, REPLY TO 

ATTENTION OF 

Office of the Chief 

Planning Division 

TO INTERESTED PARTIES: 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

PO BOX 532711 

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053-2325 

June 28, 2012 

Enclosed for your file is a memo describing the website where the Final Supplemental Environmental 

Assessment (SEA) for the San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project, San Diego County, 

California can be found. In an effort to conserve paper and resources, the Final SEA may be downloaded 

at the noted web address. This SEA was written to address changes to the project description since the 

March 2009 Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and the August 2010 Final SEA. 

Dredging would occur over approximately 100 days using either a clamshell or hopper dredge. 

Approximately 550,000 cubic yards of clean, sandy nearshore compatible material would be dredged 

from the approach and entrance channels and would be placed in the nearshore waters at Imperial Beach 

or Coronado Beach. Dredging would occur between August 1, 2012 and April 1, 2013. The primary 

benefits from the proposed project would be restoration of authorized design depths and unimpeded 

navigation within the Federal Channel. Secondary benefits include the replenishment of the beach with 

placement of dredged material in the nearshore at Imperial Beach or Coronado Beach. 

The draft SEA was sent for 30-day public review in December 2011. Comments received on the draft 

were incorporated into this final SEA as appropriate. Since the draft SEA the barge removal activities 

were removed from the project description. Also, a second nearshore disposal site was added at Coronado 

Beach. This site was previously used as a borrow site for the 1985 Shore Protection Improvement of U.S. 

Naval Amphibious Base and impacts to this area would be the same as those previously documented for 

the nearshore at Coronado Beach. Coordination occurred during and after the public review period with 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), California Coastal Commission (CCC), California Department of Fish and 

Game (CDFG), and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 

If you have any questions regarding the project, please contact Ms. Erin Jones, Project Environmental 

Coordinator, at (213) 300-9723 or at erin.l.jonesicVusace.army.mil. 

Thank you for your attention to this document. 

Enclosure 

Sincerely, 

e:- ! ' /~ ~/ 

. .0. . / £ ;J/ · '----- ~-~ ... Josephin R. Axt, Ph.D. / 

. Chief, PI ning DivisioP; 
SAN DIEGO HARBOR

MAINTENANCE DREDGING PROJECT

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

FINAL 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Los Angeles District

JUNE 2012
Final 

Executive Summary 

for 

San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

PROPOSED ACTION: 

LOCATION: 

The Los Angeles District (LAD) Corps of Engineers (Corps), as part of 

its continuing program of regular maintenance dredging, proposes to 

remove shoaled sediment along the Federal Channel of San Diego 

Harbor, San Diego County, California. The proposed project would 

involve the dredging of nearshore compatible sediment from the 

approach and entrance channels of the Federal Channel of San Diego 

Harbor. The material would be disposed in the nearshore waters at 

Imperial Beach or Coronado Beach. 

This Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) addresses 

the impacts associated with the proposed dredging at San Diego Harbor 

and disposal at Imperial Beach or Coronado Beach. This Final SEA is 

written in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), and applicable Federal, State and local environmental 

regulations. 

The proposed dredge footprint is the approach and entrance channels of 

the Federal Channel of San Diego Harbor, San Diego County, 

California. The disposal site for nearshore compatible dredged material 

is located in the nearshore waters at Imperial Beach located 

approximately 12 miles south of San Diego along the Pacific Coast, or at 

Coronado Beach located approximately 3 miles south of San Diego 

along the Pacific Coast. 
PURPOSE AND 

NEED: 

Long shore transport of sand from the ocean has shoaled the sides of the 

approach/entrance channel, and other areas of the Federal Channel have 

developed shoals due to propeller wash from passing ships and sediment 

deposition from Sweetwater Channel. The San Diego Harbor 

maintenance dredging project is important for the continued and safe 

navigation of the channel by deep draft vessels using the Harbor. 

The proposed project would serve the following purposes: (1) restore the 

channel that is subject to continual shoaling to design depths; (2) assure 

the continued navigation for marine traffic within the harbor; and (3) 

provide beach nourishment material for downcast beaches severely 

eroded by littoral processes. The primary benefits realized from the 

proposed project would be restoration of design depths and unimpeded 

navigation within the Federal Channel. Secondary benefits include the 

replenishment of the beach with placement of dredged material in the 

nearshore to ensure that a pleasant shoreline environment is maintained 

for the public. 

ALTERNATIVES 

ADDRESSED: 

AUTHORITY: 

Maintenance dredging of San Diego Harbor is authorized by the 1852 

Rivers and Harbors Act, amended by the MILCON (Military 

Construction) project performed by the Navy. The approach channel 

was deepened by the Navy to -55 MLLW in the 1990's for defense 

purposes as part of a MILCON project. Based on statute 33 

U.S.C. 562.a, Corps South Pacific Division authorized Los Angeles 

District to maintain the approach channel at this depth as part of its 

regular maintenance dredging. 

BACKGROUND/HISTORY OF DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVES: 

The Corps has performed geotechnical surveys, including grain size and 

bulk chemistry analyses, for the proposed dredge material. Grain size 

analysis and chemical analysis revealed that dredge material from the 

proposed project site is suitable for nearshore disposal. Alternatives 

were developed based on the results of these surveys, amount of 

material to be dredged, suitability of material for nearshore disposal, and 

beaches located in the vicinity of the maintenance dredging site, as well 

as on the mechanical operations and limitations of available dredges. 

Imperial Beach and Coronado Beach are analyzed as viable alternatives. 

Other alternatives considered included the No Action Alternative, 

onshore disposal, ocean disposal, upland disposal, and use of a clamshell 

dredge were analyzed in the March 2009 Environmental Assessment 

(EA). These alternatives were not found to be feasible and were 

eliminated from further consideration. 
ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACTS OF THE 

PROPOSED ACTION 

AND 

ALTERNATIVES: 

The proposed project would dredge approximately 550,000 cubic yards 

of material from the approach and entrance channels in the Federal 

Channel, from station 120+00 to station -65+00, and the disposal of 

nearshore compatible sediment in the nearshore waters at Imperial 

Beach or Coronado Beach. Dredging is now scheduled to occur 

between August 2012 and April 2013. The maximum duration of 

dredging would be approximately 100 days depending on the type of 

dredge to be used. If delays occur, the concerned agencies would be 

notified. 

The Corps has coordinated with the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) regarding suitability of the dredged sediment for nearshore 

replenishment. Only nearshore compatible material, as determined by 

sediment sampling performed in October 2008, would be dredged and 

placed in the nearshore waters at Imperial Beach or Coronado Beach. 

. 

The Corps has coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), and has developed mitigation measures to avoid and 

minimize impacts to Federally listed species. Impacts to foraging for 

the California least tern will be avoided by monitoring water quality and 

turbidity during the dredging operation, and monitoring foraging 

behaviors if dredging occurs prior to September 15. Dredging activities 

would occur far off-shore from known snowy plover habitat within the 

harbor. Dredge material deposited in the nearshore is expected to 

disperse via wave action over the course of several months to replenish 

the beach. No large quantities of material will be disposed of on or near 

snowy plover habitat. 

The proposed project is located within the Coastal Zone and is subject to 

the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The Corps has 

coordinated with the California Coastal Commission (CCC) to address 

requirements of the CZMA. Concurrence with the Negative 

Determination was received from the CCC (Appendix B). 

The Corps shall implement water quality monitoring at the dredge and 

nearshore disposal sites. This monitoring will minimize impacts to water 

quality and turbidity during implementation of the proposed project. The 

Corps coordinated with the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control 

Board (RWQCB), and will operate under the conditions of the 401 

Certification issued in March 2009, and perform water quality 

monitoring and reporting as described in the January 2009 401 WQC 

application. (Appendix B). 

Analysis revealed that the implementation of the project would result in 

temporary, minor impacts to air quality, noise, and water quality. There 

would not be significant impacts on these resources. There are no 
known sensitive cultural resources located at or near the site. The 

existing land use would not be changed by the proposed project, and 

recreation would not be significantly impacted. Aesthetics and marine 

traffic would also not be significantly impacted. 

Impacts to environmental resources are discussed in detail in Section 5.0 

and mitigation measures to avoid and minimize impacts are listed in 

Section 7.0 of this Draft SEA. 

CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this analysis, and by implementation of 

mitigation measures identified in this Final SEA the proposed project 

construction would not result in significant adverse impacts to 

environmental resources. 
FINAL 

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT 

SAN DIEGO HARBOR MAINTENANCE DREDGING PROJECT 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 

I have reviewed the attached Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) that has been prepared 

for the proposed San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project, located in San Diego County, 

California. This document is supplement to the March 2009 Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and 

the August 20lO Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, and addresses changes to the project description. The proposed project is required to maintain 

Federally-authorized channel configurations, and to restore and ensure safe navigability within the harbor. 

The Corps prepared a Final Environmental Assessment in March 2009 (March 2009 EA), which 

addressed impacts related to the dredging of nearshore compatible sediment within San Diego Harbor and 

discharge of the sediment in the nearshore waters at Imperial Beach. The nearshore waters at Coronado 

Beach were included as a viable alternative for discharge of sediment. However, dredging was postponed 

due to delayed acquisition of necessary air quality permits. 

In August 2010, the Corps prepared a Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment (August 2010 

SEA), which described changes to the proposed dredging since the March 2009 EA. Changes included 

the dates of dredging, the dredging of the approach and entrance channels only, and inclusion of 

additional dredging equipment. Material in the Aircraft Carrier Turning Basin was found not suitable for 

disposal in the nearshore after the March 2009 EA was finalized. Dredging was again postponed due to 

funding constraints. 

Dredging has been rescheduled for approximatley 100 days between August 2012 and April 2013. 

The current project includes dredging of approximately 550,000 cubic yards of nearshore compatible 

material from the approach and entrance channels in San Diego Harbor. Sediment would be dredged 

using a hopper or clamshell dredge, and would be discharged in the nearshore at Imperial Beach or 

Coronado Beach. 

Sediment was tested in accordance with applicable regulations and found to be compatible with 

nearshore disposal. This draft SEA provides an updated project description and discusses impacts due to 

implementation of the proposed project. 

The proposed harbor dredging project may result in short term minor and negligible impacts to 

environmental resources including but not limited to: biological (including endangered wildlife species), 

water, air, and navigation. Environmental commitments have been developed in coordination with the 

resource agencies to avoid or minimize impacts to environmental resources. These minimization 

measures would be followed during construction of the project. The impacts related to the proposed 

dredging and discharge of material would be less than significant after implementation of the 

environmental commitments. 

This Final SEA was prepared in compliance with all applicable laws, and regulations including but not 

limited to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the National Historic 

Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act. 

Coordination occurred with the concerned resource agencies during the preparation of the March 2009 

Final EA and August 2010 Final SEA. Coordination has also been conducted with the resource agencies 

during the preparation of this SEA to discuss changes to the project description and minimize the extent 

of impact from the updated project. A brief summary of coordination is provided in Section 1.5 of this 
Final SEA. Resource agencies included the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Coastal 

Commission (CCC), California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG), and San Diego Regional Water 

Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 

I have considered the available information contained in the SEA and it is my determination that 

impacts resulting from the proposed San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project will not have a 

significant adverse effect upon the existing environment or the quality of the human environment. 

Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), therefore, is not required. 

12 ...}W,J ZD Jl 

Date R. Mark oy, .E. 

Colonel, US Army 

Commander and District 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

1

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Background/History .............................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Authorization ........................................................................................................................ 3

1.4 Past Prepared Documents ..................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Coordination with Resource Agencies.................................................................................. 5

2.0 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................. 11

3.0 Project Description ............................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 12

3.2 Project Details ..................................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Dredged Material ................................................................................................................ 14

3.5 Environmental Monitoring .................................................................................................. 14

4.0 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Physical Environment ......................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Biological Environment ..................................................................................................... 15

4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................. 22

4.4 Water Quality ..................................................................................................................... 25

4.5 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 28

4.6 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 29

4.7 Land Use and Recreation ................................................................................................... 31

4.8 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................... 32

4.9 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 32

4.10 Marine Traffic ................................................................................................................... 33

5.0 Environmental Effects .......................................................................................................... 35

5.1 Physical Environment ......................................................................................................... 35

5.2 Biological Environment ..................................................................................................... 35

5.3 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................................. 39

5.4 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... 42

5.5 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 44

5.6 Noise Level ......................................................................................................................... 45

5.7 Land Use and Recreation ................................................................................................... 46

5.8 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................ 47

5.9 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 47

5.10 Marine Traffic ................................................................................................................... 48

6.0 Compliance ............................................................................................................................ 49

6.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42USC4321 et seq., PL 91-190); 

Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA, 40 CFR Parts 1500 

to 1508; USACE Regulations for Implementing NEPA, 33 CFR Part 220.............................. 49

6.2 Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 USC 1251 et seq.) ................................................................ 50

6.3 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) ................................................... 51

6.4 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1976 (PL 92-583; 16 USC 1456 et seq.) ...................... 52

6.5 Clean Air Act of 1969 (42USC7401 et seq.); CAA Amendments of 1990 (PL101-549) .. 52

6.6 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470 et seq.) ..................................... 53

6.7 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act, as amended. ................. 53

6.8 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act .................................................................................... 53
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

2

7.0 Environmental Commitments ............................................................................................. 54

8.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 57

9.0 List of Preparers ................................................................................................................... 58

10.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 59

Table of Figures

Figure 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 67

Figure 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 68

Figure 3 ........................................................................................................................................ 69

Figure 4 ........................................................................................................................................ 70

Figure 5 ........................................................................................................................................ 71

Figure 6 ........................................................................................................................................ 72

Figure 7 ........................................................................................................................................ 73

Figure 8 ........................................................................................................................................ 74

Table of Appendices

Appendix A: Mailing List 

Appendix B: Letters and Correspondence 

Appendix C: Record of Non-Applicability and Air Quality Emission Calculations 

Appendix D: 404(b)(1) Analyses 

Appendix E: Response to Comments 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

3

1.0 Introduction 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), as part of its continuing program of regular 

maintenance dredging, proposes to remove shoaled sediment along the Federal Channel of San 

Diego Harbor, San Diego County, California. The proposed project would involve the dredging 

of nearshore compatible sediment from the Federal Channel of San Diego Harbor, and the 

discharge of this material in the nearshore waters of Imperial Beach or Coronado Beach. 

The purpose of this Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) is to address potential 

impacts that may result from the maintenance dredging at San Diego Harbor and the discharge of 

this material in the nearshore waters. 

1.1 Project Location 

The proposed dredge footprint is the Federal Channel of San Diego Harbor, San Diego County, 

California, which is situated approximately 100 nautical miles southeast of the City of Los 

Angeles and 17 statute miles north of the United States/Mexico International Border (Figure 1). 

Only nearshore compatible material would be dredged within the approach and entrance 

channels from Ballast Point oceanward (from station 120+00 to station -65+00, Areas 1 and 2). 

The discharge site for compatible dredged material is located in the nearshore waters at Imperial 

Beach or the nearshore waters at Coronado Beach. Dredged material will be placed in the 

nearshore environment in waters -15 to -35 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). Any noncompatible material will not be dredged. 

1.2 Background/History 

The Corps prepared a Final Environmental Assessment in March 2009 (March 2009 EA) for the 

San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project. The March 2009 EA addressed impacts 

related to dredging of nearshore compatible sediment within San Diego Harbor and discharge of 

the sediment in the nearshore waters at Imperial Beach. The nearshore waters at Coronado Beach 

were included as a viable alternative for discharge of sediment. However, dredging was 

postponed due to delayed acquisition of necessary air quality permits. 

In August 2010, the Corps prepared a Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment (August 

2010 SEA), which described changes to the proposed dredging since the March 2009 EA. 

Changes included the dates of dredging, the dredging of the approach and entrance channels 

only, and inclusion of additional dredging equipment. Dredging was again postponed due to 

funding constraints. A brief summary of both environmental documents are provided in Section 

1.4 of this SEA. Both environmental documents are on file at the Los Angeles District. 

1.3 Authorization

Maintenance dredging of San Diego Harbor is authorized by the 1852 Rivers and Harbors Act, 

amended by the MILCON (Military Construction) project performed by the Navy. The approach 

channel was deepened by the Navy to -55 feet MLLW in the 1990's for defense purposes as part 

of a MILCON project. Based on statute 33 U.S.C. 562.a, Corps South Pacific Division 

authorized Los Angeles District to maintain the approach channel at this depth as part of its 

regular maintenance dredging. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

4

As Authorized by Congress, Corps performs maintenance of the San Diego Harbor. However, in 

1992, the U.S. Department of the Navy approved a Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for Dredged Material Disposal Related to Navy Dredging Projects in San Diego 

Bay. In November 1995, the Navy approved an EIS for the Development of Facilities in San 

Diego/Coronado to Support the Homeporting of One NIMITZ Class Aircraft Carrier. That study 

evaluated the environmental impacts associated with deepening the Federal Navigation Channel 

outside the Bay (to -55 feet MLLW); deepening the main entrance channel inside the Bay (to -47 

feet MLLW); deepening the berthing area and turning basin at Naval Air Station North Island 

(NASNI) (to -50 feet MLLW); and nearshore replenishment at San Diego County Beaches, 

including Imperial Beach. Followed by the approval of the EIS, Navy dredged the Channel to -

55 feet MLLW. Since the deepened depths were for defense purposes, and based on 33 U.S.C 

562a, the Corps is authorized to maintain the federal channel to the new depths. 

For maintenance dredging of the approach channel, the Corps would therefore dredge to -55 feet 

MLLW. 

1.4 Past Prepared Documents 

1.4.1 Environmental Assessment (EA) March 2009

The March 2009 Final EA described that approximately 336,000 cubic yards of nearshore 

compatible material would be dredged from the approach and entrance channels from 

Ballast Point oceanward and the Air Craft Carrier Turning Basin, using the Corps’ hopper 

dredge, Essayons. Dredging was to occur over approximately four weeks. The nearshore 

at both Imperial Beach and Coronado Beach were analyzed as viable alternatives for 

disposal. Imperial Beach was chosen as the recommended disposal site since Imperial 

Beach is severely eroded and in great need of beach nourishment. 

Dredging as described in the March 2009 EA was postponed due to delayed acquisition 

of necessary air quality permits. 

It was later determined that nearshore disposal could not be performed at the Coronado 

Beach disposal site due to the lack of required cultural surveys. These surveys were 

performed in July 2009 and no cultural resources were detected. 

1.4.2 Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) August 2010

The August 2010 SEA described changes to the proposed dredging since the March 2009 

EA. Changes included the dates of dredging and the dredging of the approach and 

entrance channels only. The March 2009 EA documented that the Aircraft Carrier 

Turning Basin would be dredged. However, a DMMT meeting was held in April 2009, 

after the March 2009 EA was finalized. At that time, after further sediment testing, the 

EPA recommended that the dredge material in the Turning Basin is not suitable for 

nearshore disposal. The Turning Basin was, therefore, removed from the proposed dredge 

areas in the August 2010 SEA. 

The use of a clamshell dredge as an equipment option, in addition to the hopper dredge 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

5

option, was also included in the August 2010 SEA. Previously, the Corps planned to use 

its own hopper dredge, the Essayons, to dredge San Diego Harbor. However, due to the 

delays in the project and limitations of this dredge in the nearshore, the Corps could not 

use the Essayons for dredging, though other hopper dredges could still be used. Dredging 

duration with a hopper was increased to approximately 50 days and dredging with a 

clamshell was expected to take approximately 100 days. In the August 2010 SEA, 

impacts due to increased dredging duration with a hopper and due to dredging with a 

clamshell were analyzed for dredging in San Diego Harbor and disposal at Imperial 

Beach. 

Dredging as described in the August 2010 SEA was postponed due to funding 

constraints. 

1.5 Coordination with Resource Agencies 

The principal agencies with which this project has been and will continue to be coordinated 

include: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Coastal Commission (CCC), California 

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

(San Diego RWQCB). The complete mailing list for copies of this Final SEA is included in 

Appendix A. Comments and suggestions from these agencies were incorporated in the final 

document to enhance the degree of environmental commitment and minimize the extent of 

impact from this project. Appendix B includes copies of correspondence during coordination. 

1.5.1 USFWS 

The Corps contacted Mr. Ken Corey in July 2011 and Mr. David Zoutendyk in December 

2011 regarding updates to the proposed project and the California least tern. The Corps 

provided the draft SEA to USFWS during the public review period. 

In February 2012 the Corps was notified that USFWS could not locate the draft SEA, 

which was then provided for an extended review period. The Corps coordinated further 

with Ms. Sandy Vissman in March and April, at which time the USFWS expressed 

concerns regarding dredging during the California least tern nesting season. USFWS 

communicated that they did not agree with the Corps’ “no affect” determination for the 

tern if dredging were to occur during breeding season. 

The Corps determined that dredging could start later, after August 1, 2012, to avoid 

dredging during peak breeding times. Dredging was originally proposed to occur from 

January 2012 to November 2012. In order to allow ample time in the dredge schedule, the 

Corps then proposed that dredging occur between August 1, 2012 and April 1, 2013. 

By delaying the dredge schedule to outside peak nesting season for the tern, the Corps 

believed that a “no affect” determination could be maintained. However, USFWS 

disagreed and asserted that for any dredging during the tern breeding season a “may 

affect” determination is more appropriate, with a subsequent determination of whether 

effects would be adverse. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

6

For the proposed dredging between August 1, 2012 and September 15, 2012 (during the 

tern breeding season) the USFWS expressed they could concur with a “may affect, not 

likely to adversely affect” the tern. If dredging were to occur during this time, USFWS 

also requested that a monitoring plan be developed to investigate the impacts of dredging, 

if any, on the tern and foraging. 

Details of the Corps and USFWS communications regarding California least tern, 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) determinations, and the reasoning for each agency’s 

proposed determinations are included in Appendix B. 

To facilitate completion of the Final EA and to be able to advertize the construction 

project, in May 2012 the Corps decided to defer to the USFWS recommendation in this 

instance and agree that this particular dredging project, scheduled to commence after 

August 1, 2012 "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" the California least tern. 

As USFWS had expressed via e-mail that they concurred with the “may affect, not likely 

to adversely affect” the tern, the Corps and USFWS then concluded informal 

consultation. Formal consultation was not required. 

Per USFWS request, should dredging occur between August 1, 2012 and September 15, 

2012, the Corps would continue to coordinate with USFWS staff to develop a monitoring 

program for the CA least tern. 

1.5.2 NMFS 

The Corps coordinated with Mr. Dan Lawson of NMFS on July 25, 2011 regarding the 

proposed project. Mr. Lawson did not have any immediate concerns and did not expect 

any changes to the previous determination on the green sea turtle from the March 2009 

EA. Correspondence letters are located in Appendix B of this EA. This Draft EA was 

provided to NMFS during the public review period. 

The Corps also contacted Mr. Eric Chavez of NMFS in July 2011 regarding kelp and 

caulerpa. During coordination, Mr. Chavez indicated that NMFS recommended caulerpa 

surveys be performed prior to dredging. The Corps has decided to forego these 

recommended surveys as the Corps believes conditions in the dredge area are not likely 

to support caulerpa. In the past, the Corps has excluded caulpera surveys in deep 

channels. Mr. Chavez also stressed the importance of avoiding sensitive marine 

vegetation, including eelgrass and kelp, during dredging. Avoidance of these resources is 

included as an environmental commitment in Section 7.0 of this draft EA. 

In March 2012, Mr. Chavez communicated that eelgrass beds occurred in the vicinity of 

the dredge area in the Federal Channel and asked how these beds would be avoided. The 

Corps determined that the nearest beds were at least approximately 185 feet from the 

dredge boundary and that this distance would be sufficient to avoid impacts. The dredge 

Contractor would also receive a map of these beds and be directed to avoid impacts. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

7

At this time Mr. Chavez also expressed concern regarding the kelp beds near the Imperial 

Beach nearshore disposal site. Mr. Chavez was informed that the Imperial Beach disposal 

site would not be used for this dredging event, and that Coronado Beach was chosen for 

disposal, therefore kelp beds near Imperial Beach would not be impacted. 

1.5.3 EPA 

The Corps coordinated with Mrs. Jorine Campopiano of the EPA in June 2011 at the 

monthly DMMT meeting. Mrs. Campopiano was informed of the project description and 

that, at the time of dredging, sediment sampling results would be older than three years 

old. The Corps requested to continue to use these sampling results, as additional shoaling 

is expected to be minimal and any additional shoaled material is expected to be clean, 

sandy material originating from the open ocean. Mrs. Campopiano did not express 

concerns regarding the continued use of these results and requested that justification be 

provided describing why these results are still suitable. Justification was provided in the 

DMMT meeting notes dated June 22, 2011 (Appendix B). The Draft EA was provided to 

EPA during the public review period. 

In May 2012, the Corps coordinated with Mr. Allan Ota to discuss the updated dredge 

schedule between August 2012 and April 2013, and determine the need for verification 

sediment sampling. At the time of dredging under this updated schedule, sediment 

sampling results would be approximately 4 years old. Mr. Ota expressed that considering 

the dredge location in the approach and entrance channels, the material is likely clean and 

sandy, and that additional testing may not be required. Mr. Ota requested the October 

2008 sediment sampling results to determine if existing results would suffice. The Corps 

included an environmental commitment to perform additional verification testing prior to 

dredging, if needed, and will continue to coordinate with EPA on the need for sampling. 

The Corps also discussed with Mr. Ota the addition of the 2nd Coronado Beach disposal 

site. Mr. Ota was agreeable to the addition of the site pending the availability of beach 

sediment transects. If transects are not available, the Corps would also collect sediment 

samples from the beach prior to dredging, as indicated in the environmental 

commitments. Coordination with EPA would continue. 

1.5.4 CCC 

The Corps conducted extensive coordination with Mr. Larry Simon of the CCC during 

preparation of the March 2009 EA. The concurrence letter from the CCC dated February 

2, 2009 is located in Appendix B. The Corps continued coordination with Mr. Simon on 

the project description for the draft SEA in July 2011 and December 2011. Mr. Simon 

indicated that the updated project description is very similar to that in the March 2009 EA 

and August 2010 SEA; therefore, the Corps may submit a Negative Determination (ND) 

with the project description. The Corps submitted the ND to the CCC along with the draft 

SEA for their concurrence. 

After the public review period, the CCC requested information regarding the Corps’ 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

8

coordination with the FWS on the California least tern. CCC determined that they would 

provide concurrence with the ND once coordination with FWS was complete. CCC sent a 

concurrence letter dated April 10, 2012, which is included in Appendix B. 

In May 2012, the Corps coordinated with CCC on the addition of the 2nd disposal site at 

Coronado Beach. CCC agreed that impacts to the 2nd site would be similar to those 

analyzed for the original site and that a new ND was not required. CCC requested that the 

Corps send a memo for file documenting the changes to the project description. 

1.5.5 CDFG 

The Corps contacted Ms. Loni Adams of CDFG in July and August 2011 regarding 

updates to the project description. 

Ms. Adams expressed concerns regarding Pismo clam and clam beds at Coronado and 

Imperial Beaches, particularly crushing and burial from construction equipment on the 

beach, as well as impacts from turbidity and sedimentation. Disposal of dredged material 

will occur in the nearshore, therefore there will be no impacts from crushing or burial. 

Impacts from turbidity will be minimized through water quality sampling at the disposal 

sites. Should turbidity levels reach unacceptable levels, remedial actions to reduce 

turbidity would be taken. Impacts to Pismo clam are discussed in Section 5.2.2.2 of the 

Final SEA. 

Ms. Adams recommended that focused pre-construction Pismo clam surveys be 

performed for Coronado or Imperial Beach if they will be used for sand deposition. The 

Corps has decided to forego these recommended surveys as recent nearshore habitat 

surveys found no evidence of Pismo clam beds in the nearshore at Imperial Beach. Dead 

clam shells were found at the inshore portion of the northernmost transect in the 

nearshore at Coronado Beach, which suggests that Pismo clam beds may be nearby. 

However, the Coronado Beach nearshore disposal sites are very large and disposal of 

sediment would not be concentrated in one small area. Dispersal of sediment over such a 

large area is not expected to create significant impacts. Recent 2012 survey results 

provided by CDFG indicated presence of sexually mature Pismo clams in the surf zone in 

the vicinity of the Coronado and Imperial Beach disposal sites. Ms. Adams requested that 

these beds be protected from direct burial impacts. All dredged sediments would be 

disposed of in the nearshore; no sediments would be disposed of on the beach or in the 

surf zone, where Pismo clams have been identified. The identified beds would not be 

impacted by direct burial. 

Water quality would be monitored during dredging and disposal activities to ensure 

minimized impacts to water quality and turbidity in the nearshore waters. Because clams 

are mobile, some individuals would be expected to move out of the disposal area as sand 

placement occurs. The dissipation of sand out of the water column over time would 

prevent direct burial of clams in the nearshore. Slow dispersal of sand from the nearshore 

into the surf zone and onto the beach via wave action would allow time for clams in the 

surf zone to move towards fresh ocean water as needed. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

9

The Corps provided the draft SEA to CDFG and comments were included in this Final 

SEA. 

1.5.6 RWQCB

Coordination with Ms. Jody Ebsen of the San Diego RWQCB was initiated in December 

2008, in preparation of the March 2009 EA. On January 13, 2009, a request letter and an 

application for a 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) were submitted to the 

SDRWQCB with the Draft EA. In early March 2009, the Corps inquired the status of 

processing the WQC. Ms. Ebsen informed the Corps via e-mail on March 2, 2009 that the 

401 Certification for the project is as proposed in the 401 WQC application received by 

the SDRWQCB on January 15, 2009 (see Appendix B), and that all water quality 

sampling and reporting should be done in accordance with the 401 WQC application 

proposal. 

The Corps contacted Ms. Ebsen via phone and e-mail in April 2010 regarding updates to 

the project description for the August 2010 SEA. At this time the Corps did not receive a 

response from the SDRWQCB. The Corps submitted an updated 401 WQC application as 

well as a copy of the Draft August 2010 SEA during the public review period. 

For this SEA, the project is essentially the same as described in past documents. Only 

minor changes were made to the project description, which would not change the water 

quality impacts described in the January 2009 401 WQC Certification application or 

compliance described in the March 2009 EA. The Corps will operate under the conditions 

of the 401 Certification issued in March 2009, and perform water quality monitoring and 

reporting as described in the January 2009 401 WQC application. The Corps submitted 

the draft SEA to the SDRWQCB during the public review period. 

In June 2012, the Corps notified the RWQCB of the additional disposal site at Coronado 

Beach. The Corps would continue coordination with RWQCB prior to dredging. 

1.5.7 City of Imperial Beach 

The Corps coordinated with the City of Imperial Beach inquiring as to whether they were 

interested in contributing funds to pay for the incremental cost of transporting dredged 

material to their designated nearshore disposal site. However, the City is taking part in a 

larger, regional beach nourishment project led by the San Diego Association of 

Governments (SANDAG) and does not have funds to contribute to the federal project. 

The Corps received comments from the City of Imperial Beach on the project in October 

2011. Response to comments are provided in Appendix E. 

1.5.8 City of Coronado Beach

The Corps will continue to coordinate with the City of Coronado Beach regarding the 

placement of dredged material in the nearshore. The Coronado designated nearshore 

disposal sites are the least-cost, environmentally acceptable disposal sites for this 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

10

maintenance dredging project. While both the Imperial Beach and Coronado Beach 

nearshore disposal sites were environmentally acceptable, the Coronado Beach sites were 

the least-cost alternative due to their closer proximity to the dredge location. Since 

disposal at Coronado requires less transit time, more time can be spent dredging, 

allowing for higher productivity and a shorter project duration overall. Comments on the 

project were received from the City during the public review period and were 

incorporated into this Final SEA (See Appendix E). 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

11

2.0 Purpose and Need

Long shore transport of sand from the ocean has shoaled the sides of the approach/entrance 

channel, and other areas of the Federal Channel have developed shoals due to propeller wash 

from passing ships and sediment deposition from Sweetwater Channel. The San Diego Harbor 

maintenance dredging project is important for the continued and safe navigation of the channel 

by deep draft vessels using the Harbor. 

The proposed project would serve the following purposes: (1) restore the channel that is subject 

to continual shoaling to design depths; (2) assure the continued navigation for marine traffic 

within the harbor; and (3) provide beach nourishment material for downcast beaches severely 

eroded by littoral processes. The primary benefits realized from the proposed project would be 

restoration of design depths and unimpeded navigation within the Federal Channel. Secondary 

benefits include the replenishment of the beach with placement of dredged material in the 

nearshore to ensure that a pleasant shoreline environment is maintained for the public. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

12

3.0 Project Description 

3.1 Project Location

The dredge footprint includes the Federal Navigation Channel of San Diego Harbor, which is 

situated approximately 100 miles southeast of the City of Los Angeles and 17 miles north of the 

United States/Mexico International Border. 

