable.

3.2.1.2 State of California Streets and Highway Code

The action alternatives are located about 2.4 km (1.5 miles) north of State Route (SR-) 75, which is 

designated as a scenic highway by the State of California. Scenic highways are regulated at the state 

level by Sections 260–284 of the Streets and Highway Code State of California 2014. Section 261 of the 

code requires local agencies to take actions to protect the scenic appearance of the scenic corridor, 

which includes the land adjacent to the highway right-of-way. These actions may include (1) regulations 

of land use and intensity (density) of development; (2) detailed land and site planning; (3) control of 

outdoor advertising; (4) careful attention to and control of earthmoving and landscaping; and (5) the 

design and appearance of structures and equipment.

3.2.1.3 City of Coronado General Plan

NASNI is within the limits of the City of Coronado. The City’s Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan 

is intended to implement the Streets and Highways Code Sections 260–284. The element includes goals 

and strategies to preserve the quality of the scenic resources of the Silver Strand. Goal 3 addresses 

minimization of the visual intrusion of new construction and remodeling of existing structures.

3.2.1.4 Port of San Diego Master Plan

The proposed action alternatives are located in proximity to Port lands along the San Diego Bay and 

border Planning District 6, Coronado Bayfront, located immediately south of NASNI. The Port of San 

Diego Master Plan identifies Vista Areas throughout the San Diego Bayfront, which are points of natural 

visual beauty intended to be preserved and enhanced. Designated Vista Areas within Planning District 6 

near the Proposed Action are located at Centennial Park facing east towards downtown San Diego. 

Planning Districts 1, 2, and 3 are located at Shelter Island, Harbor Island, and downtown San Diego, 

across the bay from NASNI, respectively. Each of these Planning Districts includes designated Vista Areas 

facing the San Diego Bay and/or NASNI.

3.2.2 Affected Environment

Project Viewshed

For the action alternatives, the visual resources ROI includes the action alternative sites and surrounding 

areas that are within sight of public viewing areas. The ROI for visual resources of the Proposed Action is 

generally limited because the action alternative locations within NASNI are internal to the Base, away 

from public viewing areas. Views of NASNI and the action alternative sites from Coronado to the south 

are limited due to intervening landscaping and structures that preclude views of NASNI; however, some 

views into NASNI are available along 1st Street in Coronado heading northwest. Existing views from 

1st Street in Coronado do not include the action alternative sites due to distance and intervening 

development and landscaping. Distant views of portions of NASNI in general are available from Shelter 

Island, Harbor Island, and downtown San Diego across from the San Diego Bay; however, views from 

these areas are generally focused on the San Diego Bay and do not include high-quality views onto the 

action alternative sites. 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-20

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.2.2.1 Visual Environment

Existing Visual Character/Quality

Visual character is defined by descriptive attributes in the landscape. Natural and artificial landscape 

features contribute to the visual character of both regional areas and specific viewpoints. Visual 

character is influenced by geologic, hydrologic, botanical, wildlife, recreational, and urban features. 

Urban features include those associated with development such as structures, roads, utilities, 

earthworks, and the results of other human activities. The perception of visual character can vary 

seasonally, even hourly, as weather, light, shadow, and elements that compose the viewshed change. 

The basic elements used to describe visual character for most visual assessments are the form, line, 

color, and texture of landscape features. The appearance of the landscape is described in terms of 

dominance of these components.

The northeastern part of NASNI (where the three action alternative sites are located) is near a singlefamily residential area of the City of Coronado and includes an entrance via 1st Street, which becomes 

Quay Road as it continues onto the Base. Areas along Quay Road are reserved for military use and are 

not available to the general public. Visual elements upon entering the Base include an energy 

interconnection station and the NBC main substation and large parking areas, some of which are 

covered with solar panels. The North Island Navy Exchange is a large box store single-story building 

along Quay Road and includes some landscaping, including grass areas and trees within parking lots. 

A seven-story barracks building 

is located along 2nd Street, just south of action alternative sites 1 and 2 and north of site 3, is visible 

from parts of Alameda Boulevard. The San Diego Bay offers views towards downtown San Diego, Harbor 

Island, and Shelter Island.

The discussion of viewer groups and viewer response is described below from the perspective of 

off-Base public viewers. Overall, off-Base views are either precluded by intervening landscaping and 

development or by distance as public areas are separated by the San Diego Bay. 

Viewer Groups

Development activity surrounding the action alternative sites includes a mixture of public and private 

lands and streets; however, views of the Proposed Action from public areas are generally unavailable. 

Uses on private lands and streets yield the following viewer groups: motorists, recreationalists, and 

residents. Based on the regulatory environment, this analysis focuses primarily on vehicular and 

recreational viewer groups as these viewers are likely to be composed of residents and tourists.

Viewer Response

Existing Viewer Sensitivity

Viewer sensitivity is used as an evaluation term to discuss viewer concern for, and response to, changes 

in the visual landscape. The viewer’s individual association with the environment can help determine 

their sensitivity to change as can their activity while viewing, so it is important to determine whether 

their views are incidental or sought-after. Activities such as commuting in heavy traffic can distract an 

observer from many aspects of the visual environment. On the other hand, recreational driving can 

encourage the examination of a landscape at greater length, thereby increasing the observer’s attention 

to detail. For the purposes of this evaluation, sensitivity ratings have been based on viewer group 

activity and the levels of awareness typically associated with that group. 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-21

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Existing Viewer Exposure

Viewer exposure is assessed by measuring the number of viewers experiencing potential changes in 

their visual environment. Those viewers are sorted by type of activity, duration of view, speed at which 

the viewer is travelling, and the resulting positions of the viewer relative to the proposed changes. 

Typically, viewer exposure would be characterized as low, if less than 100 viewers daily; moderate if 

between 100 and 1,000 viewers; or high when greater than 1,000 viewers daily. Applied to the highest 

frequency viewers outlined previously, viewer exposure for the Proposed Action would be low, as views 

of the area are generally unavailable from surrounding areas outside of NASNI.

Viewer Awareness

Anticipated viewer awareness is determined based on the degree to which a viewer group is receptive 

to the visual details, character, and quality of the surrounding landscape. A viewer’s ability to perceive 

the landscape is affected by their activity on the landscape. For example, non-local recreationists may 

take pleasure in sightseeing and observing the landscape; residents may be strongly attached to the 

view from their homes; and a commuter travelling through the area may not perceive any change, but 

may also be as perceptive to the landscape as a resident (ancillary exposure on a daily basis results in 

mixed reactions and perceptions).

Landscape Units

Coronado Landscape Unit

NASNI is visible from the northwestern portion of the City of Coronado, located adjacent and to the 

south of NASNI. However, views are limited to within roadway corridors along 1st through 5th Streets in 

Coronado, which travel towards NASNI, and along Alameda Boulevard, which is situated in a north-south 

alignment and travels along the edge of NASNI and Coronado. Areas further south of NASNI include a 

single-family residential neighborhood with one- and two-story buildings and landscaping which 

completely block views of the Base from other residential areas in Coronado. Motorists travelling along 

Alameda Boulevard have some northern-facing views into NASNI between 2nd and 3rd Streets, while 

the rest of the length of Alameda Boulevard is lined with trees that generally prohibit expansive or 

striking views of the Base. Distant views of NASNI are available from SR-75 southbound lanes, about 

2.4 km (1.5 miles) south of the action alternatives. The dominant features from SR-75 include San Diego 

Bay and western-facing views of Coronado. Views by motorists are generally western facing, and are not 

directly oriented towards NASNI. Due to the distance of the SR-75 from the action alternatives sites, 

views of these areas are generally unavailable and viewer sensitivity, exposure, and awareness are 

generally low from the residential areas within the Coronado Landscape Unit.

Downtown San Diego Landscape Unit

NASNI is located about 1.2 km (0.75-mile) west of public viewing areas in downtown San Diego, 

including Tuna Harbor Park, Ruocco Park, and Seaport Village. Tourists and residents visit these areas for 

views of Coronado and the San Diego Bay, which dominate a majority of the views. Views onto NASNI 

are limited due to distance, the relatively flat terrain on NASNI, and also the presence of military ships in 

the San Diego Bay, which periodically are docked along NASNI, between the action alternative sites and 

downtown San Diego. While there are likely to be thousands of viewers in downtown San Diego that 

enjoy views of San Diego Bay, due to the absence of views onto the action alternative sites, viewers are 

not expected to notice actions on any of the action alternative sites.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-22

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Harbor Island/Shelter Island Landscape Unit

Views from Harbor Island and Shelter Island, both of which occur north of NASNI, are very distant, and 

range between 2.4 to 3.2 km (1.5 to 2.0 miles) from the action alternative sites. Similar to the 

description of existing views from downtown San Diego, views from Harbor and Shelter Island are 

dominated by views of the San Diego Bay. Views from this landscape unit also include views of the 

downtown San Diego skyline. Due to the generally flat topography of NASNI and the minimal difference 

in elevation between NASNI and viewing areas on Harbor Island and Shelter Island, residents and 

recreationists do not have views into the areas of the action alternative sites. 

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences

The evaluation of visual resources in the context of environmental analysis typically addresses the 

contrast between visible landscape elements. Collectively, these elements comprise the aesthetic 

environment, or landscape character. The landscape character is compared to the Proposed Action’s 

visual qualities to determine the compatibility or contrast resulting from the buildout and demolition 

activities associated with the Proposed Action.

3.2.3.1 Approach to Analysis

The discussion of visual conditions was described using distance qualifiers; that is, elements observed in 

the visual environment are discussed relative to their placement in the view as being at a foreground, 

middleground, and background distance. For the purposes of this assessment, these distance categories 

were defined as follows:

• Foreground – less than 0.8 km (0.5 mile) from the viewer

• Middleground – between 0.8 km (0.5 mile) and 1.6 km (1 mile) from the viewer

• Background – more than 1.6 km (1 mile) from the viewer

To better understand existing conditions and potential viewer response, Key Views (Landscape Units) 

were selected based on a composite evaluation of the preceding project and corridor analyses. Three 

Key Views were selected for their ability to simultaneously represent existing conditions and 

authentically depict the proposed effects of project implementation.

When considering potential visual impact, compatibility with surrounding visual character has the 

greatest influence on how the new element would be perceived by viewers in the landscape. The second 

primary factor is viewer sensitivity or the extent of viewer concern for, and the response to, changes in 

the visual landscape. The viewer’s individual association with the environment can help determine 

whether their views are incidental or sought-after. Activities such as commuting in heavy traffic can 

distract an observer from many aspects of the visual environment while recreational driving can 

encourage the examination of a landscape at greater length. For the purposes of this evaluation, 

sensitivity ratings have been based on viewer group activity and the levels of awareness typically 

associated with that group.

Viewer sensitivity is influenced by the setting: viewers in recreational areas are considered to have high 

sensitivity to visual change; motorists along SR-75 are considered to have moderate to moderately high 

sensitivity to visual resources due to the scenic nature of SR-75, and its scenic highway designation. 

Residential viewers are generally considered to have moderately high to high sensitivity when homes 

are located adjacent to a future development. However, because private views are generally not 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-23

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

accessible to the public, residential viewers were considered as members of other viewer groups 

(e.g., motorists or recreationalists).

Existing operations at NASNI include training and support facilities, including an existing steam 

cogeneration plant and other industrial-related improvements (e.g., storage tanks and related 

infrastructure). Viewers on-Base currently are, and are likely to remain, primarily military personnel 

associated with military activities and their support. Therefore, the visual characteristics of the proposed 

facilities would be consistent with the expectations of most on-Base viewers; no further discussion of 

on-Base viewers or viewsheds is included. 

3.2.3.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur and the existing steam 

cogeneration plant would be decommissioned and removed from Site 1. Removal of the existing steam 

cogeneration plant would not tend to be visually noticeable from public areas as a general matter, and 

the existing visual character and quality of NASNI as an operating military base would remain similar to 

existing conditions. (For more information on visual impacts associated with demolition of the existing 

cogeneration plant, please see the 2014 Final EA for the Decentralization of Steam Systems at Naval 

Base Coronado.) No significant impacts would occur with implementation of the No Action Alternative.

3.2.3.3 Alternative 1 – Upgrade Existing 30-MW Cogeneration Plant on Site 1 

Proposed Visual Character/Quality

Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in upgrading the existing steam cogeneration plant to a 

natural gas peaker plant at Site 1. While specific development plans for the natural gas peaker plant are 

not currently developed, the proposed peaker plant would generally consist of a system of gas turbines 

that burn natural gas. Associated facilities would commonly include large tanks to store demineralized 

water and ammonia, an exhaust stack, equipment enclosures, transformers, and other associated 

equipment within about a 30.1-meter (100 foot) by 15.2-meter (50-foot area). The tallest point of the 

proposed natural gas peaker plant is expected to not exceed 15.2 meters (50 feet) in height (e.g., the 

exhaust stack), which would be similar to the existing steam cogeneration plant, which is between 12.2 

to 15.2 meters (40 to 50 feet in height). The site and surrounding areas generally consist of large paved 

concrete areas with parking, roadways, the existing steam cogeneration plant, and several buildings at 

NASNI, each of which contribute to the military and industrial character of Site 1. The proposed natural 

gas peaker plant would generally appear similar in size and scale to the existing steam cogeneration 

plant, and would continue to appear as an industrial development on NASNI, similar to the existing 

visual character. Also, the proposed peak plant would be designed in accordance with the Installation 

Appearance Plan. No other improvements in the area are associated with Alternative 1. As there is 

limited off-Base visibility of the existing steam cogeneration plant, upgrading to a peaker plant of similar 

size would not substantially alter existing views from off-site. The profile and scale of the new facilities 

would generally be unnoticed from any of the landscape units described above as none of the landscape 

units are within view of Site 1. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in significant 

impacts to visual resources.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-24

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Change to Visual Character/Quality and Anticipated Viewer Response

Coronado Landscape Unit

No views would be altered by the proposed upgrades to the existing steam cogeneration plant from 

views in the adjacent residential neighborhood in Coronado. Because views into NASNI from adjacent 

areas are mostly precluded by intervening development and vegetation, as well as the distance from the 

closest residential neighborhood within the City of Coronado to Site 1 (about 0.8 km or 0.5 mile), viewer 

sensitivity, exposure, and awareness is anticipated to be low.

Downtown San Diego Landscape Unit

The replacement of the existing steam cogeneration plant with natural gas peaker plant would be only 

minimally visible from downtown San Diego, which is located more than 1.2 km (0.75 mile) east of 

Site 1. Foreground and middleground views from downtown are focused on the San Diego Bay, which 

would not be affected by construction and operation of Alternative 1. Background views would include 

NASNI as a whole, which commonly includes ships docked along the eastern and northern edges of 

NASNI; however, views onto the interior of NASNI are mostly unavailable due to the distance from 

downtown, as well as the flat topography of NASNI. Due to the limited availability of views of Site 1 from 

downtown, viewer sensitivity, exposure, and awareness would be low, and visual changes would not be 

noticed.

Harbor Island/Shelter Island Landscape Unit

The proposed changes under Alternative 1 would not be visible from Harbor Island or Shelter Island, 

which are located about 2.4 km (1.5 miles) and 3.2 km (2.0 miles) from Site 1, respectively. Foreground 

and middleground views include the San Diego Bay, which commonly includes a variety of recreational, 

commercial, and military watercraft. Background views include distant views of the northern edge of 

NASNI near the San Diego Bay, which is more than 0.8 km (0.5-mile) from Site 1. Due to the 

unavailability of views onto Site 1 from Harbor Island and Shelter Island, viewer sensitivity, exposure, 

and awareness is considered to be low.

Conclusion

Implementation of Alternative 1 would require the use of construction equipment, construction traffic, 

and stockpiled materials; however, due to the distance of Site 1 from any surrounding areas outside of 

NASNI, as well as intervening development and landscaping, no appreciable visual impact would be 

anticipated during construction. Viewers would not likely notice site changes during construction, and 

construction activities at Site 1 associated with Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to 

visual resources.

Alternative 1 would not result in a noticeable change to existing conditions on-Base from any of the 

landscape units described above, including Coronado Island, downtown San Diego, Harbor Island, and 

Shelter Island. No significant impacts to visual resources would occur if Alternative 1 is implemented.

3.2.3.4 Alternative 2 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 2 

Facilities developed under Alternative 2 would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 1; 

however, the proposed natural gas peaker plant would be constructed on an existing parking lot 

adjacent to the cogeneration plant on Site 1 evaluated above under Alternative 1. Development layout, 

structure heights, and project scale would be similar to Alternative 1 and would be designed in 

accordance with the Installation Appearance Plan. Site 2 is located just north and adjacent to Site 1. 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-25

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Similar to the precluded visibility of Site 1 from surrounding Landscape Units, implementation of 

Alternative 2 would not result in any significant impacts to visual resources.

Coronado Landscape Unit

Similar to the discussion for Alternative 1, views of Site 2 are not generally available from residential 

areas in the City of Coronado along Alameda Boulevard and 1st through 4th Streets due to distance, 

intervening landscaping, and development.

Downtown San Diego Landscape Unit

Due to distance and the views of the San Diego Bay in the foreground and middleground, background 

views would not be substantially altered and would be similar to Alternative 1.

Harbor Island/Shelter Island Landscape Unit

Due to the location of Site 2 over 0.8 km (0.5-mile) from the northern shore of NASNI and the views of 

the San Diego Bay in the foreground and middleground, background views would not be substantially 

altered and would be similar to Alternative 1.

Conclusion

Similar to Alternative 1, implementation of Alternative 2 would require the use of construction 

equipment and other contractor vehicles; however, construction activities would generally not be visible 

from the landscape units discussed above. The completed project area would be cleaned up after 

construction; however, viewers are not anticipated to see construction activities. Similarly, viewshed 

modification would be similar to Alternative 1, and the modifications are not expected to be visible. 

Thus, no significant impacts to visual resources would occur under Alternative 2.

3.2.3.5 Alternative 3 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic System on Site 2 

Facilities developed under Alternative 3 would involve a large integrated battery facility with a small 

photovoltaic system on Site 2. The development layout, scale, and structure heights would be similar or 

smaller than the development included in Alternatives 1 and 2. Each container housing the large 

integrated batteries would be painted with earth-tone colors to blend in with the surrounding 

environment. Similar to the discussion for Alternative 2, implementation of Alternative 3 would not 

result in any significant impacts to visual resources.

Coronado Landscape Unit

As discussed for Alternative 2, views of Site 2 are generally not available from residential areas in the 

City of Coronado along Alameda Boulevard and 1st through 4th Streets due to distance, intervening 

landscaping, and development.

Downtown San Diego Landscape Unit

Due to distance and the views of the San Diego Bay in the foreground and middleground, background 

views would not be substantially altered and would be similar to Alternative 2.

Harbor Island/Shelter Island Landscape Unit

Due to the location of Site 2 over 0.8 km (0.5-mile) from the northern shore of NASNI and the views of 

the San Diego Bay in the foreground and middleground, background views would not be substantially 

altered and would be similar to Alternative 2.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-26

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Conclusion

Similar to Alternative 2, implementation of Alternative 3 would require the use of construction 

equipment and other contractor vehicles; however, construction activities would generally not be visible 

from the landscape units discussed above. The completed project area would be cleaned up after 

construction; however, viewers are not anticipated to see construction activities. Similarly, viewshed 

modification would be similar to Alternative 2, and the modifications are not expected to be visible. 

Thus, no significant impacts to visual resources would occur under Alternative 3.

3.2.3.6 Alternative 4 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 3 

Facilities developed under Alternative 4 would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 2; 

however, the proposed natural gas peaker plant would be constructed on an existing parking lot about 

0.5 km (0.3-mile) south of Site 2, which is closer to public views in Coronado than Sites 1 and 2. 

Development layout, structure heights, and project scale would be the same as Alternative 2 and would 

be designed in accordance with the Installation Appearance Plan. Similar to the precluded visibility of 

Site 2 from surrounding Landscape Units, implementation of Alternative 4 would not result in any 

significant impacts on visual resources.

Coronado Landscape Unit

Site 3 is located about 0.4 km (0.25-mile) north of the closest residential neighborhood within the City of 

Coronado, which is the nearest location for an off-Base viewer. Due to distance, intervening landscaping, 

and development, views of Site 3 are not available; however, views of the upper portions of a peaker 

plant up to 15.2 meters (50 feet) in height may be visible from this landscape unit, which would appear 

alongside Quay Road. While some portions of the peaker plant may be visible, distance and intervening 

landscaping and development would result in low viewer awareness, sensitivity, and exposure to the 

proposed peaker plant. As a result, a significant aesthetic impact under Alternative 4 is not anticipated. 

Downtown San Diego Landscape Unit

Due to distance and the views of the San Diego Bay in the foreground and middleground, background 

views would not be substantially altered.

Harbor Island/Shelter Island Landscape Unit

Due to the location of Site 3 over 0.8 km (0.5-mile) from the northern shore of NASNI and the views of 

the San Diego Bay in the foreground and middleground, background views would not be substantially 

altered.

Conclusion

Implementation of Alternative 4 would require the use of construction equipment and other contractor 

vehicles; however, construction activities would generally not be visible from the landscape units 

discussed above. The completed project area would be cleaned up after construction; however, viewers 

generally would not be anticipated to see construction activities. Viewshed modification is generally not 

expected to be noticeable from surrounding off-Base viewing areas, and while the upper portions of the 

peaker plant may be visible, a significant impact to visual resources is not expected to occur.

3.2.3.7 Alternative 5 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic System on Site 3 

Facilities developed under Alternative 5 would involve a large integrated battery facility with a small 

photovoltaic system on Site 3, which is closer to public views in Coronado than Sites 1 and 2. The 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-27

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

development layout, scale, and structure heights would be similar or smaller than the development 

included in Alternative 3. Similar to the discussion for Alternative 3, implementation of Alternative 5 

would not result in any significant impacts on visual resources.

Coronado Landscape Unit

Views of Site 3 are generally not available from residential areas in the City of Coronado along Alameda 

Boulevard and 1st through 4th Streets due to distance, intervening landscaping, and development.

Downtown San Diego Landscape Unit

Due to distance and the views of the San Diego Bay in the foreground and middleground, background 

views would not be substantially altered.

Harbor Island/Shelter Island Landscape Unit

Due to the location of Site 3 over 0.8 km (0.5-mile) from the northern shore of NASNI and the views of 

the San Diego Bay in the foreground and middleground, background views would not be substantially 

altered.

Conclusion

Implementation of Alternative 5 would require the use of construction equipment and other contractor 

vehicles; however, construction activities would not generally be visible from the landscape units 

discussed above. The completed project area would be cleaned up after construction; however, viewers 

are not anticipated to see construction activities. Similarly, viewshed modifications are generally not 

expected to be visible. Thus, no significant impacts to visual resources would occur. 

3.2.3.8 Alternative 6 – Operation of Existing Cogeneration Plant on Site 1

Implementation of Alternative 6 would result in maintaining the existing steam cogeneration plant at 

Site 1. The development layout, scale, and structure heights would be similar to existing conditions. 

Similar to the discussion for Alternative 1, implementation of Alternative 6 would not result in any 

significant impacts on visual resources.

Coronado Landscape Unit

Similar to the discussion for Alternative 1, views are not generally available from residential areas in the 

City of Coronado along Alameda Boulevard and 1st through 4th Streets due to distance, intervening 

landscaping, and development.

Downtown San Diego Landscape Unit

Due to distance and the views of the San Diego Bay in the foreground and middleground, background 

views would not be substantially altered and would be similar to Alternative 1.

Harbor Island/Shelter Island Landscape Unit

Due to the unavailability of views onto Site 1 from Harbor Island and Shelter Island, views would not be 

altered and would be similar to Alternative 1.

