FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

 

SHORE INFRASTRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS TO SUPPORT 

TESTING AND EVALUATION OF THE LARGE DISPLACEMENT 

UNMANNED UNDERSEA VEHICLE PROGRAM AT SPAWAR SYSTEMS 

CENTER PACIFIC, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 

 

December 2013
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

APCD Air Pollution Control District 

BMP Best Management Practice(s) 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CCR California Code of Regulations 

CDC Child Development Center 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

 Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4 methane 

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level 

CNO Chief of Naval Operations 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent 

CWA Clean Water Act 

dB decibel(s) 

dBA A-weighted decibels 

DEH Department of Environmental Health 

Services 

DoD Department of Defense 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

EO Executive Order 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESQD explosive safety quantity distance 

ft foot/feet 

GCR General Conformity Rule 

GHG greenhouse gas 

H2 hydrogen 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant(s)

HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 

HSTT Hawaii-SOCAL Training and Testing 

ISO International Standards Organization 

Ldn Day-Night Average Level 

LDUUV Large Displacement Unmanned 

Undersea Vehicle 

m meter(s) 

MILCON Military Construction 

MLLW mean lower low water 

MSATs Mobile Source Air Toxics 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAB Naval Amphibious Base 

NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

Navy Department of the Navy 

NBPL Naval Base Point Loma 

NBSD Naval Base San Diego 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAPS National Emission Standards for 

 Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NFPA National Fire Protection Association 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOA Notice of Availability 

NOx oxides of nitrogen 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System 

NSR New Source Review 

O2 oxygen 

O3 ozone 

ONR Office of Naval Research 

OSHA Occupational Health and Safety 

 Administration 

Pb lead 

PM2.5 suspended particulate matter ≤ 2.5 microns 

 aerodynamic diameter 

PM10 suspended particulate matter ≤ 10 microns 

 aerodynamic diameter 

ppm parts per million 

psi pounds per square inch 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

re 1 μPa referenced to 1 micro Pascal 

RDT&E research, development, testing, 

 and evaluation 

RHIB rigid-hulled inflatable boat 

RMS root mean square 

ROG Reactive Organic Gasses 

ROI region of influence 

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board 

SCM Special Conservation Measure 

SDCAPCD San Diego County APCD 

SOCAL Southern California 

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SPAWAR Space and Naval Warfare 

Systems Command 

SSC SPAWAR Systems Center 

SDAB San Diego Air Basin 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SIO Scripps Institution of Oceanography 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SWRMC Southwest Regional Maintenance Center 

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

UCSD University of California San Diego 

USC United States Code 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

UUV Unmanned Undersea Vehicle 

WMP Waste Management Plan 

ZOI Zone of Influence 









Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

 i

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

 

Lead Agency: Department of the Navy 

Action Proponent: Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific 

Title of Proposed Action: Shore Infrastructure Modifications to Support Testing and Evaluation of 

the Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Program at 

SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, San Diego, California 

 Abstract 

The United States Department of the Navy (Navy) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

accordance with the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code § 4321, as 

amended), The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 Code of 

Federal Regulations Parts 1500-1508), and the Chief of Naval Operations Instructions for Implementing 

NEPA (OPNAVINST 5090.1C, CH-1). 

The EA addresses shore infrastructure modifications and operations that are needed at SPAWAR Systems 

Center Pacific on Naval Base Point Loma to support testing and evaluation that are part of the Large 

Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Program. It evaluates the environmental effects of a Proposed 

Action that would meet the program needs, as well as a No-Action Alternative. 

Prepared By: Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific 

Point of Contact: Mr. Jerry Olen

Environmental Readiness in Acquisition Program Manager

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

53560 Hull Street

San Diego, CA 92152-5001

Email: jerry.olen@navy.mil

Tel: (619) 553-1443

December 2013
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [USC] § 4321, as amended); the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (Title 

40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§ 1500-1508, 1 July 1986); and Navy Procedures for 

Implementing NEPA (32 CFR § 775). 

The United States (U.S.) Navy proposes shore infrastructure modifications and operations that are needed 

at SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific on Naval Base Point Loma to support testing and evaluation that are 

part of the Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (LDUUV) Program. Construction would not 

occur until the fall of 2013 or the spring of 2014. 

This EA addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and the No-Action 

Alternative. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The LDUUV program will develop fully autonomous, long-endurance, UUVs capable of operating near 

shore. The program will develop new energy systems and core vehicle technology to extend the vehicle’s 

endurance while the advanced sensing capability will enable operation in the littoral environment. Initial 

testing of the LDUUV in the Southern California (SOCAL) Range Complex is already addressed in the 

current Hawaii-SOCAL Training and Testing (HSTT) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and does 

not require further analysis. Under the HSTT EIS, LDUUV testing would not start until early 2014 after 

the Record of Decision is signed. After carefully considering alternative regional and San Diego-area 

locations, the Navy identified SSC Pacific facilities on Naval Base Point Loma (NBPL) as the preferred 

location for testing the LDUUV program in Southern California. The LDUUV program would be 

accommodated through relatively minor modifications to SSC Pacific’s Pier 160, Buildings 9 and 68, and 

the Flume Bridge. 

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide necessary modifications to existing infrastructure at 

SSC Pacific to enable LDUUV test activities to proceed as scheduled. This action is needed to meet 

critical milestones for testing and evaluation that have been established for the LDUUV program. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The Proposed Action is to modify existing infrastructure and activities at SSC Pacific as necessary to 

accommodate two LDUUVs and three RHIBs as part of the LDUUV Innovative Naval Prototype program 

as scheduled. This would require permanent modifications to Pier 160, Building 9, Building 68, and the 

Flume Bridge. Since the proposed Pier 160 construction might not be completed before the LDUUVs 

arrive, either two floating boat docks or a floating barge and a single floating boat dock could also be used 

to accommodate LDUUV program’s immediate needs. These elements are described below: 

 Pier 160 Modifications. Up to five 70,000 lb-capacity launch and recovery lifts would be installed 

between Fingers A and B of Pier 160. The launch and recovery lifts are required to raise/lower 

the project’s three 11-meter (m) rigid hulled inflatable boats (RHIBs) and two LDUUVs. Each 

launch and recovery lift would require the installation of eight 16-inch concrete piles (total of 40 

piles). The installation of two tracks for a mobile boat hoist is also required. These tracks would 

be installed on Finger B of the pier and require installation of up to 20 16-inch concrete piles. To 

provide access to the RHIBS and LDUUVs while on the launch and recovery lifts, three or four 

small floating walkways would also be installed. Three of the floating walkways would be 

approximately 50 ft long, and would each require two piles to be installed. A fourth walkway may 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

ES-2 

be located in the interior of the mobile boat hoist. If so, it would be U-shaped, approximately 106 

ft long, and would require up to 6 piles. All walkways would be approximately 6 ft wide and 

would use an open design (e.g., grating) to reduce shading. Altogether, up to 72 16-inch piles 

would be installed using jetting and/or a small impact hammer. LDUUV and RHIB launch and 

recovery events would occur at this location weekly or as needed for each LDUUV; these 

facilities would also be used to maintain and repair the LDUUVs topside of the pier. In addition, 

oxygen (O2) and hydrogen (H2) gas cylinders and compressors used to recharge the fuel cell of 

the LDUUV would be stored on Pier 160 in a controlled area surrounded by safety bollards to 

provide protection for the equipment. Recharging operations would be 3-5 day events and would 

occur approximately once a month for each LDUUV. These facilities would also be used to 

maintain and repair the LDUUVs topside of the pier. 

 Building 9 Modifications. This facility would be used to integrate new payloads into the vehicle, 

for routine maintenance of the LDUUVs, for storage of the LDUUVs during non-testing periods, 

storage of other equipment and tools, and for recharging the battery-powered LDUUV. 

Modification would include construction of office space, installation of fencing, and modification 

of supporting utility systems. 

 Building 68 Modifications. Building 68 is currently used for research activities, and includes a 

large storage room in the rear of the building. Proposed modifications to this building include 

replacement of an existing double door with an automated roll-up door tall enough to 

accommodate forklift access, installation of chain link fence within the room, striping for an 

adjacent parking space, additional overhead lighting, raising the existing overhead lighting to 

allow for forklift access, and clearance of an existing double door on the rear wall of the building. 

 Flume Bridge Modification. The Flume Bridge is located on Front Street and is on the route from 

Pier 160 to Building 9. The current slope of the Flume Bridge, which is about 12-20% grade, is 

problematic for the mobile boat hoist holding the LDUUV and transiting the LDUUV on a trailer. 

The proposed modification would add concrete or asphalt to each side of the bridge over the 

current concrete and/or asphalt to decrease the grade.

 Temporary Shelter, Transport, and Barge/Floating Dock Options. To provide the necessary outof-water mooring required for one LDUUV and one RHIB until the launch and recovery lifts and 

mobile boat hoist tracks at Pier 160 can be installed, the Navy has identified options involving the 

use of a temporary shelter and self-propelled trailer in combination with either a modular pin 

barge and floating boat dock, or two floating boat docks. Either option would be placed near the 

end of Pier 159 or between Fingers A, B and C of Pier 160 and used until no longer required. A 

floating boat dock is a floating basin that can be raised or lowered to allow a vessel to be driven 

onto or to slide off into the water. A mobile crane would be used to raise and lower the vessels 

between the floating docks and topside of the pier. Under this option, the crane could be 

positioned as needed on Pier 160. Existing infrastructure at the NBPL Main Base piers (north, 

middle, and south) could also be used to move the vessels between the water and topside of the 

pier. 

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no change to existing conditions and the Navy would 

not implement the proposed modifications to Pier 160, Buildings 9 and 68, and Flume Bridge; nor would 

the barge/floating dock option be implemented. However, it should be noted that the No-Action 

Alternative would impede the development of the LDUUV program and thereby delay the extension and 

augmentation of current Navy platform capabilities and negatively impact planned testing activities in the 

SOCAL Range Complex. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

ES-3 

The No-Action Alternative is not considered a reasonable alternative because it does not meet the purpose 

of and need for the Project as required under the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.14[d]). However, it does 

provide a measure of the baseline conditions described in Chapter 3, against which the potential impacts 

of the Project can be compared. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE 

A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EA was published in the San Diego Union Tribune 

Newspaper for 3-consecutive days (16-18 August 2013) (Appendix D), in conjunction with a 15-calendar 

day public comment period concluding on 3 September 2013. The Draft EA was made available 

electronically via the Commander Navy Region Southwest website and in hard copy at the Point 

Loma/Hervey Public Library (3701 Voltaire Street, San Diego). Comments on the Draft EA were 

accepted via regular mail; no comments were received. 

Appendix D documents the correspondence between the Navy and regulatory agencies pursuant to the 

Navy’s compliance with requirements for permitting, consultation and/or concurrence. 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Potential environmental impacts have been analyzed for the following resources: biological resource 

habitats and communities; fisheries; birds; marine mammals; threatened and endangered species; water 

resources; hazardous materials and wastes; noise; air quality; transportation and circulation; and 

socioeconomics and environmental justice. Table ES-1 summarizes determinations of environmental 

impacts followed by the respective avoidance and minimization measures/special conservation measures 

(SCMs) for the Proposed Action. The No-Action Alternative would have no environmental impacts. 

Chapter 3 provides a detailed discussion of the environmental consequences. As described in Table ES-1, 

implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts to any resource area. 

Table ES-1. Summary of Potential Impacts 

Resource 

A

r

e

a

Proposed Action

Biological 

Resource 

Habitats and 

Communities

Any temporary increase in turbidity would not significantly impact benthic or water column habitats in the 

project area. There would be no residual effects beyond pile driving activities. The Proposed Action would 

not alter the area of the bay that is shaded by artificial structures. Eelgrass does not occur in the areas of 

proposed construction.

A survey for the invasive alga Caulerpa taxifolia was conducted in April 2013 with negative results. An 

additional survey would be conducted before initiating in-water project activities, consistent with NMFS and 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) requirements (NMFS 2008). If Caulerpa is found in the 

study area during this survey, NMFS-approved Caulerpa Control Protocols would be followed. Therefore, the 

Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts to special aquatic sites due to Caulerpa.

The temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating dock options, if implemented, would result in minor 

shading due to the barge and/or floating boat docks.

LDUUV maintenance (activities within Building 9 and transportation between Building 9 and Pier 160) 

would not affect biological resource habitats and communities. With the implementation of the proposed 

minimization and conservation measures, the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts to 

biological resource habitats and communities.

Avoidance and Minimization Measures/Special Conservation Measures (SCMs):

 The approved NMFS/California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Caulerpa Control 

Protocol (Version 4, February 25, 2008), including a pre-construction Caulerpa survey and follow-up 

action if necessary, would be followed. 

 Piles may be jetted to minimize pile driving and associated underwater and airborne noise.
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

ES-4 

Resource 

A

r

e

a

Proposed Action

 To encourage fish and wildlife dispersal away from the immediate area of pile driving, at the start of 

each day’s pile driving activity or when pile driving has ceased for more than an hour, a soft-start 

technique would be used involving a gradual ramp-up before pile driving reaches full energy.

Fisheries Impacts to fisheries associated with the Proposed Action would be primarily from increased underwater noise 

associated with pile driving. The temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating dock options, if 

implemented, would result in minor shading due to the barge and/or floating boat docks. No Habitat Areas of 

Particular Concern (HAPCs), including eelgrass, would be impacted, areas of potential injurious effects are 

minimal, and the zone of potential influence that may cause a change in fish behavior is relatively small 

compared to the size of the bay. Fish would be expected to disperse away from or avoid the area of potential 

injury during pile driving rather than remain stationary and risk injury. Turbidity due to pile installation would 

be minimal because the sediments are known to be sandy. Piles may be jetted to minimize pile driving and 

associated underwater and airborne noise. Furthermore, most if not all of the fish species occurring in the area 

routinely experience turbid and noisy conditions due to natural processes and ship traffic within the 

industrialized north bay and there would be no residual adverse effects beyond pile driving activities. 

LDUUV maintenance (activities within Building 9 and transportation between Building 9 and Pier 160) 

would not affect fisheries. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant 

impacts to fisheries. The Navy prepared an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment as part of the EA,

determined that there would only be minimal and temporary adverse effects on EFH, and consulted with 

NMFS on that assessment. NMFS concurred with the assessment (Appendix D) and the consultation was 

concluded. 

Avoidance and Minimization Measures/SCMs:

Under the Proposed Action, avoidance and minimization measures/SCMs would be the same as those for 

biological resource habitats and communities.

Birds Project impacts would be highly localized and very temporary. Since the project area is developed and similar 

resting and foraging habitats occur nearby, shorebirds or waterbirds would likely move to other similar 

habitats nearby and return when the project is complete and there would be no residual effects beyond pile 

driving activities. Birds in the area are routinely subject to construction equipment associated noise and 

effects from routine marine activities common in the area. LDUUV maintenance (activities within Building 9 

and transportation between Building 9 and Pier 160) would only marginally increase activity at the pier and 

would not affect migratory birds. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in 

significant impacts to birds.

Avoidance and Minimization Measures/SCMs:

Avoidance and minimization measures for birds would be the same as those for biological resource habitats 

and communities. Avoidance and minimization measures to protect California least terns are provided in the 

Threatened and Endangered Species resource section.

Marine 

Mammals

LDUUV maintenance (activities within Building 9 and transportation between Building 9 and Pier 160) 

would only marginally increase activity at the pier and would not affect marine mammals. Marine mammal 

use of the project area is limited, and the zones of influence for potential incidental harassment due to pile 

driving are relatively small. The Proposed Action would not result in any injuries or mortalities (Level A 

harassment) of marine mammals, and the proposed monitoring would eliminate the potential for Level B 

harassment of marine mammals. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result 

in any harassment to marine mammals. As such, an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) from NMFS 

is not required and implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts to marine 

mammals. 

Avoidance and Minimization Measures/SCMs:

Under the Proposed Action, avoidance and minimization measures/SCMs would be the same as those for 

biological resource habitats and communities and would also include:

 A biological monitor would be stationed on Pier 160 and would order a shutdown of pile driving any 

time a wild marine mammal or sea turtle is observed within or approaching the zone of potential 

harassment defined by a root mean square (RMS) underwater sound pressure level (SPL) of 160 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

ES-5 

Resource 

A

r

e

a

Proposed Action

decibels (dB) referenced to 1 micro Pascal (re 1 μPa). This is currently estimated as extending 74 m 

from the source, based on a worst case RMS SPL of 173 dB re 1μPa at 10 m from the source, and 

application of the NMFS-approved practical spreading model for transmission loss (Caltrans 2013). 

Site-specific data or more realistic estimates of sound levels would be applied should they become 

available.

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species

California Least Tern

LDUUV maintenance (activities within Building 9 and LDUUV transportation between Building 9 and Pier 

160), as well as Flume Bridge and building construction, would have no effect on California least terns. Pile 

driving and other construction activities would occur outside of the California least tern nesting/foraging 

season (April 1 through September 15) in San Diego Bay and least tern habitat would not be altered. 

Therefore, the proposed pile driving would have no effect on California least terns and implementation of the 

Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts to California least terns.

Green Sea Turtle

LDUUV maintenance, as well as Flume Bridge and building construction, would have no effect on green sea 

turtles. Pile driving is the only proposed activity with the potential to impact green sea turtles due to 

associated underwater noise. However, since piles would only be driven during the non-tern season 

(September 16 to March 31), which is outside of the warmer summer season when turtles are most likely to 

transit through the project area, the likelihood of sea turtle occurrence within the project area is low. 

Furthermore, implementation of the proposed impact avoidance and minimization measures, would ensure 

that these activities are ceased if a sea turtle is observed within or approaching the zone of potential 

harassment surrounding the pile being driven during the very temporary pile driving period. As such, the 

Navy determined that the action is not likely to adversely affect green sea turtles and consulted informally 

with NMFS regarding this determination. NMFS concurred (Appendix D), and accordingly, implementation 

of the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts to green sea turtles.

Avoidance and Minimization Measures/SCMs:

Under the Proposed Action, avoidance and minimization measures/SCMs would be the same as those for 

biological resource habitats and communities and marine mammals and would also include:

 Pile driving would occur outside of the California least tern nesting/foraging season (April 1 to 

September 15) in San Diego Bay.

Water 

Resources

There would be no impact to bathymetry from the Proposed Action. The temporary shelter, transport, and 

barge/floating dock options, if implemented, would result in a minor increase in shading due to the barge 

and/or floating boat docks. Increased turbidity as a result of sediment resuspension during concrete pile 

installation would be short-term and limited to the immediate areas around Pier 160. All operations at the pier 

would be in compliance with OPNAVINST 5090.1C, Chapters 22 (Environmental Compliance Afloat) and 

would not be a source of pollutants. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in 

significant impacts to water quality.

Hazardous 

Materials and 

Wastes

Through the use of the preventive measures described in Section 3.7, including the adherence to applicable 

Federal, DoD, and Navy regulations that govern the storage, disposal, and transportation of hazardous 

materials, hazardous wastes, and non-hazardous solid wastes, no increase in human health risk or 

environmental exposure to hazardous materials or hazardous wastes would occur with implementation of the 

Proposed Action. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact to 

hazardous materials or hazardous wastes. 

Airborne Noise The noise associated with the proposed pier modifications would not exceed City of San Diego construction 

airborne outdoor noise limits for residential areas (75 dB A-weighted) which apply at the boundaries of 

NBPL. The temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating dock options, if implemented, would entail nonsignificant noise due to operation of the crane but otherwise have no impact. The indoor airborne noise levels 

at educational facilities in the areas surrounding the proposed SSC Pacific project would not exceed the 

classroom criteria levels for effective hearing with windows closed (35 dB A-weighted). Additionally, 

because the pile driving would be intermittent rather than continual, the noise levels would be considered 

acceptable. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts to 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

ES-6 

Resource 

A

r

e

a

Proposed Action

airborne noise.

Avoidance and Minimization Measures/SCMs:

 Construction activities, including pile driving, would only occur during daylight hours (7:00 A.M. to 5:00 

P.M., Monday through Friday).

 A cushion block would be used to reduce airborne noise generated by pile driving. 

 Piles may be jetted to minimize pile driving and airborne noise.

Air Quality Operation emissions generated from the LDUUV test program would be limited to mobile source emissions 

occurring monthly as a result of delivery of gas cylinder replacements and transport of LDUUVs between Pier 

160 and Building 9. Additional emissions could also result from operation of the crane if the temporary 

shelter, transport, and barge/floating dock options are also implemented. Regardless, operational emissions 

would be below de minimis thresholds. 

Estimated annual construction emissions with implementation of the Proposed Action would be below the de 

minimis threshold levels for Clean Air Act (CAA) conformity. In addition, the Proposed Action would 

conform to the San Diego Air Basin Shore State Implementation Plan (SIP) and would not trigger a 

conformity determination under Section 176(c) of the CAA. The Navy has prepared a Record of NonApplicability (RONA) for CAA conformity (Appendix A of this EA). No health effects would be anticipated 

from emission of hazardous air pollutants because the majority of project activities occur in restricted areas 

where there are no sensitive receptors (i.e., residents, schools, hospitals, etc.). 

Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts to air quality.

Transportation 

and Circulation

Proposed construction associated with the pier, building, and bridge modifications would cause temporary and 

less than significant changes to traffic and circulation during the construction period. 

Future operations at the proposed project site would be similar to current operations, and the number of 

workers would not change. Truck traffic associated with long-term maintenance activities is anticipated to 

equal two truck trips per month. 

Implementation of the temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating boat dock options would result in a 

minor, temporary increase in traffic due to the placement and removal of the temporary shelter, barge, or 

floating boat docks at Pier 160.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in changes in accessibility of public roads that would 

constitute long-term effects to transportation and circulation. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed 

Action would not have a significant impact to transportation and circulation.

Socioeconomics 

and 

Environmental 

Justice

Due to the limited timeframe for construction and scale of the proposed construction, impacts to the local 

economy and local labor pool would be negligible. The Proposed Action would involve no change in housing 

supply, population, demand for housing, or public services. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed 

Action would not have a significant impact to socioeconomics.

No low-income or minority populations would be disproportionately or adversely affected, so no 

environmental justice impacts would occur and impacts would not be significant.
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

i 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

SHORE INFRASTRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS TO SUPPORT TESTING AND EVALUATION 

OF THE LARGE DISPLACEMENT UNMANNED UNDERSEA VEHICLE PROGRAM AT 

SPAWAR SYSTEMS CENTER PACFIC, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................... Inisde Front Cover

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................................i

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

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Introduction/Background ........................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Project Location Description ..................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Project ............................................................................................... 1-1

1.4 Decision to be Made .................................................................................................................. 1-4

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

1.5.1 Resources Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis ............................................................. 1-4

1.5.2 Resources Minimally or Not Impacted, Not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis ........ 1-4

1.6 Coordination with Other Navy Activities .................................................................................. 1-5

1.7 Intergovernmental Coordination ................................................................................................ 1-5

1.8 Public/Agency Participation ...................................................................................................... 1-6

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

2.1 Reasonable Alternative Screening Factors ................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Description of the Proposed Action ........................................................................................... 2-2

2.2.1 Permanent Structural and Operational Modifications ........................................................ 2-2

2.2.2 Temporary Shelter, Transport, and Barge/Floating Boat Dock Options ............................ 2-7

2.2.3 Proposed Avoidance and Minimization Measures/Special Conservation Measures 

(SCMs) ............................................................................................................................. 2-12

2.3 No-Action Alternative .............................................................................................................. 2-12

2.4 Alternatives Considered but not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis ................................ 2-12

2.4.1 General Location Alternatives ......................................................................................... 2-12

2.4.2 Local Location Alternatives ............................................................................................. 2-13

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ................................. 3-1

3.1 Biological Resource Habitats and Communities ........................................................................ 3-1

3.1.1 Definition of Resource ....................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................................................ 3-1
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

ii

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................ 3-2

3.2 Fisheries ..................................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.2.1 Definition of Resource ....................................................................................................... 3-4

3.2.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................................................ 3-4

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................ 3-6

3.3 Birds ......................................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.3.1 Definition of Resource ..................................................................................................... 3-10

3.3.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-10

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................... 3-10

3.4 Marine Mammals ..................................................................................................................... 3-11

3.4.1 Definition of Resource ..................................................................................................... 3-11

3.4.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-11

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................... 3-12

3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................ 3-13

3.5.1 Definition of Resource ..................................................................................................... 3-13

3.5.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-13

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................... 3-14

3.6 Water Resources ...................................................................................................................... 3-15

3.6.1 Definition of Resource ..................................................................................................... 3-15

3.6.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-15

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................... 3-18

3.7 Hazardous Materials and Wastes ............................................................................................. 3-19

3.7.1 Definition of Resource ..................................................................................................... 3-19

3.7.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-20

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................... 3-20

3.8 Airborne Noise ......................................................................................................................... 3-22

3.8.1 Definition of Resource ..................................................................................................... 3-22

3.8.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-22

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................... 3-24

3.9 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 3-26

3.9.1 Definition of Resource ..................................................................................................... 3-26

3.9.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-29

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................... 3-32
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

iii

3.10 Transportation and Circulation ................................................................................................ 3-35

3.10.1 Definition of Resource ..................................................................................................... 3-35

3.10.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-35

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................... 3-36

3.11 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ............................................................................ 3-37

3.11.1 Definition of Resource ..................................................................................................... 3-37

3.11.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-37

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................... 3-38

CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects ....................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Past Projects ....................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Present Projects .................................................................................................................. 4-3

4.1.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Projects ....................................................................................... 4-4

4.2 Approach to Cumulative Impacts Analysis ................................................................................ 4-5

4.2.1 Context and Intensity ......................................................................................................... 4-5

4.2.2 Acute Impacts and Lingering Impacts ............................................................................... 4-5

4.2.3 Quantitative Analysis for Cumulative Impacts .................................................................. 4-6

4.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis .................................................................................................... 4-7

4.3.1 Habitats and Communities ................................................................................................. 4-7

4.3.2 Fish ..................................................................................................................................... 4-7

4.3.3 Birds ................................................................................................................................... 4-8

4.3.4 Marine Mammals ............................................................................................................... 4-8

4.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................................. 4-8

4.3.6 Water Resources ................................................................................................................ 4-8

4.3.7 Hazardous Materials and Wastes ....................................................................................... 4-8

4.3.8 Airborne Noise ................................................................................................................... 4-8

4.3.9 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 4-9

4.3.10 Transportation and Circulation ........................................................................................ 4-10

4.3.11 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice .................................................................... 4-11

4.4 Cumulative Impacts Conclusion .............................................................................................. 4-11

4.5 Possible Conflicts Between the Action and the Objectives of Federal, Regional, State, and 

Local Plans, Policies, and Controls .......................................................................................... 4-11

4.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ........................................................ 4-13
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

iv

4.7 Relationship Between Short-term Environmental Impacts and Long-term Productivity ........ 4-13

CHAPTER 5 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONTACTED ................................................................ 5-1

CHAPTER 6 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................... 6-1

CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 7-1

 List of Appendices 

APPENDIX A: RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY FOR CLEAN AIR ACT CONFORMITY 

(RONA) AND AIR QUALITY DATA 

APPENDIX B: CAULERPA AND EELGRASS SURVEY REPORT 

APPENDIX C: AIRBORNE NOISE MODELING DATA 

APPENDIX D: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE 

 

List of Figures 

Figure Page 

1-1. Project Area Location Map ................................................................................................................. 1-2

1-2. Location of Proposed SSC Pacific Infrastructure Modifications ........................................................ 1-3

2-1. Proposed Pier 160 Modifications ........................................................................................................ 2-3

2-2. Launch and Recovery Lift Description ............................................................................................... 2-4

2-3. Example of Mobile Boat Hoist on Tracks Over Water ...................................................................... 2-4

2-4. Compressed Gas Recharging Process for Fuel Cell LDUUV ............................................................ 2-5

2-5. Existing Flume Bridge and Proposed Modifications .......................................................................... 2-7

2-6. Example of a Temporary Shelter ........................................................................................................ 2-8

2-7. Self-Propelled Trailer (Conolift) ........................................................................................................ 2-8

2-8. Example of a Pin Barge ...................................................................................................................... 2-9

2-9. Example of a Floating Boat Dock .................................................................................................... 2-10

2-10. Proposed LDUUV and RHIB Floating Boat Docks and Truck Crane at Pier 160 ......................... 2-11

3-1. Bathymetry and Eelgrass in the Project Area ..................................................................................... 3-3

3-2. Noise Contours Associated with the Proposed Action and Least Tern Foraging Habitat .................. 3-8

4-1. Locations of Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Cumulative Projects ................................... 4-2
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

v 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

ES-1. Summary of Potential Impacts ...................................................................................................... ES-3

2-1. ONR Technical Evaluation Results .................................................................................................. 2-13

2-2. Comparison of Local Alternative Locations for LDUUV Program Infrastructure ........................... 2-14

3-1. Fish Species with EFH Likely to Occur in the Proposed San Diego Bay Project Area ..................... 3-6

3-2. Interim Criteria for Fish Injury and Disturbance by Underwater Sound from Pile Driving .............. 3-7

3-3. Federally Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring or Having the Potential to Occur in the 

Vicinity of the Proposed Project Area ..................................................................................... 3-13

3-4. Pile Driving Noise Levels at Representative Receptor Points .......................................................... 3-25

3-5. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................................ 3-27

3-6. Maximum Potential Emissions for LDUUV Test Program with Evaluation of Conformity ............ 3-35

4-1. Cumulative Noise Levels at La Playa and NBPL CDC ...................................................................... 4-9

4-2. Estimated Annual GHG Emissions from Construction and Operations ........................................... 4-10

4-3. Status of Compliance with Relevant Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls ................................. 4-11
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

1-1 

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [USC] § 4321, as amended); the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural provisions of NEPA (Title 

40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§ 1500-1508, 1 July 1986); and Navy Procedures for 

Implementing NEPA (32 CFR § 775). 

The Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (LDUUV) is an unmanned vehicle under 

development by the Office of Naval Research (ONR). The LDUUV will enable persistent sensing to 

increase the influence and capability of the Navy. The LDUUV program will develop fully autonomous 

and long-endurance, unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs) capable of operating in littoral environments. 

The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) has stated that he desires to accelerate the development of UUVs 

in order to close warfighter capability gaps in a cost-effective manner and to gain access where manned 

platforms cannot operate. The LDUUV program will develop new vehicle technologies to extend UUVs 

endurance into months of operation time. 

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION DESCRIPTION

The LDUUV test program is proposed to be located at Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SSC) 

Pacific’s bayside compound, San Diego, California (Figure 1-1). SSC Pacific is part of the Naval Base 

Point Loma (NBPL) Complex, located on the Point Loma peninsula and adjacent to northern San Diego 

Bay. The bayside compound is bordered on the north by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) 

facilities and the Navy’s Fuel Facility to the south. The SSC Pacific facilities that are proposed to be 

modified to accommodate the LDUUV test program include Pier 160, the Flume Bridge on Front Street, 

Building 9, and Building 68 as shown in Figure 1-2. More detail on these proposed modifications is 

provided in Chapter 2. 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT

ONR is the resource sponsor for the LDUUV Program and has an emergent need for a dedicated testing 

location and facility for the LDUUV Innovative Naval Prototype program. This program will enable 

persistent sensing to increase the influence and capabilities of the Navy. 

The program will develop fully autonomous, long-endurance UUVs capable of operating near shore. The 

program will develop new energy systems and core vehicle technology to extend the vehicle’s endurance 

while the advanced sensing capability will enable operation in the littoral environment. Initial testing of 

the LDUUV in the Southern California (SOCAL) Range Complex is already addressed in the current 

Hawaii-SOCAL Training and Testing (HSTT) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and does not 

require further analysis. Under the HSTT EIS, LDUUV testing would not start until early 2014 after the 

Record of Decision is signed. SSC Pacific is the proposed lab for testing the LDUUV program in 

Southern California. SSC Pacific currently has the required infrastructure and is in close proximity to 

open ocean and SOCAL Test Ranges. Additionally, fleet assets required for testing are within the SOCAL 

area. 

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide necessary modifications to existing infrastructure at 

SSC Pacific to enable LDUUV test activities to proceed as scheduled. This action is needed in order 
Coronado

National City

San Diego

Imperial

Beach

Pacific Ocean

San

Diego

Bay

La

Playa

NAVAL AIR STATION

NORTH ISLAND

NAVAL BASE

POINT LOMA -

POINT LOMA

COMPLEX

NAVAL

AMPHIBIOUS BASE

CORONADO/SILVER

STRAND TRAINING

COMPLEX NORTH

NAVAL BASE

SAN DIEGO

Chula Vista

Zuniga Jetty

Ballast

Point

Shelter Island

Shelter

Island

Yacht

Basin

Americas

West Basin East Basin Harbor Island

Cup

Harbor

SILVER

STRAND

TRAINING

COMPLEX

SOUTH

MARINE CORPS

RECRUITING DEPOT

San Diego

Project

Site

W Figure 1-1

SSC Pacific LDUUV Project Area Location Map

0 1 2 0.5

Kilometers

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

Legend

Naval Base Point Loma - Point Loma Complex

SSC Pacific Boundary

Naval Boundary

City Boundary

PROJECT

LOCATION

CALIFORNIA

MEXICO

PACIFIC OCEAN

1-2 Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

1-3 

Figure 1-2. Location of Proposed SSC Pacific Infrastructure Modifications 

Building 68

Pier 159
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

1-4 

to meet critical milestones for testing and evaluation that have been established for the program during 

2013-2017. 

1.4 DECISION TO BE MADE

The decision to be made as a result of the analysis in this EA is whether an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) needs to be prepared. An EIS will be prepared if it is anticipated that the Proposed Action 

would have significant impacts on the human or natural environment. Should an EIS not be deemed 

necessary, the Proposed Action analyzed in this EA would be selected for implementation. This selection 

would be documented in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 

1.5 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS

NEPA, CEQ regulations, and Navy procedures for implementing NEPA and the CEQ regulations specify 

that an EA should address only those resource areas potentially subject to impacts. In addition, the level 

of analysis should be commensurate with the anticipated level of environmental impact. The scope of

analysis for this EA reflects ongoing Navy experience with waterfront projects for naval facilities in San 

Diego Bay, including other Navy piers. 

1.5.1 Resources Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis 

Resources carried forward for detailed analysis in this EA include biological resource habitats and 

communities; fisheries; birds; marine mammals; threatened and endangered species; water resources; 

hazardous materials and wastes; noise; air quality; transportation and circulation; and socioeconomics and 

environmental justice. 

1.5.2 Resources Minimally or Not Impacted, Not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis 

Several resource areas have not been carried forward for detailed analysis in this EA since potential 

impacts were considered non-existent or negligible. The resources not carried forward for analysis are 

described below along with the reasons why a limited analysis is sufficient. 

 Geological Resources – The minimal surficial modifications associated with the Proposed 

Action would not result in impacts to geology and topography. 

 Cultural Resources - No known archaeological or cultural resources sites at NBPL would be 

affected by the proposed project, and the Navy would implement archaeological monitoring 

during excavation activities within any portion of the project area that is identified to have buried 

archaeological potential. In accordance with the Programmatic Agreement between the Navy and 

the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding Navy Region Southwest (NRSW) 

undertakings within the San Diego Metropolitan Area (NRSW 2003, extended in February 2013), 

the Commander Navy Region Southwest Cultural Resources Program Manager has determined 

no historic properties would be affected under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act and further consultation with the SHPO is not required (Sproul 2013).

 Land Use – The Proposed Action is consistent with, and would have no effect on, existing land 

and water use at SSC Pacific and in the adjacent land and waters. No changes to the existing 

security zone bordering Pier 160 would be required. 