The proposed dredging areas include the approach and entrance channels (from station 120+00 

to station -65+00, Areas 1 and 2) (Figure 2). Only nearshore compatible material would be 

dredged. The dredged material would be discharged in the nearshore waters at Imperial Beach or 

Coronado Beach. 

The Imperial Beach disposal area is located offshore of Imperial Beach, approximately 12 miles 

south of San Diego along the Pacific Coast, south of the Imperial Beach Pier. The material would 

be discharged in water depths between -15 and -28 feet MLLW, within an area defined by 

approximate dimensions of 1,700 feet long by 1,000 feet wide, encompassing approximately 27 

acres (Figure 3). This area was used for disposal during the 2004 San Diego Harbor Central 

Navigation Channel Deepening Project. 

The Coronado Beach disposal areas are located offshore Coronado Beach, approximately 3 miles 

southeast of Zuniga Jetty along the Pacific Coast. The discharge areas are located offshore of 

Coronado Beach extending from the eastern border of the Naval Air Station North Island 

(NASNI) to near the tip of Glorietta Bay Peninsula, and from just south of Glorrieta Bay to 

Fiddler’s Cove. The material would be discharged in water of depths between -15 and -35 feet 

MLLW, within areas of approximate dimensions 4,000 feet long by 1,000 feet wide, 

approximately 92 acres, and 5,400 feet long by 1,200 feet wide, approximately 150 acres (Figure 

4). 

3.2 Project Details

The proposed project would dredge approximately 550,000 cubic yards of material from the 

approach and entrance channels, from station 120+00 to station -65+00. Sediment in these areas 

was sampled in October 2008 and found to be compatible with nearshore sediments at the 

disposal beaches. Dredging would occur to depths of -45 to -55 feet MLLW, plus over depth. 

The proposed action would dispose of compatible material in the nearshore at Coronado Beach 

or Imperial Beach. 

Due to time constraints during the development of the March 2009 EA, the Corps could not 

perform the required cultural resources surveys at the nearshore at Coronado Beach prior to the 

anticipated start date for dredging. However, once the project was delayed, the Corps conducted 

the required cultural survey in the nearshore at Coronado Beach in July 2009. This survey was 

conducted in order to investigate the possibility of using the nearshore at Coronado Beach as the 

discharge site for dredge material. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

13

Dredging is now scheduled to occur between August 1 2012 and April 1 2013. The maximum 

duration of dredging would be approximately 100 days depending on the type of dredge to be 

used. Dredging would occur for 24 hours per day. Permits required to comply with local noise 

ordinances to work during nighttime hours would be obtained by the selected construction 

Contractor. If dredging is delayed due to funding, inclement weather, equipment or mechanical 

constraints, it may occur later in 2013 or 2014. If delays occur beyond 2012, the concerned 

resource agencies would be notified and sediments in the dredge area would be re-sampled per 

coordination with EPA. 

All environmental commitments identified in this Final EA would be followed during dredging 

operations (Section 7.0). Additional project alternatives, including the No Action alternative 

were presented in the March 2009 EA, on file at the Corps Los Angeles District Office. 

3.3 Equipment

The removal of sediment from the channel could be accomplished with two different types of 

construction equipment, including (1) hopper dredge, and (2) clamshell dredge and scow. The 

type of equipment used largely depends on the construction contractor. 

3.3.1 Hopper Dredge 

Dredging operations may be conducted using a diesel-powered hopper dredge. The 

material would be removed via dragheads on the hopper dredge that are lowered to the 

ocean floor. These dragheads remove sediment by suction and deposit the sediment into 

the hopper located in the hull of the dredge. After sediment has been deposited into the 

hopper, the dragheads are pulled from the water, and the ship transits to the designated 

discharge area. Once at the discharge site, the hoppper’s split-hull opens, releasing the 

sediment into the ocean. Turbidity levels would be monitored by the construction 

contractor during dredging and disposal activities according to the environmental 

commitments and the RWQCB’s 401 WQC to minimize impacts to water quality. 

The hopper dredge for this dredging event would operate for a maximum of 50 days. 

3.3.2 Clamshell and Scow

Dredging with a clamshell dredge entails a floating derrick with a bucket that is lowered 

under water to remove material from the ocean floor and place the material in a scow. 

The scow is then pushed or pulled to the disposal site with a tug boat for disposal of the 

dredged material. It is possible that four scows would be employed to accelerate the rate 

of dredging and disposal. Clamshelled sediments are removed in large consolidated 

clumps and tend to retain form when disposed. A small part of the material in the 

clamshell can be washed away due to turbulence as each load is hoisted to the surface. 

Turbidity levels would be monitored by the construction contractor during dredging and 

disposal according to the environmental commitments and the Regional Water Quality 

Control Board’s permit to minimize impacts to water quality. 

The clamshell dredge for this dredging event would operate for a maximum of 100 days. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

14

3.4 Dredged Material 

In the March 2009 EA, dredge areas 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 10 were found to be compatible for 

nearshore discharge (Figure 2). A DMMT meeting was held in April 2009, after the March 2009 

EA was finalized. At that time, after further testing of Areas 6, 8, and 10 had been performed, the 

EPA recommended that the dredge material in these areas is not suitable for nearshore disposal. 

Therefore, Areas 6, 8, and 10 would not be dredged during this proposed dredging event. 

Although Area 3 is suitable for nearshore disposal, time and cost constraints currently prevent 

dredging of this area. During this current dredging event, only areas 1 and 2 (from station 

120+00 to station -65+00) would be dredged and disposed in the nearshore of Imperial Beach or 

Coronado Beach. 

3.5 Environmental Monitoring

Environmental Monitoring will be performed for water quality. Turbidity shall be monitored 

during dredging to ensure that waters in the dredged area do not become too turbid for threatened 

and endangered birds to forage. 

Impacts to green sea turtle would be avoided by regularly inspecting the hopper of the dredge for 

the presence of turtle during dredging operations. If the turtle is detected, dredging operations 

would cease and NMFS would be notified to provide direction on the continuance of the project 

and further consultation. 

Full details of environmental monitoring and additional environmental commitments to minimize 

impacts to environmental resources are outlined in Section 7.0. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

15

4.0 Affected Environment 

The following paragraphs provide discussion of existing environmental resources for the 

dredging and discharge areas. The environmental setting is detailed in previous reports including 

USACOE 2003 and USACOE 2009, and is discussed below. The subject reports are hereby 

incorporated by reference as per 40 CFR 1502.21. 

Furthermore, environmental resources for the nearshore discharge sites, Imperial Beach and 

Coronado Beach, are similar, and are therefore written together. 

4.1 Physical Environment 

4.1.1 San Diego Harbor: Maintenance Dredging Site 

San Diego Bay is a closed embayment which is influenced primarily by marine waters, 

tides, and currents, and to a lesser degree by surface freshwater drainages and 

groundwater. 

Two major and three minor freshwater watersheds drain to San Diego Bay. The major 

watersheds include the Sweetwater River, which drains to the south-central portion of the 

Bay, and the Otay River, which drains to the South Bay. Other sources of freshwater to 

San Diego Bay during storm events include minor drainages, sheetflow, flood control 

channels, and storm drains; however, no significant freshwater influence occurs in the 

project area (U.S. Navy 1992). 

The narrow entrance to San Diego Bay shelters the inner harbor from ocean waves. The 

inner Bay is generally calm. Waves that do occur are generated by wind, primarily from 

the west and northwest, and generally do not exceed 2 feet in height (MBA 1990). 

The study area is underlain primarily by surficial material consisting of the Quaternaryage Bay Point Formation plus areas of fill material of various origins. The Bay Point 

Formation is widely exposed on Coronado/North Island and is composed of marine and 

non-marine, poorly consolidated, fine- and medium-grained sandstone (U.S. Navy 1995). 

4.1.2 Nearshore Discharge Sites: Imperial Beach and Coronado Beach 

The nearshore receiver sites are located within the Silver Strand Littoral Cell. The 

sources of sand for beaches within the littoral cell are Tijuana River Delta, erosion of the 

Playas de Tijuana sea cliffs, and beach nourishment projects. The primary sink for beach 

sands is the shoal off the southern Zuniga Jetty at the entrance to San Diego Bay. 

Nearshore currents move sand into and out of the beach receiver site, while longshore 

currents move sands along the shoreline. Waves and wave driven currents are 

responsible for eroding the shoreline in the vicinity of the nearshore receiver sites. 

4.2 Biological Environment 

Biological resources for the nearshore discharge sites, Imperial Beach and Coronado Beach, are 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

16

similar, and are therefore written together. 

4.2.1 San Diego Harbor 

4.2.1.1 Marine Vegetation

The proposed dredging would occur in the navigation channels of San Diego Bay 

(all deeper than -35 feet MLLW). Eelgrass exists in the shallow areas of San 

Diego Harbor, with larger patches occurring in the shallow South Bay (Figure 5). 

Eelgrass beds are known to occur as close as approximately 185 feet from the 

dredge area in the entrance channel. 

Eelgrass is a marine flowering plant which occurs in many intertidal to 

moderately deep subtidal areas (0 to -23 feet MLLW) of San Diego Bay. Eelgrass 

beds, or meadows, provide high quality habitat for fish and other water-oriented 

fauna. Eelgrass provides an important foraging and nursery area for many fish 

species and generally supports higher diversity and abundance of fish than nonvegetated areas of similar depth (Hoffman 1986). Eelgrass beds also provide 

foraging habitat for a number of avian species, including the federally protected 

California least tern (Sterna amtillauim browni). 

In San Diego Bay, macroalagae belong to three different phyla. Close to 50 native 

macroalgal species are present in the Bay, nine of which belong to the phyla 

Chlorophyta. Twelve species of brown algae in the phyla Phaeophyta are found 

in the Bay. The largest phyla represented in the Bay, Rhodophyta (red algae), is 

represented by 25 species. Many of these species are small and may only be 

found attached to structures or living atop other plant or algal organisms (SDUPD 

2008). 

The majority of dredging would occur in subtidal areas (deeper than -35 feet 

MLLW) that are mostly absent of marine vegetation, including eelgrass. 

4.2.1.2 Invertebrates

Infaunal benthic invertebrates are the most abundant invertebrate found in the soft 

bottom sediment of the Bay, and include polychaete worms, crustaceans, 

mollusks, and unidentified species of oligochaete and nematode worms (SDUPD 

2008). 

During the Bight ’98 survey (Bay et al. 2000), a total of 1,172 megabenthic 

invertebrates, representing 43 taxa, were collected in San Diego Bay. The 

nonindigenous bivalve Musculista senhousia was present in more than 70% of the 

samples, making it the most widely distributed trawl caught invertebrate in the 

Bay. Other common invertebrates that were present in at least one third of the 

samples included two undescribed species of sponge, Porifiera sp. SD4 and 

Porifera sp SD5, the ascidian Microcosmus squamiger, the bivalve Argopecten 

ventricosus, and the gastropod Crepidula onyx. Musculista senhousia together 

with another nonindigenous species Microcosmus squamiger, accounted for over 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

17

50% of the total catch (SDUPD 2008). 

4.2.1.3 Fish and Essential Fish Habitat

San Diego Bay is an important nursery and rearing area for several fish species. 

Up to 90 species of fish have been reported in the Bay (SDUPD 1980). Fish 

fauna in the Bay vary seasonally, with numerical abundance being greatest in the 

spring and summer (Allen 1997). Overall, the most abundant fish species present 

in the Bay was northern anchovy. Other abundant species included top smelt, 

slough anchovy, shiner surfperch, and giant kelpfish (Allen 1997). 

In surveys performed in 2005 (VRG 2005), topsmelt was the most abundant 

Baywide, with over 30% of the total catch. The pacific sardine, common in 

surveys taken in the 1990’s, was nearly absent from the 2005 surveys. 

The study area is located within an area designated as Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH) for the Coastal Pelagics and Pacific Groundfish Management Plans. (The 

EFH for these are to include all marine and estuarine waters from the shoreline to 

200 nautical miles offshore (i.e., the Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ]). For the 

Pacific and Western regions, EFH has been identified for a total of 89 species 

covered by three Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) under the auspices of the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council (NMFS 1998a). Several of these 

“managed” species are known to occur in San Diego Harbor (e.g., Northern 

anchovy, pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, Dover sole, Pacific sandab, and 

rockfish). Also many other native marine fish in the study area undoubtedly serve 

as prey for many of the “managed” species. 

4.2.1.4 Birds

A total of 70 waterbird species were identified from 48 surveys of North San 

Diego Bay (Coronado Bridge to Ballast Point at the entrance) in 1993 (U.S. Navy 

1994). The most abundant species are scoters, pelicans, and buffleheads. Wateroriented bird species can be divided into several functional guilds which describe 

their feeding mode and habits. Birds which feed in waters in the direct vicinity 

of the proposed dredge footprint may include loons, grebes, cormorants, and 

mergansers (water column diving guild) and pelicans, terns, skimmers, and 

kingfishers (plunge diving guild). 

4.2.1.5 Mammals

The Southern California Bight supports a great abundance and diversity of marine 

mammals although they are rarely seen in San Diego Bay. Species known to be 

regularly encountered within the Bay include California sea lion and coastal 

bottlenose dolphin. Those that are occasional visitors in the north channels of the 

Bay include the Pacific harbor seal and the gray whale. Species found within the 

Southern California Bight, with the potential for rare occurrences within the Bay 

include northern elephant seal, long-beaked common dolphin, Pacific white-sided 

dolphin, short-finned pilot whale, minke whale, and finback whale (SDUPD 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

18

2008). 

Merkel & Associates conducted marine mammal surveys from February 2007 to 

March 2008 in the vicinity of the Point Loma Naval Complex. The first survey, 

conducted in February 2007 recorded five marine mammal species, including 

harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), California sea lions (Zalophus californicanus), 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), Pacific white-sided dolphins 

(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) and common dolphins (Delphinus sp.). In May 

2007, only two of the five species previously observed within the study area were 

recorded, and included California sea lion and bottlenose dolphin (SDUPD 2008). 

4.2.2 Nearshore Receiver Sites: Imperial Beach and Coronado Beach 

4.2.2.1 Marine Vegetation

Small kelp beds occur within the Imperial Beach area and are generally restricted 

to areas of subtidal rocks, boulders, and cobble within the photic zone (depths of 

20 to 60 feet) (USIBWC 1998). Historically, the Imperial Beach kelp bed 

extended from approximately 0.3 mile to 1.5 miles offshore and approximately 

0.9 mile north and 1.3 miles south of Imperial Beach Pier. Historically, kelp bed 

persistence has been relatively low to moderate off Imperial Beach. 

North et al. (1993) found that kelp canopy area off Imperial Beach fluctuated 

between a low of approximately 50 square meters (m2

) x 103 in 1981 to a high of 

651 m2

 x 103 in 1990. These values are extremely low compared to the extensive 

kelp beds off Point Loma. This likely is due to the occurrence of relatively few 

hard-bottom features off Imperial Beach so that kelp plants may be attached to old 

holdfasts or other solid objects such as hardened clay, cobbles, scattered rocks, 

and discarded debris (Feder et al. 1974; USIBWC 1998). These substrates are 

less resistant than rock reefs to erosion or movement by strong currents and waves 

so the plants may be swept away, forming less permanent beds. 

The most recent data available from CDFG do not show kelp beds offshore of 

Coronado Beach (2009a). This data shows that a kelp bed is located offshore of 

Imperial Beach (CDFG 2009a) (Figure 6). No kelp is located within the nearshore 

disposal site. 

Eelgrass is known near Zuniga Jetty near NASNI, however it is not known to 

extend into the Coronado Beach discharge areas (Karen Green, SAIC, pers. 

comm., December 2008). 

Additional algae species present in the vicinity included the reds Bossiella 

orbigniana, Corallina chilensis, C. gracila, two species of Gelidium, four species 

of Gigartina, Microcladia coulteri, and Rhodomenia pacifica; the brown 

Desmarestia herbacea; and two species of the green algae (Ulva). 

4.2.2.2 Invertebrates
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

19

Dexter (1977) surveyed subtidal areas of cobblestone boulders near the mouth of 

the Tijuana River Estuary and identified 12 invertebrate species. The most 

common species were barnacles (Balanus nubilis), batstars (Asterina miniata), 

and four decapod crustaceans (Holopagurus spp., Mimulus foliatus, Panulirus 

interrruptus, and Pugettia producta). Trawl surveys in the vicinity of the receiver 

sites collected 25 invertebrate species (San Diego 1999). The most abundant 

species collected included white sea urchin (Lytechinus pictus), seastar 

(Astropectin verrilli), and shrimp (Crangon nigromaculata and Sicyonia ingentis). 

Pismo clam (Tivela stultorum) is an important invertebrate species that once 

supported a significant commercial fishery. Pismo clams live in sandy areas from 

the intertidal zone to depths of 80 feet and may come together in beds in certain 

areas. Pismo clams can move rapidly sediment due to the development of a foot. 

They use the foot to bury themselves to a depth of approximately 2 to 6 inches. 

The minimum legal size for Pismo clam harvesting is 4.5 inches and is reached at 

about the age of 5 years. 

Pismo clam has been surveyed by the California Department of Fish and Game 

since 1948 at several California beaches including those at Pismo Beach, Morro 

Bay, Cayucos, Monterey County, and from Santa Barbara County to San Diego 

County. From 2000 to 2005 only Coronado Beach has undergone an annual 

survey by CDFG. These surveys indicated that the Pismo clam population was 

relatively stable (CDFG 2006). Reports from clam diggers and divers at that time 

indicated that significant numbers of Pismo clams continue to be harvested from 

some of the beaches in southern California. 

Surveys performed by CDFG found evidence of Pismo clam on the beaches at 

Imperial Beach in December 2008 and Coronado Beach in February 2009. 

Coronado Beach was the only surveyed beach site that met or exceeded the 

minimum legal size requirement. Clams at Coronado Beach averaged 56.8 mm in 

size, and Imperial Beach averaged 20.9 mm. Both Coronado and Imperial Beach 

had many Pismo clams in the 9 to 20 mm size range, which are considered to be 

less than 1 year old (CDFG 2009b). CDFG also reported that clams were found 

north of Silver Strand State Beach in 2010, and could be present on the flat sandy 

beaches from Coronado to Mexico (L. Adams, pers. comm., August 2011). 

Onshore survey work performed in November 2008 by SAIC (SAIC 2009) at 

Coronado Beach found one mature Pismo clam within the southern portion of the 

survey site, however the northern portion of the onshore site was not surveyed. 

Within their survey area, no evidence of Pismo clam beds was noted on the sand 

surface in the lower intertidal zone. The extent of the population was not 

determined with the survey, which involved a limited sampling effort. 

Onshore surveys at Imperial Beach found two juvenile Pismo clams in the survey 

area (SAIC 2009). No indicators of established Pismo clam beds were observed 

on the sand surface in the low tide zone. Focused surveys for Pismo clams were 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

20

not conducted, and the extent to which Pismo clam beds occur near these sites 

was not addressed by the survey. 

Onshore surveys at Imperial Beach, performed for the San Diego Regional Beach 

Sand Project II (AECOM 2011), found subadult-sized Pismo clams and relatively 

large shells north of the Imperial Beach pier, indicating presence of a Pismo clam 

bed nearby. Two juvenile Pismo clams (<1 inch) were collected downcoast of the 

pier. 

Survey work performed by SAIC in the nearshore at Imperial Beach and 

Coronado Beach took place in January and February 2009, and extended from 

outside the surf zone to water depths of 22 to 32 feet. No indicators of Pismo clam 

beds were observed on the sand surface in the nearshore at Coronado Beach in 

two of the three transects taken. However, dead clam shells were scattered along 

the inshore portion of the 3rd, northernmost transect, which suggests Pismo clam 

beds were nearby. No indicators of Pismo clam beds were observed on the sand 

surface in the nearshore survey area at Imperial Beach. 

Recent 2012 survey results provided by CDFG indicated the presence of sexually 

mature Pismo clams in the surf zone in the vicinity of the Coronado and Imperial 

Beach disposal sites. 

4.2.2.3 Fish and Essential Fish Habitat

Over 100 fish species have been documented in southern California kelp beds 

(Feder et al. 1974), while Quast (1971) described almost 60 species. Some of the 

most common inhabitants of kelp forests in the region likely include senorita 

(Oxyjulis californica), kelp surfperch (Brachyistius frenatus), blacksmith 

(Chromis punctipinnis), rockfishes (Sebastes spp.), kelp bass (Paralabrax 

clathratus), Garibaldi (Hypsypops rubicundus), and sheephead (Semicossyphus 

pulcher). Similar fish species occur in the Imperial Beach kelp beds, also 

including leopard sharks (Triakis semifasciatus), opaleye (Girella nigricans), 

halfmoon (Medialuna californiensis), giant kelpfishes (Heterostichus rostratus), 

and several surfperch species (Embiotocidae) (USIBWC 1998). 

Trawl surveys in the vicinity of the beach receiver sites reported between 3 and 18 

fish species (SCCWRP 1999). Commonly collected species included barred sand 

bass (Paralabrax nebulifer), yellowchin sculpin (Icelinus quadriseriatus), 

speckled sanddab (Citharichthys stigmaeus), Pacific sanddab (C. sordidus), and 

California halibut (Paralichthys californicus). Similarly, the City of San Diego 

collected 25 demersal fish species at trawl stations along the 100-foot isobath near 

the receiver site (San Diego 1996). Flatfishes predominated trawl samples, 

including Pacific sanddab, longfin sanddab (C. xanthostigma), English sole 

(Pleuronectes vetulus), and California tonguefish (Symphurus atricauda). 

Pelagic (open water) fishes are species that spend little or no time in contact with 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

21

the bottom. Common pelagic species likely to occur in the vicinity of the beach 

receiver sites include schooling fishes such as northern anchovy (Engraulis 

mordax), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus), 

topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), jacksmelt (Atherinopsis californiensis), and Pacific 

butterfish (Peprilus simillimus) (USIBWC 1998; SANDAG and U.S. Navy 2000). 

Other species include blue sharks (Prionace glauca), Pacific barracuda 

(Sphyraena argentea), white seabass (Atractoscion nobilis) and several rockfish 

species (Sebastes spp.). Some species may move in and out of the beach receiver 

sites such as yellowtail (Seriola lalandi), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), and 

Pacific bonito (Sarda chiliensis) (USIBWC 1998). 

The nearshore receiver sites are located within an area designated as EFH for two 

Fishery Management Plans (FMP): Pacific Groundfish and Coastal Pelagics 

FMPs (NMFS 1998). Of the 86 fish species that are federally managed under 

these two plans, approximately 32 likely occur in the vicinity of the receiver sites. 

The California grunion (Leutesthes tenuis) is common in Southern California in 

nearshore waters from the surf to a depth of -60 feet MLLW. Grunion travel from 

their habitat in nearshore waters to specific sandy beaches just after certain full 

and new moons in conjunction with their spawning, which occurs from March to 

August. Grunion in San Diego beaches are typically found on the long, gently 

sloping beaches with moderately fine grain size. Grunion are managed as a game 

species by the California Department of Fish and Game (SANDAG and U.S. 

Navy 2000). 

4.2.2.4 Birds

Birds that commonly forage in nearshore waters near the discharge areas include 

California brown pelicans, numerous species of gulls, terns, loons, and grebes 

(U.S. Navy 1992b, 1995a; USFWS 1994). The gulls, including western, 

ring-billed, California, and Heermann’s, are generalist feeders taking a variety of 

prey items at the water surface. Brown pelicans and Forster’s, Caspian, royal, 

common, elegant, and California least terns are all common in the region. These 

birds forage aerially, diving for fishes. Several species of loons and grebes also 

occur; these birds dive from the surface to pursue fish and crustaceans 

underwater. 

4.2.2.5 Mammals

Mammals most likely to be observed in the vicinity of the nearshore receiver sites 

include two pinniped species (California sea lion [Zalophus californianus] and 

harbor seal [Phoca vitulina richardsi]); dolphins, including common dolphin 

(Delphinus delphis), Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), 

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops sp.) and Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus); and, 

during seasonal migrations, California gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) 

(Bonnell and Dailey 1993). Other species that may occur uncommonly in 

offshore areas of the general project region include minke whales (Balaenoptera 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

22

acutotostrata), pilot whales (Globicephala sp.), killer whales (Orcinus orca), and 

beaked whales (e.g., Mesoplodon spp.), among others. The San Diego Basin is 

used as a foraging area by pinniped species associated with the Los Coronados 

Islands rookery and may be part of their migratory route from Mexican colonies 

moving to and from the islands of the Southern California Bight (USIBWC 1998). 

However, with the exception of some pinnipeds, most marine mammal species are 

commonly observed further offshore (e.g., deeper than 100 feet) and are not 

expected to be resident in the immediate study area. 

4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Federally-listed Threatened or Endangered species which are known, or likely, to occur in the 

project area include: green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), western snowy plover (Charadrius 

alexandrinus nivosus), and California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni). 

4.3.1 San Diego Harbor

4.3.1.1 Green Sea Turtle

Green sea turtles are federally listed as threatened in coastal California regions 

and endangered for breeding colony populations off of Florida and the Pacific 

coast of Mexico. The two closest breeding populations to the San Diego Bay are 

located in Mexico at Isla Revillagigedos and Michoacan. The green sea turtles 

are the only marine reptiles found in San Diego Bay. These turtles have generally 

occurred in the South Bay, attracted by the thermal discharge from the South Bay 

Energy Facility. Adult green sea turtles are herbivorous, feeding on red algae, sea 

lettuce, and eelgrass. 

Stinson (1984) used telemetry tags to track green sea turtles from 1976 to 1983 

within San Diego Bay. During this study, turtles appeared seasonally from late 

October until early May and exclusively occupied the south bay in the vicinity of 

a power plant cooling effluent. Individual turtles were always located within 2.5 

miles of the effluent channel and did not venture into either the central or north 

bay. No turtles were sighted or tracked within the bay during the summer months. 

The turtles would travel along the deeper contours of the south bay individually or 

in loose groups of two to seven animals while foraging. 

The number of turtles using the Bay varies but is estimated to range from 30 to 60 

animals, based on tagged animals recovered in and around the South Bay Energy 

Facility cooling channel (SDUPD 2008). 

4.3.1.2 California Least Tern 

The California least tern is federally and state listed as endangered. The least tern 

is a seasonal migrant which nests on sandy beaches from Baja California, Mexico 

to San Francisco, California between April and September. The least tern is also 

considered a plunge diver, and generally feeds within 2 miles of its nest site in 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

23

estuaries, rivers, streams, and nearshore waters. The least tern is present in the 

Bay mid-April to late August, and is known to forage in the open waters of the 

ocean and Bay. 

The number of least terns in the San Diego Bay area has increased since their 

listing in 1970. After a period of apparent instability during the eighties, the 

population has been increasing with San Diego Bay-wide breeding numbers 

climbing from 141 pairs in 1991 to 1,611-1,638 pairs in 2006 (SDUPD 2008). 

California least terns nest in colonies at several areas on the beaches adjacent to 

San Diego Bay (Figure 7). In 2006 it was estimated at 1,611-1,638 pairs, or 

approximately 22-23 percent of the state-wide population. Recently, least terns 

have nested at seven to nine locations around San Diego Bay. These include: 

North Delta Beach, South Delta Beach, Naval Amphibious Base (NAB) ocean 

beaches, NASNI, as well as Lindbergh Field, the South Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge (formerly Western Saltworks), Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve, D Street 

Fill/Sweetwater Marsh, and Silver Strand State Beach (a single record of a pair in 

2004) (SDUPD 2008). 

A study performed by Atwood and Minsky (1983) concluded that 75% of 

California least terns foraged within 0.75 mile of nesting sites, but foraging also 

occurred up to 1.86 miles away, although anecdotal observations have been 

documented of California least terns several miles from shore during the nesting 

season. 

Water bird surveys conducted by the U.S. Navy in 1993 in San Diego Bay found 

California least terns foraged in both shallow and deep water habitats, and 

avoided intermediate waters and developed areas such as marinas and piers. 

Several foraging studies have been conducted in the Los Angeles Harbor. The 

1982, 1984, and 1985 surveys found that least terns foraged over shallow water 

generally shallower than -20 feet MLLW in the Outer Harbor, especially near the 

nesting site, but not in the Inner Harbor (KBC 1997). The California least tern 

has been reported to forage in shallow waters of bays, lagoons, estuaries, tidal 

marshes, river mouths, ponds and lakes (Thomson et al. 1997). However, a 

significant amount of foraging also occurs offshore in deep-water habitats (KBC 

2003). The dredging and disposal sites may be utilized as foraging habitat by 

California least terns. Studies on use areas in San Diego Bay found that 

California least terns’ utilization of habitat within the dredging area was medium 

to low (U.S. Navy 1994). 

4.3.1.3 Western Snowy Plover

The western snowy plover is federally listed as threatened and is a state species of 

special concern. Western snowy plovers occur in the San Diego Bay area and on 

the salt work levees in the south Bay, both as uncommon winter migrants and as 

breeding populations. The nesting season for plovers is from March 1 to 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

24

September 15 and preferred nesting habitat includes sand spits, dune-backed 

beaches, beaches at creek and river mouths, and salt pans associated with lagoons 

and estuaries (USFWS 1999). It forages on marine-estuarine invertebrates and 

terrestrial and marine-associated insects, including those 

associated with kelp wrack washed ashore on sandy beaches. 

Western snowy plovers are known to nest at several sites within the project 

vicinity. In 2006, 34% of the 126 nesting sites in San Diego county were in the 

San Diego Bay area at several sites (in decreasing order of importance—NAB 

Coronado [Ocean], NASNI, Silver Strand State Beach [Ocean], Naval Radio 

Receiving Facility (NRRF), Saltworks, and NAB Coronado [Bay]). San Diego 

Bay now holds much of the remaining nesting grounds for snowy plover in 

Southern California. Much of the local nesting habitat is located on the 

undeveloped Naval training beaches (SDUPD 2008). 

Critical habitat for the plover was designated in 1999 (USFWS 1999) and 

includes several areas in the greater San Diego area, with the closest to the 

proposed dredging site being located along the Silver Strand and south of Imperial 

Beach Pier (Figure 8). New critical habitat was proposed in 2011, the closest to 

the dredge area being at NASNI and onshore of the Coronado Beach disposal 

areas (Figure 8). Plovers forage by probing in intertidal areas, and thus would not 

forage within the proposed dredge footprint. 

4.3.2 Nearshore Receiver Sites: Imperial Beach and Coronado Beach 

State or federally listed threatened and endangered species that likely occur in the vicinity 

of the beach receiver sites, or are otherwise of high concern because of status and 

vulnerability, include the following: 

4.3.2.1 Western Snowy Plover

Known nesting sites in the vicinity of the receiver sites include NAB Coronado 

[Ocean], NASNI, Silver Strand State Beach [Ocean], NRRF, Saltworks, and NAB 

Coronado [Bay] (SDUPD 2008). Snowy plover are also known to nest at the 

Tijuana Estuary/Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge and Border Field State 

Park (AECOM 2011). Wintering and migratory birds are also present, foraging 

and resting on beaches of the region (USFWS 1993a). Area beaches south of 

Coronado Beach along the Silver Strand, and north and south of the city of 

Imperial Beach are designated critical habitat for this species (USFWS 1999). 

There is critical habitat immediately onshore of the southern Coronado discharge 

site, and recently proposed critical habitat is onshore of the northern Coronado 

discharge site (Figure 8). 

4.3.2.2 California Least Tern

This State- and federally listed endangered species nests at various locations near 

the receiver sites including North Delta Beach, South Delta Beach, NAB ocean 

beaches, NASNI, as well as Lindbergh Field, the South Bay National Wildlife 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

25

Refuge (formerly Western Saltworks), Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve, D Street 

Fill/Sweetwater Marsh, and Silver Strand State Beach (a single record of a pair in 

2004) (SDUPD 2008). Nesting also occurs near Imperial Beach at the Tijuana 

River Estuary. The tern forages in the open waters of the ocean and Bay. This 

species is present in the vicinity of the nearshore disposal sites from mid-April to 

late August, wintering in Mexico. 

4.4 Water Quality 

Water quality in San Diego Bay varies, primarily due to tidal flushing and currents within the 

Bay. Water quality can also be influenced locally by freshwater inputs, including urban runoff 

from storm drains. Commonly measured water quality parameters (e.g., salinity, temperature, 

and dissolved oxygen) may vary throughout the Bay, forming a gradient with waters in the North 

Bay being similar to ocean conditions, waters in the South Bay being more affected by shallow 

depths and insolation, and waters in the Central Bay being intermediate in character. 