Conclusion

Implementation of Alternative 6 would not require the use of construction equipment and other 

contractor vehicles as the existing cogeneration plant would continue similar to existing conditions. 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-28

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Viewshed modification would be less than Alternative 1 as there are no upgrades proposed under 

Alternative 6. Thus, no significant impacts on visual resources would occur under Alternative 6.

3.3 Noise

This section describes the existing and projected noise levels for the project area, and also analyzes

potential impacts to the ambient sound environment that may occur with implementation of the 

alternatives.

The following discussion is based on a review of relevant state and local regulations, current planning 

documents, and available literature for similar construction and operational activities, including the 

following:

• Acoustical Assessment Report for Calpeak Border (Pacific Noise Control, June 2001)

This discussion of noise includes the types or sources of noise and the associated sensitive receptors in 

the human environment. Noise in relation to biological resources and wildlife species is discussed in the 

Biological Resources section.

Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as 

air or water, and are sensed by the human ear. Sound is all around us. The perception and evaluation of 

sound involves three basic physical characteristics:

• Intensity – the acoustic energy, which is expressed in terms of sound pressure, in decibels (dB)

• Frequency – the number of cycles per second the air vibrates, in Hertz (Hz)

• Duration – the length of time the sound can be detected

Noise is defined as unwanted or annoying sound that interferes with or disrupts normal human 

activities. Although continuous and extended exposure to high noise levels (e.g., through occupational 

exposure) can cause hearing loss, the principal human response to noise is annoyance. The response of 

different individuals to similar noise events is diverse and is influenced by the type of noise, perceived 

importance of the noise, its appropriateness in the setting, time of day, type of activity during which the 

noise occurs, and sensitivity of the individual. 

3.3.1 Basics of Sound and A-Weighted Sound Level

The loudest sounds that can be detected comfortably by the human ear have intensities that are a 

trillion times higher than those of sounds that can barely be detected. This vast range means that using 

a linear scale to represent sound intensity is not feasible. The dB is a logarithmic unit used to represent 

the intensity of a sound, also referred to as the sound level. All sounds have a spectral content, which 

means their magnitude or level changes with frequency, where frequency is measured in cycles per 

second or Hz. To mimic the human ear’s non-linear sensitivity and perception of different frequencies of 

sound, the spectral content is weighted. For example, environmental noise measurements are usually 

on an “A-weighted” scale that filters out very low and very high frequencies in order to replicate human 

sensitivity. It is common to add the “A” to the measurement unit in order to identify that the 

measurement has been made with this filtering process (dBA). In this document, the dB unit refers to 

A-weighted sound levels. Table 3-7 provides a comparison of how the human ear perceives changes in 

loudness on the logarithmic scale.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-29

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-7

Subjective Responses to Changes in A-weighted Decibels

Change Change in Perceived Loudness

3 dBA Barely perceptible

5 dBA Quite noticeable

10 dBA Dramatic – twice or half as loud

20 dBA Striking – fourfold change

Figure 3-2 (Cowan, 1994) provides a chart of A-weighted sound levels from typical noise sources. Some 

noise sources (e.g., air conditioner, vacuum cleaner) are continuous sounds that maintain a constant 

sound level for some period of time. Other sources (e.g., automobile, heavy truck) are the maximum 

sound produced during an event like a vehicle pass-by. Other sounds (e.g., urban daytime, urban 

nighttime) are averages taken over extended periods of time. A variety of noise metrics have been 

developed to describe noise over different time periods, as discussed below.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-30

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3-2 A-Weighted Sound Levels from Typical Sources

3.3.2 Noise Metrics

A metric is a system for measuring or quantifying a particular characteristic of a subject. Since noise is a 

complex physical phenomenon, different noise metrics help to quantify the noise environment. The 

noise metrics used in this EA are described below. While the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) and 

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise metrics are the most commonly used tools for analyzing 

noise. These supplemental metrics and analysis tools provide more detailed noise exposure information 

for the decision process and improve the discussion regarding noise exposure.

3.3.2.1 Day-Night Average Sound Level

The DNL metric is the energy-averaged sound level measured over a 24-hour period, with a 10 dBA

penalty assigned to noise events occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (acoustic night). DNL values are 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-31

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

average quantities, mathematically representing the continuous sound level that would be present if all 

of the variations in sound level that occur over a 24-hour period were averaged to have the same total 

sound energy. The DNL metric quantifies the total sound energy received and is therefore a cumulative 

measure, but it does not provide specific information on the number of noise events or the individual 

sound levels that occur during the 24-hour day. DNL is the standard noise metric used by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Aviation Administration, USEPA, and DoD. 

Studies of community annoyance in response to numerous types of environmental noise show that DNL 

correlates well with impact assessments; there is a consistent relationship between DNL and the level of 

annoyance. Most people are exposed to sound levels of 50 to 55 DNL or higher on a daily basis.

Research has indicated that about 87 percent of the population is not highly annoyed by outdoor sound 

levels below 65 dBA DNL (Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise, 1980).

3.3.2.2 Community Noise Equivalent Level

CNEL is a noise metric adopted as a standard by the state of California. The CNEL metric is similar to the 

DNL metric and is also an energy-averaged sound level measurement. DNL and CNEL provide average 

noise levels taking into consideration and applying penalties for annoyance from intrusive events that 

occur during evening and nighttime hours. Both DNL and CNEL are measures of cumulative noise 

exposure over a 24-hour period, with adjustments to reflect the added intrusiveness of noise during 

certain times of the day. However, while DNL considers one adjustment period, CNEL reflects two 

adjustment periods. DNL includes a single adjustment period for night, in which noise levels at night 

(defined as 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) include an added weighting of 10 dBA. CNEL adds a second adjustment 

period where noise levels in the evening (defined as 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) are given a weighting of 5 dBA.

3.3.2.3 Equivalent Sound Level

A cumulative noise metric useful in describing noise is the Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ). LEQ is the 

continuous sound level that would be present if all of the variations in sound level occurring over a 

specified time period were smoothed out as to contain the same total sound energy. The same 

calculation for a daily average time period such as DNL or CNEL but without the penalties is a 24-hour 

equivalent sound level, abbreviated LEQ (24). Other typical time periods for LEQ are 1 hour and 8 hours.

3.3.2.4 Maximum Sound Level

The highest A-weighted sound level measured during a single event where the sound level changes 

value with time is called the maximum A-weighted sound level or LMAX. LMAX defines the maximum sound 

level occurring for a fraction of a second. 

3.3.2.5 Number of Events Above a Threshold Level

The “Number of Events Above a Threshold Level” metric provides the total number of noise events that 

exceed a selected noise level threshold during a specified period of time (DoD Noise Working Group, 

2009). Combined with the selected noise metric, LMAX or SEL, the Number of Events Above metric is 

symbolized as NAXXmetric (NA = number of events above, XX = dB level, metric = L MAX or SEL). For 

example, the L MAX and SEL Number of Events Above metrics are symbolized as NA75L MAX and NA75SEL, 

respectively, with 75 dBA as the example dBA level. In this EA, an L MAX threshold is selected to analyze 

speech interference and an SEL threshold is selected for analysis of sleep disturbance.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-32

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.3.3 Noise Effects

An extensive amount of research has been conducted regarding noise effects including annoyance, 

speech interference, sleep disturbance, noise-induced hearing impairment, nonauditory health effects, 

performance effects, noise effects on children, effects on domestic animals and wildlife, property values, 

structures, terrain, and archaeological sites. These effects are summarized below.

3.3.3.1 Annoyance

As previously noted, the primary effect of noise on exposed communities is long-term annoyance, 

defined by USEPA as any negative subjective reaction on the part of an individual or group. The scientific 

community has adopted the use of long-term annoyance as a primary indicator of community response 

and there is a consistent relationship between DNL/CNEL and the level of community annoyance 

(Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, 1992).

3.3.3.2 Potential Hearing Loss

People living in high noise environments for an extended period of time (40 years) can be at risk for 

hearing loss called Noise Induced Permanent Threshold Shift (NIPTS). The NIPTS defines a permanent 

change in hearing level, or threshold, caused by exposure to noise (USEPA, 1982). According to USEPA 

(1974), changes in hearing level of less than 5 dBA are generally not considered noticeable. There is no 

known evidence that an NIPTS of less than 5 dBA is perceptible or has any practical significance for the 

individual affected. Furthermore, the variability in audiometric testing is generally assumed to be plus or 

minus 5 dBA. The preponderance of available information on hearing loss risk is from the workplace 

with continuous exposure throughout the day for many years.

Based on a report by Ludlow and Sixsmith (1999), there were no major differences in audiometric test 

results between military personnel, who as children, had lived in or near installations where fast jet 

operations were based, and a similar group who had no such exposure as children. Hence, for the 

purposes of this EA, the limited data are considered applicable to the general population, including 

children, and are used to provide a conservative estimate of the risk of potential hearing loss.

DoD policy directive requires that hearing loss risk be estimated for the at-risk population, defined as 

the population exposed to DNL greater than or equal to 80 dBA (Department of Defense [DoD], 2009). 

However, it should be recognized that characterizing noise exposure in terms of DNL and CNEL 

overestimates hearing loss risk but suffices when nighttime operations are 5 percent or less than the 

total operations. When nighttime operations are greater than 5 percent, LEQ (24) is recommended for 

calculating potential hearing loss since hearing loss is a physical phenomenon due to the sound level and 

independent of annoyance. Thus, the additional penalties applied by CNEL for evening and nighttime 

operations do not accurately portray the NIPTS.

3.3.3.3 Speech Interference

Speech interference can cause disruption of routine activities, such as enjoyment of radio or television 

programs, telephone use, or family conversation, giving rise to frustration or irritation. In extreme cases, 

speech interference may cause fatigue and vocal strain to individuals who try to communicate over the 

noise.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-33

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.3.3.4 Classroom Criteria and Noise Effects on Children

Research suggests that environments with sustained high background noise can have variable effects, 

including effects on learning and cognitive abilities and various noise-related physiological changes. 

Analyses for school-aged children are similar to speech interference by using the indoor number of 

events exceeding 50 dBA LMAX, but also has the added restriction of using an outdoor equivalent noise 

level of 60 dBA LEQ (9 hour). This represents a level that a person with normal hearing can clearly hear a 

speaker (teacher) speaking at a level of 50 dBA indoors in a classroom setting.

3.3.3.5 Sleep Disturbance

The disturbance of sleep is a major concern for communities exposed to nighttime noise.

3.3.3.6 Workplace Noise

In 1972, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) published a criteria document 

with a recommended exposure limit of 85 dBA as an 8-hour time-weighted average. This exposure limit 

was reevaluated in 1998 when NIOSH made recommendations that went beyond conserving hearing by 

focusing on the prevention of occupational hearing loss. Following the reevaluation using a new risk 

assessment technique, NIOSH published another criteria document in 1998, which reaffirmed the 

85 dBA recommended exposure limit (National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety, 1998). The 

Navy complies with applicable occupational health and safety legal requirements and policies.

3.3.4 Nonauditory Health Effects

Studies have been conducted to examine the nonauditory health effects of noise exposure, focusing 

primarily on stress response, blood pressure, birth weight, mortality rates, and cardiovascular health. 

Exposure to noise levels higher than those normally produced in the community can elevate blood 

pressure and also stress hormone levels. However, the response to such loud noise is typically short in 

duration: after the noise goes away, the physiological effects reverse and levels return to normal. 

3.3.4.1 Noise Effects on Children

Scientific literature suggests that environments with sustained high background noise can have variable 

effects, including effects on learning and cognitive abilities and various noise-related physiological 

changes. Research on the impacts of noise in general on the cognitive abilities of school-aged children 

has received more attention in recent years. 

3.3.4.2 Noise Effects on the Elderly

Based upon a study by the Harvard School of Public Health, older people exposed to noise, especially at 

higher levels, may experience an increased risk of hospitalization for cardiovascular disease (BMJ, 2013).

3.3.5 Noise Modeling

To evaluate potential noise impacts due to construction under the proposed alternatives, reference 

noise levels were obtained from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction 

Noise Model (RCNM) User’s Guide, which provides a comprehensive assessment of noise level usage 

factors for construction equipment. Based on the list of equipment proposed for construction and

demolition, maximum noise emission levels were defined based on the reference values in the guide, 

and potential combined equipment levels at various distances were estimated. The algorithm in the 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-34

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

model considers construction equipment noise specification data, usage factors, and the relative 

distances of the noise sensitive receptor to the source of noise.

Assumptions for construction equipment include the following for each phase:

• Demolition: 1 dozer, 1 concrete saw, 2 tractors/loaders/backhoes

• Site Preparation: 1 Grader, 1 tractor/loader/backhoe

• Grading: 1 dozer, 1 concrete saw, 2 tractors/loaders/backhoes

• Construction: 1 crane, 2 forklifts, 2 tractors/loaders/backhoes

• Coatings: 1 air compressor

• Paving: 1 Paver, 4 cement/mortar mixers, 1 roller, 1 tractor/loader/backhoe

To analyze potential effects from operation of the peaker plant, reference noise source data was used 

from a technical report for a similar facility (Pacific Noise Control 2001). The sound level data for the 

turbine and generator equipment are based on manufacturer’s design requirements for the equipment, 

based on a reference distance of 1 meter (3 feet). The noise source sound level and design specification 

data used in this analysis are provided in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8

Representative Sound Level Data for Peaker Plant

Equipment Sound Level at 

1 meter (3 feet) (dBA)

Turbine/Generator/Lube Oil (with enclosure) 85

Hydraulic Start Pac (with enclosure) 85

Electric Generator Silencer 94

Transformer 75

Fuel Gas Compressor (with enclosure) 75

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Catalyst (with 

enclosure)

75

Stack and Silencer (stack and casing) 75

Dilution Fan (with silencer) 69

Air Compressor (with enclosure) 75

Source: Pacific Noise Control 2001.

3.3.6 Regulatory Setting

Noise Control Act of 1972

Under the Noise Control Act of 1972, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

established workplace standards for noise. The minimum requirement states that constant noise 

exposure must not exceed 90 A-weighted decibels (dBA) over an 8-hour period. The highest allowable 

sound level to which workers can be consistently exposed is 115 dBA and exposure to this level must not 

exceed 15 minutes within an 8-hour period. The standards limit instantaneous exposure, such as impact 

noise, to 140 dBA. If noise levels exceed these standards, employers are required to provide hearing 

protection equipment that will reduce sound levels to acceptable limits.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-35

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Requirements and Practices for Sound Analysis at Military Installations

Current requirements and practices for sound analysis at military installations follow the procedures 

outlined in the following documents:

• Chief of Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST) M-5090.1 contains guidance for considering 

time-averaged community sound levels in environmental evaluations (DON, 2014).

• DoD planning guidelines in the noise environment provide compatibility criteria for various land 

uses. Separate evaluation criteria apply to impulsive sound events.

• The U.S. Army Public Health Command guidance for military operational noise, including 

environmental noise management for the Army.

Navy Occupational Health and Safety Regulations

The 2005 Navy Occupational Safety and Health Program Manual (OPNAVINST 5100- 23G, 2005) provides 

directives to prevent occupational hearing loss and ensure auditory fitness for all Navy personnel. This 

manual establishes an occupational exposure level over an 8-hour time-weighted average in any 

24-hour period of 84 dBA. When noise exposure is likely to exceed this level, hearing-protective devices 

are required.

The following subsections discuss local noise-related ordinances. Although not formally subject to such 

requirements, the Navy attempts to substantively comply with them as a matter of policy to the 

maximum extent practicable.

City of Coronado Noise Ordinance

The City of Coronado’s municipal code includes a noise ordinance that limits operational noise. It is 

unlawful for any person to cause noise by any means to the extent that the one-hour average sound 

level exceeds the applicable limit given in the following table (Table 3-9, City of Coronado Exterior Noise 

Limits), at any location in the City on or beyond the boundaries of the property on which the noise is 

produced. The sound level limit at a location on a boundary between two zoning districts is the 

arithmetic mean of the respective limits for the two districts.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-36

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-9

City of Coronado Exterior Noise Limits

Land Use Zone Time of Day

One-hour

Average Sound

Level (dBA)

Residential:

All R-1A; R-1B

7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 50

7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 45

10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 40

All R-3; R-4; R-PCD; and R-5 

7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 55

7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50

10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 45

Commercial (C); Commercial Recreation (C-r); 

Hotel/Motel (H-M); Civic Use (C-U); Open 

Space (OS); and Parking Overlay (P 1)

7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 60

7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 60

10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50

Source: City of Coronado Municipal Code, Title 41 Noise Abatement and Control Regulations, Section 41.10.010 

Property line noise limits.

R-1A = Very low density residential (up to 8 units/acre); R-1B = Low Density Residential (12 units/acre); 

R-3 = Medium Density Residential (28 units/acre); R-4 = High Density Residential (40 units/acre); 

R-PCD = Residential Planned Community District; R-5 = Very High Density Residential (47 units/acre).

The City of Coronado’s noise ordinance also includes limits on construction noise. In accordance with 

Title 41: Noise Abatement and Control Regulations, Chapter 41.10: Limits, Section 41.10.050: 

Construction Noise Limits, the maximum allowable construction noise is an average sound level no 

greater than 75 dBA during a 1-hour period any time between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

3.3.7 Affected Environment

The federal government supports conditions free from noise that threaten human health and welfare 

and the environment. Response to noise varies, depending on the type and characteristics of the noise, 

distance between the noise source and whoever hears it (the receptor), receptor sensitivity, and time of 

day. Noise-sensitive land uses include development types where the occupants or users involved in 

indoor or outdoor activities may be subject to stress or considerable interference from noise. 

Residences, schools, hospitals, religious facilities, recreational facilities, open space, and some parks are 

considered noise-sensitive. Specific locations where individuals may be located within noise-sensitive 

land uses are referred to as noise-sensitive receptor sites.

NASNI is the largest naval aviation complex on the west coast, and the largest aerospace civilian 

employer in the San Diego area (DON, 2002). The majority of the current land uses at NASNI are 

developed areas in support of air operations and aircraft maintenance activities. The closest sensitive 

receptors to the project area at NASNI would include people in administrative buildings, training areas, 

and living quarters near areas of construction, as well as residential neighborhoods along Alameda 

Boulevard to the east of the Alternative site locations. The specific distances from the Alternative site 

locations to the nearest noise-sensitive receptor are listed below in Table 3-10.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-37

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-10

Noise-Sensitive Receptor Distance from Alternative Site Locations

Location Distance from 

Site 1

Distance from 

Site 2

Distance from 

Site 3

Single-family residences along Alameda Boulevard 

between Palm Avenue and 2nd Street

790 meters

(2,600 feet)

850 meters 

(2,800 feet)

400 meters

(1,300 feet)

3.3.7.1 Existing Noise Environment

The principal onsite sources of noise at NASNI are typical of Navy installations and include aircraft 

operations, truck and automobile traffic, and operations involving ship-loading cranes, diesel-powered 

equipment, and compressors. The San Diego International Airport is located 3.2 km (2 miles) north of 

the project area, and the center point of the NASNI runway is approximately 2.3 km (1.4 miles) west 

from the project area. Noise from military aircraft is audible in neighborhoods surrounding the Base; 

however, the neighborhoods are located outside the 65 dBA CNEL contour associated with the NASNI’s 

airport noise (DoD, 2011). A variety of other on-Base activities and traffic are also audible.

Previous studies conducted at noise receptor areas surrounding NASNI have shown that noise levels in 

these areas were dominated by vehicle traffic along nearby roads rather than any noise generated on 

the Base. The measured existing peak noise levels at the residences along main traffic routes range from 

66 dBA to 78 dBA. These peak noise levels are considered typical for areas ranging from a busy daytime 

urban area to a typical commercial area (DoD, 2011). In addition, measurements conducted during a 

previous project reported nighttime maximum ambient noise levels at the property boundary with the 

City of Coronado of 61.5 dBA, 60.2 dBA, and 59.9 dBA (DON, 2011). Similar studies conducted near 

NASNI have also reported outdoor CNEL levels of 55 dBA to 70 dBA at different locations within the City 

of Coronado (DON, 2011).

3.3.8 Environmental Consequences

3.3.8.1 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur and there would be no 

substantial change to baseline noise levels, although there would be some noise associated with the 

decommissioning of the existing steam plant. Therefore, no significant impacts due to the noise 

environment would occur with implementation of the No Action Alternative. (For information on noise 

impacts associated with demolition of the existing cogeneration plant, please see the 2014 Final EA for 

the Decentralization of Steam Systems at Naval Base Coronado.)

3.3.8.2 Alternative 1 – Convert Existing 30-MW Cogeneration Plant on Site 1 

Construction

The primary source of short-term noise associated with implementation of the Alternative 1 would be 

construction activities. Construction would involve several stages including grading, foundation 

construction, and finish construction. It is conservatively assumed that the retrofit on Site 1 may involve 

some demolition. Noise generated by construction equipment can vary in intensity and duration during 

each phase of construction. The potential noise levels associated with the construction equipment that 

may be used during construction of Alternative 1 are identified in Table 3.11, Construction Equipment 

Noise Levels. As shown in Table 3-11, construction noise levels at 15 meters (50 feet) from individual 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-38

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

equipment would range from approximately 73 to 85 dBA LMAX, depending on the type of construction 

equipment.

Table 3-11

Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Equipment Usage per Day 

(%) 

Maximum Noise Level 

15 meters (50 feet) from 

source (dBA)

Air compressor 40 80

Backhoe 40 74

Concrete Mixer Truck 40 85

Concrete Saw 20 83

Crane 16 85

Dozer 40 78

Dump Trucks 40 73

Excavator 40 77

Generator 50 78

Grader 40 85

Loader 40 75

Paver 40 80

Roller 20 85

Tractor 40 84

Source: RCNM 2006

Estimated equipment noise levels from the anticipated construction phases associated with 

Alternative 1 are shown in Table 3-12.

Table 3-12

Construction Equipment Noise Levels for Alternative 1

Phase Equipment 

(# units)

Percent

Operating Time LMAX

Combined dBA 

LEQ at Nearest 

Receptor1

Demolition Dozer (1) 

Concrete saw (2) 

Tractor/Loader/Backhoe2 (2)

40% (Dozer, Loader); 

20% (Concrete Saw) 55 53

Site Preparation Grader (1) 

Tractor/Loader/Backhoe2 (2) 40% 51 48

Grading Dozer (1)

Concrete saw (1)

Tractor/Loader/Backhoe2 (2)

40% (Dozer, Loader); 

20% (Concrete Saw) 55 50

Construction Crane (1)

Forklift3 (2)

Tractor/Loader/Backhoe2 (2)

40% (Forklift, Loader); 

16% (Crane) 50 50

Coatings Air Compressor (1) 40% 43 39
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-39

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-12 (cont.)

Construction Equipment Noise Levels for Alternative 1

Phase Equipment 

(# units)

Percent

Operating Time LMAX

Combined dBA 

LEQ at Nearest 

Receptor1

Paving Paver (1)

Cement mixer trucks (4)

Roller (1)

Tractor/Loader/Backhoe2 (1)

50% (Paver); 

40% (Loader, Trucks); 

20% (Roller) 

46 49

Source: RCNM 2006. See Appendix D for model outputs. 1 Assumed to be 790 meters/2,600 feet at the single-family residences along Alameda Boulevard near the intersection 

with Palm Avenue. 2 Loaders were modeled instead of backhoes or tractors as the loaders would generate higher noise levels. 3 RCNM does not contain noise levels for a forklift; a tractor was modeled in place of a forklift as the pieces of equipment 

would be expected to generate similar noise levels.

Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location. For example, a dozer and a 

concrete saw may be working on the site simultaneously, but may not be working in close proximity to 

one another at a given time due to the nature of their respective operations. Furthermore, construction 

equipment would not be in constant use during the eight-hour operating day. 

As shown, noise levels would be lower than the limit provided in the City of Coronado noise ordinance 

for construction-related noise. This limit is a one-hour average sound level of 75 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 

7:00 p.m.

To minimize the potential impacts of project related noise on the surrounding areas and in consideration 

of local ordinances, the Navy would limit installation and demolition to daylight hours (sunrise to 

sunset), when higher sound levels are more tolerable. Construction would not occur on Sundays or 

holidays. Further, noise levels from construction would be temporary and would cease upon 

completion. Therefore, anticipated noise impacts from construction noise would not be significant.

Operation

This alternative proposes to develop an electrical generation facility (peaker plant) for peak 

periods/redundancy. Several pieces of mechanical equipment would generate noise at the site. 

Assumptions for the proposed peaker facility were based on the analysis conducted for a similar facility 

(Pacific Noise Control, 2001). For example, it is assumed that the electric generation facility would be 

49 MW and that it would utilize a natural gas-fired combustion turbine generator equipped with noise 

abatement features. The combustion turbine generator is assumed to include a gas turbine unit, a 

generator unit, and an electrical/control unit. The turbine/generator and electrical control units are 

assumed to be housed in steel enclosures, including lighting and electrical services. The primary noise 

generating equipment would include two turbines, a generator, two gas compressors, fans, air 

compressor, main transformer, selective catalytic reduction catalyst and exhaust stack, and a hydraulic 

start unit. Most of the equipment is assumed to be located within enclosures with exhaust and intake 

silencers.

When in use, it is assumed that the facility would operate a maximum of 24 hours per day. It would 

operate most summer days and less frequently in the winter.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-40

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-13 includes estimated noise levels for each unit of equipment at the nearest noise-sensitive 

receptor, assumed to be 790 meters (2,600 feet) east of Site 1 at the single-family residences along 

Alameda Boulevard near the intersection with Palm Avenue. This is also the closest boundary with the 

City of Coronado. The combined noise level, assuming that all pieces of equipment would be operating 

simultaneously, is provided at the bottom of the table. The noise levels assume a straight-line noise 

attenuation of 6 dBA with doubling of distance, not accounting for noise reduction provided by 

intervening structures.

Table 3-13

Estimated Peaker Plant Noise Levels for Alternative 1

Equipment

Reference Sound 

Level at 3 feet 

(dBA)

Noise Level at 

Nearest 

Receptor1

(dBA LEQ)

Turbine/Generator/Lube Oil (with enclosure) 85 26

Hydraulic Start Pac (with enclosure) 85 26

Electric Generator Silencer 94 35

Transformer 75 16

Fuel Gas Compressor (with enclosure) 75 16

Selective Catalytic Reduction Catalyst (with enclosure) 75 16

Stack and Silencer (stack and casing) 75 16

Dilution Fan (with silencer) 69 10

Air Compressor (with enclosure) 75 16

Combined Noise Level 36

Source: Pacific Noise Control 2001, (for equipment noise reference levels). 1 Assumed to be 790 meters (2,600 feet) at the single-family residences along Alameda Boulevard near the 

intersection with Palm Avenue. This is also the closest boundary with the City of Coronado.

The proposed peaker plant would generate a one-hour average sound level of approximately 36 dBA at 

the nearby residences. The area east of the NASNI boundary is within the City of Coronado’s R-1A zone 

for very low-density residential. The noise levels from the peaker plant would be lower than the strictest 

limit (40 dBA) for low-density residential uses during nighttime hours. Noise levels from the peaker plant 

may not be audible over existing ambient noise levels that range between approximately 60 dBA to 

61 dBA during nighttime hours.

Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to the noise 

environment.

3.3.8.3 Alternative 2 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 2

Construction

Similar to Alternative 1, the primary source of short-term noise associated with implementation of the 

Alternative 2 would be construction activities. Noise generated by construction equipment can vary in 

intensity and duration during each phase of construction. The potential noise levels associated with the 

construction equipment that may be used during construction of Alternative 2 are similar to 

Alternative 1.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-41

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Estimated equipment noise levels from the anticipated construction phases associated with 

Alternative 2 are shown in Table 3-14. The noise level is based on the distance to the nearest noisesensitive receptor, assumed to be 850 meters (2,800 feet) at the single-family residences along Alameda 

Boulevard. This is also the closest boundary with the City of Coronado. Because the construction for 

Alternative 2 would not involve demolition, this phase was excluded from the noise modeling.

Table 3-14

Construction Equipment Noise Levels for Alternative 2

Phase Equipment (# units) Percent

Operating Time LMAX

Combined 

dBA LEQ at 

Nearest 

Receptor1

Site Preparation Grader (1) 

Tractor/Loader/Backhoe2 (2) 40% 50 48

Grading Dozer (1)

Concrete saw (1)

Tractor/Loader/Backhoe2 (2)

40% (Dozer, 

Loader); 20% 

(Concrete Saw)

55 50

Construction Crane (1)

Forklift3 (2)

Tractor/Loader/Backhoe2 (2)

16% (Crane); 40% 

(Tractor, Loader) 49 50

Coatings Air Compressor (1) 40% 43 39

Paving Paver (1)

Cement mixer trucks (4)

Roller (1)

Tractor/Loader/Backhoe2 (1)

50% (Paver); 20% 

(Roller); 40% 

(Loader, Trucks)

45 48

Source: RCNM 2006. See Appendix D for model outputs. 1 Assumed to be 850 meters (2,800 feet) at the single-family residences along Alameda Boulevard near the intersection 

with Palm Avenue. 2 Loaders were modeled instead of backhoes or tractors as the loaders would generate higher noise levels. 3 RCNM does not contain noise levels for a forklift; a tractor was modeled in place of a forklift as the pieces of equipment 

would be expected to generate similar noise levels.

Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location. Furthermore, construction 

equipment would not be in constant use during the eight-hour operating day. As shown, noise levels 

would be lower than the limit provided in the City of Coronado noise ordinance. This limit is a one-hour 

average sound level of 75 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

To minimize the potential impacts of project related noise on the surrounding areas and in consideration 

of local ordinances, the Navy would limit installation and demolition to daylight hours (sunrise to 

sunset), when higher sound levels are more tolerable. Construction would not occur on Sundays or 

holidays. Further, noise levels from construction would be temporary and would cease upon 

completion. Therefore, anticipated noise impacts from construction noise would not be significant.

Operation

This alternative proposes to develop an electrical generation facility (peaker plant) for peak periods/

redundancy on Site 2. Several pieces of mechanical equipment would generate noise at the site. Similar

to the analysis included for Alternative 1, the assumptions for the proposed peaker facility were based 

on the analysis conducted for a similar facility (Pacific Noise Control, 2001).
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-42

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-15 includes estimated noise levels for each unit of equipment at the nearest noise-sensitive 

receptor, which is also the closest distance to the boundary with the City of Coronado. The combined 

noise level, assuming that all pieces of equipment would be operating simultaneously, is provided at the 

bottom of the table. The noise levels assume a straight-line noise attenuation of 6 dBA with doubling of 

distance, not accounting for noise reduction provided by intervening structures.

Table 3-15

Estimated Peaker Plant Noise Levels for Alternative 2

Equipment

Reference 

Sound Level at 3 

feet (dBA)

Noise Level at 

Nearest 

Receptor1

(dBA LEQ)

Turbine/Generator/Lube Oil (with enclosure) 85 26

Hydraulic Start Pac (with enclosure) 85 26

Electric Generator Silencer 94 35

Transformer 75 16

Fuel Gas Compressor (with enclosure) 75 16

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Catalyst (with 

enclosure)

75 16

Stack and Silencer (stack and casing) 75 16

Dilution Fan (with silencer) 69 10

Air Compressor (with enclosure) 75 16

Combined Noise Level 36

Source: Pacific Noise Control 2001 (for reference equipment noise levels) 1 Assumed to be 850 meters (2,800 feet) at the single-family residences along Alameda Boulevard near 

the intersection with Palm Avenue.

The proposed peaker plant would generate a one-hour average sound level of approximately 36 dBA at 

the closest noise-sensitive receptor to Site 2, assumed to be 850 meters (2,800 feet) at the single-family 

residences along Alameda Boulevard near the intersection with Palm Avenue. The noise levels from the 

peaker plant would be lower than the strictest limit (40 dBA) for residential uses during nighttime hours.

Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to the noise 

environment.

3.3.8.4 Alternative 3 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic System on Site 2

Construction

Construction activities associated with Alternative 3 would generate low levels of construction noise, as 

installation of the integrated batteries and small photovoltaic system would not involve the use of 

heavy-duty equipment. Construction noise levels would not result in a significant impact.

Operation

Operation of the integrated batteries and photovoltaic system would largely involve passive operation, 

without the use of motorized or other noise-generating equipment. Noise impacts associated with 

operation of Alternative 3 would not be significant.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-43

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.3.8.5 Alternative 4 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 3

Construction

Similar to Alternative 1, the primary source of short-term noise associated with implementation of the 

Alternative 4 would be construction activities. Noise generated by construction equipment can vary in 

intensity and duration during each phase of construction. The potential noise levels associated with the 

construction equipment that may be used during construction of Alternative 4 are similar to 

Alternative 1.

Estimated equipment noise levels from the anticipated construction phases associated with 

Alternative 4 are shown in Table 3-16. The noise level is based on the distance to the nearest noisesensitive receptor, assumed to be 400 meters (1,300 feet) at the single-family residences along Alameda 

Boulevard near the intersection with Palm Avenue. Because the construction for Alternative 4 would not 

involve demolition, this phase was excluded from the noise modeling.

Table 3-16

Construction Equipment Noise Levels for Alternative 4

Phase Equipment 

(# units)

Percent

Operating Time LMAX

Combined dBA 

LEQ at Nearest 

Receptor1

Site Preparation Grader (1) 

Tractor/Loader/Backhoe2 (2) 40% 57 54

Grading Dozer (1)

Concrete saw (1)

Tractor/Loader/Backhoe2 (2)

40% (Dozer, Loader); 

20% (Concrete Saw) 61 57

Construction Crane (1)

Forklift3 (2)

Tractor/Loader/Backhoe2 (2)

16% (Crane); 

40% (Tractor, Loader) 56 56

Coatings Air Compressor (1) 40% 49 45

Paving Paver (1)

Cement mixer trucks (4)

Roller (1)

Tractor/Loader/Backhoe2 (1)

50% (Paver); 

20% (Roller); 

40% (Loader, Trucks)

52 55

Source: RCNM 2006. See Appendix D for model outputs. 1 Assumed to be 400 meters (1,300 feet) at the single-family residences along Alameda Boulevard near the intersection 

with Palm Avenue. 2 Loaders were modeled instead of backhoes or tractors as the loaders would generate higher noise levels. 3 RCNM does not contain noise levels for a forklift; a tractor was modeled in place of a forklift as the pieces of equipment 

would be expected to generate similar noise levels.

Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location. Furthermore, construction 

equipment would not be in constant use during the eight-hour operating day. As shown, noise levels 

would be lower than the limit provided in the City of Coronado noise ordinance. This limit is a one-hour 

average sound level of 75 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

To minimize the potential impacts of project related noise on the surrounding areas and in consideration 

of local ordinances, the Navy would limit installation and demolition to daylight hours (sunrise to 

sunset), when higher sound levels are more tolerable. Construction would not occur on Sundays or 

holidays. Further, noise levels from construction would be temporary and would cease upon 

completion. Therefore, anticipated noise impacts from construction noise would not be significant.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-44

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Operation

This alternative proposes to develop an electrical generation facility (peaker plant) for peak 

periods/redundancy on Site 3. Several pieces of mechanical equipment would generate noise at the site. 

Similar to the analysis included for Alternative 1, the assumptions for the proposed peaker facility were 

based on the analysis conducted for a similar facility (Pacific Noise Control, 2001).

Table 3-17 includes estimated noise levels for each unit of equipment at the nearest noise-sensitive 

receptor. The combined noise level, assuming that all pieces of equipment would be operating 

simultaneously, is provided at the bottom of the table. The noise levels assume a straight-line noise 

attenuation of 6 dBA with doubling of distance, not accounting for noise reduction provided by 

intervening structures.

Table 3-17

Estimated Peaker Plant Noise Levels for Alternative 4

Equipment

Reference 

Sound Level at 

3 Feet (dBA)

Noise Level at 

Nearest 

Receptor1

(dBA LEQ)

Turbine/Generator/Lube Oil (with enclosure) 85 32

Hydraulic Start Pac (with enclosure) 85 32

Electric Generator Silencer 94 41

Transformer 75 22

Fuel Gas Compressor (with enclosure) 75 22

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Catalyst

(with enclosure)

75 22

Stack and Silencer (stack and casing) 75 2

Dilution Fan (with silencer) 69 16

Air Compressor (with enclosure) 75 22

Combined Noise Level 42

Source: Pacific Noise Control 2001 (for reference equipment noise levels) 1 Assumed to be 400 meters (1,300 feet) at the single-family residences along Alameda Boulevard 

near the intersection with Palm Avenue.

The proposed peaker plant would generate a one-hour average sound level of approximately 42 dBA at 

the closest noise-sensitive receptor to Site 2, assumed to be 400 meters/1,300 feet at the single-family 

residences along Alameda Boulevard near the intersection with Palm Avenue. The noise level would not 

exceed the City of Coronado’s limit (50 dBA) during daytime (between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.) and the limit 

(45 dBA) during evening (between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.) hours. The noise levels from the peaker plant 

would be slightly higher (2 dBA) than the strictest limit (40 dBA) for residential uses during nighttime 

hours (between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.). However, as shown in Table 3-7, a difference of 2 dBA is lower than 

the incremental change that is barely perceptible by the average human ear (3 dBA). Further, the 

modeled noise level is conservative and does not account for any attenuation that would be provided by 

existing structures that break the line of sight between Site 3 and the residences, which are likely to 

lower the actual noise level that reaches the residents. As a result, it is not anticipated that operation of 

the peaker plant would result in a significant noise impact.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-45

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.3.8.6 Alternative 5 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic System on Site 3

Construction

Construction activities associated with Alternative 5 would generate low levels of construction noise, as 

installation of the integrated batteries and small photovoltaic system would not involve the use of 

heavy-duty equipment. Construction noise levels would not result in a significant impact.

Operation

Operation of the integrated batteries and photovoltaic system would largely involve passive operation, 

without the use of motorized or other noise-generating equipment. Noise impacts associated with 

operation of Alternative 5 would not be significant.

3.3.8.7 Alternative 6 – Operation of Existing Cogeneration Plant on Site 1

Construction

Alternative 6 involves the continuation of the existing 30-MW cogeneration plant on Site 1 and 

construction activities associated with Alternative 6 would not occur, apart from some minor retooling, 

Thus, Alternative 6 would not generate more than minimal construction noise. 

Operation

Continued operation of the existing 30-MW cogeneration plant on Site 1 would continue similar to 

existing conditions, and noise impacts associated with operation of Alternative 6 would not be 

significant.

3.4 Infrastructure

This section discusses infrastructure such as utilities (including drinking water production, storage, and 

distribution; wastewater collection treatment and disposal; storm water management, solid waste 

management, energy production, transmission, and distribution; and communications), and facilities 

(including airfields, buildings, ranges, training and testing areas, wharves, piers, housing, etc.) 

Transportation systems and traffic are addressed separately in Section 3.35.

3.4.1 Regulatory Setting

EO 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, requires federal departments and 

agencies to enact specific actions and operations outlined within the EO to reduce agency direct 

greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent over the next decade. Improved environmental 

performance and federal sustainability will be achieved by reducing energy use and cost. Pursuing clean 

sources of energy will improve energy and water security.

Chief of Naval Operation Instruction 4100.5E outlines the Secretary of the Navy’s vision for shore energy 

management. The focus of this instruction is establishing the energy goals and implementing strategy to 

achieve energy efficiency. A key component of the Secretary of the Navy’s mission is energy security and 

includes on-base generation for on-base consumption.

Antiterrorism Force Protection Standards have been adopted by the DoD through Instruction number 

2000.16 of October 2006. The standards require all DoD Components to adopt and adhere to common 

criteria and minimum construction standards to mitigate antiterrorism vulnerabilities and terrorist 

threats.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-46

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.4.2 Affected Environment

The following discussions provide a description of the existing conditions for each of the categories 

under infrastructure at NASNI.

3.4.2.1 Utilities

Potable Water 

NASNI purchases drinking water from the City of San Diego and receives it through a Navy 24-inchdiameter (61-centimeter-diameter) transbay pipeline. NAVFAC Southwest operates and maintains 

internal water distribution systems for domestic use and fire protection at the Base. Mechanical systems 

improvements related to Navy Nuclear Aircraft Carrier homeporting increased the overall capacity of the 

Base to 304,725 cubic meters/year (80.5 million gallons/year). The San Diego County Water Authority 

expects that adequate water supplies would exist for current and future demand during normal rainfall 

periods (DON, 2014).

Wastewater

Transfer systems to offload waste from the Base into the wastewater system are operated and 

maintained by NAVFAC Southwest Utilities. Wastewater effluent generated at NASNI’s onshore facilities 

is collected by the NASNI sewer system, which is comprised of pipes, small pumps or lift stations, and 

three main pumping stations (DON, 2014). The collected sanitary wastewater flows into the 1st Street 

interceptor sewer line in the City of Coronado. The wastewater is transported through a pump station 

and transmission line across the San Diego Bay to the Point Loma Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment 

Plant for processing (DON, 2014). The main sewage pump station (Pump Station 1250) pumps sewage to 

the 1st Street interceptor and is a state-of-the-art facility that was upgraded in FY 2006 (DON, 2014). 

Two 12,000-gallon (45-cubic-meter) underground storage tanks and a 15,000-gallon (57-cubic meter) 

wet well are also part of this facility (DON, 2014). The treatment plant provides advanced primary 

treatment before discharging the effluent into a deep ocean outfall. The plant has a daily capacity of 

908,500 cubic meters (240 million gallons) and over the last five years has averaged about 575,383 cubic 

meters (152 million gallons) per day (City of San Diego, 2015).

Solid Waste Management

Non-hazardous solid waste and potentially recyclable materials generated by NASNI are separated on 

the Base by a private contractor. NASNI solid waste and non-recyclable materials are transported to the 

City of San Diego’s Miramar Landfill, while recyclable materials are either taken to a recycling center 

located on the Base or sent to a recycling facility south of downtown San Diego managed by EDCO

(DON, 2014).

The Navy has partnered with the City of San Diego to assist in extending the life of landfills and to meet 

solid waste reduction and diversion goals. The Navy has implemented policies and procedures in the 

Navy’s Waste Management Plan, San Diego Metro Area, to maximize the diversion of materials entering 

the landfills, particularly construction and demolition debris. The Navy’s goal is a 40 percent reduction of 

municipal solid waste entering landfills. Additional Navy guidance on integrated solid waste 

management plans and qualified recycling programs is provided under OPNAV M-5090.1.

Energy

San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), a regulated public utility, operates and maintains the natural gas 

infrastructure throughout San Diego and Orange counties, including transportation of natural gas to 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-47

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

NASNI. SDG&E provides energy service to approximately 3.6 million people in a 4,100-square-mile 

(10,619-square-kilometer) service area (SDG&E, 2016). Power is supplied to NASNI through an 

agreement with SDG&E, and NAVFAC Southwest is responsible for electricity distribution once power is 

on the installation. Currently, the steam cogeneration plant at NASNI also supplies steam to produce 

electricity at the Navy steam turbine generators located on the installation. As discussed in Section 1.2 

of this EA, the cogeneration plant is owned and operated by Applied Energy, LLC (AE LLC), and their 

30-year contract with the Navy expires in 2018. In 2014, an EA for the Decentralization of Steam 

Systems at Naval Base Coronado was prepared and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was 

signed. The 2014 EA evaluated steam system decentralization alternatives that included the removal 

and demolition of the centralized steam plant. The associated decentralized steam project would 

support the steam requirements at the Base. 

SDG&E provides NASNI with electricity which is delivered to the Base primarily through overhead lines 

that feed into the Station A Substation. Power is delivered at 69 kilovolts by SDG&E, stepped down to 

12 kilovolts, and distributed to the Base at 12 kilovolts. Most of the newer buildings and more mission 

critical facilities are served directly from the underground 12-kilovolt distribution system (DON, 2014). 

NASNI uses about 175,000 MW hours of electricity annually. Since 2002, NASNI has utilized a 

750-kilowatt solar electric carport in the long-term parking area to generate power for the Base and 

help reduce the installation’s electrical load (DON, 2014); the system produces over 1.2 million kilowatt 

hours per year (DON, 2014).

The AE LLC cogeneration plant at NASNI also supplies steam to produce electricity at the Navy’s 4-MW

steam turbine generator at NASNI. This additional steam load has become essential to maintaining the 

cogeneration plant’s status as a qualifying facility under the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978. 

The Navy generator produces and supplies electrical power for NASNI, and a portion of the electricity 

generated at this plant is sold back to SDG&E for “credit.” The lease for this facility expires in 2018.

Natural Gas

The Navy purchases natural gas directly from SDG&E through the Defense Energy Support Center and 

SDG&E (DON, 2014). Natural gas is used at NASNI for heating buildings, with some use for domestic hot 

water. Upgrades and expansion of the existing underground natural gas piping systems at NASNI would 

be needed to provide continued natural gas service.

NASNI receives natural gas via a SDG&E 10-centimeter-diameter (4-inch-diameter) steel main under 

McCain Boulevard. The natural gas is distributed throughout the Base by approximately 25,000 linear 

meters (82,000 linear feet) of main operated at 10 pounds per square inch gauge (DON, 2014). 

Seventeen buildings served by NASNI’s steam utility system currently receive natural gas service. NASNI 

currently burns the natural gas equivalent of about 480,942 MBtu annually (DON, 2014).

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences

This section analyzes the magnitude of anticipated increases or decreases in public works infrastructure 

demands considering historic levels, existing management practices, and storage capacity, and evaluates 

potential impacts to public works infrastructure associated with implementation of the alternatives. 

Impacts are evaluated by whether they would result in the use of a substantial proportion of the 

remaining system capacity, reach or exceed the current capacity of the system, or require development 

of facilities and sources beyond those existing or currently planned.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-48

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.4.3.1 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the existing water, wastewater, and solid waste services would remain 

unchanged. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated from this alternative to these public services. (For 

information on infrastructure-related impacts associated with demolition of the existing cogeneration 

plant, please see the 2014 Final EA for the Decentralization of Steam Distribution System at Naval Base 

Coronado.)

3.4.3.2 Alternative 1 – Upgrade Existing 30-MW Cogeneration Plant on Site 1

Implementation of Alternative 1 would include expansion of the natural gas distribution system at 

NASNI. It is anticipated that existing underground utility lines to the SDG&E interconnection substation 

would be utilized, which could potentially require some upgrades to connect Site 1 with the SDG&E 

Interconnection Station and NBC Main Substation. A utility corridor from the SDG&E interconnection 

station would be located within the Base to connect to the NBC Main Substation. The exact location of 

the utility corridor would be subject to change during the design process; however, the corridor would 

be located within a paved area within the Base boundaries, probably within Quay Road. As a result, 

Alternative 1 would result in an increase in natural gas available for consumption. 

Under Alternative 1, existing water, wastewater, solid waste, and energy services would remain 

unchanged; therefore, there would be no significant impacts from Alternative 1 to these services and 

utilities. In addition, with the expansion of the natural gas distribution system, implementation of 

Alternative 1 would have a positive impact on utility services, and electricity distribution would 

experience no significant impact.