 Recreation and Recreational Navigation – The proposed construction would not impact 

recreation and recreational navigation. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

1-5 

 Aesthetics – The Proposed Action would result in minor modifications to existing infrastructure 

which would remain consistent with the surrounding military industrial waterfront and have no 

effect on aesthetics. 

 Public Services and Utilities – No new public services would be constructed and the utility 

infrastructure and recharging system for the Proposed Action would be accommodated without 

affecting the NBPL system/network capacity. 

 Public Health and Safety and Protection of Children – Construction would occur in a 

controlled-access area from which the public is excluded, and there are no potential impacts 

offsite to the public. The transportation, storage, and handling of compressed gases is extensively 

regulated to minimize risk but is considered under Hazardous Materials (Section 3.7). The 

Proposed Action poses no environmental risks to children and is therefore in compliance with 

Executive Order (EO) 13045. 

1.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER NAVY ACTIVITIES

The Proposed Action has been briefed to the other Navy Commands and programs in the surrounding area 

to ensure there would be no conflicts with ongoing and future activities, including the use of adjacent 

areas for the Navy’s Marine Mammal Program, which is authorized under United States Code Title 10 

and is not subject to the Marine Mammal Protection Act or the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

1.7 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION

Following is a list of agency consultations, permits, and other authorizations required and the status, 

including explanation as to why certain actions are not required. 

 Section 10/404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – The installation of piles 

requires a permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.). 

No dredge or fill is required, and per USACE (33 CFR 323.3(c)), pilings do not normally 

constitute fill. Therefore, a Section 404 permit requirement is not anticipated but could be 

accommodated through the same process if necessary, in which case a Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) would also be required. 

The Los Angeles District of USACE Carlsbad Field Office regulatory branch has advised the 

Navy that the project qualifies for a non-notification nationwide permit (#9) and, due to Regional 

General Condition 3, a pre-construction notification (PCN) is required. The PCN was submitted 

in September 2013 and confirmation of receipt by the USACE was received. Nationwide Permit 

#9 is pre-certified by the RWQCB and notification of use was provided in September 2013. 

 Endangered Species Act Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – The 

Proposed Action incorporates seasonal avoidance of potential effects on the endangered 

California least tern and would not otherwise affect its habitat. Therefore, the action would have 

no effect on California least tern, and consultation is not required. 

 Endangered Species Act and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation with National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) – The Navy has determined that the action is not likely to 

adversely affect green sea turtles and the Navy consulted informally with NMFS and obtained 

NMFS’ concurrence regarding this determination (Appendix D). The Navy also consulted with 

NMFS regarding possible minimal and temporary adverse effects of the Proposed Action on 

EFH, and obtained NMFS’ concurrence with the EFH Assessment contained in the EA 

(Appendix D). 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

1-6 

 Federal Consistency under the Coastal Zone Management Act – The Navy prepared a Coastal 

Consistency Negative Determination which was submitted to the California Coastal Commission, 

along with the Draft EA. The Commission concurred with the Navy’s determination (Appendix 

D). 

1.8 PUBLIC/AGENCY PARTICIPATION

Regulatory agencies participating in this project are described in Section 1.7, and all correspondence is 

contained in Appendix D. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EA was published in the San 

Diego Union Tribune Newspaper for 3-consecutive days (16-18 August 2013) (Appendix D), in 

conjunction with a 15-calendar day public comment period which concluded on 3 September 2013. The 

Draft EA was made available electronically via the Commander Navy Region Southwest website (at 

http://www.navyregionsouthwest.com/go/doc/4275/1873878) and in hard copy at the Point Loma/Hervey 

Public Library (3701 Voltaire Street, San Diego). Comments were accepted via regular mail; no 

comments were received. The FONSI and this FEA were made available to the public at the Point Loma 

Public Library and via the Commander Navy Region Southwest website. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

2-1 

CHAPTER 2

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE SCREENING FACTORS

Factors that must be met for an alternative to be considered are those needed for successful project 

implementation in a timely and cost-effective manner with minimal impacts on the environment. These 

factors include: 

 The ability to meet the Navy’s timetable for critical LDUUV testing in the SOCAL Range 

Complex beginning in early 2014 by accommodating the arrival of the LDUUVs in late 2013 and 

early 2014: 

 Facilities that comply with current anti-terrorism/force protection directives (Department of 

Defense Instruction 2000.12, 1 March 2012). 

 An existing pier on a Navy installation in the San Diego region with room to install the requisite 

launch and recovery lifts, floating boat docks or barge, and storage facilities (described in Section 

2.2) to support up to 2 LDUUVs and 3 Rigid-Hulled Inflatable Boats (RHIBs). 

 A location with out-of-water mooring capability to allow for security, repairs, maintenance, or

recharging on a reoccurring basis to support daily operations. 

 A docking and mooring capability to minimize potential damage to LDUUVs and RHIBs from 

strong waves and heavy vessel traffic. 

 A classified laboratory to provide mission planning and navigational software for the vehicle. 

 A short distance from the pier, a high bay building (with sufficient space for the mobile boat 

hoists and LDUUVs) that can serve as a Maintenance and Integration facility for the LDUUVs. 

 A usable roadway allowing LDUUVs to be transported between the pier and Maintenance and 

Integration facility that minimizes the use of public roads. 

 A location compatible with ongoing and planned Navy activities that leverages existing assets 

supporting science and technology in the area of unmanned systems. 

 A location with a large test area that is not environmentally sensitive. 

 A location that provides access to a Navy Sea Range with a Fleet presence. 

 A location that provides a large number of available test days with appropriate sea-states (less 

than 1.25 m wave heights). 

 A location with that minimizes test costs. 

ONR recently conducted an evaluation of candidate Navy Warfare Centers for suitability as a 

maintenance, operations, and at-sea test site for the advanced LDUUV now in development by the 

program. Four Warfare Centers submitted proposals. Candidate Warfare Centers included SSC Pacific, 

Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Panama City, Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) 

Newport, and NUWC Keyport. Selection criteria for the test site included facilities for testing and 

maintenance, suitability of available test ranges, test range costs, available test days as a function of 

weather and wave height, proximity to the Fleet, and availability of classified work spaces for 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

2-2 

development and integration of hardware and software on board the vehicle. Based on the criteria, SSC 

Pacific scored the highest rank in the evaluation and is the primary test site for the LDUUV. 

A key facility required for the hosting the LDUUV is the Unmanned Maritime Vehicle Command and 

Control (UMV C2) Center at SSC Pacific Bayside, a classified laboratory that hosts mission planning and 

navigational software for the vehicle. Mission plans will be ported to the vehicle from this facility, 

requiring that the vehicle be in close proximity to the lab. 

ONR carefully considered alternative locations for the Proposed Action and identified SSC Pacific as the 

most suitable location available to support the LDUUV test program objectives, and the only location that 

meets the screening criteria above. Additional details on alternative locations considered are provided in 

Section 2.4, below. 

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Proposed Action is to modify existing infrastructure and activities at SSC Pacific as necessary to 

accommodate two LDUUVs and three RHIBs as part of the LDUUV Innovative Naval Prototype program 

as scheduled. One action alternative, the Proposed Action, is described and analyzed in this EA; as 

required by NEPA, a No-Action Alternative is also considered (Section 2.3). Construction under the 

Proposed Action would provide a permanent solution that would meet the purpose and need discussed in 

Chapter 1 by permanently modifying Pier 160, Building 9, Building 68, and the Flume Bridge 

(Section 2.2.1). However, since the proposed construction would not be completed until the fall of 2014 

or spring of 2015, the LDUUV program would commence prior to completion of the pier modifications. 

As such, the Navy has proposed a barge/floating dock option as part of the Proposed Action, which 

involves the placement of either two floating boat docks or a floating barge and a floating boat dock 

alongside Pier 160 or Pier 159 until the equipment is no longer required (Section 2.2.2). This option is 

needed to ensure the Navy is able to provide the out-of-water mooring required for one LDUUV and one 

RHIB until the launch and recovery lifts at Pier 160 can be installed. Impact Minimization and 

Conservation Measures that would be incorporated into the Proposed Action are also included (Section 

2.2.3).

2.2.1 Permanent Structural and Operational Modifications 

The proposed facility modifications consist of: 1) the installation and use of launch and recovery lifts and 

controlled recharging area for equipment (compressors) and compressed gases stored at Pier 160; 2) 

internal modifications to Building 9 to enable it to serve as the LDUUV Maintenance and Integration 

facility; 3) reducing the grade over the Flume Bridge on Front Street to avoid the LDUUV mobile boat 

hoist or trailer bottoming out in transit and to meet the mobile boat hoist grade requirements transiting 

from the pier to Building 9; and 4) minor modifications to Building 68 to accommodate a function 

relocated from Building 9. Each component is described below. It is estimated that the proposed 

modifications would require two to six months to complete, potentially beginning in December 2013. 

RHIBs would be maintained as needed at the existing SSC Pacific boat house. 

2.2.1.1 Pier 160 Modifications 

Launch and Recovery Lifts 

Up to five 70,000 lb-capacity launch and recovery lifts would be installed at Pier 160, four on the middle 

finger (B) and one on the outer finger (A) as shown in Figure 2-1. The launch and recovery lifts are 

required to store 11 meter (m) RHIBs and the LDUUVs. Each launch and recovery lift would require the 

installation of eight 16-inch concrete piles (total of 40 piles). Specifications for the proposed launch and 

recovery lifts are shown in Figure 2-2. The launch and recovery lifts will be certified by the Southwest 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

2-3 

Regional Maintenance Center (SWRMC). The installation of two tracks for a mobile boat hoist 

(Figure 2-3) is also required. These tracks would be installed on Finger B of the pier (Figure 2-1) and 

require installation of up to 20 16-inch concrete piles. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

(NAVFAC) Southwest would certify the mobile boat hoist. To provide access to the RHIBS and 

LDUUVs while on the launch and recovery lifts, three or four small floating walkways would also be 

installed. Three of the floating walkways would be approximately 50 ft long, and would each require two 

piles to be installed. A fourth walkway may be located in the interior of the mobile boat hoist. If so, it 

would be U-shaped, approximately 106 ft long, and would require up to 6 piles. All walkways would be 

approximately 6 ft wide and would use an open design (e.g., grating) to reduce shading. Altogether, up to 

72 16-inch piles would be installed using jetting and/or a small impact hammer. LDUUV and RHIB 

launch and recovery events would occur at this location weekly or as needed for each LDUUV; these 

facilities would also be used to maintain and repair the LDUUVs topside of the pier. During recovery, the 

LDUUV would be rinsed with fresh water only; no cleaning detergents would be used. Rinsing would 

occur either at the boat ramp or while suspended over the water at Pier 160. These proposed rinsing 

activities would be in compliance with NBPL’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit. 

.

Figure 2-1. Proposed Pier 160 Modifications 

FLOATING

WALKWAY

LAUNCH AND RECOVERY LIFT

CONTROLLED RECHARGING AREA
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

2-4 

Figure 2-2. Launch and Recovery Lift Description 

 Figure 2-3. Example of Mobile Boat Hoist on Tracks Over Water 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

2-5 

LDUUV Recharging 

Two types of LDUUV power sources would be utilized: a lithium-ion battery and a hydrogen (H2)-

oxygen (O2) fuel cell. The lithium-ion battery would be charged via electrical connection on Pier 160 or 

inside Building 9. The batteries would remain inside the LDUUV during recharging operations. The fuel 

cell would be charged only at Pier 160. To recharge the fuel cell, a controlled area would be established 

with safety bollards on Pier 160 (Figure 2-1). This may require moving existing, double-stacked 

International Standard Organization (ISO) containers on Finger A to the end of Finger A. The equipment 

that would be placed within the controlled recharging area would be surrounded by bollards to provide 

protection of the following equipment: 

 Compressed hydrogen (H2) storage cylinders 

 Compressed oxygen (O2) storage cylinders 

 H2 compressor 

 O2 compressor 

Fuel cell recharging operations for the LDUUV are 3-5 day events that would occur approximately once a 

month and in a two-part process. First, commercial gas trucks will deliver H2 and O2 compressed gas on 

separate days in Department of Transportation (DOT) certified cylinders at standard commercial pressure 

(approximately 2,400 pounds per square inch [psi]) to Pier 160 where they will be stored in compliance

with all applicable regulations and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2 and 55 standards. 

These gases will then be compressed to higher pressures for the recharging of the vehicle’s fuel cell at the 

pier. This process is detailed below (Figure 2-4). Recharging of the LDUUV’s fuel cell would be done at 

the launch and recovery lift located near the controlled recharging area on Pier 160. The Navy will limit 

access to the immediate area (which is within the Restricted Area of NBPL and not open to the public) as 

required to ensure the safety of fuel cell recharging operations. 

Figure 2-4. Compressed Gas Recharging Process for Fuel Cell LDUUV 

2.2.1.2 Building 9 Modifications 

The current use of this building is to stage and store research and testing equipment. The building can 

accommodate the Maintenance and Integration facility needed for the LDUUV. This facility would be 

used to integrate new payloads into the vehicle, for routine maintenance of the LDUUV, for storage of the 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

2-6 

LDUUV(s) during non-testing periods, and for storage of other equipment and tools. Modification would 

include construction of office space, installation of fencing, and modification of supporting utility 

systems. Small amounts of petroleum fuel, hydraulic oils, carbon fiber resins and fabrics, and other 

materials needed for maintenance of the LDUUV and RHIBs would also be kept within existing Bayside 

facilities. Fuel cell recharging operations would only occur at Pier 160. The LDUUV would be mostly 

emptied of H2 and O2 prior to transport to Building 9 by recovering the gases or by discharging them to 

the atmosphere. 

2.2.1.3 Building 68 Modifications 

Building 68 is currently used for research activities and includes a large storage room in the rear of the 

building. Proposed modifications to this building include replacement of an existing double door with an 

automated roll-up door tall enough to accommodate forklift access, installation of chain link fence within 

the room, striping for an adjacent parking space, additional overhead lighting, raising the existing 

overhead lighting to allow for forklift access, and clearance of an existing double door on the rear wall of 

the building. Building 68 is separate from Building 9. 

2.2.1.4 Flume Bridge Modification 

The Flume Bridge is located on Front Street (Figure 2-5) and is on the route from Pier 160 to Building 9. 

The current slope of the Flume Bridge, which is about 12-20% grade, is problematic for the mobile boat 

hoist holding the LDUUV and transiting the LDUUV on a trailer. The proposed modification would add 

concrete or asphalt to each side of the bridge over the current concrete and asphalt to decrease the grade 

to approximately 7%. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

2-7 

Looking North Looking South

Figure 2-5. Existing Flume Bridge and Proposed Modifications 

2.2.2 Temporary Shelter, Transport, and Barge/Floating Boat Dock Options 

To provide the necessary out-of-water mooring required for one LDUUV and one RHIB until the launch 

and recovery lifts and mobile boat hoist tracks at Pier 160 can be installed, the Navy has identified 

options involving the use of a temporary shelter and self-propelled trailer in combination with either a 

modular pin barge and floating boat dock, or two floating boat docks. Either option would be placed near 

the end of Pier 159 or between Fingers A, B and C of Pier 160 and used until no longer required. 

Additional details are provided below. 

2.2.2.1 Temporary Shelter 

The temporary shelter would be a polyvinyl covered metal frame tent, approximately 20 ft wide, 40 ft

long, with a center height of 20 ft, similar to the one shown in Figure 2-6. The shelter would primarily be 

used to store and to perform minor maintenance on the LDUUV such as inspecting the vehicle’s operating 

systems, adjusting sensors, aligning fins, and removing panels for repair. All major maintenance 

activities, including any activities that require grinding metal, repair of carbon fiber components, or the 

use or transfer of fluids, would occur in Building 9. Two standard ISO containers (8 ft x 20 ft), one placed 

Proposed Modifications

Current Bridge
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

2-8 

at each end of the shelter, would be used to provide storage of LDUUV equipment and to provide 

additional protection for the shelter. 

Figure 2-6. Example of a Temporary Shelter 

2.2.2.2 Self-Propelled Transport 

A self-propelled trailer made by Conolift, shown in Figure 2-7, would be used to transport the LDUUV 

between Pier 160 and Building 9. The Conolift could also be used to launch and recover the LDUUV at 

the Pier 160 boat ramp under favorable high tide conditions. 

Figure 2-7. Self-Propelled Trailer (Conolift) 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

2-9 

2.2.2.3 Pin Barge and Floating Boat Dock 

With the modular pin barge option, the pin barge could be up to 150 ft long and 50 ft wide and would 

include a small floating boat dock for one RHIB. The pin barge would have a moon pool in the center 

section to moor the LDUUV and two 150-horse power outboard motors to transport, launch, and recover 

the LDUUV at a pre-determined location outside San Diego Bay. The pin barge would either remain at 

the launch site to recover the LDUUV or would return to Pier 160 and recover the LDUUV at a later time. 

Figure 2-8 shows an example pin barge, which would be transported to SSC Pacific by truck, rail and/or 

tug as needed depending on the source. The floating dock would be the same as the smaller floating dock 

described in Section 2.2.2.4. 

A mobile, hydraulic truck crane positioned on Pier 160 would be used to lift and lower the vessels 

between the pin barge and the topside of the pier. The truck crane is mobile, is legally allowed to drive on 

highways, and would be driven to Pier 160 or the NBPL Main Base piers, if used. Alternatively, existing 

infrastructure at the NBPL Main Base piers (north, middle, and south) could also be used to move the 

vessels between the water and topside of the pier. 

Figure 2-8. Example of a Pin Barge 

2.2.2.4 Two Floating Boat Docks 

The floating boat dock option (Figure 2-9) involves two floating basins that could serve as dry docks. The 

floating boat docks could be raised or lowered to allow the vessels to be driven onto them. The same 

operation would be done for the vessels to slide off the floating boat docks into the water. The LDUUV 

floating boat dock would be up to 37 ft wide and 67 ft long, and the RHIB floating boat dock would be 

15 ft wide and 45 ft long. The mobile, hydraulic truck crane described above would be used to raise and 

lower the vessels between the floating docks and topside of the pier at Pier 160. Alternatively, existing 

infrastructure at the NBPL Main Base piers (north, middle, and south) could also be used to move the 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

2-10

vessels between the water and topside of the pier. The proposed location of the floating boat docks and 

the mobile crane at Pier 160 are shown in Figure 2-10. Both floating boat docks would be attached to the 

appropriate Pier’s existing concrete piles, would arrive at SSC Pacific unassembled in semi-trucks, and 

would be assembled onsite. 

Figure 2-9. Example of a Floating Boat Dock 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

2-11

Figure 2-10. Proposed LDUUV and RHIB Floating Boat Docks and Truck Crane at Pier 160
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

2-12

2.2.3 Proposed Avoidance and Minimization Measures/Special Conservation Measures (SCMs) 

The following measures are proposed for incorporation into the Proposed Action to minimize potential 

impacts. 

1. The approved NMFS/California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Caulerpa Control 

Protocol (Version 4, February 25, 2008), including a pre-construction Caulerpa survey and 

follow-up action if necessary, would be followed. 

2. Pile driving would occur outside of the California least tern nesting/foraging season in San Diego 

Bay, which is April 1 to September 15. 

3. Piles may be jetted to minimize pile driving and associated underwater and airborne noise. 

4. A cushion block would be used to reduce airborne noise generated during pile driving activities. 

5. To reduce noise impacts, pile driving would only occur during normal work hours (between 

7 A.M. and 5 P.M.) Monday through Friday. 

6. To encourage fish and wildlife dispersal away from the immediate area of pile driving, at the start 

of each day’s pile driving activity or when pile driving has ceased for more than an hour, a softstart technique would be used involving a gradual ramp-up before pile driving reaches full 

energy. 

7. A biological monitor would be stationed on Pier 160 and would order a shutdown of pile driving 

any time a wild marine mammal or sea turtle is observed within or approaching the zone of 

potential harassment defined by a root mean square (RMS) underwater sound pressure level 

(SPL) of 160 decibels (dB) referenced to 1 micro Pascal (re 1 μPa). This is currently estimated as 

extending 74 m from the source, based on a worst case RMS SPL of 173 dB re 1μPa at 10 m 

from the source, and application of the NMFS-approved practical spreading model for 

transmission loss (Caltrans 2013). Site-specific data or more realistic estimates of sound levels 

would be applied should they become available. 

8. The barge and floating boat docks, if used at Pier 159, would be positioned so that no eelgrass is 

shaded. 

2.3 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Although the No-Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project, it is carried 

forward for analysis in this EA. In this case, the No-Action Alternative represents the status quo, with no 

change to existing conditions. However, it should be noted that the No-Action Alternative would impede 

the development of the LDUUV program and thereby delay the extension and augmentation of current 

Navy platform capabilities and negatively impact planned testing activities in the SOCAL Range 

Complex. 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS

2.4.1 General Location Alternatives 

ONR performed a feasibility study of four Navy laboratories around the U.S. and determined that SSC 

Pacific is the most suitable location to support the LDUUV Program (Table 2-1). Naval Ordnance Test 

Station Pier at San Clemente Island was also considered but eliminated due to its remote location. The 

criteria used to make this determination was based on proximity to a fleet concentration area, number of 

available test days with appropriate sea-states, test costs, test area, and existing infrastructure in place. For 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

2-13

these reasons, as well as the availability of shore infrastructure, scientific and technical expertise, and 

continuity of support to the LDUUV Program, SSC Pacific was selected. Hence the scope of alternatives 

considered was limited to alternative modifications that could provide the same secure waterside 

capabilities to dock, launch, recharge, and hoist the LDUUVs; the same capacity to develop a shoreside 

Maintenance and Integration facility within an existing building; and road access to move the LDUUVs 

between waterside and shoreside facilities. 

Table 2-1. ONR Technical Evaluation Results 

Location

Criteria

Available 

Test Days Test Area Test Costs* Facilities Proximity to Fleet

NSWC 

Panama 

City

- Days with 

< 1.25m 

wave 

heights: 70%

- Large range

- One day 

transit to 

deeper waters

- Variety of test ships available

- Existing L&R system could 

be modified

- Two high bay buildings; one 

10,000 lift

- Storage of H2 and O2 possible

- None

NUWC 

Newport

- Days with 

< 1.25m 

wave 

heights: 46%

- Small test 

area

(mostly 100ft 

depth near 

shore)

- Boats to support testing

- No discussion of vehicle 

storage or maintenance

- No discussion of H2/O2

fueling or handling capability

- Naval War 

College

NUWC 

Keyport

-Days with < 

1.25m wave 

heights: 18%

Small test area 

near Keyport

-Variety of test boats available

-Storage and maintenance 

facility adequate

-H2/O2 recharging is possible

- DEVRON 5 

and Naval 

Base Kitsap

SSC

Pacific

- Days with 

< 1.25m 

wave 

heights: 71%

- Large test 

area, including 

corridor to 

Hawaii

- Classified lab for mission 

planning and navigation 

software

- High bay provided for vehicle 

maintenance

- Dedicated building with 

overhead crane

- Secure area for H2/O2

compressed storage and 

charging

- NMAWC 

and 3

rd 

Fleet 

HQ

*Note: due to the sensitivity of cost information, projected costs have been omitted from this document. 

Red: Unacceptable Yellow: Marginal Green: Acceptable Blue: Outstanding

2.4.2 Local Location Alternatives 

The Navy considered a number of alternative locations in the San Diego region in terms of capabilities to 

provide the necessary infrastructure. In addition to SSC Pier 160, the following possible locations were 

identified as warranting further investigation: 

 SSC Pier 302 (immediately south of Pier 160, used by Navy Marine Mammal Program [MMP]) 

 SSC Pier 159 (immediately north of Pier 159, used by the Navy MMP) 

 NBPL Main Base piers (north, middle, and south, located on the Naval Submarine Base) 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

2-14

 Naval Base San Diego (NBSD, central San Diego Bay) 

 Naval Base Coronado (NBC) - Naval Amphibious Base (NAB) Pier 16 (central San Diego Bay) 

 San Clemente Island NOTS Pier 

Along with SSC Pier 160, the alternatives were evaluated according to how well they met logistical, 

infrastructure, and security criteria for the LDUUV program; the results are summarized below in 

Table 2-2. While each location met several criteria, Pier 160 was found superior overall based on 

proximity to classified laboratory space; avoidance of travel over public roads; available space for the 

Integration and Maintenance Area; no encumbrance due to explosive safety quantity distance (ESQD); 

docking and mooring capability; an existing pier with room to accommodate the LDUUVs and RHIBs; 

and presence of a high-bay building nearby. 

Table 2-2. Comparison of Local Alternative Locations for LDUUV Program Infrastructure 

INSTALLATION SSC SSC SSC NBPL NBSD NBC - NAB SCI

Facility Pier 160 Pier 302 Pier 159

Main Base 

Piers Any Pier 16 NOTS

LOGISTICS

Access to Navy sea 

range yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

Proximity to Int & 

Maint Facility 

(IMF) < 1 mile yes yes yes yes no no no

INFRASTRUCTURE

Ability to launch & 

recover LDUUV 

w/o modifications

requires piles for 

mobile boat hoist;

access- boat ramp 

too shallow; 

possible w/ 

moveable crane

pier can't 

handle 

weight of 

craneboat 

ramp too 

shallow

pier can't 

handle 

weight of 

craneboat 

ramp too 

shallow

possible w/

movable 

crane- boat 

ramp too 

shallow

possible 

w/

movable 

crane

yes- pier 

designed for 

crane possible

Docking & 

mooring space 

avail

yes- underutilized 

pier

yes; not 

until 

MMP 

moves

yes; not 

until 

MMP 

moves

no -

designed 

for 

submarines

no- pier 

space at 

NBSD is 

at 

premium

no- pier used 

by CBs yes

Pier space available 

for recharging 

facility yes

yes; not 

until 

MMP 

moves

yes; not 

until 

MMP 

moves

noincompatib

le w/

existing 

operations no

noincompatible 

with existing 

operations possible
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

2-15

INSTALLATION SSC SSC SSC NBPL NBSD NBC - NAB SCI

Facility Pier 160 Pier 302 Pier 159

Main Base 

Piers Any Pier 16 NOTS

INFRASTRUCTURE (Continued)

Existing pier w/no 

ESQD arc yes yes yes

no- has 

explosive 

arc yes/no yes no

Crane w/ existing 

70,000 lbs lift 

capacity no no no no no yes no

Ability to use 

mobile boat hoists no- requires mod

norequires 

mod

norequires 

mod

norequires 

mod

norequires 

mod yes

norequires 

mod

Ability to moor 

floating boat dock 

or barge yes

yes; not 

until 

MMP 

moves

yes; not 

until 

MMP 

moves no no no no

Space avail in 

nearby high bay 

building for IMF yes yes yes yes not sure no no

Classified lab space 

< 1 mile yes yes yes no no no no

SECURITY

Waterfront security 

- patrolled yes yes yes yes yes yes

not 

routine

Controlled access 

to pier yes yes yes yes yes yes

yes;

Navycontrolled 

island

Note: SSC = SPAWAR Systems Center; NBPL = Naval Base Point Loma; NBSD = Naval Base San Diego; 

NBC – NAB = Naval Base Coronado, Naval Amphibious Base; SCI = San Clemente Island; MMP = Marine Mammal Program.
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-1 

CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

This chapter describes the existing environmental conditions on and around the project area for resources 

potentially affected by implementation of the alternatives discussed in Chapter 2. Information presented 

in this chapter represents baseline conditions and identifies potential impacts against which the Proposed 

Action and the No-Action Alternative are evaluated. 

3.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE HABITATS AND COMMUNITIES

3.1.1 Definition of Resource 

Biological resource habitats and communities include terrestrial and marine flora and fauna and the 

habitats in which they occur within the areas that may be affected by the Proposed Action. For purposes 

of this EA, the general biotic features of different habitats, including assemblages of plants and 

invertebrates, are included in this section, whereas separate sections are provided for fisheries (Section 

3.2), birds (Section 3.3), marine mammals (Section 3.4), and threatened and endangered species (Section 

3.5). 

The marine habitats of the project area are navigable waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) (33 U.S. Code [USC] § 1344) and Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). In-water 

work, including pile driving, affecting the navigable waters are regulated under these statutes by the 

USACE under Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the RHA; regulations are at 33 CFR 320-332. 

3.1.2 Affected Environment 

Habitats associated with the project area range from -15 to -25 ft mean lower low water (MLLW) and 

include the artificial substrates (i.e., the pier, including pier pilings), moderately deep subtidal habitat, and 

deep subtidal habitat, including marine benthic (bottom), water column, and open water habitat. Due to 

the highly developed, industrial nature of the project area, the Proposed Action would not impact upland 

biological resources or habitat and upland habitat will not be discussed further. 

The shoreline near the project area consists of artificial rock rip-rap. These structures provide 

microhabitats and support communities similar to those of natural rocky shores outside San Diego Bay. 

These areas may also provide refuge and feeding areas for juvenile and predatory fishes (NAVFAC 

Southwest and Port of San Diego 2013).

Within San Diego Bay, structures along the shoreline and surrounding open waters, including Pier 160 

and Pier 159, are heavily used by gulls, brown pelicans (Pelicanus occidentalis californicus), cormorants, 

and surf scoters (Melanitta perspicillata) (NAVFAC Southwest 1994, 2000; Tierra Data, Inc. 2011). 

Artificial substrates, such as the pilings and bulkheads for the fuel pier, rock riprap, floating docks, 

seawalls, and mooring systems support a wealth of invertebrates and seaweeds. Invertebrates comprise a 

significant portion of the organisms present in the San Diego Bay and serve as important components of 

bay habitats and essential food sources for marine life (NAVFAC Southwest 2010). California spiny 

lobster (Panulirus interruptus) and a variety of crabs, worms, mussels, barnacles, echinoderms (sea stars 

and sea urchins), sponges, sea anemones, and tunicates (sea squirts) inhabit artificial structures 

(NAVFAC Southwest and Port of San Diego 2013). 

Moderately deep subtidal habitats include the surface water, water column, and sediments in areas 

from -12 to -20 ft MLLW. Within moderately deep subtidal habitat, primary production by phytoplankton 

and zooplankton occurs in the overlying water column. No information specific to this intermediate depth 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-2 

exists for invertebrates or plankton, although benthic primary production is limited due to low light 

penetration. Primary production by phytoplankton and zooplankton occurs in the overlying water column. 

Eelgrass beds are not found in the project area and only algal mats were “very sporadically found” within 

the project area during the 30 April 2013 EFH survey and no single mat was larger than 2 ft2 (Figure 3-1, 

Appendix B). Moderately deep water is favored by bottom feeding diving birds and plunge divers, 

including both the California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) and brown pelican because the water 

surface and column are typically more open. The California least tern is discussed in greater detail in 

Section 3.5. Typical fish species include round stingray (Urobatis halleri), spotted sand bass (Paralabrax 

maculatofasciatus), California halibut (Paralichtyhys californicus), and barred sand bass (Paralabrax 

nebulifer). Diving waterbirds forage in or adjacent to the project area (NAVFAC Southwest 2010, 

NAVFAC Southwest and Port of San Diego 2013).

A small portion of the project area also includes deep subtidal habitat that are greater than -20 ft MLLW 

in depth. Deep subtidal habitat is used by a wide variety of vertebrate and invertebrate species that may 

spend all or part of their lives in these areas. Both fish and bird abundance and diversity is less in the deep 

subtidal zone than shallower areas. According to fish surveys of San Diego Bay, fish species accounting 

for the greatest biomass in deep subtidal areas are the round stingray, spotted sand bass, and bat ray 

(Myliobatis californica), respectively. Numerically, schooling bait fish, such as topsmelt (Atherinops 

affinis) and anchovies (Engraulis spp.) occur in the greatest abundance. Many different waterbirds use the 

open water for feeding and resting. Common bird species include pelicans, cormorants, grebes, surf 

scoter, elegant tern (Sterna elegans), and other tern species. Marine mammals also use these habitats 

(NAVFAC Southwest and Port of San Diego 2013).

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences 

3.1.3.1 Approach to Analysis 

The analysis identifies the potential significance of impacts to biological resource habitats and 

communities based on: 1) the importance (i.e., legal, commercial, recreational, ecological, or scientific) of 

the resource; 2) the proportion of the resource that would be affected relative to its occurrence in the 

region; 3) the sensitivity of the resource to proposed activities; and 4) the duration and ecological 

ramifications of the impact. For example, an impact would be considered significant if it would 

permanently reduce the population size or distribution of a protected species. 

3.1.3.2 Proposed Action 

Pile driving would cause minor, temporary, and localized impacts to nonvegetated soft bottom benthic 

communities within and adjacent to the project area. Organisms occurring in the immediate area may be 

lost or displaced directly by equipment and noise associated with pile driving. Piles may be jetted to 

minimize pile driving and associated underwater and airborne noise. A cushion block would also be used 

to reduce airborne noise generated during pile driving activities. Turbidity due to pile installation would 

be minimal because the sediments are known to be sandy. Therefore, any temporary increase in turbidity 

would not significantly impact benthic or water column habitats in the project area. There would be no 

residual effects beyond pile driving activities. 

A survey for the invasive alga Caulerpa taxifolia would be conducted before initiating in-water project 

activities, consistent with NMFS and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) requirements 

(NMFS 2008). If Caulerpa taxifolia is found in the study area during this survey, NMFS-approved 

Caulerpa Control Protocols would be followed. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in 

significant impacts to special aquatic sites due to Caulerpa. 
-65

-60

-55

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-10

-15

-20

-5

-10

-15

-10

-15

-20

-15

-20

-5

-10

-15

-25 -5

-15

-15

-20

W Figure 3-1

Bathymetry and Eelgrass in the Project Area

0 10050

Feet

0 25 50

Meters

Legend

Eelgrass 2011

Historic Eelgrass (1994 - 2008)

3-3 Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-4 

Merkel and Associates (1999) found that structures provide increased three-dimensional substrate for 

encrusting organisms. The proposed increase in pile counts and habitat area for encrusting organisms 

would likely result in a greater abundance. Varying pile exposure to light and dark would be expected to 

increase the species’ variety of encrusting communities. An increase in encrusting an organism’s 

abundance and variety would likely contribute to increased diversity and foraging opportunities for 

groundfish and other species that feed on these organisms. Implementation of the Proposed Action would 

not alter the area of the bay that is shaded by artificial structures. 

Implementation of the temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating boat dock options would result in 

minor shading due to the barge and single floating boat dock (0.19 ac total) or two floating boat docks 

(0.07 ac total). These structures would remain in place until they are no longer required. Given the 

absence of eelgrass and the placement of these components alongside Pier 160 or Pier 159, this shading 

would be inconsequential. There would be no impact to biological resource habitats and communities 

from use of the temporary shelter or transport. 

LDUUV maintenance activities would not affect biological resource habitats and communities. Therefore, 

for reasons describe above and with the implementation of the proposed minimization and conservation 

measures (see Section 2.2.1.5), the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts to biological 

resource habitats and communities. 

3.1.3.3 No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, existing conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no 

impact to biological resource habitats and communities. 

3.2 FISHERIES

3.2.1 Definition of Resource 

This section describes the fish species and their habitats that occur in the northern San Diego Bay project 

area. Since implementation of the proposed project would have no more than a minimal, temporary, 

adverse effect on Essential Fish Habitat, this section also includes an Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 

as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 USC 1801). 

3.2.2 Affected Environment 

3.2.2.1 Fish Species 

Numerous surveys have been conducted over the last few decades in the San Diego Bay region to 

quantify fish diversity and abundance; among the most comprehensive were surveys by Allen et al. 