Bay circulation may be driven by wind, tides, temperature, and density gradients associated with 

seasonal, tidal, and diurnal cycles. The ebb and flood of tides within the Bay circulate and mix 

ocean and Bay waters, and also transport organisms, especially plankton, in and out of the 

entrance. Tides produce currents, induce changes in salinity, and alternately expose wet portions 

of the shoreline. Tidal flushing and mixing are important for dispersing pollutants, maintaining 

water quality for marine life, and moderating water temperature that has been affected by 

exchange with the atmosphere or heating, such as by the South Bay Power Plant (SDUPD 2008). 

4.4.1 San Diego Harbor 

4.4.1.1 Temperature/Salinity

Surface water temperatures near the entrance channel range from lows of 54oF to 

58o

F in winter to 71oF to 74oF in the summer. Temperatures in the South Bay can 

be slightly warmer, 59oF in winter and 74oF in summer. During 1993 surveys, the 

warmest temperature was 84.7° F in south Bay, and the coolest temperature, 59.2° 

F, was just north of the Coronado Bridge in January. The average surface 

temperature is estimated to be 63.3° F. 

The salinity of ocean water can be affected by freshwater inflow, temperature, 

evaporation, and mixing depth. Salinity is relatively constant in the north end of 

the Bay because of high exchange rates with the ocean, but can vary considerably 

in the South Bay. Salinities near the Bay entrance approach those of the nearby 

open ocean (31.2 to 31.4 practical salinity units [psu] [Largier 1997]). In contrast, 

south Bay evaporation and poor flushing produce salinities as high as 37 psu in 

late summer (Ford 1968; Ford and Chambers 1973), decreasing to lows of 22 psu 

following heavy rains (Largier 1997). 

Freshwater contribution to the Bay comes primarily from the Otay and 

Sweetwater Rivers and secondarily from several creeks. Freshwater input is now 

limited to surface runoff from urban areas (e.g. the over 200 storm drains and 

intermittent flows from several rivers and creeks after storms), and for 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

26

approximately nine months of the year, the Bay receives no significant amount of 

fresh water. This can cause south Bay to become hypersaline, or saltier than 

seawater, in excess of 35 parts per thousand (ppt) in dry seasons (SDUPD 2008). 

4.4.1.2 Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen (DO) varies with water temperature, depth, and location within 

the Bay. Although no direct information has been obtained at this writing, wellmixed areas within the Bay near the entrance channel should maintain DO 

concentrations similar to nearshore ocean conditions which vary with season and 

water depth. Engineering Science (1988) found that surface DO values ranged 

from 7.6 to 10.1 milligrams per liter (mg/l). In the South Bay, DO can vary in 

relation to other environmental factors such as limited water exchange rates and 

circulation, higher water temperatures, and oxygen uptake by organisms for 

respiration or decomposition of organic matter. MBA (1988) reports DO values 

in the Bay as low as 5 mg/l. 

4.4.1.3 Chemical Contaminants

Many areas of San Diego Bay's shoreline have been listed as impaired water 

bodies under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303[d] by the California State 

Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) due to identified pollutants. The most 

recent list was approved by the USEPA in June, 2007. Pollutants include bacteria, 

pesticides, heavy metals, and organic compounds while areas of concern continue 

to be marinas, shipyards, and outlets of creeks. The San Diego RWQCB has 

identified five of these listed sites to be "toxic hot spots" due to multiple 

pollutants and toxic effects that require immediate clean-up (SDUPD 2008). The 

project activities would not occur within nor affect the impaired areas. 

Today urban runoff is the largest source of pollutants in the region, which 

contains chemical and bacterial pollutants and debris from human activity. 

4.4.2 Nearshore Receiver Sites: Imperial Beach and Coronado Beach 

4.4.2.1 Temperature/Salinity

Temperature and salinity are important properties of seawater because they affect 

the layering and mixing of many water quality parameters, particularly in offshore 

areas. 

Ocean water temperatures vary seasonally, with minimum temperatures of 

approximately 57o

F in winter and maximum temperatures of 71oF in summer 

(USACOE 1978). Depth-related differences in water temperatures occur during 

summer, with surface water temperatures up to 50o

F warmer than those in deeper 

waters. A thermocline, or rapid change in temperature with depth, occurs within 

water depths of 30 to 65 feet (Largier 1995). The City of San Diego (1996) 

reported temperatures of 57 to 71o

F and 51 to 57oF in surface and bottom waters, 

respectively, offshore from Imperial Beach during July 1995 through June 1996. 

Similar temperatures were observed during the summer of 1994 Southern 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

27

California Bight Pilot Project (SCBPP; SCCWRP 1999). 

Salinity values for the nearshore waters are generally uniform, ranging from 

around 33 to 34 parts-per-thousand. Seasonal decreases in salinities within 

nearshore, surface waters adjacent to the mouth of the Tijuana River may occur 

following storm-related discharges of freshwater and/or intermittent historical 

discharges of sewage released into the river. Salinity values from 33.4 to 33.8 

parts-per-thousand were measured by the City of San Diego (1996) in offshore 

waters along the 100 feet bottom contour, and similar values were obtained during 

the SCBPP at two sites along the 65-foot bottom contour (SCCWRP 1999). 

4.4.2.2 Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen represents the concentration of oxygen present in seawater. It 

is controlled by combined effects of oxygen production by attached and 

planktonic plants, biological respiration, gas exchange with the atmosphere, and 

oxidation of organic matter. 

Concentrations of dissolved oxygen typically are within the range of 6.5 to 10 

milligrams per liter (mg/L), but levels may drop below 5 mg/L at depths of 200 

feet (USACOE 1978, 1995a). Measurements conducted by the City of San Diego 

(1996) showed decreasing concentrations with increasing water depth and 

distance from shore, and mean values were highest during the summer and early 

fall. At the 100-foot depth contour, mean values in summer ranged from 7.7 

mg/L in July to 8.9 mg/L in October (USIBWC 1998). Dissolved oxygen values 

declined in winter and increased again in the spring, with the exception of a low 

value of 6.9 mg/L in April that coincided with an upwelling event. 

Concentrations measured at two sites along the 65-foot bottom contour during the 

SCBPP ranged from 6.5 to 10.9 mg/L (SCCWRP 1999). 

4.4.2.3 Clarity/Turbidity

Water clarity is important to the transmittance of light, which is needed to support 

photosynthesis by attached and planktonic plants. Light transmittance is affected 

by the amount of particles, including biological (e.g., plankton) and 

non-biological (e.g., suspended sediments), and dissolved organic matter present 

in seawater. Water clarity in nearshore waters is affected by wave and 

current-induced resuspension of sediments and by stormwater runoff and river 

discharges following rainfall events, as well as the presence of planktonic algae 

(e.g., diatoms and dinoflagellates). 

Sampling conducted by the City of San Diego (1996) indicated values for light 

transmittance from 75% to 87%, with some general reductions associated with 

storm activity, particularly in shallower, nearshore waters. As mentioned, 

turbidity levels in nearshore and surfzone waters are expected to be relatively 

higher than those in offshore waters due to the presence of greater amounts of 

suspended sediments. Light transmittance values measured during the SCBPP 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

28

survey ranged from 59% to 84 % at two sites along the 60-foot bottom contour 

(SCCWRP 1999). 

4.4.2.4 Nutrients

Nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates are important for supporting the growth 

of attached and planktonic plants. Discharges from the Tijuana River and Estuary 

likely represent an important seasonal source of nutrients to nearshore waters 

within the beach receiver sites. Upwelling events also contribute nutrients to 

surface waters. No nutrient data were collected during the City of San Diego 

baseline monitoring program for the International Wastewater Treatment Plant or 

during the SCBPP. Regardless, nutrient concentrations in waters off the beach 

receiver sites are expected to be similar to levels reported elsewhere in the 

Southern California Bight: nitrates at 5 to 200 nanomoles per liter; phosphates at 

100 to 500 nanomoles per liter; and ammonium at 300 nanomoles per liter 

(Eganhouse and Venkatesan 1993). 

4.4.2.5 Chemical Contaminants

The NOAA Mussel Watch program has monitored chemical contaminants in 

seawater at a site on the Imperial Beach north jetty since 1986 by collecting and 

analyzing the tissues of filter-feeding mussels, which are used as a sentinel 

organism for marine water quality. Results from 1986 through 1993 showed 

significant declines in concentrations of mercury, selenium, total chlordane, and 

total PCBs, but significant increases in total PAHs. Total DDT concentrations in 

mussel tissues were characterized as high (i.e., concentrations greater than the 

national mean plus one standard deviation for the log-normal distribution) during 

each of four years and total dieldrin concentrations were considered high during 

one of four years (O’Connor and Beliaeff 1995). These trends likely reflect 

changes over time in the magnitudes of regional input sources. 

Furthermore, discharge from the Tijuana River may result in higher levels of 

contaminants and lower water quality at Imperial Beach than at Coronado Beach, 

due to Imperial Beach’s proximity to the mouth of the River. 

4.5 Air Quality 

The climate of San Diego County is characterized by warm dry summers and mild wet winters. 

It is heavily influenced by the Pacific High which shunts low-pressure systems away from the 

area during much of the year. This high-pressure phenomenon is the driving force for the 

dominant onshore circulation and helps create the subsidence and solar radiation types of 

temperature inversions which contribute to local air quality problems. 

The marine subsidence inversion occurs on summer days (typically late afternoon after the 

ambient air has warmed) when a cool, onshore flow of marine air undercuts a large dome of 

warm air. The resultant inversion layer (cool air near the surface, warmer air above) creates a 

barrier to vertical circulation throughout its thickness of approximately 300 to 600 meters (1,000 

to 2,000 feet) above ground. This lack of circulation traps pollutants within the cooler marine 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

29

layer. As this stagnant air layer moves inland, additional pollutants are added from activities at 

ground level. These pollutants react in sunlight to form photochemical smog (measured and 

expressed as ozone), and adversely effect ambient air quality, especially in the vicinity of the 

foothills. 

Another common type of inversion is created when near surface air cools by radiating heat 

(rendering it heavier than the air above it) while the air mass above remains relatively warmer. If 

this phenomenon persists, it traps surface-based emissions such as carbon monoxide (CO) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOx). 

At San Diego International Airport Lindbergh Field, the annual mean temperature is 62.9°F; the 

annual mean maximum is 70.3°F and the annual mean minimum is 55.4°F. Below freezing 

temperatures rarely occur. Temperatures above 90°F occur frequently. Precipitation in the study 

area averages 10 inches annually. The rainy season is essentially November through April (90% 

of annual precipitation occurs during this period). Winds are light and variable. Prevailing wind 

direction is west-northwest (onshore). Annual mean wind velocity is 6.7 miles per hour (mph). 

Days are typically clear and sunny with night and morning cloudiness common throughout the 

year. 

4.5.1 San Diego Harbor 

The closest SDAPCD air quality monitoring station in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) 

is in downtown San Diego, located at 330A Twelfth Street, approximately 2 miles east of 

the project area. The next closest, the Chula Vista monitoring station, is located 

approximately 9 miles to the southeast. No ambient air quality monitoring stations are 

located at San Diego Bay. The downtown monitoring station is primarily influenced by 

sources located in the industrial area around San Diego International Airport Lindbergh 

Field, and is not representative of conditions at the Bay. The Chula Vista monitoring 

station, although farther away, is more representative of conditions at the Bay because it 

is directly down wind from the harbor and the prevailing onshore winds. The Chula 

Vista station monitors ozone (O3), CO, NO2, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and PM10. 

4.5.2 Nearshore Receiver Sites: Imperial Beach and Coronado Beach

The meteorology/climate, and ambient air quality would be the same as described above. 

4.6 Noise 

4.6.1 San Diego Harbor 

There are no federal or state standards limiting construction noise. Many cities and 

counties have provision in their noise ordinance that addresses construction noise levels 

and time of operation. San Diego Municipal Code Article 9.5 discusses noise abatement 

and control. Section 59.5.0404 addresses construction noise specifically, stating that “It 

shall be unlawful for any person, between the hours of 7:00 p.m. of any day and 7:00 a.m. 

of the following day, or on legal holidays... or Sundays, to erect, construct, demolish, 

excavate for, alter or repair any building or structure in such a manner as to create 

disturbing, excessive or offensive noise unless a permit has been applied for an granted 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

30

beforehand by the Noise Abatement and Control Administrator.” 

The project area is located within a relatively high noise area typical of port and 

industrial areas. The noise levels are further increased by aircraft operating both out of 

NASNI and San Diego International Airport Lindbergh Field. Vehicular traffic in the 

area also contributes to the overall noise environment. 

Noise studies conducted for the Navy homeporting project (U.S. Navy 1995) indicate that 

community noise equivalency levels (CNEL) in the harbor range between 60 and 67 

dBA. 

4.6.2 Nearshore Receiver Sites: Imperial Beach and Coronado Beach 

The Imperial Beach nearshore disposal site is located approximately 1,000 feet offshore 

and the Coronado Beach nearshore disposal sites are located approximately 2,000 feet 

offshore. 

Chapter 9.32.020 Paragraph H of the City of Imperial Beach Municipal Code states “The 

use of any tools, power machinery or equipment so as to cause noises disturbing to the 

comfort and repose of any person residing or working in the vicinity, or in excess of 

seventy-five decibels, between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m., except when the 

same is necessary for emergency repairs required for the health and safety of any member 

of the community.” However, an exemption from the provisions can be obtained by 

submitting a written application to the City Manager. 

Three major sources of noise exist in Imperial Beach: vehicular traffic along major 

arterial roadways, helicopter noise from the Imperial Beach Naval Outlying Landing 

Field (Ream Field), and temporary construction activities. 

Sensitive noise receptors in the vicinity of the beach receiver site are generally 

residences, commercial facilities, and recreational areas along Seacoast Drive. It is 

estimated that ambient noise levels at the receptor locations vary from approximately 55 

dBA to 60 dBA. 

Section 41.10.040 of the City of Coronado Municipal Code states that “it shall be 

unlawful for any person, between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any day or on 

legal holidays and Sundays to erect, construct, demolish, excavate for, alter or repair any 

building or structure in such a manner as to create a disturbing, excessive or offensive 

noise unless a noise control permit has been applied for and granted beforehand by the 

Noise Control Officer.” 

Sensitive noise receptors in the vicinity of the beach receiver sites are generally 

residences, hotels, commercial facilities, and recreational areas along Silver Strand 

Boulevard. A comprehensive traffic noise study was performed for and in the City of 

Coronado in 1998. The purpose of the study was to provide a legally adequate and 

defensible noise contour map for the City of Coronado General Plan Noise Element 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

31

(RECON 1998). Traffic noise levels were monitored at many points in the city. The 

noise study found that average noise levels along City streets ranged from 63 to 75 dBA 

CNEL. 

To address issues related to the proposed 24-hour dredging operations, noise 

measurements were taken late at night on February 21-22, 2001 at representative receiver 

locations in the City of Coronado. The baseline monitoring indicated that late-night noise 

levels were affected mainly by local traffic, with additional effects caused by distant 

traffic on the Coronado Bridge and aircraft operations at Lindbergh Field. 

4.7 Land Use and Recreation 

4.7.1 San Diego Harbor 

Urban uses dominate the San Diego Bay region and shoreline, with the exception of the 

south Bay. Industrial uses along the Bay include shipyards, boatyards, docks and 

wharves, shipping and trade companies, aerospace and airport industries, and 

manufacturing. Commercial businesses are represented by retail stores, hotels, conference 

centers, cruise ships, restaurants, marinas, office buildings, and salt ponds. Public uses 

include parks, beaches, bike trails, promenades, boat launch ramps, municipal buildings, 

and community centers. Only a few residential areas immediately abut the Bay tidelands, 

with condominiums, apartment houses, and homes located not far from the shoreline 

(SDUPD 2008). 

The Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal is the center of commercial shipping activity for 

operations of the SDUPD, and handles bulk loading/unloading and distribution of various 

materials. 

The San Diego Bay area is popular for recreation and there are several parks and beaches 

for the Bay where the main recreational activities are sailing, boating, picnicking, 

bicycling, swimming, diving, water skiing, and fishing. Marinas throughout the Bay 

provide slips with full amenities including guest facilities, picnic areas, and pump-out 

stations. 

The largest concentration of industrial facilities is along the waterfront in the City of San 

Diego’s Barrio Logan Community, stretching south along Harbor Drive from the former 

Campbell Shipyards through what is called the Belt Street industrial area to the National 

Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) shipyard. 

Government and institutional uses include, among others, the San Diego International 

Airport Lindbergh Field, two U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) installations, Scripps Pier, and 

numerous military installations. 

4.7.2 Nearshore Receiver Sites: Imperial Beach and Coronado Beach 

Coronado beach includes various land uses including residential and hotels, and 

commercial operations including restaurants and shopping areas catering to tourists and 

local residents. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

32

Recreation at Coronado Beach includes sun bathing, swimming, jogging, picnicking, 

bicycling, and hiking/walking. 

Imperial Beach is generally characterized by a mixture of land uses including residential, 

open space, recreational, and commercial. Residential areas include oceanfront 

condominiums and apartments. Commercial operations include restaurants and specialty 

shops catering to tourists and local residents. Open space areas include the Tijuana River 

National Estuarine Research Reserve, which includes Border Field State Park. 

Recreation at Imperial Beach includes surfing (short- and long-board), bodyboarding, 

bodysurfing, sun bathing, swimming, jogging, sightseeing, bird watching, horseback 

riding, picnicking, bicycling, hiking/walking, and various types of fishing (e.g., pier, 

boat, beach). 

4.8 Aesthetics 

4.8.1 San Diego Harbor 

The aesthetic character of San Diego Harbor is comprised of waterfront oriented facilities 

including a mixture of residential, and marine-related commercial, recreational, and 

industrial uses. San Diego Bay also supports several military facilities. The scenic and 

visual resources of the project area are dominated by the harbor and these nearshore 

facilities. 

4.8.2 Nearshore Receiver Sites: Imperial Beach and Coronado Beach 

The aesthetic character of Coronado Beach is dominated by beachfront residences and 

hotels. The NASNI is visible from Coronado Beach and naval planes and helicopters can 

be seen flying overhead. 

The aesthetic character of Imperial Beach is dominated by beachfront residences. The 

U.S. Naval Radio Station is located just north of Imperial Beach and contributes to the 

aesthetic character. The Imperial Beach Naval Air Station is located at the southern end 

of Imperial Beach, and naval planes and helicopters can be seen flying overhead. 

4.9 Cultural Resources 

4.9.1 San Diego Harbor 

The probability of a prehistoric site or a shipwreck of potential historical significance 

existing within the project area is considered extremely remote (Pettus 1996). Shipwrecks 

are routinely removed by the San Diego Harbor Patrol. The potential for encountering 

other deposits of in situ cultural materials is considered highly unlikely. 

4.9.2 Nearshore Receiver Sites: Imperial Beach and Coronado Beach 

The remains of the 1909 Imperial Beach Pier are located in the vicinity of the existing 

pier (Macfarlane Archaeological Consultants 2004). This area has been previously 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

33

disturbed by dredge discharge from earlier dredging projects. This discharge site has been 

subjected to an underwater remote sensing survey by a team of underwater archeologists 

in 2003 (Macfarlane Archaeological Consultants 2004). No historic properties were 

identified. Macfarlane Archaeological Consultants (2004:29) identified an “unidentified 

cage-like feature” located northwest of the 1909 pier ruins; they recommended avoidance 

of this potential cultural resource. 

In November 2008, EDAW, Inc. conducted a cultural resources records search for the 

City of Coronado Opportunistic Beach Fill project (Dolan 2008), located on the beach 

between the Naval Air Station North Island and the Naval Amphibious Base. EDAW’s 

records search scope of analysis included the project area. EDAW examined cultural 

resources documents and maps at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego 

State University and at the San Diego Museum of Man. Roy Pettus conducted an 

underwater survey offshore from Coronado Beach and Silver strand in 1985 (Pettus 

1996); it is not known whether Pettus’ survey area coincided with the current project 

area. In addition, Dolan (2008) points out that one shipwreck, CA-SDI-11,069, is located 

offshore near the Naval Amphibious Base. This shipwreck is commonly known as the 

Monte Carlo or McKittrick. Built in 1921, this vessel was originally used as a tanker and 

later used for gambling. Since 1985 the Corps has been placing sand on top of the 

shipwreck in order to prevent site disturbance (Dolan 2008). Finally, Dolan (2008) 

recommended avoidance of the Monte Carlo shipwreck and monitoring of beach berm 

construction in the vicinity of the shipwreck. 

The Corps conducted a cultural resources remote sensing survey of the northern 

Coronado Beach disposal area in July 2009. Results of the survey indicated that there are 

several small magnetometer anomalies scattered in the Coronado Beach disposal area, but 

they do not appear to relate to a cultural resources (e.g., shipwreck or other historic 

debris). Therefore, there are no known cultural resources or historic properties within the 

northern Coronado Beach discharge area. 

The southern Coronado Beach disposal area was previously used as a borrow site for the 

Shore Protection Improvement Project at the U.S. Naval Amphibious Base in 1985. 

4.10 Marine Traffic 

4.10.1 San Diego Harbor 

The SDUPD maintains navigational aides outside the main shipping channel. According 

to records maintained by the SDUPD Marine Operations Department, 513 commercial 

vessels (including barges) docked at their facility during 2000. In addition, another 101 

cruise ships use their facility. It is estimated that naval/military vessels account for 

approximately two to three times the amount of commercial traffic within the deep water 

channel main shipping lane, especially with major berthing facilities at NASNI and Naval 

Station San Diego (NAVSTA). Even with this traffic level, the San Diego Bay is 

relatively uncongested when compared to other west coast ports. 

Marine safety issues within San Diego Bay are handled by both the USCG and the San 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

34

Diego Harbor Police, an arm of the SDUPD. All commercial traffic in the Bay is the 

responsibility of the USCG. The Harbor Police frequently become involved, however, 

with marine safety enforcement associated with small vessels. Federal Aids to 

Navigation are maintained by the SDUPD General Services Department boat crew, with 

oversight provided by the USCG. 

4.10.2 Nearshore Receiver Sites: Imperial Beach and Coronado Beach 

Minimal marine traffic is anticipated in the vicinity of the nearshore receiver sites. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

35

5.0 Environmental Effects 

This Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) addresses dredging operations that 

would occur during maintenance dredging of the Federal Channel at San Diego Harbor and 

discharge of nearshore compatible material in the nearshore waters at Imperial Beach or 

Coronado Beach. It is estimated that construction may take a maximum of 50 days using a 

hopper dredge or a maximum of 100 days using a clamshell dredge. Dredging is scheduled to 

occur between August 1 2012 and April 1 2013. Impacts due to implementation of the proposed 

project are presented below. Additional project alternatives, including the No Action alternative 

were presented in the March 2009 EA, under separate cover. Impacts to the additional, southern 

Coronado Beach disposal site would be similar to those analyzed for the original, northern site. 

5.1 Physical Environment 

5.1.1 San Diego Harbor: Maintenance Dredging Site 

Modifications to the existing bottom topography of the Federal Navigation Channel 

should be expected as a result of the proposed dredging project. Local, but minor, 

changes to the bathymetry would result because of the removal of marine sediments from 

the Federal Channel. Impacts to the Harbor bathymetry would not be considered 

significant as sediment would only be removed in the Federal Channel to authorized 

depths, in areas that have previously been dredged. 

5.1.2 Discharge at Imperial Beach or Coronado Beach 

Modifications to the existing bottom topography of the discharge areas should be 

expected as a result of the proposed project. Local, but minor, changes to the bathymetry 

would result because of deposition of marine sediments in the nearshore. This sediment 

would dissipate over time via wave action, eventually washing onto and replenishing the 

beach. Nearshore discharge would produce a positive effect through probable increases 

in beach recreational usage following the nearshore deposition. 

The proposed discharge in nearshore waters would not cause or contribute to the erosion 

of existing downcoast beaches and should result in temporary beach accretion because 

material would be returned to the intertidal zone. Material would be discharged in 

nearshore waters in the most desirable location for the purposes of beach nourishment 

and the avoidance of impacts to sensitive biological resources. Disturbances resulting 

from dredge material discharge would not significantly degrade the value of intertidal and 

subtidal beach habitats, as impacts would be temporary and localized. No significant 

cumulative adverse effects on the terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems would occur as a result 

of the proposed project. 

5.2 Biological Environment 

5.2.1 San Diego Harbor: Maintenance Dredging Site 

5.2.1.1 Marine Vegetation 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

36

Any benthic flora within the immediate project area would be eliminated by the 

dredging activities because of site excavation and substrate removal. Given the 

depths of dredging, minimal vegetation is expected to occur within the dredge 

footprint; therefore, the proposed dredging project would not cause any adverse 

impacts to marine vegetation. Any impacts to marine algae and meioflora are 

localized, minimal, and not significant. 

Eelgrass is present near the dredge area in the entrance channel, as close as 

approximately 185 feet, which is sufficient distance to avoid impacts from 

dredging to the eelgrass beds. The dredge Contractor would also receive a map of 

the beds and be directed to avoid impacts. No impacts to eelgrass would occur. 

5.2.1.2 Invertebrates 

Dredging activities inherently cause a disturbance and redistribution of bottom 

sediments which may persist for the duration of the operation. Some 

invertebrates, especially small crustaceans and mollusks of the infauna, may be 

relocated with the dredged material and deposited in the discharge site. Some 

would be smothered, some would become food for opportunistic shorebirds, and 

others would survive at the new location. 

Invertebrates, epifauna, and infauna may be exposed to suspended sediment 

concentrations during dredging and up to 24 hours later. Dredging operations 

may cause some clogging to gills and suspension feeding apparatuses, resulting in 

smothering to invertebrates in the immediate vicinity. Impacts are expected to be 

minor since dredged sediment would be composed primarily of beach compatible 

sands and few silts. Invertebrates are expected to recover from the disturbance 

upon completion of the project. The impacts to invertebrates are minimal, 

temporary, and not significant. 

5.2.1.3 Fish and Essential Fish Habitat 

Dredging of waterways to improve navigation or harbor facilities could affect fish 

resources in a variety of ways. The dredging process could result in direct loss of 

foraging habitat, but perhaps even more significant is the turbidity associated with 

this activity. Some fish may avoid the immediate project area during dredging 

operations because of the increased turbidity, noise levels, and oxygen depletion 

caused by dredging bottom sediment. The dredging operation will be monitored 

to ensure that any substantial increases in turbidity or decreases in dissolved 

oxygen are restricted to the immediate area around the dredge (see Section 7.0). 

Any such dredge-related impacts would be temporary, controlled, and therefore, 

insignificant. Greater potential for impacts would exist if there were substantial 

amounts of fine sediments in the dredging areas; however, testing of samples of 

material to be dredged indicated that grain sizes are predominately of coarser 

grain beach compatible grain sands. This material settles quickly instead of 

remaining suspended in the water column. 

Dredging may benefit fish in the area as dredging activities sometimes suspend 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

37

infauna and epifauna to temporarily enhance fish feeding activities. However, 

impacts may also occur if fish congregate near the surface to feed on suspended 

benthic organisms or to avoid turbidity, where they may become prey for plunge 

diving birds. Impacts to EFH is minimum and short term, and it would not result 

in a significant, adverse impact. 

5.2.1.4 Birds 

Dredging activities may temporarily degrade water quality and increase ambient 

noise levels, which could cause disturbances to some birds. Increased levels of 

activities within the harbor may decrease waterfowl use of the water for resting 

and the use of any nearby structures for roosting; however boat traffic within the 

Harbor is often heavy, consisting of large Navy and commercial vessels, and the 

addition of the dredge would not significantly increase activity levels. 

Dredging activities may enhance feeding opportunities for plunge diving birds as 

fish may congregate near dredge sediments to feed on suspended benthic 

organisms. (KBC 2011). 

Furthermore, birds and marine mammals are expected to acclimate to the dredge's 

monotonous, non-threatening noise (Climo 1987, Gentry 1990). Dredging 

operations would be temporary, localized, and not significant. 

5.1.2.5 Marine Mammals 

 San Diego Harbor does not constitute essential feeding or breeding habitat for 

any marine mammal species that may be present in the area. Sea lions would 

likely avoid the dredging activities; therefore, no significant impacts to these 

mammals are expected. Similarly, the proposed dredging operation is not 

expected to adversely affect any other marine mammals. Any short-term 

disruptions to pre-dredge foraging or movement behaviors would be temporary 

and not significant, as wildlife activities are expected to return to normal upon 

project completion. 

5.2.2 Discharge at Imperial Beach or Coronado Beach

5.2.2.1 Marine Vegetation 

Less than significant impacts to marine vegetation are expected as the sandy 

nearshore discharge areas have minimal marine vegetation. Eelgrass and kelp 

communities are at such distance from the zone of discharge as to be beyond the 

area of impact. Any sensitive marine vegetation would be avoided during 

sediment discharge. 

 

5.2.2.2 Invertebrates 

The potential biological and physical effects of using dredged material for beach 

replenishment include coverage and disturbance of fauna by dredged material, 

and temporary turbidity increase within the nearshore disposal areas, which can 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

38

cause clogged gills and breathing apparatuses. The turbidity levels are expected 

to be relatively low because the dredged material would be composed of 

predominantly sandy material with particle sizes larger than silts or clays; impacts 

to turbidity may be adverse but short term in nature. The invertebrate community 

is expected to recolonize the area after disposal activities are complete. Given the 

short term and temporary nature of impacts, no significant impacts are expected. 

Survey work in the nearshore at Imperial Beach and Coronado Beach outline that 

no indicators of Pismo clam beds were observed in the nearshore at Imperial 

Beach (SAIC 2009). The identification of dead clam shells at the inshore portion 

of a transect at the north end of the northern nearshore Coronado disposal site 

suggest that clam beds may be nearby. Onshore surveys indicate that Pismo clams 

occur at Imperial Beach, generally north of the pier. Beds were also found in the 

surf zone approximately 0.75 mile south of the pier during 2012 surveys. The 

nearshore disposal site at Imperial Beach is located just south of the pier. Pismo 

clams, including those exceeding the legal size limit, were also detected onshore 

and in the surf zone at Coronado Beach. 

Impacts to Pismo clam due to nearshore disposal are expected to be negligible and 

therefore not significant. No sediment would be disposed of directly on the beach, 

therefore no impacts from crushing or burial by construction equipment would 

occur. Water quality would be monitored during dredging and disposal activities 

to ensure minimized impacts to water quality and turbidity in the nearshore 

waters. Because clams are mobile, some individuals would be expected to move 

out of the disposal area as sand placement occurs. The dissipation of sand out of 

the water column over time would prevent direct burial of clams in the nearshore. 

Slow dispersal of sand from the nearshore into the surf zone and onto the beach 

via wave action would allow time for clams in the surf zone to move towards 

fresh ocean water as needed. 

All dredged sediments would be disposed of in the nearshore; no sediments would 

be disposed of on the beach or in the surf zone, where Pismo clams have been 

identified. Since Pismo clams generally inhabit the surf zone and disposal would 

occur in the nearshore, and since surveys did not definitively observe clam beds in 

the nearshore, impacts to Pismo clam would be minimal, localized, temporary, 

and not significant. Observed beds would not be impacted by direct burial. Water 

quality monitoring would further minimize impacts to the clam from turbidity 

during nearshore disposal. While nearshore surveys at Coronado Beach 

suggested that clam beds may be nearby, the nearshore disposal sites are very 

large and disposal of sediment would not be concentrated in one small area. 

Dispersal of sediment over such a large area would not create significant impacts. 

5.2.2.3 Fish and Essential Fish Habitat 

Some fish may avoid the immediate discharge area due to increases in suspended 

sediments. Water quality monitoring would be performed during dredging and 

disposal to minimize impacts to turbidity. Other fish species may be attracted to 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

39

the discharge area and surf zone to feed on mollusks, crustaceans, and other 

organisms which may have been caught up in, or exposed by, the dredged 

material. However, impacts may also occur if fish congregate near the surface to 

feed on suspended benthic organisms or to avoid turbidity, where they may 

become prey for plunge diving birds. Turbidity levels are anticipated to subside 

upon completion of the nearshore disposal operations. 

Dredged material would be discharged in nearshore waters and sandy disposed 

sediments are expected to dissipate relatively quickly out of the water column. 

Sands would replenish the beach gradually over time via wave action. No material 

would be placed in the surf zone therefore impacts to spawning grunion are 

expected to be negligible and not significant. 

Given the temporary and localized nature of discharge, and that discharge would 

occur in the nearshore and would replenish the beach over a long period of time, 

no significant impacts are expected. 