3.4.3.3 Alternative 2 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 2

Facilities developed under Alternative 2 would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 1; 

however, the proposed natural gas peaker plant would be constructed on an existing paved parking lot 

adjacent to Site 1 instead of converting an existing steam cogeneration plant. Similar to Alternative 1, a 

utility corridor would be located within a paved area within the Base, probably within Quay Road to 

connect to the existing SDG&E Interconnection Substation and NBC Main Substation. Expansion of the 

natural gas distribution system under Alternative 2 would have a positive impact on utility services, and 

electricity distribution would experience no significant impact.

With implementation of Alternative 2, existing water, wastewater, and solid waste services would 

remain unchanged. In addition, natural gas service would be expanded and electricity would remain 

largely unchanged with implementation of Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have no 

significant impacts on infrastructure.

3.4.3.4 Alternative 3 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic System on Site 2

Facilities developed under Alternative 3 would involve a large integrated battery facility with a small 

photovoltaic system on Site 2. Alternative 3 would involve construction of an underground utility 

corridor to the SDG&E interconnection substation, probably within Quay Road. The exact location of the 

utility corridor would be subject to change during the design process; however, the corridor would be 

located within a paved area on the Base. Existing water, wastewater, electricity, and solid waste services 

would remain unchanged. In addition, natural gas service would be expanded with implementation of 

Alternative 3. As a result, there would be no significant impacts on infrastructure under Alternative 3.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-49

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.4.3.5 Alternative 4 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 3

Facilities developed under Alternative 4 would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 1; 

however, the proposed natural gas peaker plant would be constructed on an existing paved area along 

Quay Road instead of converting an existing steam cogeneration plant. Similar to Alternative 1, a utility 

corridor would be located within a paved area within the Base, probably within Quay Road to connect to 

the existing SDG&E Interconnection Substation and NBC Main Substation. Expansion of the natural gas 

distribution system under Alternative 4 would have a positive impact on utility services, and electricity 

distribution would experience no significant impact.

With implementation of Alternative 4, existing water, wastewater, and solid waste services would 

remain unchanged. In addition, natural gas service would be expanded and electricity would remain 

largely unchanged with implementation of Alternative 4. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have no 

significant impacts on infrastructure.

3.4.3.6 Alternative 5 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic System on Site 3

Facilities developed under Alternative 5 would involve a large integrated battery facility with a small 

photovoltaic system on Site 3. Alternative 5 would involve construction of an underground utility 

corridor to the SDG&E interconnection substation, which may be located within Quay Road. The exact 

location of the utility corridor would be subject to change during the design process; however, the 

corridor would be located within a paved area on the Base. Existing water, wastewater, electricity, and 

solid waste services would remain unchanged. In addition, natural gas service would be expanded with 

implementation of Alternative 5. As a result, there would be no significant impacts on infrastructure 

under Alternative 5.

3.4.3.7 Alternative 6 – Operation of Existing Cogeneration Plant on Site 1

Alternative 6 would not involve new construction since the existing cogeneration plant would continue 

to be utilized. Existing water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, and solid waste services would remain 

unchanged. As a result, there would be no significant impacts on infrastructure under Alternative 6.

3.5 Transportation

A discussion of transportation would potentially include all of the air, land, and sea routes with the 

means of moving passengers and goods. A transportation system can consist of any or all of the 

following: roadways, bus routes, railways, subways, bikeways, trails, waterways, airports, and taxis, and 

can be looked at on a local or regional scale. The following discussion focuses on potential impacts 

related to construction traffic associated with the action alternatives. 

3.5.1 Regulatory Setting

EO 13693 encourages government entities to improve building efficiency, performance, and 

management by including in the planning for new buildings or leases, cost-effective strategies to 

optimize sustainable space usage and consideration of existing community transportation planning and 

infrastructure, including access to public transit. This EO encourages the coordination of federal real 

property discussions with local communities in an effort to encourage planned transportation 

investments that aim to support public transit access.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-50

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.5.2 Affected Environment

The following roadways are anticipated to be used during construction associated with construction 

workers and deliveries/hauling trips to and from the action alternatives sites in the City of Coronado: the 

San Diego – Coronado Bay Bridge (SR-75), 3rd Street, 4th Street, Orange Avenue (SR-75), Silver Strand 

Boulevard, and Palm Avenue. Each roadway is discussed in more detail below.

• San Diego – Coronado Bay Bridge (SR-75) is classified and functions as a five-lane freeway. The 

traffic lanes on the bridge are separated by a movable median, which allows for three 

westbound traffic lanes in the morning and three eastbound traffic lanes in the afternoon and 

evening. The approach on each side of the bridge contains three lanes. An out-of-service toll 

plaza sits on the west side of the bridge and serves as a traffic calming device for vehicles 

entering Coronado. The San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge is also known as SR-75. The posted 

speed limit is 50 miles per hour (mph).

• 3rd Street is classified and functions as a westbound, one-way, three-lane principal arterial 

between Pomona Avenue and Alameda Boulevard. 3rd Street is also known as SR-75 between 

Pomona Avenue and Orange Avenue, and SR-282 between Orange Avenue and Alameda 

Boulevard. Sidewalks and curbs are located on both sides of the street for the entire length. No 

parking is allowed on 3rd Street east of Orange Avenue. An entrance-only NASNI gate is located 

at the west end of 3rd Street. This street serves as the main route from the San Diego Coronado 

Bay Bridge to NASNI. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.

• 4th Street is classified and functions as an eastbound, one-way, three-lane principal arterial 

between Alameda Boulevard and Pomona Avenue. Sidewalks, curbs, and parallel-parking spaces 

are located on both sides of the street for the entire length. 4th Street is also known as SR-282 

between Alameda Boulevard and Orange Avenue, and as SR-75 between Orange Avenue and 

Pomona Avenue. An exit-only NASNI gate is located at the west end of the street. This street 

serves as the main route from NASNI to the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge. The posted speed 

limit is 25 mph.

• Orange Avenue is classified and functions as a north/south, four-lane minor arterial between 

1st Street and Third Street, and a four-lane principal arterial between 3rd Street and Pomona 

Avenue. Orange Avenue is also known as SR-75. The road has a wide, raised landscaped median 

for the entire length. This street has sidewalks, curbs, and parallel parking spaces on both sides 

of the street for the entire length. The posted speed limit is 30 mph between 1st Street and 

9th Street, and 25 mph between 9th Street and Pomona Avenue.

• Silver Strand Boulevard (SR-75) is classified and functions as a north/south, four-lane principal 

arterial from Coronado Street to the City of Imperial Beach. The roadway is divided by threebeam barriers and primarily has a posted speed limit of 65 mph, but some portions are as low as 

35 mph. Silver Strand Boulevard is also known as SR-75 south of Pomona Avenue. Parking is not 

allowed along Silver Strand Boulevard; however, a paved shoulder lane is available on both 

sides. There is a separate two-lane bike path to the east of the road that travels the entire 

length.

• Palm Avenue is a six-lane prime arterial that transitions into a two-lane collector (Class III) in the 

westward direction. Between 7th Street and I-5, Palm Avenue is a divided six-lane prime arterial 

with a speed limit of 40 mph and is also known as SR-75. Between 3rd Street and 7th Street

(where SR-75 and Palm Avenue split), Palm Avenue is a four-lane collector separated by a 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-51

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

two-way left-turn lane. The speed limit in this section is 35 mph. West of 3rd Street, Palm 

Avenue is a two-lane undivided collector with a posted speed limit of 30 mph.

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences

Impacts to ground traffic and transportation are analyzed by considering the possible changes to 

existing traffic conditions and the capacity of area roadways from proposed increases in commuter and 

construction traffic.

3.5.3.1 Approach to Analysis

Traffic impacts were evaluated based on the addition of construction trips to the surrounding roadway 

network over a period of up to one year. It is anticipated that the maximum number of daily trips during 

construction would be about as much as 50 trips in a single workday based on similar types of projects 

and in consultation with the Navy.

3.5.3.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur and there would be little change 

to transportation. Under no action conditions, the roadway network would remain as it does under 

existing conditions and there would be a small amount of construction truck traffic associated with 

decommissioning of the existing steam plant. No new construction would occur; however, a small 

amount of truck traffic associated with the decommissioning of the existing steam plant would be 

assigned to the network. Demolition of the existing steam plant would generate a small amount of truck 

traffic. (For information on transportation impacts associated with the demolition of the existing 

cogeneration plant, please see the 2014 Final EA for the Decentralization of Steam Systems at Naval 

Base Coronado.) Therefore, no significant impacts would occur with implementation of the No Action 

Alternative.

3.5.3.3 Alternative 1 – Upgrade Existing 30-MW Cogeneration Plant on Site 1 

Temporary increases in ground traffic would occur as a result of the proposed upgrades to the existing 

30-MW cogeneration plant at NASNI associated with truck haul trips and construction worker trips. 

Employee trips would likely be concentrated in the peak commuting periods (i.e., typically between the 

hours of 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 and 6:00 p.m.), while truck trips associated with deliveries and 

hauling materials would occur throughout the day. The amount of construction traffic was estimated 

based on similar types of projects and in consultation with Navy staff with experience in similar 

construction projects. As a result, it is anticipated that throughout the construction process, no single 

day would likely exceed 50 trips associated with construction workers, deliveries, and hauling activities 

to and from Site 1. These trips would be distributed throughout the course of a typical business day. 

Construction debris would be disposed of at the Miramar or Otay Landfills. Project truck traffic travelling 

from the existing 30-MW cogeneration plant would move along internal roadways within NASNI, exit the 

installation along 2nd or 3rd Street and SR-75, and proceed onto I-5 towards either landfill.

Construction vehicles would likely utilize a combination of the San Diego – Coronado Bay Bridge (SR-75), 

3rd Street, 4th Street, Orange Avenue, Silver Strand Boulevard (SR-75), and Palm Avenue roadways;

however, other local streets in Coronado may be used throughout the construction period. The average 

daily number of trips experienced in Coronado is estimated to be more than 90,000 trips per day, 

including more than 70,000 trips daily across the San Diego – Coronado Bay Bridge (SR-75) (City of 

Coronado, 2014). The addition of up to 50 trips per day on a temporary basis during construction would 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-52

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

not result in a significant impact on any of the surrounding roadways during construction of 

Alternative 1. To minimize potential temporary construction and demolition traffic impacts, a separate 

Traffic Control Plan would be prepared by the private partner’s construction contractor and approved by 

the Navy prior to the beginning of trucking activities. The Plan would specify the following:

• Truck and worker trips associated with demolition and construction activities would be 

scheduled outside of the peak commuting periods of 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. to 

the maximum extent practicable in order to minimize the potential for peak hour traffic 

congestion;

• No oversized construction vehicles would be used on public roadways (i.e., all vehicles would 

comply with the size and weight limits specified in the California Vehicle Code);

• Only designated truck routes would be used; and

• Specific traffic control measures would be developed for circumstances where trucks would be 

temporarily stacked in the right-of-way.

Once constructed, operational traffic volumes would be minimal as operations would not require more 

than a minimal staff of on-Base workers throughout the life of the project. Infrequent trips would be 

made on an as-needed basis for emergencies and maintenance needs and are not anticipated to involve 

daily or regular trips to and from the Alternative 1 site.

In light of the relatively low number of projected trips per day during construction, traffic-related 

impacts would not be significant, and such impacts would be further minimized through implementation 

of the traffic control measures identified above.

3.5.3.4 Alternative 2 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 2 

Facilities developed under Alternative 2 would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 1 and 

associated trips would be similar to those anticipated for Alternative 1; however, the estimated number

of daily construction trips would be slightly less because there would be fewer construction trips 

associated with demolition (although demolition of the existing cogeneration plant, as previously 

analyzed in the 2014 Final EA [see Sec. 1.6], would go forward at some point). Operational trips would 

similarly be less than those anticipated during construction. Therefore, implementation of the 

Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to transportation.

3.5.3.5 Alternative 3 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic System on Site 2 

Facilities developed under Alternative 3 would include battery storage that would be housed in large 

containers at Site 2, which is located adjacent to Site 1. The estimated number of daily construction trips 

for the construction of a facility to house large integrated batteries with photovoltaic system would be 

less than the 50 potential daily trips associated with construction of a peaker plant. Due to the volume 

of daily trips that exist on the surrounding roadway to and from the City of Coronado, the addition of 

less than the 50 potential trips associated with the construction of Alternative 3 would not result in 

significant impacts to transportation. Operational trips would similarly be less than those anticipated 

during construction.

3.5.3.6 Alternative 4 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 3 

Facilities developed under Alternative 4 would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 1 and 

associated trips would be similar to those anticipated for Site 3. Truck trips would be slightly less as 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-53

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

there would be no demolition associated with this alternative (although demolition of the existing 

cogeneration plant, as previously analyzed in the 2014 Final EA [see Sec. 1.6], would go forward at some 

point). Operational trips would similarly be less than those anticipated during construction. Therefore, 

implementation of the Alternative 4 would not result in significant impacts to transportation.

3.5.3.7 Alternative 5 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic System on Site 3 

Facilities developed under Alternative 5 would include battery storage that would be housed in large 

containers at Site 3, which is located near Site 1. The estimated number of daily construction trips for 

the construction of a facility to house large integrated batteries with photovoltaic would be less than the 

50 potential daily trips associated with construction of a peaker plant. Due to the volume of daily trips 

that exist on the surrounding roadway to and from NASNI, the addition of less than the 50 potential trips 

associated with the construction of Alternative 5 would not result in significant impacts to 

transportation. Operational trips would similarly be less than those anticipated during construction.

3.5.3.8 Alternative 6 – Operation of Existing Cogeneration Plant on Site 1

No new facilities would be developed under Alternative 6 since the current plant would continue to be 

utilized. Construction truck trips would be slightly less as there would be no demolition and construction 

associated with this alternative. Operational trips may be slightly higher than those currently 

experienced with the existing facility since the plant would be run on a full-time basis versus part-time; 

however, this increase would be nominal. Therefore, implementation of the Alternative 6 would not 

result in significant impacts to transportation.

3.6 Public Health and Safety 

This section discusses hazardous materials, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and contaminated sites, 

as well as public health and safety, which includes consideration for any activities, occurrences, or 

operations that have the potential to affect the safety, well-being, or health of members of the public. A 

safe environment is one in which there is either no potential for death, serious bodily injury or illness, or 

property damage, or such potential has been optimally reduced. The primary goal is to identify and 

prevent potential accidents or impacts on the general public. Public health and safety within this EA 

discusses information pertaining to: (1) hazardous materials and wastes, which includes hazardous 

materials, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and contaminated sites; and (2) other health and safety 

issues, which include community emergency services, construction activities, operations, and 

environmental health and safety risks to children.

Hazardous materials, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and contaminated sites are defined under 

Regulatory Setting. Other health and safety issues are defined below. Community emergency services 

are organizations which ensure public safety and health by addressing different emergencies. The three 

main emergency service functions include police, fire and rescue service, and emergency medical 

service. Public health and safety during construction, demolition, and renovation activities is generally 

associated with construction traffic, as well as the safety of personnel within or adjacent to the 

construction zones. Operational safety may refer to the actual use of the facility or built-out proposed 

project, or training or testing activities and potential risks to inhabitants or users of adjacent or nearby 

land and water parcels. Safety measures are often implemented through designated safety zones, 

warning areas, or other types of designations.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-54

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.6.1 Regulatory Setting

3.6.1.1 Hazardous Materials and Wastes

Hazardous materials are defined by 49 CFR section 171.8 as “hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, 

marine pollutants, elevated temperature materials, materials designated as hazardous in the Hazardous 

Materials Table, and materials that meet the defining criteria for hazard classes and divisions in 49 CFR 

Part 173.” Transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation 

regulations. 

Hazardous wastes are defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by 

the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, as: “a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which 

because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may (A) cause, 

or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or 

incapacitating reversible, illness; or (B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health 

or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise 

managed.” Certain types of hazardous wastes are subject to special management provisions intended to 

ease the management burden and facilitate the recycling of such materials. These are called universal 

wastes and their associated regulatory requirements are specified in 40 CFR Part 273. Four types of 

waste are currently covered under the universal wastes regulations: hazardous waste batteries, 

hazardous waste pesticides that are either recalled or collected in waste pesticide collection programs, 

hazardous waste thermostats, and hazardous waste lamps, such as fluorescent light bulbs.

Special hazards are those substances that might pose a risk to human health and are addressed 

separately from other hazardous substances. Special hazards include asbestos-containing material 

(ACM), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and lead-based paint (LBP). USEPA is given authority to 

regulate special hazard substances by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Asbestos is also 

regulated by USEPA under the CAA, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act. 

The DoD established the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) to facilitate thorough 

investigation and cleanup of contaminated sites on military installations (active installations, 

installations subject to Base Realignment and Closure, and formerly used defense sites). The Installation 

Restoration Program and the Military Munitions Response Program are components of the DERP. The 

Installation Restoration Program requires each DoD installation to identify, investigate, and clean up 

hazardous waste disposal or release sites. The Military Munitions Response Program addresses 

nonoperational rangelands that are suspected or known to contain unexploded ordnance, discarded 

military munitions, or munitions constituent contamination. The Environmental Restoration Program is 

the Navy’s initiative to address DERP.

3.6.1.2 Public Health and Safety 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, 

requires federal agencies to “make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health and 

safety risks that may disproportionately affect children and shall ensure that its policies, programs, 

activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental 

health risks or safety risks.”
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-55

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.6.2 Affected Environment

3.6.2.1 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes

The Navy has implemented a Hazardous Material Control and Management Program and a Hazardous 

Waste Minimization Program for all activities. These programs are governed Navy-wide by applicable 

OPNAV instructions and at the installation by specific instructions issued by the Base Commander. The 

Navy continuously monitors its operations to find ways to minimize the use of hazardous materials and 

to reduce the generation of hazardous wastes.

Various hazardous materials (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, engine oil, various lubricants, 

painting materials, and ethylene glycol) are used to support building, aircraft, target, and vehicle 

operations and maintenance at NASNI. Universal wastes, a subset of hazardous wastes that includes 

even household types of items such as alkaline batteries, all lamps except incandescent lamps, mercurycontaining devices such as thermostats, cathode ray tubes, consumer electronic devices, and aerosol 

containers, are also present and are currently being segregated, stored, managed, and properly 

disposed of in accordance with the current (2006) CNRSW Environmental Waste Management Plan 

(DON, 2014).

Aboveground storage tanks are present at the existing steam cogeneration plant at Site 1. Two 

aboveground storage tanks, a 400,000-gallon (1,514-cubic-meter) #2 heating oil tank and 3,000-gallon 

(11.4-cubic-meter) diesel tank, are used for back-up use in boilers and generators, should natural gas 

service fail. Natural gas is used to fuel the boilers and natural gas turbines. A 10,400-gallon 

(39.4-cubic-meter) aboveground ammonia storage tank is used to store fluids for the cogeneration 

process. Building 6502 is an ammonia pump house, Building 11G is an oil pump house, and Building 6503 

is a natural gas compressor house.

Special Hazards (Asbestos Containing Materials, Lead Based Paint, Polychlorinated Biphenyls)

ACMs can be present in any age building, but are most likely to be found in buildings constructed prior 

to 1989. LBP can be present in buildings constructed prior to the 1978 ban. PCBs can be present in 

products and equipment produced before the 1979 ban. Because the Navy has operated the various 

portions of NASNI for several decades, it is assumed that some buildings on NASNI contain ACMs, LBP, 

and PCBs (DON, 2014). The existing steam cogeneration plant on Site 1 was constructed in 1989; 

therefore, ACM, PCBs, and LBP would not be present.

Defense Environmental Restoration Program

The Navy Environmental Restoration Program, which is composed of the Installation Restoration 

Program (IRP) and Munitions Response Program, is responsible for identifying contaminant releases, 

evaluating risk to human health and the environment, and developing and selecting response actions, as 

needed. As of November 2016, 153 active IRP sites have been identified at NASNI (Pound, 2016). Only 

one IRP site, called Operable Unit (OU) 24, intersects or is immediately adjacent to the action 

alternatives (see Figure 3-3).
Wright A

ve

n

u

e

Quay Road

I:\PROJECTS\N\NAV\NAV-03.10_EnergySecurity\Map\EA_NASNI\Fig3-3_IRPSites.mxd NAV-03.10 11/22/16 -EV

Figure 3-3

NAVAL AIR STATION NORTH ISLAND

IRP Sites

Hazards Site Operating Unit 24

Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) Boundary

50' Wide Utility Corridor

Site 1 (Existing Steam Plant)

Site 2

eConduit System Duct Bank

Gas Line

San Diego Bay KEY MAP

0 75

Meters N

0 200

Feet
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-57

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Operable Unit 24

OU 24, known as the Building 653 Groundwater Plume, is a groundwater plume located near 

Building 653, in the northeastern part of NASNI. It consists of shallow groundwater impacted with 

trichloroethylene (TCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cDCE), and vinyl chloride (VC), likely the result of leaks 

from the industrial waste pipeline located south of Building 653.

In 2007, a combination of active (forced gradient) and passive (natural gradient) enhanced in situ 

bioremediation treatment systems were installed as the final removal action for the shallow aquifer 

impacted by cDCE and vinyl chloride at OU 24. Active remediation is complete. Each groundwater 

monitoring well is monitored until three years of analytical results confirm contaminant levels remain at 

or below the project action level (525 micrograms per liter [μg/L] total chlorinated VOCs as VC 

equivalents). One confirmation monitoring event remains for monitoring well 653-MW-23B which will 

be conducted in April 2017 (Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest 2016). Confirmation 

monitoring is anticipated to be complete in 2017.

The remaining technical issue is resolution of whether there is unacceptable vapor intrusion risk present 

at the site. The Navy does not believe there is based on the analytical data; however, the issue is not 

resolved with the regulatory agencies. If the Proposed Action is implemented at Site 1 or 2, the Navy’s 

Lead Remedial Project would be consulted if trenching or excavation were to be conducted on or 

adjacent to OU 24 to determine if any health and safety measures (such as potential incorporation of 

design features to prevent vapor intrusion) would be required.

3.6.2.2 Public Health and Safety 

Community Emergency Services

The Navy maintains a fire department and rescue unit at NASNI. The fire department at NASNI includes 

three engine companies, one ladder truck, and two crash companies staffed by fully trained and 

certified personnel. Fire department personnel also include fire inspectors that run full-spectrum fire 

prevention and education programs. The City of Coronado fire department (located at 1001 6th Street, 

Coronado) augments the Base’s fire department through mutual aid agreements (DON, 2014). 

The NASNI Police and Security Department provides random vehicle patrols, emergency response, and 

gate security. NASNI Police and Security Department personnel only have jurisdiction on Navy property. 

When major crimes occur, the local Coronado Police Department (located at 700 Orange Avenue, 

Coronado) and federal authorities are contacted, as appropriate. The department employs 67 staff 

members, uses civilian Senior Volunteers, and has a Reserve Officer Program. The primary 

responsibilities of the unit are to investigate collisions and enforce vehicle code violations (DON, 2014). 

Naval Medical Center San Diego (NMCSD) is located in the City of San Diego on Florida Drive near Balboa 

Park. NMCSD, which has served the military community in San Diego since 1914, has a staff of over 

6,000 military, civilian, contractor, and volunteer personnel. The hospital also operates a network of 

clinics located at San Diego area military installations. Through these clinics, ambulatory care is provided 

to active duty personnel at NASNI and their families. In addition, there are some NMCSD medical and 

dental service facilities at NASNI located in Buildings 600 and 601 (DON, 2014).