(2002) and the Vantuna Research Group (2006, 2009). These and other works related to fish and EFH 

were characterized by Merkel & Associates, Inc. (NAVFAC Southwest 2010). Approximately 90 species 

of bottom living and open water fishes occur in the bay. There is a greater variety of fish species in the 

north bay area than in the south bay, and the greatest fish diversity can be found at artificial reefs. 

Increased levels of flushing found in the north bay also increases food availability, the supply of larval 

recruits, and water quality (NAVFAC Southwest 2010). Eelgrass does not occur in the project area (see 

Figure 3-1). Based on the sandy sediment found at the SIO to the north and at the Navy’s Fuel Facility 

(Military Construction [MILCON] P-151) to the south, sediment within the project area is also known to 

be sandy (Navy 2012; SIO and Navy 2013). Sandy floors have approximately two-thirds the species 

diversity of artificial reefs; piers and rock riprap have approximately one-half the fish diversity of 

artificial reefs (NAVFAC Southwest and Port of San Diego 2013). 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-5 

The ten most common fish species sampled in the north bay, each with over 500 individuals found 

between July 1994 and April 1999, make up approximately 98 percent of the total sample. These ten fish 

species are: 

 Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) 

 Topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) 

 Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax caeruleus) 

 Slough anchovy (Anchoa delicatissima) 

 California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) 

 Shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster aggregata) 

 Giant kelpfish (Heterostichus rostratus) 

 Round stingray (Urolophus halleri) 

 Bay pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhynchus) 

 Cheekspot goby (Ilypnus gilberti) 

The northern anchovy (62 percent) and topsmelt (22 percent) were the most abundant species found 

during surveys between July 1994 and April 1999. Based on Allen et al. (2002), the project area is also 

likely to contain dungeness crab (Cancer magister), Pacific rock crab (Cancer anternnarius), red tube 

worm (Surpula vermicularis), and giant green anemone (Anthopleura xanthogrammica). 

Most, if not all, of the fish species occurring in the area routinely experience turbid and noisy conditions 

due to natural processes and ship traffic within the industrialized north bay. Additional details on ambient 

noise in the project area are provided in the Draft Naval Base Point Loma Fuel Pier Replacement and 

Dredging (MILCON P-151/DESC1306) Environmental Assessment (Navy 2012), and additional details 

on fish species in San Diego Bay are provided in the San Diego Bay Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan (INRMP) (NAVFAC Southwest and Port of San Diego 2013).

3.2.2.2 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MagnusonStevens Act) set forth the EFH provisions to identify and protect important habitats of federally managed 

marine and anadromous fish species. Section 305(b)(2) of the amended Magnuson-Stevens Act directs 

each Federal Agency to consult with NMFS with respect to any action authorized, funded, or undertaken, 

or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect any EFH 

identified under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Implementing regulations for this requirement are at 50 CFR 

600. Because the project area is located within an area designated as EFH for two Fishery Management 

Plans (FMPs) – the Pacific Coast Groundfish (Pacific Fishery Management Council [PFMC] 2011) and 

the Coastal Pelagic Species (PFMC 1998a) – and may adversely affect EFH, the U.S. Navy is required to 

consult with NMFS. 

The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP manages at least 89 species, five of which are likely to occur within 

the San Diego Bay project area (NAVFAC Southwest 2000; Allen et al. 2002; Vantuna Research Group 

2006, 2009; PFMC 2011), and the FMP for Coastal Pelagic Species includes five species, four of which 

are likely to occur in the San Diego Bay project area (PFMC 1998a). These species are listed in 

Table 3-1; additional details, such as life histories, are provided in the San Diego Bay INRMP (NAVFAC 

Southwest and Port of San Diego 2013). Coastal pelagic species are those fish that live in the water 

column, from the surface to -3,300 ft MLLW. Although groundfish species are considered demersal and 

generally live on or near the sea floor, they occupy diverse habitats at all stages in their life histories. No 

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs), including eelgrass (see Figure 3-1), occur within the 

project area. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-6 

Table 3-1. Fish Species with EFH Likely to Occur in the Proposed San Diego Bay Project Area 

Common Name Scientific Name

Coastal Pelagics

Northern anchovy Engraulis mordax

Pacific sardine Sardinops sagax

Jack mackerel Trachurus symmetricus

Pacific mackerel Scomber japonicas

Groundfish

Curlfin sole Pleuronichthys decurrens

English sole Pleuronichthys vetulus

California scorpionfish Scorpaena guttata

Grass rockfish Sebastes rastrelliger

Leopard shark Triakis semifasciata

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences 

3.2.3.1 Approach to Analysis 

The analysis identifies the potential significance of impacts to fisheries and EFH based on: 1) the 

importance (i.e., legal, commercial, recreational, ecological, or scientific) of the resource; 2) the 

proportion of the resource that would be affected relative to its occurrence in the region; 3) the sensitivity 

of the resource to proposed activities; and 4) the duration and ecological ramifications of the impact. For 

example, an impact would be considered significant if it would permanently reduce the population size or 

distribution of a protected species. 

Impacts to fisheries associated with the Proposed Action would be primarily from increased underwater 

noise associated with pile driving. Underwater noise levels associated with pile driving were modeled 

using a NMFS-approved practical spreading model for transmission loss (Caltrans 2013) based on an 

estimated RMS SPL of 173 dB re 1μPa at 10 m from the source. This RMS SPL is based on 16-inch 

concrete piles driven at (the former) Naval Weapons Station Concord (Caltrans 2012). 

Duration of Activities 

No work would begin on the Proposed Action until all required permits and approvals are in place. A total 

of up to 72 concrete piles would be installed. It is assumed that the contractor will drive approximately 

three to five piles per day over a period of 13 to 24 days. Each pile is assumed to require up to two hours 

of driving and would require up to 200 strikes for a worst-case maximum of 1,000 strikes per day. Piles 

may be jetted to minimize pile driving and associated underwater noise. Pile driving would occur only 

during daylight hours, 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M, Monday through Friday. 

3.2.3.2 Proposed Action 

The primary impacts to fish communities and habitats in the project vicinity would be from pile 

installation, which would result in increased underwater noise. Since many fish use their swim bladders 

for buoyancy, they are susceptible to rapid expansion/decompression due to peak pressure waves from 

underwater noises (Hastings and Popper 2005). At a sufficient level this exposure can be fatal. In 2008, 

NOAA Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), CDFW, and transportation agencies of 

California, Oregon, and Washington agreed in principle to assess project effects using Interim Criteria for 

Injury to Fish from Pile Driving Activities (Fisheries Hydroacoustics Working Group 2008). These 

interim criteria are provided in Table 3-2. The criteria were developed principally for endangered 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-7 

salmonids in the Northwest and are conservative, indicating the potential for the identified effect, rather 

than a likelihood of occurrence (Popper and Hastings 2009; Halverson et al. 2011). The Navy has not 

adopted these criteria. 

Table 3-2. Interim Criteria for Fish Injury and Disturbance by 

Underwater Sound from Pile Driving 

Effect Size of Fish Underwater Impact Pile 

Driving Criteria

Onset of Injury

All fish 206 dB peak re: 1μPa

≥ 2 grams 187 dB SEL re: 1μPa2sec

< 2 grams 183 dB SEL re: 1μPa2sec

Behavioral Effects All fish 150 dB RMS re: 1μPa

Note: N/A = not available; RMS = root mean square; SEL = sound exposure level

Based on the worst-case RMS SPL of 173 dB re 1μPa at 10 m from the source, model results indicate 

that: 

 the 206 dB peak injury threshold would not be reached; 

 the cumulative SEL threshold for fish less than 2 grams and greater than or equal to 2 grams 

would be minimal (7 m and 14 m from the pile being driven, respectively); and 

 the behavioral effects threshold would be relatively small, extending up to 341 m from the pile 

being driven. 

As such, the areas of potential injurious effects are minimal (approximately 0.15 acres and 0.04 acres for 

fish less than 2 grams and fish greater than or equal to 2 grams, respectively), and the zone of potential 

influence that may cause a change in fish behavior is relatively small (Figure 3-2). Fish would be 

expected to disperse away from or avoid the area of potential injury during pile driving rather than remain 

stationary and risk injury. Piles may be jetted to minimize pile driving and associated underwater noise. 

Fish species occurring in the immediate areas identified could also be displaced during project activities 

indirectly by temporary changes in suspended sediments, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and changes in 

light diffusion. However, turbidity due to pile installation would be minimal because the sediments are 

known to be sandy. Furthermore, most if not all of the fish species occurring in the area routinely 

experience turbid and noisy conditions due to natural processes and ship traffic within the industrialized 

north bay. There would be no residual effects beyond pile driving activities. 

As described in Section 3.1.3.2, the proposed increase in pile counts and habitat area for encrusting 

organisms would likely result in greater abundance and diversity, which would likely contribute to 

increased diversity and foraging opportunities for groundfish and other species that feed on these 

organisms. 

The grated walkways would not shade the bottom to an appreciable extent. Implementation of the 

temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating boat dock options would result in shading due to the barge 

and single floating boat dock (0.19 ac total) or two floating boat docks (0.07 ac total). These structures 

would remain in place until they are no longer required. Given the absence of eelgrass and the placement 

of these components alongside Pier 160 or Pier 159, this bot shading would be inconsequential. There 

would be no impact to fisheries from use of the temporary shelter or transport. 

As described above, implementation of the Proposed Action would result in minor, temporary adverse 

impacts to fish species and communities. However, due to the temporary and limited nature of the project 

activities within a limited geographic area, and since fish species would return to the project area 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-8 

Figure 3-2. Noise Contours Associated with the Proposed Action and Least Tern Foraging Habitat 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-9 

following the completion of in-water activities, implementation of the Proposed Action would not result 

in significant impacts to fish communities. Impacts to EFH under the Magnuson-Stevens Act are 

discussed in the EFH section below. 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

The Navy consults with NMFS regarding actions, such as the proposed project, that have the potential to 

adversely affect EFH. Since implementation of the proposed project would have no more than a minimal, 

temporary, adverse effect on Essential Fish Habitat, this section is included as the Essential Fish Habitat 

Assessment required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 USC 

1801). 

Of the approximately 90 species of fish previously identified in San Diego Bay, nine are managed by 

NMFS under two FMPs - the Coastal Pelagics and Pacific Groundfish Management Plans (PFMC 1998a, 

1998b, 2011). Four are managed under the Coastal Pelagics FMP: northern anchovy; pacific sardine; 

pacific mackerel; and jack mackerel. Five species are covered under the Pacific Groundfish FMP and 

occur, although not in abundance, in San Diego Bay: California scorpionfish; grass rockfish; English sole; 

curlfin sole; and leopard shark (NAVFAC Southwest 2010; NAVFAC Southwest and Port of San Diego 

2013). 

Two species (northern anchovy and Pacific sardine) can be found throughout San Diego Bay. Jack 

mackerel were only found at the north bay survey area and Pacific mackerel were found at all but the 

southern survey station (Allen et al. 2002). All of these species are highly transient, are not tied to 

artificial substrates, and routinely experience turbid and noisy conditions due to natural processes and 

ship traffic within the industrialized north bay. No special aquatic sites, such as eelgrass (see Figure 3-1), 

occur within the project area. 

Impacts from in-water project activities and the associated precautionary measures would be the same as 

described for other fish communities in the “Fisheries” section above. Namely, noise and minimal 

increase in turbidity associated with in-water construction and deconstruction activities would very 

temporarily displace EFH species within a very limited scope. These impacts would result in no more 

than a minimal, temporary, adverse effect on EFH per the Magnuson-Stevens Act and would not be 

significant under NEPA due to the very temporary and very limited nature of the impacts. Over time, 

algae and invertebrates would be expected to colonize the new pilings and contribute to increased 

diversity and foraging opportunities for groundfish and other species that feed on these organisms. 

As described above, implementation of the temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating boat dock 

options would result in minor shading due to the barge and single floating boat dock (0.19 ac total) or two 

floating boat docks (0.07 ac total). These structures would remain in place until they are no longer 

required. Given the absence of eelgrass and the placement of these components alongside Pier 160 or Pier 

159, this increase in shading would be inconsequential. There would be no impact to EFH from use of the 

temporary shelter or transport. 

Based on this analysis, the implementation of the Proposed Action would have only minimal adverse 

effects on EFH, these effects being of limited duration and involving relatively small and insignificant 

changes to EFH and its ecological functions. This EA contains the Navy’s EFH Assessment that was 

provided to NMFS for consultation on EFH. NMFS concurred with this assessment (Appendix D). 

3.2.3.3 No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, existing conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no 

impact to fisheries. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-10

3.3 BIRDS

3.3.1 Definition of Resource 

This section describes birds within or adjacent to areas directly or indirectly affected by the proposed 

project. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC 703 et seq.) and the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (16 USC 715 et seq.) of February 18, 1929 (45 Stat. 1222) are the primary legislation in 

the United States established to conserve migratory birds. The MBTA prohibits the taking, killing, or 

possessing of migratory birds, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such birds, unless permitted by regulation. 

The species of birds protected by the MBTA are listed in Title 50, Section 10.13, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (50 CFR 10.13) and represent almost all avian species found in North America. The 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act mandates migratory bird habitat conservation, including habitat 

protection, through acquisition, enhancement, and/or management and avoidance and minimization 

of adverse impacts. Section 3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species, provides detailed information on 

the California least tern. 

3.3.2 Affected Environment 

San Diego Bay is part of a major bird migratory pathway, the Pacific Flyway, and supports large 

populations of over-wintering birds traveling between northern breeding grounds and southern wintering 

sites. More than 300 migratory and resident bird species have been documented to use San Diego Bay and 

are discussed in detail in the San Diego Bay INRMP (NAVFAC Southwest 2000; NAVFAC Southwest 

and Port of San Diego 2013). Additional data can all be found in the Final San Diego Bay survey report 

for avian species (Tierra Data, Inc. 2011). 

The project area is located within a very small portion of the developed shoreline of the North Bay and 

includes man-made structures and open water habitat. Bird abundance is low and ranges from 1-5 birds 

per hectare per month within the project area; near the shoreline adjacent to the project area, bird 

abundance ranges from 6-20 birds per hectare per month. Bird richness ranges from 11-25 unique species 

within the project area (NAVFAC Southwest and Port of San Diego 2013; Tierra Data, Inc. 2011). 

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences 

3.3.3.1 Approach to Analysis 

The analysis identifies the potential significance of impacts to birds based on: 1) the importance (i.e., 

legal, commercial, recreational, ecological, or scientific) of the resource; 2) the proportion of the resource 

that would be affected relative to its occurrence in the region; 3) the sensitivity of the resource to 

proposed activities; and 4) the duration and ecological ramifications of the impact. For example, an 

impact would be considered significant if it would permanently reduce the population size or distribution 

of a protected species. 

3.3.3.2 Proposed Action 

Construction activities would increase noise and human activity and decrease water quality by slightly 

increasing turbidity. These impacts could disturb nearby migratory birds and cause them to avoid the 

project area during construction activities. These very temporary impacts would be limited to the 

immediate project area and are not expected to significantly affect bird foraging and resting as the project 

area is routinely subject to elevated commercial- and military-related noise and activity of workers. 

Because the project area is developed and similar resting and foraging habitats occur nearby, shorebirds 

or waterbirds would likely move to other similar habitats nearby and return when the project is complete 

and there would be no residual effects beyond pile driving activities. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-11

Construction activities may create noise and turbid water conditions that could alter fish behavior and 

make fish more or less available as prey; however, impacts to marine birds would be highly localized. 

These species are wide ranging and have a large foraging habitat available in and around San Diego Bay 

relative to the small area that may be impacted during construction. Construction impacts would also be 

reduced due to the limited duration of construction. Noise from construction activities is consistent with 

noise from industrial activities in this area. 

Implementation of the temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating boat dock options would have no 

impact to birds. 

LDUUV maintenance activities would only marginally increase activity at the pier and would not affect 

migratory birds. Therefore, with the implementation of the proposed minimization and conservation 

measures (see Section 2.2.1.5), the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts to birds. 

3.3.3.3 No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, existing conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no 

impact to birds. 

3.4 MARINE MAMMALS

3.4.1 Definition of Resource 

This section describes marine mammals and the habitats in which they occur within areas directly or 

indirectly affected by the proposed project. Marine mammals are protected from “taking” under the 

Federal Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972. Taking is defined as “to harass, hunt, capture, 

or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.” This section does not apply to the 

Navy Marine Mammal Program, which is authorized under Title 10 of the United States Code and is not 

subject to the MMPA. 

Under the MMPA, NMFS has defined levels of harassment for marine mammals. Level A harassment is 

defined as “Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal 

or marine mammal stock in the wild.” Level B harassment is defined as “Any act of pursuit, torment, or 

annoyance which has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by 

causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including but not limited to migration, breathing, nursing, 

breeding, feeding or sheltering.” 

Current NMFS practice regarding exposure of marine mammals to high level sounds is that cetaceans and 

pinnipeds exposed to impulsive sounds of 180 and 190 dB RMS or above, respectively, are considered to 

have been taken by Level A (injurious) harassment. Behavioral harassment (Level B) is considered to 

have occurred when marine mammals are exposed to sounds at or above 160 dB RMS for impulse sounds 

(e.g., impact pile driving) but below injurious thresholds. 

3.4.2 Affected Environment 

The Navy conducted 16 marine mammal surveys in the project area from 2007 through 2012 (Merkel & 

Associates, Inc. 2008; U.S. Pacific Fleet 2009-2012; Tierra Data, Inc. 2012). Based on these surveys, four 

marine mammals are known to occur in the in the vicinity of NBPL. California sea lions (Zalophus 

californianus), harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), and coastal bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) 

commonly occur within San Diego Bay; a single gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) was also observed in 

San Diego Bay. Marine mammals may haul out on manmade structures in the vicinity of the action area. 

Marine mammals occurring in the area routinely experience turbid and noisy conditions due to natural 

processes and ship traffic within the industrialized north bay. Additional details on ambient noise in the 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-12

project area are provided in the Draft Naval Base Point Loma Fuel Pier Replacement and Dredging 

(MILCON P-151/DESC1306) Environmental Assessment (Navy 2012), and additional details on marine 

mammals in San Diego Bay are provided in the San Diego Bay INRMP (NAVFAC Southwest and Port of 

San Diego 2013). 

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences 

3.4.3.1 Approach to Analysis 

The analysis identifies the potential significance of impacts to marine mammals based on: 1) the 

importance (i.e., legal, commercial, recreational, ecological, or scientific) of the resource; 2) the 

proportion of the resource that would be affected relative to its occurrence in the region; 3) the sensitivity 

of the resource to proposed activities; and 4) the duration and ecological ramifications of the impact. An 

impact would be considered significant if it would permanently reduce the population (stock) size or 

distribution of a marine mammal. 

Impacts to marine mammals associated with the Proposed Action would be primarily from increased 

underwater noise associated with pile driving. Underwater noise levels associated with pile driving were 

modeled using a NMFS-approved practical spreading model for transmission loss (Caltrans 2013) based 

on an estimated RMS SPL of 173 dB re 1μPa at 10 m from the source. This RMS SPL is based on 16-

inch concrete piles driven at (the former) Naval Weapons Station Concord (Caltrans 2012). 

Duration of Activities 

No work would begin on the Proposed Action until all required permits and approvals are in place. A total 

of up to 72 concrete piles would be installed. It is assumed that the contractor would drive approximately 

three to five piles per day over a period of 13 to 24 days. Each pile is assumed to require up to two hours 

of driving and would require up to 200 strikes for a worst-case maximum of 1,000 strikes per day. Piles 

may be jetted to minimize pile driving and associated underwater noise. Pile driving would occur only 

during daylight hours, 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M, Monday through Friday. 

3.4.3.2 Proposed Action 

Model results indicate that the zone of potential Level B (behavioral) harassment for marine mammals 

during pile driving is limited to within approximately 74 m of the pile being driven (see Figure 3-2); the 

zone of potential Level A (injury) harassment is discountable, being within 3 m. Any marine mammals 

present in the general vicinity during pile driving and other in-water activities would be able to detect the 

noise and may temporarily avoid the project area. Marine mammals are only expected to occur on an 

infrequent basis in the project area, are highly mobile organisms, are not restricted to the project area, and 

future use of the project area upon construction completion would not be affected. 

To eliminate the potential for harassment of a marine mammal, the proposed impact minimization and 

conservation measures (see Section 2.2.1.5) would encourage marine mammals to disperse away from the 

immediate area of pile driving by utilizing a soft-start technique involving a gradual ramp-up before pile 

driving reaches full energy at the start of each day’s pile driving activity or when pile driving has ceased 

for more than an hour. Additionally, a biological monitor would be stationed on Pier 160 and would order 

a shutdown of pile driving any time a wild marine mammal or sea turtle is observed within or 

approaching the zone of potential harassment (74 m from the pile being driven). 

Implementation of the temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating boat dock options would have no 

impact to marine mammals. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-13

LDUUV maintenance activities would only marginally increase activity at the pier and would not affect 

marine mammals. Therefore, given the relatively small zone of potential harassment, and with the 

implementation of the described monitoring, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to 

result in any harassment to marine mammals. As such, an Incidental Harassment Authorization from 

NMFS is not required and impacts to marine mammals would not be significant. 

3.4.3.3 No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, existing conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no 

impact to marine mammals. 

3.5 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

3.5.1 Definition of Resource 

This section describes species protected by the ESA that may occur within areas directly or indirectly 

affected by the proposed project. 

3.5.2 Affected Environment 

The California least tern and the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) are the only two federally threatened 

or endangered species that occur or have the potential to occur in or adjacent to the proposed project area 

(Table 3-3) and are discussed in detail below. Of these two, only the California least tern regularly occurs 

within the vicinity of the proposed project area. There is no designated critical habitat for these species in 

the proposed project area. 

Table 3-3. Federally Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring or Having the Potential to 

Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project Area 

Species Status Habitat Occurrence

California least tern 

(Sterna antillarum 

browni)

Endangered Bays, estuaries, 

lagoons, shoreline, 

river mouths, sandy 

unvegetated strips. 

Spring-summer 

breeding resident.

Locally common spring-summer resident, feeding in 

bay and ocean waters. Nesting colonies outside of the 

project area around San Diego Bay. The nearest 

breeding habitat outside of the project area, off shore 

west of Naval Base San Diego (NBSD).

Green sea turtle 

(Chelonia mydas)

Endangered Warm oceans, eelgrass 

beds. Non-breeding 

migrant.

Occurs in south bay, Coronado Bridge, former South 

Bay Power Plant’s warm water discharge channel. 

Feeds on marine algae and sea grasses, such as 

eelgrass. No breeding sites occur in San Diego Bay. 

Possible rare transient near the project area.

Note: Endangered = Listed as endangered under the federal ESA. Threatened = Listed as threatened under the federal ESA. 

3.5.2.1 California Least Tern 

The California least tern is a migratory bird listed as state and federally endangered and occurs in San 

Diego Bay from April 1 to September 15. They use open sandy or gravelly shores with light-colored 

substrates, little vegetation, and nearby fishing waters for nesting. Recently, least terns have nested at 

seven to nine locations around San Diego Bay, including North Delta Beach, South Delta Beach, Naval 

Amphibious Base ocean beaches, Naval Air Station North Island, Lindbergh Field, the South Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge, Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve, D Street Fill/Sweetwater Marsh, and Silver 

Strand State Beach (NAVFAC 2011). Designated least tern foraging habitat is located adjacent to the 

project area (NAVFAC Southwest 2004). 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-14

3.5.2.2 Green Sea Turtle 

The green sea turtle is federally listed as threatened. South San Diego Bay serves as important habitat for 

a resident population of approximately 50 to 60 juvenile and adult green sea turtles, with individuals seen 

throughout the summer and winter south of the Sweetwater River. Because the project would only be 

driving piles between September and April and few turtles ingress and egress past the project site in late 

summer, there is a very low potential that a transient green sea turtles would be present in northern San 

Diego Bay during pile driving. Furthermore, green sea turtles have not been detected in the north bay in 

recent years and do not breed or nest in San Diego Bay because they need undisturbed beaches for nesting 

(NAVFAC Southwest and Port of San Diego 2013; Richter 2012). 

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences 

3.5.3.1 Approach to Analysis 

The analysis identifies the potential significance of impacts to threatened and endangered species based 

on: 1) the importance (i.e., legal, commercial, recreational, ecological, or scientific) of the resource; 2) the 

proportion of the resource that would be affected relative to its occurrence in the region; 3) the sensitivity 

of the resource to proposed activities; and 4) the duration and ecological ramifications of the impact. For 

example, an impact would be considered significant if it would permanently reduce the population size or 

distribution of a protected species. 

3.5.3.2 Proposed Action 

California Least Tern 

LDUUV maintenance activities, Flume Bridge and building construction, as well the barge/floating boat 

dock, if implemented, would have no effect on California least terns. The only proposed project activity 

with the potential to impact California least terns is pile driving due to underwater noise generated during 

these activities. Implementation of the proposed impact minimization and conservation measures, 

however, would ensure that these construction activities would occur outside of the California least tern 

nesting/foraging season in San Diego Bay, which is April 1 to September 15. Therefore, the proposed pile 

driving would have no effect on California least terns. In addition, no increase in overwater coverage 

would occur as a result of the proposed project and there would be no substantive modification of least 

tern habitat. Therefore, there would be no effect on the California least tern and impacts would not be 

significant. 

Green Sea Turtle 

LDUUV maintenance activities, Flume Bridge and building construction, as well as the barge/floating 

boat dock, if implemented, would have no effect on green sea turtles. The only proposed project activity 

with the potential to impact green sea turtles is pile driving due to underwater noise generated during 

these activities. However, since piles would only be driven during the non-tern season (September to 

April), which is outside of the warmer summer season when turtles are most likely to transit through the 

project area, the likelihood of sea turtle occurrence within the project area is extremely low. Furthermore, 

implementation of the proposed monitoring would ensure that these activities are ceased if a sea turtle is 

observed within or approaching the zone of potential harassment (74 m) surrounding the pile being driven 

during the pile driving period. As such, the Navy determined that the action is not likely to adversely 

affect green sea turtles and consulted informally with NMFS regarding this determination. NMFS 

concurred (Appendix D), and accordingly, implementation of the Proposed Action is not likely to 

adversely affect green sea turtles and would not have a significant impact. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-15

3.5.3.3 No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, existing conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no 

impact to threatened and endangered species.

3.6 WATER RESOURCES

3.6.1 Definition of Resource 

This section is focused on water quality, which describes the chemical and physical composition of water 

as affected by natural conditions and human activities. The principal federal law protecting water quality 

is the CWA (33 USC § 1251 et seq.), which is enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA). Water bodies impaired by pollutants are recognized and corrective action developed as 

appropriate under Section 303(d) of the CWA. Section 404 of the CWA regulates discharge of dredged or 

fill material in waters of the U.S., including the navigable waters surrounding the project area. Work in 

the navigable waters is also subject to permitting under Section 10 of the RHA (33 USC § 403 et seq.). 

The permit requirements of the RHA are integrated with those of CWA Section 404. At the state level, the 

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code §§ 13000-13999.10) gives the State 

Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) 

responsibilities for protection of the waters within their regions. The regional boards are also responsible 

for implementing provisions of the CWA delegated to states, such as the NPDES, which regulates point 

(industrial) and non-point (stormwater) sources of pollutants, and Section 401, which requires 

certification that discharges to water bodies comply with state water quality standards. 

In the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (Basin Plan) the California RWQCB, San 

Diego Region designated beneficial uses for the surface and ground waters in the San Diego Region, 

including San Diego Bay (RWQCB 1994). Beneficial uses are defined as the uses of water necessary for 

the survival or well-being of man, plants, and wildlife, and are protected against degradation of their 

quality under the state Porter-Cologne Act (RWQCB 1994). Examples include drinking, swimming, 

industrial, and agricultural water supplies, and the support of fresh and saline aquatic habitats. Specific 

beneficial uses established for San Diego Bay include the following (RWQCB 1994): Industrial Service 

Supply; Navigation; Contact Water Recreation; Non-contact Water Recreation; Commercial and Sport 

Fishing; Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance; Estuarine Habitat; Wildlife Habitat; 

Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species; Marine Habitat; Migration of Aquatic Organisms; and Shellfish 

Harvesting. The Basin Plan sets objectives for water quality that must be maintained to protect the 

designated beneficial uses of water resources in the San Diego region and conform to the state's 

antidegradation policy. The California Ocean Plan establishes limits or levels of water quality 

characteristics for ocean waters to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention 

of nuisance (SWRCB 2005). 

3.6.2 Affected Environment 

San Diego Bay is a narrow, crescent-shaped natural embayment oriented northwest to southeast with an 

approximate length of 15 mi (Port of San Diego 2007). The width of the bay ranges from 0.2 to 3.6 mi, 

and depths range from -74 ft MLLW near the tip of Ballast Point (refer to Figure 1 2) to less than four ft 

at the southern end (Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2009). About half of the bay is less than 15 ft deep and 

most of it is less than 50 ft deep (Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2009). 

On average, the San Diego region receives 10 inches of rainfall per year, occurring mostly between 

November and March (Port of San Diego 2007). Seasonal inputs of freshwater from the land to the east 

are conveyed to the bay through the three sub-watersheds of the San Diego Bay watershed (Port of San 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-16

Diego 2007). The Pueblo San Diego sub-watershed encompasses the northern portion of the bay 

including the project area. This sub-watershed has the smallest drainage area, but is the most densely 

developed and populated because it includes the City of San Diego (Port of San Diego 2007). Surface 

water on the Point Loma peninsula comprises ephemeral drainages that convey water to the bay or ocean 

directly after rain events. In the northern, developed urban portion of the peninsula, seasonal runoff flows 

to the ocean via gutters and storm drains. 

3.6.2.1 Bathymetry and Circulation 

The northern portion of the bay has been shaped by historic dredging to support large ship navigation, and 

filling (Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2009). The bathymetry and bedform of the bay are defined by a main 

navigation channel that steps up to shallower dredged depths toward the sides and bottom of the bay 

(Merkel and Associates 2009). USACE dredges the navigation channel to maintain it a depth of -47 ft 

MLLW (NOAA 2012). Outside the navigation channel, the bay floor consists of platforms at depths that 

vary slightly (Merkel and Associates 2009). Within the north bay, typical depths range from -36 to -38 ft 

MLLW to support large ship turning and anchorage (Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2009). Small vessel 

marinas are typically dredged to depths of -15 ft MLLW (Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2009). Depths in the 

area of Pier 160 where the infrastructure is proposed to be installed range from -15 to -25 ft MLLW (see 

Figure 3-1). 

Circulation within San Diego Bay is affected by the bay’s crescent shape and narrow bay mouth, tides, 

and seasonal salinity and temperature variations (NAVFAC Southwest and Port of San Diego 2013). The 

project area is within the North Bay – Marine Region, which extends from the bay mouth to the area 

offshore from downtown San Diego. Tidal action has the greatest influence on circulation in this area 

where bay water is exchanged with sea water over a period of two to three days (NAVFAC Southwest 

and Port of San Diego 2013). 

San Diego Bay has mixed diurnal/semi-diurnal tides, with the semi-diurnal component being dominant 

(Largier 1995). The interaction between these two types of tides is such that the higher high tide occurs 

before the lower low tide, creating the strongest currents on the larger ebb tide (Largier 1995). The tidal 

range (difference between MLLW and mean higher high water) is about 5.5 ft (Largier 1995). In general, 

tidal currents are strongest near the bay mouth, with maximum velocities of 1.6 to 3.3 ft per second 

(Largier 1995). Tidal current direction generally follows the center of the bay channel (Chadwick et. al. 

1999). Tidal flushing and mixing are important in maintaining water quality within the bay. The tidallyinduced currents regulate salinity, moderate water temperature, and disperse pollutants (NAVFAC 

Southwest and Port of San Diego 2013).

3.6.2.2 Marine Water Quality 

Water quality is commonly assessed by measuring dissolved nutrients, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, 

chlorophyll a, and coliform bacteria (Chadwick et. al. 1999). Measured values for dissolved nutrients in 

San Diego bay such as phosphate and silicates range from 0.9 to 4 parts per million (ppm) for silicon and 

0.02 to 0.3 ppm phosphorus in the winter, to 0.3 to 1.3 ppm for silicates and 0.2 ppm phosphorus in the 

summer (Chadwick et. al. 1999). This variation is the result of inflow of these nutrients with winter 

runoff, and uptake by phytoplankton growth in the summer (Chadwick et. al. 1999). Dissolved oxygen 

levels range from about 4 (summer) to 8 milliliters per liter (winter) (Chadwick et. al. 1999). These 

oxygen levels are typically at or near atmospheric equilibrium levels. The pH of seawater in San Diego 

Bay is relatively uniform, ranging from about 7.9 to 8.1 throughout the bay and the year (Chadwick et. al. 

1999). 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-17

Turbidity is a measure of water clarity or murkiness, and can be caused by suspended sediments 

transported in runoff or increased algal/bacterial growth (Tierra Data, Inc. 2010). Turbidity can also be 

created by natural and man-made resuspension of bottom sediments. Bottom sediments are resuspended 

by the action of tides, winds, and movements of ships with drafts deeper than 22 ft in the shallow waters 

of the south bay around NBSD (Chadwick et. al. 1999). Increased turbidity reduces the amount of light 

available for plant growth underwater, so it can affect the entire ability of the Bay to support living 

organisms (Tierra Data Inc. 2010). Turbidity in San Diego Bay varies, depending on the tides, seasons, 

and location within the Bay (Tierra Data, Inc. 2010). The monthly average for the northern portion of the 

bay varies from approximately 1.0 to 3.7 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU), (Tierra Data, Inc. 2012). 

The Basin Plan sets limits for allowable increases in turbidity over existing conditions (RWQCB 1994). 

Chlorophyll a (a measure of the amount of phytoplankton present in the bay) ranges from 0.2 to 25 

micrograms per liter (Chadwick et. al. 1999). The highest values were measured in the south bay in 

winter, when runoff carries high levels of nutrients into the south bay. In summer, chlorophyll a levels 

return to background levels of 1 to 2 micrograms per liter. These chlorophyll a levels are generally much 

higher than those found in the adjacent open ocean. Before 1964, when untreated sewage was still being 

discharged into San Diego Bay, bacterial counts (fecal coliform) were as high as 82 per milliliter in the 

south bay (Chadwick et. al. 1999). Since these discharges ended, bacterial counts typically remain below 

10 per milliliter except during some winter storms. These levels are below federal limits for water contact, 

implying that the bay is generally safe for recreational use (Chadwick et. al. 1999). 

Current sources of pollution to the bay include underground dewatering, industries on the bay and 

upstream, marinas and anchorages, DoD and DHS activities, materials used for underwater hull cleaning 

and vessel antifouling paints, and urban runoff (Chadwick et. al. 1999). Additional pollution sources 

include creosote-treated wood pier pilings, which are a source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs), stormwater runoff from land used for industrial, commercial, and transportation purposes, bilge 

water discharge, and oil spills (Chadwick et. al. 1999). Changes to Navy procedures include a moratorium 

on installing new creosote-treated pilings, replacing half of the existing pilings with plastic, concrete, or 

untreated wood, and eliminating bilge water inputs (Chadwick et. al. 1999). Overall, the levels of 

contamination in the water and sediment in San Diego Bay appear to be lower now than in decades past, 

including levels of some metals and PAHs (NAVFAC Southwest and Port of San Diego 2013). However, 

localized areas of copper concentrations remain routinely higher than federal and state limits for dissolved 

copper (NAVFAC Southwest and Port of San Diego 2013). 

There are no Section 303(d) listed impaired water bodies or record of high pollutant concentrations in 

sediment in the immediate area of Pier 160 (NAVFAC Southwest and Port of San Diego 2013).