5.2.2.4 Birds 

Discharge activities would occur in the nearshore, therefore impacts to nesting 

birds are not expected. Dredging activities may attract many birds to the discharge 

areas to feed on invertebrates that may have been dredged up and exposed in the 

dredged material as it is released into the water. Disposal activities may also cause 

fish to congregate near dredge sediments to feed on suspended benthic organisms 

or to avoid turbidity plumes (KBC 2011), enhancing feeding opportunities for 

plunge diving birds. Turbidity during disposal may impact visibility for foraging 

for some birds. Dredge material is composed mostly of sandy material, which is 

expected to dissipate relatively quickly out of the water column. Furthermore, 

water quality monitoring would be performed during dredging and disposal 

activities, which would minimize impacts of turbidity on foraging birds. No 

significant adverse impacts to birds are expected from this project. 

5.2.2.5 Mammals 

Some marine mammals could be found near the discharge sites. If marine 

mammals did appear in the nearshore discharge area, they are expected to avoid 

the immediate work area, and would not be affected by discharge activities. No 

adverse impacts are expected to marine mammals from this project. 

5.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The following paragraphs discuss impacts for dredging as well as dredge material discharge. 

5.3.1 San Diego Harbor: Maintenance Dredging Site AND Discharge at Imperial Beach 

or Coronado Beach

5.3.1.1 California least tern 

The March 2009 EA and August 2010 SEA included environmental commitments 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

40

that restricted dredging outside the California least tern nesting season (April 1 to 

September 15) to avoid impacts to this species. The Corps determined that this 

restriction is unnecessary for the proposed project. A recent study drafted by 

Keane Biological Consulting, researching the impacts of dredging to foraging 

California least tern, indicated that terns foraging in San Diego Bay are not 

adversely affected by dredging or beach nourishment operations. 

A similar effort being conducted by the Corps’ San Francisco District (Joseph 

Viola, pers. comm., July 2011) has found that California least tern forage within 

3.5 miles of their nesting site. California least tern typically forage (75% of 

foraging) within 0.75 mile of their nesting site (Atwood and Minsky 1983, KBC 

2011). 

The dredge area is located approximately 1 mile from the nearest least tern 

nesting colony at NASNI. The Imperial Beach nearshore disposal site is located 

approximately 1 mile from the nearest least tern nesting colony at the Tijuana 

River estuary and the Coronado Beach nearshore disposal sites are located 

approximately 2 miles from the nearest least tern colony. While the nearshore 

disposal beaches and dredge locations are located within foraging range from 

nesting sites, successful foraging dives have been observed in turbid water and 

immediately adjacent to dredging equipment (KBC 2011). It is hypothesized that 

turbidity plumes may create a “curtain” that causes small fish to group together 

near the edge of plumes, and may cause small fish to move into illuminated 

surface waters and avoid darker waters below. This may suggest that foraging 

success of plunge diving birds may even be enhanced by increased turbidity 

(KBC 2011). Furthermore, California least tern are known to forage in a wide 

variety of habitats near their nesting sites and do not exclusively forage in one or 

two areas (KBC 2011). Temporarily shifting to nearby sites would not adversely 

affect foraging success or nesting behaviors. 

The proposed dredge sediment is coarse, sandy material, which is expected to 

dissipate quickly after disposal in the nearshore and in the dredge area. Water 

quality monitoring will be performed including turbidity monitoring to ensure 

minimal impacts to water quality. 

The March 2009 EA determined that the proposed dredging project may affect, 

not likely to adversely affect the California least tern and informal Section 7 

consultation was completed with USFWS at that time. Concurrence was received 

from USFWS in February 2009 (Appendix B). Based on recent research results 

and anecdotal evidence, the Corps now considers that the project would not affect 

the California least tern. The Corps coordinated updates to the project, as 

described in this Final SEA, with USFWS (See Section 1.5 for details on 

coordination). 

During coordination the USFWS expressed concerns regarding dredging during 

the California least tern nesting season. USFWS communicated that they did not 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

41

agree with the Corps’ “no affect” determination for the tern if dredging were to 

occur during breeding season. 

For the proposed dredging between August 1, 2012 and September 15, 2012 

(during the tern breeding season) the USFWS expressed they could concur with a 

“may affect, not likely to adversely affect” the tern. If dredging were to occur 

during this time, USFWS also requested that a monitoring plan be developed to 

investigate the impacts of dredging, if any, on the tern and foraging. 

Details of the Corps and USFWS communications regarding California least tern, 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) determinations, and the reasoning for each 

agency’s proposed determinations are included in Appendix B. 

To facilitate completion of the Final EA and to be able to advertize the 

construction project, the Corps decided to defer to the USFWS recommendation 

in this instance and agree that this particular dredging project, scheduled to 

commence after August 1, 2012 "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" 

the California least tern. 

Per USFWS request, should dredging occur between August 1, 2012 and 

September 15, 2012, the Corps would continue to coordinate with USFWS staff to 

develop a monitoring program for the CA least tern. 

5.3.1.2 Green Sea Turtle 

Based on coordination with NMFS, impacts to green sea turtle would be avoided 

by regularly inspecting the hopper of the hopper dredge, if used, for the presence 

of turtle remains. If the turtle is detected, dredging operations would cease and 

NMFS would be notified to provide direction on the continuance of the project 

and further consultation. Dredging and discharge would occur far from known 

populations of green sea turtle which are known to stay near the South Bay Power 

Plant while residing in the harbor during winter months. Therefore, the proposed 

project may affect, not likely to adversely affect the green sea turtle. Informal 

Section 7 Consultation was initiated with NMFS regarding the green sea turtle in 

December 2008. A letter of concurrence from NMFS regarding impacts to green 

sea turtle was received on March 4, 2009 (Appendix B). Additional coordination 

was performed with NMFS in July 2011 in preparation of this SEA. See Section 

1.5 for details on correspondence and coordination. 

Discharge operations will occur in the nearshore environment of the Pacific 

Ocean and would not occur in the vicinity of the power plant, therefore it is 

expected that the proposed discharge would not affect this species. 

5.3.1.3 Western Snowy Plover 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed that dredging and discharge would not 

affect the western snowy plover. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

42

Food supply, nest-site availability, and predators are the environmental factors 

with potential to decrease the nest density of the snowy plover, and subsequently 

its continued existence and recovery (Page et a.l 1983). Several human factors can 

decrease the quality and quantity of plover habitat (Stenzel et al. 1981), including 

vehicular or pedestrian traffic in plover nesting or foraging habitat; destruction of 

eggs by pedestrian or vehicular traffic; and harassment of adults during egglaying, incubation, and parental care. Regular beach grooming activities can also 

significantly influence the invertebrate (prey) populations (M. Holmgren, pers. 

comm., 2004; Dugan 2001; Dugan et al. 2003). Since these impacts are not 

expected to be associated with dredging or discharge operations, the proposed 

project would not affect this species. 

Dredging activities will take place far off-shore from known snowy plover habitat 

within the harbor. Dredge material deposited in the nearshore is expected to 

disperse via wave action over the course of several months to replenish the beach. 

No material will be disposed of onshore or near snowy plover habitat. 

In conclusion, this project is not expected affect the Western snowy plover or its 

habitat. 

5.4 Water Quality 

The following paragraphs discuss impacts for dredging as well as nearshore discharge. 

5.4.1 San Diego Harbor: Maintenance Dredging Site AND Discharge at Imperial Beach 

or Coronado Beach 

Temporary physical and chemical changes in water quality characteristics may result 

because of re-suspension of bottom sediments during dredging activities. Any 

contaminants present could become ecologically active upon disturbance by these 

activities. Core samples taken from the proposed dredging areas at San Diego Harbor in 

October 2008 indicated fines in accordance with Corps standards of less than 38%. 

Contaminants do not typically adhere to large-grained sands; therefore, contaminants are 

not expected in the dredged material. Chemical testing conducted in October 2008 

confirmed that contaminant levels in the sand do not exceed lower effects bases screening 

levels (ERLs), and are within the range acceptable for nearshore discharge. Sediments 

were found compatible with those of the nearshore disposal beaches. Given these results 

the effects of these activities on water quality are expected to be minimal. 

The grain size (mechanical) and chemical analysis results were coordinated with the 

concerned resource agencies during preparation of the March 2009 EA. Meetings are 

conducted with members of the Dredge Materials Management Team (DMMT) to 

discuss the details of dredging projects. Participants in these DMMT meetings typically 

include EPA, Corps, RWQCB, and CCC. These resource agencies did not express 

concerns regarding the discharge of clean material in the nearshore for beach 

replenishment. Additional coordination occurred during preparation of this EA. See 

Section 1.5 of this SEA for details on coordination. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

43

Dredging and disposal impacts may include temporary increases in turbidity and 

suspended solids levels along with the associated decreases in dissolved oxygen in the 

immediate vicinity of the dredging and disposal operations. Increased turbidity would 

result in a decrease in light penetration and cause a general decline in aquatic primary 

productivity. Any appreciable turbidity increase may cause clogging of respiratory and 

feeding apparatuses of fish and filter feeders. Motile organisms, however, are expected 

to evacuate and avoid the dredging and disposal areas and temporarily relocate to an 

undisturbed area. Due to the small percentage of fines in the dredged material and the 

high percentage of coarse, sandy material, disposed material is expected to settle out of 

the water column relatively quickly. Increases in turbidity would be minimized and 

restricted to the immediate vicinity of the operation. 

Dredging activities are expected to contribute to only a small percentage of the total 

turbidity found in the ocean when compared with that created by natural erosion of the 

beach, storm run-off from terrestrial habitats, and re-suspension of solids by waves, 

currents, and maritime traffic. High levels of turbidity resulting from the dredging and 

discharge operations are usually restricted to the immediate vicinity of the dredging and 

discharge areas and tend to dissipate rapidly. For these reasons, the proposed dredging 

and discharge project is not expected to cause significant changes in water quality. 

Furthermore, dredging and discharge activities shall adhere to the requirements and 

controls set forth by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water quality 

monitoring would be performed during dredging operations to minimize impacts due to 

the implementation of the proposed project. These activities shall include monitoring of 

turbidity and dissolved oxygen levels. Section 7.0 discusses environmental commitments 

related to water quality monitoring requirements. 

The chemical and physical analysis of the sediment sampling in October 2008 indicated a 

predominance of sand and the absence of significant levels of contaminants; therefore no 

significant impacts to water quality are expected. 

Turbidity levels associated with clamshell dredging within the dredge footprint would be 

slightly higher than that for a hopper dredge, as the dredged material is carried to the 

surface in an open bucket and dumped into an adjacent barge. Although there is some 

overflow water generated from the barge, the amount of water transported with dredged 

material is much less than that generated by a hopper dredge. Based on an evaluation of 

turbidity associated with various types of dredging equipment, surface turbidity plumes 

from clamshell dredging operations can extend approximately 1,000 feet downstream of 

the dredge (depending on currents), with the surface plume dissipating rapidly within 1 to 

2 hours of cessation of operations (USACE 1978). 

The use of a clamshell dredge would also result in a slightly longer construction schedule 

due to the mode of operation of the dredge compared to the hopper dredge. However, 

given the short term nature of the dredging, the quality and grain size of the sediment, 

and the environmental commitments to reduce turbidity impacts, impacts would be less 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

44

than significant. 

Water quality monitoring would be performed during dredging operations to minimize 

impacts due to the implementation of the proposed project. With this monitoring, impacts 

to water quality using a hopper or clamshell dredge are expected to be minimal and not 

significant. 

5.5 Air Quality 

A hoper or clamshell dredge would be used for dredging. The proposed dredging activities in 

San Diego Harbor are subject to Federal, state, and county air quality regulations and standards. 

The Corps’ Contractor would obtain and observe San Diego APCD or State Air Resources Board 

(ARB) permits, therefore impacts to air quality are not expected to be significant. New 

regulations allow the dredge operator to obtain either individual permits from the local 

APCD/Air Quality Management District, or a single state-wide permit from the ARB. 

The following paragraphs discuss impacts for dredging as well as nearshore disposal. 

5.5.1 San Diego Harbor: Maintenance Dredging Site AND Discharge at Imperial Beach 

or Coronado Beach 

The proposed project would dredge a maximum of 550,000 cubic yards of nearshore 

compatible material. For purposes of assessing air quality impacts it was assumed that 

the dredging would require a maximum of 50 days using a hopper dredge and a 

maximum of 100 days using a clamshell dredge. 

Implementation of this alternative would not cause any long term air quality impacts. 

This alternative is not expected to result in any changes in the number of vessel calls or 

the size of vessels operating within the harbor. Therefore, this alternative would not 

result in any increases in long-term emissions. 

Short-term emissions during the dredging activity are not expected to result in any 

significant air quality impacts. Emission rates from dredging operations were estimated 

using EPA emission data. Detailed emission calculations are provided in Appendix C. A 

summary of the evaluation is provided below. 

Emission rates were estimated for use of a hopper dredge and use of clamshell dredge 

with a scow towed by a tug boat. Emission factors for all criteria air pollutants emitted by 

the dredge equipment were derived from EPA guidance (USEPA 2000). The construction 

schedule for the hopper dredge would be a maximum of 50 days. The schedule for the 

clamshell dredge would be a maximum of 100 days. Emission factors for the dredges 

were derived from emission estimates from dredge manufacturers. 

As shown in Appendix C, dredging operations are expected to result in emissions which 

are all below SDAPCD's as well as Federal threshold. None of the pollutant exceeds 

State or Federal thresholds. Therefore, it is concluded that dredging and discharge would 

not be subject to either General Conformity or New Source Review permitting. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

45

Therefore, no significant long-term air quality impacts would occur. 

Furthermore, the dredge and discharge sites are offshore and not immediately adjacent to 

any sensitive receptors. Project related emissions would be minimal and temporary, and 

would not result in significant impacts to local air quality. 

No additional emissions would be associated with discharge in the nearshore waters 

beyond those discussed previously. 

As shown in Appendix C, the emissions of the other pollutants would be less than the 

significance thresholds. Therefore, there would be no significant short-term or long-term 

air quality impacts from implementation of dredging and discharge. 

If any equipment requires permits to operate, the selected Contractor would obtain them 

prior to construction. 

5.6 Noise Level 

The following paragraphs discuss impacts for dredging as well as nearshore discharge. 

5.6.1 San Diego Harbor: Maintenance Dredging Site AND Discharge at Imperial Beach 

or Coronado Beach 

For a relatively long-term noise exposure resulting from construction activities, a CNEL 

(Community Noise Equivalent Level) up to 65 decibels (dBA) is generally acceptable for 

noise sensitive land uses, including residences, schools, hospitals, and churches. A 

CNEL up to 75 dBA is often considered acceptable for office building and other 

commercial activities. However, for short-term construction activities, levels 

considerably higher may be acceptable because of the temporary nature s of the activity. 

A CNEL up to 90 dBA for noise sensitive land uses and up to 100 dBA for offices and 

commercial activities would not be considered unacceptable and is in fact found in the 

vicinity of many construction sites in many urban areas throughout the country. 

Any impacts from the noise generated by the dredging equipment at beaches onshore of 

the dredge and disposal sites are dependent upon the distance from the equipment. Noise 

levels from a point source decrease in inverse proportion to the square of the distance 

from the sound source (e.g., at distances greater than 50 feet from the source, every 

doubling of the distance decreases the noise by approximately 6 dB). 

Dredge equipment may generate noise up to approximately 80 to 90 decibels at 50 feet, 

while dredge and disposal activities would be located approximately 1,000 to 2,000 feet 

offshore of sensitive land uses. Since sound is dampened over distance, dredging 

equipment is expected to generate noise on the beach at approximately 50 to 60 decibels, 

which is noted in the “quiet” range. Noise at the nearshore disposal sites would be 

intermittent, occurring only when the hopper dredge or tug and barge transit to the 

nearshore to dispose sediment. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

46

Automobiles, recreational boats and vehicles, commercial fishing boats, Navy vessels, 

and large commercial ships are the major contributors to the ambient noise environment 

at San Diego Harbor and nearby beaches. Noise levels increase during heavy summer 

recreational utilization. Noise studies conducted for the Navy homeporting project (U.S. 

Navy 1995) indicate that community noise equivalency levels (CNEL) in the harbor 

range between 60 and 67 dBA. These levels would be generally consistent with the 

activities onshore from the project area. 

Section 4.6 outlines the limits for construction noise in the proposed dredge and disposal 

locations. Any permits required by the City of San Diego, the City of Imperial Beach, and 

the City of Coronado Beach to dredge and dispose during nighttime hours and meet noise 

ordinances would be obtained by the selected Contractor. 

Ambient noise levels on the beach and within the Harbor are such that the dredge would 

not be a significant new noise source. Dredge equipment would only be present in the 

nearshore for short periods of time during disposal of material from the hull of the hopper 

dredge or from the scow. After disposal, the dredge/scow would be transported back to 

the dredge area until the next disposal cycle. Noise levels at the disposal beach in the 

“quiet” range will not have an adverse effect on surrounding land uses. 

Dredging and disposal would occur for a maximum of 100 days, and noise levels would 

return to ambient conditions upon project completion; impacts would be temporary and 

not significant. 

5.7 Land Use and Recreation 

5.7.1 San Diego Harbor: Maintenance Dredging Site 

The proposed dredging would not change land use as identified by the general plan and 

policies. Potential impacts of the proposed activities affecting the existing land use are 

not expected to occur. 

Dredging may temporarily interfere with water-based recreational activities within the 

immediate vicinity of the dredge footprint. These activities include boating and fishing. 

The environmental impacts and disturbances to such activities are expected to be minimal 

due to the large size of the harbor and the current use of the harbor by larger vessels than 

the dredge, including Navy and commercial ships. Dredging would only occur within the 

Federal Navigation Channel, leaving the remainder of the harbor free for use for 

recreation. 

Impacts to water-based recreation would be temporary, localized, and not significant. 

The Corps would coordinate with the Coast Guard District regarding dredging activities; 

therefore, impacts to recreational vessels would be insignificant. 

5.7.2 Discharge at Imperial Beach or Coronado Beach 

The proposed discharge of compatible material would not change land use as identified 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

47

by the general plan and policies. Potential impacts of the proposed activities affecting the 

existing land use are not expected to occur. 

Disposal activities may temporarily interfere with water-based recreational activities 

within the immediate vicinity of the disposal footprint. These activities may include 

boating, fishing, kite surfing, kayaking, and paddling. Impacts to such activities are 

expected to be temporary and localized. 

Discharge would occur for a maximum of 100 days, therefore impacts on recreation 

would be temporary. Furthermore, dredge equipment would only be present in the 

nearshore for short periods of time during discharge of material from the hull of the 

hopper dredge or from the scow. After disposal, the dredge/scow would be transported 

back to the dredge area until the next disposal cycle. At the discharge sites, beach 

replenishment would provide wider, sandy beaches which would improve recreational 

opportunities onshore. 

Impacts to recreation near the discharge sites would be temporary, localized, and not 

significant. 

5.8 Aesthetics

5.8.1 San Diego Harbor: Maintenance Dredging Site 

The aesthetic qualities of the dredge area would not be significantly impaired as a result 

of the presence of the dredge. The dredge would operate for a maximum of 100 days, 

therefore impacts would be temporary and not significant. Furthermore, aesthetics in the 

harbor currently include many types of large vessels including Navy aircraft carriers and 

commercial transport ships. Therefore, addition of the dredge to the harbor would not 

significantly impact aesthetics here. 

5.8.2 Discharge at Imperial Beach or Coronado Beach 

The dredge would operate for a maximum of 100 days, therefore impacts on aesthetics 

due to the presence of the dredge in the nearshore would be temporary. Furthermore, 

dredge equipment would only be present in the nearshore for short periods of time during 

discharge of material from the hull of the hopper dredge or from the scow. After disposal, 

the dredge/scow would be transported back to the dredge area until the next disposal 

cycle. At the discharge sites, beach replenishment would provide wider, sandy beaches, 

enhancing the aesthetic character of the area. Impacts to aesthetics at the discharge site 

would not be considered significant. 

5.9 Cultural Resources 

5.9.1 San Diego Harbor: Maintenance Dredging Site

San Diego Harbor was previously dredged during the 2003 channel deepening. 

Therefore, dredging activities that occur within the dredge footprint will not likely impact 

any areas that have not been previously disturbed by dredging activities. These 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

48

previously disturbed areas likely do not contain historic properties. Any maintenance 

dredging within the San Diego Harbor has no potential to cause effects to historic 

properties. 

5.9.2 Discharge at Imperial Beach or Coronado Beach 

Since the Imperial Beach discharge site has been used previously for dredge material 

discharge (USACOE 2003), it is unlikely that additional discharge activities would affect 

historic properties. The proposed project as planned will not affect historic properties that 

are listed in, or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Any 

project activity that occurs at the Imperial Beach discharge site has no potential to cause 

effects to historic properties. 

Impacts to cultural resources are not anticipated because there are no known historic 

properties within the northern nearshore Coronado Beach discharge area. However, the 

Monte Carlo shipwreck (CA-SDI-011,069) is located outside of but near the southern 

boundary of the Coronado Beach disposal site. It is recommended that this shipwreck be 

avoided by all disposal activities. 

Since the southern nearshore Coronado Beach discharge site has been used previously as 

a borrow site for shore protection (USACOE 1985), it is unlikely that discharge activities 

would affect historic properties. 

An environmental commitment is included in Section 7.0 this Final SEA for dealing with 

unexpected cultural resource discoveries during implementation of this project. 

Therefore, no adverse effects to historic properties are expected due to implementation of 

the proposed project. 

5.10 Marine Traffic 

5.10.1 San Diego Harbor: Maintenance Dredging Site 

Water-related impacts may occur with vessel traffic in the Harbor. Because various types 

of vessels will traverse the dredge area, there will be a slight potential for vessels to 

collide with edge or support vessels. Equipment will be properly marked and 

notifications will be posted to minimize potential concerns. The dredge operator shall 

move the dredge equipment for U.S. Coast Guard and Harbor Patrol law enforcement and 

rescue vessels if necessary. 

Vessel traffic will not significantly increase over current conditions, and impacts would 

be temporary and localized. As a benefit, replenishment of sand at local beaches will 

result from the proposed project. 

5.10.2 Discharge at Imperial Beach or Coronado Beach 

No marine traffic is anticipated in the vicinity of the nearshore discharge sites, therefore 

no impacts to marine traffic are expected to occur. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

49

6.0 Compliance 

The proposed action has been reviewed and determined to be in compliance with all applicable 

laws and regulations, including: 

a) National Environmental Policy Act 

b) ER -200-2 

b) Clean Water Act 

c) Endangered Species Act 

d) Coastal Zone Management Act 

e) Clean Air Act 

f) National Historic Preservation Act 

g) Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act 

h) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

This Final SEA is written in compliance with NEPA and applicable environmental regulations. 

Environmental Commitments provided in this Final SEA and any acquired permits would be 

followed during implementation of the proposed project, which will be overseen by Corps staff. 

Compliance is included below. 

6.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42USC4321 et seq., PL 91-190); 

Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA, 40 CFR Parts 1500 

to 1508; USACE Regulations for Implementing NEPA, 33 CFR Part 220. 

This SEA has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of NEPA of 1969 (42 USC 

43221, as amended) and the CEQ Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of 

NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), dated 1 July 1988. NEPA requires that agencies of the Federal 

Government shall implement an environmental impact analysis program in order to evaluate 

"major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." A "major 

federal action" may include projects financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by a 

federal agency. NEPA regulations are followed in the preparation of this SEA. 

Section 102 of the NEPA requires that all federal agencies use a systematic, interdisciplinary 

approach to protection of the human environment; this approach will ensure the integrated use of 

the natural and social sciences in any planning and decision making that may have an impact 

upon the environment. 

Council of Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations on implementing NEPA (40 C.F.R. § 

1500 et seq.). These regulations provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess 

the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that avoid or minimize adverse effects of these 

actions upon the quality of the human environment. 

The NEPA was established to ensure that environmental consequences of federal actions are 

incorporated into Agency decision-making processes. It establishes a process whereby parties 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

50

most affected by impacts of a proposed action are identified and opinions solicited. 

This SEA has been prepared to address impacts and develop environmental commitments 

associated with the proposed project. As per NEPA regulations, the Draft SEA and the Draft 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) were circulated for public review to appropriate 

resource agencies, environmental groups, and other interested parties. Comments received during 

the public review period were incorporated into this Final SEA, as appropriate. The Final SEA 

with a signed FONSI would be provided to parties who commented on the Draft SEA for their 

file. 

ER-200-2-2, 33 CFR 230, March 1988 - This regulation provides guidance for implementation 

of the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the Civil 

Works Program of the Corps. It supplements Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations 40 CFR 1500-1508, 29, 1978, in accordance with the CEQ regulations. Wherever 

the guidance in this regulation is unclear or not specific, the reader is referred to the CEQ 

regulations. This regulation is applicable to all Corps responsibility for preparing and processing 

environmental documents in support of civil works functions. 

6.2 Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 USC 1251 et seq.) 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) was passed to restore and maintain chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Specific sections of the CWA control the discharge of 

pollutants and wastes into aquatic and marine environments. Under Section 404, the Corps 

issues permits for discharge of dredge or fill materials into waters of the U.S. including wetlands 

and other special aquatic sites. A Section 404(b)(1) analysis was prepared for the March 2009 

EA and August 2010 SEA (Appendix D) to comply with Clean Water Act. The project impacts 

to water quality have not changed since the drafting and submittal of the previous 404(b)(1) 

analyses, therefore the project would operate based on those past evaluations. 

 

The Corps does not issue itself a permit for civil works projects. Therefore, a Section 404(b)(1) 

analysis was prepared with previous documentation to comply with the Clean Water Act. 

Section 404(b)(1) addresses project related impacts to the waters of the United States and 

provides appropriate mitigation measures to minimize impacts. Section 230.10(a)(2) of the 

404(b)(1) guidelines states that an alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being 

done after taking into consideration costs, existing technology and logistics in light of overall 

project purposes. 

In January 2009, the Corps applied for a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate (WQC) and 

submitted a request to California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region 

(RWQCB). In the beginning of March 2009, the Corps coordinated with the RWQCB via phone 

and e-mail to determine the status of the Section 401 WQC for the proposed project. The 

RWQCB informed the Corps via e-mail on March 2, 2009 that the 401 Certification for the 

project is as proposed in the 401 WQC application received by the SDRWQCB on January 15, 

2009 (see Appendix B), and that all water quality sampling and reporting should be done in 

accordance with the 401 WQC application proposal. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

51

For this SEA, the project is essentially the same as described in past documents. Only minor 

changes were made to the project description, which would not change the water quality impacts 

described in the January 2009 401 WQC Certification application or compliance described in the 

March 2009 EA. The Corps will operate under the conditions of the 401 WQC issued in March 

2009, and perform water quality monitoring and reporting as described in the January 2009 401 

WQC application. The Corps submitted the draft SEA to the SDRWQCB during the public 

review period. 

This SEA is prepared in compliance with the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

Environmental commitments are included in Section 7.0 to minimize impacts to waters of the 

United States. 

6.3 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects threatened and endangered species by prohibiting 

federal actions that would jeopardize continued existence of such species or result in destruction 

or adverse modification of any critical habitat of such species. Section 7 of the Act requires 

consultation regarding protection of such species be conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) and/or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prior to project implementation. During the planning 

process, the USFWS and the NMFS evaluate potential impacts of all aspects of the project on 

threatened or endangered species. Their findings are contained in letters that provide an opinion 

on whether a project will jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species or modify 

critical habitat. If a jeopardy opinion is issued, the resource agency will provide reasonable and 

prudent alternatives, if any, that will avoid jeopardy. A non-jeopardy opinion may be 

accompanied by reasonable and prudent measures to minimize incidental take caused by the 

project. 

Informal consultation was initiated with USFWS regarding the California least tern, western 

snowy plover, and California brown pelican and with NMFS regarding the green sea turtle for 

the March 2009 EA. Letters of concurrence with the Corps determination were received from 

the USFWS and NMFS in 2009 (Appendix B). 

The March 2009 EA determined that the proposed dredging project may affect, not likely to 

adversely affect the California least tern and informal Section 7 consultation was completed with 

USFWS at that time. Based on recent research results and anecdotal evidence, the Corps now 

considers that the project would not affect the California least tern. The Corps continued 

coordination with USFWS after the public review period, at which time USFWS expressed 

concerns regarding dredging during the California least tern nesting season. USFWS 

communicated that they did not agree with the Corps’ “no affect” determination for the tern if 

dredging were to occur during breeding season. For the proposed dredging between August 1, 

2012 and September 15, 2012 (during the tern breeding season) the USFWS expressed they 

could concur with a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” the tern. 

To facilitate completion of the Final EA and to be able to advertize the construction project, the 

Corps decided to defer to the USFWS recommendation in this instance and agree that this 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

52

particular dredging project, scheduled to commence after August 1, 2012 "may affect, but is not 

likely to adversely affect" the California least tern. 

Details of the Corps and USFWS communications regarding California least tern, Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) determinations, and the reasoning for each agency’s proposed determinations 

are included in Appendix B. 

Coordination with NMFS in July and August 2011 and in March 2012 indicated that there were 

no additional concerns regarding the updated project. 

See details related to coordination with the USFWS and NMFS in Section 1.5 of this Final SEA. 

Environmental commitments have been included in this Final SEA to avoid and minimize effects 

to Federally listed species (Section 7.0). The proposed project is in compliance with the 

Endangered Species Act. 

6.4 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1976 (PL 92-583; 16 USC 1456 et seq.) 

Under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), any federal agency conducting or supporting 

activities directly affecting the coastal zone must demonstrate the activity is, and proceed in a 

manner, consistent with approved State’s Coastal Zone Management Program, to the maximum 

extent practicable. As no federal agency activities are categorically exempt from this 

requirement, the Corps prepared and submitted a Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) to 

the California Coastal Commission in 2009 during preparation of the March 2009 EA. Formal 

and informal coordination was initiated with CCC staff during preparation of the March 2009 

EA. 

The Corps coordinated the project description with the CCC in July and December 2011 in 

preparation of the Draft SEA. CCC indicated that the updated project description is very similar 

to that in the March 2009 EA; therefore, the Corps may submit a request for a ND in order to 

document the project description. The Corps submitted the ND to the CCC along with the draft 

SEA. Concurrence was received in a letter dated April 10, 2012 (Appendix B). 

6.5 Clean Air Act of 1969 (42USC7401 et seq.); CAA Amendments of 1990 (PL101-549) 

Air quality regulations were first promulgated with the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. § 7401-

7671q), which was passed in 1970 and amended in 1990 and 1997. The CAA is intended to 

protect the Nation's air quality by regulating emissions of air pollutants. Section 118 of the CAA 

requires that all Federal agencies engaged in activities that may result in the discharge of air 

pollutants comply with state and local air pollution control requirements. Section 176 of the 

CAA prohibits federal agencies from engaging in any activity that does not conform to an 

approved State Implementation Plan. 

Project emissions are not expected to exceed “de minimis” levels established as a criteria for a 

finding of conformity. Therefore, the project is consistent with the SIP and meets the 

requirements of Section 176(c). Dredging operations are expected to result in emissions which 

are all below SDAPCD's as well as Federal threshold major source thresholds. None of the 

pollutant exceeds State or Federal thresholds. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

53

CAA. 

6.6 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470 et seq.) 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies 

to take into account the effects of their undertakings on cultural resources eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The action must demonstrate 

compliance with the NHPA, Public Law 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470-470m, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 

460b, 470l-470n, and 36 CFR 800, as amended (August 5, 2004). 

In accordance with 36 CFR 800.3, the Corps sent a letter to the California State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) with the cultural resources technical report. The Corps sent a 

consultation letter and project area map to the Native American Tribes named by the NAHC 

advising them of this proposed project and the Corps’ determinations. The Corps is in 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. 

6.7 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act, as amended. 

The March 2009 EA and this Final SEA contains an EFH Assessment as required by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Although construction would occur within Essential Fish Habitat, the 

Corps has determined that the proposed project would not result in a substantial, adverse impact. 

In compliance with the coordination and consultation requirements of the Act, the draft SEA was 

sent to NMFS for their review and comment. 

Coordination was initiated with NFMS in February 2009. Further coordination occurred in July 

2011 in preparation of the draft SEA. Comments received after the public review period were 

incorporated into the Final SEA. 

This Final SEA is in compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and 

Conservation Act. 