In 1997, Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks, was issued. This order requires each federal agency to “...make it a high priority to identify and 

assess environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children and 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-58

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

shall...ensure that its policies, programs, activities and standards address disproportionate risks to 

children...”

A Child Development Center (CDC) at NASNI provides on-Base child care services. The NASNI CDC is 

located north of Building 678, about 0.5 km (0.33 mile) south and west of the action alternative sites. 

The closest Coronado Unified School District schools are located between 5th and 7th Streets and D and 

H Avenues in Coronado, about 1.6 km (1 mile) southeast of the action alternative sites.

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences

The safety and environmental health analysis contained in the respective sections addresses issues 

related to the health and well-being of military personnel and civilians living on or in the vicinity of 

NASNI. Specifically, this section provides information on hazards associated with the proposed energy 

security and resilience assets, potentially including a natural gas peaker plant, installation of gridintegrated battery storage or other energy assets at NASNI. The hazardous materials and wastes analysis 

contained in the respective sections addresses issues related to the use and management of hazardous 

materials and wastes as well as the presence and management of specific cleanup sites at NASNI. 

Additionally, this section addresses the environmental health and safety risks to children.

3.6.3.1 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur and there would be no change to 

public health and safety, including hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, associated with removal 

of the existing cogeneration plant on Site 1, or the development of Site 2 or Site 3 with a natural gas 

peaker plant or large integrated batteries with photovoltaic systems. The existing 30-MW cogeneration 

plant would be decommissioned under the No Action Alternative, and public health and safety issues 

have been addressed in a separate NEPA EA for the existing plant and were considered not significant 

based on the protective measures outlined in that EA. (For information on public health and safetyrelated impacts associated with demolition of the existing cogeneration plant, please see the 2014 Final 

EA for the Decentralization of Steam Systems at Naval Base Coronado.) Therefore, no significant impacts 

would occur with implementation of the No Action Alternative.

3.6.3.2 Alternative 1 – Upgrade Existing 30-MW Cogeneration Plant on Site 1 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in conversion of the existing steam cogeneration plant to a 

natural gas peaker plant at Site 1, near the intersection of Quay Road and Rogers Road (refer to 

Figure 2-1). The site and surrounding areas generally consist of large paved concrete areas with parking, 

roadways, the existing steam cogeneration plant, and several buildings. While OU 24 is located within 

proximity to Site 1, the site was remediated and monitored and does not present a potential threat to 

public health or safety. All project construction activities would be conducted in accordance with the 

project’s Health and Safety Plan, described in Section 2.3. 

Alternative 1 would result in the temporary increase of the use of hazardous wastes related to 

conversion and construction activities. Wastes from the construction of Alternative 1 would involve 

debris associated with the retrofit of the existing cogeneration plant; however, debris would be 

removed and disposed of in compliance with the Navy’s Sustainability and Environmental Management 

Policy Statement (dated 16 September 2009) and sustainability goals (e.g., recycling approximately 

50 percent of municipal trash and 40 percent of construction and demolition waste). Additionally, the 

private partner would coordinate with the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The construction 

contractor for the private partner would implement a Hazardous Waste Management Plan, detailed in 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-59

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Section 2.5 to ensure appropriate procedures are in place if any contaminated soil is encountered during 

construction. As discussed in Section 3.7.2, the existing steam cogeneration plant on Site 1 was 

constructed in 1989; therefore, ACM, PCBs, and LBP would not be present.

Once constructed, ongoing use of other hazardous materials would occur with operations, such as the 

use of turbine lubrication oil, hydraulic fluid, mineral oil, lube/valve seal oil, heat transfer oil, and 

aqueous ammonia; however, contractors would be required to properly store, transport, and dispose of 

their hazardous waste, and therefore, such ongoing would pose minimal risk to the human environment. 

The NASNI CDC is located within 1.6 km (1 mile) of Alternative 1. Given the distance from the CDC 

facility, which is about 0.5 km (0.33 mile) southwest of Alternative 1, there would be no environmental 

health and safety risks associated with the Proposed Action that would disproportionately affect 

children. Therefore, implementation of this action alternative would not result in significant impacts to 

public health and safety.

3.6.3.3 Alternative 2 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 2

Implementation of Alternative 2 would consist of installation of a natural gas peaker plant at Site 2, 

which consists of a paved parking area adjacent to Site 1. Similar to the discussion for Alternative 1, a

temporary increase in the use of hazardous materials would occur related to construction of a natural 

gas peaker plant on Site 2. However, because Site 2 consists of paved areas with no structures, 

construction would create a minimal number of construction debris that would be removed and 

disposed of in compliance with the Navy’s Sustainability and Environmental Management Policy 

Statement (date 16 September 2009) and sustainability goals (e.g., recycling approximately 50 percent 

of municipal trash and 40 percent of construction and demolition waste). During construction, safety 

measures would be addressed in the Health and Safety Plan. Once constructed, ongoing use of 

hazardous materials associated with a peaker plant would occur, and would involve turbine lubrication 

oil, hydraulic fluid, mineral oil, lube/valve seal oil, heat transfer oil, and aqueous ammonia. However, 

both a Hazardous Waste Management Plan and a Health and Safety Plan would be required to address 

risks to construction workers and surrounding sensitive receptors during operations, including children 

at the CDC facility. As a result, impacts related to hazards and public health and safety would not be 

significant. 

3.6.3.4 Alternative 3 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic System on Site 2

Alternative 3 would involve a large integrated battery facility with photovoltaic system at Site 2. During 

construction, safety measures would be addressed in the Health and Safety Plan. The Health and Safety 

Plan, along with the Hazardous Waste Management Plan, would be implemented to address risks to 

construction workers and surrounding sensitive receptors during operations, including children at the 

CDC facility. As a result, impacts related to hazards and public health and safety would not be significant.

3.6.3.5 Alternative 4 – Natural Gas Peaker Plant on Site 3

Alternative 4 would involve a natural gas peaker plant on Site 3, near the intersection of Colorado Street 

and Quay Road. Site 3 exists as a paved parking area within a larger parking lot and the immediate 

vicinity consists of roadways. Similar to the discussion for Alternative 1, a temporary increase in the use 

of hazardous materials would occur related to the construction of a natural gas peaker plant on Site 3. 

Once constructed, ongoing use of hazardous materials associated with peaker plants would occur, and 

would involve turbine lubrication oil, hydraulic fluid, mineral oil, lube/valve seal oil, heat transfer oil, and 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-60

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

aqueous ammonia. However, both a Hazardous Waste Management Plan and a Health and Safety Plan 

would be required to address risks to construction workers and surrounding sensitive receptors during 

operations, including children at the CDC facility. As a result, impacts related to hazards and public 

health and safety would not be significant.

3.6.3.6 Alternative 5 – Large Integrated Batteries with Photovoltaic System on Site 3

Alternative 5 would involve a large integrated battery facility with photovoltaic system at Site 3. The 

Health and Safety Plan, along with the Hazardous Waste Management Plan, would be implemented to 

address risks to construction workers and surrounding sensitive receptors during operations, including 

children at the CDC facility. As a result, impacts related to hazards and public health and safety would 

not be significant.

3.6.3.7 Alternative 6 –Operation of Existing Cogeneration Plant on Site 1

Alternative 6 would involve the continuation of existing operations at Site 1. No construction or 

upgrades are involved in Alternative 6 and no appreciable changes in impacts related to public health 

and safety would be anticipated. As a result, impacts related to hazards and public health and safety 

would not be significant.

3.7 Summary of Potential Impacts to Resources and Impact Avoidance and Minimization

A summary of the potential impacts associated with each of the action alternatives and the No Action 

Alternative is presented in Table 3-18. No significant impacts were identified and therefore no 

mitigation measures to reduce any such impacts to less than significant levels would be required.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-61

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-18

Summary of Potential Impacts to Resource Areas

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative

Alternative 1 –

Convert Existing 

30-MW 

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Alternative 2 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 2

Alternative 3 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 2

Alternative 4 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 3

Alternative 5 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 3

Alternative 6 –

Operation of 

Existing

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Air Quality Under the No Action 

Alternative, the 

Proposed Action 

would not occur and 

there would be no 

near-term change to 

baseline air quality. 

Demolition of the 

existing plant was 

addressed under the 

previous 

environmental 

documentation.

Alternative 1 would 

result in emissions of 

air pollutants during 

both construction 

and operations. 

Emissions would be 

below de minimis

levels. Therefore, 

implementation of 

Alternative 1 would 

not result in an 

adverse effect 

related to air quality. 

Alternative 2 would 

result in emissions of 

air pollutants during 

both construction 

and operations. 

Emissions would be 

below de minimis

levels. Therefore, 

implementation of 

Alternative 2 would 

not result in an 

adverse effect 

related to air quality. 

Alternative 3 would 

result in emissions of 

air pollutants during 

construction only 

comparable to those 

estimated for 

Alternative 1. The 

photovoltaic system 

would replace the 

natural gas turbine, 

thereby eliminating 

the primary source of 

operations-phase 

emissions described 

under Alternative 1. 

Conversely, the 

energy generated by 

the proposed 

photovoltaic system 

would replace the 

energy consumption 

provided by burning 

of fossil fuels, 

thereby resulting in 

an indirect reduction 

of GHG emissions.

Alternative 4 would 

result in emissions of 

air pollutants during 

both construction 

and operations

essentially identical 

to those estimated 

for Alternative 1. 

Emissions would be 

below de minimis

levels. Therefore, 

implementation of 

Alternative 4 would 

not result in an 

adverse effect 

related to air quality. 

Alternative 5 would 

result in emissions of 

air pollutants during 

construction only 

comparable to those 

estimated for 

Alternative 1. The 

photovoltaic system 

would replace the 

natural gas turbine, 

thereby eliminating 

the primary source of 

operations-phase 

emissions described 

under Alternative 1. 

Conversely, the 

energy generated by 

the proposed 

photovoltaic system 

would replace the 

energy consumption 

provided by burning 

of fossil fuels, 

thereby resulting in 

an indirect reduction 

of GHG emissions.

Alternative 6 would 

result in emissions of 

air pollutants during 

operations only, but 

in amounts 

considerably greater 

than for Alternative 

1. Decommissioning

and construction 

would not occur 

under this 

Alternative, which 

would result in some 

decrease in 

construction 

equipment and 

ultimately, to air 

emissions. Therefore, 

implementation of 

this action 

alternative would not 

result in significant 

impacts to air quality.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-62

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-18

Summary of Potential Impacts to Resource Areas

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative

Alternative 1 –

Convert Existing 

30-MW 

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Alternative 2 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 2

Alternative 3 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 2

Alternative 4 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 3

Alternative 5 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 3

Alternative 6 –

Operation of 

Existing

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Visual 

Resources

No significant 

impacts associated 

with visual resources 

would occur.

Due to the distance 

of the site from any 

surrounding areas 

outside of NASNI, as 

well as intervening 

development and 

landscaping, visual 

impacts are 

anticipated to be less 

than significant 

during construction.

Alternative 1 would 

not result in a 

noticeable change to 

existing conditions 

on-Base from any of 

the landscape units. 

No significant 

impacts associated 

with visual resources

would occur.

Due to the distance 

of the site from any 

surrounding areas 

outside of NASNI, as 

well as intervening 

development and 

landscaping, visual 

impacts are 

anticipated to be less 

than significant 

during construction. 

Alternative 2 would 

not result in a 

noticeable change to 

existing conditions 

on-Base from any of 

the landscape units. 

No significant 

impacts associated 

with visual resources

would occur.

Due to the distance 

of the site from any 

surrounding areas 

outside of NASNI, as 

well as intervening 

development and 

landscaping, visual 

impacts are 

anticipated to be less 

than significant 

during construction. 

Alternative 2 would 

not result in a 

noticeable change to 

existing conditions 

on-Base from any of 

the landscape units. 

No significant 

impacts associated 

with visual resources

would occur.

Due to the distance 

of the site from any 

surrounding areas 

outside of NASNI, as 

well as intervening 

development and 

landscaping, visual 

impacts are 

anticipated to be less 

than significant 

during construction. 

Alternative 4 would 

not result in a 

noticeable change to 

existing conditions 

on-Base from any of 

the landscape units. 

No significant 

impacts associated 

with visual resources

would occur.

Due to the distance 

of the alternative 

from any 

surrounding areas 

outside of NASNI, as 

well as intervening 

development and 

landscaping, visual 

impacts are 

anticipated to be less 

than significant 

during construction. 

Alternative 2 would 

not result in a 

noticeable change to 

existing conditions 

on-Base from any of 

the landscape units. 

No significant 

impacts associated 

with visual resources

would occur.

Under Alternative 6, 

no new structures 

would be introduced 

in the area and the 

existing 

infrastructure would 

remain beyond the 

existing lease and no 

significant impacts 

associated with 

visual resources 

would occur.

Noise There would be no 

substantial change 

to baseline noise 

levels, although 

there would be 

some noise 

associated with the

Construction and 

operation of 

Alternative 1 would 

result in periodic and 

temporary 

generation of noise 

associated with 

Construction and 

operation of 

Alternative 2 would 

result in periodic and 

temporary 

generation of noise 

associated with 

Construction and

operation of 

Alternative 3 would 

generate low levels 

of construction 

noise. Operation 

would largely involve

Construction and 

operation of 

Alternative 4 would 

result in periodic and 

temporary 

generation of noise 

associated with

Construction and 

operation of 

Alternative 5 would 

generate low levels 

of construction 

noise. Operation 

would largely involve

There would be no 

construction 

associated with 

Alternative 6 and no 

decommissioning of 

the existing 

cogeneration plant. 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-63

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-18

Summary of Potential Impacts to Resource Areas

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative

Alternative 1 –

Convert Existing 

30-MW 

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Alternative 2 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 2

Alternative 3 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 2

Alternative 4 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 3

Alternative 5 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 3

Alternative 6 –

Operation of 

Existing

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Noise (cont.) decommissioning of 

the existing steam 

plant. Therefore, no 

significant impacts 

due to the noise 

environment would 

occur.

construction 

equipment and 

operation of the 

peaker plant 

equipment; 

however, there are 

no significant 

impacts associated 

with construction or 

operation noise.

construction 

equipment and, 

potentially, 

operation of the 

peaker plant 

equipment; 

however, no 

significant noise 

impacts would occur.

passive operation, 

without the use of 

motorized or other 

noise-generating 

equipment. Noise 

impacts would not 

be significant.

construction 

equipment and, 

potentially, 

operation of the 

peaker plant 

equipment; 

however, no 

significant noise 

impacts would occur.

passive operation, 

without the use of 

motorized or other 

noise-generating 

equipment. Noise 

impacts would not 

be significant.

No significant 

increases in short- or 

long-term noise are 

anticipated.

Infrastructure The existing water, 

wastewater, and 

solid waste services 

would remain 

unchanged. 

Therefore, no 

impacts are 

anticipated 

Existing water, 

wastewater, solid 

waste, and energy 

services would 

remain unchanged 

under Alternative 1; 

therefore, there 

would be no 

significant impacts to 

these services and 

utilities. 

Existing water, 

wastewater, solid 

waste, and energy 

services would 

remain unchanged 

under Alternative 2; 

therefore, there 

would be no 

significant impacts to 

these services and 

utilities. 

Existing water, 

wastewater, solid 

waste, and energy 

services would 

remain unchanged 

under Alternative 3; 

therefore, there 

would be no 

significant impacts to 

these services and 

utilities. 

Existing water, 

wastewater, solid 

waste, and energy 

services would 

remain unchanged 

under Alternative 4; 

therefore, there 

would be no 

significant impacts to 

these services and 

utilities. 

Existing water, 

wastewater, solid 

waste, and energy 

services would 

remain unchanged 

under Alternative 5; 

therefore, there 

would be no 

significant impacts to 

these services and 

utilities. 

The existing water, 

wastewater, and 

solid waste services 

would remain 

unchanged. 

Therefore, no 

impacts are 

anticipated.

Transportation No new construction 

would occur; 

however, a small 

amount of truck 

traffic associated 

with the 

decommissioning of 

the existing steam

The addition of up to 

50 trips per day on a 

temporary basis 

during construction 

would not result in a 

significant impact on 

any of the 

surrounding

The addition of up to 

50 trips per day on a 

temporary basis 

during construction 

would not result in a 

significant impact on 

any of the 

surrounding

The addition of up to 

50 trips per day on a 

temporary basis 

during construction 

would not result in a 

significant impact on 

any of the 

surrounding

The addition of up to 

50 trips per day on a 

temporary basis 

during construction 

would not result in a 

significant impact on 

any of the 

surrounding

The addition of up to 

50 trips per day on a 

temporary basis 

during construction 

would not result in a 

significant impact on 

any of the 

surrounding

No new construction 

would occur; 

however, operations 

would continue 

beyond the current 

lease and periodic 

trips associated with 

ongoing maintenance 

would continue. 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-64

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-18

Summary of Potential Impacts to Resource Areas

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative

Alternative 1 –

Convert Existing 

30-MW 

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Alternative 2 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 2

Alternative 3 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 2

Alternative 4 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 3

Alternative 5 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 3

Alternative 6 –

Operation of 

Existing

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Transportation 

(cont.)

plant would be 

assigned to the 

network. Therefore, 

no significant 

impacts would 

occur.

roadways during 

construction. To 

minimize potential 

temporary 

construction and 

demolition traffic 

impacts, a separate 

Traffic Control Plan 

would be prepared. 

No significant 

impacts would occur 

to transportation.

roadways during 

construction. To 

minimize potential 

temporary 

construction and 

demolition traffic 

impacts, a separate 

Traffic Control Plan 

would be prepared. 

No significant 

impacts would occur 

to transportation.

roadways during 

construction. To 

minimize potential 

temporary 

construction and 

demolition traffic 

impacts, a separate 

Traffic Control Plan 

would be prepared. 

No significant 

impacts would occur 

to transportation.

roadways during 

construction. To 

minimize potential 

temporary 

construction and 

demolition traffic 

impacts, a separate 

Traffic Control Plan 

would be prepared. 

No significant 

impacts would occur 

to transportation.

roadways during 

construction. To 

minimize potential 

temporary 

construction and 

demolition traffic 

impacts, a separate 

Traffic Control Plan 

would be prepared. 

No significant 

impacts would occur 

to transportation.

No significant 

impacts would occur 

to transportation.

Public Health 

and Safety

The Proposed Action 

would not occur and 

there would be no 

change to public 

health and safety, 

including hazardous 

materials and 

hazardous wastes. 

The existing 40-MW 

cogeneration plant 

would be 

decommissioned 

under the No Action 

Alternative, and 

public health and

safety issues have

been addressed in a 

Alternative 1 would 

result in the 

temporary increase 

of the use of 

hazardous wastes 

related to conversion 

and construction 

activities and would 

involve debris that 

would be removed 

and disposed of in 

compliance with the 

Navy's Sustainability 

and Environmental 

Management Policy

Statement and

sustainability goals.

Similar to Alternative 

1, a temporary 

increase in the use of 

hazardous materials 

would occur related 

to construction of a 

natural gas peaker 

plant on Site 2. 

However, because 

Site 2 consists of 

paved areas with no 

structures, 

construction would 

create a minimal 

amount of

construction debris 

that would be

During construction, 

safety measures 

would be addressed 

in the Health and 

Safety Plan. The 

Health and Safety 

Plan, along with the 

Hazardous Waste 

Management Plan, 

would be 

implemented to 

address risks to 

construction workers 

and surrounding 

sensitive receptors

during operations,

including children at 

Similar to Alternative 

1, a temporary 

increase in the use of 

hazardous materials 

would occur related 

to construction of a 

natural gas peaker 

plant on Site 2. 

However, because 

Site 2 consists of 

paved areas with no 

structures, 

construction would 

create a minimal

amount of 

construction debris

that would be 

During construction, 

safety measures 

would be addressed 

in the Health and 

Safety Plan. The 

Health and Safety 

Plan, along with the 

Hazardous Waste 

Management Plan, 

would be 

implemented to 

address risks to 

construction workers 

and surrounding 

sensitive receptors 

during operations,

including children at 

No new construction 

would occur; 

however, operations 

would continue 

beyond the current 

lease and ongoing 

use of other 

hazardous materials 

would occur with 

operations, however, 

contractors would be 

required to properly 

store, transport, and 

dispose of their 

hazardous waste, 

and, therefore, 

would pose 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

3-65

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-18

Summary of Potential Impacts to Resource Areas

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative

Alternative 1 –

Convert Existing 

30-MW 

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Alternative 2 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 2

Alternative 3 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 2

Alternative 4 –

Natural Gas Peaker 

Plant on Site 3

Alternative 5 –

Large Integrated 

Batteries with 

Photovoltaic System 

on Site 3

Alternative 6 –

Operation of 

Existing

Cogeneration Plant 

on Site 1

Public Health 

and Safety 

(cont.)

separate NEPA 

Categorical Exclusion 

for the existing plant 

and were considered 

not significant based 

on the protective 

measures outlined in 

Categorical 

Exclusion. Therefore, 

no significant 

impacts would 

occur.

Ongoing use of other 

hazardous materials 

would occur with 

operations; however, 

contractors would be 

required to properly 

store, transport, and 

dispose of their 

hazardous waste, 

and therefore, would 

pose minimal risk to 

the human 

environment. 

Therefore, there 

would be no 

significant public 

health and safety 

impacts.

removed and 

disposed of in 

compliance with the 

Navy's Sustainability 

and Environmental 

Management Policy 

Statement and 

sustainability goals. 

Ongoing use of other 

hazardous materials 

would occur with 

operations;

however, 

contractors would be 

required to properly 

store, transport, and 

dispose of their 

hazardous waste, 

and therefore, would 

pose minimal risk to 

the human 

environment. 

Therefore, there 

would be no 

significant public 

health and safety 

impacts.

the CDC facility. As a 

result, impacts 

related to hazards 

and public health and 

safety would not be 

significant.

removed and 

disposed of in 

compliance with the 

Navy's Sustainability 

and Environmental 

Management Policy 

Statement and 

sustainability goals. 

Ongoing use of other 

hazardous materials 

would occur with 

operations;

however, 

contractors would be 

required to properly 

store, transport, and 

dispose of their 

hazardous waste 

and, therefore, 

would pose minimal 

risk to the human 

environment. 

Therefore, there 

would be no 

significant public 

health and safety 

impacts.

the CDC facility. As a 

result, impacts 

related to hazards 

and public health and 

safety would not be 

significant.

minimal risk to the 

human environment. 

Therefore, there 

would be no 

significant public 

health and safety 

impacts.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment July 2017

3-66

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

4-1

Cumulative Impacts

4 Cumulative Impacts

This section (1) defines cumulative impacts, (2) describes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions relevant to cumulative impacts, (3) analyzes the incremental interaction the proposed 

action may have with other actions, and (4) evaluates cumulative impacts potentially resulting from 

these interactions.

4.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts

The approach taken in the analysis of cumulative impacts follows the objectives of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and CEQ 

guidance. Cumulative impacts are defined in 40 CFR section 1508.7 as “the impact on the environment 

that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to the other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over a period of time.”

To determine the scope of environmental impact analyses, agencies shall consider cumulative actions, 

which when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant impacts and should 

therefore be discussed in the same impact analysis document.

In addition, CEQ and USEPA have published guidance addressing implementation of cumulative impact 

analyses—including Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis (CEQ, 

2005) and Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (USEPA 1999). CEQ 

guidance entitled Considering Cumulative Impacts Under NEPA (1997) states that cumulative impact 

analyses should

“...determine the magnitude and significance of the environmental consequences of the proposed 

action in the context of the cumulative impacts of other past, present, and future actions...identify 

significant cumulative impacts...[and]...focus on truly meaningful impacts.”