3.6.2.3 Surface Water Quality 

Runoff from the Flint Street/Flume Bridge area flows into storm drains and then into the bay. Stormwater 

runoff from NBPL facilities, including SSC Pacific, is regulated as an industrial discharge under NBPL’s 

NPDES Permit (Permit No. CA 0109363 Order No. R9-2002-0002) (RWQCB 2002). This permit 

prohibits the discharge of wastes, including water contaminated with oils, fuels, lubricants, solvents, and 

oily bilge water (RWQCB 2002). The NPDES permit states that the discharger (i.e., NBPL) shall not 

cause pollution, contamination, or nuisance, and the discharge of wastes shall not cause or contribute to 

an exceedence of any applicable State or San Diego regional water quality objective or standard 

(RWQCB 2002). 

To fulfill the requirements of the NBPL NPDES permit, NBPL has implemented a Stormwater Discharge 

Management Plan (NAVFAC Southwest 2009). This Plan includes Basewide and facility-specific best 

management practices (BMPs) for preventing and minimizing contact of stormwater with potential 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-18

pollutants that are present at the project site. The Basewide BMPs include restricting access, regular 

cleaning and sweeping, controlling spills and reducing waste, avoiding hosing down the site, and regular 

inspection and maintenance of the storm drain system (NAVFAC Southwest 2009). 

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences 

3.6.3.1 Approach to Analysis 

Water quality impacts are evaluated based on the potential for a substantial increase in turbidity, 

discharge of suspended sediments, or discharge of contaminants that exceeds federal or state water quality 

standards or objectives. Impacts to water resources would occur if implementation of the Proposed Action 

would cause major changes to bathymetry; alter or obstruct patterns of circulation in San Diego Bay; 

substantially degrade surface water, groundwater, or marine water quality or cause impairment to 

beneficial use. 

3.6.3.2 Proposed Action 

Bathymetry and Circulation 

Apart from the physical presence of approximately up to 72 16-inch concrete piles within the area 

between Finger A and Finger B of Pier 160, there would be no changes to bathymetry. The area and 

volume of the piles would be a small fraction, less than 0.1%, of the bottom area and water volume 

between the two fingers of the pier and as a result would have negligible effects on circulation through the 

pier. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in a significant impact to 

bathymetry and circulation. 

Marine Water Quality 

Turbidity due to pile installation would be minimal because the sediments are known to be sandy. Surface 

sediments would be displaced from the area of each individual pile, but would remain near the bottom and 

not widely dispersed into the water column. Turbidity would be expected to return to background 

conditions within an hour after the pile installation activity ends (AMEC 2008). Sediments at the pier are 

not known to contain high concentrations of pollutants, and in any case, the sediments would remain in 

the same area and would not be widely dispersed. Therefore, impacts of pile installation on marine water 

quality would be not significant. Consistent with existing regulations and permits (RWQCB 2002, 

NAVSEA and USEPA 1999), the LDUUVs and RHIBs would be rinsed with fresh water at the boat ramp 

at SSC Pacific or while suspended over the water at Pier 160. Engine flushing would only occur on the 

NBPL boat ramp. All operations at the pier would be in compliance with OPNAVINST 5090.1C, 

Chapters 22 (Environmental Compliance Afloat) and would not be a source of pollutants. The temporary 

shelter, transport, and barge/floating boat dock options, if implemented, would result in minor shading 

due to the barge and single floating boat dock (0.19 ac) or two floating boat docks (0.07 ac). These 

structures would remain in place until they are no longer required. Given the small areas affected and the 

placement of these components alongside Pier 160 or Pier 159, this shading would be inconsequential. 

There would be no impact to biological resource habitats and communities from use of the temporary 

shelter or transport. Therefore, implementation of the proposed action would not result in significant 

impacts to marine water quality. 

Surface Water Quality 

The NBPL Storm Water Discharge Management Plan and Basewide BMPs (listed previously) for 

preventing and minimizing contact of potential pollutants with stormwater would be followed during 

construction and operations, ensuring that implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in 

significant impacts to water quality. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-19

3.6.3.3 No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, existing conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no 

impact to water resources. 

3.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES

3.7.1 Definition of Resource 

The terms “hazardous materials” and “hazardous wastes” are defined by the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 

as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA [42 19 USC § 6901 et seq]). In 

general, hazardous materials include substances that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, 

chemical, or infectious characteristics, may present substantial danger to public health or the environment 

when released into the environment. Hazardous wastes are regulated under RCRA and defined as any 

solid, liquid, contained gaseous, or semisolid waste, or any combination of wastes that either exhibit one 

or more of the hazardous characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, toxicity, or reactivity, or are listed as a 

hazardous waste under 40 CFR Part 261. 

Hazardous materials and wastes are also controlled under the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and 

these regulations are enforced by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and the local 

Certified Unified Program Agency. The San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) 

acts as the Certified Unified Program Agent under authorization from the California Environmental 

Protection Agency to implement state environmental requirements. The U.S. Navy is required to comply 

with these acts and all relevant DoD requirements, as well as management plans specific to NBPL. 

Hazardous material regulations and standards applicable to the existing and proposed future operations at 

NBPL include but are not limited to: 

 OPNAVINST 5090.1C, Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual; 

 DoD MIL-STD-1411A, Standard Practice: Inspection and Maintenance of Compressed Gas 

Cylinders; 

 SSCPACINST 5090.4, Hazardous Waste Management at Space and Naval Warfare Systems 

Center

 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards for compressed gas and 

equipment (29 CFR 1910, Subpart H, available online at 

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/compressedgasequipment/index.html); 

 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements for cylinder maintenance, retest, and 

certification (49 CFR 173.34); 

 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2, Hydrogen Technologies Code; 

 NFPA 55, Compressed Gases and Cryogenic Fluids Code; 

 Navy Region Southwest Waste Management Plan for the San Diego Metro Area (NRSW 2007); 

 NRSW Instruction 11350.1A, Regional Construction & Demolition Debris Landfill Diversion;

 Site Specific Report SSR-3422-ENV, Integrated Contingency Plan For Oil And Hazardous 

Substance Spill Prevention And Response at Naval Base Point Loma (NAVFAC 2009); 

 Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Technical Development Document for Phase I 

Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces (NAVSEA and USEPA 

1999); 

 NAVSEA Technical Manual (TM) S9310-AQ-SAF-010, First Revision, Technical Manual for 

Batteries, Navy Lithium Safety Program Responsibilities and Procedures (NAVSEA 2004). 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-20

3.7.2 Affected Environment 

The region of influence (ROI) of potential effects associated with hazardous materials and hazardous 

wastes for the Proposed Action is Pier 160, Pier 159, Building 9, Building 68, and the Flume Bridge. 

Hazardous Materials 

Pier 160 and Building 9 are used for research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) of both 

marine systems and harbor security systems. Pier 160 is also used for general mooring & berthing of 

Navy ships and boats. Pier 159 is presently used by the Navy’s MMP. Small amounts of petroleum fuel, 

hydraulic oils, and other lubricants are present at Building 9. No other hazardous materials are present in 

the ROI, and there is no record of high pollutant concentrations in sediment in the immediate area of Pier 

160 (NAVFAC Southwest and Port of San Diego 2013). 

Hazardous Wastes 

Hazardous wastes at SSC Pacific are managed according to Chief of Naval Operations Instructions 

5090.1C, Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual and SSCPACINST 5090.4, Hazardous 

Waste Management at Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center. The guidance in SSCPACINST 5090.4 

specifies that SSC Pacific employees, military members, and contractors manage hazardous waste in 

accordance with requirements specified in federal, state and local laws and regulations including Title 40, 

CFR, Title 22, CCR, California Health and Safety Code, and San Diego County Code of Regulatory 

Ordinances. SSCPACINST 5090.4 contains instructions for hazardous waste minimization, waste 

characterization, use of proper containers and storage practices, inspection, and disposal via a licensed 

hazardous waste contractor. 

SSC Pacific is permitted by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health to store 

hazardous waste at Building 145 Bayside. SSC Pacific stores, profiles and consolidates hazardous waste 

for pick up by the NAVFAC contractor. The contractor is licensed for hazardous waste storage, transport, 

and offsite disposal. SSC Pacific maintains documentation associated with the transportation and disposal 

of hazardous waste. 

Hazardous wastes generated as a result of routine operations at Building 9 are managed in accordance 

with SSCPACINST 5090.4 (e.g., oil-contaminated booms, rags, and absorbent materials are stored in 

less-than-90-day storage areas). The DEH conducts periodic inspections of hazardous waste management 

operations and facilities. 

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences 

3.7.3.1 Approach to Analysis 

Federal, DoD, and Navy regulations govern the storage, disposal, and transportation of hazardous 

materials, hazardous wastes, and non-hazardous solid wastes. These laws and specifications were 

established to protect human health and the environment from potential impacts. The significance of 

impacts associated with hazardous materials and wastes is based on the toxicity of the substance, the 

quantity of the substance involved, the risk of exposure, the method of disposal, and whether the 

Proposed Action would not be in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, or standards, including 

the WMP (NRSW 2007) and NFPA 2 and 55. Impacts are considered significant if the storage, use, 

transportation, or disposal of these substances increase human health risks or environmental exposure. 

The ROI for hazardous materials and wastes is Pier 160, Pier 159, Building 9, Building 68, and the Flume 

Bridge. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-21

3.7.3.2 Proposed Action 

Proposed construction activities would require the use of construction equipment, which could spill oil, 

gasoline, or other fluids during normal usage or during refueling. Any spills would be managed per the 

base’s spill plan (NAVFAC 2009), and the Navy would oversee contractor operations during construction 

to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and would require contractors to secure required 

permits, conduct routine inspections, and comply with established operating procedures and BMPs. This 

would ensure that the potential for hazardous material impacts is minimized during the construction phase 

at Pier 160, Building 9, and the Flume Bridge. 

Small amounts of petroleum fuel, hydraulic oils, and other lubricants would be stored and used in 

Building 9 for LDUUV and RHIB maintenance activities. Hazardous materials within Building 9 would 

be managed (stored and used) in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and standards, 

including the WMP (NRSW 2007). All hazardous materials and wastes associated with project activities 

would be removed and properly recycled or disposed per the WMP (NRSW 2007). 

Sediments at the pier are not known to contain high concentrations of pollutants (NAVFAC Southwest 

and Port of San Diego 2013), and in any case, the sediments would remain in the same area and would not 

be widely dispersed. 

Under the Proposed Action, two gas compressors (one for oxygen, one for hydrogen), as well as cylinders 

containing compressed oxygen and hydrogen, would be placed in a controlled recharging area on Pier 

160. The controlled area would be surrounded by a fence and by safety bollards. The primary hazard 

associated with receiving and storing compressed gases (i.e., oxygen and hydrogen) is the potential for the 

gas-containing cylinder to be damaged or moved in a manner that allows the gases to escape rapidly. Such 

an incident could cause the cylinder to become a projectile or to explode and create shrapnel. The 

transportation, storage, and handling of the oxygen and hydrogen cylinders used to recharge the fuel cell 

LDUUV would be in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and standards, including DOT 

requirements and NFPA 2 and 55 standards (see Section 3.7.1). Gas cylinders are required to be secured 

when not in use, and routinely inspected. Regulations also include, but are not limited to, limitations on 

the maximum allowable quantities per storage area and also provide cylinder separation distance 

requirements. Adherence to these requirements would greatly reduce the potential for an accident or 

natural disaster to damage the cylinders while simultaneously also reducing the potential hazard in the 

event that a cylinder is accidentally damaged. No impacts are anticipated from mostly emptying the 

LDUUV of stored H2 and O2 (either by recovery or discharge to the atmosphere) prior to transport to 

Building 9. 

Lithium ion battery charging would occur in Building 9 or at Pier 160 at a safe distance away from the 

controlled recharging area. Storage, handling, recharging, and other maintenance of the LDUUV and 

associated batteries would be in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and standards, including 

DOT requirements and NAVSEA TM-S9310-AQ-SAF-010, First Revision, Technical Manual for 

Batteries, Navy Lithium Safety Program Responsibilities and Procedures (NAVSEA 2004) (see 

Section 3.7.1). 

By complying with all applicable laws, regulations, and standards, and for the reasons above, 

implementation of the Proposed Action would not create risks to public health and safety and there would 

be no significant impact with respect to hazardous materials and wastes. 

3.7.3.3 No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, existing conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no 

impact to hazardous materials and wastes. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-22

3.8 AIRBORNE NOISE

This section provides information on airborne noise, including characterization of existing noise 

conditions and sensitive receptors in the general vicinity of the proposed project. Underwater noise is 

discussed in Section 3.2, Fisheries, and Section 3.4, Marine Mammals. No site specific noise data are 

available for this project, but information is available for the general San Diego Bay area. 

3.8.1 Definition of Resource 

Noise is defined as unwanted sound that interferes with normal activities or otherwise diminishes the 

quality of the environment. It may be intermittent or continuous, steady or impulsive, stationary or 

transient. There is wide diversity in responses to noise that vary not only according to the type of noise 

and the characteristics of the sound source, but also according to the sensitivity and expectations of the 

receptor, time of day, and distance between the noise source (e.g., a bulldozer) and the receptor (e.g., a 

person or animal). 

Noise levels are measured in decibels (dB), and represented on a logarithmic scale of about 20 to 120 dB. 

On this scale, everyday noises range from 30 dB for a quiet room to 100 dB for a loud power lawn mower 

at close range. At a constant level of 70 dB, noise can be irritating and disruptive to speech; at louder 

levels, hearing losses can occur. A difference of 3 dB represents a doubling of sound levels in terms of 

energy. However, because of how we hear, it is necessary to have a 10-dB increase to be perceived as a 

doubling in sound. Noise measurements are usually on an “A-weighted” scale that filters out very low and 

very high frequencies to replicate human sensitivity. It is common to add the “A” to identify that the 

measurement has been made with this filtering process (A-weighted decibel measurement, or dBA). 

Because noise levels vary widely during the day, it is customary to record multiple noise levels over a 

stated period, such as 24 hours, and then calculate the average noise level. Time-averaged noise levels 

form the basis for land use compatibility guidelines. For instance, the term Day-Night Average Level 

(Ldn) is used to describe the average noise level during a 24-hour day with a penalty of 10 dBA added to 

nighttime sound levels (10 P.M. to 7 A.M.). Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) add a 5-dBA 

penalty for noise events that occur in the evening (7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.), as well as a 10-dBA penalty 

for noise events at night (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.). Shorter measurement durations (typically 1 hour) are 

described as Energy Equivalent Levels (Leq) indicating the total energy contained by the sound over a 

given sample period. The Leq for 1 hour is the energy average noise level during an hour; specifically, the 

average noise based on the energy content (acoustic energy) of the sound. It can be thought of as the level 

of a continuous noise that has the same energy content as the fluctuating noise level. The Leq for a 24-

hour period (Leq24) is the same as Ldn/CNEL without the penalties. 

Airborne sound can be transmitted into the water. However, the amount of acoustic energy directly 

transmitted from a source is limited due to reflection (sound wave bouncing back) and refraction (sound 

wave bending away from the original path). Sound transmission in shallow water is also influenced by 

reflection losses from the bottom and the surface, refraction from sound speed gradients, reflection, and 

refraction from shallow bottom layers, and scattering from rough surfaces. Underwater noise is discussed 

in Section 3.2, Fisheries, and Section 3.4, Marine Mammals. 

3.8.2 Affected Environment 

Land use compatibility with differing noise levels is regulated at the local level, although the federal 

government has established suggested land use compatibility criteria for different noise zones (Federal 

Interagency Committee on Urban Noise [FICUN] 1980). Based on the FICUN Land Use Guidelines 

(1980; Table 2), residential areas and schools are considered compatible where the Ldn is up to 65 dBA; 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-23

outdoor recreational activities such as fishing and golfing are compatible with noise levels up to 70 dBA; 

and parks are compatible with noise levels up to 75 dBA (FICUN 1980). 

The City of San Diego has an exterior noise level standard of 65 dBA CNEL for noise-sensitive land uses 

(e.g., residential areas, hospitals, childcare facilities, schools). This standard protects sensitive land uses 

such as these from high noise levels and guides the City’s future planning decisions (City of San Diego 

2007). The City of San Diego construction noise ordinance places a restriction of an average sound level 

(Leq) of 75 dBA or less during the 12-hour period from 7 A.M. to 7 P.M. (City of San Diego 2010). The 

ordinance also limits construction activity outside of these hours and during certain days (i.e., Sundays 

and major holidays) where it may create an excessive impact on neighboring sites (City of San Diego 

2010). These standards are considered in the noise impact analysis; however, they do not apply to Navy 

installations. 

For listeners with normal hearing and fluency in the language, complete sentence intelligibility can be 

achieved when the signal-to-noise ratio (i.e., the difference between the speech level and the level of the 

interfering noise) is in the range of 15 to 18 dBA (Lazarus 1990). The American National Standard 

Institute (ANSI) recommends at least a 15-dBA signal-to-noise ratio in classrooms, to ensure that children 

with hearing impairments and language disabilities are able to enjoy high speech intelligibility (ANSI 

2002). As such, provided that the average adult male or female voice registers a minimum of 50 dBA in 

the rear of the classroom, the ANSI standard requires that the continuous background noise level indoors 

must not exceed a Leq of 35 dBA (assumed to apply for the duration of school hours). 

The City of San Diego noise ordinances specify separate noise limits for ambient noise and construction 

noise levels (City of San Diego 2010). Therefore, in this EA the proposed project construction noise is 

analyzed independently of ambient noise levels at the project site and the surrounding area. 

Pier 160 Modifications 

The proposed project site lies outside the 65-dBA noise contours generated by aircraft activity at San 

Diego International Airport and NAS North Island (City of San Diego 2007). Nearby ambient sources 

include vessel traffic in the channel, vehicular traffic, and air traffic associated with NAS North Island, 

the USCG Air Station, and San Diego International Airport. Typical ambient noise levels range from 50 

to 65 dBA CNEL in suburban to urban areas, and 65 to 75 dBA CNEL in downtown urban areas 

(USEPA 1974). 

The SSC Pacific waterfront area where the project site is located is an industrial area, where ambient (i.e., 

background) noise levels are typically higher than in residential areas. Although the project site is on 

Navy property and not subject to municipal requirements, for comparison, the City of San Diego allows 

ambient noise levels up to 75 dBA in industrial areas (City of San Diego 2007). 

Sensitive receptors within NBPL boundaries include the NBPL child development center (CDC), located 

at Building 377 on Myers Road about 0.6 mi southwest of the Pier 160, and a cluster of dormitories for 

NBPL submarine base personnel on Kerrick Road near Ballast Point about 1 mi to the south of Pier 160. 

The nearest sensitive receptor outside the NBPL boundary is the suburban residential neighborhood (La 

Playa) that borders NBPL to the north, with the closest residents in a condominium complex on San 

Antonio Avenue, approximately 0.3 mi from Pier 160. Vehicle traffic on the roadways that provide the 

main access to the Point Loma peninsula (Rosecrans Street and Catalina Boulevard) is the main source of 

ambient noise in the residential neighborhood (Navy 2007). When there is no major construction activity 

occurring at NBPL, noise is not intrusive or loud (Navy 2007). Also audible are periodic aircraft from San 

Diego International Airport, and military aircraft on NAS North Island. Noise from trucks, along with 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-24

periodic construction in the area, also contributes to the ambient sound levels. Noise from these sources 

and NBPL operational activities are typical and not significant (Navy 2007). 

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences 

3.8.3.1 Approach to Analysis 

The primary factor considered in determining the significance of noise effects includes the extent or 

degree to which implementation of the Proposed Action would affect baseline noise environments. The 

primary issue of concern with regard to noise is the potential for impacts to humans and wildlife. 

Although the City’s noise ordinance does not apply to the Navy, this analysis considers that potentially 

significant noise impacts would occur if implementation would directly or indirectly do one or both of the 

following: 

 Increase ambient outdoor CNEL levels at noise-sensitive land uses beyond the 65-dBA CNEL 

land use compatibility standard for residential, education, and health care land uses. 

 Establish noise-sensitive land use (residential, educational, and health care uses) in areas exposed 

to outdoor ambient noise levels that are higher than the 65-dBA land use compatibility standard. 

Both of these criteria represent effects from long-term noise exposure once construction is complete. For 

this EA, less stringent guidelines are applied to temporary noise sources that are restricted to daytime 

hours (such as most construction and demolition activities) unless they affect noise-sensitive land uses 

and result in CNEL levels more than 10 dBA above the respective land use compatibility criteria. Noise 

levels exceeding the City of San Diego’s construction noise limit of 75 dBA Leq between the hours of 7 

A.M. and 7 P.M. would be considered significant. 

3.8.3.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, SSC Pacific would perform pier modifications and facility alterations to 

accommodate the LDUUV mission. Pier 160 modification includes installing launch and recovery lifts. 

The project also includes interior modifications to Building 9 to enable it to serve as the LDUUV 

Maintenance and Integration facility and minor modifications to Building 68 to accommodate a function 

relocated from Building 9. Reducing the grade over the Flume Bridge on Front Street to avoid the 

LDUUV mobile boat hoist bottoming out in transit and to meet the mobile boat hoist grade requirements 

transiting from the pier to Building 9. SSC Pacific would implement Proposed Impact Avoidance and 

Conservation Measures. SSC Pacific estimates the proposed modifications would require two to six 

months to complete. However, pile driving would only occur on approximately 13 to 24 days. 

Construction may begin as early as December 2013. 

Facility modifications at Buildings 9 and 68 and at the Flume Bridge would only involve minor noisegenerating activities. As such, these project components are not addressed in detail for noise impacts. The 

implementation of the temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating boat dock options would entail 

temporary, non-significant noise due to operation of the crane at Pier 160 but would otherwise have no 

impact. Similarly, once construction ends and the operations begin, noise levels would revert to ambient 

levels and noise levels of LDUUV operations are not addressed in detail. 

Modifications to Pier 160, particularly pile driving, would be the main noise generating activity 

associated with the Proposed Action. To assess potential impacts of this noise, estimated on-site 

equipment usage was modeled using the Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise 

Model (RCNM) (USDOT 2008) (Appendix C). Since the City of San Diego noise ordinances contain 

specific stipulations for construction noise, the project-related noise assessment focuses on the output of 

the RCNM model. The results calculated by the model are conservative. Noise levels in the model 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-25

originated from data developed by the USEPA, and were refined using an “acoustical usage factor” to 

estimate the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment would be operating at full power (i.e., 

its loudest condition) during the project (USDOT 2008). 

The RCNM calculates acoustic sound levels at identified receptor points, and reports Lmax and Leq at 

those points. Under the Proposed Action, noise-generating activities at Pier 160 site would potentially 

affect receptors in nearby La Playa and potentially at the NBPL Child Development Center (CDC). Noise 

levels at the sensitive receptors are relative to the noise generated at the center of the construction 

activities and scheduled timeframe for that particular episode of construction. 

Construction of the proposed improvements to Pier 160 would involve the installation of up to 72 16-inch 

piles. Installation of the Pier 160 launch and recovery lifts and mobile boat hoist tracks would not involve 

extensive quantities of noise producing construction equipment and would be limited to an impact pile 

driver, a crane and other miscellaneous equipment. The impact pile driver is the dominant noise producer 

of all of the construction equipment that would be used at the SSC Pacific site. The noise associated with 

pile driving would be temporary and would only occur during daylight hours (a normal workday is 

between 7 A.M. and 5 P.M.). 

At the source, i.e., at 50 ft from pile driving equipment, RCNM uses an Lmax of 101.3 dBA and the noise 

level diminishes as the distance from the noise source increases. This modeled noise level is a standard 

default for pile driving and is typically applied to steel as well as concrete piles, and to piles of larger size 

than those of the proposed project. Use of this noise level for the Proposed Action is thus conservative 

and likely represents a worst case. The datum for noise calculations is in the area between Fingers A and 

B of Pier 160. Two sensitive receptors landside of the site have been identified: the residential 

neighborhood of La Playa north of SSC Pacific and the CDC at Building 377 inside NBPL. The nearest 

residence in La Playa is located approximately 0.3 mi away north of the proposed project site and the 

CDC is approximately 0.6 mi to the southwest. 

Potential noise levels from construction activities during pile driving at the two sensitive receptor areas 

are listed in Table 3-4. Model results indicate that noise levels at the La Playa neighborhood would be 

less than the City of San Diego 75 dBA construction noise limit. Consistent with the RCNM methodology 

used for this assessment, the ambient noise and construction noise are not added as a cumulative level for 

comparisons to the noise ordinance. At the NBPL CDC, outdoor noise levels would be 58.2 dBA. Sound 

attenuation inside a building reduces noise levels by 15 to 25 dBA with windows open and closed, 

respectively. The classroom criterion for recommended indoor noise levels is 35 dBA. With windows 

closed during pile driving operations, the classroom criteria (58.2 dBA - 25 dBA = 33.2 dBA) for 

effective hearing would not be exceeded. 

Table 3-4. Pile Driving Noise Levels at Representative Receptor Points 

Receptor Point Distance Miles (km) Noise Level (dBA Leq)

La Playa 0.3 (1.6) 64.2

CDC NBPL (Building 377) 0.6 (3.2) 58.2

Note: Based on the conservative assumptions of the model and with the implementation of the proposed SCMs, actual noise 

levels would likely be less.

In summary, noise modeling using conservative (worst case) assumptions indicates that the noise 

associated with the proposed pier modifications would not exceed City of San Diego construction 

airborne outdoor noise limits for residential areas (75 dB A-weighted) which apply at the boundaries of 

NBPL. Modeling also indicates that the indoor airborne noise levels at educational facilities in the areas 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-26

surrounding the proposed SSC Pacific project would not exceed the classroom criteria levels for effective 

hearing with windows closed (35 dB A-weighted). Additionally, because the pile driving would be 

intermittent rather than continual, the noise levels would be considered acceptable. BMPs to reduce 

airborne noise from pile driving would also be implemented, including the use of a cushion block, and 

jetting the piles in to reduce the need for pile driving. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action 

would not result in significant impacts to sensitive noise receptors. 

3.8.3.3 No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, existing conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no 

impact to airborne noise. 

3.9 AIR QUALITY

3.9.1 Definition of Resource 

Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants that have been determined to be 

of concern with respect to the health and welfare of the general public by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA). The USEPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for these pollutants. The major pollutants of concern, called “criteria pollutants,” are carbon 

monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), suspended particulate matter 

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

to 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). Primary NAAQS are established to 

protect public health. Secondary NAAQS may also be established to avoid other adverse impacts to the 

public welfare such as odors or visibility effects. Areas that violate a federal air quality standard are 

designated as non-attainment areas. 

Ambient air quality refers to the atmospheric concentration of a specific compound (amount of pollutants 

in a specified volume of air) that occurs at a particular geographic location. The ambient air quality levels 

measured at a particular location are determined by the interactions of emissions, meteorology, and 

chemistry. Emission considerations include the types, amounts, and locations of pollutants emitted into 

the atmosphere. Meteorological considerations include wind and precipitation patterns affecting the 

distribution, dilution, and removal of pollutant emissions. Chemical reactions can transform pollutant 

emissions into other chemical substances. Ambient air quality data are generally reported as a mass per 

unit volume (e.g., micrograms per cubic meter [μg/m3] of air) or as a volume fraction (e.g., parts per 

million [ppm] by volume). 

Pollutant emissions typically refer to the amount of pollutants or pollutant precursors introduced into the 

atmosphere by a source or group of sources. Pollutant emissions contribute to the ambient air 

concentrations of criteria pollutants, either by directly affecting the pollutant concentrations measured in 

the ambient air or by interacting in the atmosphere to form criteria pollutants. Primary pollutants, such as 

CO, SO2, Pb, and some particulates, are emitted directly into the atmosphere from emission sources. 

Secondary pollutants, such as O3, NO2, and some particulates, are formed through atmospheric chemical 

reactions that are influenced by meteorology, ultraviolet light, and other atmospheric processes. PM10 and 

PM2.5 are generated as primary pollutants by various mechanical processes (for example, abrasion, 

erosion, mixing, or atomization) or combustion processes. However, fine particulate matter (PM10 and 

PM2.5) can also be formed as secondary pollutants through chemical reactions or by gaseous pollutants 

condensing into fine aerosols. In general, emissions that are considered “precursors” to secondary 

pollutants in the atmosphere (such as Reactive Organic Gases [ROG] and oxides of nitrogen [NOx], which 

are considered precursors for O3), are the pollutants for which emissions are evaluated to control the level 

of O3 in the ambient air. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-27

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has also established the more stringent California Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Areas within California in which ambient air concentrations of a 

pollutant are higher than the state and/or federal standard are considered to be non-attainment for that 

pollutant. The State of California has also identified four additional pollutants for ambient air quality 

standards: visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Table 3-5 details 

both the federal and state ambient air quality standards. 

Table 3-5. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

NAAQS1 CAAQS 

Primary Secondary Concentration 

Ozone (O3)

1-Hour -

Same as Primary 

Standard

0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3)

8-Hour 0.075 ppm 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3)

Carbon Monoxide 

(CO)

8-Hour 9.0 ppm 

None

9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3)

1-Hour 35 ppm 20 ppm (23 mg/m3)

Nitrogen Dioxide 

(NO2)

Annual 

Arithmetic 

Mean

0.053 ppm Same as Primary 

Standard

0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3)

1-Hour 0.100 ppm 0.18 ppm (338 μg/m3)

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

24-Hour - - 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3)

3-Hour - 0.5 ppm -

1-Hour 75 ppb - 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3)

Respirable Particulate 

Matter (PM10)

24-Hour 150 μg/m3

Same as Primary 

Standard

50 μg/m3

Annual 

Arithmetic 

Mean

- 20 μg/m3

Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM2.5)

24-Hour 35 μg/m3

Same as Primary 

Standard

-

Annual 

Arithmetic 

Mean

12 μg/m3 12 μg/m3

Lead (Pb)

30-Day 

Average - - 1.5 μg/m3

Calendar 

Quarter 1.5 μg/m3

Same as Primary 

Standard -
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-28

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

NAAQS1 CAAQS 

Primary Secondary Concentration 

_3-Month Rolling 

Average

Rolling 3-

month Average 0.15 μg/m3

Hydrogen Sulfide 

(HS) 1-Hour

No Federal Standards

0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)

Sulfates (SO4) 24-Hour 25 μg/m3

Visibility Reducing 

Particles

8-Hour (10 am 

to 6 pm, Pacific 

Standard Time)

In sufficient amount to 

produce an extinction 

coefficient of 0.23 per 

kilometer due to particles 

when the relative humidity 

is less than 70%.

Vinyl chloride2 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3)

1NAAQS (other than O3, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than 

once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than 

the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when 99% of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less 

than the standard. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98% of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or 

less than the standard. For NO2, to attain the national standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the 1-hour maximum daily 

concentration must not exceed 100 ppb.

2The CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as “toxic air contaminants” with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects 

determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these 

pollutants. 

μg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m3= milligrams per cubic meter. 

Sources: CARB 2012, USEPA 2012. 

Because vinyl chloride and hydrogen sulfide are not expected to be emitted as a result of the Proposed 

Action, they are not carried forward in the analysis. Additionally, airborne emissions of lead and visibility 

reducing particles are not addressed in this EA because there are no known significant emission sources 

associated with the Proposed Action. 

In addition to the ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants, regulations exist for hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs). The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulates 

187 HAPs based on available control technologies (40 CFR Parts 61 and 63). The majority of HAPs are 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 

HAPs emitted from mobile sources are called Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs). MSATs are 

compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment which are known or suspected to 

cause cancer or other serious health and environmental effects. In 2001, USEPA issued its first MSATs 

Rule, which identified 21 compounds as being HAPs that required regulation (USEPA 2001). A subset of 

six of these MSAT compounds were identified as having the greatest influence on health and included 

benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acrolein, acetaldehyde, and diesel particulate matter. USEPA 

issued a second MSAT Rule in February 2007, which generally supported the findings in the first rule and 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-29

provided additional recommendations of compounds having the greatest impact on health. The rule also 

identified several engine emission certification standards that must be implemented (USEPA 2007). 

Unlike the criteria pollutants, there are no NAAQS for MSATs. The primary control methodologies for 

these pollutants for mobile sources involves reducing their content in fuel and altering the engine 

operating characteristics to reduce the volume of pollutant generated during combustion. MSATs would 

be the primary HAPs emitted by mobile sources during construction and operations. Minor amounts of 

HAPs are emitted from the combustion of fossil fuels in construction equipment and vehicles. The 

amounts that would be emitted are small in comparison with the emissions of criteria pollutants; emission 

factors for most HAPs from combustion sources are roughly three or more orders of magnitude lower 

than emission factors for criteria pollutants. Additionally, construction equipment would be operated 

intermittently and would produce negligible ambient HAPs in a localized area. The proposed activities 

would occur in restricted areas where no sensitive receptors (i.e., residents, schools, hospitals, etc.) are 

located, no health effects would be anticipated from emissions of HAPs. Therefore HAP emissions are 

not considered further in this analysis. 

3.9.2 Affected Environment 

SSC Pacific is located within San Diego County and is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Air 

Pollution Control District (APCD). The APCD is the agency responsible for the administration of federal 

and state air quality laws, regulations, and policies in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), which is 

contiguous with San Diego County. 

On April 15, 2004, the SDAB was designated a basic nonattainment area for the 8-hour NAAQS for O3, 

and on July 15, 2005, the 1-hour NAAQS for O3 was rescinded. The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) was challenged on their justification for “basic” nonattainment designations and reclassified 

former basic ozone nonattainment areas as marginal, moderate, serious, severe or extreme based on 

various factors. The SDAB is currently classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the 8-hour O3

NAAQS (VOCs and NOx are precursors to the formation of O3). In 1994, the SDAB attained the standard 

for CO; the air basin is considered a maintenance area for CO and has been subject to a maintenance plan. 

The SDAB is currently in attainment for the NAAQS for all other criteria pollutants. The SDAB is 

currently classified as a nonattainment area under the CAAQS for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 (40 CFR 81.305). 

The APCD operates a network of ambient air monitoring stations throughout San Diego County. The 

purpose of the monitoring stations is to measure ambient concentrations of the pollutants and determine 

whether the ambient air quality meets the CAAQS and the NAAQS. The nearest ambient monitoring 

station to the project site is located in downtown San Diego, California. 

3.9.2.1 Region of Influence (ROI) 

Specifically identifying the ROI for air quality requires knowledge of the type of pollutant, emission rates 

of the pollutant source, proximity to other emission sources, and local and regional meteorology. The ROI 

for the SSC Pacific is defined by the SDAB. For inert pollutants (all pollutants other than O3 and its 

precursors), the ROI is generally limited to a few miles downwind from the source. However, for a 

photochemical pollutant such as O3, the ROI may extend much farther downwind. O3 is a secondary 

pollutant that is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions of previously emitted pollutants, or 

precursors (VOC and NOx). The maximum effect on O3 levels from precursors tends to occur several 

hours after the time of emission during periods of high solar load and may occur many miles from the 

source. O3 and O3 precursors transported from other regions can also combine with local emissions to 

produce high local O3 concentrations. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-30

3.9.2.2 Federal Requirements 

Under NEPA, air quality impacts must be evaluated and assessed with regard to the significance of their 

impacts. NEPA is applicable to areas that are within the United States Territory, typically defined as 

within 12 nautical miles of shore and on land. In addition to NEPA, the CAA, General Conformity Rule, 

and New Source Review (NSR) are applicable to analyses of impacts to air quality. These federal 

requirements are discussed in the following sections. 