6.8 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) requires the Corps to consult with the USFWS 

whenever the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed to be impounded, 

diverted, or otherwise modified. The Corps’ coordination with the USFWS and the CDFG on the 

project began during preparation of the March 2009 EA and continued during preparation of this 

Final SEA. See Section 1.5 for additional coordination details with the USFWS and CDFG. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

54

7.0 Environmental Commitments 

Following is a summary of both general and resource commitments that have been developed to 

reduce the impact associated with construction of the proposed project. The Corps has 

committed to implement each of the following measures. 

a. Prior to construction, the Corps will provide a 14-day notification of planned 

activities to appropriate agencies and post information bulletins of scheduled 

work time and areas at appropriate offices. The Corps will work with its Public 

Affairs Office to distribute information to the community prior to dredging and 

the dredge Contractor will place signs at the disposal beach. Equipment will be 

appropriately marked and lighted. 

b. Should dredging occur between August 1, 2012 and September 15, 2012, the 

Corps will continue to coordinate with USFWS staff to develop a monitoring 

program for the CA least tern. The focus of the monitoring program would be to 

demonstrate whether dredging activities affect terns in any way, and to add to 

knowledge about tern foraging behavior in San Diego Harbor and nearshore 

waters. 

c. The Corps shall regularly inspect the hopper of the hopper dredge, if used, for the 

presence of turtle during dredging operations. If any turtle remains are discovered 

within the hopper, dredging activity will cease and NMFS will be contacted 

immediately. 

d. If any marine mammals or green sea turtles appear to be in danger of injury from 

dredging operations, the Contractor shall cease operations until the animal has left 

the dredge vicinity. 

e. Any sensitive marine vegetation found in the dredge area or discharge area, 

including kelp or eelgrass, would be avoided. 

f. The Corps Contractor shall obtain all applicable air permits and comply with 

federal, state, and local air and noise regulations. 

g. The Corps shall keep construction activities under surveillance, management, and 

control to avoid pollution of surface and ground waters, and to minimize 

interference with, disturbance to, and damage of fish and wildlife. 

h. The Corps’ Contractor shall take noise readings near any sensitive receptors 

onshore from the dredge and disposal areas to ensure minimal noise disturbance 

during nighttime hours. 

i. The Corps’ Contractor will monitor turbidity at the dredge and nearshore 

discharge site. This monitoring will ensure that turbidity levels will not 

substantially impact foraging of the California least tern or water quality. A 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

55

monitoring report would be submitted to the USFWS and RWQCB. 

j. All minimization measures identified in the 401 WQC request letter and 

application will be followed during dredging and discharge activities, as per 

correspondence with RWQCB on March 2, 2009. All commitments identified in 

this Final SEA would be followed to minimize impacts to water quality. 

k. All dredging and fill activities will remain within the boundaries specified in the 

plans. There will be no dumping of fill or material outside of the project area or 

within any adjacent aquatic community. 

l. The Corps’ Contractor shall mark the dredge and all associated equipment in 

accordance with U.S. Coast Guard regulations. The contractor must contact the 

U.S. Coast Guard two weeks prior to the commencement of dredging. The 

following information shall be provided: the size and type of equipment to be 

used; names and radio call signs for all working vessels; telephone number for onsite contact with the project engineer; the schedule for completing the project; and 

any hazards to navigation. 

m. The Corps’ Contractor shall move equipment upon request by the U.S. Coast 

Guard and harbor patrol law enforcement and rescue vessels. 

n. Disposal will be limited to the nearshore waters at Imperial Beach or Coronado 

Beach to minimize impacts to the western snowy plover and Pismo clam. 

o. Any permits required by the City of San Diego and the City of Imperial Beach or 

City of Coronado Beach to dredge and dispose during nighttime hours and meet 

noise ordinances would be obtained by the Contractor. 

p. Only areas that contain nearshore compatible sediment, as determined by 

sediment sampling completed in October 2008 and approved by the EPA, will be 

dredged. Any non-compatible material will be left in place. 

q. Prior to dredging, as needed and as coordinated with the EPA, the Contractor 

shall collect sediment samples from the dredge area and from beach transects at 

the southern Coronado Beach disposal site, to perform confirmatory testing for 

grain size in order to update the October 2008 sediment sampling results. The 

need for and locations of sampling will be determined per coordination with EPA. 

Samples would be collected and analyzed and results coordinated with EPA prior 

to dredging. 

r. Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.13, in the event of any discoveries during dredging of 

either human remains, archeological deposits, or any other type of historic 

property, the dredging supervisor shall notify the Corps of Engineers’ Archeology 

Staff within 24 hours (Mr. Steve Dibble at 213-452-3849 or Mr. John Killeen at 

213-452-3861). The dredging supervisor shall immediately suspend all work in 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

56

any area(s) where potential cultural resources are discovered. The dredging shall 

not resume in the area surrounding, i.e., immediately adjacent to, the potential 

cultural resources until the Corps of Engineers re-authorizes dredging, per 36 

C.F.R. § 800.13. 

 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

57

8.0 Conclusion 

The Corps has concluded that the proposed San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project has 

been designed and scheduled to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the probable effects on the 

environment. Minimization measures will be implemented to avoid an adverse effect on water 

quality and threatened and endangered species. Dredging and placement of dredged materials at 

Imperial Beach or Coronado Beach will occur in the nearshore. Non-compatible sediment 

(unsuitable for placement in the nearshore) will not be dredged. 

This Final SEA, and coordination with the appropriate public agencies, indicates that the 

proposed project would not have a significant impact upon the existing environment or the 

quality of the human environment. As a result, preparation of an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) is not required. 

 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

58

9.0 List of Preparers 

This EA was prepared by: 

 Erin Jones, Biological Sciences Environmental Manager, Corps 

 Steve Dibble, Archaeologist, Corps 

This EA was reviewed by: 

 Joy Jaiswal, former Chief, Ecosystem Planning Section, Corps 

 Hayley Lovan, Chief, Ecosystem Planning Section, Corps 

 Jodi Clifford, Chief, Environmental Resources Branch, Corps 

 Raina Fulton, Acting Chief, Environmental Resources Branch, Corps 

Scott John, Project Manager, Programs and Project Management Division, Corps 

 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

59

10.0 References 

Adams, Loni 

2011 Personal communication with Loni Adams, California Department of Fish and Game, 

regarding Pismo clam. August. 

AECOM 

2011 Revised Environmental Assessment/Final Environmental Impact Report for the San 

Diego Regional Beach Sand Project II. Prepared for San Diego Association of Governments and 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. May 27. 

Allen, L.G. 

1997 Fisheries Inventory and Utilization of San Diego Bay, San Diego, California. 3rd Annual 

Report. FY 1996-97. Prepared for U.S. Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

(NAVFACENGCOM), Southwest Division, and San Diego Unified Port District 

(SDUPD), San Diego, CA. California State University of Northridge, Northridge, CA.

Atwood, J. L. and D. E. Minsky 

1983 Least tern foraging ecology at three major California breeding colonies. Western Birds. 

14: 57-72. 

Bay, S.M., D. Lapota, J. Anderson, J. Armstrong, T. Mikel, A.W. Jirik, and S. Asato 

2000 Southern California Bight 1998 Regional Monitoring Program: IV. Sediment Toxicity. 

Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. Westminster, CA. 

Bittler, Thomas 

2008 Personal communication with Thomas Bittler, Engine Technical Communicator with The 

Halton Co., regarding emissions information for the Caterpillar generator sets. e-mail 

communication December. 

Bonnell, M.D. and W.D. Dailey 

1993 Marine Mammals. Pages 604-681, In: M.D. Dailey, D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson (eds.), 

Ecology of the Southern California Bight. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

California Air Resources Board 

2008 Standards and Designations. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

60

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 

2006 Annual Status of the Fisheries Report. Section 6: Pismo Clam. 

2009a California Natural Resource Data. Kelp Data 2009. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/gis/naturalresource.asp

2009b Pismo Clam Survey Data Summary, May 2008 – March 2009. 

Climo, L. 

1987 The effect of blast-generated noise on breeding seabirds at Saint George Island, Alaska. 

(unpublished report.) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Homer, AK. 

Coronado Beach, City of 

2008 Coronado Municipal Code. http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/coronado/ 

Dolan, Christy 

2008 Coronado Opportunistic Beach Fill (EDAW No. 08080200.02), November 24, 2008 letter 

report from EDAW, Inc. to Mr. Brian Leslie, Moffatt & Nichol, 1660 Hotel Circle North 

– Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92108. Report on file at Moffatt & Nichol. 

Dexter, D.M. 

1977 Biological Baseline Studies of the Imperial Beach Erosion Control Project Area. 

Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, by the Center for 

Marine Studies, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. 

Dugan, J. 

2001 Ecological Impacts of Beach Grooming on Exposed Sandy Beaches. Coastal Ocean 

Research. R/CZ-174: 3.1.2001-2.29.2004. http://wwwcsgc.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/PROJPROF_PDF/RCZ174.pdf 

Dugan, J.E., D.M. Hubbard, M.D. McCrary, and M.O. Pierson. 

2003 The response of macrofauna communities and shorebirds to macrophyte wrack subsidies 

on exposed sandy beaches of southern California. Estuar. Coastl. Shelf Sci. 58S:133-148. 

Engineering Science 

1988 Tijuana Oceanographic Engineering Study. Volume 1. Ocean Measurement Program. 

Prepared for the City of San Diego, San Diego, CA. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

61

Feder, H.M., C.H. Turner, and C. Limbaugh 

1974 Observations on fishes associated with kelp beds in southern California. California Dept. 

Fish and Game Fish Bull. No. 160. 144 pp. 

Ford, R.F. 

1968 Marine organisms of south San Diego Bay and the ecological effects of power station 

cooling water. A pilot study conducted for San Diego Gas & Electric Co., San Diego. 

Environmental Engineering Laboratory Tech. Rept. on Contract C-188. 

Ford, R.F., and R.L. Chambers. 

1973 Thermal Distribution and biological studies of the South Bay Power Plant. Prepared for 

the San Diego Gas & Electric Co., Environmental Engineering Laboratory Tech. Rept. 

Gentry, R.L. 

1990 Response to northern fur seals to quarrying operations. Marine Mammal Science 

6(2):151-155. 

Green, Karen 

2008 Personal communication with Karen Green, SAIC, regarding biological resources at 

Coronado Beach. December. 

Hoffman, R.S. 

1986 Fishery Utilization of Eelgrass Zostera Marina Beds and Non-Vegetated Shallow Water 

Areas in San Diego Bay. Administrative Report SRW-68-4. National Marine Fisheries, 

Southwest Region.

Holmgren, Mark 

2004 Communication with Mark Holmgren, Associate Director of the Museum of Systematics 

and Ecology, UCSB, regarding the biology of the Western snowy plover. Email 

communications April/May 2004. 

Imperial Beach, City of 

2008 Imperial Beach Municipal Code. http://qcode.us/codes/imperialbeach/ 

Keane Biological Consulting (KBC) 

1997 Foraging Study of the California Least Tern in the Los Angeles Harbor, 1996 Breeding 

Season. Final Report. Prepared for the Port of Los Angeles, Environmental Division. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

62

2003 Monitoring of California least tern foraging, Port of Los Angeles Channel Deepening Project, 

2003 Nesting Season, and comparison with 2001 and 2002 survey results. Port of Los 

Angeles harbor deepening project. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles 

District, under contract with Aspen Environmental Group, January.

2011 California Least Foraging Study with Respect to Proposed Dredging Locations. Final 

Draft Report. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. 

September. 

Largier, J.L. 

1995 San Diego Bay Circulation: A Study 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. Prepared for the California State Water 

Resources Control Board and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San 

Diego Region (Interagency Agreement #1-188-190-0). 

1997 Seasonally hypersaline estuaries in Mediterranean-climate regions. Estuarine, Coastal 

and Shelf Science (submitted).

Macfarlane Archaeological Consultants 

2004 Imperial Beach Cultural Resources Underwater Remote Sensing Survey. Prepared for 

Statistical Research, Inc., and US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. 

Contract No. DACW09-03-D-00005, Task Order No. 3 (March 29, 2004), Offshore 

Imperial Beach, San Diego County, California. Report on File at Los Angeles District 

Office. 

Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. (MBA) 

1988 South San Diego Bay Enhancement Plan. Volume One/Resources Atlas on Bay History, 

Physical Environment and Marine Ecological Characterization. Prepared for the SDUPD 

and California Coastal Conservancy. March 1990. 

1990 South San Diego Bay Enhancement Plan. Volume 2/Resources Atlas. Prepared for San 

Diego Unified Port District. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

1998 Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal 

Agencies. NMFS, Habitat Conservation Division Office, SW Regional Office, EFH 

Federal Agency primer, November. 

North, W.J., D.E. James, and L.G. Jones 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

63

1993 History of kelp beds (Macrocystis) in Orange and San Diego counties, California. 

Hydrobiol. 260/261:277-283. R 

O’Connor, T.P. and B. Beliaeff 

1995 Recent Trends in Coastal Environment Quality: Results from the Mussel Watch Project. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. Silver 

Spring, MD. 

Page, G. W., Lynne E. Stenzel, David W. Winkler, and Christopher W. Swarth. 

1983 Spacing out at Mono Lake: breeding success, nest density, and predation in the snowy 

plover. Auk 100: 13-24. 

Pettus, Roy 

Archaeological Sensitivity Study for the Marine Cultural Resources Potential of the Proposed 

San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project, San Diego, California. 

Prepared by GEOARCH. Prepared for Caltrans, District 11, San Diego,CA. 

Quast, J.C. 

1971 Fish fauna of the rocky inshore zone. Nova Hedwegia. 32:481-507. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and U.S. Navy 

2000 Final EIR/EA for the Regional Beach Sand Project. Prepared by KEA Environmental. 

June. 

San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) 

2008 Facility Emissions for San Diego County. 1997 to 2007. 

http://www.sdapcd.org/toxics/FacEmiss/facilities.html 

San Diego, City of 

1996 International Wastewater Treatment Plant, Baseline Ocean Monitoring Report. 

Metropolitan Wastewater Department, Environmental Monitoring & Technical Services 

Division. San Diego, CA. 

2008 San Diego Municipal Code. http://www.sandiego.gov/cityclerk/officialdocs/legisdocs/muni.shtml 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

64

San Diego Unified Port District (SDUPD) 

1980 Final Environmental Impact Report on the Port Master Plan. SDUPD, Environmental 

Management Department, San Diego, CA. 

1990 Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1989/90. Document No. 26313. San Diego, CA. 

1999 Port of San Diego Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1997/98. 

San Diego Unified Port District (SDUPD), Naval Facilities Engineering Command, U.S. Navy 

2008 San Diego Natural Resources Management Plan. Draft. June. 

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 

2009 Coastal Habitat Survey of Onshore and Nearshore Receiver Sites Proposed in the 

Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan, San Diego, California. 

Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) 

1999 Spatial Characterization of Four Water Column Parameters on the Mainland Shelf of 

Southern California in July 1994. Pages 89-100, In: S.B. Weisberg and D. Hallock (eds.), 

Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Annual Report 1997-1998. 

Westminster, CA. 

Stinson, M.L. 

1984 Biology of Sea Turtles in San Diego Bay, California, and the Northwestern Pacific 

Ocean. M.S. Thesis, San Diego State University. 578 pp. 

Thompson, B.C., J.A. Jackson, J. Burger, L.A. Hill, E.M. Kirsch, and J.L. Atwood. 

1997 Least Tern (Sterna antillarum). In The Birds of North America, No. 290 (A. Poole and F. 

Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), Los Angeles District 

1978 Final Environmental Impact Statement: Imperial Beach Erosion Control Project, San 

Diego County, California. September. 

1985 Specifications for Shore Protection Improvement U.S. Naval Amphibious Base, 

Coronado, San Diego County, California. May. 

1995 Environmental Evaluation (EE) for the Silver Strand Shoreline Protection Project. 

February. 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

65

2003 San Diego Harbor Central Navigation Channel Deepening Feasibility Report and 

EIS/EIR. September. 

2009 Final Environmental Assessment for the San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging 

Project, San Diego County, California. March. 

2010 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the San Diego Harbor Maintenance 

Dredging Project, San Diego County, California. August. 

2011 Personal communication, Joseph Viola, San Francisco District. July. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) 

1978 Prediction and Control of Dredged Material Dispersion around Dredging and OpenWater Pipeline Discharge Operations. Synthesis of Research Results, Dredged Material 

Research Program, Technical Report DS-78-13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

2003 Economic Technical Report, San Diego Harbor Deepening. 

U.S. Department of the Navy (U.S. Navy) 

1992a Draft Feasibility Study for Future NIMITZ Class Carriers at Naval Air Station, North 

Island, San Diego, California. Prepared by NAVFACENGCOM, Southwest Division,

San Diego, CA.

1992b Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Dredged Material Discharge 

Related to Navy Dredging Projects in San Diego Bay. Prepared by NAVFACENGCOM, 

Southwest Division, San Diego, CA.

1994 Waterbird Survey - North and Central San Diego Bay, 1993. Prepared for Naval Air 

Station, North Island. Prepared by NAVFACENGCOM, Southwest Division, San Diego, 

CA. 

1995 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Development of Facilities in San 

Diego/Coronado to Support the Homeporting of One NIMITZ Class Aircraft Carrier.

November 1995. Prepared by NAVFACENGCOM, Southwest Division, San Diego, CA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

2000 Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessel Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data. 

EPA/420/R-00-002. February 2000. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

1993a Determination of Threatened Status for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

Final SEA June 2012 

66

Snowy Plover. Final Rule. Federal Register, April 5. 

1993b Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Federal Register 50 CFR 17.11 & 17.12. 

Aug. 23, 1993.

1994b Colonial sea birds and the western snowy plover nesting in South San Diego Bay, 1993. 

Prepared by D. Stadtlander and J. Konecny. 

1999 Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy 

Plover: Final Rule. Federal Register 64:68508-68544. 

VRG Vantuna Research Group 

2006 Fisheries Inventory and Utilization of San Diego Bay, San Diego, California for Surveys 

Conducted In April And July 2005. By Dan Pondella, John Froeschke and Beth Young, 

Moore Laboratory of Zoology, Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA. 

 
^_

^_ ^_

Imperial Beach Disposal Site

Dredge Site

Coronado Disposal Site

U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers

Los Angeles District

Figure 1

San Diego Harbor 

Maintenance Dredging

Project Location

0 2 4 1

μ

Miles

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012

Project Location^_

Base Map: 2010 Microsoft Corporation 

and its data suppliers (Bing Map Hybrid)
0+00

90+00

80+00

70+00

60+00

50+00

40+00

30+00

20+00

10+00

340+00

330+00

320+00

530+00

520+00

510+00

500+00

490+00

480+00

470+00

350+00 300+00310+00

200+00

190+00

180+00

170+00

160+00

150+00

140+00

130+00

120+00

110+00

100+00

-60+00

-50+00

-40+00

-30+00

-20+00

-10+00

U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers

Los Angeles District

μ

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012

Figure 2

San Diego Harbor

Maintenance Dredging

Dredge Areas

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

Base Map: Eagle Aerial. 2009. WSD_S_2009_sp6

Legend

Dredge Areas

Outer Approach Channel

Approach Channel

Entrance Channel

Beach Compatible Areas

1A

1B

2

3

Non-Compatible Areas

6

8

10
Imperial Beach Nearshore 

Disposal Area

U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers

Los Angeles District

Figure 3

San Diego Harbor 

Maintenance Dredging

Imperial Beach Nearshore

Disposal Area

0 1,000 2,000 500

μ

Feet

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012

Base Map: 2010 Microsoft Corporation 

and its data suppliers (Bing Map Hybrid)
Coronado Beach South

Nearshore Disposal Area

Coronado Beach Nearshore Disposal Area

U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers

Los Angeles District

Figure 4

San Diego Harbor

Maintenance Dredging

Coronado Beach Nearshore

Disposal Areas

0 0.25

μ

0.5 1

Miles

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012

Base Map: 2010 Microsoft Corporation

and its data suppliers (Bing Map Hybrid)
Coronado Beach South 

Nearshore Disposal Area

Coronado Beach 

Nearshore Disposal 

Area

Imperial Beach Nearshore 

Disposal Area

U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers

Los Angeles District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012

μ Figure 5

San Diego Harbor

Maintenance Dredging

Eelgrass 

Base Map: 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers (Bing Map Hybrid)

Eelgrass Data: 2011 Merkel, Inc.

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

Legend

Eelgrass Locations (2011)

Dredge Areas

Outer Approach Channel

Approach Channel

Entrance Channel
Coronado Beach South 

Nearshore Disposal Area

Coronado Beach 

Nearshore Disposal 

Area

Imperial Beach Nearshore 

Disposal Area

U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers

Los Angeles District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012

μ Figure 6

San Diego Harbor

Maintenance Dredging

Kelp 

Base Map: 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers (Bing Map Hybrid)

Kelp Data: The Central and Region 9 Kelp Consortiums (Contract), MBC Applied Environmental Sciences (Data Collection and Processing), 

and CDFG (Database Management). 2009. Bio_CA_Kelp2009.

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

Legend

Kelp Locations (2009)

Dredge Areas

Outer Approach Channel

Approach Channel

Entrance Channel
![

![

![

![

![

![

Coronado Beach South 

Nearshore Disposal Area

Coronado Beach 

Nearshore Disposal 

Area

Imperial Beach Nearshore 

Disposal Area

North Island CLT

Tijuana River CLT

Chula Vista NWR CLT

Lindberge Field CLT

South San Diego NWR CLT

Mission Bay CLT (5 sites)

U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers

Los Angeles District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012

μ Figure 7

San Diego Harbor

Maintenance Dredging

California Least Tern (CLT)

Nesting Colonies

Base Map: 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers (Bing Map Hybrid)

CLT Data: USACE. 2011. California Least Tern Foraging Study With

 Respect to Proposed Dredging Locations. Prepared by: Keane 

 Biological Consulting. September. pp. 30.

0 1 2 4

Miles

Legend

![ CLT Nesting Colonies

Dredge Areas

Outer Approach Channel

Approach Channel

Entrance Channel
Coronado Beach South 

Nearshore Disposal Area

Coronado Beach 

Nearshore Disposal 

Area

Imperial Beach Nearshore 

Disposal Area

U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers

Los Angeles District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012

μ Figure 8

San Diego Harbor

Maintenance Dredging

Western Snow Plover

Critical Habitat

Base Map: 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers (Bing Map Hybrid)

W. Snowy Plover Data:

 (1) W. Snowy Plover Reproposed CH (2011): USFWS. 2011.

 http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/GIS/CFWOGIS.html.

 Downloaded 2011 Dec. 8.

 (2) W. Snowy Plover Final CH (2005): USFWS. 2005.

 http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/GIS/CFWOGIS.html 

 Downloaded 2011 Dec. 8.

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

Legend

W. Snowy Plover Reproposed CH (2011)

W. Snowy Plover Final CH (2005)

Dredge Areas

Outer Approach Channel

Approach Channel

Entrance Channel
Appendix A: Mailing List
City of San Diego 

Environmental Services Department 

9601 Ridgehaven Court 

San Diego, CA 92123 

California State Parks 

San Diego Coast District 

4477 Pacific Highway 

San Diego, CA 92110-3136 

Environmental Health Coalition 

401 Mile of Cars Way Suite 310 

National City, CA 91950 

Save Our Bay, Inc. 

409 Palm Ave., Ste. 100 

Imperial Beach, CA 91932 

Attn: William Claycomb 

LT Shauna Marshall 

MDSU-1 CO 1-1 OIC 

4050 Surface Navy Blvd 

San Diego, CA 92136-5288 

Seaport Village 

849 W. Harbor Dr., Ste. D 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Commander 

U.S. Coast Guard 

2710 NORTH HARBOR DRIVE 

SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 

Attn: Marine Safety Office 

City of Coronado 

Mayor Casey Tanaka 

1825 Strand Way 

Coronado, CA 92118 

State Water Resources Control Board 

P.O. Box 100 

Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 

San Diego Coast Keeper 

2825 Dewey Road, Suite 200 

San Diego CA 92106 

Clayton Phillips 

Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve 

301 Caspian Way 

Imperial Beach, CA 91932 

Chris Redfern 

Audubon Society 

4010 Morena Blvd Suite 100 

San Diego, CA 92117-4547 

Rick Basinet 

Coastal IPT, NAVFAC SOUTHWEST 

NBSD, Bldg 291 

2730 McKean Street 

San Diego, CA 92136-5198 

Marine Terminals Corps. 

1701 Harbor Bay Pkwy, Suite 200 

Alameda, CA 94502 
Office of Media and Public Affairs 

Health and Human Services Agency 

County of San Diego 

1700 Pacific Highway, Rm. 320 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Manager 

Harbor House Restaurant 

831 West Harbor Drive 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Manager 

Marriott Hotel & Marina 

333 West Harbor Dr. 

San Diego, CA 92101-7700 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

6010 Hidden Valley Road 

Carlsbad, CA 92009 

Attn: Jon Avery 

Star & Crescent Boat 

P.O. Box 120751 

San Diego, CA 92112 

State Water Resources Control Board 

1001 I Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

ATTN: Chairman 

Dick Cloward 

San Diego Port Tenants Assoc. 

2390 Shelter Island Dr., Ste. 210 

San Diego, CA 92106-3156 

Dr. Charles Lester 

Executive Director 

California Coastal Commission 

45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2219 

Attn: Larry Simon 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Attn: Eric Chavez 

501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200 

Long Beach, CA 90802 

Dr. Knox Mellon 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

Office of Historic Preservation 

P.O. Box 942896 

Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 

California Department of Fish & Game 

4949 View Ridge Avenue 

San Diego, CA 92123 

Attn: Loni Adams 

U.S. EPA 

Regional Administrator 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3930 

Attn: Allan Ota 

Shelby Tucker 

San Diego Association of Governments 

401 B Street, Suite 800 

San Diego, CA 92101-4231 

Mitchell A. Perdue, CRM 

Coastal IPT, NAVFAC SOUTHWEST 

NBSD, Bldg 291 

2730 McKean Street 

San Diego, CA 92136-5198
Sierra Club 

San Diego Chapter 

8304 Clairemont Mesa Blvd, #101 

San Diego, CA 92111 

City of Imperial Beach 

825 Imperial Beach Blvd 

Imperial Beach, CA 91932 

Attn: Greg Wade 

City of Coronado 

Attn: AnnMcCaull 

Community Development Department 

1825 Strand Way 

Coronado, CA 92118 

Port of San Diego Administration 

Admin Building 

3165 Pacific Highway 

San Diego, CA 92101-1128 

Attn: Eileen Maher 

Imperial Beach Branch 

San Diego County 

810 Imperial Beach Blvd. 

Imperial Beach, CA 91932 

California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Office of Historic Preservation 

1416 9th Street, Room 1442, 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

ATTN: State Officer 

Coronado Public Library 

640 Orange Avenue 

Coronado, CA 92118 

San Diego Central Library 

Govt. Publications Dept. 

820 “E” Street 

San Diego, CA 92101 

State Clearing House 

1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

San Diego Air Pollution Control District 

10124 Old Grove Road San Diego, CA 92131-1649 

Attn: Jorge Talavera 

City of Imperial Beach 

825 Imperial Beach Blvd 

Imperial Beach, CA 91932 

Attn: Mayor Jim Janney 

Commander Edan Antoine 

U.S. Third Fleet 

53690 Tomahawk Dr. Suite 338 

San Diego, CA 92147-5004 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

South Pacific Division, CESPD-PDC 

1455 Market St, 20th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

ATTN: Nedenia Kennedy 

California Air Resources Board 

9480 Telstar Avenue, Suite 4 

El Monte, CA 91731 
Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

ATTN: Allan Ota 

City of San Diego 

City Planning & Community Investment Community 

Planning & Urban Form Divisions 202 C Street, MS 5A 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Mr. David Gibson, Executive Officer 

California RWQCB, San Diego Region 

Attn: Jody Ebsen 

9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100 

San Diego, California 92123 

Lisa Seneca 

Coastal IPT, NAVFAC SOUTHWEST 

NBSD, Bldg 291 

2730 McKean Street 

San Diego, CA 92136-5198 

Surfrider Foundation 

Marco Gonzales 

P.O. Box 6010 

San Clemente, CA 92674-6010 

Serge Dedina, Ph.D. 

Executive Director 

WiLDCOAST 

925 Seacoast Dr. 

Imperial Beach, CA 91932 

Mr. Robert Smith 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Regulatory Division 

6010 Hidden Valley Rd., Ste 105 

Carlsbad, CA 92009 

Edwin Romero, Chairperson 

Barona Group of the Capitan Grande 

1095 Barona Road 

Lakeside, California 92040 

Bobby L. Barrett, Chairperson 

Viejas Band of Mission Indians 

PO Box 908 

Alpine, California 91903 

Allen E. Lawson, Chairperson 

San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians 

PO Box 365 Diegueno 

Valley Center, California 92082 

Ron Christman 

Kumeyaay Cultural Historic Committee 

56 Viejas Grade Road 

Alpine, California 92001 

Johnny Hernandez, Spokesman 

Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Indians 

PO Box 130 

Santa Ysabel, California 92070 

Kenneth Meza, Chairperson 

Jamul Indian Village 

P.O. Box 612 

Jamul, California 91935 

Mark Romero, Chairperson 

Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians 

P.O Box 270 

Santa Ysabel, California 92070
Danny Tucker, Chairperson 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

5459 Sycuan Road 

EI Cajon, California 92021 

Paul Cuero 

Kumeyaay Cultural Heritage Preservation 

36190 Church Road, Suite 5 

Campo, California 91906 

Clint Linton 

P.O. Box 507 

Santa Ysabel, California 92070 

Carmen Lucas 

Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 775 

Pine Valley, California 91962 

Rebecca Osuna, Spokesperson 

Inaja Band of Mission Indians 

309 S. Maple Street 

Escondido, California 92025 

Steve Banegas, Spokesperson 

Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee 

1095 Barona Road 

Lakeside, California 92040 

Mr. Cy R. Oggins 

Div. of Env. Planning & Mgmt. 

CA State Lands Commission 

100 Howe Ave., Suite 100-South 

Sacramento, California 95825 

Mark Taylor 

Marine Terminal Superintendent 

Maritime Division 

Port of San Diego 

3165 Pacific Highway 

San Diego, CA 92101-1128 

 

 
Appendix B: Correspondence
Correspondence from March 2009 Final EA
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

lOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS Of ENGI~ruS 

P,O. BOX 53271 1 

Office of the Chief 

Planning Division 

Mr. Peter Douglas 

Executive Director 

California Coastal Commission 

Artn: Mr. Larry Simon 

4S Fremont, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, Cal ifornia 94105 

Dear Mr. Douglas: 

lOS ANGELES. CALIFORNlA eoo53·232S 

January 12, 2009 

The U.S. AmlY Corps of Engineers (Corps) submits the Coastal Consistency 

Detennination (CeO) for the proposed San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project 

to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for your review and concurrence 

(enclosure), The proposed dredge footprint is the Federal Channel of San Diego Harbor, 

San Diego County. Califomia, which is situated approximately 100 nautical miles 

southeast of the City of Los Angeles and 17 miles north of the United States/Mexico 

International Border. Discussion related to the Proposed Action's compliance with the 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is provided in the enclosed CCO. 

It is estimated that construction may take approximately four weeks. Dredging is 

scheduled to occur in March 2009. If dredging is delayed due to funding, weather, or 

mechanica l constraints, it may occur in 20 I 0 or 20 II. Dredging is not scheduled to occur 

from April 1 to September 15 to avoid the breeding season for the California least tern. 

However, if dredging needs to extend into the beginning of April a biological monitor 

will be present during dredging and disposa l to monitor the presence/absence of me tern 

in San Diego Bay. Daily monitoring reports would be provided to the USFWS for review 

for all days of dredging and disposal during the breeding season. If the tern arrives in San 

Diego Bay during dredging or disposal, activities would stop and USFWS would be 

consulted to provide direction on the continuance oftbe project. If delays occur, tbe 

Corps will notify ecc and other concerned agencies. 

Beach compatible material would be discharged in the nearshore at Imperial Beach. 

The dredging and disposal would be scheduled to avoid Cal ifornia Least Tern nesting 

season, and minimize impacts to Western Snowy Plover. 

The fol lowing are the specifi c proposed actions for maintenance dredging of San 

Diego Harbo r: (1) dredging of beach compatible sediment in the Federal Channel to 

autho rized project depths; (2) discharge of beach compatible dredged material in the 

nearshore at (mperial Beach; (3) and environmental monitoring. 
- 2 -

The proposed project would serve the following purposes: (I) restore the channel that is 

subject to continual shoaling to design depths; (2) assure the continued navigation for 

marine traffic within the harbor; (3) avoid intrusion of dredging activities into the critical 

seasons of vulnerable species; and (4) provide beach nourishment material for downcast 

beaches severely eroded by littoral processes. The primary benefits realized from the 

proposed project would be restoration of design depths and unimpeded navigation within 

the Federal Channel. Secondary benefits include the replenishment of the beach with 

placement of dredged material in the nearshore. 