Cumulative impacts are most likely to arise when a relationship or synergism exists between a proposed 

action and other actions expected to occur in a similar location or during a similar time period. Actions 

overlapping with or in close proximity to the proposed action would be expected to have more potential 

for a relationship than those more geographically separated. Similarly, relatively concurrent actions 

would tend to offer a higher potential for cumulative impacts. To identify cumulative impacts, the 

analysis needs to address the following three fundamental questions.

• Does a relationship exist such that affected resource areas of the proposed action might interact 

to some appreciable extent with the affected resource areas of past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable actions?

• If one or more of the affected resource areas of the proposed action and another action could 

be expected to appreciably interact, would the proposed action affect or be affected by impacts 

of the other action?

• If such a relationship exists, then does an assessment reveal any potentially significant impacts 

not identified when the proposed action is considered alone?
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

4-2

Cumulative Impacts

4.2 Scope of Cumulative Impacts Analysis

The scope of the cumulative impacts analysis involves both the geographic extent of the effects and the 

time frame in which the effects could be expected to occur. For this EA/EIS, the study area delimits the 

geographic extent of the cumulative impacts analysis. In general, the study area will include those areas 

previously identified in Chapter 3 for the respective resource areas. The time frame for cumulative 

impacts centers on the timing of the proposed action. 

Another factor influencing the scope of cumulative impacts analysis involves identifying other actions to 

consider. Beyond determining that the geographic scope and time frame for the actions interrelate to 

the proposed action, the analysis employs the measure of “reasonably foreseeable” to include or 

exclude other actions. For the purposes of this analysis, public documents prepared by federal, state, 

and local government agencies form the primary sources of information regarding reasonably 

foreseeable actions. Documents used to identify other actions include notices of intent for EISs and EAs, 

management plans, land use plans, and other planning related studies.

4.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

This section will focus on past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects at and near the 

Proposed Action locale. In determining which projects to include in the cumulative impacts analysis, a 

preliminary determination was made regarding the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable action. 

Specifically, using the first fundamental question included in Section 4.1, it was determined if a

relationship exists such that the affected resource areas of the Proposed Action (included in this EA/EIS) 

might interact with the affected resource area of a past, present, or reasonably foreseeable action. If no 

such potential relationship exists, the project was not carried forward into the cumulative impacts 

analysis. In accordance with CEQ guidance (CEQ 2005), these actions considered but excluded from 

further cumulative effects analysis are not catalogued here as the intent is to focus the analysis on the 

meaningful actions relevant to informed decision-making. Projects included in this cumulative impact

analysis are listed in Table 4-1 and briefly described in the following subsections.

Table 4-1

Cumulative Action Evaluation

Action Level of NEPA

Analysis Completed

Past Actions

NASNI, NBC Lodge Expansion EA

Introduction of the P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft into the Pacific Fleet EIS

Silver Strand Training Complex EIS

Current, Emerging, and Future Training Operation s in the SOCAL Complex EIS

Introduction of MH-60 Aircraft EA

Rotary Wing Aircraft Level-D Maintenance Facility (P-880) CatEx

NASNI Fitness Complex CatEx

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Bachelor Quarters NASNI CatEx

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing EIS/Overseas EIS EIS

Naval Special Warfare Indoor Shooting Range (P-876) CatEx

Maintenance Pier Dredging at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado (P-987) CatEx

Golf Maintenance Compound NASNI CatEx
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

4-3

Cumulative Impacts

Table 4-1

Cumulative Action Evaluation

Action Level of NEPA

Analysis Completed

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (cont.)

The Marina at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado EA

Coastal Campus Infrastructure EIS

Steam Decentralization Project, NASNI EA

Repair Taxiway, NASNI CatEx

Helicopter Training Facility CatEx

Hotel Del Coronado Master Plan none

Lock and Leave Facility, NASNI CatEx

Basic Training Complex, Naval Amphibious Base(P-855) CatEx

MWR Club Coronado CatEx

Grace Hopper Data Center (P-963) CatEx

MV-22 B-333 (P-1017) CatEx

URC Storage and Mission Support (P-988) CatEx

4.3.1 Past Actions

NASNI, NBC Lodge Expansion. This project included demolition of four existing Navy lodge buildings and 

several smaller structures, and construction of a lodge building and cottages to increase room capacity; 

construction of recreation facilities, parking lots, road upgrades, retail shops, a restaurant, landscaping 

and utility upgrades. 

Introduction of the P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft into the Pacific Fleet. The Navy prepared an EIS 

for the home-basing of 12 P-8A Fleet Squadrons and one Fleet Replacement Squadron at established 

maritime patrol home bases. The P-8A is being introduced to replace the aging P-3C Orion aircraft. 

Currently, P-3C patrol squadrons have periodic attachments at NASNI.

Silver Strand Training Complex. The Navy prepared an EIS for ongoing Naval Training, testing, and 

evaluation activities within the Silver Strand Training Complex -South in proximity to the southern 

beaches at NASNI. Components included continuing training activities, increasing training tempo and 

types of training, conducting existing routine training at additional locations within the Silver Strand 

Training Complex -South established training areas, and increasing access to and availability of existing 

beach and inland training areas.

Current, Emerging, and Future Training Operations in the SOCAL Complex. The Navy prepared an EIS for 

the southern California coast (SOCAL Range Complex) for the continuation of training, an increase in 

training activities, force structure changes associated with the introduction of new weapons systems, 

new classes of ships, and the introduction of new types of aircraft into the Fleet. 

Introduction of MH-60 Aircraft. The Navy prepared an EA for the introduction of the MH-60S aircraft to 

meet the Navy’s need to support EOD MU-11 in its activities at the Silver Strand Training Complex. The 

Navy must ensure that adequate hangar, training, maintenance, and personnel support facilities are 

available to meet production and delivery schedules, and satisfy operational commitments.

Rotary Wing Aircraft Level-D Maintenance Facility (P-880). This project included construction of an 

117,000-square foot, two-story depot-level aircraft maintenance hangar to provide high-bay hangar, 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

4-4

Cumulative Impacts

shops, administrative and storage areas in the vicinity of Building 306 at NASNI. It also included 

demolition of buildings 306, 310, C-31, C-43, C-32, C-98, 324, 321 and 437.

NASNI Fitness Complex. The project included construction of a new fitness complex (8,361 square 

meters [90,000 square feet]) and liberty center (1,579 square meters [17,000 square feet]). 

4.3.2 Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Bachelor Quarters NASNI. The project included construction of bachelor quarters housing to meet the 

Navy’s policy to house single sailors on shore vice onboard ship of off base. 

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing EIS/Overseas EIS. The Navy is preparing an EIS for 

training and testing activities to be conducted within existing range complexes and operating areas 

located along SOCAL Range Complex and around the Hawaiian Islands. Activities would include sonar 

maintenance and gunnery exercises.

Naval Special Warfare Indoor Shooting Range (P-876). The project includes the construction of an indoor 

shooting range at Silver Strand Training Complex -South. The shooting range would include two 

buildings. One building would be a two-story facility for the range, and the other building would be a 

one-story building for administrative space and classrooms.

Maintenance Pier Dredging at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado (P-987). The project includes 

maintenance dredging around the piers at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado.

Golf Maintenance Compound NASNI. The project includes replacement of inadequately sized and 

deteriorated golf course maintenance facility with two 372 square meter (4,000 square foot) 

maintenance buildings and a 3,902-square meter (42,000 square foot) maintenance yard.

The Marina at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado. The project includes erosion control, restoration of 

deteriorated marina facilities, and enhancement and expansion of existing recreational functions of the 

marina at NBC.

Coastal Campus Infrastructure. The Navy prepared an EIS for the consolidation of the Naval Special 

Warfare Command facilities to one location on the Silver Strand Training Complex -South. The project 

would include design and construction of logistical support buildings, equipment use and maintenance 

training facilities, classroom and tactical skills instruction buildings, storage and administrative facilities, 

utilities, fencing, roads and parking. 

Steam Decentralization Project, NASNI. The Navy prepared an EA for the decentralization of the steam 

distribution system throughout NASNI. Under the project, the Navy would demolish the current central 

steam heating system at NASNI and install a new decentralized steam distribution system. (For 

information on emissions associated with demolition of the existing cogeneration plant, please see the 

2014 Environmental Assessment for the Decentralization of Steam Distribution System at Naval Base

Coronado.)

Repair Taxiway, NASNI. Project includes repair to aging runways and taxiways at NASNI to correct 

surface deficiencies. Improvements would include would require crack repair and joint sealing. The total 

area is approximately 48,774 square meters (525,000 square feet).

Helicopter Training Facility. The project would include a helicopter training facility building with an 

approximate 1,858 square meter (20,000 square foot) building footprint. The training building would 

house two Tactical Operational Flight Trainers and two Naval Aircrew Training Systems. 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

4-5

Cumulative Impacts

Hotel Del Coronado Master Plan. The project includes the expansion of the Hotel del Coronado to have 

additional meeting space, additional guest rooms, and changes to parking and circulation. 

Improvements to Avenida del Sol are planned and would occur with the expansion of the meeting space 

and guest rooms.

Lock and Leave Facility, NASNI. The project includes the construction of a 6,968-square meter 

(75,000-square foot) storage facility capable of containing 1,200 storage units. 

Basic Training Complex, Naval Amphibious Base (P-855). This project will replace the old Basic Training 

Complex at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado with a new complex and training tank, construct a new 

warehouse addition to Building 638, renovate and add an exterior elevator to Building 637, and 

demolish 22 buildings. This project would also construct a new two-story Boat Support/MAROPS Facility 

and restroom facility, replace an existing rappel tower, and renovate additional three buildings. 

MWR Club Coronado. The project would provide replacement of the existing 2,508-square meter 

(27,000-square foot) Club Coronado Catering Facility with a smaller 1,115-square meter (12,000-square 

foot) Catering Facility at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado. The facility would be located on the south 

end of base, on the water, adjacent to Officer Housing. The project would provide a new catering center 

that meets area facility requirements, and a facility aesthetically compatible with the adjacent Officer 

Housing. The new facility would consist of event spaces (seating 400 to 500 patrons), kitchen area, 

restrooms, offices, storage, and covered porch area.

Grace Hopper Data Center (P-963). The proposed action would replace the existing power generation

system and associated electrical distribution system at the Grace Hopper Data Center, Building 1482, at 

NASNI with an upgraded system. The new system would restore the required level of power generation 

system redundancy (N+1) and ensure the continued reliability of the facility. (N+1 redundancy is a form 

of resilience to ensure system availability in the event of a component failure or other power utility 

failure.) This project would replace the existing four 650-kilowatt generator systems, associated 

electrical distribution system and system controls with a new, right-sized power generation system. The 

system will produce 4.5 MW of power generation with (N+1) redundancy.

MV-22 B-333 (P-1017). The proposed project would include upgrading Building 333 at NASNI to 

accommodate MV-22s. It would include renovating a mezzanine and utility upgrade as well as the 

demolition of two existing run up pads and the construction of two new run up pads. 

URC Storage and Mission Support (P-988). The proposed project would enhance the Undersea Rescue 

Command storage and operations areas located in the northwest quadrant of NASNI. Specifically, the 

project would involve (1) construction of a 2,230-square meter (24,000 square foot) storage and 

operation building in the area of the Former Flying Club; (2) renovation of Building 497, and 

(3) demolition of buildings 815, 432, 396, Can-91, temporary buildings R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7, and several 

other structures.

4.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis

Where feasible, the cumulative impacts were assessed using quantifiable data; however, for many of the 

resources included for analysis, quantifiable data is not available and a qualitative analysis was 

undertaken. In addition, where an analysis of potential environmental effects for future actions has not 

been completed, assumptions were made regarding cumulative impacts related to this EA/EIS where 

possible. The analytical methodology presented in Chapter 3, which was used to determine potential 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

4-6

Cumulative Impacts

impacts to the various resources analyzed in this document, was also used to determine cumulative 

impacts.

4.4.1 Air Quality

4.4.1.1 Description of Geographic Study Area

The geographic extent for cumulative effects on air quality is defined as the San Diego Air Basin. For 

purposes of air quality, the cumulative impact analysis looks beyond cumulative projects per se and 

instead focuses on the average cumulative air quality conditions within the San Diego Air Basin from day 

to day. The potential effects of proposed GHG emissions are by nature global and cumulative impacts, as

individual sources of GHG emissions are typically not large enough to have an appreciable effect on 

climate change. Therefore, an appreciable impact to global climate change would only occur when 

proposed GHG emissions combine with other human-generated GHG emissions in such a way to 

appreciably and discernably affect climate change on a global scale.

4.4.1.2 Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions

Emissions from the Proposed Action and the cumulative projects identified above in Section 4.3, Past, 

Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions, would comply with San Diego County Air Pollution Control 

District rules and regulations, which would minimize the impact of project cumulative air quality 

impacts.

4.4.1.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis

As described in Section 3.1, Air Quality, construction and operational activities associated with the 

Proposed Action would produce emissions that would remain below all emission thresholds for more 

in-depth analysis of potential significance with respect to criteria pollutants. Implementation of the 

Proposed Action would not exceed designated de minimis levels for criteria pollutants (40 CFR 

Part 51.853[b]). The Proposed Action would not contribute to any appreciable extent to the degradation 

of regional air quality or otherwise contribute to a significant cumulative effect on air quality. 

Consequently, proposed construction and operational activities would produce less than significant 

cumulative impacts to criteria pollutant levels. The previously-analyzed decommissioning and 

demolition of the existing cogeneration plant would proceed under the No Action Alternative and 

Alternatives 2 and 3, and would be located in close proximity to these action alternatives. However, it is 

unknown when demolition would ultimately occur and thus unknown whether emissions associated 

with demolition would overlap in time with the potential implementation of one of the abovereferenced alternatives under the Proposed Action. However, even if demolition were to occur 

concurrently, demolition would generate emissions-related impacts only temporarily and would not 

exceed General Conformity de minimis threshold levels even if calculated together with Proposed Action 

emissions as analyzed in Section 3.1 above. (For more information on emissions associated with 

demolition of the existing cogeneration plant, please see the 2013 Categorical Exclusion for the 

Decentralization of Steam Distribution System at Naval Base San Diego.) Therefore, implementation of

the Proposed Action, in addition to the effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, 

would not result in significant cumulative impacts to air quality.

The potential effects of proposed GHG emissions are by nature global and cumulative impacts, as 

individual sources of GHG emissions are typically not large enough to have an appreciable effect on 

climate change. The GHG emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to the significant adverse 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

4-7

Cumulative Impacts

environmental impacts of global climate change. Climate change impacts may include an increase in 

extreme heat days, higher concentrations of air pollutants, sea level rise, impacts to water supply and 

water quality, public health impacts, impacts to ecosystems, impacts to agriculture, and other 

environmental impacts. It is unlikely that any single project could generate enough GHG emissions to 

noticeably change the global average temperature. The combination of GHG emissions from past, 

present, and future projects contribute substantially to the phenomenon of global climate change and 

its associated environmental impacts. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold 

level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact and would be 

considered significant. Construction activities would generate approximately 64 metric tons (MT) of 

CO2e assuming the proposed activities occurred during 2017. Once the facility is operational, the new 

peaker plant would be subject to the requirements of CARB’s Mandatory Reporting Regulation and the 

USEPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. The quantification of the peaker plant’s emissions would

be refined by the private partner in the future and would be reported and minimized as required by the 

mandatory reporting regulations issued by CARB and the USEPA. As such, project emissions would not 

have the potential to contribute meaningfully to global warming to any discernible extent. Therefore, 

based on the analysis in Section 3.1, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable 

impact.

4.4.2 Visual Resources

4.4.2.1 Description of Geographic Study Area

Cumulative impacts on visual resources would consist of the aggregate effects of the NASNI base and 

other projects, actions, and processes that could degrade the viewshed within the Region of Influence 

(ROI). The ROI for aesthetics consists of NASNI and adjacent public areas in the cities of Coronado and 

San Diego. 

4.4.2.2 Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions

Past actions have resulted in the redevelopment of an existing navy base that supports military actions 

related to aviation and personnel support (e.g., training and maintenance facilities). Present and future 

actions are anticipated to involve similar redevelopment of NASNI to support additional training and 

maintenance facilities. As a result of past, present, and future actions, the visual character and quality of 

the site will continue to have a military character centered around aviation at NASNI.

4.4.2.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis

Cumulative Impact Analysis – Aesthetics

The Proposed Action would result in the installation of a natural gas peaker plant or large battery 

storage with photovoltaic systems at NASNI. Visual changes would continue to be industrial in nature, 

similar to the existing development at the action alternative sites and would not represent a change in 

existing visual character or quality. Further, the list of past, present, and future projects within the ROI 

would consist of similar improvements at NASNI dedicated to supporting military operations and would 

be of similar visual character and quality as the existing condition. Visibility from off-base areas would 

be limited and views of the site are not anticipated to include visual changes associated with the action 

alternatives. Because the action alternatives would not result in noticeable visual changes at NASNI, 

cumulative impacts considering other past, present, and future development would not be cumulatively 

significant. 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

4-8

Cumulative Impacts

4.4.3 Noise

4.4.3.1 Description of Geographic Study Area

The geographic extent for cumulative effects on noise is defined as the project area plus the boundaries 

of NASNI. The area to be considered for the cumulative analysis would only be those projects within the 

immediate vicinity of the project area. Cumulative impacts to noise are not anticipated beyond this area. 

4.4.3.2 Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions

Past actions have resulted in the redevelopment of an existing navy base that supports military actions 

related to aviation and personnel support (e.g., training and maintenance facilities). Present and future 

actions are anticipated to involve similar redevelopment of NASNI to support additional training and 

maintenance facilities. 

4.4.3.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis

Noise, by definition, is a localized phenomenon and is progressively reduced as the distance from the 

source increases; specifically, point source-generated noise levels decrease by approximately 6 dBA for 

every doubling of distance.

Past and present projects that have already been constructed would have no cumulative effect on 

construction noise. Reasonably foreseeable projects are unlikely to have a cumulative effect on 

construction noise as they would need to occur simultaneously and in close proximity to the proposed 

project and nearby noise-sensitive receptors to have a combined effect.

For operational noise effects, past and present projects would have already been taken into account in 

the ambient noise levels in the area. The previously-analyzed decommissioning and demolition of the 

existing cogeneration plant would proceed under the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 

5, and would be located in close proximity to these action alternatives. However, it is unknown when 

demolition would ultimately occur and thus unknown whether noise impacts associated with demolition 

would overlap in time with the potential implementation of one of the above-referenced alternatives 

under the proposed action. However, even if demolition were to occur concurrently, demolition would 

generate noise-related impacts only temporarily. Such impacts would themselves be relatively minor 

and would not necessarily overlap with noise impacts from the Proposed Action, even if demolition and 

the Proposed Action were to be going on at the same time. Also, demolition impacts would not occur at 

night, when lower noise levels are in effect in accordance with local noise ordnances, as discussed above 

at Section 3.3. (For more information on noise impacts associated with demolition of the existing 

cogeneration plant, please see the 2014 Final EA for the Decentralization of Steam Systems at Naval 

Base Coronado.) Other reasonably foreseeable projects would be expected to be lower than the 

thresholds established in the local noise ordinance regulations. Therefore, the Proposed Action would 

not have a cumulatively significant effect with respect to noise impacts in conjunction with other 

cumulative projects.

4.4.4 Infrastructure

4.4.4.1 Description of Geographic Study Area

The geographic extent for cumulative effects on public services and utilities is defined as the project 

area at NASNI. Cumulative impacts to public services and utilities are not anticipated beyond this area.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

4-9

Cumulative Impacts

4.4.4.2 Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions

Relevant projects listed above in Table 4-1 generally include minor facilities improvements that have 

negligible to no associated impacts on infrastructure. Therefore, in conjunction with the Proposed 

Action, there would be no significant cumulative impacts to infrastructure and cumulative impacts 

would remain less than significant.

4.4.4.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis

Implementation of the Proposed Action would include the construction and operation of an energy 

security and resilience project that may include a natural gas peaker plant, installation of grid-integrated 

battery storage or other energy assets at NASNI. With implementation of the Proposed Action, the 

existing water, wastewater, and solid waste services would remain almost entirely unchanged. 

Therefore, in conjunction with other past, present or reasonably foreseeable projects, there would be 

no potential to contribute meaningfully to any significant cumulative impacts to the public services and 

utilities from implementation of the Proposed Action.

4.4.5 Transportation

4.4.5.1 Description of Geographic Study Area

The geographic extent for cumulative effects on traffic and circulation is defined as the streets and 

highways within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project area at NASNI. 

4.4.5.2 Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions

All cumulative projects at NASNI (as listed in Table 4-1) have the potential to add operational trips within 

the geographic extent of cumulative effects for traffic and circulation. Past projects would not

contribute construction trips while present and future projects could contribute to construction traffic, 

depending on the timing of these projects as they are constructed relative to the action alternatives. 

Relevant past, present, and future actions involved or would involve minor facilities improvement 

projects and would have minor to negligible associated added construction and operational traffic trips

within the cumulative geographic study area in conjunction with the Proposed Action. In the event that 

any of the current or future projects were to be constructed at the same time, the contribution of 

construction-related trips associated with the Proposed Action would not result in a cumulatively 

considerable traffic impact.

4.4.5.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis

None of the action alternatives are anticipated to generate more than 50 daily trips during construction 

activities related to employee and truck trips. This relatively small, short-term increase of daily trips 

would be a fraction of the daily trips on the surrounding roadways. The previously-analyzed 

decommissioning and demolition of the existing cogeneration plant would proceed under the No Action 

Alternative and Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5, and would be located in close proximity to these action 

alternatives. However, it is unknown when demolition would ultimately occur and thus unknown 

whether transportation impacts associated with demolition would overlap in time with the potential 

implementation of one of the above-referenced alternatives under the Proposed Action. However, even 

if demolition were to occur concurrently, demolition of the existing plant would generate only small 

numbers of truck and personal vehicle trips, and would not appreciably alter the impacts associated 

with the Proposed Action, as discussed above at Section 3.5. (For more information on transportation 
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

4-10

Cumulative Impacts

impacts associated with demolition of the existing cogeneration plant, please see the 2014 Final EA for 

the Decentralization of Steam Systems at Naval Base Coronado.) Therefore, in conjunction with other 

past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, there would be no significant cumulative impacts to 

traffic and circulation from implementation of the Proposed Action.

4.4.6 Public Health and Safety

4.4.6.1 Description of Geographic Study Area

The geographic extent for cumulative effects on public health and safety is defined as the project area 

plus the boundaries of NASNI. Cumulative impacts to public health and safety are not anticipated 

beyond this area.

4.4.6.2 Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions

Past actions have resulted in the development of an existing navy base that supports military actions 

related to aviation and personnel support (e.g., training and maintenance facilities). Present and future 

actions are anticipated to involve similar redevelopment of NASNI to support additional training and 

maintenance facilities. These past actions have likely used hazardous materials and were subject to the 

preparation and implementation of a project-specific Health and Safety Plan and a Hazardous Waste 

Management Plan. Similarly, present and future actions were or would be required to prepare a Health 

and Safety Plan and a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. 

4.4.6.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis

Implementation of the Proposed Action would involve the use of hazardous materials during

construction and likely during operation. However, all actions in NASNI, including cumulative projects, 

would be required to prepare a Health and Safety Plan and a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. 