3.9.2.3 Clean Air Act 

The USEPA is the agency responsible for enforcing the CAA of 1970 and its 1977 and 1990 

amendments. The purpose of the CAA is to establish NAAQS, which classify areas as to their attainment 

status relative to NAAQS; develop schedules and strategies to meet the NAAQS; and to regulate 

emissions of criteria pollutants and air toxics to protect public health and welfare. Under the CAA, 

individual states are allowed to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations, provided they 

are at least as stringent as federal standards. The CAA Amendments established new deadlines for 

achievement of NAAQS, dependent upon the severity of nonattainment. 

The USEPA requires each state to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP), which describes how that 

state will achieve compliance with NAAQS. A SIP is a compilation of goals, strategies, schedules, and 

enforcement actions that will lead the state into compliance with all federal air quality standards. Each 

change to a compliance schedule or plan must be incorporated into the SIP. In California, the SIP consists 

of separate elements for each air basin, depending upon the attainment status of the particular air basin. 

The CAA Amendments also require that states develop an operating permit program that would require 

permits for all major sources of pollutants. The program would be designed to reduce criteria pollutant 

emissions and control emissions of hazardous air pollutants by establishing control technology guidelines 

for various classes of emission sources. Under the CAA, state and/or local agencies may be delegated 

authority to administer the requirements of the CAA, including requirements to obtain permits to operate 

stationary sources on Navy installations. 

3.9.2.4 General Conformity Rule

Under the General Conformity Rule (GCR), which is published in Part 93, Subchapter C, Chapter I, Title 

40 of the CFR (40 CFR 93) and 40 CFR 51.851, federal agencies are required to demonstrate that federal 

actions conform with the applicable SIP. In order to ensure that federal activities do not hamper local 

efforts to control air pollution, Section 176(c) of the CAA, 42 USC 7506(c) prohibits federal agencies, 

departments, or instrumentalities from engaging in, supporting, providing financial assistance for, 

licensing, permitting or approving any action which does not conform to an approved SIP or federal 

implementation plan. 

The USEPA GCR 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 emission thresholds that trigger requirements of the conformity rule are called de minimis

levels. Table 3-6 (see Section 3.9.3.2) identifies the federal nonattainment pollutants and the relevant de 

minimis emission thresholds. 

In order to demonstrate conformity with the CAA, a project must clearly demonstrate that it does not 

cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area; increase the frequency or severity of 

any existing violation of any standard in any area; or delay timely attainment of any standard, any 

required interim emission reductions, or other milestones in any area. A conformity applicability analysis 

is required for each of the nonattainment pollutants or its precursor emissions. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-31

Compliance with the conformity rule can be demonstrated in several ways. Compliance is presumed if the 

net increase in direct and indirect emissions from a federal action would be less than the relevant de 

minimis level. If the net direct and indirect emissions exceed the relevant de minimis value, then a formal 

conformity determination process must be followed. 

3.9.2.5 Greenhouse Gases 

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. These emissions occur from natural 

processes and human activities. The most significant of the human activities emitting GHGs is the 

burning of fossil fuels. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. 

Scientific evidence indicates a trend of increasing global temperature over the past century correlating 

with an increase in GHG emissions from human activities. 

The most common GHGs emitted from natural processes and human activities include carbon dioxide 

(CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Examples of GHGs created and emitted primarily 

through human activities include fluorinated gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) and sulfur 

hexafluoride. Each GHG is assigned a global warming potential, which is the ability of a gas or aerosol to 

trap heat in the atmosphere. The global warming potential scale is standardized to CO2, which has a value 

of one. For example, CH4 is typically defined as having a global warming potential of 21, which means 

that it has a global warming effect 21 times greater than CO2 on an equal-mass basis. CO2 is the dominant 

gas in terms of quantities of total GHG emissions, although other GHGs have a higher global warming 

potential than CO2. Total GHG emissions from a source are often reported as a CO2 equivalent (CO2e). 

The CO2e is calculated by multiplying the emissions of each GHG by its global warming potential and 

adding the results together to produce a single, combined emission rate representing all GHGs. 

Federal agencies are addressing emissions of GHGs by mandating GHG reductions in federal laws and 

EOs, most recently EO 13423 (Strengthening Federal Environment, Energy, and Transportation 

Management) and EO 13514 (Energy Efficient Standby Power Devices). Several states have passed GHG 

related laws as a means to reduce statewide levels of GHG emissions. In particular, the California Global 

Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) directs the State of California to reduce statewide 

GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. 

In an effort to reduce energy consumption, reduce dependence on petroleum, and increase the use of 

renewable energy resources in accordance with goals set by EO 13423 and the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, the Navy has implemented a number of renewable energy projects. The types of projects currently 

in operation within military installations include thermal and photovoltaic solar energy systems, 

geothermal power plants, and wind energy generators (NAVFAC 2006). 

The potential effects of GHG emissions are by nature global and cumulative, and it is not possible to 

attribute climate change to individual projects. Therefore, the impact of GHG emissions associated with 

this project is discussed in the context of cumulative impacts in Section 4.2.9 of this EA. 

3.9.2.6 New Source Review (NSR) 

A NSR is required when a source has the potential to emit any pollutant regulated under the CAA in 

amounts equal to or exceeding specified major source thresholds (100 or 250 tons per year), predicated on 

the source’s industrial category. A major modification to the source also triggers a NSR. Any new or 

modified stationary emission source requires construction and operating permits from the SDAPCD. 

Through the SDAPCD’s permitting process, all stationary sources are reviewed and are subject to a NSR 

process. The NSR process ensures that factors such as the availability of emission offsets and their ability 

to reduce emissions are addressed and conform to the SIP. There are no major stationary sources 

proposed as part of the action. Therefore NSR is not carried forward in the analysis. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-32

3.9.2.7 Local Requirements 

In San Diego County, the SDAPCD is the agency responsible for the administration of federal and state 

air quality laws, regulations, and policies. Included in the SDAPCD’s tasks are monitoring of air 

pollution, preparation of the SIP for the SDAB, and the promulgation of rules and regulations. The SIP 

includes strategies and tactics to be used to attain the federal O3 standard within San Diego County. The 

SIP elements are taken from the Regional Air Quality Strategy and the SDAPCD plan for attaining the 

state O3 standard, which is more stringent than the federal standard. The SDAPCD’s rules and regulations 

include procedures and requirements to control the emission of pollutants and to prevent adverse impacts 

(SDCAPCD 2012). 

These regulations require that facilities constructing, altering, or replacing stationary equipment that may 

emit air pollutants obtain an Authority to Construct permit. Further, SDAPCD regulations require 

stationary sources of air pollutants to obtain and maintain Permits to Operate for all stationary sources 

subject to the requirements of Regulation II (SDCAPCD 2012). The Navy must submit applications to the 

SDAPCD for their review and approval. The SDAPCD is responsible for the review of applications and 

for the approval and issuance of these permits. Once a permit is issued, the Navy is responsible for 

compliance with the conditions specified in the permit, and is responsible for quantification of emissions 

associated with the permitted unit. The SDAPCD does not have quantitative emissions limits for 

construction activities, nor for long-term emissions that may result from increased vehicle use or other 

mobile sources. The SDPACD does not require permits for mobile sources, including engines on ground 

vehicles and barges used for propulsion or electric power. Stationary reciprocating internal combustion 

engines that are less than 50 brake horsepower are also exempt from permitting requirements. Other 

equipment, including diesel-powered pile drivers, engines larger than 50 brake horsepower, and other 

portable equipment not specifically exempt from permitting requirements must be either permitted or 

registered in accordance with SDAPCD rules and regulations. The construction contractor will be 

required to obtain and maintain the necessary permits and/or registrations for equipment that is subject to 

these requirements. 

3.9.2.8 Current Mitigation Measures 

The Navy currently has a comprehensive air quality management program to comply with all federal, 

state, and local requirements. Mitigation measures that are part of the Navy’s air quality management 

practices are implemented at SSC Pacific. Equipment is maintained and meets applicable emission 

standards (such as smog certification for on-road vehicles) in accordance with state requirements. 

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences 

This resource section focuses on activities that have the potential to result in an impact to the ambient air 

quality. Types of emission sources associated with the LDUUV test program relocation that could affect 

air quality include construction and operation activities. Air quality impacts from proposed construction 

and operation activities would occur from combustion emissions due to the use of fossil fuel-powered 

equipment. Due to the nature of the project there would be no earthmoving or grading activities. There 

would be very limited asphalt paving of an existing Flume Bridge surface. Pile-driving activities would 

not generate fugitive dust as the marine sediments that would be impacted are subsurface. 

3.9.3.1 Approach to Analysis 

The air quality analysis is based on estimates of emissions from combustion of fossil fuels in heavy 

construction equipment and vehicles. The estimated equipment required for construction activities, 

including tugboats, heavy construction equipment, truck trips, and workforce estimates, are provided in 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-33

Appendix A, along with the emission calculations for all activities. It is assumed that all construction 

activities would take place during an approximately two-month period starting in December 2013. 

Emissions Evaluation Methodology 

The methodology for estimating construction emissions involves quantifying the number and type of 

heavy construction equipment, truck trips, worker trips, and marine vessels that would be used for the 

SSC Pacific pier, Flume Bridge, and building modifications. 

Emissions from heavy construction equipment were estimated based on emission factors for specific 

equipment from the CARB’s OFFROAD emission model (CARB 2007), which provides emission factors 

for offroad equipment. Emissions were estimated by multiplying the number of each type of equipment 

by the hours per day, days per year, and emission factor. Emissions from the pile driving hammer were 

calculated based on the DELMAG D12 hammer, assuming the hammer would use 0.95 gallons of diesel 

fuel per hour (DELMAG 2012). 

Emissions from ground vehicles (worker vehicles and truck trips) involved in the SSC Pacific pier and 

building modification activities include combustion emissions from delivery vehicles such as trucks, and 

emissions from the construction workforce traveling to and from the site. Emissions associated with 

ground vehicles were estimated based on emission factors for specific equipment, or for ground vehicles, 

from the CARB’s Emission Factors (EMFAC) 2011 model (CARB 2011), which provides emission 

factors for on-road vehicles. Emissions were estimated by multiplying the number of each type of vehicle 

times the estimated mileage traveled per day, and the number of days for each construction/renovation 

activity. 

It is assumed that the impact hammer used to drive the required pilings at Pier 160 will be located on a 

crane barge. The barge will require limited assistance from a small tugboat. The methodology for 

estimating marine vessel emissions involves the power rating of the propulsion engine, the typical engine 

load, and the number of hours of activity. Emission factors were obtained from the USEPA (USEPA 

2009). 

Operational emissions would primarily be from mobile sources associated with LDUUV operations, 

including replacement of gas cylinders used to recharge the one fuel-cell powered LDUUV, which is 

expected to occur approximately once a month. Movement of LDUUVs between Pier 160, Pier 159, or 

the Main Base piers and Building 9 would occur approximately twice per month. RHIBs would operate in 

conjunction with LUUDV operations. These operations are anticipated to involve 3 craft for 2 hours, 

twice a month. If the temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating boat dock options were 

implemented, these operations are anticipated to involve, at most, 1 RHIB and 1 pin barge for up to 8 

hours, six times a month. As such, the total number of LDUUV operations would be unchanged if the 

temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating boat dock options were implemented. These options 

would also entail the use of a crane for movement of the RHIB and LDUUV to and from the water. This 

operation is conservatively assumed to require approximately one hour for movement of the two craft for 

access to the water, and one hour for removal at the conclusion of the operation. Based on this 

assumption, the crane would operate approximately 12 hours per month. For the purposes of the air 

quality analysis, a 250-horsepower truck crane was selected for this activity as a worst case scenario that 

includes driving of the truck to and from SSC Pacific for each operation. The Conolift, if used, would be 

operated up to four hours per day, three days per week. Detailed emission calculations can be found in 

Appendix A. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-34

3.9.3.2 Proposed Action 

Construction/Renovation Activities 

Implementation of the Proposed Action would include the following activities: 

Construction at Pier 160 would require installation of up to 72 16-inch piles in the water adjacent to the 

pier. Re-grading the Flume Bridge would require the addition of a small amount of asphalt to lessen the 

grade at either end. A total of 1,125 cubic ft of asphalt is estimated to achieve the desired grading. Minor 

renovation of the interior of Building 9 would be required to accommodate the LDUUV test program 

activities. Very minor renovations would be required in Building 68 to accommodate an activity that 

would vacate Building 9. 

Implementation the temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating dock options would involve the use of 

two floating boat docks or a pin barge and a floating boat dock alongside Pier 160 or Pier 159, until no 

longer needed. There would be no actual construction associated with this activity; the pin barge, if used, 

would transported to SSC Pacific by truck, rail, and/or tug as needed and left onsite. The floating boat 

dock pieces would be delivered by truck and/or rail and assembled onsite. Placement of the floating 

dock(s) into the water would be a short term event that could occur within one day and the floating 

dock(s) would then remain in the water until they are no longer required. The brevity and singular 

occurrence of these activities would result in negligible emissions and therefore were not quantified. 

To evaluate the maximum possible emissions, the construction and operations under the Proposed Action 

are assumed to occur simultaneously with implementation of the temporary shelter, transport, and 

barge/floating boat dock options. 

Operations 

Under the Proposed Action, operation emissions generated from the LDUUV test program would be 

limited to mobile source emissions occurring monthly as a result of delivery of gas cylinder replacements, 

RHIB operations, and transport of LDUUVs between Pier 160, Pier 159, or the Main Base piers and 

Building 9. 

If implemented, the temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating boat dock options would provide an 

additional 144 hours of crane operation per year to place and extract one RHIB and one LDUUV from the 

basin for operational purposes, and the movement of the truck crane from a location in the San Diego area 

to SSC Pacific to perform the activity six days per month. Each roundtrip is assumed to be 60 miles. If 

implemented, these operations would continue until no longer needed. Detailed emissions calculations are 

provided in Appendix A. 

As shown in Table 3-6, the maximum emissions that could be generated in any year, which would include 

construction occurring at the same time as operations under the temporary shelter, transport, and 

barge/floating boat dock options, would be below de minimis thresholds. Therefore, the maximum 

emissions possible would not have a significant impact to air quality. As such, the implementation of the 

Proposed Action would not have a significant impact to air quality. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-35 

Table 3-6. Maximum Potential Emissions for LDUUV Test Program with Evaluation of 

Conformity

Activity

Emissions (tons/year)

VOCs1 CO2 NOx1,3 SOx3 PM10

3 PM2.53

Maximum Possible 

Emissions 0.09 1.01 1.45 0.00 0.06 0.06

de minimis Threshold/ 

Major Source Threshold5100 100 100 100 100 100

Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No

Notes: (1) SDAB is currently classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the 8-hour O3 NAAQS; VOCs and NOx are 

precursors to the formation of O3.

(2) SDAB is considered a maintenance area for the CO NAAQS.

(3) SDAB is in attainment of the NAAQS for NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5.

(4)

de minimis thresholds are developed from the General Conformity Rule for nonattainment and maintenance 

pollutants; NAAQS attainment pollutants (i.e., SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) are evaluated based on SDCAPCD major 

source thresholds.

Sources: USEPA 2010 

General Conformity Applicability Analysis 

The estimated construction and operational emissions associated with the Proposed Action would be 

below the de minimis threshold levels for CAA conformity. Therefore, locating the LDUUV test program 

at SSC Pacific would conform to the SDAB SIP and would not trigger a conformity determination under 

Section 176(c) of the CAA. The Navy has prepared a Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) for CAA 

conformity (Appendix A). 

Conclusion 

For the reasons described above, implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant 

impacts to air quality. 

3.9.3.3 No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, existing conditions would remain unchanged. With no construction or 

operation emissions, the No-Action Alternative is exempt from the General Conformity Rule. Therefore, 

implementation of the No-Action Alternative would have no impact to air quality. 

3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

3.10.1 Definition of Resource 

Transportation and circulation refer to the operational characteristics of a transportation network, 

including the network’s capacity to accommodate the additional demand resulting from a proposed 

project. Networks may encompass many different types of facilities that serve a variety of transportation 

modes, such as vehicular traffic, public transit, and non-motorized travel. 

3.10.2 Affected Environment 

Roadway access to the Point Loma peninsula and NBPL is limited. There is no immediate freeway 

access. Rosecrans Street, which is a City of San Diego street, is the main route leading to the SSC Pacific 

complex. SSC Pacific employees driving to locations between Pier 160 or Pier 159, Building 9, and the 

Main Base piers would likely travel on Kephart Road, Fort Rosecrans Boulevard, Rosecrans Street, Gate 

Road, Dock Street, Front Street, and Craig Road, all of which are located on Navy property. The Flume 

Bridge connects Front Street and Craig Road. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-36

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences 

3.10.3.1 Approach to Analysis 

For the purpose of this analysis, the proposed project would result in significant impacts to transportation 

and circulation if it would result in changes in accessibility of public roads that would constitute longterm effects to transportation and circulation. 

3.10.3.2 Proposed Action 

The proposed project site is part of SSC Pacific’s bayside compound. Vessel and vehicle traffic on and 

near Pier 160, Pier 159, the Main Base piers, the Flume Bridge, and Building 9 are almost exclusively 

associated with SSC Pacific activities. 

Construction Traffic 

Any impacts to transportation would be short term and limited to the construction phase. Potential 

transportation impacts associated with pier construction would be primarily limited to marine transit and 

vessel docking. However, proposed construction activities would take place inside an existing restricted 

navigation zone (Security Zone) that is off-limits to civilian vessels. Therefore, significant impacts to 

civilian vessel traffic would not occur. 

Pier 160 is currently under-utilized; current activities at Pier 160 would not be affected by the proposed 

construction and operation activities. Pier 159 is currently utilized by the Navy MMP and would only be 

utilized if the temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating boat dock options were implemented. If 

these options are implemented, Pier 159 would only be used after the Navy MMP has been relocated and 

is no longer using the pier. The Main Base piers (north, middle, and south) are currently used to dock, 

load, and unload Navy ships. These piers would only be used temporarily to launch and recover the 

LDUUVs if the pier is not otherwise being used. 

The concrete piles and other components and construction materials would be barged or trucked to 

Pier 160. Construction staging would occur entirely within the SSC Pacific facility, on existing paved 

surfaces. There would be no demolition associated with the proposed project, so no hauling of demolition 

materials to an off-site location would be required. 

Construction activities related to Pier 160, including pile installation, would take place from work barges. 

Construction equipment and materials requiring trailers greater than 50 ft would be brought to the site by 

barges or other vessels. The addition of these vessels may result in temporary and localized constraints on 

vessel traffic flow near the site. 

Significant ground transportation impacts are not anticipated because the construction-related vehicle 

trips would be primarily non-peak hour related and would be of limited duration (occurring within the 

approximately two to six month construction period). The number of construction workers needed during 

the concrete pile installation period is expected to be minimal and not anticipated to result in a significant 

increase in traffic. SSC Pacific worker commutes would be temporarily impacted by the delivery and 

export of concrete and construction materials and closure of Flume Bridge during re-grading. During 

closure of the bridge, alternate routes would include using Gate Road to reach facilities on Craig Road, or 

using Dock Street to reach facilities on Front Street. 

Implementation of the temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating boat dock options would result in a 

minor, temporary increase in traffic due to the placement and removal of the temporary shelter, barge, or 

floating boat docks at Pier 160. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-37

Commercial, recreational, and military vessels would be fully informed of construction activities, and 

measures, such as vessel scheduling and communication protocols, would be developed to ensure that 

navigation is impeded as little as possible. The contractor shall adhere to all U.S. Coast Guard rules and 

regulations, including publishing a Notice to Mariners. 

During construction, the contractor would implement standard traffic control measures for landside 

construction traffic. In the event that the construction requires a temporary roadway closure, or could 

otherwise substantially interfere with standard traffic circulation, the contractor would provide a traffic 

control plan for review and approval. The traffic control plan would ensure that adequate emergency 

ingress and egress is maintained and that traffic is allowed to move efficiently and safely in and around 

the SSC Pacific complex. Therefore, no impacts to transportation would occur under the Proposed Action. 

Operational Traffic 

With construction of the proposed project, future operations of the SSC Pacific Pier 160 area would be 

similar to current operations. Truck traffic associated with long-term maintenance activities is anticipated 

to equal two truck trips per month. LDUUV test activities in which the RHIBs would transit the bay with 

an LDUUV, departing from and returning to Pier 160, are assumed to occur twice per month. 

Implementation of the temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating boat dock options would result in a 

minor increase in traffic at Pier 160, Pier 159 (if used), and the Main Base piers (if used). However, any 

such increase would not substantially alter current activity at these piers and would be coordinated with 

SSC Pacific. 

In summary, implementation of the Proposed Action would not cause significant temporary impacts to 

traffic and circulation. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in changes in accessibility 

of public roads that would constitute long-term effects to transportation and circulation. Therefore, 

implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts to transportation and 

circulation. 

3.10.3.3 No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, existing conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no 

impact to transportation and circulation. 

3.11 SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

3.11.1 Definition of Resource 

Socioeconomics is a social science discipline that focuses on the attributes of human social and economic 

interactions within an area. Socioeconomic analyses typically address issues such as population 

demographics, business activity, employment and income, and environmental justice. In 1994, EO 12898,

Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 

was issued with the intent to ensure that the environmental effects of federal actions do not fall 

disproportionately on low-income and minority populations. 

3.11.2 Affected Environment 

The primary focus of the socioeconomic analysis in this EA is on the net effect on the economy, 

demographics, and minority and low-income populations in the local community, related to the proposed 

pier and building modifications and associated construction. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

3-38

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences 

3.11.3.1 Approach to Analysis 

As part of the Proposed Action, the U.S. Navy would engage in a construction project to modify Pier 160, 

Flume Bridge, Building 9, and Building 68, all of which are located on Navy property. It is estimated that 

the proposed modifications would require two to six months to complete, potentially beginning in 

December of 2013. 

The construction project may bring some small and temporary amount of new economic activity to the 

local construction sector. Potential impacts to local housing supply, population, demand for housing, and 

public services were also examined. 

With regard to environmental justice, Shelter Island (adjacent to the project site) has a low-income 

population area, defined as Census Block Groups where 20 percent or more of the population has income 

below the poverty line (U.S. Census 2010). There are no minority population areas within four miles of 

the proposed project site (defined as Census Block Groups where 50% or more of the population is either 

Black or African-American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian, American Indian or Native Alaskan, Native 

Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander). 

3.11.3.2 Proposed Action 

The proposed project construction would occur entirely on Navy property, requiring no property 

acquisition. The scope and intensity of future operations would be similar to current operations. With the 

exception of a crane operator if the temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating boat dock options are 

implemented, no additional employees would be required to meet operational needs. Due to the limited 

timeframe for construction and scale of the proposed construction, impacts to the local economy and local 

labor pool would be negligible. The Proposed Action would not involve a change in housing supply, 

population, demand for housing, or public services. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action 

would not result in significant impacts to socioeconomics. 

There would be no disproportionately high environmental or health impacts on low-income or minority 

populations. In addition, no residential areas would be disproportionally affected by noise, traffic, or other 

impacts. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts with 

respect to environmental justice. 

3.11.3.3 No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, existing conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no 

impact to socioeconomics and environmental justice. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

4-1 

CHAPTER 4

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

Federal regulations and Navy Procedures for Implementing NEPA require that the cumulative impacts of 

a Proposed Action be assessed. CEQ regulations define cumulative impacts as: 

The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 

what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 

1507). 

To analyze cumulative impacts, the following must be considered: 

1. The area in which the effects of the proposed project will be felt; 

2. The impacts that are expected in the area from the proposed project; 

3. Other actions past, present, and reasonably foreseeable that have had or are expected to have 

impacts in the same area; 

4. The impacts or expected impacts from these other actions; and 

5. The overall impact that can be expected if the individual impacts are allowed to accumulate. 

The primary impacts of the Proposed Action are associated with construction, which would not occur 

until the fall of 2013 or the spring of 2014. The area of project effects, where cumulative impacts may 

occur is relatively small and includes Pier 160 and the adjacent area of NBPL and northern San Diego 

Bay. The cumulative projects described in Section 4.1 focus on other military projects and a civilian 

project that would occur adjacent to the Proposed Action. The analysis presented in Section 4.2 considers 

additional impacts arising from the impacts of implementing the Proposed Action combined with the 

impacts of the other known past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within this region. 

4.1 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the proposed project are illustrated on 

Figure 4-1.

4.1.1 Past Projects 

4.1.1.1 Upgrades to Magnetic Silencing Facility for Advanced Degaussing Systems MILCON P-135 

(NBPL) 

MILCON Project P-135 upgraded the Magnetic Silencing Facility at NBPL so that it could support newer 

class Pacific Fleet surface ships. Upgrades occurred at pre-existing piers and associated underwater grids, 

vessel mooring system, Anti-terrorism/Force Protection floating barriers, and power supply systems 

(which required the installation of a new on-shore electrical cable distribution system and on-shore 

building demolition, repair, and construction). 

As part of the project, the Navy marine mammals maintained by Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile 

Unit 1 and their floating enclosures were moved to Pier F122, where they were located with other Navy 

marine mammals maintained by Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SSC) Pacific. A new access 

pier was constructed at Pier F122 for the co-located Navy marine mammal facilities. A Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed for this project. Project activities were completed in 2010. 
^ ^

^

^_

^_

^_

^_

^

^_

La

Playa

NAVAL BASE

POINT LOMA -

POINT LOMA

COMPLEX

Zuniga Jetty

Ballast

Point

Shelter Island

Shelter

Island

Yacht

Basin

Cup

Harbor

3 2

6

1

5

7

8

4

Pacific Ocean

San Diego Bay

W Figure 4-1

Locations of Present and Reasonably Foreseeable

Cumulative Projects 

0 0.4 0.8 0.2

Kilometers

0 0.2 0.4 0.8

Miles

PROJECT

LOCATION

CALIFORNIA

MEXICO

PACIFIC OCEAN

Source: Navy, NAVFAC Southwest, and Port of San Diego 2010

Legend

Naval Base Point Loma - Point Loma Complex

Naval Boundary

^_ Proposed Action - LDUUV Shore Infrastructure

^_ Past Project

^ Present Project

^ Reasonably Foreseeable Project

Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Cumulative Projects

1.UCSD Marine Facility Scripps Institution of Oceanography Research Vessel Berthing

2. UCSD Marine Facility Scripps Institution of Oceanography Research Vessel Berthing Pier Replacement

3. P-401 Replace Fuel Storage Tanks and Facilities at NBPL

4. P-151 NBPL Fuel Pier Replacement

5. MILCON P-135 Upgrades to Magnetic Silencing Facility for Advanced Degaussing Systems (NBPL)

6. Pier 5000 Dredging at Naval Base Point Loma

7. MILCON P-118 Pier 5002 Sub Fender Installation (NBPL)

8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project

4-2 Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

4-3 

4.1.1.2 Pier 5002 Sub Fender Installation MILCON P-118 (NBPL) 

MILCON Project P-118 modified Submarine Pier 5002, south of the P-135 project area, at NBPL. It 

allowed mooring of submarines next to the maintenance building. The principal modification was 

removal of deteriorating timber piles and replacement with composite piles with an expected life of 50 

years. Supplemental foam-filled fenders were interspersed between the submarine fenders to 

accommodate surface ships. There was no increase in the pier footprint and no dredging was done. New 

power supply booms routing shore power to moored submarines and extra communications lines were 

installed. A Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) was signed for the project. The project occurred in 2008. 

4.1.1.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

This project included the removal of up to 550,000 cy of beach compatible material from the entrance to 

the San Diego Harbor Federal Channel and discharged the dredged material for beneficial reuse in the 

nearshore zone at Imperial Beach and Coronado Beach. The project was required to maintain federally 

authorized channel configurations, and to restore and ensure safe navigation within the harbor. The Final 

Supplemental EA (USACE 2012) prepared for this project concluded that there would be no significant 

impact to any resource area, and a FONSI was signed on 12 June 2012 (USACE 2012). Maintenance 

dredging began in November 2012 and was completed in December 2012. 

4.1.1.4 Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO)/ University of California San Diego (UCSD) Pier 

Fender Pile Replacement Project 

This project replaced 12 concrete and wood fender piles at the existing Scripps Institution of Ocean 

Oceanography (SIO) University of California San Diego (UCSD) Nimitz Marine Facility Research Vessel 

Berthing Pier and associated wharf on NBPL and UCSD lands adjacent to the north of NBPL 

(Figure 2-5). The 12 fender piles replaced failed or were missing completely, thus the work was 

considered urgently needed, i.e., ahead of the replacement of the entire pier and wharf facility as 

described below in Section 4.1.3.2. At seven designated locations on the pier (Navy lands) and five 

locations on the wharf (UCSD lands), broken piles or visible pile stubs were removed or cut at the 

mudline. The fender piles were replaced in-kind with 14-in square concrete fender piles installed using 

jetting and an impact hammer. The fender pile replacement did not expand the existing pier footprint or 

change its use. Construction for this project began on 5 November 2012 and ended on 13 November 

2012. The total construction time was less than two weeks. UCSD-SIO coordinated all pile-driving 

activities with SSC Pacific such that the Navy’s marine mammals could be observed during construction. 

If any unexpected adverse effects were observed, SSC Pacific was prepared to take preventive actions 

such as moving disturbed individuals. 

4.1.2 Present Projects 

4.1.2.1 Replace Fuel Storage Tanks and Facilities at NBPL (MILCON P-401)

This project consists of modernizing the existing Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP) Point Loma fuel 

storage and distribution facility. All existing bulk fuel storage tanks, both above and underground (and 

their associated pipelines and pumping facilities) are being demolished or closed in place. Eight new 

multi-product, aboveground bulk fuel storage tanks are being constructed to provide a total fuel storage 

capacity of 42 million gallons. New pumping facilities and transfer pipelines are also being constructed, 

as well as new access roads within DFSP Point Loma and new sedimentation basins for stormwater 

management. The construction plan is divided into two phases: construction activities followed by the inplace closure of underground storage tanks. While construction is ongoing, fueling operations will 

continue from underground storage tanks that will be decommissioned when the new tanks are functional. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

4-4 

No significant impacts to any resource area were identified in the EA prepared for this project. Work on 

the P-401 project began in March 2009 and is expected to be completed in January 2014. 

4.1.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Projects 

4.1.3.1 MILCON P-151 NBPL Fuel Pier Replacement Project 

The Navy proposes to demolish the existing Fuel Pier (Pier 180) at NBPL, construct a new enhanced Fuel 

Pier with optimum capability to support current and projected fueling needs of the Navy and Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS), and perform associated dredging. As part of the project, the Navy Marine 

Mammal Program, which is administered by SSC Pacific and includes pens for the mammals inshore of 

Pier 160, would be temporarily relocated to the Naval Mine and Anti-submarine Warfare Center. An EA 

and signed FONSI for the project were completed in August 2013. Project demolition, construction, and 

dredging would occur simultaneously over an approximately four-year period scheduled to start in 

September 2013 and end in January 2017. The project includes the installation of 36- and/or 48-inch steel 

pipe piles by vibratory and impact hammer. 

4.1.3.2 Scripps Institution of Oceanography UCSD Marine Facility Research Vessel Berthing Pier 

Replacement 

This project would replace the existing SIO (UCSD) Nimitz Marine Facility Research Vessel Berthing 

Pier and associated wharf on NBPL and UCSD lands adjacent to the north of NBPL (Figure 2-5). The 

existing pier and wharf that were originally constructed in 1965 replaced and expanded in 1973, would be 

demolished. A new, modern replacement pier and wharf of the same size and configuration would be 

constructed with upgrades including: cold-iron berthing for ships in port; improved lighting for nighttime 

operations; fiber optic lines for telecommunications and data transfer; and modern systems for potable 

water, management of oily water, waste oil, sanitary sewage, and storm water. The Scripps Pier project 

would install 137 24-in diameter concrete piles over the course of a 20-month construction period. Inwater work for this proposed project would also be scheduled to coincide with the temporary relocation of 

the Navy’s MMP that is planned for the proposed MILCON P-151 fuel pier replacement project. 

Dredging would not be required for the Scripps Pier project but design would allow for future dredging 

and expansion. The slope under the Scripps Pier wharf and landward would be stabilized with cement 

deep soil mixing. All concrete and steel debris would be recycled; treated wood waste wood be disposed 

at an appropriately permitted facility. An EA for the project is in process. Construction for this project is 

estimated to begin in the spring of 2014, and be completed in the fall/winter of 2015. 

4.1.3.3 Pier 5000 Dredging at Naval Base Point Loma 

This project involves dredging sediment at NBPL Pier 5000 (located at Submarine Base NBPL about 0.9 

miles south of Pier 160) and off-site sediment disposal. The proposed dredge footprint is adjacent to the 

north side of Pier 5000, starting approximately 800 ft from the shoreline and extending to the end of the 

pier. Dredging would most likely involve a barge-mounted clamshell or backhoe dredge. The NBPL Pier 

5000 Dredging project requires dredging approximately 6,380 cubic yards of sediment. The proposed 

dredging project is very small when taken in comparison with other typical area dredging projects. 

Depending upon the dredging method used, the dredging operation may be complete in as few as three 

days. Therefore, while any dredging at the NBPL Pier 5000 site can be considered relatively intense when 

considered in combination with MILCON P-151, its very short duration and very small size makes it 

relatively insignificant. There is also consideration of rescheduling the project to Fiscal Year 16. The 

project includes two options for sediment disposal: nearshore replenishment (beneficial reuse) or ocean 

disposal. Sediment disposal for this project would adhere to the Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act of 1972; the Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401; and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

4-5 

10 Regulatory Programs. A Draft Environmental Assessment for this project was completed in October 

2012. Construction for this project is estimated to begin and be completed in November 2013. 

4.1.3.4 Construct Mooring Improvements at Pier 160 (RM13-1913)

SSC Pacific proposes to construct a concrete floating dock system to support mooring of small boats at 

Finger C of Pier 160 on NBPL. Finger C is the western most finger of a three finger pier designed to dock 

and moor large boats and ships and consists of 191 ft x 48 ft of standing concrete decking and several 

unused guide piles extending southward from the pier. The proposed modifications would provide two 

gangways down to two floating observation platforms and install 329 ft x 8 ft floating decking running 

parallel to the existing Finger C and 53 ft x 8 ft floating decking running perpendicular to the Finger C to 

enable mooring of approximately eight small boats. The work includes removing two existing 18-inch 

concrete guide piles, reusing 16 existing concrete guide piles, installing 29 new 18-inch concrete guide 

piles, installing 5,350-square feet of floating dock, installing electrical service and lighting to the new 

sections, and relocating a jib crane from Finger-B to Finger-C. Project is a capital improvements special 

project approved for funding in FY14 and currently scheduled for contract award prior to September 30, 

2014. 

4.2 APPROACH TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS

4.2.1 Context and Intensity 

The goal of the cumulative impacts section is the same as the goal of analysis for individual direct and 

indirect impacts. It is to furnish the decision makers with sufficient information to judge whether the 

Proposed Action “significantly affects the human environment” within the meaning of NEPA (40 CFR 

1508.27). Per the CEQ regulations, “significantly” for an impact is a matter of “context” and “intensity” 

of that impact. Context varies with the scale and nature of the action, whereas intensity refers to the level, 

magnitude, volume, or quantity of impact. 

4.2.2 Acute Impacts and Lingering Impacts 

The first distinction to make with regard to a particular impact is the question of whether it is transitory or 

“acute,” or has a lingering effect. For acute impacts to be additive, they must overlap in time. In addition, 

the impacts have to take place in sufficient geographic proximity that one can potentially add to another. 