Between November and December 2008, the Corps coordinated the proposed project 

with Mr. Larry Simon of your staff. ece was infonned of the decision to dredge only 

beach compatible material and that the Corps would submit the draft CCO by the first 

week of January 2009 The Corps requests that tbe cee place the eco for this project on 

the February 2009 hearing agenda to meet the critical timcframe for project construction. 

A Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) will be provided to your office during the 

public review period. 

Your timely concurrence with this CeD would be greatly appreciated to allow 

dredging to commence on the desired schedule. If you have any questions regarding this 

project, please contact Ms. Erin Hardison, Project BiologistlEnvironmental Coordinator, 

at 213·452-3864 or at erin.l.bardison@usace.army.mil. 

Thank you for your time and attention to this request. 

Enclosure 

Sincerely. 

~ Josephine . Axt, Ph.D. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Chief, Planning Division 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -- THE RESOURCES AGENCY 

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT STREET, SUITE 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 

VOICE AND TOD (415) 904-5200 

Josephine R. Axt, Ph.D. 

Chief, Planning Division 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

ATTN: Erin Hardison 

P.O. Box 532711 

Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR 

February 2, 2009 

Re: ND-OOI-09, Negative Determination, Army Corps of Engineers Maintenance 

Dredging, San Diego Harbor 

Dear Ms. Axt: 

The Coastal Commission staff has reviewed the above-referenced negative determination 

for the Army Corps' proposed maintenance dredging of approximately 330,000 cu.yds. of 

beach-compatible sandy material from the San Diego Federal Channel, with nearshore 

disposal in waters offshore Imperial Beach, just south of the Imperial Beach pier. The 

disposal site is a 27 acre offshore area with water depths between -15 and -28 ft. MLLW, 

the same site the Commission authorized and the Corps used for the 2004 Federal 

Channel Deepening project (consistency determination no. CD-090-02). The project is 

scheduled for March 2009, and the Corps has committed to completing the project before 

the least tern nesting season (which begins April 1 ). If dredging is delayed past March 

30, the Corps has agreed it would only continue to dredge/dispose if no terns are present 

(and only if approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). The project includes water 

quality monitoring, and provisions to minimize turbidity and water quality impacts at 

both the dredge and disposal sites. 

Under the federal consistency regulations, 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 staff agrees with the 

Corps that this project is similar to previously-authorized activities, including CD-90-02. 

This concurrence assumes and is contingent upon the Commission staff also being 

notified if dredging extends past March 30. With this understanding, we therefore 

concur with your negative determination made pursuant to 15 CFR Section 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. 

;;;Ji}/i . 

( f (J 1') PETER M. DOUGLAS 

\ Executive Director 

cc: San Diego Coast District Office 
Office of the Chief 

Planning Division 

Mr. Jim Bartel 

Field Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Attention: Ms. Lauren White 

60 I 0 Hidden Valley Road 

Carlsbad, California 92009 

Dear Mr. Bartel: 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

LOS ANGELES OISTRICT COIU'S OF ENGINEERS 

P 0 eOll S321" 

lOS ANGELES CAi.FORHIA 8005J·2325 

January 15, 2009 

Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.A. 

§§ 1531 ef seq.) the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (USACE) requests initiation ofinfonnal 

consultation (50 CFR §402. 14) concerning potential elTects of a Federal action, San Diego 

Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project, on green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), California least tern 

(Sternll/a antillarum browm,); California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) and 

western snowy plover (Charadrills afexandr;IIl1s nil'osus). This Draft Environmental Assessment 

(DEA) addresses impacts that may result from the maintenance dredging of beach compatible 

material in the Federal Channel at San Diego Harbor, and its disposal in the nearshore at Imperial 

Beach. The California least tern and California brown pelican are endangered under Federal and 

State listing; the western snowy plover is a federally threatened species and special concern 

species for the State; the green sea turtle is listed as federal ly threatened. 

The Draft EA describes the affected resources and evaluates the potential impacts to those 

resources as a result of the proposed project. The purpose bf the proposed project is to dredge 

approximately 333,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sediment from the Federal Channel at 

San Diego Harbor, and to beneficially reuse the dredge material by disposing in the nearshore 

waters (-15 to -18 reet Mean Lower Low Water [MLLW]) at Imperial Beach. A diesel powered 

hopper dredge would be used to perform the maintenance dredging. 

Coronado Beach was designated as a viable alternative disposal area. However, disposal at 

Imperial Beach is the recommended alternative as Imperial Beach is severely eroded and in great 

need of beach nourishment. Other alternatives considered included the No Action Alternative, 

onshore disposal, ocean disposal, upland disposal, and use of a clamshell dredge. However, these 

alternatives were not found to be feasible and were removed from further consideration. 

Informal coordination occurred with Ms. Lauren White of your stafT in August and September 

2008, and January 2009, regarding project impacts on Federally listed endangered and 
-2-

threatened species, Ms. White indicated lhal dredging would be acceptable if conducted outside 

the breeding season for the California least tern, which occurs between April 1st and September 

15th. However, if dredging extended into the beginning of April, Ms. White agreed that a 

biological monitor could be present during dredging and disposal to monitor the 

presence/absence of the tern in San Diego Bay. Daily monitoring reports would be provided to 

the U.S. Fish and Wi ldlife Service (USFWS) for review for all days of dredging and disposal 

during the breeding season. If the tern amves in San Diego Bay during dredging or disposal, 

activities would stop and USFWS would be consulted to provide direction on the continuance of 

the project. 

The USFWS also requested water quality and turbidity monitoring during dredging and 

disposal activities to minimize impacts to foraging for the least tern and the brown pelican. 

No impacts to western sno,""Y plover were found, as disposal would occur in tJle nearshore. 

Disposal of sediment would not take place on tJle beach and would not disturb nesting snowy 

plovers in the vicinity of the disposal area. No impacts to green sea turtle were round, as 

dredging and disposal would not occur near known populations of green sea turtle. 

The additional principal agencies with which this project has been coordinated include: 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Califomia 

Coastal Commission (CCC). California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and California 

Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Diego RWQCB). Coordination with these agencies 

is on-going. 

A Draft EA is enclosed for your infomlation. Sections 3.3, 4.3, and 7.0 of the Draft EA 

provide details related to the impact analysis for the federally and state listed species, and 

associated miligatioJ1l11easures. 

M itigatioll Measures: 

a. The Corps shall implement a Water Quality Monitoring Plan, and monitor turbidity at the 

dredge and beach disposal site. This monitoring will ensure that turbidity levels would 

not impact the foraging California least tern and Calirornia brown pelican. 

b. Dredging and disposal would not be perfomled during the months or April 1 st to 

September 15 to avoid impacts to sensitive species. However, if dredging extended into 

the beginning of April a biological monitor would be present during dredging and 

disposa l to monitor the presence/absence of the California least tem in San Diego Bay. 

Daily monitoring reports would be provided to the USFWS for review for all days of 

dredging and disposa l during the breeding season. If the tern arrives in San Diego Bay 

during dredging or disposal, activities would stop and USFWS would be consulted to 

provide direction on the continuance of the project. 
- 3 -

c. The Corps shall keep construction activities under surveillance, management, and control 

to minimize interference with, disturbance to, and damage of fish and wildlife. 

d. Beach disposal will be limited to the nearshore waters at Imperial Beach to minimize 

impacts to nesting Western snowy plover. 

c. Only areas that contain beach compatibl e sediment, as detemlined by sediment sampling 

completed in October 2008 and approved by the EPA, will be dredged. Any noncompatible material will be len in place. 

Any disturbances to California least tern and California brown pelican would be localized. be 

of very short duration, and affect few, if any individuals. Dredging activities would occur far offshore from known snowy plover habitat within the harbor. Dredge material deposited in the 

nearshore is expected to disperse via wave action over the course of several months to replenish 

the beach. No large quantities of material will be disposed of on or near snowy plover habitat. 

Dredging and disposal would not occur near known populations of green sea turtle. Coordination 

regarding the green sea turtle is on~gong with the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Impacts to special status species, including California least tern, would be less than 

significant. Based on coordination with USFWS, and to ensure that drcdging~related turbidity 

would not adversely aITect California least tern or the California brown pelican, the 

aforementioned mitigation measures would be implemented. Based on this impact analysis it has 

been detemlined that the proposed project may affect, not likely to adversely affect the California 

least tern and California brown pelican. Dredging and disposal operations would not aIYect the 

green sea turtle and the western snowy plover. 

Your timely response to our detelmination on the federally listed species, within 

30 days to complete the Infonnal Section 7 Consultation, is appreciated. You r response will be 

included in the Final EA. Should you have any questions, please contact Ms. Erin Hardison, 

Project BiologistlEnvironmental Coordinator, at 2 I 3~452-3864 or at 

erin.l.hardison@usace.amly.mil. 

Enclosure 

Sincerely. 

QUilt 

JO~Pi!R~~t~ Chief, Planning Division 
United States Department of the Interior 

In Reply Refer To: 

FWS-SDG-09BOlS6-09I0408 

Dr. Josephine R. Axt 

Chief, Planning Division 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Los Angeles District 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Ecological Services 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101 

Carlsbad, California 92011 

Los Angeles, California 90053-2325 

Attention: Ms. Erin Hardison, CESPL-PD-RN 

FEB 202009 

Subject: Informal Section 7 Consultation for the San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging 

Project, San Diego County, California 

Dear Dr. Axt: 

This is in response to your letter dated January 15, 2009, received in our office on January 16, 

2009, requesting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) concurrence with your finding that the 

San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project: will have no effect on the federally listed 

endangered western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus, plover); and may affect, but 

is not likely to adversely affect, the federally listed endangered California brown pelican 

(Pelecanus occidentalis californicus, pelican) and California least tern (Sternula antillarum 

browni, tern), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 u.s.c. 1531 

et.seq.). Our evaluation is based on information provided in your letter and the Draft 

Environmental Assessment for the proposed project (dated January 2009). 

The proposed project involves the dredging of approximately 333,000 cubic yards of beach 

compatible sediment from the Federal Channel in San Diego Bay, and beneficial reuse of the 

dredged material by discharging it in nearshore waters (-15 to -28 feet Mean Lower Low Water) at 

Imperial Beach. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) proposes to implement the following 

measures to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to federally listed species: 

a. The Corps will implement a Water Quality Monitoring Plan, and monitor turbidity at 

the dredge and beach discharge site. This monitoring will ensure that turbidity levels 

will not impact foraging of the tern and the pelican. 

b. Dredging and discharge will not be performed from April 1 to September 15 to avoid 

the least tern breeding season. However, if dredging and discharge is necessary after 

March 31, a biological monitor will be present during dredging and discharge to 
Mr. Dave Stalters (FWS-SDG-08B0719-08I0834) 2 

monitor the presence/absence of the tern in San Diego Bay and offshore of Imperial 

Beach. Daily monitoring reports will be provided to the Service for review for all days 

of dredging and discharge after March 31. If the tern arrives in San Diego Bay or 

offshore of Imperial Beach before project completion, all dredging or discharge will 

stop and the Service will be consulted to provide direction on the continuance of the 

project and to determine if formal consultation is necessary. 

c. The Corps will keep construction activities under surveillance, management, and 

control to minimize interference with, disturbance to, and damage of fish and wildlife. 

d. Beach disposal will be limited to the nearshore waters at Imperial Beach to minimize 

impacts to the plover. 

e. Only areas that contain beach compatible sediment, as determined by sediment 

sampling completed in October 2008 and approved by the U.S. EPA, will be dredged. 

Any non-compatible material will be left in place. 

Provided that the proposed measures are implemented, the Service concurs that the project will 

have no effect on the plover, and may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the pelican and 

the tern. Therefore, we believe the interagency consultation requirements of the Act have been 

satisfied. Should project plans change, or if additional information ori the distribution of listed or 

proposed species becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. 

We appreciate your coordination on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this 

letter, please contact Lauren White at (760) 431-9440, extension 371. 

Karen A. Goebel 

Assistant Field Supervisor 
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Omce of the Chief 

Planning Division 

Mr. John H. Robertus 

Executive Officer 

LOS ~GEL£$ DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

P O BOX 5327" 

LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 1KJOM.2l25 

January 13, 2009 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

San Diego Region 

Attn: Jody Ebsen 

9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100 

San Diego, California 92123 

Dear Mr. Robertus: 

The U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (Corps) requests a Section 401 Water Quality Certification 

(WQC) for the proposed San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project, San Diego County, 

California. The Corps staff is coordinating with Ms. lady Ebscn of your stafT. A copy of the 

public review draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for San Diego Harbor Maintenance 

Dredging is enclosed for your infonnation. 

The maintenance dredging would last over a period of four weeks, TIle proposed maintenance 

dredging is scheduled for March 2009. The construction may be delayed due to funding, weather 

events, and mechanical constraints. It may occur during 2010 or 2011. If delays occur, the Corps 

will notify the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 

Beach compatible material would be discbarged in the nearshore at Imperial Beach. The 

dredging and disposal would be scheduled to avoid California Least Tern nesting season (April 

)11 to September 15th), and minimize impacts to Western Snowy Plover. However, if dredging 

extended into the beginning of April a biological monitor would be present during dredging and 

disposal to monitor the presence/absence of the tern in San Diego Bay, as per coordination with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Daily monitoring reports would be provided to the 

USFWS for review for all days of dredging and disposal during the breeding season. lfthe tem 

arrives in San Diego Bay during dredging or disposal, activities would stop and USFWS wouJd 

be consulted to provide direction on the continuance of the project. 

The following are the specific proposed actions for maintenance dredging of San Diego 

Harbor: (1) dredging of beach compatible sediment in the Federal Channel to authorized project 

depths; (2) discharge of beach compatible dredged material in the nearshore atlmperial Beach; 

(3) and environmental monitoring. 
A detailed project description is provided in Section 3.0 of the Draft EA, and impacts on 

biological resources, water quality, and mitigation measures are provided in sections 5.2, 5.4, and 

7.0 respectively. 

Project construction could result in temporary increases in turbidity, however impacts wouJd 

be short-tenn. Mitigation measures would minimize impacts and include water quality 

monitoring during dredging and disposal. 

Section 404(t) of the CWA requires the Corps to comply with the State or Regional Boards' 

substantive and procedural requirements pertaining to the discharge of dredged or fill material 

including structural discharges. However, this Section does not authorize the payment of fees as 

a condition of compliance with these requirements. Fundamentally, as an agency of the Federal 

government, legal detemlinations preclude the Corps from paying fees, except where Congress 

has clearly and unambiguously waived Federal sovereignty. 

This letter, and the enclosed application, satisfies the requirements of the Clean Water Act to 

request Section 401 WQC, or a waiver of certification, pursuant to 33 CFR 336. I(a)( I). The 

Corps requests that your office expedite the processing of this application. 

We would appreciate issuance of Section 401 WQC latest by last week of February 2009 to 

meet the critical timeframe for the proposed dredging in March 2009 and avoid impacts to 

federally listed species. lfwe do not hear from your office by lhe end of February 2009, we will 

assume your office has provided a waiver for the proposed maintenance dredging in San Diego 

Harbor. We greatly appreciate the input provided by Ms. Jody Ebsen of your staff on this project. 

If yo u have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Ms. Erin Hardison, 

Corps' Project Environmental Coordinator, at (213) 452-3864 or at 

erin.l.hardison@usace.arnlv.mil. 

Thank yo u for your attention to this document. 

Sincerely, 

o ~Josephine R. Axt, Ph. 

Chi ef, Pial ·ng Divis on 

Enclosure 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging 401 Certification09C-004.txt

From: Jody Ebsen [JEbsen@waterboards.ca.gov]

Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:56 AM

To: Hardison, Erin L SPL

Subject: San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging 401 Certification09C-004

Attachments: Jody Ebsen.vcf

This is just to verify that the 401 Certification for this project is as proposed in

the 401 application received by the Regional Board on January 15, 2009. All water 

quality sampling and reporting should be done in accordance with the application 

proposal. 

If you have any question please let me know.

JE

Jody Ebsen, M.Sc., P.G.

Engineering Geologist

Office (858) 636-3146

CRWQCB, San Diego Region

9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100

San Diego, CA 92123

Fax (858) 571-6972

EMAIL ADDRESS/WEB PAGE:

e-mail: JEbsen@waterboards.ca.gov

Web: www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego

Following the Governor's Order the Regional Board office will be closed the 1st and 

3rd Fridays of each month.

Page 1
Office of the Chief 

Planning Division 

Mr. Rod McInnis 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

P.O. BOX 532711 

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053-2325 

February 25, 2009 

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Attn: Ms. Christina Fahy 

501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 

Long Beach, California 90802 

Dear Mr. McInnis: 

Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 

V.S.c.A. §§1531et seq.), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) requests concurrence from 

the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with our determination of may 

affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally threatened green sea turtle (Chelonia 

mydas) for the San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project, San Diego County, California. 

Our intent is to satisfy requirements of the ESA for Section 7 Consultation through the informal 

consultation process, as provided in 50 CFR 402.13. 

The purpose of the proposed project is to perforn1 maintenance dredging of the Federal 

Channel at San Diego Harbor (no more than 336,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sediment), 

and to beneficially reuse the dredge material by disposing in the nearshore waters (-15 to -28 feet 

Mean Lower Low Water [MLLW]) at Imperial Beach. A diesel powered hopper dredge would be 

used to perfonn the maintenance dredging. Focus areas for dredging include the Federal 

Channel from Ballast Point oceanward. 

A Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared and addresses impacts that may 

result from the maintenance dredging of beach compatible material in the Federal Channel at San 

Diego Harbor, and its discharge in the nearshore at Imperial Beach. The Draft EA describes the 

affected resources and evaluates the potential impacts to those resources as a result of the 

proposed project. A copy of the Draft EA was sent on January 28,2009 to Mr. Eric Chavez of 

your office for public review. Description of the project and aItematives has been provided in 

Section 3.0 of the Draft EA. 

Infonnal coordination occurred with Mr. Dan Lawson of your staff in January 2009 regarding 

impacts to the green sea turtle. Mr. Lawson indicated that the turtle population known to inhabit 

the Bay spends much of its time near the South Bay Power Plant, however, turtles are lmown to 

migrate and forage throughout the Bay. Foraging is currently expected to occur closer to the 

power plant during winter months. Although the dredging operations would occur during winter 

months and far from the South Bay Power Plant, dredging could have an affect on green sea 
- 2 -

turtles that may migrate within the Federal Channel. Mr. Lawson further indicated that NOAA 

may require a biological monitor present on the dredge to monitor for presence of the sea turtle 

in the vicinity of the dredge and within the hopper of the dredge. If a turtle is observed, NOAA 

would be contacted and further coordination would occur regarding continuation of dredging. If 

any turtle remains are found inside the dredge, dredging would have to cease and NOAA would 

be contacted immediately. 

Coordination occurred with Ms. Tina Fahy of your staff on Febmary 23, 2009. Ms. Fahy 

stated that the Navy perfonned surveys near the Turning Basin, which is a possible dredge area, 

and that the turtle had previously been found within this area. If during dredging activities, a 

decision is made to dredge the Turning Basin, the Corps would coordinate with your office prior 

to initiating dredging within the Turning Basin and discuss any requirements to dredge the area. 

Preliminarily, the Corps made a no effect detennination for the green sea turtle based on 

original research which is outlined in the Draft EA. It is assumed the green sea turtle would not 

be common within the dredge footprint, and dredging activities would occur during winter 

months when the turtle tends to stay close to the South Bay Power Plant. Details are outlined in 

the Draft EA (see Sections 4.3 and 5.3). The Corps provided an overview of the dredging site, 

and agreed to provide a biological monitor for the green sea turtle and submit a request letter to 

initiate infonnal coordination as soon as possible. The Corps indicated it would provide an 

updated project description and map of dredge areas, as well as a letter requesting infonnal 

consultation by Febmary 25, 2009, which has been done. The Corps requests that NOAA 

provide concurrence with our detennination within one week, by March 4,2009, to meet the 

critical schedule to initiate maintenance dredging by the beginning of the second week of March 

2009 to avoid impacts to the Federally listed California least tern. Ms. Fahy said that if the 

Corps provided this infonnation to her, she would review it and respond to us as soon as 

possible. 

Coordination further occurred with Mr. Lawson on Febmary 25,2009 regarding the details of 

monitoring requirements. He indicated that, given the 24-hour operation of the dredge, 

nighttime monitoring may not be practical. He indicated that monitoring could occur during the 

day and that the hopper of the dredge should be checked consistently for the presence of turtles. 

When asked whether monitoring requirements for the approach and entrance channel would be 

different than for the Turning Basin, he indicated that there were no set boundary limits in the 

Bay in tenns of monitoring. Mr. Lawson requested that a draft copy of this letter be sent to him 

and Ms. Fahy, in order to begin drafting a response. He also requested a figure outlining the 

focus dredge areas and more infonnation on the dredge and its operation. Mr. Lawson indicated 

that NOAA would try to provide a response to the Corps by March 4,2009, so that dredging 

could commence on-schedule. 

The Corps initiated coordination with Mr. Eric Chavez of your office regarding Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) and Caulerpa in December 2008. Coordination with Ms. Tina Fahy and Mr. Dan 

Lawson was initiated regarding ESA and green sea turtle in January 2009. In addition to 
- 3 -

coordination with your agency, the Corps has coordinated the proposed project with resource 

agencies including: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Califomia Coastal Commission 

(CCC), Califomia Department ofFish and Game (CDFG), u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), and Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Diego RWQCB). 

Coordination with these agencies is on-going (see Section 1.0 of the Draft EA for details). 

The Final EA would provide updated information, which would include the Corps' 

determination on green sea turtle, and further coordination with NOAA. The Final EA would 

also include minimization/mitigation measures regarding the green sea turtle. Sections 3.3, 4.3, 

and 7.0 of the Draft EA provide details related to the preliminary impact analysis for the 

federally listed green sea turtle. The following minimization measures would be included in the 

Final EA to minimize impacts to the green sea turtle. 

Minimization Measures: 

a. The Corps shall have a qualified biological monitor present on the dredge to monitor for 

the presence of the green sea turtle in the vicinity of the dredge and within the hopper. If 

a green sea turtle is observed near the dredge, NOAA will be contacted and further 

coordination would occur regarding dredging activities. If any turtle remains are 

discovered within the hopper, dredging activity will cease and NOAA will be contacted 

immediately. 

b. If a decision is made to dredge the Tuming Basin, NOAA would be notified to discuss 

requirements to dredge this area. 

c. The Corps shall implement a Water Quality Monitoring Plan, and monitor turbidity at the 

dredge and nearshore discharge site 

d. The Corps shall keep constmction activities under surveillance, management, and control 

to minimize interference with, disturbance to, and damage of fish and wildlife. 

e. Only areas that contain beach compatible sediment, as determined by sediment sampling 

completed in October 2008 and approved by the EPA, will be dredged. Any noncompatible material will be left in place. 

Dredging and discharge would occur far from known populations of green sea turtle and it 

would occur during winter months, when the turtle is currently known to stay near the South Bay 

Power Plant. 

Based on coordination with NOAA, and to ensure that dredging operations would not 

adversely affect green sea turtle, the aforementioned minimization measures would be 

implemented. Based on this impact analysis it has been detennined that the proposed project 

may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the green sea turtle. 
- 4 -

Your timely response to our determination on the green sea turtle, by March 4,2009 to 

complete the Infonnal Section 7 Consultation, is appreciated. Should you have any questions, 

please contact Ms. Erin Hardison, Project Biologist/Environmental Coordinator, at 213-452-

3864 or at erin.l.hardison@usace.amwmil. 

Sincerely, 
'NAR I "I~ 2009 

Josephine Axt 

Chief, Planning Division 

Department of the Army 

Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers 

P.O. Box 532711 

Los Angeles, California 90053-2325 

Dear Ms. Axt: 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

Southwest Region 

501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 

Long Beach, California 90802-4213 

In response, refer to: 

2009100685:DDL 

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) February 25,2009, letter initiating informal consultation on dredging 

activities, termed the San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project, planned for the Federal 

Channel in San Diego Bay, California. NMFS has also reviewed the supporting background 

information provided by the Corps, including a copy of the Draft Environmental Assessment 

(DEA), sent to our office on January 28,2009, and updated copies of the proposed dredging 

footprint for this project, sent on February 25,2009. NMFS offers the following comments 

pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

Proposed Project 

The proposed project would involve maintenance dredging of beach compatible sediment along 

the Federal Channel of San Diego Harbor to restore design depths and assure safe navigation of 

the channel by deep draft vessels using the harbor. Shoaling has occurred in the 

Approach/Entrance Channel, as a result of the long shore transport of sand from the ocean, and 

in other areas from propeller wash from passing ships. The original proposed project, as 

described in the DEA, included the removal of up to 336,000 cubic yards of material and a 

dredge footprint of approximately 1,534 acres that extended approximately 13 miles from the 

approach channel of the bay to Sweetwater Channel. However, during pre-consultation 

coordination with Corps staff, NMFS was informed that the project area had been modified and 

now includes only the Approach/Entrance Channel, seaward of Ballast Point, and potentially the 

Aircraft Carrier Turning Basin (areas lA, IB, 2, and 8 in Table 1 of the DEA), with a total 

sediment removal of up to 309,600 cubic yards. 

Based on the modified project description, the material will be dredged to depths of -55, -47, and 

-49 feet mean lower low water (MLL W) in the Approach Channel, Entrance Channel, and 

Aircraft Carrier Turning Basin, respectively. The beach compatible material would be used for 

beach nourishment and would be disposed of in the nearshore waters at Imperial Beach, loca~d..o",,< 

.t:~c ·'0 

t~I"\ ~ § ~<I' r:l:-IY 

Di,o.q ~.,t.~ Ii'rMENTO~CO 
2 

approximately 12 miles south of San Diego, at depths of -15 to -28 feet MLLW. The Corps 

estimates the dredging activities will take approximately 4 weeks to complete and will begin in 

early March, 2009. 

Endangered Species Act Consultation 

Green turtles (Chelonia mydas) are the only species listed under the ESA and under NMFS' 

jurisdiction that may be affected by this project. South San Diego Bay serves as important 

habitat for a resident population of approximately 50-60 juvenile and adult green turtles in this 

area. 

In the February 25, 2009, letter initiating Section 7 consultation with NMFS on this proposed 

action, the Corps determined that the action may affect, but was not likely to adversely affect, 

green sea turtles. The Corps conclusion is based on information provided to the Corps during 

informal coordination and other background information that was provided by NMFS staff. 

Scientists believe that San Diego Bay may be one of the northern-most foraging areas for green 

turtles, with the shallow inlet providing valuable food resources such as marine algae and 

seagrass. While some of the San Diego Bay green turtles are year-round residents, others 

migrate through central and north San Diego Bay in order to reach their southern breeding 

grounds, located in the southern state of Michoacan, Mexico, and at the Revillagigedos Islands, 

offshore central Mexico. Since the early 1960s, sea turtles have been sighted aggregating in the 

vicinity of the South Bay Power Plant, where warm water effluent is discharged throughout the 

year. During the warm summer months, the turtles generally move out of the effluent channel 

and into the Bay, especially when temperatures within the channel exceed 90°F. With incursions 

of warm equatorial currents (e.g., during EI Niiio events), more turtles have been found within 

the Bay. 

Green turtles are also attracted to the high concentrations of eelgrass in San Diego Bay, and the 

presence of this important food item likely influences sea turtle activity patterns within the Bay. 

Evidence from telemetry studies show that they generally move back and forth between eelgrass 

beds and the warm effluent channel, with little time spent in between. Surveys show that the sea 

turtles generally foraged within 2 kilometers of the effluent channel. Because scientists have 

generally limited their turtle tracking studies to the south Bay, however, less is known of sea 

turtle movement within the central and northern areas of the Bay, including the importance of 

eelgrass beds to turtles in this area. Recent information produced from monitoring during 

construction activities and a research project designed to track green turtle movements 

throughout the Bay have indicated some green turtle activity in the northern reaches of the Bay 

during the winter months, including the Turning Basin. It is also been discovered through 

satellite tracking telemetry that individuals which are heading back to nesting beach sites in 

Mexico typically leave the Bay in late March and April (JeffSeminoff, SWFSC, personal 

communication, February 24, 2009). 

Potential impacts to any green turtles in the area from the project arise from the use of a hopper 

dredge to complete this project. Unlike other types of dredging, which are relatively loud and 

typically make slower progress, hopper dredges are relatively quiet and can progress fairly 
3 

quickly on the bottom. Consequently, hopper dredges may be able to overtake sea turtles that 

may be resting on the bottom without alerting them to its presence in time to avoid the dredge. 

Once a turtle become entrained inside the dredge head and intake pipe, serious injury and 

mortality through crushing or drowning is very likely. Numerous interactions between hopper 

dredges and sea turtles have been recorded along the Southeast Coast of the U.S., and Corps 

dredging activities in that region are managed under Regional Biological Opinions that 

acknowledge the likelihood that some sea turtles will be taken annually through injury andlor 

mortality. A number of additional measures designed to minimize sea turtle takes are included 

(See USACOE Hopper Dredge Regional Biological Opinions dated 1997 and 2003 for more 

information). 

In assessing the risk of this project, NMFS considers the location of potential dredging activities 

in relation to the probability that green turtles may be found in the vicinity. If the focus area of 

the dredging remains seaward of Ballast Point, it is not likely that the hopper dredge will 

encounter any sea turtles, with the possible exception of a turtle in transit out of the bay. In that 

instance, it is reasonable to assume that transiting turtles are more apt to be swimming in the 

water column and not along the bottom of the Federal Channel, and therefore, are not likely to be 

taken up in the hopper dredge head. Operation of the dredge in a manner such that it does not 

begin functioning until the dredge is on the bottom should eliminate the potential of taking in a 

turtle that would be transiting off bottom. 

In the consultation initiation letter, the Corps indicated they would have a qualified biological 

monitor present on the dredge to look for green sea turtle activity in the vicinity of the dredge 

and within the hopper. NMFS appreciates the willingness of the Corps to implement this 

measure and welcomes the Corps to do so. However, at this time, NMFS does not believe that 

full-time monitoring on-site is necessary to avoid adversely affecting green turtles. The chance 

of encountering a turtle in the area heading out of the Bay is sufficiently low and discountable in 

that location. NMFS believes regular inspection of the hopper for the presence of turtle parts by 

Corps personnel is appropriate. In the unlikely event that a sea turtle is injured or killed as a 

result of the project, NMFS recommends that the Corps immediately cease operations and 

contact our regional stranding coordinator, Mr. Joe Cordaro, at (562) 980-4017. This event 

would also trigger initiation of a formal consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

If dredging activities were to occur in the Turning Basin area, the risk of encountering a turtle 

foraging or resting on the bottom is greater due to the fact that turtles have been documented in 

the area. However, the proposed timing of the project is still early enough in the year that San 

Diego Bay is relatively cool and we would expect that most all of the turtles would be favoring 

the warmer waters in the southern part of the Bay. In the consultation initiation letter, the Corps 

indicated they would notify NMFS if they made a decision to dredge in the Turning Basin. If 

that decision is made, NMFS will work with the Corps to determine if additional monitoring or 

other requirements are necessary. 

Based on the all of the above, NMFS concurs with the Corps' determination that the proposed 

action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, green sea turtles. 
4 

Additional Comments 

Up until this point, the Southwest Regional Office has not been aware of other hopper dredging 

activities in San Diego Bay or other areas where sea turtles may be found along the coast of 

California. We would be very interested to know if additional plans for projects involving 

hopper dredges in this area exist, and would welcome an opportunity to learn more about this 

type of dredging activity and work with the Corps to ensure that no ESA-listed species are 

adversely affected. 

Thank you for consulting with NMFS and consideration of our comments. If you have any 

questions pursuant to this letter or other ESA issues, please contact Dan Lawson at (562) 980-

3209 or Dan.Lawson@noaa.gov and Christina Fahy at (562) 980-4023 or 

Christina.Fahy@noaa.gov, respectively. 