Because the past, present, and future actions, as well as the Proposed Action, either have been or would 

be required to prepare a Health and Safety Plan and a Hazardous Waste Management Plan, cumulative 

impacts from the Proposed Action in conjunction with other past, present, and future development 

would not be cumulatively significant.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

5-1

Other Considerations Required by NEPA

5 Other Considerations Required by NEPA

5.1 Consistency with Other Federal, State, and Local Laws, Plans, Policies, and Regulations

In accordance with 40 CFR section 1502.16(c), analysis of environmental consequences shall include 

discussion of possible conflicts between the Proposed Action and the objectives of federal, regional, 

state and local land use plans, policies, and controls. Table 5-1 identifies the principal federal and state 

laws and regulations that are applicable to the Proposed Action, and describes briefly how compliance 

with these laws and regulations would be accomplished.

Table 5-1

Principal Federal and State Laws Applicable to the Proposed Action

Federal, State, Local, and 

Regional Land Use Plans, 

Policies, and Controls

Status of Compliance

NEPA; CEQ NEPA implementing 

regulations; Navy procedures for 

Implementing NEPA

This EA has been prepared in accordance with CEQ Regulations 

implementing NEPA and United States (U.S. Navy NEPA Procedures)

Clean Air Act The Navy has determined that the potential emissions of the Proposed 

Action would not cause or contribute to a violation of any National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards or State Ambient Air Quality standards. Emissions 

would be below the applicable General Conformity de minimus thresholds

or would be subject to New Source Review. A formal Clean Air Act

conformity determination is not required. 

Clean Water Act The Proposed Action would not involve dredging or the release of 

chemicals requiring a discharge permit and would be in compliance with 

the Clean Water Act. The Proposed Action would conform with applicable 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements 

including implementation of one or more SWPPPs and associated BMPs. 

BMPs may include erosion control blankets, soil stabilizers, temporary 

seeding, silt fencing, hay bales, sand bags, and storm drain inlet protection 

devices.

Rivers and Harbors Act The Proposed Action would not involve in-water demolition and 

construction activities, thus a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit 

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would not be required.

Coastal Zone Management Act The Navy has determined that the Proposed Action would not affect 

coastal resources or uses; therefore, the federal consistency requirements 

of the Coastal Zone Management Act Section 307 do not apply.

National Historic Preservation 

Act

There are no historic properties located on Sites 1, 2 or 3; therefore, there 

are no historic properties that would be affected by the Proposed Action.

Endangered Species Act The proposed action would have no effect on any federally listed 

endangered or threatened species or critical habitat since the action 

alternatives sites are developed and devoid of sensitive resources. 

Therefore, the proposed action would be in compliance with the federal 

Endangered Species Act.

Marine Mammal Protection Act The Navy has determined that the Proposed Action would not result in the 

reasonably foreseeable “take” of a marine mammal species by harassment, 

injury, or mortality as defined under the Marine Mammal Protection Act; 

therefore, an application for takings under the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act is not required.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

5-2

Other Considerations Required by NEPA

Table 5-1

Principal Federal and State Laws Applicable to the Proposed Action

Federal, State, Local, and 

Regional Land Use Plans, 

Policies, and Controls

Status of Compliance

Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Navy has determined that the Proposed Action would have no 

discernable effect on migratory birds.

Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act 

The Proposed Action would not be likely to have a measurable negative 

effect on bald and golden eagles and would be in compliance with the Bald 

and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act

The Navy and/or private partner would inform Local Emergency Planning 

Committees of the action alternatives as required to assist them in 

developing plans to prepare for and respond to chemical emergencies.

Executive Order (EO) 12898, 

Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Lowincome Populations

There would be no disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority populations and low-income 

populations. The proposed action would be in compliance with EO 12898. 

EO 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental 

Health Risks and Safety Risks

The Navy has determined that the proposed action would not 

disproportionately expose children to environmental health risks or safety 

risks and would be in compliance with EO 13045.

EO 13089, Coral Reef Protection The Navy has determined that U.S. coral reef ecosystems would not be 

degraded with the Proposed Action.

5.2 Relationship between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity

NEPA requires an analysis of the relationship between a project’s short-term impacts on the 

environment and the effects that these impacts may have on the maintenance and enhancement of the 

long-term productivity of the affected environment. Impacts that narrow the range of beneficial uses of 

the environment are of particular concern. This refers to the possibility that choosing one development 

site reduces future flexibility in pursuing other options, or that using a parcel of land or other resources 

often eliminates the possibility of other uses at that site.

In the short-term, effects to the human environment with implementation of the Proposed Action 

would primarily relate to the construction activity itself. Air quality and noise would be impacted in the 

short-term. In the long-term, the construction of the energy resilient facility and operation would not 

significantly impact the long-term natural resource productivity of the area. The Proposed Action would 

not result in any impacts that would significantly reduce environmental productivity or permanently 

narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

6-1

References

6 References

BMJ. (2013). Residential Exposure to Aircraft Noise and Hospital Admissions for Cardiovascular Diseases; 

Multi-Airport Retrospective Study. BMJ, Correia, A.W, Peters, J.L., Levy, J.I., Melly, S., Dominici, 

F., 347:f5561.

City of Coronado. (2003, November 4). City of Coronado General Plan. Retrieved from 

https://www.coronado.ca.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_746006/File/government/departments/

comm%20dev/General%20Plan%20Combined%20Files.pdf

City of Coronado. (2014). Annual Traffic & Accident Report.

City of Coronado. (2016). Municipal Code. Retrieved from 

http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Coronado/#!/Coronado41/Coronado4110.html#41.10

City of San Diego Public Utilities. (2015). 2015 Annual Reports and Summary: Point Loma Wastewater 

Treatment Plant & Ocean Outfall. Retrieved from 

https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/plwtp_annual_2015.pdf. Accessed: December 11, 

2016

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). (1997). Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). (2005, June 24). Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions 

in Cumulative Effects Analysis. Washington, D.C.

Cowan, J. P. (1994). Handbook of Environmental Acoustics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Department of Defense (DoD). (2009, June 16). Memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense. 

Methodology for Assessing Hearing Loss Risk and Impacts in DoD Environmental Impact Analysis. 

Washington, DC.

Department of Defense (DoD). (2011). Final Environmental Assessment for Sea-Based X-Band (SBX) 

Radar Vessel Maintenance and Repair.

DoD Noise Working Group. (2009). Improving Aviation Noise Planning, Analysis and Public 

Communication with Supplemental Metrics - Guide to Using Supplemental Metrics.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2006). Roadway Construction Noise Model.

Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. (1992). Federal Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis 

Issues.

Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise. (1980). Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use 

Planning and Control. Washington, DC.

International Code Council (ICC). (2015). International Building Code (IBC), 2015 Edition. Retrieved from 

http://codes.iccsafe.org/app/book/toc/2015/2015%20San%20Antonio/2015%20IBC%20HTML/

Ludlow, B., & Sixsmith, K. (1999). Long-term Effects of Military Jet Aircraft Noise Exposure during 

Childhood on Hearing Threshold Levels. Noise and Health, 33-39.
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

6-2

References

National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety. (1998). Criteria for a Recommended Standard 

Occupational Noise Exposure, Revised Criteria. Cincinnati: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Naval Base Coronado (NBC). (2014, May). Naval Base Coronado Programmatic Agreement.

Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southwest. (2008, April). Naval Base Coronado

Installation Appearance Plan (IAP).

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest. (2016, February). Annual Progress Report January to 

December 2015, Operable Unit 24, Naval Air Station North Island, Coronado, California.

Pacific Noise Control. (2001, June). Acoustical Assessment Report for Calpeak Border.

San Diego Gas and Electrict (SDG&E). (2016). San Diego Gas and Electric - Company Facts. Retrieved 

from http://www.sdge.com/aboutus

U.S. Department of the Navy (DON). (2002). Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP); 

Naval Base Coronado 2002; Prepared for U.S. Department of the Navy, Navy Region Southwest; 

prepared by Tierra Data Systems, Escondido, California.

U.S. Department of the Navy (DON). (2007, October 30). Environmental Readiness Program Manual. 

(OPNAV INSTRUCTION 5090.1C).

U.S. Department of the Navy (DON). (2010). Navy Region Southwest (NRSW) Regional Integrated Plan.

U.S. Department of the Navy (DON). (2011). Final Environmental Assessment for Helicopter Wings 

Realignment and MH-60R/S Helicopter Transition, Naval Base Coronado, California.

U.S. Department of the Navy (DON). (2014, April). Final Environmental Assessment for the 

Decentralization of Steam Systems at Naval Base Coronado.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1974). Information on Levels of Environmental Noise 

Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with and Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA 550/9-

74-004. Washington, DC: Office of Noise Abatement and Control.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1982). Guidelines for Noise Impact Analysis. EPA 550/9-

82-105. Washington, DC: Office of Noise Abatement and Control.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1999, May). Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA 

Review of NEPA Documents.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2007). The Effects of Air Pollutants - Health Effects.

Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/eog/course422/ap7a.html#table

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2013). Air Emissions Where You Live, State and County 

Emission Summaries. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/air/emissions/where.htm
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

7-1

List of Preparers

7 List of Preparers

This EA/EIS was prepared collaboratively between the Navy and contractor preparers. 

U.S. Department of the Navy

Sara Reed (Naval Facilities Engineering Command); MFA Historic Preservation BA History of Art and 

Architecture; Years of Experience: 6; Responsible for: NEPA

Rebecca Loomis (Naval Facilities Engineering Command); M.A. Organizational Management, 

B.S. Environmental Biology; Years of Experience: 17; Responsible for NEPA

Deb McKay, AICP (Navy Region Southwest); M.A. Political Science, emphasis on Environmental Policy; 

B.A. History of Public Policy; Years of Experience: 23; Responsible for: Land Use/Coastal Resources

Lori Megliola, (Naval Facilities Engineering Command) B.S. Earth Science, Environmental Studies; Years 

of Experience: 10; Responsible for: NEPA

Donna Ogilvie, (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Naval Base Coronado), B.S. Civil Engineering; 

Years of experience; 36 in engineering, project management, marketing and product development with 

the last 6 in environmental engineering; Responsible for: Air Quality Program Naval Base Coronado.

Contractors

Julie McCall, (HELIX Environmental Planning Inc.)

B.A. Geography 

Years of Experience: 31

Section(s) person is responsible for: Chapters 1 and 2

Aaron Brownwood, (HELIX Environmental Planning Inc.)

B.S. City and Regional Planning

Years of Experience: 11

Section(s) person is responsible for: Visual Resources, Transportation, Public Health & Safety and 

Infrastructure

Victor Ortiz, (HELIX Environmental Planning Inc.)

B.S. Earth and Environmental Sciences

Years of Experience: 10

Section(s) person is responsible for: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases

Joanne Dramko, AICP (HELIX Environmental Planning Inc.)

MESM Environmental Science and Management

Years of Experience: 17 

Section(s) person is responsible for: Noise
Naval Air Station North Island San Diego Environmental Assessment September 2017

7-2

List of Preparers

This page intentionally left blank.
A-1

Appendix A

Appendix A

Record of Non-Applicability
1

RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY (RONA)

FOR CLEAN AIR ACT CONFORMITY

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

This Proposed Action falls under the Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) category and is 

documented with this RONA.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published Determining Conformity of 

General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans; Final Rule, in the 30 

November 1993, Federal Register (40 CFR Parts 6, 51, and 93). The U.S. Navy published Clean 

Air Act Conformity Guidance in Appendix F, OPNAVINST 5090.1d, dated 30 July 2013. These 

publications provide implementing guidance to document Clean Air Act Conformity 

Determination requirements.

Federal regulations state that no department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal 

Government shall engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license to 

permit, or approve any activity that does not conform to an applicable implementation plan. It is 

the responsibility of the Federal agency to determine whether a Federal action conforms to the 

applicable implementation plan, before the action is taken (40 CFR Part 1 51.850[a]).

Federal actions may be exempt from conformity determinations if they do not exceed designated 

de minimis levels for criteria pollutants (40 CFR Part 51.853[b]). De minimis levels (in tons/year) 

for the air basin potentially affected by the Proposed Action are listed in Table 1.

Table 1

De minimis Levels for Criteria Pollutants in San Diego County

Criteria Pollutant

De minimis Level 

(tons/year)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

100

100

100
2

PROPOSED ACTION

Action Proponent: Naval Base Coronado

Location: Naval Air Station North Island

Proposed Action Name: Development of an Energy Security and Resilience Project

Proposed Action and Emissions Summary: The Proposed Action would include the construction 

and operation of an energy security and resilience project that may include a natural gas peaker 

plant, installation of grid-integrated battery storage or other energy assets at Naval Base San 

Diego (NBSD) in San Diego and National City, California. The Navy would enter into an 

agreement with a private partner to construct, operate and maintain energy asset(s) at NBSD with 

a contract duration of 37 years, with 35 years of system(s) service and approximately one year 

for construction and one year for decommissioning. The agreement would ensure fair 

compensation for the use of Navy lands where energy security/resilience and/or renewability 

would take place. The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) is the lead agency for the Proposed 

Action.

Air Emissions Summary: Construction and operational emissions were calculated by using 

California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2. CalEEMod is a computer 

model developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) with the 

input of several air quality management and pollution control districts to estimate anticipated 

emissions associated with land development projects in California. CalEEMod has separate 

databases for specific counties and air districts. The San Diego County database was used for the 

proposed Project. 

Specific inputs to CalEEMod include land uses and project site areas. Construction input data 

include, but are not limited to, (1) the anticipated start and finish dates of each Project 

construction activity; (2) inventories of construction equipment to be used during each activity; 

(3) areas to be excavated and graded; (4) volumes of materials to be exported from and imported 

to the Project area; and (5) areas to be paved. The input data and assumptions are based on 

information contained in Section 2, Proposed Action, of the EA and provided in detail in 

Appendix C. 

Table 2 summarizes the annual emissions associated with construction of the Proposed Action. 
3

Table 2

Annual Construction Emissions (Proposed Action)

Year Pollutant Emissions (tons/year)

VOC CO NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5

Construction – 2017 0.09 0.48 0.74 <0.01 0.05 0.05

Operations – 2018 0.01 0.02 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01

de minimis Thresholdsa 100 100 100 - - -

Adverse Effect? No No No No No No

Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix C) a De minimis threshold levels for conformity applicability analysis (Table 1).

Table 2 shows that annual construction and operational emissions generated by the Proposed 

Action are well below the San Diego Air Basin conformity de minimis levels. As a result, the 

Proposed Action would not produce adverse air quality impacts.

Date RONA Prepared: 10 February 2017.

EMISSIONS EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

The Proposed Action would involve minor construction and operational emissions; all emissions 

are de minimis. 

The Navy concludes that de minimis thresholds for applicable criteria pollutants would not be 

exceeded nor would the projected emissions be regionally significant (i.e., greater than 10 

percent of the air basin’s emission budgets) as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action. 

Therefore, the Navy concludes that further formal Conformity Determination procedures are not 

required, resulting in this Record of Non-Applicability.

RONA APPROVAL

To the best of my knowledge, the information presented in this RONA is correct and accurate 

and I concur in the finding that the proposed action is not subject to the General Conformity 

Rule.

Date:

Signature:
4

This page intentionally left blank
B-1

Appendix B

Appendix B

Potential to Emit and Permitting Implications for the 

Development of an Energy Security and Resilience 

Project at Naval Air Station North Island
B-1

Appendix B

POTENTIAL TO EMIT AND PERMITTING IMPLICATIONS FOR THE 

DEVELOPMENT OF AN ENERGY SECURITY AND RESILIENCE 

PROJECT AT NAVAL AIR STATION NORTH ISLAND

Background

Gas turbines, also called “combustion turbines”, are used in a broad scope of applications 

including electric power generation, cogeneration, natural gas transmission, and various process 

applications. Gas turbines are available with power outputs ranging in size from 0.2 megawatt 

(MW) to over 200 MW, with an average size of 30 MW. The primary fuels used in gas turbines 

are natural gas and distillate fuel oil. 

A gas turbine is an internal combustion engine that operates with rotary rather than reciprocating 

motion. Gas turbines are essentially composed of three major components: compressor, 

combustor, and power turbine. In the compressor section, ambient air is drawn in and 

compressed up to 30 times ambient pressure and directed to the combustor section where fuel is 

introduced, ignited, and burned. Hot gases from the combustion section are then diluted with 

additional air from the compressor section and directed to the power turbine section at 

temperatures up to 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Energy from the hot exhaust gases, which 

expand in the power turbine section, is recovered in the form of shaft power. 

The cycle thermal efficiency of a gas turbine is defined as the ratio of useful shaft energy to fuel 

energy input. The simple cycle is the most basic operating cycle of gas turbines with a thermal 

efficiency ranging from 15 to 42 percent. Current technologies are reliably able to achieve an 

efficiency ranging from 30 to 40 percent. Turbines with efficiencies up to 60 percent are 

expected to be commercially available in the next couple of years. Simple cycle gas turbines are 

typically used for shaft horsepower applications without recovery of exhaust heat and include 

uses such as generation of electricity during emergencies or peak demand periods. 

The primary pollutants from gas turbine engines are nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide 

(CO), and to a lesser extent, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and particulate matter (PM). 

Trace to low amounts of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) are also 

emitted from gas turbines. Nitrogen oxide formation is strongly dependent on the high 

temperatures developed in the combustor. Carbon monoxide, VOC, HAP, and PM are primarily 

the result of incomplete combustion. 

Methodology and Assumptions

Criteria air pollutant emissions resulting from the gas turbine were quantified using emission 

factors available in the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) AP-42: Complication of 

Air Emission Factors 1 (US EPA 2000). Uncontrolled emission factors for natural gas fired 

 1 US EPA. 2000. AP-42: Complication of Air Emission Factors. Available: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsfactors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emission-factors. April
B-2

turbines found in Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2a of Section 3.1, Stationary Gas Turbines were applied 

to the analysis. These emission factors, expressed in pounds (lbs) per million British thermal 

units (MMBTU), have been compiled and are presented in Table B-1, Uncontrolled Natural Gas 

Turbine Emission Factors. 

Table B-1

Uncontrolled Natural Gas Turbine Emission Factors

(lbs/MMBTU)

VOC CO NOX SO2 PM10 PM2.5

2.1 E-03 8.2 E-02 3.2 E-01 3.4 E-03 4.7 E-03 4.5 E-03

Source: US EPA AP-42: Complication of Air Emission Factors

Turbine emissions vary based on the efficiency, power output, and annual operating hours. As 

discussed above, current technologies are reliably able to achieve an efficiency ranging from 

30 to 40 percent. Emissions were estimated assuming a thermal efficiency of 35 percent. The 

analysis examined multiple power output and operating hour scenarios. Power outputs analyzed 

include 30, 40, and 50 MW options. Operating hours for each of three turbine power ratings 

includes the part-time operation of 1,416 hours per year and the full-time operation of 

8,760 hours per year. 

Results

Emission estimates for the part-time operation of the natural gas turbine are presented in 

Table B-2, Emissions for Part-Time Natural Gas Turbine Operations.

Table B-2

Emissions for Part-Time Natural Gas Turbine Operations

(tons per year)

Power Output VOC CO NOX SO2 PM10 PM2.5

30 MW 0.43 16.98 66.26 0.70 0.97 0.94

40 MW 0.58 22.64 88.35 0.94 1.30 1.25

50 MW 0.72 28.30 110.44 1.17 1.62 1.57

Assumptions: 1,416 hours per year with 35% thermal efficiency

Emission estimates for the full-time operation of the natural gas turbine are presented in 

Table B-3.

Table B-3

Emissions for Full-Time Natural Gas Turbine Operations

(tons per year)

Power Output VOC CO NOX SO2 PM10 PM2.5

30 MW 2.69 105.04 409.92 4.36 6.02 5.82

40 MW 3.59 140.06 546.57 5.81 8.03 7.76

50 MW 4.48 175.07 683.21 7.26 10.03 9.70

Assumptions: 8,760 hours per year with 35% thermal efficiency
B-3

Implications for the Permitting Process

While the estimates generated using AP-42 factors are sufficient to demonstrate general 

conformity, additional action will be necessary to meet local emission requirements. This is due 

to pollution control requirements being driven by those area’s federal attainment status and 

pertinent attainment strategies. Operators of facilities emitting criteria air pollutants in San Diego 

County must first obtain operating permits from the San Diego Air Pollution Control District 

before any construction is commenced. Permits for “major source” facilities will also include 

federal Title V requirements in addition to the local requirements. Emissions generated per these 

requirements will be used to determine the facility’s Title V status. A Title V major source status 

for this facility is possible, due to the quantity and type of emissions generated. For an operating 

permit, the Air District will require the applicant to certify that construction was completed 

according to the terms and conditions of the permit’s associated Authority to Construct (A/C), 

and that the facility will meet the district's regulations. Applicants for a facility subject to Title V 

requirements shall also certify that the facility will comply with any applicable federal 

requirements. 

As it is uncertain how much actual emissions will be reduced by these requirements, Table B-2 

and B-3 are being used for permitting and operating cost calculations.

The Air District will generally charge the applicant a permit fee equal to that paid for the 

Authority to Construct, not including the initial filing fee. If the Air District must collect samples 

to analyze the emission from any source, it will charge the applicant a fee to cover its expenses. 

The district may require an additional fee for facilities with Title V requirements. In Regulation 

III, Rule 40, the San Diego APCD sets a fee of $116 per ton for VOC, CO, NOX, SOX, and PM10, 

if the expected annual emissions exceed five tons. Based on the estimates provided in Table B-2, 

it is expected that part-time operation of the proposed natural gas turbine would incur fees 

ranging between $9,600 and $16,100 for excess CO and NOX emissions. Based on the estimates 

provided in Table B-3, it is expected that full-time operation of the proposed natural gas turbine 

would incur fees ranging between $60,400 and $101,600 for excess CO, NOX, SOX, and PM10

emissions.