The less intense an impact is, the closer it has to be before it could contribute to a cumulative impact. 

Unless a cumulative impact is close enough and intense enough to reasonably have the potential to 

significantly align with, magnify, or exacerbate environmental impacts of a Proposed Action, it is 

irrelevant. It is often relevant to use quantitative and/or modeling analysis to analyze acute effects. It is 

important where and when each cumulative action takes place. The environmental resources that fall 

under the acute impact category include: airborne noise; underwater noise; land-based traffic; and water 

quality as related to turbidity. 

To summarize, there are three major factors in determining whether a cumulative project warrants a 

quantitative or modeling approach to determine how it adds to a proposed project’s impact. These are: 

1. Temporal Overlap. If there is no overlap in time, purely acute effects do not add to the proposed 

project, so they need not be quantified. 

2. Geographic Proximity. An acute impact cannot be additive if it is too far away. 

3. Intensity. Intensity modifies the relevance of geographic proximity. The more intense the impact, 

the farther away it can be measured. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

4-6 

In contrast, lingering impacts must be looked at in terms of current impacted baseline conditions and 

current trends for the future. The resources that fall under the lingering impact category include air quality 

and biological resources-habitats and communities. 

It should be noted that hazardous materials are handled by each individual industrial facility around the 

bay, but since each facility is individually permitted and held responsible for such materials and wastes, 

they are not discharged to the environment unless they are mishandled. To analyze scenarios in which 

multiple facilities mishandle materials and wastes would be speculation. 

There are comprehensive regulatory systems now in place that didn’t exist when NEPA was first enacted. 

These regulatory systems are based on the current environmental baselines, reflecting past and present 

impacts, together with future trends and environmentally protective goals. Compliance or non-compliance 

with applicable environmental laws is therefore relevant to the term “significantly (see also 40 CFR 

1508.27(b)(10).” Environmental regulation also offers a source of standards and thresholds that reflect 

environmental baseline conditions and future trends and goals. As a practical matter, concerning air 

quality, this means that the screening criteria for “significance” were derived by adapting regulatory 

thresholds determined by the U.S. EPA. These are thresholds that become smaller and more stringent as 

the level of “nonattainment” of air quality standards in a given air basin becomes more serious. This 

methodology makes primary or direct impact air quality analysis inseparable from cumulative air quality 

analysis. They are the same because screening standards reflect the past, present, and foreseeable future 

impacts and regulatory goals. 

In addition to the laws and regulations, there are studies such as the San Diego Bay INRMP that also help 

with analyzing cumulative impacts. These studies document historical conditions leading up to the current 

baseline that reflects the cumulative impact of past actions. They also document future trends and goals, 

so that the significance of a project’s impacts can be judged in light of those trends and goals. This 

becomes another example, where the primary or direct impact analysis cannot be separated from the 

cumulative impact analysis. There is no other meaningful way to determine significance of impact – 

primary, secondary, or cumulative – than to look at it in the context of the current baseline condition of 

the bay in light of future trends and goals. 

The foregoing should not be taken to say that enumeration and quantification of impacts of individual 

cumulative projects is never appropriate for analyzing lingering impacts in an urban environment. It is 

possible that an individual future project could completely alter the baseline such that it should be 

individually considered. No such projects are presently reasonably foreseeable in the project area. 

It should also be noted that an impact may be both acute and lingering. In-water noise is an example, 

where the impact of the noise disappears completely after the noise is gone. However, noise can 

contribute to a lingering impact, by “take” of a protected animal. 

4.2.3 Quantitative Analysis for Cumulative Impacts 

The first step in the process of considering which of these projects require quantitative analysis for acute 

impacts involved identifying the projects which have a reasonable probability of temporal overlap with 

the Proposed Action. The next factor is proximity – how close geographically are the projects to the 

location of the Proposed Action. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the 

project are illustrated on Figure 4-1. The third factor is intensity or magnitude of the relevant acute 

impacts. To warrant quantitative treatment, an impact must at least have some discreet, measurable 

impacts at the site of the proposed LDUUV infrastructure and have at least some potential to significantly 

align with, magnify, or exacerbate those environmental impacts. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

4-7 

Applying the above factors resulted in the selection of three nearby, concurrent projects for quantitative 

analysis: 

 MILCON P-151 NBPL Fuel Pier Replacement Project 

 MILCON P-401 - Replace Fuel Storage Tanks and Facilities at NBPL 

 Scripps Institution of Oceanography UCSD Marine Facility Research Vessel Berthing Pier 

Replacement 

The estimated periods of construction for these projects partially overlap the estimated period of 

construction timeframe for the Proposed Action (i.e., temporal), they are geographically located in the 

same vicinity (i.e., proximity), and some of the same resource areas would be affected (i.e., resource 

intensity). The remaining projects near the project area (refer to Figure 4-1 and preceding descriptions) 

were not selected to be analyzed quantitatively because their timing, location, and expected resource 

impact intensity does not indicate a potential, in combination with the Proposed Action, to jointly cause 

significant environmental impacts. 

4.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS

4.3.1 Habitats and Communities 

With implementation of the Proposed Action, the effects on habitats and communities would consist of 

temporary underwater noise and sediment disturbance to open water and benthic communities during 

construction. The Scripps Pier replacement project, which does not include dredging that would 

contribute to turbidity, could overlap in time with the Proposed Action and would add incrementally by a 

small amount to areas of marine water column and benthic habitat affected by the Proposed Action. 

However, the combined impacts would still be small in the context of the bay, temporary, and not 

significant in a cumulative sense. The Proposed Action would not impact sensitive habitats such as 

eelgrass, and the proposed modifications to Pier 160 would be small and inconsequential in the context of 

the surrounding bay habitats, resulting in no potential for significant cumulative impacts to these 

resources. 

4.3.2 Fish 

As noted above under approach to analysis, underwater noise falls under the acute impact category. With 

implementation of the Proposed Action, the effects on fish populations and EFH would largely consist of 

small-scale, temporary underwater noise and sediment disturbance during construction. Mortality or 

injury to fish is unlikely because the potential ZOI for fish injury would be only 7-14 m from the pile 

being driven, and fish would most likely move away as soon as pile driving begins. 

The area of potential behavioral disturbance to fish would extend up to 341 m from the source during pile 

driving. This is approximately the distance to the Scripps Pier as well as the Fuel Pier, and these projects 

may occur within the same timeframe. Pile driving for the Scripps project is estimated to have a sound 

source level of 175 dB re 1μPa (Navy 2013), which results in a slightly larger ZOI of 464 m for 

behavioral disturbance. Hence there is some possibility for underwater noise from the two projects to 

combine and increase disturbance to fish, or for fish that move away from one project to then be disturbed 

by the other project. In contrast, the fish disturbance ZOIs for steel pile driving at the MILCON P-151 

Fuel Pier Replacement Project, with sound source levels of 180 dB re 1μPa and 195 dB re 1μPa for 

vibratory and impact driving, respectively, extend farther from the source, completely overlapping those 

of the Proposed Action and the Scripps project with much louder sound pressure levels (Navy 2013). 

Because of the logarithmic nature of sound pressure, adding the sound from the Scripps project and the 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

4-8 

Proposed Action to that of the Fuel Pier project makes little difference. In any case, the affected areas are 

still small, and the combined effect would not be significant. 

4.3.3 Birds 

With implementation of the Proposed Action, birds may be deterred from perching or diving in the 

immediate area of construction due to the presence of people and noise, but given the limited scale of the 

activities and potential disturbance, such effects would not extend beyond Pier 160. Conversely, bird 

activity at Pier 160 is not likely to be affected by the Scripps or Fuel Pier projects, each being several 

hundred meters distant. Finally, there are abundant structures and access to resting and foraging habitat 

along the northern San Diego Bay shoreline, such that birds disturbed at any one location would find 

similar habitats nearby. Therefore, the Proposed Action in conjunction with other projects listed in 

Section 4.1 would not result in significant cumulative impacts to birds. 

4.3.4 Marine Mammals 

The Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in any harassment to marine mammals. As a result, there 

is no potential for a cumulative impact with the other projects. It should also be noted that pile driving 

sound from the MILCON P-151 Fuel Pier Replacement Project is so loud, and the ZOIs so large, that the 

added effect of the Proposed Action would be negligible and the combined effect would not be 

significant. 

4.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The Proposed Action would have no effect on threatened and endangered species, and hence no potential 

for cumulative impacts exists. 

4.3.6 Water Resources 

With implementation of the Proposed Action, acute impacts on water quality would be limited to 

temporary turbidity in the immediate area of each pile as it is driven at Pier 160. Since sediment in the 

project area is known to be sandy, the impact area would be highly localized, and the amount of sediment 

disturbance would be relatively small, the possibility of a combined cumulative effect with the Scripps 

and/or Fuel Pier projects is considered negligible. Therefore, the Proposed Action in conjunction with 

other projects listed in Section 4.1 would not result in significant cumulative impacts to water resources. 

4.3.7 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

There is no hazardous waste associated with the Proposed Action. Hazardous materials consisting of 

oxygen and hydrogen in pressurized tanks, petroleum fuel and lubricants, and lithium batteries would be 

properly managed according to applicable federal and state regulations. No potential for cumulative 

impacts exists. 

4.3.8 Airborne Noise 

With implementation of the Proposed Action, airborne noise levels would be below established limits and 

construction noise would cease upon completion of construction activities. The Proposed Action and most 

of the present and reasonably foreseeable projects would not likely occur at the same time and location; 

except possibly the proposed fuel pier project on NBPL and the Scripps pier. The fuel pier project is 

scheduled to start in August 2013, but pile driving activities would not occur until March 2014. The 

Scripps Pier would not begin until the Spring of 2014. Although the proposed LDUUV project could start 

in December 2013 and last two to six months, cumulative noise impacts with pile driving occurring at the 

same time as the fuel pier and Scripps pier are analyzed in case the schedule of the Proposed Action slips 

to the spring of 2014. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

4-9 

The Scripps Institution of Oceanography Pier Replacement project would be located approximately 400 ft 

from residential areas in the La Playa neighborhood north of NBPL. Assuming similar construction 

activities as the Proposed Action using only one pile driver and little other construction equipment, 

estimated noise levels for cumulative impacts considering the fuel pier, the Scripps Pier, and the Proposed 

Action are shown in Table 4-1 and model results are provided in Appendix C. Noise levels in La Playa 

would be strongly dominated by the noise generated at the Scripps Pier, which alone would generate 

76.2 dBA, and 76.7 dBA when combined with the fuel pier and the Proposed Action. The additional 

0.5 dBA from the Proposed Action and the fuel pier would be virtually unnoticeable and is considered 

negligible. On the other hand, noise levels at the NBPL CDC would be 65.0 dBA cumulatively but would 

be due primarily to the fuel pier project, which by itself would exceed the classroom criteria (Table 4-1). 

Again, the contribution from the Proposed Action is small and considered minor in terms of any 

cumulative impact. The noise levels would not be continuous and it is likely that modern construction 

design and materials used in the CDC building would provide a sufficient sound buffer so that indoor 

noise levels would not exceed the classroom criteria. As noted previously, the noise modeling for the 

Proposed Action is conservative, and with the implementation of noise reduction measures, noise levels 

would, if anything, would be less than predicted. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action 

would contribute a minor additional increment to cumulative noise levels and would not have a 

significant cumulative impact. 

Table 4-1. Cumulative Noise Levels at La Playa and NBPL CDC 

Receptor Point

Distance to 

Proposed 

Action

miles (km)

Distance 

from Fuel 

Pier 

miles (km)

Distance 

from 

Scripps 

Pier 

miles (km)

Construction-Related Noise (dBA Leq)

Proposed

Action 

only

Fuel Pier 

only1

Scripps 

Pier only

Combined 

noise levels

La Playa 0.3(0.5) 0.47 (0.73) 0.07 (0.12) 64.2 62.3 76.2276.72

CDC NBPL 

(Building 377)

0.6(1.0) 0.42 (0.68) 0.68 (1.1) 58.2 63.2359.0 65.03

Notes 1Approach pier construction used for cumulative impacts since it is the highest noise levels relative to La Playa. 

2

 Exceeds City of San Diego construction noise ordinance limit criteria of 75 dBA. 

3

 Exceeds recommended classroom criteria of 60 dBA Leq outdoor noise levels for an interior noise level of 35 dBA with 

windows closed. 

4.3.9 Air Quality 

4.3.9.1 Criteria Pollutants 

As noted above under approach to analysis, air quality falls under the lingering impact category. The ROI

in this air quality cumulative effects analysis includes the San Diego Air Basin. With implementation of 

the Proposed Action, the minor impacts to air quality that could contribute to potential cumulative 

impacts would be from the short term air emissions from trucks and vehicles used during the construction 

of the project. Operational air emissions would be extremely small and would not result in long term 

increases in air emissions. Cumulative projects would also be required to conform to Clean Air Act 

(CAA) conformity requirements and the San Diego Air Basin State Implementation Plan and would not 

produce significant amounts of air emissions. 

Nominal cumulative impacts would result from the Proposed Action, in conjunction with impacts from 

other potentially cumulative projects (listed in Section 4.1). For all projects, construction and operation 

activities would produce air emissions that would be well below applicable CAA conformity significance 

thresholds. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

4-10

4.3.9.2 Greenhouse Gas Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Currently, there are no formally adopted or published NEPA thresholds of significance for GHG 

emissions stemming from proposed actions. Formulating such thresholds is problematic, as it is difficult 

to determine what level of proposed emissions would substantially contribute to global climate change. 

Annual GHG emissions associated with construction of the Proposed Action occurring simultaneously 

with operations associated with implementation of the temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating 

boat dock options represent the maximum possible emissions, presented as CO2e. These emissions are 

compared to U.S. 2011 greenhouse gas emissions in Table 4-2. The estimated CO2e emissions from 

implementing the Proposed Action essentially represent zero percent of the total CO2 emissions generated 

by the United States in 2011. 

Table 4-2. Estimated Annual GHG Emissions from Construction and Operations 

Proposed Action

Metric Tons CO2e

per Year

% of U.S. 2011 GHG 

Emissions

% of California 2010 

GHG Emissions

Maximum Emissions (Construction

+ Operations )

139.09 0.0000 0.0000

1U.S. 2011 Total GHG Emissions 6,708.3 x 106

2,3California 2010 Total GHG 

Emissions

451.60 x 106

1

2

3

U.S. EPA 2013 

CARB 2013 

Does not include Forested Lands Net CO2, not available at this time for 2010 inventory. 

The small quantity of GHG emissions from the maximum emission scenario alone would not cause 

appreciable global warming that would lead to climate changes. At present, no methodology exists that 

would enable estimating the specific impacts (if any) that this increment of emissions would produce 

locally or globally. 

Potentially cumulative projects near the Proposed Action (listed in Section 4.1) could also release a 

nominal amount of GHGs from construction and operation activities when compared to the total annual 

CO2e emissions in the United States. In addition, in response to DoD directives such as EO 13221 Energy 

Efficient Standby Power Devices and EO 13423 Strengthening Federal Environment, Energy, and 

Transportation Management, the Navy has taken a number of steps to reduce GHG emissions from their 

activities. These actions include developing energy efficient technologies and weapons systems, 

improving military and civilian vehicles’ fuel efficiency, utilizing alternative fuel vehicles and electric 

vehicles, improving energy efficiency at Navy facilities, and installing solar and other renewable energy 

sources at Navy facilities. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action, in conjunction with other 

potentially cumulative projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts to GHGs or climate 

change. 

4.3.10 Transportation and Circulation 

As noted above under approach to analysis, transportation and circulation falls under the acute impact 

category. Traffic from present and reasonably foreseeable future projects is included in the Baseline 

condition, which consists of existing traffic volumes, plus an annual traffic growth factor. (Note that the 

traffic generation associated with past projects is included in the existing traffic data collection.) The 

annual traffic growth factor includes traffic generated by each of the present and reasonably foreseeable 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

4-11

future projects described above in Section 4.1, plus traffic generated by projected future projects lying 

outside the ROI, but whose trips would traverse the street network that provides access to the Proposed 

Action. The proposed project construction and operation would not add any additional trips to any street 

segments that are characterized by as having unpredictable or unstable traffic flow under Baseline 

conditions. Accordingly, the proposed project would not contribute toward any significant cumulative 

traffic effect. 

The Navy would coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard to issue a Notice to Mariners when in-water 

components of this project are occurring. All of the in-water construction zone for the proposed fuel pier 

replacement project would be within an existing navigation restricted area (Security Zone) that is offlimits to civilian vessels. Most of the Scripps Pier in-water construction zone is in Navy waters, and it 

would lie within the Security Zone as well. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action, in 

conjunction with other projects listed in Section 4.1, would not result in significant cumulative impacts to 

transportation, circulation, and marine traffic. 

4.3.11 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

As the Proposed Action would have no impact to Socioeconomics or Environmental Justice, there is no 

potential for cumulative impacts. 

4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CONCLUSION

Cumulative impacts to the environmental resource areas evaluated herein from the Proposed Action in 

conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would not be significant. 

4.5 POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE ACTION AND THE OBJECTIVES OF FEDERAL, REGIONAL,

STATE, AND LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS

Implementation of the Proposed Action would be consistent with federal, regional, state and local plans, 

policies, and controls to the extent required by federal law and regulation. No potential conflicts have 

been identified. Table 4-3 provides a summary of environmental compliance with implementation of the 

Proposed Action. 

Table 4-3. Status of Compliance with Relevant Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls

Plans, Policies, and Controls Responsible Agency Status of Compliance

NEPA (42 USC § 4321 et seq.)

Department of the Navy Procedures 

for Implementing NEPA (32 CFR 

775)

U.S. Navy This EA has been prepared in accordance with the CEQ Regulations 

implementing NEPA and U.S. Navy NEPA procedures. 

Coastal Zone Management Act (16 

CFR § 1451 et seq.) U.S. Navy

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (16 USC Section 1451) 

encourages coastal states to be proactive in managing coastal zone uses and 

resources. CZMA established a voluntary coastal planning program and 

participating states submit a Coastal Management Plan to the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration for approval. Under the CZMA, federal agency 

actions within or outside the coastal zone that 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. 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 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

4-12

Table 4-3. Status of Compliance with Relevant Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls

Plans, Policies, and Controls Responsible Agency Status of Compliance

which is held in trust by the Federal government (16 USC 1453). Accordingly, 

although Naval Base Point Loma land is federal government property and 

therefore, excluded from the coastal zone, the Navy nonetheless conducted an 

effects analysis as part of its determination of the action's effects 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. A Coastal Consistency 

Negative Determination was prepared and submitted to the California Coastal 

Commission, and the Commission concurred with the Navy’s determination

(Appendix D, Public Involvement and Agency Correspondence).

CWA (§§ 401-402 and 404, 33 USC § 

1251 et seq.)

USEPA, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers 

(USACE)

The installation of piles requires a permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers 

and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.). No dredge or fill is required, and per 

USACE (33 CFR 323.3(c)), pilings do not normally constitute fill. Therefore, a 

Section 404 permit requirement is not anticipated but could be accommodated 

through the same process if necessary, in which case a Section 401 Water 

Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board 

(RWQCB) would also be required. The Los Angeles District of USACE 

Carlsbad Field Office regulatory branch has advised that the project qualifies for 

a non-notification nationwide permit (#9) and due to Regional General 

Condition 3, a pre-construction notification (PCN) is required. The PCN was 

submitted in September 2013 and confirmation of receipt by the USACE was 

received. Nationwide Permit #9 is pre-certified by the RWQCB and notification 

of use was provided in September 2013. 

CAA, as amended (42 USC § 

7401 et seq.) USEPA

Per CAA regulations, the Proposed Action would not compromise air quality 

attainment status or conflict with attainment status and maintenance goals 

established in the SDCAPCD SIP. A formal CAA conformity determination is 

not required. The Proposed Action would be in compliance with the CAA and 

would comply with all applicable SDCAPCD Rules and Regulations. 

ESA (16 USC § 1531) NMFS/USFWS

The Navy has concluded that the Proposed Action may affect but is not likely to 

adversely affect the ESA-listed green sea turtle, and consulted informally with 

NMFS regarding that conclusion, receiving NMFS’ concurrence (Appendix D). 

Consultation is not required for other ESA-listed species, which would not be 

affected.

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

of 1972 (16 USC § 1361-1407) NMFS Harassment of marine mammals under the MMPA would not occur; therefore, no action is required. 

EO 12898, Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations (59 Federal 

Register 7629)

U.S. Navy

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 (62 Federal 

Register 19885)

U.S. Navy The Proposed Action poses no environmental risks to children and is, therefore, 

in compliance with EO 13045.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Act 16 U.S.C § 1801, et. Seq. as 

amended by the Sustainable 

Fisheries Act of (Public Law 104-

267)

NMFS

The Proposed Action would have only minimal and temporary effects within a 

very small area of EFH for federally managed fish species within the Coastal 

Pelagic Species and West Coast Groundfish FMPs. In conjunction with the 

NEPA process, the Navy prepared an EFH Assessment as part of Section 3.2 of 

this EA, and consulted informally with NMFS. NMFS concurred with the 

assessment, and, therefore, the Proposed Action is in compliance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

4-13

Table 4-3. Status of Compliance with Relevant Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls

Plans, Policies, and Controls Responsible Agency Status of Compliance

EO 13186, Responsibilities of 

Federal Agencies to Protect 

Migratory Birds (66 Federal 

Register 3853)

U.S. Navy The Proposed Action would not have a measurable negative effect on migratory 

bird populations and would be in compliance with EO 13186.

NHPA (Section 106, 16 USC 470 

et seq.)

Advisory Council in 

Historic Preservation, 

California State Historic 

Preservation Office

The Proposed Action would have no effect on NRHP or eligible properties. The 

action would not affect any known archaeological sites or other known cultural 

resources at NBPL, as none are found within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) 

at, as defined under the Navy Region Southwest (NRSW) Metro San Diego 

Programmatic Agreement (PA). The Proposed Action does not entail excavation 

and therefore has no potential to impact previously undiscovered buried cultural 

resources.

Therefore, the Proposed Action would be in compliance with the NHPA.

4.6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Resources that are irreversibly or irretrievably committed to a project are those that are used on a longterm or permanent basis. This includes the use of non-renewable resources such as metal and fuel, and 

other natural or cultural resources. These resources are irretrievable in that they would be used for this 

project when they could have been used for other purposes. Human labor is also considered an 

irretrievable resource. Another impact that falls under this category is the unavoidable destruction of 

natural resources that could limit the range of potential uses of that particular environment. 

Although proposed construction activities would result in the consumption of fuel, concrete and steel, the 

Proposed Action would not result in a significant irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources at 

NBPL. 

4.7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 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 a single development 

option reduces future flexibility in pursuing other options, or that giving over a parcel of land or other 

resource to a certain use often eliminates the possibility of other uses being performed at that site. 

The Proposed Action would, reversibly, dedicate an area of land, equipment, and other resources to a 

particular use during a limited period of time. These resources would not be available for other productive 

uses throughout the duration of the project. However, these impacts are considered negligible, as the 

facilities and geographic areas associated with the Proposed Action are designated for and have 

historically accommodated the types of uses proposed. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in 

any impacts that would reduce environmental productivity or permanently narrow the range of beneficial 

uses of the environment. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

5-1 

CHAPTER 5

AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONTACTED

Agencies 

California Coastal Commission (CCC), San Francisco: Mark Delaplaine 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Southwest Region (Long Beach): Eric Chavez, Dan Lawson, 

and Rodney McInnis 

Army Corp of Engineers, Carlsbad Field Office for Los Angles District: Robert Smith 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

6-1 

CHAPTER 6

LIST OF PREPARERS

Project Oversight: SPAWAR/SSC 

Jerry Olen, Program Manager, Environmental Readiness in Acquisition and RDT&E

Deborah McKay, Community Planner, Facility Planning Branch

Navy Reviewers 

Sherry Ashbaugh, Facilities Planner, SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific

John Boehme, Safety, SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific

Rob Chichester, NBPL Installation Environmental Program Director, NAVFAC Southwest

LCDR Heather Henderson, Environmental Counsel, Navy Region Southwest

John Holt, LDUUV Project Engineer, SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific

Connie Moen, N45 NEPA Coordinator, NAVFAC Southwest

Todd Pickering, Engineer, SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific

LCDR Gretchen Sosbee, Environmental Counsel, Region Legal Service Office Southwest

Suzanne Smith, N40 NEPA Coordinator, Navy Region Southwest

David Sproul, Cultural Resources Historian, NAVFAC Southwest

Chris Stathos, Fleet Environmental Coordinator, Navy Region Southwest

Walter Wilson, Biologist, Navy Region Southwest

Document Preparation: Cardno TEC 

Project Management and Quality Assurance 

Mike Dungan, Project Manager, 32 years’ experience 

Ph.D., Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 

Carol Wirth, Project Director, 20 years’ experience 

B.S., Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 

Christopher Noddings, Deputy Project Manager, 7 years’ experience 

M.S., Environmental Science and Management 

Technical Analysts 

Selena Buoni, Environmental Planner/Analyst, 8 years’ experience 

M.Pl., Urban and Regional Planning 

Kimberly Wilson, Publications Specialist, 26 years’ experience 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

6-2 

Jason Harshman, Geographic Information Systems, 6 years’ experience 

B.A., Geography 

James Campe, Airborne Noise, 24 years’ experience

B.S., Naval Architecture and Offshore Engineering 

Mary Nishimoto, Fish, 16 years’ experience 

Ph.D., Marine Science 

Lesley Hamilton, Air Quality, 24 years’ experience 

B.A., Chemistry 

Ellen Graap Loth, Hazardous Materials, 24 years’ experience 

B.S., Natural Resources

Valorie Thompson (Scientific Research Associates, San Diego), Air Quality, 21 years’ experience 

Ph.D., Chemical Engineering 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

7-1 

CHAPTER 7

REFERENCES

Allen, L.G., A.M. Findlay, and C.M. Phalen. 2002. Structure and Standing Stock of the Fish Assemblages 

of San Diego Bay, California from 1994-1999. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of 

Sciences 101:49-85.

Allen, L. G. and D.J. Pondella II. 2006. Surf zone, coastal pelagic zone, and harbors. Pages 149-166 in 

Allen, L.G., D.J. Pondella II, and M.H. Horn (eds.). The ecology of marine fishes, California and 

adjacent waters. University of California Press. 

AMEC Earth & Environmental Inc. (AMEC) 2008. Water quality Monitoring Report P-440 Pier 8 

Reconstruction and Pier 14 Demolition Project, Naval Base San Diego. March. 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 2002. Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design 

Requirements, and Guidelines for Schools. Vol. S12.60-2002. 

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013. Fisheries-Hydroacoustics at 

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/bio/fisheries_bioacoustics.htm. Accessed 1 April 2013. 

CARB. 2007a. OFFROAD Model. 

CARB. 2011b. EMFAC2011 Model. September.

CARB 2012. California Ambient Air Quality Standards. 7 June 2012. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed 26 April 2013. 

CARB. 2013. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data - 2000 to 2010. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_00-10_2013-02-

19.pdf. Accessed 30 April 2013. 

City of San Diego 2007. Draft General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report. Noise. 

September. Website accessed 27 December 2010. 

http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pier.shtml Accessed 27 December 2010. 

Chadwick, B. J. et. al. 1999. Sediment Quality Characterization Naval Station San Diego Final Summary 

Report. Technical Report 1777. Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Center San 

Diego. January. 

City of San Diego. 2010. San Diego Municipal Code. Chapter 5, Public Safety, Morals and Welfare, 

Article 9.5 Noise Abatement and Control, Section 59.5.0404 Construction Noise. Website 

accessed 27 December 2010. 

http://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter05/Ch05Art9.5Division04.pdf . 

County of San Diego 2008. Compliance Inspection Report USN-NAVSUP FLC (DFSP) Point Loma Fuel 

Farm. 2 December. 

DELMAG. 2012. Pile Driving Hammer Specifications, http://www.hammersteel.com/delmag-dieselhammers.html. Accessed April 30. 

Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN). 1980. Guidelines for Considering Noise in 

Land Use Planning and Control. June. 

Fisheries Hydroacoustics Working Group. 2008. Memorandum: Agreement in Principle for Interim 

Criteria for Injury to Fish from Pile Driving Activities. Signed by NOAA’s Fisheries Northwest 

and Southwest Regions, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions 1 & 8, 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

7-2 

California/Washington/Oregon Departments of Transportation, California Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration. Available online at 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/4019ED62-B403-489C-AF05-

5F4713D663C9/0/BA_InterimCriteriaAgree.pdf. 

Halverson, M.B., B.M. Casper, C.M. Woodley, T.J. Carlson, and A.N. Popper. 2011. Predicting and 

mitigating hydroacoustic impacts on fish from pile installations. NCHRP Research Results Digest 

363, Project 25-28, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research 

Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Online at 

http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/166159.aspx. 

Hastings, M.C., and A.N. Popper. 2005. Effects of Sound on Fish. Report prepared by Jones and Stokes 

for California Department of Transportation, Contract No. 43A0139, Task Order 1. 

Largier, John L. 1995. San Diego Bay Circulation, a Study of the Circulation of Water in San Diego Bay 

for the Purpose of Assessing, Monitoring and Managing the Transport and Potential 

Accumulation of Pollutants and Sediment in San Diego Bay. Final Report July 1, 1995. Scripps 

Institution of Oceanography Technical Report. http://repositories.cdlib.org/sio/techreport/8

Lazarus H. 1990. New Methods for Describing and Assessing Direct Speech Communication Under 

Disturbing Conditions, Environment International, 16: 373-392.

Merkel & Associates, Inc. 1999. Wharf Shading Impact Study Preliminary Investigations San Diego Bay 

California. September 1999. 

Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2008. Marine Mammals Surveys in the Vicinity of the Point Loma Naval 

Complex, San Diego, California. Final Report. Prepared for NAVFAC SW. September. 

Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2009. 2008 San Diego Bay Eelgrass Inventory and Bathymetry Update. 

January. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Caulerpa Control Protocol version 4- February 25, 

2008. Available online at: http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/caulerpa/ccp.pdf. 

NAVFAC (Naval Facilities). 2006. Department of the Navy Southwest – Renewable Energy and 

Distributed Generation Projects. 

NAVFAC. 2009. Integrated Contingency Plan For Oil And Hazardous Substance Spill Prevention And 

Response at Naval Base Point Loma. Brian Y. Quil, P.E. Engineering Service Center. Site 

Specific Report SSR-3422-ENV. November. 

NAVFAC Southwest. 1994. Waterbird Survey: North and Central San Diego Bay, 1993. Project No. 

211601000. May 20. 

NAVFAC Southwest. 2000. San Diego Bay Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, and San 

Diego Unified Port District. San Diego, CA. September. 

NAVFAC Southwest. 2004. Navy. Memorandum of Understanding Between U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the U.S. Navy Concerning Conservation of the Endangered California Least Tern in 

San Diego Bay, California, 2004. 

NAVFAC Southwest. 2009. Storm Water Management Plan Update for Naval Base Point Loma Volume 

3 of 5. Fleet Industrial Supply Center Point Loma California. October. 

NAVFAC Southwest. 2010. Characterization of Essential Fish Habitat in San Diego Bay. PHASE II: 

Qualitative Habitat Characterization and Mapping Report. Coastal IPT. Prepared by Merkel & 

Associates, Inc. September. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

7-3 

NAVFAC Southwest and Port of San Diego. 2013. San Diego Bay Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan, Final March 2013. San Diego, California. Prepared by Tierra Data Inc., 

Escondido, California. Available online at: http://www.portofsandiego.org/environment/naturalresources/312-natural-resources-management-plan.html. 

Navy Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). 2004. Technical Manual (TM) S9310-AQ-SAF-010, First 

Revision, Technical Manual for Batteries, Navy Lithium Safety Program Responsibilities and 

Procedures. 19 August. Available online at: 

http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/Documents/afloat/Surface/CS/LithBattSafe.pdf. 

NAVSEA and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. Technical Development 

Document for Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces. 

EPA 821-R-99-001. April. 

Navy. 2007. Final Environmental Assessment (MILCON P-401) Replace Fuel Storage Tanks and 

Facilities, Naval Base Point Loma, San Diego, California. November. 

Navy. 2010a. Personal communications via telephone and emails with S. Frey, NAVSUP FLC (DFSP) 

San Diego, Fuels Director, regarding the physical facilities, procedures, and operations at the 

existing fuel pier, the proposed replacement fuel pier and the P-401 construction project 

September-December. 

Navy. 2012. Naval Base Point Loma Fuel Pier Replacement and Dredging (MILCON P-151/DESC1306) 

Environmental Assessment. San Diego, California. October. 

NOAA. 2012. Office of Coast Survey. Chart 18773 San Diego Bay. Edition 42. Edition Dated January 

2011. http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/18773.shtml. Website accessed 4 April. 

NRSW (Commander Navy Region SW). 2003. Programmatic Agreement among the Commander Navy 

Region SW, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the California State Historic 

Preservation Officer regarding Navy Region SW Undertakings within the San Diego 

Metropolitan Area, California. 03 February. Extended February 2013. 

NRSW. 2007. Navy Region Southwest Waste Management Plan San Diego Metro Area. 25 January. 

ONR (Office of Naval Research). 2013. Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Fact Sheet. 

Online at http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Fact-Sheets/Large-DisplacementUnmanned-Undersea-Vehicle.aspx. Accessed 27 March. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 1998a. Essential Fish Habitat Coastal Pelagic Species. 

Modified from: Coastal Pelagics Species Fishery Management Plan [Amendment 8 to the 

Northern Anchovy Fishery Management Plan]; Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, 

OR.

PFMC. 1998b. The Coast Pelagic Fishery Management Plan. Pacific Management Fishery Council. 2130 

SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, Oregon. http://www.pcouncil.org/cps/cpsfmp.html 

PFMC. 2011. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon and 

Washington Groundfish Fishery, PFMC, Portland, OR. July. Available online at 

http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/fishery-management-plan/. 

Popper, A.N. and M. C. Hastings. 2009. The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. Journal 

of Fish Biology. 75:455-488. 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

7-4 

Port of San Diego. 2007. State of the Bay. January. 

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 1994. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego 

Basin (Basin Plan). 8 September. Website accessed 17 January 2011. 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/index.shtml

RWQCB. San Diego Region. 2002. Order No. R9-2002-0002. Waste Discharge Requirements for U.S. 

Navy Naval Base Point Loma San Diego County. 11 September. Website accessed 16 January 

2011. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/sandiego/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders2002.shtml 

Richter, K. E. 2012. Turtle Data for San Diego Bay – MILCON P-151 Fuel Pier Replacement. March 24. 

San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD). 2012. Rules and Regulations. 

http://www.sdapcd.org/rules/current_rules.html

Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) and U.S. Department of the Navy. 2013. Draft Environmental 

Assessment and Initial Study for the SIO/UCSD MARFAC Berthing Wharf And Pier 

Replacement. April. UCSD Project Number: 963990/4425. Available online at: 

http://physicalplanning.ucsd.edu/environmental/MarFac/MarFac_EA_04.03.13.pdf. 

Sproul, D. 2013. NAVFAC Southwest historian. Personal communication via email with Deborah McKay 

regarding cultural resources and the Proposed Action. 31 May. 

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2005. California Ocean Plan. Water Quality Control 

Plan Ocean Waters of California. January. 

Tierra Data, Inc. 2010. Characterizing the Spatial and Temporal Variation in Turbidity and Physical 

Water Quality Characteristics in San Diego Bay - A Study to Determine a Cost-Efficient Strategy 

for Longterm Monitoring. A Project for: Environmental Projects to Benefit San Diego Bay San 

Diego Unified Port District Environmental Services Department Final Report. March. Website 

accessed 21 January 2011. http://www.portofsandiego.org/environment/projects-a-progressreports.html 

Tierra Data, Inc. 2011. San Diego Bay Avian Species Surveys, 2009-2010. Final, May. Prepared for 

Naval Base Coronado and San Diego Unified Port District. 