Sincerely, 

~~(f(fJ!~ 

Rodney R. McInnis 

Regional Administrator 

cc: Erin Hardison, United States Army Corps of Engineers 

Dr. JeffSeminoff, Southwest Fisheries Science Center 
Correspondence from August 2010 Final SEA
Office of the Chief 

Planning Division 

Mr. Peter Douglas 

Executive Director 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

P.O. BOX 532711 

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053-2325 

June 1,2010 

California Coastal Commission 

Attn: Mr. Larry Simon 

45 Fremont, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Dear Mr. Douglas: 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is submitting a Negative Determination 

(ND) for the San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project to the California Coastal 

Commission (CCC) for your consideration. The Final Environmental Assessment (EA) 

for the San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project was sent to your office in March 

2009, and it indicated that project activities would take place in March 2009. The Final 

EA outlined that Imperial Beach would be used for discharge of beach compatible 

dredged material, and that Coronado Beach was a viable alternative. The Corps 

submitted a CCD in January 2009, and as per coordination with Mr. Larry Simon, the 

activities met the criteria for issuance of a ND. The Corps received concurrence with a 

Negative Determination (ND-00l-09 dated February 2,2009; attached). 

Dredging for the proposed project was postponed in 2009 because delays occurred 

obtaining necessary air quality permits for the dredge. Dredging is currently scheduled 

for Fa112010/Spring 2011. The Corps has coordinated changes to the project description 

from the March 2009 Final EA with Mr. Larry Simon of your staff in April and May 

2010. As per coordination with Mr. Simon, the enclosed ND documents changes to the 

proposed project, which include changes to the dredging duration and equipment. 

The Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA), which provides full 

details related to the new project description, is enclosed for your information. 

Your concurrence on this Statement of Negative Determination is appreciated. If you 

have any questions, please contact Ms. Erin Hardison, Project Environmental 

Coordinator, at 213-452-3864 or erin.l.hardison@usace.army.mil. 
2 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

Enclosures 

Sincerely, r Ii {16 1!:6. Ax!, Ph.D. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Chief, Planning Division 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY 

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219 

VOICE (415) 904- 5200 

FAX (415) 904- 5400 

TDD (415) 597-5885 

Josephine R. Axt, Ph.D. 

Chief, Planning Division 

Los Angeles District 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

ATTN: Erin Hardison 

P.O. Box 532711 

Los Ang€les,-CA 90053-2325 _ 

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR 

June 24,2010 

Subject: Negative Determination ND-030-10 (San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging, San 

Diego Co.) 

Dear Dr. Axt: 

The Coastal Commission staff has reviewed the above-referenced negative determination. The 

Corps of Engineers proposes to maintenance dredge approximately 300,000 cubic yards of 

beach-compatible sandy material from the federal approach and entrance channels in San Diego 

Harbor, with nearshore disposal in waters offshore of Imperial Beach. The disposal site is the 

same site the Commission authoriied and the Corps used for the 2004 Federal Channel 

Deepening project (consistency determination CD-090-02). The project is scheduled to occur 

between September 15, 2010, and March 31, 2011, and will be completed before the least tern 

nesting season (which begins April 1). If dredging is delayed past March 31, the Corps has 

agreed it would only continue to dredge/dispose ifno least terns are present (and only if 

approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). The project includes water quality monitoring, 

and provisions to minimize turbidity and water quality impacts at the dredge and disposal sites. 

(The Executive Director previously concurred with negative determination ND-001-09 for this 

project, but when the Corps was unable to obtain the required air quality permits for the dredging 

operation, the proposed spring 2009 project was postponed.) 

Under the federal consistency regulations, 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 staff agrees with the Corps that this project is 

similar to previously-authorized activities, including CD-90-02 and ND-001-09. This 

concurrence assumes and is contingent upon the Commission staff also being notified if dredging 

extends past March 31,2011. With this understanding, we conCllr with your negative 

determination'made pursuant to 15 CFRSection 930.35 of the NOAA implementing regulations. 

Pieasecolltact Larry Simon of the Commission staff at (415) 904-5288 should you have any 

questions regarding this matter. 
ND-030-10 (Corps of Engineers) 

Page 2 

Sincerely 

l~IJJ" PETER M. DOUGLAS 

Executive Director 

cc: CCC - San Diego Coast District 

California Department of Water Resources 

Governor's Washington, D.C., Office 
Office of the Chief 

Planning Division 

Mr. David Gibson 

Executive Officer 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

P.O. BOX 532711 

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053-2325 

June 1,2010 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

San Diego Region 

Attn: Jody Ebsen 

9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100 

San Diego, California 92123 

Dear Mr. Gibson: 

The U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (Corps) requests a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) 

for the proposed San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project, San Diego County, California to 

accommodate changes to the proposed project since the March 2009 Final EA. A copy of the public 

review draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) for San Diego Harbor Maintenance 

Dredging is enclosed for your information. 

The Corps coordinated with Ms. Jody Ebsen of your staff during preparation of the March 2009 Final 

EA. At that time a request for a WQC was submitted on January 13, 2009. On March 2,2009, Ms. Ebsen 

informed the Corps via e-mail that water quality sampling and analysis was required, with the results of 

monitoring submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Diego Region) (RWQCB) as 

identified in the Section 401 WQC request letter and application. A formal Section 401 WQC was not 

issued. By following the environmental commitments identified in the SEA, impacts to water quality 

would be minimized. 

Dredging for the proposed project was scheduled for March 2009, but was delayed due to delays in 

obtaining air quality permits. Dredging is currently scheduled for Fall 201 O/Spring 2011. The Draft SEA 

describes changes to the project description in full detail. 

The current project includes dredging of approximately 300,000 cubic yards of beach compatible 

material from the approach and entrance channels in San Diego Harbor. Sediment would be dredged 

using a hopper dredge or clamshell dredge over a maximum duration of approximately 100 days. All 

material would be discharged in the nearshore at Imperial Beach. 

Other aspects of the project discussed in the Final EA will remain the same, including the dredging of 

beach compatible material only, the discharge location, and environmental commitments. Impacts to 

Imperial Beach were discussed in the Final EA and were found to be not significant. 

The following are the specific proposed actions for maintenance dredging of San Diego Harbor: (1) 

dredging of beach compatible sediment in the Federal Channel to authorized project depths; (2) discharge 

of beach compatible dredged material in the nearshore at Imperial Beach; (3) and environmental 

monitoring. 
- 2 -

A detailed project description is provided in Section 2.0 of the Draft SEA, and impacts to water quality 

and environmental commitments are provided in sections 4.4 and 6.0, respectively. 

Project construction could result in temporary increases in turbidity, however impacts would be shortterm. Environmental commitments would minimize impacts and include water quality monitoring during 

dredging and disposal. Dredging and disposal would be scheduled to avoid California Least Tern nesting 

season (April 1 st to September 15th

), and minimize impacts to Western Snowy Plover. 

Section 404(t) of the CWArequires the Corps to comply with the State or Regional Boards' 

substantive and procedural requirements pertaining to the discharge of dredged or fill material including 

structural discharges. However, this Section does not authorize the payment of fees as a condition of 

compliance with these requirements. Fundamentally, as an agency of the Federal government, legal 

determinations preclude the Corps from paying fees, except where Congress has clearly and 

unambiguously waived Federal sovereignty. 

This letter, and the enclosed application, satisfies the requirements of the Clean Water Act to request 

Section 401 WQC, or a waiver of certification, pursuant to 33 CFR 336.1(a)(1). The Corps requests that 

your office expedite the processing of this application. 

We would appreciate issuance of the Section 401 WQC by August 15,2010, at the latest, to meet the 

critical time frame for the proposed dredging after September 15,2010 and avoid impacts to federally 

listed species. If we do not hear from your office within 60-days of our request letter, we will follow 

conditions identified in the Final EA and SEA and the Section 404(b)(1) analysis to minimize impacts to 

waters of the U.S. and comply with the Clean Water Act. At that time, the Corps will assume that your 

office has determined not to issue a Section 401 WQC for the proposed maintenance dredging in San 

Diego Harbor. 

We greatly appreciate the input provided by Ms. Jody Ebsen of your staff on this project and the 

expedited response to our request. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please 

contact Ms. Erin Hardison, Corps' Project Environmental Coordinator, at (213) 452-3864 or at 

erin.l.hardison@usace.army.mil. 

Thank: you for your attention to this document. 

Enclosure 

¥%.¢ 

Josephine R. Axt, Ph.D. 

Chief, Planning Division 
San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging 401 Certification09C-004.txt

From: Jody Ebsen [JEbsen@waterboards.ca.gov]

Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:56 AM

To: Hardison, Erin L SPL

Subject: San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging 401 Certification09C-004

Attachments: Jody Ebsen.vcf

This is just to verify that the 401 Certification for this project is as proposed in

the 401 application received by the Regional Board on January 15, 2009. All water 

quality sampling and reporting should be done in accordance with the application 

proposal. 

If you have any question please let me know.

JE

Jody Ebsen, M.Sc., P.G.

Engineering Geologist

Office (858) 636-3146

CRWQCB, San Diego Region

9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100

San Diego, CA 92123

Fax (858) 571-6972

EMAIL ADDRESS/WEB PAGE:

e-mail: JEbsen@waterboards.ca.gov

Web: www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego

Following the Governor's Order the Regional Board office will be closed the 1st and 

3rd Fridays of each month.

Page 1
Correspondence for the December 2011 Draft SEA
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

P.O. BOX 532711 

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053-2325

December 15, 2011 

REPLY TO 

ATTENTION OF 

Office of the Chief 

Planning Division 

Dr. Charles Lester 

Executive Director 

California Coastal Commission 

Attention: Mr. Larry Simon 

45 Fremont, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Dear Dr. Lester: 

 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is submitting a Negative Determination (ND) for the San 

Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for 

your consideration. A Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the San Diego Harbor 

Maintenance Dredging Project was sent to your office in March 2009. It was indicated in the 

Final EA that project activities would take place in March 2009. The Final EA outlined that 

Imperial Beach would be used for discharge of beach compatible dredged material, and that 

Coronado Beach was a viable alternative. The Corps submitted a CCD in January 2009, and 

received concurrence with Negative Determination ND-001-09 dated February 2, 2009. 

 Dredging for the proposed project was delayed due to delays in obtaining air quality permits, 

and was rescheduled for Fall 2010/Spring 2011, as documented in a Final Supplemental 

Environmental Assessment (SEA) (August 2010). That SEA documented changes to the 

proposed dredging since the March 2009 EA, including dates of dredging, the dredging of the 

approach and entrance channels only, and inclusion of additional dredging equipment. However, 

dredging was again postponed due to funding constraints. 

 Dredging has once again been rescheduled for 2012, and the project is documented in the 

enclosed Draft SEA (December 2011). Similar to previous proposals, dredging would occur in 

the approach and entrance channels, and disposal would occur at Imperial Beach or Coronado 

Beach. The project would also remove a sunken barge from the approach channel, in order to 

dredge that area. The Corps of Engineers has coordinated minor changes to the project 

description that occurred subsequent to completion of the March 2009 and August 2010 Final 

SEAs with Mr. Larry Simon of your staff. As requested by Mr. Simon, this letter serves as a 

Statement of Negative Determination documenting the currently proposed project. 

 The Draft SEA, which describes the project description and minor proposed modifications in 

full detail, is enclosed. The March 2009 Final EA and August 2010 Final SEA are provided with 

the December 2011 Draft SEA on CD. 
- 2 -

The Draft SEA, which describes the project description and minor proposed modifications in 

full detail, is enclosed. The March 2009 Final EA and August 2010 Final SEA are provided with 

the December 2011 Draft SEA on CD. 

Your concurrence on this Statement of Negative Determination by January 15, 2011 is 

appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Erin Jones, Project Environmental 

Coordinator, at 213-452-3864 or erin.l.jones@usace.army.mil. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

Enc1osure( s) 

f~fjJl; Josephine R. Axt, Ph.D. 

Chief, Planning Division 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY 

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 

45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219 

VOICE (415) 904- 5200 

FAX (415) 904- 5400 

TDD (415) 597~5885 

Josephine R. Axt, Ph.D. 

Chief, Planning Division 

Los Angeles District 

u.s. Anny Corps of Engineers 

ATTN: Erin Jones 

P.O. Box 532711 

Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR 

April 10, 2012 

Subject: Negative Determination ND-060-11 (San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project, 

San Diego Co.) 

Dear Dr. Axt: 

The Coastal Commission staffhas reviewed the above-referenced negative determination. The 

Corps.ofEngineers proposes to maintenance dredge approximately 550,000 cubIc yards of 

beach-compatible sandy material from the federal approach and entrance channels in San Diego 

Harbor, with nearshore disposal in waters -15 to ~28 feet mean lower low water offshore of 

Imperial Beach or'Coronado Beach. The Imperial Beach disposal site is the same site the 

Commission authorized and the Corps used for the 2004 Federal Channel Deepening project 

(consistency determination CD-090-02). The Coronado Beach disposal site will serve as an 

----.. ---.... - .. ~ ___ a1temate .. disposal site. The proj ect is scheduled to occur for a maximum of 100 days between 

August 1,2012, and April 1, 2013. 

While the project is scheduled to start prior to the September 15 end of the endangered California 

least tern nesting season, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that the proposed project 

is not likely to adversely affect the least tern. The Service noted that the 2012 chick-rearing 

period will likely have ended by early August, turbidity in the project area will be limited due to 

the sandy nature of the dredged sediments, and the maj ority of least tern foraging occurs outside 

. of the federal channels to be dredged. The proj ect includes water quality monitoring, and 

provisions to minimize turbidity and water quality impacts at the dredge and disposal sites. 

The Executive Director previously concurred with negative determinations ND-03 0-1 0 and ND001-09 for this maintenance dredging and disposal proj ect, but when the Corps was unable to 

obtain the required air quality permits and/or secure the federal funding for the dredging 

operation, the proposed project was twice postponed. As noted above, the Commission also 

concurred with CD-090-02 for a similar maintenance dredging project in the San Diego Harbor 

federal approach and entrance channels. Under the federal consistency regulations, a negative 

determination can be submitted for an activity "which is the same as or similar to activities for 
ND-060-11 (Corps of Engineers) 

Page 2 

which consistency detenninations have been prepared in the past." The Commission staff agrees 

with the Corps that this project is similar to previously-authorized activities, including CD-90-

02, ND-00I-09, and ND-030-10.We therefore concur with your negative determination made 

pursuant to 15 CFR Section 930.35 ofthe NOAA implementing regulations. Please contact 

Larry Simon of the Commission staff at (415) 904-5288 should you have any questions 

re garding this matter. 

cc: CCC - San Diego Coast District 

USFWS - Carlsbad Office 

Sincerely 

CHARLES LESTER 

Executive Director 
1

Jones, Erin L SPL

From: Jones, Erin L SPL

Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:15 AM

To: 'Jon_Avery@fws.gov'

Cc: Sandy_Vissman@fws.gov; Lovan, Hayley J SPL; Fulton, Raina SPL

Subject: San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging

Hello Jon and Sandy,

  

Per our conversation on Monday, April 16, the Corps agrees to change the ESA determination

for the 2012 San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project from a "no affect" (as stated in

the Draft EA, December 2011) to a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" the California

Least Tern.  

  

The no effect determination was previously made primarily due to the sandy nature of the

dredge material, which is expected to dissipate quickly and produce minimal turbidity.  

Additionally, the Corps has committed to monitor water quality during dredging and disposal

activities to ensure the turbidity plume remains minimal. In the Corps' view, this is an

extremely small percentage of the available foraging area, and would not prevent any

individual tern from locating prey, or force them to travel further from the nest site.  

Alternatively, any terns that may be "attracted" to the dredge plume would very likely have

successfully foraged if the dredge was not present.  Thus, Corps does not believe that the

presence or absence of the dredge has any measurable influence on the ability of any

individual tern, or the entire colony, to forage, nest, or successfully reproduce.  In the

Corps' view, a negligible affect should be equated with "no affect."

  

However, the Corps recognizes that your staff has a different and more stringent definition

and interpretation of "no affect."  Based on our conversation and e‐mail correspondence, your

position is that if a listed species (or particularly CA least terns) and a proposed activity

occur in the same place and at the same time, that it is more prudent to assume a "may

affect" and later decide through an informal consultation whether the potential impact is

adverse or not.   

  

Our agencies will be meeting in the near future to discuss our differing viewpoints in more

detail.  In the mean time, to facilitate completion of the Final EA for San Diego Harbor

Dredging and to be able to advertize the construction project, the Corps has decided to defer

to your recommendation in this instance.  Therefore, the Corps will agree that this

particular dredging project, scheduled to commence after August 1, 2012 "may affect, but is

not likely to adversely affect" the California least tern.  As your e‐mail of March 26, 2012

reached the same conclusion, the Corps assumes that this concludes our informal consultation,

and that formal consultation is not required.

  

Should dredging occur between August 1, 2012 and September 15, 2012, the Corps will continue

to coordinate with FWS staff to develop a monitoring program for the CA least tern.  The

focus of the monitoring program would be to demonstrate whether dredging activities affect
2

terns in any way, and to add to our knowledge about tern foraging behavior in San Diego

Harbor and nearshore waters.

  

The Corps will notify FWS once dredging is scheduled and coordinate further at that time.

  

Thank you for your continued participation on this project.

  

Sincerely,

Erin L. Jones

Staff Biologist, Ecosystem Planning Section US Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District

CESPL‐PD‐RN

(213) 300‐9723 (cell)

erin.l.jones@usace.army.mil  

P Please consider the environment before printing this email.  

  
1

Jones, Erin L SPL

From: Sandy_Vissman@fws.gov

Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:59 AM

To: Jones, Erin L SPL

Cc: Jon_Avery@fws.gov

Subject: RE: San Diego Harbor Dredging

Hi Erin,

Thanks for your e‐mail. To clarify our position, it is our assessment that typical dredging

or disposal operations conducted in waters where (and when) California least terns are likely

to forage, would likely be a "may affect" (please see definition below) to the species. In

some instances, such projects are also "likely to adversely affect" (see definition below)

the least tern. In this instance, the project as proposed may affect least terns, but we have

concluded that the proposed activities are "not likely to adversely affect" (also defined

below) the species for the reasons given in our earlier email. Consistent with the

implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.13), we have concurred with your earlier determination

of "not likely to adversely affect" the least tern for the action as proposed. The terms

below are provided from our Section 7 handbook, with regulation citation where appropriate

(see link below).

Per your last email, the Corps currently wants to determine "no effect" (see definition

below) for the action as proposed. We do not agree, as this determination it does not fit the

definition (see the list of definitions provided below). As noted below, the "may affect/no

effect" threshold is quite low, and with least terns likely in the action area of your

project as currently proposed and the potential for effects, the action would exceed the "may

affect" threshold. We recommend that a "may affect ‐‐ not likely to adversely affect" is the

appropriate determination for this action as proposed.

Terms used in Section 7 Consultation (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa‐

library/pdf/esa_section7_handbook.pdf)

Action area ‐ all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not

merely the immediate area involved in the action. [50 CFR §402.02]

Affect/effect ‐ to affect (a verb) is to bring about a change. The effect (usually a noun) is

the result.  

Informal consultation ‐ an optional process that includes all discussions and correspondence

between the Services and a Federal agency or designated non‐Federal representative, prior to

formal consultation, to determine whether a proposed Federal action may affect listed species

or critical habitat. This process allows the Federal agency to utilize the Services'

expertise to evaluate the agency's assessment of potential effects or to suggest possible

modifications to the proposed action which could avoid potentially adverse effects. If a

proposed Federal action may affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, formal

consultation is required (except when the Services concur, in writing, that a proposed action

"is not likely to adversely affect" listed species or designated critical habitat). [50 CFR

§402.02, 50 CFR §402.13]

Is likely to adversely affect ‐ the appropriate finding in a biological assessment (or

conclusion during informal consultation) if any adverse effect to listed species may occur as

a direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent

actions, and the effect is not: discountable, insignificant, or beneficial (see definition of

"is not likely to adversely affect"). In the event the overall effect of the proposed action
2

is beneficial to the listed species, but is also likely to cause some adverse effects, then

the proposed action "is likely to adversely affect" the listed species. If incidental take is

anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed action, an "is likely to adversely affect"

determination should be made.

An "is likely to adversely affect" determination requires the initiation of formal section 7

consultation. [Clarification of usage]

Is not likely to adversely affect ‐ the appropriate conclusion when effects on listed species

are expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial. Beneficial effects

are contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species.

Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where

take occurs.

Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person

would not: (1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or

(2) expect discountable effects to occur. [Clarification of usage]

May affect ‐ the appropriate conclusion when a proposed action may pose any effects on listed

species or designated critical habitat. When the Federal agency proposing the action

determines that a "may affect" situation exists, then they must either initiate formal

consultation or seek written concurrence from the Services that the action "is not likely to

adversely affect" [see definition above] listed species. [Clarification of usage]

No effect ‐ the appropriate conclusion when the action agency determines its proposed action

will not affect a listed species or designated critical habitat. [Clarification of usage]

Even though the California chick‐rearing period is likely to have ended by the beginning of

August, it is also likely that least terns will still be foraging in the project action area,

and thus may be affected by in‐water work that likely produces turbidity and disturbance, as

outlined in our recent correspondence to the Corps. We suggest, that a "no effect"

determination could be achieved by conducting the dredging and disposal activities when least

terns have migrated south and are not in the project area. This would entail a later timing

for the project. ‐ September 15 ‐ April 1.  

As I indicated in the earlier email, we recommend that if activities are to be conducted when

terns are present in the Bay, that the Corps develop, in coordination with the Service, a

monitoring study. The study should include an evaluation of the size, depth, and clarity, of

the turbidity footprint associated with the dredging activity throughout the project, as well

as avian monitoring information (presence, foraging rate, foraging success) during and

outside of operation periods. In addition, we have traditionally recommended the use of silt

curtains, which may already be included within your project description.  

As I indicated before, I look forward to observing the dredging and disposal project. I think

that it may also be worthwhile to get together and discuss "no effect", "may affect", "may

affect ‐‐ not likely to adversely affect", and "likely to adversely effect" determinations ,

to avoid any future confusion or delays to upcoming projects that you are working on. Let me

know if you will be coming to San Diego any time soon, and let's meet to discuss.

Respectfully,

Sandy Vissman

USFWS

6010 Hidden Valley Road

Carlsbad, California 92011

Inactive hide details for "Jones, Erin L SPL" <Erin.L.Jones@usace.army.mil>"Jones, Erin L

SPL" <Erin.L.Jones@usace.army.mil>
3

     "Jones, Erin L SPL" <Erin.L.Jones@usace.army.mil>  

     03/27/2012 02:55 PM

To

"Sandy_Vissman@fws.gov" <Sandy_Vissman@fws.gov>   

cc

"Jon_Avery@fws.gov" <Jon_Avery@fws.gov>   

Subject

RE: San Diego Harbor Dredging   

   

Hi again Sandy, thanks for the e‐mail. I left a message for you yesterday, I just wanted to

clarify the determination after speaking with my supervisors. Our draft EA had outlined a "no

effect" determination. By pushing the dredge schedule back to August we wanted to maintain

the no effect. Could you provide a list of conservation measures that would help offset the

impacts? I know we had discussed monitoring as one measure.

My apologies for my misunderstanding the determination we set forth yesterday. Could we

discuss further if you're free in the next few days?

Thanks!

Erin L. Jones

Staff Biologist, Ecosystem Planning Section US Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District

CESPL‐PD‐RN

(213) 300‐9723 (cell)

erin.l.jones@usace.army.mil

P Please consider the environment before printing this email.  

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Sandy_Vissman@fws.gov [mailto:Sandy_Vissman@fws.gov]

Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 5:34 PM

To: Jones, Erin L SPL

Cc: Jon_Avery@fws.gov

Subject: Re: San Diego Harbor Dredging

In reply refer to: SDG‐B0156‐I0408

Hi Erin,

Thank you for your coordination on the San Diego Harbor Dredging Project. The project entails

dredging the mouth of entry channel of San Diego Harbor to Ballast Point. We originally

issued a letter to you regarding the project in 2009, however the proposed timing of the
4

dredging project has changed. Dredging and disposal will now occur over a 100 day timeframe

between August 2012 and April 2012. You have coordinated with us regarding the potential for

the project to affect the California least tern due to the overlap with the least tern

breeding season and the proximity of the dredging and disposal activies to colonies at Naval

Base Coronado and Tijuana National Wildlife Refuge.

While we continue to recommend that dredging and disposal operations be conducted outside the

least tern breeding season to avoid the potential for adverse effects, we concur with your

determination that the San Diego Harbor Dredging Project, as coordinated, may affect, but is

not likely to adversely affect the California least tern. We have reached this conclusion due

to; 1) the specific location of the project within the harbor, 2) the likelihood that the

project will avoid the most sensitive time period (incubation/chick rearing), and 3) the

quality of the sediments that will be relocated. Please note that we would appreciate similar

project‐specific coordination/consideration on future dredging and disposal operations.

Based upon recent nest chronologies, we expect that most least tern nests at Naval Base

Coronado and Tijuana National Wildlife Refuge will be complete and most chicks will be

fledged prior to initiation of dredging and disposal activities. Within San Diego Bay, a

recent foraging study, conducted by Pat Baird in 2010, detected most foraging outside the

main channel, where dredging will occur.  

We are interested in working with you further to be tter understand any response of least

terns to dredging and disposal operations, and request that, if work is scheduled for August,

you coordinate further with our office to develop a strategy for monitoring least tern use of

the project area.

Thanks again for your coordination, and we look forward to working further with you and

observing the dredging and disposal project later this year!

Sincerely

Sandy Vissman

USFWS

6010 Hidden Valley Road

Carlsbad, California 92011

Inactive hide details for "Jones, Erin L SPL" <Erin.L.Jones@usace.army.mil>"Jones, Erin L

SPL" <Erin.L.Jones@usace.army.mil>

"Jones, Erin L SPL" <Erin.L.Jones@usace.army.mil>  

03/26/2012 02:38 PM

To

"Sandy_Vissman@fws.gov" <Sandy_Vissman@fws.gov>  

cc
5

Subject

San Diego Harbor Dredging  

Hi Sandy,

The Corps is requesting your concurrence that the San Diego Harbor Dredging Project, as

coordinated, is not likely to adversely affect the California least tern.

As discussed, dredging would occur for a maximum of 100 days between August 1 2012 and April

1 2013.

Erin L. Jones

Staff Biologist, Ecosystem Planning Section US Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District

CESPL‐PD‐RN

(213) 300‐9723 (cell)

erin.l.jones@usace.army.mil

P Please consider the environment before printing this email.  
Appendix C: Record of Non-Applicability and Air 

Quality Emission Calculations 
FINAL 

RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY FOR SAN DIEGO 

MAINTENANCE DREDGING PROJECT 

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 

The proposed dredge footprint is the Federal Channel of San Diego Harbor, San Diego 

County, California, which is situated approximately 100 nautical miles southeast of the 

City of Los Angeles and 17 miles north of the United States/Mexico International Border. 

The proposed dredging project entails removal of nearshore compatible sediment from 

the Federal Channel, which has deposited there due to longshore transport. The dredged 

material would be placed in the nearshore waters at Imperial Beach or Coronado Beach, 

in waters -15 to -28 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1990, specifies in Section 176 that no 

department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government shall engage in, 

support in anyway, or provide financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve, any 

activity which does not conform to an implementation plan after it has been approved or 

promulgated under Section 110 of this title. "Conformity" is defined in Section 176 of 

the CAA as conformity to the State Implementation Plan' s (SIPs) purpose of eliminating 

or reducing the severity and number of violations of the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) while achieving expeditious attainment of such standards, and that 

the activities will not: 

1. Cause or contribute to any new violation of the NAAQS; or 

2. Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation; 

3. Delay timely attainment of a standard, interim emission reductions, or 

milestones. 

Air quality standards in the area of San Diego County are under the jurisdiction of the 

San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The ACPD acts as lead agency, 

responsible agency or a concerned agency with jurisdiction by law over the air resources 

ofthe County under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 

Estimation of air quality impacts was performed under the guidance ofthe AQMD 

using methods prescribed in the 1993 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air 

Quality Handbook published by the South Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD). Although quantitative thresholds of significance are not currently in place 

for short term emissions, CEQA requires that short term impacts be discussed in the 

environmental document. These concerns are addressed in Chapter 5 of the 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA). In the interest of public disclosure, 

APCD recommended that construction-related VOC, PM1 0 and NOx emissions from 

diesel and gasoline powered equipment, paving and other activities, be quantified. 
To determine the significance of air quality impacts, daily thresholds were based on 

construction emission from the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). If emissions on an 

individual day exceed 75 pounds per day for VOC, 100 pounds per day for Nox, 550 

pounds per day for CO, 150 pounds per day for PMlO, or 55 pounds per day for PM2.5, the 

project should be considered significant. Also, APCD requires that the construction 

emissions do not exceed 25 tons per year for NOx and VOC, 70 tons per year for PM10, 

or 100 tons per year for CO, SOx and PM2.5. 

Based on the air quality analysis described in Appendix C, the proposed project will 

not have a significant air quality effect on the environment. The total emissions of each 

criteria pollutant are below de minimus levels as prescribed in 40 CFR 93.153(b). This 

proposed project conforms with the Federal Clean Air Act as amended 1990. As a result, 

this Record of Non-Applicability is prepared instead of a conformity determination. 

For further information, please contact Ms. Erin Jones, Environmental Coordinator, of 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at (213) 300-9723. 

Date R. Mark Toy, P .. 

Colonel, US Arm 

Commander and District Engineer 
Hopper Dredge, Disposal at Imperial Beach

Emission Information for CAT 3512 Engine (6 Total)

Percent Load Engine Power bhp.hr N0x lb/hr

CO 

lb/hr VOC lb/hr

S0x 

lb/hr

PM10 

lb/hr PM2.5 lb/hr

50 1476 6.06 1.43 0.29 0.015 0.1 0.09

10 148 1.69 0.81 0.32 0.001 0.12 0.11

N0x CO VOC S0x PM10 PM2.5

Return Trip @ 10% Load - all material 117.3434 56.24151 22.218868 0.069434 8.332075 7.6655094

Return Trip @ 10% Load Per Day 2.3468679 1.12483 0.4443774 0.001389 0.166642 0.1533102

Total For All 6 Engines Per Day 14.081208 6.748981 2.6662642 0.008 0.999849 0.92

N0x CO VOC S0x PM10 PM2.5

Disposal Trip @ 100% Load all material 431.62839 101.8529 20.655484 1.068387 7.122581 6.4103226

Disposal Trip @ 100% Load Per Day 8.63 2.04 0.41 0.02 0.14 0.13

Total For All 6 Engines Per Day 51.80 12.22 2.48 0.128 0.85 0.77

N0x CO VOC S0x PM10 PM2.5

Total For All 6 Engines (lbs/day) 65.88 18.97 5.14 0.13 1.85 1.69

N0x CO VOC S0x PM10 PM2.5

Total For All 6 Engines (tons/yr) 1.65 0.47 0.13 0.00 0.05 0.04
Clamshell Dredge, Disposal at Imperial Beach

Power 

Rating 

(HP)

Load 

Factor

Number of 

Equipment

Hourly 

Hp-Hrs

Hours 

Per 

Day

Main Hoist 1200 0.5 1 600 24

Main Generator 900 0.5 1 450 24

Deck Generator 240 0.5 1 120 24

Tug Boat 800 0.2 1 160 24

Tug Boats Transporting Sediment 800 0.5 3 1200 24

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr)

Equipment (Year 2010) VOC CO NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5

Excavator Composite (750 hp) 0.1569 0.7451 0.5194 0.0039 0.0178 0.0054

Pounds Per Day VOC CO NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5

Main Hoist 3.77 17.88 12.47 0.09 0.43 0.13

Main Generator 3.77 17.88 12.47 0.09 0.43 0.13

Deck Generator 3.77 17.88 12.47 0.09 0.43 0.13

Tug Boat 3.77 17.88 12.47 0.09 0.43 0.13

Tug Boat Transporting Sediment 3.77 17.88 12.47 0.09 0.43 0.13

Total Pounds Per Day 18.83 89.42 62.33 0.47 2.14 0.64

Total Tons Per Year (100 days) 0.94 4.47 3.12 0.02 0.11 0.03
Hopper Dredge, Disposal at Coronado Beach

Emission Information for CAT 3512 Engine (6 Total)

Percent Load Engine Power bhp.hr N0x lb/hr CO lb/hr VOC lb/hr S0x lb/hr PM10 lb/hr PM2.5 lb/hr

50 1476 6.06 1.43 0.29 0.015 0.1 0.09

10 148 1.69 0.81 0.32 0.001 0.12 0.11

N0x CO VOC S0x PM10 PM2.5

Return Trip @ 10% Load - all material 29.33584906 14.06037736 5.554716981 0.017358491 2.083018868 1.916377358

Return Trip @ 10% Load Per Day 0.586716981 0.281207547 0.11109434 0.00034717 0.041660377 0.038327547

Total For All 6 Engines Per Day 3.520301887 1.687245283 0.666566038 0.002 0.249962264 0.23

N0x CO VOC S0x PM10 PM2.5

Disposal Trip @ 100% Load all material 107.9070968 25.46322581 5.163870968 0.267096774 1.780645161 1.602580645

Disposal Trip @ 100% Load Per Day 2.16 0.51 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.03

Total For All 6 Engines Per Day 12.95 3.06 0.62 0.032 0.21 0.19

N0x CO VOC S0x PM10 PM2.5

Total For All 6 Engines (lbs/day) 16.47 4.74 1.29 0.03 0.46 0.42

N0x CO VOC S0x PM10 PM2.5

Total For All 6 Engines (tons/yr) 0.41 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01
Clamshell Dredge, Disposal at Coronado Beach

Power 

Rating 

(HP)

Load 

Factor

Number of 

Equipment

Hourly 

Hp-Hrs

Hours 

Per 

Day

Main Hoist 1200 0.5 1 600 24

Main Generator 900 0.5 1 450 24

Deck Generator 240 0.5 1 120 24

Tug Boat 800 0.2 1 160 24

Tug Boats Transporting Sediment 800 0.5 3 1200 24

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr)

Equipment (Year 2010) VOC CO NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5

Excavator Composite (750 hp) 0.1569 0.7451 0.5194 0.0039 0.0178 0.0054

Pounds Per Day VOC CO NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5

Main Hoist 3.77 17.88 12.47 0.09 0.43 0.13

Main Generator 3.77 17.88 12.47 0.09 0.43 0.13

Deck Generator 3.77 17.88 12.47 0.09 0.43 0.13

Tug Boat 3.77 17.88 12.47 0.09 0.43 0.13

Tug Boat Transporting Sediment 3.77 17.88 12.47 0.09 0.43 0.13

Total Pounds Per Day 18.83 89.42 62.33 0.47 2.14 0.64

Total Tons Per Year (100 days) 0.94 4.47 3.12 0.02 0.11 0.03
Appendix D: 404(b)(1) Analysis
404(b)(1) Analysis from the March 2009 Final EA
E-1 

THE EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS 

 OF THE DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL 

 INTO THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES 

San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging 

San Diego County, California 

I. INTRODUCTION. The following evaluation is provided in accordance with Section 404 

(b)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) as 

amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217). Its intent is to succinctly state 

and evaluate information regarding the effects of discharge of dredged or fill material into the 

waters of the U. S, including incidental discharge during dredging. As such, it is not meant to 

stand alone and relies heavily upon information provided in the Final Environmental Assessment 

(EA) to which it is attached. 