The Air District evaluates applications for a Permit to Operate to determine whether the 

applicant constructed the facility according to the conditions of the Authority to Construct. The 

Air District also determines whether the applicant will comply with the district's rules and 

regulations when operating the facility. The air district will also determine compliance with 

applicable federal regulations in the case of facilities with Title V requirements. A compliance 

source test will be required. The test will be conducted by the district or by an approved 

independent source testing consultant. The Air District conducts, or directs the applicant to 

conduct, an inspection of the above facility to determine whether it meets the criteria described 

above. If the facility is acceptable, the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) issues the 

Operating Permit. This process generally takes from one to four months. Depending on the Air 

District, the Operating Permit is usually valid for one year. With respect to Title V requirements, 

if they apply, the permit is usually valid for five years.
B-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
C-1

Appendix C

Appendix C

Air Quality Methodology and Calculations
Project Characteristics - 

Land Use - 

Energy Mitigation - Manditory compiance with 2016 T24

Water Mitigation - Manditory compliance with 2016 CALGreen

Waste Mitigation - Manditory compliance with AB341

Stationary Sources - User Defined - 

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

General Light Industry 1.00 1000sqft 0.02 1,000.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization

Climate Zone

Urban

13

Wind Speed (m/s) 2.6 Precipitation Freq (Days) 40

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics

Utility Company San Diego Gas & Electric

Operational Year 2019

CO2 Intensity 

(lb/MWhr)

720.49 CH4 Intensity 0.029

(lb/MWhr)

N2O Intensity 0.006

(lb/MWhr)

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 2019

Energy Security and Resilience

San Diego County, Annual

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2017 0.0873 0.7370 0.4802 6.9000e0041.8800e0030.0496 0.0514 6.7000e0040.0458 0.0464 0.0000 63.7105 63.7105 0.0184 0.0000 64.1702

Maximum 0.0873 0.7370 0.4802 6.9000e0041.8800e0030.0496 0.0514 6.7000e0040.0458 0.0464 0.0000 63.7105 63.7105 0.0184 0.0000 64.1702

Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2017 0.0873 0.7370 0.4802 6.9000e0041.8800e0030.0496 0.0514 6.7000e0040.0458 0.0464 0.0000 63.7104 63.7104 0.0184 0.0000 64.1702

Maximum 0.0873 0.7370 0.4802 6.9000e0041.8800e0030.0496 0.0514 6.7000e0040.0458 0.0464 0.0000 63.7104 63.7104 0.0184 0.0000 64.1702

Mitigated Construction

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 5.0700e0030.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 2.0000e005

Energy 6.0000e0055.7000e0044.8000e0040.0000 4.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 3.3800 3.3800 1.2000e0043.0000e0053.3933

Mobile 1.9100e0038.5900e0030.0231 7.0000e0055.7900e0038.0000e0055.8700e0031.5500e0038.0000e0051.6300e0030.0000 6.5847 6.5847 3.7000e0040.0000 6.5940

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2517 0.0000 0.2517 0.0149 0.0000 0.6236

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0734 0.9841 1.0574 7.5700e0031.9000e0041.3023

Total 7.0400e0039.1600e0030.0236 7.0000e0055.7900e0031.2000e0045.9100e0031.5500e0031.2000e0041.6700e0030.3251 10.9488 11.2739 0.0229 2.2000e00411.9132

Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e

Percent 

Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)

1 1-1-2017 3-31-2017 0.4365 0.4365

2 4-1-2017 6-30-2017 0.3868 0.3868

Highest 0.4365 0.4365

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 3 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 5.0700e0030.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 2.0000e005

Energy 6.0000e0055.1000e0044.3000e0040.0000 4.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 3.1990 3.1990 1.2000e0043.0000e0053.2115

Mobile 1.9100e0038.5900e0030.0231 7.0000e0055.7900e0038.0000e0055.8700e0031.5500e0038.0000e0051.6300e0030.0000 6.5847 6.5847 3.7000e0040.0000 6.5940

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0629 0.0000 0.0629 3.7200e0030.0000 0.1559

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0587 0.7872 0.8459 6.0600e0031.5000e0041.0418

Total 7.0400e0039.1000e0030.0236 7.0000e0055.7900e0031.2000e0045.9100e0031.5500e0031.2000e0041.6700e0030.1216 10.5709 10.6926 0.0103 1.8000e00411.0032

Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e

Percent 

Reduction

0.00 0.66 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.59 3.45 5.16 55.23 18.18 7.64

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
Phase 

Number

Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days 

Week

Num Days Phase Description

1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2017 1/13/2017 5 10

2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/14/2017 1/16/2017 5 1

3 Grading Grading 1/17/2017 1/18/2017 5 2

4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/19/2017 6/7/2017 5 100

5 Paving Paving 6/8/2017 6/14/2017 5 5

6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/15/2017 6/21/2017 5 5

OffRoad Equipment

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 1,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 500; Striped Parking Area: 0 

(Architectural Coating – sqft)

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0

Acres of Paving: 0

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 5 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48

Building Construction Cranes 1 4.00 231 0.29

Building Construction Forklifts 2 6.00 89 0.20

Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37

Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73

Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40

Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37

Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73

Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40

Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37

Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56

Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42

Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38

Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37

Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41

Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment 

Count

Worker Trip 

Number

Vendor Trip 

Number

Hauling Trip 

Number

Worker Trip 

Length

Vendor Trip 

Length

Hauling Trip 

Length

Worker Vehicle 

Class

Vendor 

Vehicle Class

Hauling 

Vehicle Class

Architectural Coating 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Building Construction 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Demolition 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Paving 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Site Preparation 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 6 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2017

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 6.0500e0030.0525 0.0396 6.0000e0053.6600e0033.6600e0033.4900e0033.4900e0030.0000 5.3493 5.3493 1.0500e0030.0000 5.3755

Total 6.0500e0030.0525 0.0396 6.0000e0053.6600e0033.6600e0033.4900e0033.4900e0030.0000 5.3493 5.3493 1.0500e0030.0000 5.3755

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 2.4000e0041.9000e0041.8400e0030.0000 4.0000e0040.0000 4.0000e0041.1000e0040.0000 1.1000e0040.0000 0.3971 0.3971 1.0000e0050.0000 0.3974

Total 2.4000e0041.9000e0041.8400e0030.0000 4.0000e0040.0000 4.0000e0041.1000e0040.0000 1.1000e0040.0000 0.3971 0.3971 1.0000e0050.0000 0.3974

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 7 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2017

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 6.0500e0030.0525 0.0396 6.0000e0053.6600e0033.6600e0033.4900e0033.4900e0030.0000 5.3492 5.3492 1.0500e0030.0000 5.3755

Total 6.0500e0030.0525 0.0396 6.0000e0053.6600e0033.6600e0033.4900e0033.4900e0030.0000 5.3492 5.3492 1.0500e0030.0000 5.3755

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 2.4000e0041.9000e0041.8400e0030.0000 4.0000e0040.0000 4.0000e0041.1000e0040.0000 1.1000e0040.0000 0.3971 0.3971 1.0000e0050.0000 0.3974

Total 2.4000e0041.9000e0041.8400e0030.0000 4.0000e0040.0000 4.0000e0041.1000e0040.0000 1.1000e0040.0000 0.3971 0.3971 1.0000e0050.0000 0.3974

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 2.7000e0040.0000 2.7000e0043.0000e0050.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 4.3000e0045.2600e0032.1800e0030.0000 2.4000e0042.4000e0042.2000e0042.2000e0040.0000 0.4534 0.4534 1.4000e0040.0000 0.4569

Total 4.3000e0045.2600e0032.1800e0030.0000 2.7000e0042.4000e0045.1000e0043.0000e0052.2000e0042.5000e0040.0000 0.4534 0.4534 1.4000e0040.0000 0.4569

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 1.0000e0051.0000e0059.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0199 0.0199 0.0000 0.0000 0.0199

Total 1.0000e0051.0000e0059.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0199 0.0199 0.0000 0.0000 0.0199

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 9 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 2.7000e0040.0000 2.7000e0043.0000e0050.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 4.3000e0045.2600e0032.1800e0030.0000 2.4000e0042.4000e0042.2000e0042.2000e0040.0000 0.4534 0.4534 1.4000e0040.0000 0.4569

Total 4.3000e0045.2600e0032.1800e0030.0000 2.7000e0042.4000e0045.1000e0043.0000e0052.2000e0042.5000e0040.0000 0.4534 0.4534 1.4000e0040.0000 0.4569

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 1.0000e0051.0000e0059.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0199 0.0199 0.0000 0.0000 0.0199

Total 1.0000e0051.0000e0059.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0199 0.0199 0.0000 0.0000 0.0199

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2017

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 7.5000e0040.0000 7.5000e0044.1000e0040.0000 4.1000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 1.2100e0030.0105 7.9200e0031.0000e0057.3000e0047.3000e0047.0000e0047.0000e0040.0000 1.0699 1.0699 2.1000e0040.0000 1.0751

Total 1.2100e0030.0105 7.9200e0031.0000e0057.5000e0047.3000e0041.4800e0034.1000e0047.0000e0041.1100e0030.0000 1.0699 1.0699 2.1000e0040.0000 1.0751

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 5.0000e0054.0000e0053.7000e0040.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 8.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0794 0.0794 0.0000 0.0000 0.0795

Total 5.0000e0054.0000e0053.7000e0040.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 8.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0794 0.0794 0.0000 0.0000 0.0795

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 11 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2017

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 7.5000e0040.0000 7.5000e0044.1000e0040.0000 4.1000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 1.2100e0030.0105 7.9200e0031.0000e0057.3000e0047.3000e0047.0000e0047.0000e0040.0000 1.0699 1.0699 2.1000e0040.0000 1.0751

Total 1.2100e0030.0105 7.9200e0031.0000e0057.5000e0047.3000e0041.4800e0034.1000e0047.0000e0041.1100e0030.0000 1.0699 1.0699 2.1000e0040.0000 1.0751

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 5.0000e0054.0000e0053.7000e0040.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 8.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0794 0.0794 0.0000 0.0000 0.0795

Total 5.0000e0054.0000e0053.7000e0040.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 8.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0794 0.0794 0.0000 0.0000 0.0795

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 12 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2017

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.0641 0.6380 0.4035 5.7000e0040.0430 0.0430 0.0395 0.0395 0.0000 52.8851 52.8851 0.0162 0.0000 53.2902

Total 0.0641 0.6380 0.4035 5.7000e0040.0430 0.0430 0.0395 0.0395 0.0000 52.8851 52.8851 0.0162 0.0000 53.2902

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2017

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.0641 0.6380 0.4035 5.7000e0040.0430 0.0430 0.0395 0.0395 0.0000 52.8850 52.8850 0.0162 0.0000 53.2901

Total 0.0641 0.6380 0.4035 5.7000e0040.0430 0.0430 0.0395 0.0395 0.0000 52.8850 52.8850 0.0162 0.0000 53.2901

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2017

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 2.6300e0030.0249 0.0184 3.0000e0051.5200e0031.5200e0031.4100e0031.4100e0030.0000 2.4610 2.4610 6.8000e0040.0000 2.4781

Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 2.6300e0030.0249 0.0184 3.0000e0051.5200e0031.5200e0031.4100e0031.4100e0030.0000 2.4610 2.4610 6.8000e0040.0000 2.4781

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 2.1000e0041.7000e0041.6500e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.3574 0.3574 1.0000e0050.0000 0.3577

Total 2.1000e0041.7000e0041.6500e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.3574 0.3574 1.0000e0050.0000 0.3577

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2017

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 2.6300e0030.0249 0.0184 3.0000e0051.5200e0031.5200e0031.4100e0031.4100e0030.0000 2.4610 2.4610 6.8000e0040.0000 2.4781

Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 2.6300e0030.0249 0.0184 3.0000e0051.5200e0031.5200e0031.4100e0031.4100e0030.0000 2.4610 2.4610 6.8000e0040.0000 2.4781

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 2.1000e0041.7000e0041.6500e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.3574 0.3574 1.0000e0050.0000 0.3577

Total 2.1000e0041.7000e0041.6500e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.3574 0.3574 1.0000e0050.0000 0.3577

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2017

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Archit. Coating 0.0116 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 8.3000e0045.4600e0034.6700e0031.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.0000 0.6383 0.6383 7.0000e0050.0000 0.6400

Total 0.0124 5.4600e0034.6700e0031.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.0000 0.6383 0.6383 7.0000e0050.0000 0.6400

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 17 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2017

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Archit. Coating 0.0116 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 8.3000e0045.4600e0034.6700e0031.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.0000 0.6383 0.6383 7.0000e0050.0000 0.6400

Total 0.0124 5.4600e0034.6700e0031.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.0000 0.6383 0.6383 7.0000e0050.0000 0.6400

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 18 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 1.9100e0038.5900e0030.0231 7.0000e0055.7900e0038.0000e0055.8700e0031.5500e0038.0000e0051.6300e0030.0000 6.5847 6.5847 3.7000e0040.0000 6.5940

Unmitigated 1.9100e0038.5900e0030.0231 7.0000e0055.7900e0038.0000e0055.8700e0031.5500e0038.0000e0051.6300e0030.0000 6.5847 6.5847 3.7000e0040.0000 6.5940

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated

Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

General Light Industry 6.97 1.32 0.68 15,369 15,369

Total 6.97 1.32 0.68 15,369 15,369

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by

General Light Industry 9.50 7.30 7.30 59.00 28.00 13.00 92 5 3

4.4 Fleet Mix

Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH

General Light Industry 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 19 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
5.0 Energy Detail

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Electricity 

Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6453 2.6453 1.1000e0042.0000e0052.6546

Electricity 

Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.7615 2.7615 1.1000e0042.0000e0052.7712

NaturalGas 

Mitigated

6.0000e0055.1000e0044.3000e0040.0000 4.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 0.5536 0.5536 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.5569

NaturalGas 

Unmitigated

6.0000e0055.7000e0044.8000e0040.0000 4.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 0.6185 0.6185 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.6222

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

Exceed Title 24

Historical Energy Use: N

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 20 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas

NaturalGa

s Use

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

General Light 

Industry

11590 6.0000e0055.7000e0044.8000e0040.0000 4.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 0.6185 0.6185 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.6222

Total 6.0000e0055.7000e0044.8000e0040.0000 4.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 0.6185 0.6185 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.6222

Unmitigated

NaturalGa

s Use

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

General Light 

Industry

10374.8 6.0000e0055.1000e0044.3000e0040.0000 4.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 0.5536 0.5536 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.5569

Total 6.0000e0055.1000e0044.3000e0040.0000 4.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 0.5536 0.5536 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.5569

Mitigated

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 21 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity

Electricity 

Use

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr

General Light 

Industry

8450 2.7615 1.1000e0042.0000e0052.7712

Total 2.7615 1.1000e0042.0000e0052.7712

Unmitigated

Electricity 

Use

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr

General Light 

Industry

8094.4 2.6453 1.1000e0042.0000e0052.6546

Total 2.6453 1.1000e0042.0000e0052.6546

Mitigated

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 22 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 5.0700e0030.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 2.0000e005

Unmitigated 5.0700e0030.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 2.0000e005

6.2 Area by SubCategory

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 

Coating

1.1600e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Consumer 

Products

3.9100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 2.0000e005

Total 5.0700e0030.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 2.0000e005

Unmitigated

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 23 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
Apply Water Conservation Strategy

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive 

PM10

Exhaust 

PM10

PM10 

Total

Fugitive 

PM2.5

Exhaust 

PM2.5

PM2.5 

Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 

Coating

1.1600e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Consumer 

Products

3.9100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 2.0000e005

Total 5.0700e0030.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 2.0000e005

Mitigated

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 24 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category MT/yr

Mitigated 0.8459 6.0600e0031.5000e0041.0418

Unmitigated 1.0574 7.5700e0031.9000e0041.3023

7.2 Water by Land Use

Indoor/Out

door Use

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use Mgal MT/yr

General Light 

Industry

0.23125 / 

0

1.0574 7.5700e0031.9000e0041.3023

Total 1.0574 7.5700e0031.9000e0041.3023

Unmitigated

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 25 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

Institute Recycling and Composting Services

7.2 Water by Land Use

Indoor/Out

door Use

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use Mgal MT/yr

General Light 

Industry

0.185 / 0 0.8459 6.0600e0031.5000e0041.0418

Total 0.8459 6.0600e0031.5000e0041.0418

Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 26 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

MT/yr

 Mitigated 0.0629 3.7200e0030.0000 0.1559

 Unmitigated 0.2517 0.0149 0.0000 0.6236

Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use

Waste 

Disposed

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use tons MT/yr

General Light 

Industry

1.24 0.2517 0.0149 0.0000 0.6236

Total 0.2517 0.0149 0.0000 0.6236

Unmitigated

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 27 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
11.0 Vegetation

8.2 Waste by Land Use

Waste 

Disposed

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use tons MT/yr

General Light 

Industry

0.31 0.0629 3.7200e0030.0000 0.1559

Total 0.0629 3.7200e0030.0000 0.1559

Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment

Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

Boilers

Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type

User Defined Equipment

Equipment Type Number

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 28 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 29 of 29 Date: 2/8/2017 5:03 PM

Energy Security and Resilience - San Diego County, Annual
D-1

Appendix D

Appendix D

Noise Calculations
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 12/16/2016

Case Description:NAV-03.10 - NASNI (Alt 1)

---- Receptor #1 ----

Baselines (dBA)

Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night

SF (Demo) Residential 75 75 75

Equipment

Spec Actual Receptor Estimated

Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding

Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)

Dozer No 40 81.7 2600 0

Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 2600 0

Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 2600 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 2600 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 2600 0

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq

Dozer 47.3 43.4

Concrete Saw 55.3 48.3

Concrete Saw 55.3 48.3

Front End Loader 44.8 40.8

Front End Loader 44.8 40.8

Total 55.3 52.6

*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 12/16/2016

Case Description:NAV-03.10 - NASNI (Alt 1)

---- Receptor #2 ----

Baselines (dBA)

Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night

SF (Site Prep) Residential 75 75 75

Equipment

Spec Actual Receptor Estimated

Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding

Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)

Grader No 40 85 2600 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 2600 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 2600 0

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq

Grader 50.7 46.7

Front End Loader 44.8 40.8

Front End Loader 44.8 40.8

Total 50.7 48.5

*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 12/16/2016

Case Description:NAV-03.10 - NASNI (Alt 1)

---- Receptor #3 ----

Baselines (dBA)

Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night

SF (Grading) Residential 75 75 75

Equipment

Spec Actual Receptor Estimated

Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding

Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)

Dozer No 40 81.7 2600 0

Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 2600 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 2600 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 2600 0

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq

Dozer 47.3 43.4

Concrete Saw 55.3 48.3

Front End Loader 44.8 40.8

Front End Loader 44.8 40.8

Total 55.3 50.5

*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 12/16/2016

Case Description: NAV-03.10 - NASNI (Alt 1)

---- Receptor #4 ----

Baselines (dBA)

Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night

SF (Construction) Residential 75 75 75

Equipment

Spec Actual Receptor Estimated

Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding

Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)

Crane No 16 80.6 2600 0

Tractor No 40 84 2600 0

Tractor No 40 84 2600 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 2600 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 2600 0

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq

Crane 46.2 38.3

Tractor 49.7 45.7

Tractor 49.7 45.7

Front End Loader 44.8 40.8

Front End Loader 44.8 40.8

Total 49.7 50.2

*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 12/16/2016

Case Description: NAV-03.10 - NASNI (Alt 1)

---- Receptor #5 ----

Baselines (dBA)

Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night

SF (Coatings) Residential 75 75 75

Equipment

Spec Actual Receptor Estimated

Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding

Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)

Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 2600 0

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq

Compressor (air) 43.3 39.4

Total 43.3 39.4

*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 12/16/2016

Case Description: NAV-03.10 - NASNI (Alt 1)

---- Receptor #6 ----

Baselines (dBA)

Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night

SF (Paving) Residential 75 75 75

Equipment

Spec Actual Receptor Estimated

Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding

Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)

Paver No 50 77.2 2600 0

Roller No 20 80 2600 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 2600 0

Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 2600 0

Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 2600 0

Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 2600 0

Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 2600 0

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq

Paver 42.9 39.9

Roller 45.7 38.7

Front End Loader 44.8 40.8

Concrete Mixer Truck 44.5 40.5

Concrete Mixer Truck 44.5 40.5

Concrete Mixer Truck 44.5 40.5

Concrete Mixer Truck 44.5 40.5

Total 45.7 48.7

*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 12/16/2016

Case Description:NAV-03.10 - NASNI (Alt 2)

---- Receptor #1 ----

Baselines (dBA)

Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night

SF (Site Prep) Residential 75 75 75

Equipment

Spec Actual Receptor Estimated

Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding

Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)

Grader No 40 85 2800 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 2800 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 2800 0

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq

Grader 50 46.1

Front End Loader 44.1 40.2

Front End Loader 44.1 40.2

Total 50 47.9

*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 12/16/2016

Case Description: NAV-03.10 - NASNI (Alt 2)

---- Receptor #2 ----

Baselines (dBA)

Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night

SF (Grading) Residential 75 75 75

Equipment

Spec Actual Receptor Estimated

Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding

Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)

Dozer No 40 81.7 2800 0

Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 2800 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 2800 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 2800 0

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq

Dozer 46.7 42.7

Concrete Saw 54.6 47.6

Front End Loader 44.1 40.2

Front End Loader 44.1 40.2

Total 54.6 49.9

*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 12/16/2016

Case Description: NAV-03.10 - NASNI (Alt 2)

---- Receptor #3 ----

Baselines (dBA)

Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night

SF (Construction) Residential 75 75 75

Equipment

Spec Actual Receptor Estimated

Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding

Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)

Crane No 16 80.6 2800 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 2800 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 2800 0

Tractor No 40 84 2800 0

Tractor No 40 84 2800 0

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq

Crane 45.6 37.6

Front End Loader 44.1 40.2

Front End Loader 44.1 40.2

Tractor 49 45.1

Tractor 49 45.1

Total 49 49.6

*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 12/16/2016

Case Description: NAV-03.10 - NASNI (Alt 2)

---- Receptor #3 ----

Baselines (dBA)

Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night

SF (Coatings) Residential 75 75 75

Equipment

Spec Actual Receptor Estimated

Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding

Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)

Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 2800 0

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq

Compressor (air) 42.7 38.7

Total 42.7 38.7

*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 12/16/2016

Case Description: NAV-03.10 - NASNI (Alt 2)

---- Receptor #5 ----

Baselines (dBA)

Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night

SF (Paving) Residential 75 75 75

Equipment

Spec Actual Receptor Estimated

Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding

Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)

Paver No 50 77.2 2800 0

Roller No 20 80 2800 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 2800 0

Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 2800 0

Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 2800 0

Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 2800 0

Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 2800 0

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq

Paver 42.3 39.2

Roller 45 38

Front End Loader 44.1 40.2

Concrete Mixer Truck 43.8 39.9

Concrete Mixer Truck 43.8 39.9

Concrete Mixer Truck 43.8 39.9

Concrete Mixer Truck 43.8 39.9

Total 45 48.1

*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 12/16/2016

Case Description:NAV-03.10 - NASNI (Alt 4)

---- Receptor #1 ----

Baselines (dBA)

Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night

SF (Site Prep) Residential 75 75 75

Equipment

Spec Actual Receptor Estimated

Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding

Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)

Grader No 40 85 1300 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 1300 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 1300 0

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq

Grader 56.7 52.7

Front End Loader 50.8 46.8

Front End Loader 50.8 46.8

Total 56.7 54.5

*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 12/16/2016

Case Description: NAV-03.10 - NASNI (Alt 4)

---- Receptor #2 ----

Baselines (dBA)

Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night

SF (Grading) Residential 75 75 75

Equipment

Spec Actual Receptor Estimated

Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding

Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)

Dozer No 40 81.7 1300 0

Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 1300 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 1300 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 1300 0

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq

Dozer 53.4 49.4

Concrete Saw 61.3 54.3

Front End Loader 50.8 46.8

Front End Loader 50.8 46.8

Total 61.3 56.6

*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 12/16/2016

Case Description: NAV-03.10 - NASNI (Alt 4)

---- Receptor #3 ----

Baselines (dBA)

Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night

SF (Construction) Residential 75 75 75

Equipment

Spec Actual Receptor Estimated

Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding

Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)

Crane No 16 80.6 1300 0

Tractor No 40 84 1300 0

Tractor No 40 84 1300 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 1300 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 1300 0

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq

Crane 52.3 44.3

Tractor 55.7 51.7

Tractor 55.7 51.7

Front End Loader 50.8 46.8

Front End Loader 50.8 46.8

Total 55.7 56.2

*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 12/16/2016

Case Description: NAV-03.10 - NASNI (Alt 4)

---- Receptor #4 ----

Baselines (dBA)

Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night

SF (Coatings) Residential 75 75 75

Equipment

Spec Actual Receptor Estimated

Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding

Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)

Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 1300 0

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq

Compressor (air) 49.4 45.4

Total 49.4 45.4

*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 12/16/2016

Case Description: NAV-03.10 - NASNI (Alt 4)

---- Receptor #5 ----

Baselines (dBA)

Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night

SF (Paving) Residential 75 75 75

Equipment

Spec Actual Receptor Estimated

Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding

Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)

Paver No 50 77.2 1300 0

Roller No 20 80 1300 0

Front End Loader No 40 79.1 1300 0

Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 1300 0

Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 1300 0

Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 1300 0

Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 1300 0

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq

Paver 48.9 45.9

Roller 51.7 44.7

Front End Loader 50.8 46.8

Concrete Mixer Truck 50.5 46.5

Concrete Mixer Truck 50.5 46.5

Concrete Mixer Truck 50.5 46.5

Concrete Mixer Truck 50.5 46.5

Total 51.7 54.7

*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.