Tierra Data, Inc. 2012. Characterizing the Spatial and Temporal Variation of Key Physical Water Quality 

Parameters in San Diego Bay: The Importance of Continuous Baseline Data when Evaluating 

Physical, Biological, and Chemical Processes. Draft Final Report. February. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1990. Regulatory Guidance Letter 90-08. Subject: 

Applicability of Section 404 to Pilings. 

USACE. 2012. San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project, San Diego County, California. Final 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment. June. Available online at: 

http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Portals/17/docs/publicnotices/SDHarborDredge_FinalSEA_6-21-

12.pdf. 

U.S. Census. 2010. Decennial Census 2000. Summary File 1. Available online at: 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t. Accessed: 2 May. 

United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model 

(RCNM), Software Version 1.1. December 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific December 2013

7-5 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1974. Information on Levels of 

Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health. and Welfare with an Adequate Margin 

of Safety. Report Number 550/9-74-004. March. 

USEPA. 2001. Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. 

Federal Register 66:17230-17273. 

USEPA. 2007. Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. 

Federal Register 72:8428-8570. 

USEPA. 2009. Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories, 

Final report. April. 

USEPA 2010. Revisions to the General Conformity Regulations. Federal Register 75: FR 17254:17279.

USEPA 2012 National Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Accessed 26 

April 2013. 

USEPA. 2013. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011. 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html. Accessed 30 April 

2013. 

Vantuna Research Group. 2006. Fisheries Inventory and Utilization of San Diego Bay, San Diego, 

California for Surveys Conducted in April and July 2005. Moore Laboratory of Zoology. 

Occidental College. February. 103 pp. 

Vantuna Research Group. 2009. Fisheries Inventory and Utilization of San Diego Bay, San Diego, 

California for Surveys Conducted in April and July 2008. Moore Laboratory of Zoology. 

Occidental College. February. 74 pp. 
Appendix A 

Record of Non-Applicability for Clean Air Act Conformity 

(RONA) and Air Quality Data 
A-1 

RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY (RONA) 

FOR CLEAN AIR ACT CONFORMITY 

SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN 

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), and published revisions in the 5 April 2010 Federal 

Register (40 CFR 51 and 93) . The U.S. Navy published Navy Guidance for Compliance with the

Clean Air Act Conformity Rule, 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 93.150).

Federal actions may be exempt from conformity determinations if they do not exceed designated de 

minimis levels for criteria pollutants (40 CFR 93.153). 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 the San Diego Air Basin

Criteria Pollutant De minimis Level (tons/year)

 Carbon Monoxide (CO)

 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

 100

 100

 100
A-2 

PROPOSED ACTION 

Action Proponent: U.S. Navy 

Location: SSC Pacific, Naval Base Point Loma 

Proposed Action Name: Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific 

Proposed Action and Emissions Summary: The Proposed Action would involve locating the 

LDUUV test program at Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SSC) Pacific’s bayside 

compound, San Diego, California. SSC Pacific is part of the Naval Base Point Loma (NBPL) 

Complex, located on the Point Loma peninsula and adjacent to northern San Diego bay. To 

accommodate the LDUUV test program, SSC Pacific facilities that are proposed to be modified 

include Pier 160, the Flume Bridge on Front Street, and Buildings 9 and 68. The proposed 

modifications include: 1) the installation and use of boat lifts, travel hoist tracks, and installation of 

compressors and compressed gas storage at Pier 160; 2) internal modifications to Building 9 to 

enable it to serve as the LDUUV Maintenance and Integration facility; 3) reducing the grade over the 

Flume Bridge on Front Street to avoid the LDUUV transport trailer bottoming out in transit and to 

meet the travel hoist grade requirements transiting from the pier to building 9; and 4) minor 

modifications to Building 68 to accommodate a function relocated from Building 9. 

Operational emissions under the Proposed Action are limited to (1) delivery trucks switching out gas 

cylinders monthly at Pier 160, (2) transport of LUUDVs approximately 1/5 mile from Building 9 to 

Pier 160 twice monthly, (3) operation of a Conolift for transport of LUUDVs up to 4 hours per day 

and 3 days per week, (4) operation of two 150-HP outboard motors associated with a pin barge that 

could be operated up to 8 hours per day for 6 times per month, and (3) operation of three rigid-hulled 

inflatable boats during LUUDV in-water testing, which would involve running the boats for 

approximately eight hours twice monthly. Operations are anticipated to involve one RHIB craft for 

eight hours, six times a month. 

To accommodate immediate LDUUV program testing needs, the Proposed Action also includes 

temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating boat dock options until they are no longer required. If 

implemented, a truck crane would be used to move one RHIB and LDUUV between the water and 

the floating boat dock or barge, and from the floating boat dock or barge to topside of the pier at Pier 

160 or the Main Base piers (North, Middle, and South). This operation is conservatively assumed to 

require approximately one hour for movement of the two craft for access to the water, and one hour 

for removal at the conclusion of the operation. Based on this assumption, the crane would operate 

approximately 12 hours per month. For the purposes of the air quality analysis, a 250-horsepower 

crane was selected for this activity. The truck crane is assumed to travel from and return to a location 

in the San Diego area to perform the activity six days per month; each roundtrip is conservatively 

assumed to be 60 miles. 
A-3 

Air Emissions Summary: The Proposed Action would result in air emissions from construction and 

operation activities. The maximum possible emissions that would be generated would occur if the 

temporary shelter, transport, and barge/floating boat dock options were implemented, in which case 

all proposed construction and operations would occur within the same year. Therefore, this scenario 

is used to evaluate conformity. Annual operation emissions were calculated for 2014, although 

actual project emissions are expected to be lower than the calculated emissions as newer, more 

efficient vehicles would replace older vehicles over time. Based on the air quality analysis for the 

proposed action, the maximum estimated emissions would be below conformity de minimis levels 

(Table 2). 

Table 2 

Estimated Total Net Project Emissions - Tons per Year

Calendar Year (CY) Pollutant

CO VOC NOx 

Construction + Operations 1.01 0.09 1.45 

General Conformity De 

minimis Thresholds (Tons per 

year) 

100 100 100 

Exceed threshold? No No No 

Exceed threshold? No No No 

Date RONA prepared: 25 November 2013 

EMISSIONS EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION 

The Navy concludes that de minimis thresholds for applicable criteria pollutants would not be 

exceeded as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action. The emissions data supporting that 

conclusion is shown in Table 2 above, which is a summary of the calculations, methodology, data, 

and references included in the attachment to the RONA. Therefore, the Navy concludes that further 

formal Conformity Determination procedures are not required, resulting in this Record of NonApplicability. 

RONA APPROVAL

Date:______________________________ 

Signature:______________________________________________ 

 Robert A. Chichester, NBPL IEPD 

 

CHICHESTER.ROBERT.ALLEN.1096687210

Digitally signed by CHICHESTER.ROBERT.ALLEN.1096687210 

DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USN, 

cn=CHICHESTER.ROBERT.ALLEN.1096687210 

Date: 2013.11.29 08:46:24 -08'00'
Construction

TAB A. CONSTRUCTION/RENOVATION AIR EMISSIONS

Table 1. Pier 160 Modification 

VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O

Barge Crane - 150 T 168 250 0.41 0.104 0.295 0.995 0.001 0.035 0.034 112.159 0.009 0.095 17.48 49.52 167.12 0.21 5.90 5.72 18843 1.58 15.88

Delmag Hammer 168 36 0.50 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.02 0.02 27.99 0.01 0.03 14.14 46.03 45.49 0.06 3.83 3.72 4702 1.28 4.32

Marine Equipment VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O

Tugboat 112 75 0.85 0.27 5.00 6.80 0.006 0.30 0.29 690.00 0.09 0.02 4.25 78.71 107.04 0.09 4.72 4.58 10861 1.42 0.31

Miles 

per

# Trips Day VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O

Delivery Truck 15 30 450 0.0024 0.0059 0.0287 0.0001 0.0005 0.0003 0.0093 0.0003 0.0001 1.08 2.68 12.93 0.02 0.21 0.16 4 0.11 0.02

Subtotal (lbs): 36.95 176.93 332.58 0.39 14.66 14.17 34410 4.38 20.54

Tons per Year: 0.018 0.088 0.166 0.000 0.007 0.007 17 0.002 0.010

CO2e in Metric Tons per Year: 19

1

Emission Factors from Offroad 2007, CARB. PM2.5 conservatively estimated to be 97% of PM10.

2

 Emission Factors from Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories, Final Report. USEPA 2009, except PM2.5 from 

Summary of Discussions on Generating Baseyear and Future Year Emission Inventories for Aircraft, Commerical Marine Vessels and Locomotives for IAQR, USEPA 2004.

3

Emission Factors fromEMFAC 2007 HDD

Table 2. Regrade Flume Bridge

VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O

Grader 16 120 0.1254 0.5310 0.7729 0.0009 0.0676 0.0655 74.9648 0.0113 0.0734 2.01 8.50 12.37 0.01 1.08 1.05 1199.44 0.18 1.17

Roller 16 50 0.1025 0.2911 0.2583 0.0003 0.0245 0.0237 25.9831 0.0092 0.0245 1.64 4.66 4.13 0.01 0.39 0.38 415.73 0.15 0.39

Paving Machine 16 120 0.1387 0.5057 0.8357 0.0008 0.0729 0.0707 69.1964 0.0125 0.0794 2.22 8.09 13.37 0.01 1.17 1.13 1107.14 0.20 1.27

Daily 

Trips VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O

Dump Truck 2 60 0.0024 0.0059 0.0287 0.0001 0.0005 0.0003 0.0093 0.0003 0.0001 0.144 0.357 1.724 0.003 0.028 0.021 0.558 0.015 0.003

Subtotal (lbs): 6.01 21.60 31.59 0.04 2.67 2.58 2,722.87 0.54 2.84

Tons per Year: 0.003 0.011 0.016 0.000 0.001 0.001 1.361 0.000 0.001

CO2e in Metric Tons per Year: 1.64

1

Emission Factors from Offroad 2007, CARB. PM2.5 conservatively estimated to be 97% of PM10.

2

 Emission Factors from EMFAC 2007 HDD

Table 3. Interior Modifications to Bldgs 9 and 68

Estimated

Miles 

per

Trips Day VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O

Delivery Truck 30 30 900 0.0024 0.0059 0.0287 0.0001 0.0005 0.0003 0.0093 0.0003 0.0001 2.15 5.35 25.87 0.05 0.42 0.31 8.36 0.23 0.05

Tons per Year: 0.001 0.003 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000

CO2e in Metric Tons per Year: 0.01

1

Emission Factors fromEMFAC 2007 HDD

3

Emission Factors in lb/mi

1

Emission Factors in lb/hr

2

Emission Factors in g/kw-hr

Total Emissions in Pounds

Total Emissions in Pounds

Total Emissions in Pounds

Total Emissions in Pounds

Total Emissions in Pounds

On-road Equipment

Total Total Emissions in Pounds

Miles

Hours of 

Operation

Engine 

Power 

in kW

Load 

Factor

1

Emission Factors in lb/mi

2

Emission Factors in lb/mi

1

Emission Factors in lb/hr

Off-road 

Equipment

Engine 

HP

On-road Equipment

Total 

Miles

Total 

On-road Equipment Miles

Off-road Equipment

Hours of 

Operation

Engine 

HP

Hours of 

Operation

Load 

Factor

A-4
Construction

Table 4. 1Construction Worker Trips

# 

Vehicl

es # Days

Miles 

per day

Running 

Exhaust 

(g/mi)

Start-Up 

(g/start)

HotSoak 

(g/trip)

Resting 

Loss 

(g/hr)

Running 

Evap 

(g/mi)

Diurnal 

Evap 

(g/hr)

Run 

Exhaust 

(g/mi)

Start-Up 

(g/start)

Run 

Exhaust 

(g/mi)

Start-Up 

(g/start)

Run 

Exhaust 

(g/mi)

Start-Up 

(g/start)

Run 

Exhaust 

(g/mi)

Start-Up 

(g/start)

Tire 

Wear 

(g/mi)

Brake 

Wear 

(g/mi)

Pier 160 Modifications 6 21 40 0.080 0.621 0.193 0.024 0.043 0.049 2.851 8.891 0.271 0.429 0.004 0.002 0.004 0.017 0.008 0.013

Regrade Flume Bridge 6 3 40 0.080 0.621 0.193 0.024 0.043 0.049 2.851 8.891 0.271 0.429 0.004 0.002 0.004 0.017 0.008 0.013

Interior Modifications to Bldgs 9 & 688 30 40 0.080 0.621 0.193 0.024 0.043 0.049 2.851 8.891 0.271 0.429 0.004 0.002 0.004 0.017 0.008 0.013

# 

Vehicl

es # Days

Miles 

per day

Run 

Exhaust 

(g/mi)

Start-Up 

(g/start)

Tire 

Wear 

(g/mi)

Brake 

Wear 

(g/mi)

Run 

Exhaust 

(g/mi)

Start-Up 

(g/start)

Run 

Exhaust 

(g/mi)

Start-Up 

(g/start)

Run 

Exhaust 

(g/mi)

Start-Up 

(g/start)

Pier 160 Modifications 6 21 40 0.003 0.016 0.002 0.005 329.567 202.414 0.020 0.035 0.026 0.041

Regrade Flume Bridge 6 3 40 0.003 0.016 0.002 0.005 329.567 202.414 0.020 0.035 0.026 0.041

Interior Modifications to Bldgs 9 & 688 30 40 0.003 0.016 0.002 0.005 329.567 202.414 0.020 0.035 0.026 0.041

1

Emission Factors from EMFAC 2011.

Table 5. Total Construction Worker Trip Emissions

Construction Phase VOCs CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O

Pier 160 Modifications 1.98 36.62 3.25 0.05 0.28 0.12 3774 0.24 0.31

Regrade Flume Bridge 0.28 5.23 0.46 0.01 0.04 0.02 539 0.03 0.04

3.78 69.75 6.20 0.09 0.54 0.24 7189 0.46 0.59

Subtotal (lbs): 6.05 111.60 9.92 0.14 0.86 0.38 11503 0.74 0.94

Tons per Year: 0.003 0.056 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.75 0.000 0.000

CO2e in Metric Tons per Year: 5.36

Table 6. Estimated Total Construction Emissions

VOCs CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2e

0.03 0.16 0.20 0.00 0.01 0.01 25.55

PM10

PM2.5 CO2

Total Emissions in Tons

Construction Phase

VOCs SOx

Total Emissions in Pounds

Construction Phase

Interior Modifications to Bldgs 

9 & 68

CO NOX

CH4 N2O

A-5
Operations

TAB B. OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS

Table 1. LDUUV and Gas Transport 

1

Emission Factors in lb/hr

VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O

Forklift 96 50 0.0445 0.1623 0.1431 0.0002 0.0121 0.01175 14.7 0.0040 0.0136 4.27 15.58 13.74 0.02 1.16 1.13 1409 0.39 1.31

Miles per 2Emission Factors in lb/mi Total Emissions in Pounds

Month VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O

Delivery/Transport 

Truck 31 370 0.002 0.006 0.029 0.00005 0.0005 0.00035 0.0093 2.51E-04 5.29E-05 0.88 2.20 10.62 0.02 0.17 0.13 3 0.09 0.02

Subtotal (lbs): 5.16 17.78 24.36 0.04 1.34 1.26 1,412 0.48 1.32

Tons per Year: 0.003 0.009 0.012 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.706 0.000 0.001

CO2e in Metric Tons per Year: 0.83

1

Emission Factors from Offroad 2007, CARB. PM2.5 conservatively estimated to be 97% of PM10.

2

Emission Factors from EMFAC 2007 HDD

Table 2. Conolift, RHIB, and Pin Barge Operations 

1

Emission Factors in lb/hr

Equipment VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O

Conolift 624 63 0.40 0.10 0.41 0.63 0.001 0.05 0.05 59 0.01 0.06 3.38 13.92 21.42 0.02 1.83 1.77 2020.96 0.30 2.04

2

Emission Factors in g/kw-hr

Equipment VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O

RHIBs 576 75 0.85 0.27 5.00 6.80 0.006 0.30 0.29 690 0.09 0.02 21.86 404.77 550.49 0.49 24.29 23.56 55,858 7.29 1.62

Pin Barge outboard 

motors (2) 1,152 112 0.85 0.27 5.00 6.80 0.006 0.30 0.29 690 0.09 0.02 65.28 1,208.92 1,644.13 1.45 72.53 70.36 166,830 21.76 4.84

Tons per Year: 0.05 0.81 1.11 0.00 0.05 0.05 112.35 0.01 0.00

CO2e in Metric Tons per Year: 103.40

1

For Conolift generator:

soxdsl 0.0015 weight percent of sulfur in diesel (CARB ULS Diesel)

soxcnv 0.02247 fraction of fuel sulfur converted to PM

From Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling - Compression Ignition, USEPA July 2010.

2

 Emission Factors from Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories, Final Report. USEPA 2009, except PM2.5 from 

Summary of Discussions on Generating Base year and Future Year Emission Inventories for Aircraft, Commerical Marine Vessels and Locomotives for IAQR, USEPA 2004.

Hours of 

Operation

Engine 

Power 

in kW

Load 

Factor

Total Emissions in Pounds

Hours of 

Operation

Engine 

Power 

in kW

Load 

Factor

Total Emissions in Pounds

Total Emissions in Pounds

On-road Equipment

Annual 

Miles

Off-road Equipment

Hrs of 

Operation

Engine 

HP

A-6
Operations

Table 3. Crane Operation

1

Emission Factors in lb/hr

VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O

140 T Truck Crane 144 250 0.41 0.104 0.295 0.995 0.001 0.035 0.034 112.159 0.009 0.095 14.98 42.45 143.24 0.18 5.05 4.90 16,151 1.35 13.61

3

Emission Factors in lb/mi

# Trips VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O

Truck movement 

to/from SSC Pacific 72 60 4320 0.0024 0.0059 0.0287 0.0001 0.0005 0.0003 0.0093 0.0003 0.0001 10.34 25.69 124.16 0.23 2.02 1.50 40 1.09 0.23

Tons per Year: 0.013 0.034 0.134 0.000 0.004 0.003 8.096 0.001 0.007

CO2e in Metric Tons per Year: 9.31

Table 4. Estimated Total Operations Emissions

VOCs CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2e

0.06 0.86 1.25 0.00 0.05 0.05 113.54

Table 5. Maximum Possible Annual Emissions: Construction and Operations, Including Crane, Occurring in the Same Year

VOCs CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2e

0.09 1.01 1.45 0.00 0.06 0.06 139.09

For Conolift generator:

soxdsl 0.0015 weight percent of sulfur in diesel (CARB ULS Diesel)

soxcnv 0.02247 fraction of fuel sulfur converted to PM

From Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling - Compression Ignition, USEPA July 2010.

Total Emissions in Tons

Total Emissions in Tons

On-road Equipment

Total 

Miles

Total Emissions in Pounds

Off-road Equipment

Hours of 

Operation

Engine 

HP

Load 

Factor

Total Emissions in Pounds

Miles 

per Day

A-7
Appendix B 

Caulerpa and Eelgrass Survey Report 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific November 2013

B-1 

EFH Survey Report, Paul Wade (certified Caulerpa survey technician) 

30 April 2013 

Max Depth: 30’

Visibility: 15’

Tide: low -0.6 

1030-1130

Divers conducted visual survey between Alpha and Bravo finger on Pier 160 and below Bravo finger 

floating dock. Divers inspected areas for substrate type, vegetation (eelgrass, kelp, and Caulerpa spp.), 

and debris. Substrate was all muddy bottom. No sensitive vegetation species were found. Brown algal 

mats were very sporadically found within the survey area (nothing larger than a 1’ x 2’ area). 

Loose/unattached kelp was wrapped around pier pilings. Debris was found throughout the area with 

nothing larger than 1’ x 2’ except in the northwest corner where grating and a metal structure were 

found (noted on map). 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific November 2013

B-2 
Final EA, Shore Infrastructure for LDUUV Program at SSC Pacific November 2013

B-3 
Appendix C 

Airborne Noise Modeling Data 
Proposed Action La Playa.txt

 Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1Report date: 05/03/2013Case Description: Proposed Action CDC and La Playa **** Receptor #1   Baselines (dBA)Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night----------- -------- ------- ------- -----La Playa - San Antonio Ave Residential 65.0 60.0 55.0  Equipment --------- Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance ShieldingDescription Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------Impact Pile Driver Yes 20 101.3 1600.0 0.0Crane No 16 80.6 1600.0 0.0 Results ------- Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exce ---------------------------------------------- --------------------------- Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening  ---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -----------Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax ---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ---Impact Pile Driver 71.2 64.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Crane 50.4 42.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A  Total 71.2 64.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Page 1

C-1
Proposed Action CDC.txt

 Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1Report date: 05/03/2013Case Description:  ** ** Receptor #2   Baselines (dBA)Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night----------- -------- ------- ------- -----CDC Residential 65.0 60.0 55.0  Equipment --------- Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance ShieldingDescription Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------Impact Pile Driver Yes 20 101.3 3200.0 0.0Crane No 16 80.6 3200.0 0.0 Results ------- Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exce ---------------------------------------------- --------------------------- Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening  ---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -----------Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax ---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ---Impact Pile Driver 65.1 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Crane 44.4 36.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A  Total 65.1 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Page 1

C-2
Cumulative P-151 Scripps.txt

 Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1Report date: 05/02/2013Case Description: Cumulative with Scripps Pier ** ** Receptor #1   Baselines (dBA)Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night----------- -------- ------- ------- -----La Playa Residential 65.0 60.0 55.0  Equipment --------- Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance ShieldingDescription Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------Crane No 16 80.6 400.0 0.0Impact Pile Driver Yes 20 101.3 400.0 0.0Impact Pile Driver Yes 20 101.3 1600.0 0.0Crane No 16 80.6 1600.0 0.0Tug boat No 100 87.0 2470.0 0.0Impact Pile Driver Yes 20 101.3 2470.0 0.0Concrete Batch Plant No 15 83.0 2470.0 0.0Workboat No 40 80.0 2470.0 0.0Hydra Break Ram Yes 10 90.0 2470.0 0.0Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 2470.0 0.0Excavator No 40 80.7 2470.0 0.0Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) Yes 20 90.3 2470.0 0.0All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85.0 2470.0 0.0 Results ------- Noise Limits (dBA) Noise L ---------------------------------------------- ------------------ Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day  ---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- --Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq ---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ --Crane 62.5 54.5 85.0 75.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A None None Impact Pile Driver 83.2 76.2 90.0 75.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A None 1.2 Impact Pile Driver 71.2 64.2 90.0 75.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A None None Crane 50.4 42.5 85.0 75.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A None None Tug boat 53.1 53.1 85.0 75.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A None None Impact Pile Driver 67.4 60.4 90.0 75.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A None None Concrete Batch Plant 49.1 40.9 85.0 75.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A None None Workboat 46.1 42.1 85.0 75.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A None None Hydra Break Ram 56.1 46.1 90.0 75.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A None None Concrete Saw 55.7 48.7 85.0 75.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A None None Excavator 46.8 42.9 85.0 75.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A None None Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 56.4 49.4 90.0 75.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A None None All Other Equipment > 5 HP 51.1 48.1 85.0 75.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A None None  Total 83.2 76.7 85.0 75.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A None 1.7 

Page 1

C-3
Cumulative P-151 Scripps.txt

 ** ** Receptor #2 **** Baselines (dBA)Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night----------- -------- ------- ------- -----CDC (bldg 377) Commercial 65.0 60.0 55.0  Equipment --------- Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance ShieldingDescription Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------Crane No 16 80.6 3600.0 0.0Impact Pile Driver Yes 20 101.3 3600.0 0.0Impact Pile Driver Yes 20 101.3 3200.0 0.0Crane No 16 80.6 3200.0 0.0Tug boat No 100 87.0 2220.0 0.0Impact Pile Driver Yes 20 101.3 2220.0 0.0Concrete Batch Plant No 15 83.0 2220.0 0.0Workboat No 40 80.0 2220.0 0.0Hydra Break Ram Yes 10 90.0 2220.0 0.0Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 2220.0 0.0Excavator No 40 80.7 2220.0 0.0Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) Yes 20 90.3 2220.0 0.0All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85.0 2220.0 0.0 Results ------- Noise Limits (dBA) Noise L ---------------------------------------------- ------------------ Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day  ---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- --Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq ---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ --Crane 43.4 35.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Impact Pile Driver 64.1 57.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Impact Pile Driver 65.1 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Crane 44.4 36.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tug boat 54.1 54.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Impact Pile Driver 68.3 61.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Concrete Batch Plant 50.1 41.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Workboat 47.1 43.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hydra Break Ram 57.1 47.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Concrete Saw 56.6 49.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 47.8 43.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 57.3 50.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Other Equipment > 5 HP 52.1 49.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A  Total 68.3 65.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Page 2

C-4
Appendix D 

Public Involvement and Agency Correspondence
D-1
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

NAVAL BASE POINT LOMA 

140 SYLVESTER ROAD 

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92106-3521 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Attn: Mr. Eric Chavez 

Southwest Regional Office 

501 W. Ocean Blvd, Suite 4213 

Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 

Dear Mr. Chavez: 

5090 

Ser N45/437 

August 8, 2013 

SUBJECT: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT FOR SHORE INFRASTRUCTURE 

MODIFICATIONS TO SUPPORT TESTING AND EVALUATION OF THE 

LARGE DISPLACEMENT UNMANNED UNDERSEA VEHICLE (LDUUV) 

PROGRAM AT SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE (SPAWAR) SYSTEMS CENTER 

PACIFIC 

As required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA), and in compliance with Navy Policy Regarding 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessments and Consultations (March 22, 

2011), the Navy has determined that the proposed Large Displacement 

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV) Infrastructure project on Naval 

Base Point Lorna (NBPL) may adversely affect EFH and hereby requests 

consultation with your office. The enclosed Draft Environmental 

Assessment (EA) contains the Navy's EFH Assessment. The inclusion of 

the EFH Assessment within the EA is appropriate per Navy policy as 

follows: 

"A NEPA document may be submitted for consultation (with all EFH 

Assessment information clearly identified) if an action is likely 

to result in minimal adverse effects on EFH. Minimal adverse 

effects could be those that are limited in duration and that 

allow the affected area to recover before measurable long-term 

impacts to EFH occur, or those that may result in relatively 

small and insignificant changes to EFH and its ecological 

functions." 

Following is a summary of the Navy's EFH Assessment. Please refer 

to the enclosed EA for more details. 

The area of potential effects on EFH is limited to the immediate 

area of SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific's Pier 160 and Pier 159 at NBPL. 

water depths in the project area range from approximately 15 to 25 ft 

below mean lower low water. The project area contains EFH for species 

that are part of two managed fisheries: Coastal Pelagics and Pacific 

Coast Groundfish. Eelgrass, a Habitat Area of Particular Concern, 

occurs roughly 100 feet inshore and 100 ft to the north of the project 

area but has never been detected within the project area in the Navy's 

D-2
5090 

Ser N45/437 

August 8, 2013 

repeated eelgrass surveys of San Diego Bay. A dive survey on April 

30, 2013 (EA, Appendix B) confirms the absence of eelgrass from the 

project site at Pier 160. 

Under the Proposed Action, 64 to 72 16-inch concrete piles would 

be driven with an impact hammer to enable the installation of up to 

five launch and recovery lifts for two LDUUVs and three Rigid Hulled 

Inflatable Boats (RHIBs) alongside Fingers A and Bat Pier 160. Pile 

driving would take 13 to 24 days. As shown in the EA, the launch and 

recovery lifts would be open structures that would not shade the 

bottom. Sediment disturbance and resulting turbidity would be minimal 

as the sediments are sandy. Over time, the concrete piles would 

provide a structural habitat for plants, invertebrates, and fish that 

would not negatively affect, and may enhance, the ecological functions 

of EFH. 

In assessing potential noise impacts from pile driving, we 

estimate a maximum root mean square (RMS) sound pressure level (SPL) 

of 173 decibels (dB) re- 1 pPa at 10m from the source. Assuming 

practical spreading loss (approximately 4.5 dB reduction per doubling 

of distance), sound levels would attenuate to the nominal threshold 

for behavioral effects to fish (150 dB) at a distance of 341 m from 

the source. Assuming a maximum worst case of 1,000 hammer blows in a 

single day, the threshold for a sound exposure level (SEL) that could 

cause injury to small (< 2 grams) fish would not be exceeded more than 

14 m from the source. A cushion block would be used to reduce noise 

generated during pile driving, and piles may be jetted to minimize the 

number of hammer blows required to set each pile. Given sandy bottom 

conditions, sediments disturbed during pile installation would settle 

out of suspension in close proximity to Pier 160. We conclude that 

the effects of pile driving and/or jetting to EFH would be of limited 

scope and duration, and that fish, if disturbed, would immediately 

move back into the affected area following the cessation of pile 

driving. Hence the changes to EFH due to pile driving would be small 

and insignificant. 

The Proposed Action also includes an option to use structures that 

could be rapidly installed, consisting of either: (a) two floating 

boat docks, one for an LDUUV and one for a RHIBi or (b) a single 

floating barge with a single floating boat dock. A crane positioned 

on Pier 160, Pier 159, or on the barge (as applicable) would be used 

to lift and lower the LDUUVs and RHIBs. This option requires no pile 

driving. With this option, the proposed infrastructure described 

above would still be built and pile driving would occur as described 

previously. If implemented, the floating docks and the barge, as 

applic able, would shade the bottom, with a maximum surface area (the 

barge and single floating boat dock option) of 0.19 acre. Given the 

absence of eelgrass and the placement of these components alongside 

Pier 160 or Pier 159, this amount of temporary shading would be 

inconsequential in terms of EFH. 

2 

D-3
5090 

Ser N45/437 

August 8, 2013 

Under the Proposed Action, operational use of the LDUUVs would 

involve transiting the bay at slow speeds with the RHIBs providing 

escort weekly, or as needed. These routine activities would have no 

effect on EFH. LDUUV testing activities otherwise are being analyzed 

in the Hawaii-SOCAL Training and Testing EIS, and the Navy is 

consulting with NMFS on EFH as part of that process. 

Please provide your review of the Navy's EFH Assessment within 30 

days if possible. If you have any questions, please feel free to 

contact Mr. Jerry Olen at 619-553-1443, or via email, 

jerry.olen@navy.mil . 

3 

D-4
From: Olen, Jerry M CIV SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 56470

To: Dungan, Mike

Subject: FW: Navy SPAWAR LDUUV Project

Date: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:32:20 AM

-----Original Message-----

From: Eric Chavez - NOAA Federal [mailto:eric.chavez@noaa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:21 AM

To: Olen, Jerry M CIV SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 56470

Cc: Wilson, Walter L CIV CNRSW, N40

Subject: Re: Navy SPAWAR LDUUV Project

Jerry,

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Analysis and

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Shore Infrastructure Modifications to Support Testing

and Evaluation of the Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (LDUUV) Program at SPAWAR

Systems Center Pacific, San Diego, California. The proposed project would include permanent

modifications to Pier 160, a temporary barge/floating dock option, as well as other land-based

construction activities. Modifications at Pier 160 would include: 1) installing up to five 70,000 pound

capacity launch and recovery lifts between Fingers A and B to raise/lower three 11-meter rigid hulled

inflatable boats (RHIB) and two LDUUVs; 2) installing two tracks for a mobile boat hoist on Finger B of

the pier; 3) installing three floating walkways approximately 50 feet long (a possible fourth U-shaped

walkway, approximately 106 feet long, may be located in the interior of the mobile boat hoist) - all

walkways would be 6 feet wide and be constructed of grated material to reduce shading impacts; 4) up

to 72 16-inch concrete piles would be installed either by jetting and/or a small impact hammer to

support the new structures. These facilities would be used to launch and recover LDUUVs and RHIBs

(weekly or as needed) and to maintain and repair the LDUUVs topside of the pier, but the LDUUVs and

RHIBs would be stored at a facility on land. The temporary barge/floating dock option would include

either two floating boat docks, or a floating, modular barge and a floating boat dock, placed near the

end of Pier 159 or between Fingers B and C of Pier 160. However, based on our Sep. 4th phone call, it

is unlikely that the barge option will be pursued. Any temporary structures would remain in place until

they are no longer needed. 

The proposed project occurs within EFH for various federally managed fish species within the Coastal

Pelagic Species and Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). In addition, the

proposed project occurs within an estuary and in the vicinity of eelgrass habitat, which have been

identified as habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species within

the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP.

Dredging activities would adversely impact EFH through direct burial or removal of organisms, increased

turbidity/siltation, and/or contaminant release. However, the total volume of sediments to be dredged is

low, construction best management practices will be implemented to minimize impacts to sensitive

habitats, and pre-construction (and post-construction, as necessary) surveys in accordance with the

Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Caulerpa Control Protocol will be performed to protect

eelgrass resources and prevent the spread of Caulerpa taxifolia, respectively. Should any eelgrass

mitigation be required, it will be provided from the Navy San Diego Bay Eelgrass Mitigation Bank.

Shading impacts are also being reduced through the use of grated material for walkways. In addition,

with regard to the temporary barge/floating dock option, the Navy has agreed to notify NMFS of the

anticipated timeline for when these structures will be in place and when they are removed. Therefore,

as long as these conservation measures are adhered to, NMFS has determined that any adverse effects

to EFH would be temporary and no more than minimal in nature and has no additional EFH

Conservation Recommendations to provide at this time. Thank you for consulting with NMFS.

Regards,

D-5
Eric

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Olen, Jerry M CIV SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 56470

<Jerry.Olen@navy.mil> wrote:

 Mr. Chavez,

 

 Please see below for accessing the EA online (pdf also attached). I provided this information to

Dan Lawson in your office. I will give you a courtesy call later today with regard to the project.

 

 Thank you,

 Jerry

 

 ------

 

 Mr. Lawson,

 

 

 

 Thanks for the call today with regard to our Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle

(LDUUV) Infrastructure Project and Environmental Assessment (EA). Please find the attached Draft EA.

This version has been released to the public for a 15 day comment period. The website where the EA

can be found is:

 

 

 

 http://www.navyregionsouthwest.com/go/doc/4275/1873878/

<http://www.navyregionsouthwest.com/go/doc/4275/1873878/>

 

 

 

 Please let me know if I can answer any questions for you with regard to our analysis. Also, feel

free to contact me in the future with regard to visiting our facility and seeing the vehicles.

 

 

 

 Best regards,

 

 Jerry Olen

 

 SPAWAR 8.3.5e/56470

 

 Head, Environmental Readiness in Acquisition

 

 Phone: (619) 553-1443 <tel:%28619%29%20553-1443> Cell: (619) 300-3718

<tel:%28619%29%20300-3718>

 

 Email: jerry.olen@navy.mil <mailto:jerry.olen@navy.mil>

 

 

 ________________________________

 

 From: Perdue, Mitchell A CIV NAVFAC SW

 Sent: Wed 8/28/2013 8:35 AM

 To: 'Eric Chavez - NOAA Federal'; Wilson, Walter L CIV CNRSW, N40; Olen, Jerry M CIV

SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 56470

 Subject: RE: Navy SPAWAR LDUUV Project

 

D-6
 

 

 Walt/Jerry - that would be you - I haven't seen the EFH doc - Mp

 

 Mitchell A. Perdue, CRM, DDC

 Senior Biologist

 Deputy Dive Safety Coordinator

 Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest Coastal IPT

 2730 McKean St., Bldg 291 San Diego, CA 92136-5198

 Phone - (619) 556-7594 <tel:%28619%29%20556-7594> FAX - (619) 556-0195

<tel:%28619%29%20556-0195>

 email - mitchell.perdue@navy.mil

 

 

 -----Original Message-----

 From: Eric Chavez - NOAA Federal [mailto:eric.chavez@noaa.gov]

 Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:31 AM

 To: Wilson, Walter L CIV CNRSW, N40; Olen, Jerry M CIV SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 56470

 Cc: Perdue, Mitchell A CIV NAVFAC SW

 Subject: Navy SPAWAR LDUUV Project

 

 Gents,

 

 

 When I returned from the field on Monday, there was a certified letter on my desk regarding the

above project that referenced an enclosed EA and EFH Assessment. Unfortunately, although it appears

like there may have been a cd in the envelope originally, there was no cd in the package I received,

which had already been opened by whoever processed our mail. I've asked around our office and had

no luck locating it so far. Would you mind either providing the EA and EFH Assessment electronically

(email, ftp) or mailing me a new cd? Thanks and my apologies for the inconvenience.

 

 Eric

 

 

 --

 Eric Chavez

 Habitat Conservation Division

 NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service

 

 

 

 

--

Eric Chavez

Habitat Conservation Division

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service

D-7
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

NAVAL BASE POINT LOMA 

140 SYLVESTER ROAO 

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92106-3521 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Attn: Regional Administrator 

Southwest Regional Office 

501 West Ocean Boulevard 

Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 

Dear Mr. Mcinnis: 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

5090 

Ser N45 / 439 

August 8, 2013 

The United States Navy, SSC Pacific requests informal Section 7 

consultation for the Navy's proposed Large Displacement Unmanned 

Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV) Infrastructure project (Project Description 

attached). The project consists of in-water construction and is 

located at SPAWAR Systems Center (SSC) Pacific, Pier 160 on Naval Base 

Point Lorna (NBPL). Pier 160 at sse Pacific is centered at 32.703533, 

-117.235494. The Navy is requesting consultation regarding the 

project's potential to affect the endangered Green Sea Turtle 

(Chelonia mydas). No threatened or endangered species of marine 

mammals are expected to occur in the project action area. 

The proposed project in-water construction would take place over 

the course of two to six months beginning as early as October 2013 and 

would be completed by the spring of 2014 in order to avoid the 

California Least Tern breeding season. Monitoring for sea turtles and 

marine mammals is proposed to ensure the avoidance of impacts to these 

sensitive resources (see below). 

The proposed infrastructure is needed for two LDUUVs which, along 

with three rigid-hulled inflatable boats (RHIBs), are due to arrive in 

late 2013 and early 2014 to begin testing on the SOCAL Range Complex. 

Test activities have been previously planned and are analyzed in the 

current Hawaii-SOCAL Training and Testing (HSTT) Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) . The LDUUV Infrastructure project is needed to enable 

the LDUUVs and RHIBs to dock at Pier 160 and to be transported between 

the pier and Building 9 (See Project Description) for maintenance. 

The Proposed Action would install up to five permanent launch and 

recovery lifts and associated floating walkways alongside Pier 160. A 

total of 64 to 72 16-inch piles would be driven in with an impact 

hammer. By reference to the CalTrans compendium of pile driving sound 

(CalTrans 2012), we estimate that pile driving will generate a maximum 

root mean square (RMS) sound pressure level (SPL) of ~73 decibels (dB) 

re- 1 pPa at 10 m from the source. Assuming practical spreading loss, 

sound levels would attenuate to the nominal threshold for behavioral 

effects (160 dB) at a distance of 74 m from the source. 

The Navy proposes to monitor for Green Sea Turtles (GST) as well 

as marine mammals throughout this potential zone of influence (ZOI), 

and to immediately curtail pile driving if a GST or marine mammal is 

within this distance. If new data or a change in the size of the 

D-8
5090 

Ser N45/439 

August 8, 2013 

piles indicates a different sound source level, the Navy will adjust 

the ZOI monitoring accordingly. With the relatively small zone of 

influence, the Navy is confident of our ability to detect any sea 

turtle or marine mammal that might enter this area and to avoid the 

potential for harassment. 

The Proposed Action also includes an option to use structures that 

could be ~apidly installed, consisting of either two floating boat 

docks, one for an LDUUV and one for a RHIB; or a single barge with a 

single floating boat dock. A crane positioned on Pier 160, Pier 159, 

or on the barge (as applicable) would be used to lift and lower the 

LDUUVs and RHIBs. This option requires no pile driving. However, the 

proposed infrastructure described above would still be built at a 

later time. 

Under the Proposed Action, operational use o·f the LDUUVs would 

involve transiting the bay at slow speeds with the RHIBs providing 

escort weekly, or as needed. Standard operating procedures would be 

applied to avoid interactions with GSTs or marine mammals in San Diego 

Bay. 

The San Diego Bay population of GST includes both year-round and 

seasonal (winter) residents and in recent years has numbered between 

30 and 90 individuals (Eguchi et al. 2010). GSTs in San Diego Bay 

forage in eelgrass beds, consuming a mixed diet of invertebrates, 

eelgrass, and algae (Lemons et al. 2011). Water depths at the pier 

are approximately 15 to 25 feet. There is no historic occurrence of 

eelgrass at the project site, and a dive survey conducted in April 

2013 confirms the absence of eelgrass at Pier 160. 

San Diego Bay's GSTs have historically resided in south San Diego 

Bay, attracted by warm-water discharge from the South Bay Power Plant. 

Mark-recapture studies have shown greater mobility during warm water 

months, suggesting that during winter, cold water in the northern bay 

acted as a barrier to GST movements resulting in their confinement to 

the warm-water area of the south bay. We recognize that with the 

closure of the power plant in 2011 and its recent demolition, the 

seasonal distribution of GST in San Diego Bay may change and that 

other locations with eelgrass or more stable temperature regimes may 

be attractive to GSTs. 

Although no GST have been observed or are expected in the project 

area, findings of the study indicate t~at GST may seasonally move 

through the northern part of San Diego Bay. The possibility of 

seasonal occurrence in the project area is borne out by mark-recapture 

studies conducted by NOAA researchers (Eguchi et al. 2010). The 

likelihood of encountering GSTs during construction is discountable 

and the implementation of avoidance and minimization measure during 

construction will further reduce any potential effects to sea turtles. 

Navy has determined that the proposed project may affect but is 

not likely to adversely affect GST. Pursuant to Section 7 of the 

2 

D-9
5090 

Ser N45/439 

August 8, 2013 

Endangered Species Act we request your concurrence with this 

determination within 30 days. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 619-

553-1443, or via email, jerry.olen@navy.mil. 

3 

D-10
References 

5090 

Ser N45/439 

August 8, 2013 

CalTrans. 2012. Compendium of Pile Driving Sound Data, Updated October 

2012. Appendix I of Technical Guidance for Assessment and 

Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish. 

Available online at 

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/bio/fisheries bioacoustics.htm . 

Eguchi, T., J.A. Seminoff, R .A. LeRoux, P .H . Dutton, D.L. Dutton 

2010. Abundance and survival rates of green turtles in an urban 

environment: coexistence of humans and an endangered species. 

Marine Biology 157:1869-1877. 

Lemons , G., R. Lewison, L. Komoroske, A. Goas, C.T. Lai, P. Dutton, 

T. Eguchi, R. LeRoux , and J . Seminoff. 2011. Trophic ecology of 

green sea turtles in a highly urbanized bay: Insights from stable 

isotopes and mixing models. Journal of Experimental Marine 

Biology and Ecology 405:25-32. 

4 

D-11
D-12
D-13
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-17
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

Commanding Officer 

Naval Base Point Lorna 

Mr. Mark Delaplaine 

California Coastal Commission 

Federal Consistency Supervisor 

45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000 

140 Sylvester Road 

San Diego, California 92106 

San Francisco, California 94105-2219 

Dear Mr. Delaplaine: 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

5090 

Ser N45/438 

August 8, 2013 

SUBJECT: COASTAL CONSISTENCY NEGATIVE DETERMINATION FOR SHORE 

INFRASTRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS TO SUPPORT TESTING AND 

EVALUATION OF THE LARGE DISPLACEMENT UNMANNED UNDERSEA 

VEHICLE (LDUUV) PROGRAM AT SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE (SPAW AR) 

SYSTEMS CENTER PACIFIC 

I am submitting this Coastal Consistency Negative Determination (CCND) for the 

Environmental Assessment for the Shore Infrastructure Modifications to Support Testing and 

Evaluation of the Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (LDUUV). The proposed 

project is needed to support testing and evaluation of the LDUUV. 

This submittal is in compliance with Section 930.35 (d) of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Federal Consistency Regulations (15 CFR 930). The 

Navy has determined that the proposed action would have no effect to coastal resources for the 

reasons identified in enclosure (1). 

I request your concurrence on this proposed project. When completed, please fax letter 

of concurrence to Ms. Suzanne Smith, Fleet NEPA Coordinator, at (619) 532-2283. If you have 

any questions or need further information, please contact Ms. Suzanne Smith at (619) 532-2284. 

Enclosure: (1) Coastal Consistency Determination 

D-18
LDUUV Infrastructure at SPA WAR SSC Pacific at Naval Base Point Lorna 

In accordance with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended, Section 

307c(1), the United States Department of the Navy (DoN) has determined that the proposed 

action to provide the Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (LDUUV) Infrastructure 

at SPA WAR Systems Center (SSC) Pacific, Naval Base Point Lorna (NBPL), San Diego, will 

not adversely affect the resources or uses of the coastal zone. Therefore, the Navy has concluded 

that a Coastal Consistency Determination is not required and are requesting your concurrence 

with this Coastal Consistency Negative Determination (CCND) in compliance with the Ocean 

and Coastal Resource Management regulations (15 CFR 930.35). 

SSC Pacific has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed action, available 

on the Navy Region Southwest website. This submittal is similar to previously concurred with 

consistency determinations for pier construction and dredging in San Diego Bay (Naval Base 

Point Lorna P-151 Fuel Pier CD-011-13; Naval Base San Diego CCND-011-011, CD-031-01, 

CD-51-94, CD-64-92, CD-51-87; and at Naval Air Station North Island CD-89-99). There are 

no dredging activities associated with the proposed action for the LDUUV project. 

There is one action alternative, the proposed action, which is primarily comprised of permanent 

infrastructure to support the docking and maintenance of two LDUUVs, one powered by a fuel 

cell and the other by lithium (Li) batteries, and three rigid-hulled inflatable boats (RHIBs). The 

proposed action also includes an option to use infrastructure (floating dock) that can rapidly be 

put in place at Pier 160 or Pier 159 to allow the docking and maintertance of a single LDUUV 

and one RHIB, as well as temporary use of existing NBPL main base piers to raise and lower the 

vessels by crane. The proposed permanent modifications would require two to six months to 

complete. Construction may begin as early as October, 2013. 

PROJECT LOCATION 

The LDUUV test program is proposed to be located at SSC Pacific's bayside compound in San 

Diego, California. SSC Pacific is part of the NBPL Complex, located on the Point Lorna 

peninsula and adjacent to northern San Diego Bay (Figure 1 ). The bayside compound is 

bordered on the north by Scripps Institute of Oceanography facilities and the Navy's Fuel 

Facility to the south. The SSC Pacific facilities that are proposed to be permanently modified to 

accommodate the LDUUV test program include Pier 160, the Flume Bridge on Front Street, and 

Buildings 9 and 68. 

As defined in Section 304 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the term "coastal 

zone" does not include "lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or 

which is held in trust by the Federal Government." NBPL is owned and operated by the Navy 

and, therefore, is excluded from the coastal zone. The Navy recognizes that actions outside the 

coastal zone may affect land or water uses or natural resources of the coastal zone via "spill 

over" and, therefore, are subject to the provisions of CZMA. The Navy analyzed the impacts of 

the proposed action on the coastal zone by looking at reasonable foreseeable direct and indirect 

effects on the coastal use or resources, and reviewing relevant management program enforceable 

policies and the Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies (CRPMP). 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

The purpose of the proposed action is to provide the necessary modifications to existing 

infrastructure at SSC Pacific to enable LDUUV test activities to proceed as scheduled. This 

1 Enclosure ( 1) 

D-19
LDUUV Infrastructure at SPA WAR SSC Pacific at Naval Base Point Lorna 

action is needed in order to meet critical milestones for testing and evaluation that have been 

established for the LDUUV program. 

Initial testing of the LDUUV in the Southern California (SOCAL) Range Complex is already 

addressed in the current Hawaii-SOCAL Training and Testing (HSTT) Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) and does not require further analysis. Under the HSTT EIS, LDUUV testing 

would not start until early 2014, after the Record of Decision is signed. SSC Pacific is the 

proposed location for the LDUUV program in Southern California. SSC Pacific currently has the 

required infrastructure and is in close proximity to the open ocean and SOCAL Test Ranges. 

The proposed action includes the following key elements: 

• Pier 160 Modification - Permanent modifications to Pier 160 include the installation of 

launch and recovery lifts and fuel cell recharging equipment to enable recharging 

operations for the LDUUV (Figure 2). Up to five 70,000 pound-capacity launch and 

recovery lifts would be installed at Pier 160, four on the middle Finger B and one on the 

outer Finger A. Each launch and recovery lift will require the installation of eight 16-inch 

concrete piles (total of 40 piles). Piles would be installed using a small impact hammer. 

The installation of two tracks for a mobile boat hoist is also required (Figure 3). These 

tracks would be installed on Finger B of the pier and require installation of up to 20 16-

inch concrete piles. To provide access to the RHIBS and LDUUVs while on the launch 

and recovery lifts, four small floating walkways would also be installed. Three floating 

walkway would require two piles to be installed while the fourth would require six pile 

and each would use an open design (e.g., grating) to prevent shading. Altogether, 

approximately 72 16-inch piles would be installed using jetting and/or a small impact 

hammer. LDUUV and Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat (RHIB) launch and recovery events will 

occur at this location. These facilities would also be used to maintain and repair the 

LDUUV s topside of the pier. 

Four 8' x 20' ISO vans will be placed on Finger A ofthe pier. Each of the following will 

be contained in its own ISO van: compressed hydrogen (H2) storage tanks, compressed 

oxygen (02) storage tanks, an H2 compressor, and an 0 2 compressor. 

Recharging operations for the LDUUV fuel cell are 3-5 day events. Recharging of the 

fuel cell would only occur at the launch and recovery lift located near the ISO vans on 

Finger A, whereas the LDUUV with Li batteries would be recharged in Building 9 or at 

Finger B of Pier 160 (Figure 4). The recharging for each vehicle could occur monthly 

depending on test requirements. 

• Building 9 Modifications - The current use of this building is to stage and store research 

and testing equipment. The building can accommodate the Maintenance and Integration 

facility needed for the LDUUV. This facility would be used to integrate new payloads 

into the vehicle, for routine maintenance of the LDUUV, for storage of the LDUUV(s) 

during non-testing periods, storage of other equipment and tools, and for recharging the 

battery-powered LDUUV. Modification would include construction of office space, 

installation of fencing, and modification of supporting utility systems. The fuel cell 

LDUUV would be mostly emptied of H2 and 0 2 prior to transport to Building 9 by 

recovering the gases or by discharging them to the atmosphere. 

2 Enclosure (1) 

D-20
LDUUV Infrastructure at SPA WAR SSC Pacific at Naval Base Point Lorna 

• Building 68 Modifications- Building 68 is currently used for research activities and 

includes a large storage room in the rear of the building. Proposed modifications to this 

building include replacement of an existing double door with an automated roll-up door 

tall enough to accommodate forklift access, installation of chain link fence within the 

room, striping for an adjacent parking space, additional overhead lighting, raising the 

existing overhead lighting to allow for forklift access, and_clearance of an existing double 

door on the rear wall of the building. Building 68 is separate from Building 9. 

• Flume Bridge Modifications - The Flume Bridge is located on Front Street and is on the 

route from Pier 160 to Building 9. The current slope of the Flume Bridge, which is about 

12-20% grade, is problematic for the mobile boat hoist holding the LDUUV and 

transiting the LDUUV on a trailer. The proposed modification would add concrete or 

asphalt to each side of the bridge over the current concrete and/or asphalt to decrease the 

grade (Figure 5). 

• Barge/Floating Dock Option- To ensure the Navy is able to provide the necessary outof-water mooring required for one LDUUV and one RHIB until the launch and recovery 

lifts and mobile boat hoist tracks at Pier 160 can be installed, either two floating boat 

docks, or a floating, modular barge and a floating boat dock, would be placed near the 

end of Pier 159 or between Fingers B and C of Pier 160 (Figures 6 and 7). These 

structures would remain in place until no longer needed. A crane positioned on Pier 160, 

Pier 159, or on the barge (as applicable) would be used to lift and lower the LDUUVs and 

RHIBs. Implementation of this option would not result in any additional pile driving. 

Existing infrastructure at the NBPL Main Base piers (north, middle and south) could also 

be used to move the vessels between the water and topside of the pier. 

• Operations- LDUUV testing would involve transiting the bay at slow speeds with the 

RHIBs providing escort weekly, or as needed. Test activities are covered under the 

HSTTEIS. 

NEGATIVE DETERMINATION ANALYSIS 

Public Access (CRPMP Section 30211) and Recreation (CRPMP Section 30220) 

The proposed action would not interfere with public access or boater recreation. The project is 

located in an industrial area on NBPL where access is controlled by the DoN and is restricted to 

military personnel. Public access is also restricted by the U.S. Coast Guard security zone that 

encompasses Pier 160 as well as other piers at NBPL. Vehicles traveling between Pier 160 and 

Building 9 would likely travel on Craig Road and Front Street and would use the Flume Bridge. 

Navy-owned property would be used for all travel and public roads would not be impacted. 

Public access to the project area would remain restricted with implementation of the preferred 

alternative. The project would be compatible with existing adjacent land uses and no changes to 

public access or recreational opportunities would occur. Therefore, there will be no effect to 

public access. 

Marine Environment (CRPMP Sections 30230 and 30231) 

The project would have no long-term effects on biological productivity or water quality. No 

dredge or fill is required for the installation of the piles. 

3 Enclosure (1) 

D-21
LDUUV Infrastructure at SPA WAR SSC Pacific at Naval Base Point Lorna 

Project activities would result in increases in noise and human activity, and very localized 

turbidity during pile driving. These actions would constitute a minor disturbance to migratory 

birds and marine biota and would not be significant because of their limited scale and duration. 

Furthermore, the project area is routinely subject to the noise and activity of workers and 

equipment associated with common industrial and waterfront practices (Figure 8). Finally, 

because the project area is developed and similar resting and foraging habitats occur nearby, 

common shorebirds and waterbirds, if disturbed by the activity, would move to other nearby, 

similar habitats and return when the project is complete. 

Relatively low sound pressure levels are associated with driving 16-inch concrete piles. The 

Navy will closely monitor the corresponding zone of influence (ZOI), a distance of74 m, where, 

if present, marine mammals or sea turtles, could be affected by underwater sound. The Navy 

will enforce the cessation of pile driving if a marine mammal or sea turtle approaches this ZOI. 

As a result, no incidental harassment of marine mammals or adverse effects to sea turtles would 

occur. Underwater noise from pile driving would temporarily disturb fish in the vicinity of the 

project site. A separate submittal to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provides the 

Navy's Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment and concludes that the project would have no 

more than minimal and temporary effects on EFH. 

Pile driving activities would avoid the spring-summer breeding season (April1 through 

September 15) of the California least tern when it forages in the project area; hence there would 

be no disturbance to this species. Transient occurrence of the green sea turtle in northern San 

Diego Bay during pile driving is remotely possible, but monitoring provisions (see below) would 

avoid any potential impact. Fish and marine mammals are highly mobile and would be able to 

move out of the area during project activities and return after in-water project activities are 

completed. Any marine mammals present in the general vicinity would be able to detect the 

noise and associated in-water activities and may temporarily avoid the project area. To avoid 

and minimize potential impacts to the marine environment and protected species, the following 

measures would be implemented: 

• The approved NMFS and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Caulerpa 

Control Protocol (Version 4, February 25, 2008), including a pre-construction Caulerpa 

survey and follow-up action if necessary, would be followed. 

• Pile driving would occur outside of the California least tern nesting/foraging season in 

San Diego Bay, which is April 1 to September 15. 

• Piles may be jetted to minimize pile driving and associated underwater and airborne 

nmse. 

• A cushion block would be used to reduce noise generated during pile driving activities. 

• To reduce noise impacts, pile driving would only occur during normal work hours 

(between 7 A.M. and 5 P.M.) Monday through Friday. 

• To encourage fish and wildlife dispersal away from the immediate area of pile driving, at 

the start of pile driving activity or when pile driving has ceased for more than an hour, a 

soft-start technique would be used involving a gradual ramp-up before pile driving 

reaches full energy. 

4 Enclosure (1) 

D-22
LDUUV Infrastructure at SPA WAR SSC Pacific at Naval Base Point Lorna 

• A biological monitor would be stationed on Pier 160 and would order a shutdown of pile 

driving any time a wild marine mammal or sea turtle is observed within or approaching 

the zone of potential harassment defined by a root mean square (RMS) underwater sound 

pressure level (SPL) of 160 decibels (dB) referenced to 1 micro Pascal (re 1 1-1Pa). This is 

currently estimated as extending 74 m from the source, based on an estimated RMS SPL 

of 173 dB re 1~-tPa at 10 m from the source, and application of the NMFS-approved 

practical spreading model for transmission loss. 

• The barge and floating boat docks, if used at Pier 159, would be positioned so that no 

eelgrass is shaded. 

Given the temporary, localized nature of disturbance due to project activities, the proposed 

action is expected to have minor, less than significant effects on fish, sea turtles, marine birds or 

marine mammals. Based on the above analysis, all water quality impacts would be temporary 

and localized, therefore, there would be no long-term effects to water quality. 

Oil and Hazardous Substance Spills (CRPMP Section 30232) 

Through the use of the preventive measures described in the EA and proper management of 

hazardous materials and waste during the proposed construction, no increase in human health 

risk or environmental exposure to hazardous materials or hazardous wastes would result from 

implementation of the preferred alternative. Therefore, there would not be coastal resource 

affects associated with the use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes. 

Sensitive Habitat (CRPMP Section 30240) 

The two groups of managed species with Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), including Habitat Areas 

of Particular Concern, likely to occur in the project area, include: Coastal Pelagic Species 

(Northern anchovy E. mordax, Pacific sardine S. sagax, Jack mackerel T. symmetricus, Pacific 

chub mackerelS. japonicas), and Groundfish Species (Curlfin sole Pleuronichthys decurrens, 

English sole Pleuronichthys vetulus, California scorpionfish Scorpaena guttata, grass rockfish 

Sebastes rastrelliger, Leopard shark Triakis semifasciata, Soupfin shark Galeorhinus zyopterus). 

These species are highly transient and can be found throughout San Diego Bay. Temporary 

effects to EFH species may occur from increased suspended sediments and increased noise levels 

from pile driving activities. However, EFH species are highly mobile and would likely leave the 

immediate project area during pile driving activities and return when these activities are 

completed. The analysis of underwater sound from pile driving indicates a limited area of 

potential behavior disturbance to fish and a very small area within which there would be any 

potential for injury. 

Eelgrass is not found near the proposed project site and would not be disturbed during the 

proposed pile driving activities. Therefore, the proposed pier and building modifications and 

installation of associated LDUUV maintenance equipment would not result in significant 

impacts to marine plants and no significant effects to special aquatic sites would occur. 

Neither upland nor shoreline habitat would be significantly impacted since all development that 

would occur is either on land previously developed or is within the marine environment. 

Implementation of the preferred alternative would not result in long-term affects to marine or 

terrestrial plants, habitats, or to marine communities or special aquatic sites. 

5 Enclosure (1) 

D-23
LDUUV Infrastructure at SPA WAR SSC Pacific at Naval Base Point Lorna 

Archaeological or Paleontological Resources (CRPMP Section 30244) 

There will be no effect on historic properties since none exist within the project area. The project 

area falls under the coverage of the San Diego Metropolitan Area Programmatic Agreement 

(Metro Area PA) executed in February 2003 between Commander, Navy Region Southwest 

(CNRSW), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the California State Historic 

Preservation Officer. In conformance with Stipulation 8A of the Metro Area PA, CNRSW has 

determined that the proposed action would not affect listed, contributing or eligible National 

Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP) properties. Consistent with 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1), CNRSW 

has accordingly made a determination of "no historic properties affected" for the proposed 

action. Therefore, there would be no effect to cultural resources. 

Scenic and Visual Qualities (CRPMP Section 30251) 

The proposed action would not affect views available to the public and would be consistent with 

the industrial visual aesthetic ofNBPL. Construction activities would be visible to military 

personal working near Pier 160, boaters in the south bay, and from multiple view corridors 

around San Diego Bay. However, Pier 160 construction activities would be short-term and 

would occur in a developed area that is accessible only to authorized military and government 

personnel. After construction, the project area would be visually consistent with the current 

marine-industrial and military activities that take place in adjacent areas. Therefore, there would 

be no effect to aesthetics. 

Air Quality (CPPMP Section 30253) 

Operational emissions would primarily be from mobile sources associated with the use of the 

pier, including Navy marine vessels and ground vehicles that would service the pier. The 

purpose of the proposed action is to provide the necessary modifications to existing 

infrastructure at SSC Pacific to facilitate LDUUV test activities. Therefore, the air quality 

analysis focuses on construction activities required to complete those infrastructure 

modifications. 

Estimated construction emissions with implementation of the preferred alternative would be 

below the de minimis threshold levels for Clean Air Act (CAA) conformity. Therefore, the 

preferred alternative would conform to the San Diego Air Basin State Implementation Plan and 

would not trigger a conformity determination under Section 176(c) of the CAA. The Navy has 

prepared a Record of Non-Applicability. Therefore, the-proposed action will conform to the 

SDAB State Implementation Plan and will not trigger a conformity determination under the 

Clean Air Act, as amended. 

CONCLUSION 

In accordance with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, Section 307 

(c)(1), the Coastal Consistency Negative Determination demonstrates that the proposed action 

will be undertaken in a manner as to not affect coastal uses or resources. The Navy respectfully 

requests your concurrence. If you need additional information, or if you have any questions, 

please do not hesitate to contact Suzanne Smith at (619) 532-2284 or email at 

Suzanne.M. Smith@navy .mil. · 

6 Enclosure (1) 

D-24
LDUUV Infrastructure at SPA WAR SSC Pacific at Naval Base Point Lorna 

Figure 1- Proposed Action Location 

7 Enclosure (1) 

D-25
LDUUV Infrastructure at SPA WAR SSC Pacific at Naval Base Point Lorna 

Figure 2 -Pier 160 Modifications and Lift 

r-l .DUUV LOGISTICS __ IOAT UfT 

.,II#,.~~ BOAT LIFTS 

RHII 

flOATING 

DOCK 

Yacht Lifts 

Itubutrlal Da(r Illlegratt!d wttlt a New Ultra Modem Appeal 

• All Aluminum and Stainless Steel Coostruction 

• Dinct Drive with IrdJSrial Duty Motcrs 

• Murivc Solid Aluminum, Grooved Winders with Exclusive 

Corrosion Resifllant Coating 

• Solid Billet Aluminum Bearing Blocks 

• Welded Construction/Not Bolted 

• Aluminum Pulleys with Long Life Bell'ings 

• Wireless Remote Como! md Limit SwitdJ.lncluded\ 

• Optimal Eledrical Controls with Multiple Limit SwitdJ.es 

• 10 Ye.- Limited Warranty 

Options: 

• Ultra Higll Speed (H2) 

• Cultom Bunking Systans 

f Specifications f 

8 Enclosure (1) 

D-26
LDUUV Infrastructure at SPA WAR SSC Pacific at Naval Base Point Lorna 

Figure 3 - Hoist on Tracks 

Figure 4- Compressed Gas Recharging Process for Fuel Cell LDUUV 

ISO Containers located on Pier 160 

9 

Located pier side 

in the water 

H2 compressed up to 

15,000psi 

0 2 compressed up 

to 10,000 psi 

Enclosure ( 1) 

D-27
LDUUV Infrastructure at SPA WAR SSC Pacific at Naval Base Point Lorna 

Figure 5 - Flume Bridge Proposed Modifications 

~ -3"-

t 

Figure 6 - Floating Dock Example 

PIY<mHO PIDUTAI. WINCH llloisod winch croolol ...,.. -. 

Q bellet '"'9'" lor """"~~ Q'Q& 

fon.urd, ond """"" lor ""'>' lounch 

JA511HE15 

c.-a~..,.,. 

plotlorm 

AlUMINUM STIUCTUIIAL IIAM 

for "'""9'h and "uidity a<n>6> ""' .loci., ...fucing friclion ood , .. ,. poin1> on yttvr-& 

IUOYANCY BEAM .--

::.:.r:r::~.,.,J 

Current Bridge 

I 

I 

I 

.I 

............ 

Proposed Modifications 

WINCH-AS515liD LAUNCH 5YSHM 

"Z"-l'\11\oy do.ign poll• <roh ~ 

lor"'-'"~~t 

10 

CUATS 

fosy Iii-off poi•'- lor """""'ory .....,;"9cl_.cralt 

KD5SYS11M 

ur.. lho loeol ~ri"'J d.w.-on 

HUll. TIIACK Raao...d..., gu;doo ond 

~yttvruoltcn ""'clod. 

Enclosure ( 1) 

D-28
LDUUV Infrastructure at SPA WAR SSC Pacific at Naval Base Point Lorna 

Figure 7- Proposed LDUUV and RHIB Floating Boat Docks and Truck Crane at Pier 160 

--~ 

.... _....__-

______ .. _ ~,--··· ----....... 

.- -- 0), 

-~- . . -::;: ~;; 

,/ 

/ 

;' ,...->/ J .::=::::: -. "'"' / / "" -- J { / I •t '• I I . r---,;1------- ~/ ' I ( ~-~-( I I ~ '\_' , 

'"""-

-'""" ' 

'\ 

~l "~<;; - /./ I Q I:; 

\ 

i "

1

' c_~-:--- -;;;~ ·f I ~ ro,. , I I I~ 

l ! --------- ,_;_ 

-. !1 ! _ r---- '& 

\,:-1_ ~-0 LJ -~- -HI~ I " L -~- -----r / 

,_-..,

~ 

--- " --·-------! , __________ /// ./"~ 

11 Enclosure (1) 

D-29
LDUUV Infrastructure at SPA WAR SSC Pacific at Naval Base Point Lorna 

Figure 8- Noise Contours Associated with the Proposed Action and Least Tern Foraging 

Area 

)QOC Least Tern Foraging Habitat 

Noise Contours 

c:J 180 dB at 3.4 m from Source 

CJ 

CJ 

50 100 

E++"""+3 I Meters 

E----=-3 I Feet 

150 300 

12 Enclosure (1) 

D-30
September 27, 2013 

T.J. Rogers 

Department of the Navy

Attn: Suzanne Smith

Naval Base Point Loma 

140 Sylvester Rd. 

San Diego, CA 92016 

Re: ND-0214-13, U.S. Navy, Shore Infrastructure Modifications to Support Testing and 

 Evaluation of the Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (LDUUV) Program, 

 east side of Point Loma, San Diego 

Dear T.J. Rogers: 

The Coastal Commission staff has reviewed the above-referenced negative determination for 

modifications to buildings, piers, and other infrastructure to support the Navy’s Navy’s Testing 

and Evaluation of the Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (LDUUV) Program. 

The modifications needed to accommodate the program would be to Pier 160, the Flume Bridge 

on Front Street, and Buildings 9 and 68. (The operational aspects of the program itself are 

already authorized through the Navy’s Hawaii-SOCAL Training and Testing (HSTT) program, 

which the Commission has reviewed separately.) The site is just south of the Scripps Pier and 

north of the the Navy's Fuel Pier, on the east side of Point Loma. 

The proposed modifications to Pier 160 include installing launch and recovery lifts and fuel cell 

recharging equipment to enable recharging of LDUUVs. Up to five 70,000 pound-capacity 

launch and recovery lifts would be installed, with each lift necessitating eight 16-inch concrete 

piles (for a total of up to 40 piles for the 5 lifts). The modifications would also include tracks for 

a mobile boat hoist and four small floating walkways, with 32 additional piles needed (for an 

overall total of up to 72 16-inch piles. The piles would be installed using jetting and/or a small 

impact hammer. 

The project would also include relatively minor modifications to Building 9, Building 68, the 

Flume Bridge (including slope modifications to facilitate mobile boat hoist operations), and, 

temporarily (pending project completion), installing two floating boat docks, or a floating 

modular barge and a floating boat dock, as well as temporary crane use to raise and lower 

vehicles.

D-31
The project would not affect public access. Pile driving would avoid the spring-summer 

California least tern breeding season (April 1 through September 15). Measures would be 

included to avoid effects on marine mammals and sea turtles, including: 

• Piles may be jetted to minimize pile driving and associated underwater and airborne 

noise.

• A cushion block would be used to reduce noise generated during pile driving activities. 

• To reduce noise impacts, pile driving would only occur during normal work hours 

(between 7 A.M. and 5 P.M.) Monday through Friday. 

• To encourage fish and wildlife dispersal away from the immediate area of pile driving, 

at the start of pile driving activity or when pile driving has ceased for more than an hour, a 

soft-start technique would be used involving a gradual ramp-up before pile driving 

reaches full energy.

• A biological monitor would be stationed on Pier 160 and would order a shutdown of 

pile driving any time a wild marine mammal or sea turtle is observed within or approaching 

the zone of potential harassment defined by a root mean square (RMS) underwater sound 

pressure level (SPL) of 160 decibels (dB) referenced to 1 micro Pascal (re 1 μPa). This is 

currently estimated as extending 74 m from the source, based on an estimated RMS SPL

of 173 dB re 1 μPa at 10 m from the source, and application of the NMFS-approved 

practical spreading model for transmission loss.

• The barge and floating boat docks, if used at Pier 159, would be positioned so that no 

eelgrass is shaded.

While pile driving has the potential to affect expected infrequent occurrences of sea turtle and 

marine mammals, with the above monitoring and avoidance measures, effects to these species 

would be minimal. The Navy has coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), which confirms no estimated “take” or “harassment” of marine mammals (under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act), and the Navy has committed to notify the Commission staff in 

the event of any reinitiation of consultation with NMFS. 

Under the federal consistency regulations (Section 930.35), a negative determination can be 

submitted for an activity “which is the same as or similar to activities for which consistency 

determinations have been prepared in the past.” The Commission and its staff have concurred 

with the above-noted Navy consistency and negative determinations for pier construction on the 

east side of Point Loma (Navy Scripps Pier and Wharf Replacement - ND-0202-13, Navy, Fuel 

Pier - CD-011-13), and at the Naval Base San Diego on the east side of San Diego Bay (Navy 

Pier 12 Replacement - ND-011-11, Navy Piers 10/11 Demolition and replacement with a single 

pier). 

D-32
With the measures incorporated into the activities to minimize effect on sensitive habitat, marine 

resources, water quality, public access and recreation, and commercial and recreational fishing, 

the Commission staff agrees with the Navy that proposed activities would be similar to 

consistency and negative determinations with which we have previously concurred. We therefore 

concur with your negative determination made pursuant to 15 CFR 930.35 of the NOAA 

implementing regulations. Please contact Mark Delaplaine of the Commission staff at (415) 

904-5289 if you have any questions regarding this matter. 

 Sincerely,

 (for) CHARLES LESTER

 Executive Director

cc: San Diego District

 Army Corps, San Diego Field Office

D-33