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. (Referenced in the DEA and described briefly as follows:) 

A. Location: The project location is described in Section 1.1 of the attached Final EA. 

Brief Summary: The project site is San Diego Harbor and Imperial Beach, San Diego County, 

California. The original proposed dredge area is from the approach channel of the Bay to 

Sweetwater Channel, a distance of approximately 13 miles. Focus areas for the dredge action 

would be the approach and entrance channels from Ballast Point oceanward and the Aircraft 

Carrier Turning Basin. The proposed receiver site for beach compatible dredged material will be 

disposed off at Imperial Beach located along the Pacific Coast. 

B. General Description: The project description is described in Section 3.0 of the attached 

Final EA. 

Brief Summary: In order to maintain channel configurations and assure safe navigation within 

the harbor channels, the proposed maintenance dredging project involves the removal of no more 

than 336,000 cubic yards of beach compatible material from the Federal Channel of San Diego 

Harbor. The disposal area is located offshore of Imperial Beach, located approximately 12 miles 

south of San Diego along the Pacific Coast, south of the Imperial Beach Pier. Dredged material 

would be placed in the nearshore environment at Imperial Beach south of the pier in waters -15 

to -28 feet MLLW. Any non-compatible material will not be dredged (see details in Section 3.0 

of the Final EA). 

C. Purpose and Need: The purpose and need is described in Section 2.0 of the attached 

Final EA. 

Brief Summary: The proposed project would serve the following purposes: (1) restore the 

channel that is subject to continual shoaling to design depths; (2) assure the continued navigation 

for marine traffic within the harbor; (3) avoid intrusion of dredging activities into the critical 
E-2 

seasons of vulnerable species; and (4) provide beach nourishment material for downcast beaches 

severely eroded by littoral processes. The primary benefits realized from the proposed project 

would be restoration of design depths and unimpeded navigation within the Federal Channel. 

Secondary benefits include the replenishment of the beach with placement of dredged material in 

the nearshore to ensure that a pleasant shoreline environment is maintained for the public. The 

purpose and need satisfies both NEPA and Section 404(b)(1) requirements. 

D. Authority and Purpose: The project authority and purpose is documented in Sections 1.0 

and 2.0 of the attached Final EA. 

Brief Summary: Maintenance dredging of San Diego Harbor is authorized by the 1852 Rivers 

and Harbors Act, amended by the MILCON (Military Construction) project performed by the 

Navy. The approach channel was deepened by the Navy to -55 MLLW in the 1990's for defense 

purposes as part of a MILCON project. Based on statute 33 U.S.C. 562.a, Corps South Pacific 

Division authorized Los Angeles District to maintain the approach channel at this depth as part 

of its regular maintenance dredging. 

E. General Description of Dredged or Fill Material: Grain size analysis performed on 

sampled sediments indicated that six of the eleven composite areas sampled are suitable for 

disposal at Imperial Beach. The weighted average gradation method is a common procedure 

developed and used by the Los Angeles District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine 

beach compatibility of sediments to be dredged. Sediments can be placed on the beach as long as 

the samples from each composite area do not exceed more than approximately 10% of the “fines 

limits”. The “fines limits” corresponds to the U.S. standard sieve no. 200. The maximum “fines 

limits” for Imperial Beach is 28%. This means that the individual sediment samples may surpass 

this limit or fall outside of the envelope by 10%, for a total of approximately 38% maximum. 

The weighted average and gradation curves analyses of the eleven composite areas for San Diego 

harbor indicates that sediments within composite areas 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 10 are compatible for 

disposal at Imperial Beach, California. The maximum percent fines in areas 1, 2, 3, 8, and 10 is 

approximately 23%. The maximum percent fines in area 6 is 38%. No characteristics of the 

beach compatible composite areas indicated contamination. Material that was sampled and not 

found to be beach compatible would not be dredged. A detailed description of the dredged or fill 

material is in Section 3.5.1 of the attached Final EA. 

F. Description of the Proposed Discharge Site: The dredged material would be discharged 

in the nearshore waters at Imperial Beach. The disposal area is located offshore of Imperial 

Beach, located approximately 12 miles south of San Diego along the Pacific Coast, south of the 

Imperial Beach Pier. The material would be discharged in water of depths between -15 and -28 

feet MLLW, within an area defined by approximate dimensions of 1,700 feet long by 1,000 feet 

wide, approximately 27 acres. This area was used for disposal during the 2004 San Diego Harbor 

Central Navigation Channel Deepening Project. See Section 3.4 and 3.5 of the attached Final 

EA for details. 
E-3 

F. Description of Disposal Method: The disposal method is described in Section 3.5 of the 

attached Final EA. 

Brief Summary: Dredging operations would be conducted using a diesel-powered hopper 

dredge. The material would be removed via dragheads on the hopper dredge that are lowered to 

the ocean floor. These dragheads remove sediment by suction and deposit the sediment into the 

hopper located in the hull of the dredge. After sediment has been deposited into the hopper, the 

dragheads are pulled from the water, and the ship transits to the designated disposal area. Once at 

the disposal site, the hoppper’s split-hull opens, releasing the sediment into the ocean. 

III. FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS. 

A. Disposal Site Physical Substrate Determinations: 

1. Substrate Elevation and Slope: 

Impact: _____N/A __X__INSIGNIF. _____SIGNIF. 5.1 EA Section 

2. Sediment Type: 

Impact: _____N/A __X__INSIGNIF. _____SIGNIF. 3.5.1 EA Section 

3. Dredged/Fill Material Movement: 

Impact: _____N/A __X__INSIGNIF. _____SIGNIF. 5.1 EA Section 

Modifications to the existing bottom topography of the disposal area should be expected 

as a result of the proposed project. Local, but minor, changes to the bathymetry would 

result because of relocation of marine sediments to the nearshore. This sediment would 

dissipate over time via wave action, eventually washing onto and replenishing the beach. 

The disposal site is in the nearshore no greater than -28 feet MLLW and is the most 

desirable location for the purposes of beach nourishment and the avoidance of impacts to 

sensitive biological resources. Beach disposal would produce a positive effect through 

probable increases in beach recreational usage following the nearshore deposition. 

4. Physical Effects on Benthos (burial, changes in sediment type, composition, 

etc.): 

Impact: _____N/A __X__INSIGNIF. _____SIGNIF. 5.1, 5.2 EA Section 

5. Actions taken to Minimize Impacts 
E-4 

Needed?: _____YES __X__NO 

If Needed, Taken: 

__X__N/A _____YES _____NO 

B. Effect on Water Circulation, Fluctuation, and Salinity Determinations: 

1. Effect on Water. The following potential impacts were considered: 

a. Salinity __X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

b. Water Chemistry (pH, etc.) _____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

c. Clarity _____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

d. Color _____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

e. Odor _____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

f. Taste __X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

g. Dissolved gas levels _____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

h. Nutrients _____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

i. Eutrophication_X__N/A____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

j. Others __X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

The proposed maintenance dredging will not adversely affect the salinity or quality of the 

receiving waters. Chemical testing conducted in October 2008 confirmed that 

contaminant levels in the sand do not exceed lower effects bases screening levels (ERLs), 

and are within the range acceptable for beach disposal. Given these results the effects of 

these activities on water quality are expected to be minimal. The chemical and physical 

analysis of the sediment sampled in October 2008 indicated the predominance of sand 

and the absence of significant levels of contaminants; therefore no significant impacts to 

water quality are expected (See Section 4.4, 5.4 for more information). Mitigation 

measures minimize impacts. See Section 7.0 for Environmental Commitments. 

2. Effect on Current Patterns and Circulation. The potential of discharge or fill 

on the following conditions were evaluated: 

a. Current Pattern and Flow 

 __X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

b. Velocity 

 __X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

c. Stratification 

 __X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

d. Hydrology Regime 

 __X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 
E-5 

3. Effect on Normal Water Level Fluctuations. The potential of discharge of fill 

on the following were evaluated: 

a. Tide __X__N/A _____INSIGNIF. _____SIGNIF. 

b. River Stage __X__N/A _____INSIGNIF. _____SIGNIF. 

4. Action Taken to Minimize Effects: 

Mitigation measures minimize impacts. See Section 7.0 for Environmental 

Commitments. 

C. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determinations at the Disposal Site:

1. Expected Change in Suspended Particulate and Turbidity levels in Vicinity of 

Disposal Site: 

Impact: _____N/A __X__INSIGNIF. _____SIGNIF. 4.4, 5.4 EA Section 

2. Effects (degree and duration) on Chemical and Physical Properties of the 

Water Column: 

a. Light Penetration 

_____N/A __X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.4, 5.4 EA Section 

b. Dissolved Oxygen 

_____N/A __x__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.4, 5.4 EA Section 

c. Toxic Metals & Organics 

__X__N/A _____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

d. Pathogen 

__X__N/A _____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

e. Esthetics 

_____N/A __X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.4, 5.4 EA Section 

3. Effects of Turbidity on Biota: The following effects of turbidity on biota were 

evaluated: 

a. Primary Productivity 

_____N/A __X__INSIGNIF.___SIGNIF. 4.2, 4.4, 5.2, 5.4 EA Section 

b. Suspension/Filter Feeders 

_____N/A __X__INSIGNIF.___SIGNIF. 4.2, 4.4, 5.2, 5.4 EA Section 

c. Sight feeders 

___N/A _X_INSIGNIF.___SIGNIF. 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 EA Section 
E-6 

Mitigation measures minimize impacts. See Section 7.0 for Environmental 

Commitments. 

D. Contaminant Determination: 

The following information has been considered in evaluating the biological 

availability of possible contaminants in dredged or fill material. 

1. Physical characteristics of the sediment. 

2. Chemical Analysis of sediment samples collected in October 2008 

3. Results from previous testing of the material or similar material in the vicinity 

of the project. 

An evaluation of the appropriate information above indicates that there is reason to believe the 

proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of contaminants. The material meets the testing 

exclusion criteria. 

YES__X__NO_____ 

Impact: _____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

E. Effect on Aquatic Ecosystem and Organism Determinations: The Following 

ecosystem effects were evaluated: 

1. On Plankton 

_____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.2, 5.2 EA Section 

2. On Benthos 

_____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.2, 5.2 EA Section 

3. On Nekton 

_____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.2, 5.2 EA Section 

4. Food Web 

_____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.2, 5.2 EA Section 

5. Sensitive Habitats: 

a. Sanctuaries, refuges 

__X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

b. Wetlands 

__X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

c. Mudflats 
E-7 

__X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

d. Eelgrass beds 

__X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

e. Riffle and Pool Complexes 

__X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

6. Threatened & Endangered Species 

_____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.3, 5.3 EA Section 

7. Other Wildlife (grunion) 

_____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.2, 5.2 EA Section 

F. Proposed Disposal Site Determinations: Is the mixing zone for each disposal site 

confined to the smallest practicable zone? 

__X__YES _____NO 

G. Determination of Cumulative Effects of Disposal or Fill on the Aquatic 

Ecosystem: 

Impacts: _____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

No significant cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic ecosystem are expected. 

H. Determination of Indirect Effects of Disposal or Fill on the Aquatic Ecosystem: 

Impacts: _____N/A___X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 

IV. FINDING OF COMPLIANCE.

A. A review of the proposed project indicates that: 

1. The discharge represents the least environmentally damaging practicable 

alternative and if in a special aquatic site, the activity associated with the discharge must have 

direct access or proximity to, or be located in the aquatic ecosystem to fulfill its basic purpose. 

__X__YES _____NO 

2. The activity does not appear to: 1) violate applicable state water quality 

standards or effluent standards prohibited under Section 307 of the CWA; 2) jeopardize the 

existence of Federally listed endangered or threatened species or their habitat; and 3) violate 

requirements of any Federally designated marine sanctuary. 
E-8 

__X__YES _____NO 

3. The activity will not cause or contribute to significant degradation of 

waters of the U.S. including adverse effects on human health, life stages of organisms 

dependent on the aquatic ecosystem, ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability, and 

recreational, aesthetic, and economic values. 

__X__YES _____NO 

4. Appropriate and practicable steps have been taken to minimize 

potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem. 

__X__YES _____NO 

B. On the Basis of the Guidelines, the Proposed Disposal Sites for the Discharge 

of Dredged or Fill Material is (select one): 

___X___ (1) Specified as complying with the requirements of these 

guidelines; or, 

_______ (2) Specified as complying with the requirements of these 

guidelines, with the inclusion of appropriate and practical 

conditions to minimize pollution or adverse effects on the aquatic 

ecosystem;or, 

_______ (3) Specified as failing to comply with the requirements of 

these guidelines. 

Prepared by: Erin Hardison 

Name 

Environmental Coordinator 

Position 

Date: March 4, 2009

 
404(b)(1) Analysis from the August 2010 Final SEA
C-1

THE EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS

OF THE DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

INTO THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging

San Diego County, California

I. INTRODUCTION. The following evaluation is provided in accordance with Section 404 

(b)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) as 

amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217). Its intent is to succinctly state 

and evaluate information regarding the effects of discharge of dredged or fill material into the 

waters of the U. S, including incidental discharge during dredging. As such, it is not meant to be 

a stand alone document. It relies heavily upon information provided in the Final Supplemental 

Environmental Assessment (SEA) to which it is attached.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. (Referenced in the Final SEA and described briefly as 

follows:)

A. Location: The project location is described in Section 2.1 of the attached Final SEA.

Brief Summary: The project site is San Diego Harbor and Imperial Beach, San Diego County, 

California The proposed dredge footprint includes the approach and entrance channels of the 

Federal Navigation Channel in San Diego Harbor. The proposed receiver site for beach 

compatible dredged material will be disposed off at Imperial Beach located along the Pacific 

Coast. 

B. General Description: The project description is described in Section 2.3 of the attached 

Final SEA.

Brief Summary: In order to maintain channel configurations and assure safe navigation within 

the harbor channels, the proposed maintenance dredging project involves the removal of no more 

than 300,000 cubic yards of beach compatible material from the Federal Channel of San Diego 

Harbor. The disposal area is located offshore of Imperial Beach, located approximately 12 miles 

south of San Diego along the Pacific Coast, south of the Imperial Beach Pier. Dredged material 

would be placed in the nearshore environment at Imperial Beach south of the pier in waters -15 

to -28 feet MLLW. Any non-compatible material will not be dredged, (see details in Section 2.0 

of the Final SEA).

C. Purpose and Need: The purpose and need is described in Section 2.0 of the attached 

Final SEA. 

Brief Summary: The proposed project would serve the following purposes: (1) restore the 

channel that is subject to continual shoaling to design depths; (2) assure the continued navigation 

for marine traffic within the harbor; (3) avoid intrusion of dredging activities into the critical 
C-2

seasons of vulnerable species; and (4) provide beach nourishment material for downcast beaches 

severely eroded by littoral processes. The primary benefits realized from the proposed project 

would be restoration of design depths and unimpeded navigation within the Federal Channel. 

Secondary benefits include the replenishment of the beach with placement of dredged material in 

the nearshore to ensure that a pleasant shoreline environment is maintained for the public. The 

purpose and need satisfies both NEPA and Section 404(b)(1) requirements.

D. Authority and Purpose: The project authority and purpose is documented in Sections 1.0 

and 2.0 of the attached March 2009 Final EA.

Brief Summary: Maintenance dredging of San Diego Harbor is authorized by the 1852 Rivers 

and Harbors Act, amended by the MILCON (Military Construction) project performed by the 

Navy. The approach channel was deepened by the Navy to -55 MLLW in the 1990's for defense 

purposes as part of a MILCON project. Based on statute 33 U.S.C. 562.a, Corps South Pacific 

Division authorized Los Angeles District to maintain the approach channel at this depth as part 

of its regular maintenance dredging.

E. General Description of Dredged or Fill Material: In the Final EA (March 2009), dredge 

areas 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 10 were found to be compatible for nearshore discharge (see Figure 5 of 

the Final EA). A Dredge Materials Management Team (DMMT) meeting was held in April 

2009, after the Final EA was finalized. At that time, after further testing of Areas 6, 8, and 10, 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended that the dredge material in these 

areas is not suitable for nearshore disposal. Therefore, Areas 6, 8, and 10 would not be dredged 

during this proposed dredging event.

Although Area 3 is suitable for nearshore discharge, time and cost constraints prevent dredging 

of this area. During the 2010/2011 dredging event, only areas 1 and 2 (from station 120+00 to 

station -60+00) will be dredged and discharged in the nearshore of Imperial Beach.

No characteristics of the beach compatible composite areas indicated contamination. Material 

that was sampled and not found to be beach compatible would not be dredged. A detailed 

description of the dredged or fill material is in Section 3.5.1 of the attached Final EA and Section 

2.5 of the Final SEA.

F. Description of the Proposed Discharge Site: The dredged material would be discharged 

in the nearshore waters at Imperial Beach. The disposal area is located offshore of Imperial 

Beach, located approximately 12 miles south of San Diego along the Pacific Coast, south of the 

Imperial Beach Pier. The material would be discharged in water of depths between -15 and -28 

feet MLLW, within an area defined by approximate dimensions of 1,700 feet long by 1,000 feet 

wide, approximately 27 acres. This area was used for disposal during the 2004 San Diego Harbor 

Central Navigation Channel Deepening Project. See Section 2.1 of the attached Final SEA for 

details.
C-3

F. Description of Disposal Method: The disposal method is described in Section 2.4 of the 

attached Final SEA.

Brief Summary: Dredging operations would be conducted using a diesel-powered hopper dredge

or a clamshell dredge. 

Using a hopper dredge, the material would be removed via dragheads on the hopper dredge that 

are lowered to the ocean floor. These dragheads remove sediment by suction and deposit the 

sediment into the hopper located in the hull of the dredge. After sediment has been deposited into 

the hopper, the dragheads are pulled from the water, and the ship transits to the designated 

disposal area. Once at the disposal site, the hoppper’s split-hull opens, releasing the sediment 

into the ocean.

A clamshell dredge entails a floating derrick with a bucket that is lowered under water to remove 

material from the ocean floor and place the material in a scow. The scow is then pushed or 

pulled to the disposal site with a tug boat for disposal of the dredged material. Clamshelled 

sediments are removed in large consolidated clumps and tend to retain form when disposed.

Clamshell dredges can be used to excavate most types of materials except for the most cohesive 

consolidated sediments and solid rock. They are effective while working near bridges, docks, 

wharves, pipelines, piers, or breakwater structures because they do not require as much area to 

maneuver, and there is little danger of damaging other structures because the dredging process 

can be accurately controlled.

III. FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS.

A. Disposal Site Physical Substrate Determinations: 

1. Substrate Elevation and Slope:

Impact: _____N/A __X__INSIGNIF. _____SIGNIF. 5.1 EA Section (March 2009)

2. Sediment Type:

Impact: _____N/A __X__INSIGNIF. _____SIGNIF. 3.5.1 EA Section (March 

2009)

3. Dredged/Fill Material Movement:

Impact: _____N/A __X__INSIGNIF. _____SIGNIF. 5.1 EA Section (March 2009)

Modifications to the existing bottom topography of the disposal area should be expected 

as a result of the proposed project. Local, but minor, changes to the bathymetry would 

result because of relocation of marine sediments to the nearshore. This sediment would 
C-4

dissipate over time via wave action, eventually washing onto and replenishing the beach. 

The disposal site is in the nearshore no greater than -28 feet MLLW and is the most 

desirable location for the purposes of beach nourishment and the avoidance of impacts to 

sensitive biological resources. Beach disposal would produce a positive effect through 

probable increases in beach recreational usage following the nearshore deposition.

4. Physical Effects on Benthos (burial, changes in sediment type, composition, 

etc.):

Impact: _____N/A __X__INSIGNIF. _____SIGNIF. 5.1, 5.2 EA Section (March 

2009); SEA Section 4.2

5. Actions taken to Minimize Impacts

Needed?: _____YES __X__NO

If Needed, Taken:

__X__N/A _____YES _____NO

B. Effect on Water Circulation, Fluctuation, and Salinity Determinations:

1. Effect on Water. The following potential impacts were considered:

a. Salinity __X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

b. Water Chemistry (pH, etc.) _____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

c. Clarity _____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

d. Color _____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

e. Odor _____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

f. Taste __X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

g. Dissolved gas levels _____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

h. Nutrients _____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

i. Eutrophication_X__N/A____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

j. Others __X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

The proposed maintenance dredging will not adversely affect the salinity or quality of the 

receiving waters. Chemical testing conducted in October 2008 confirmed that 

contaminant levels in the sand do not exceed lower effects bases screening levels (ERLs), 

and are within the range acceptable for beach disposal. Given these results the effects of 

these activities on water quality are expected to be minimal. The chemical and physical 

analysis of the sediment sampled in October 2008 indicated the predominance of sand 
C-5

and the absence of significant levels of contaminants; therefore no significant impacts to 

water quality are expected (See Section 4.4, 5.4 of the March 2009 Final EA for more 

information). Mitigation measures minimize impacts. See Section 6.0 of the Final SEA

for Environmental Commitments.

2. Effect on Current Patterns and Circulation. The potential of discharge or fill 

on the following conditions were evaluated:

a. Current Pattern and Flow

 __X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

b. Velocity

 __X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

c. Stratification

 __X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

d. Hydrology Regime

 __X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

3. Effect on Normal Water Level Fluctuations. The potential of discharge of fill 

on the following were evaluated:

a. Tide __X__N/A _____INSIGNIF. _____SIGNIF.

b. River Stage __X__N/A _____INSIGNIF. _____SIGNIF.

4. Action Taken to Minimize Effects:

Mitigation measures minimize impacts. See Section 6.0 of the Final SEA

for Environmental Commitments.

C. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determinations at the Disposal Site:

1. Expected Change in Suspended Particulate and Turbidity levels in Vicinity of 

Disposal Site:

Impact: _____N/A __X__INSIGNIF. _____SIGNIF. 4.4, 5.4 EA Section

(March 2009)

2. Effects (degree and duration) on Chemical and Physical Properties of the 

Water Column:

a. Light Penetration

_____N/A __X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.4, 5.4 EA Section

(March 2009)

b. Dissolved Oxygen

_____N/A __x__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.4, 5.4 EA Section (March 

2009)
C-6

c. Toxic Metals & Organics

__X__N/A _____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

d. Pathogen

__X__N/A _____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

e. Esthetics

_____N/A __X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.4, 5.4 EA Section

(March 2009)

3. Effects of Turbidity on Biota: The following effects of turbidity on biota were 

evaluated:

a. Primary Productivity

_____N/A __X__INSIGNIF.___SIGNIF. 4.2, 4.4, 5.2, 5.4 EA Section

(March 2009); SEA Section 4.2

b. Suspension/Filter Feeders 

_____N/A __X__INSIGNIF.___SIGNIF. 4.2, 4.4, 5.2, 5.4 EA Section

(March 2009); SEA Section 4.2

c. Sight feeders

___N/A _X_INSIGNIF.___SIGNIF. 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 EA Section

(March 2009); SEA Section 4.2

Mitigation measures minimize impacts. See Section 6.0 of the Final SEA 

for Environmental Commitments.

D. Contaminant Determination:

The following information has been considered in evaluating the biological 

availability of possible contaminants in dredged or fill material.

1. Physical characteristics of the sediment.

2. Chemical Analysis of sediment samples collected in October 2008

3. Results from previous testing of the material or similar material in the vicinity 

of the project.

An evaluation of the appropriate information above indicates that there is reason to believe the 

proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of contaminants. The material meets the testing 

exclusion criteria.
C-7

YES__X__NO_____

Impact: _____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

E. Effect on Aquatic Ecosystem and Organism Determinations: The Following 

ecosystem effects were evaluated:

1. On Plankton

_____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.2, 5.2 EA Section (March 

2009); SEA Section 4.2

2. On Benthos

_____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.2, 5.2 EA Section (March 2009); 

SEA Section 4.2

3. On Nekton

_____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.2, 5.2 EA Section (March 2009); 

SEA Section 4.2

4. Food Web

_____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.2, 5.2 EA Section (March 2009); 

SEA Section 4.2

5. Sensitive Habitats:

a. Sanctuaries, refuges

__X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

b. Wetlands

__X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

c. Mudflats

__X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

d. Eelgrass beds

__X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

e. Riffle and Pool Complexes

__X__N/A_____INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

6. Threatened & Endangered Species

_____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.3, 5.3 EA Section (March 

2009); SEA Section 4.3

7. Other Wildlife (grunion)

_____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF. 4.2, 5.2 EA Section (March 

2009); SEA Section 4.3

F. Proposed Disposal Site Determinations: Is the mixing zone for each disposal site 

confined to the smallest practicable zone?
C-8

__X__YES _____NO

G. Determination of Cumulative Effects of Disposal or Fill on the Aquatic 

Ecosystem:

Impacts: _____N/A__X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

No significant cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic ecosystem are expected. 

H. Determination of Indirect Effects of Disposal or Fill on the Aquatic Ecosystem:

Impacts: _____N/A___X__INSIGNIF._____SIGNIF.

IV. FINDING OF COMPLIANCE.

A. A review of the proposed project indicates that:

1. The discharge represents the least environmentally damaging practicable 

alternative and if in a special aquatic site, the activity associated with the discharge must have 

direct access or proximity to, or be located in the aquatic ecosystem to fulfill its basic purpose.

__X__YES _____NO

2. The activity does not appear to: 1) violate applicable state water quality 

standards or effluent standards prohibited under Section 307 of the CWA; 2) jeopardize the 

existence of Federally listed endangered or threatened species or their habitat; and 3) violate 

requirements of any Federally designated marine sanctuary.
C-9

__X__YES _____NO

3. The activity will not cause or contribute to significant degradation of 

waters of the U.S. including adverse effects on human health, life stages of organisms 

dependent on the aquatic ecosystem, ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability, and 

recreational, aesthetic, and economic values.

__X__YES _____NO

4. Appropriate and practicable steps have been taken to minimize 

potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem.

__X__YES _____NO

B. On the Basis of the Guidelines, the Proposed Disposal Sites for the Discharge 

of Dredged or Fill Material is (select one):

___X___ (1) Specified as complying with the requirements of these

guidelines; or,

_______ (2) Specified as complying with the requirements of these 

guidelines, with the inclusion of appropriate and practical 

conditions to minimize pollution or adverse effects on the aquatic 

ecosystem;or,

_______ (3) Specified as failing to comply with the requirements of 

these guidelines.

Prepared by: Erin Hardison

Name

Environmental Coordinator 

Position

Date: August 18, 2010

 
Appendix E: Response to Comments
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) was released for 30-days public review. 

Responses to formal letters from interested parties are provided in the following paragraphs. 

COMMENT LETTER City of Coronado (January 12, 2012) 

Comment 1: Page 8, Section 1.5.8 indicates “the Coronado designated nearshore disposal site is the 

least-cost environmentally acceptable disposal site for this maintenance dredging project.” Just to 

clarify, does this mean it is the least preferred, or does this statement mean it has the least cost and least 

environmental issues associated with disposal? Perhaps this statement should be re-worded for 

clarification. 

Response 1: This means that while both the Imperial Beach and Coronado Beach nearshore 

disposal sites were environmentally acceptable, the Coronado Beach site was the least-cost 

alternative due to its closer proximity to the dredge location. Since disposal at Coronado requires 

less transit time, more time can be spent dredging, allowing for higher productivity and a shorter 

project duration overall. 

The statement in the SEA will be re-worded to clarify this point. 

Comment 2: Page 10, Section 3.1 and Figure 4: Given that one of the purposes of the project is to, 

“provide beach nourishment material for downcast beaches severely eroded by littoral processes,” (see 

Purpose and Need from Executive Summary) the City of Coronado requests that any disposal in the 

Coronado Beach Nearshore Disposal Area (Figure 4) be confined to the most southerly portion of said 

site. Disposal in this area of the site would likely benefit the beaches in greatest need of replenishment 

(south of Hotel del Coronado in front of the Coronado Shores (high rise condominiums) development). 

We are also sympathetic to the City of Imperial Beach’s need for sand. 

Response 2: Thank you for your input. The Corps will work to place as much material as is 

feasible based on the logistics of dredging and disposal operations in the southernmost portion of 

the designated nearshore disposal area. 

Comment 3: Pages 28, 29, and 44: The noise levels of the various equipment (Hopper Dredge or 

Clamshell and Scow) are not identified in the analysis. Rather, each agency’s noise ordinances are 

specified and existing noise levels described with a statement that, “Any permits required by the City of 

San Diego, the City of Imperial Beach, and the City of Coronado Beach to dredge and dispose during 

nighttime hours and meet noise ordinances would be obtained by the selected Contractor.” The City will 

not issue a permit that would allow for construction to occur in evening hours, which does not comply 

with local noise ordinances. 

Page 44 notes “Dredging and disposal would occur for a maximum of 100 days, and noise levels would 

return to ambient conditions upon project completion; therefore, impacts would be temporary and not 

significant.” The Environmental Assessment should be revised to identify the expected noise levels of 

the proposed equipment and analyzed for their potential impact on users of the beach, residential, hotel, 

and commercial uses adjacent to the shoreline. The equipment which generates the least amount of noise 

should be used. If the equipment generates noise that exceeds local standards, the environmental 
assessment should propose mitigation to offset impacts. For example, it may be necessary to limit 

nearshore disposal activities to 12 hours instead of 24 hours. The Environmental Assessment should 

clarify that the Corps will monitor noise levels to ensure compliance with local standards. 

Response 3: The noise Section of the SEA will be revised to document estimated noise levels 

and their expected dampening over extended distances from the shore. 

Any impacts from the noise generated by the dredging equipment at beaches onshore of the 

disposal sites are dependent upon the distance from the equipment. Noise levels from a point 

source decrease in inverse proportion to the square of the distance from the sound source (e.g., at 

distances greater than 50 feet from the source, every doubling of the distance decreases the noise 

by approximately 6 dB). 

Dredge equipment may generate noise up to approximately 80 to 90 decibels at 50 feet. The 

boundaries of the proposed disposal site offshore of Coronado Beach are located between 

approximately 1,500 and 2,750 feet offshore. Since sound is dampened over distance, dredging 

equipment is expected to generate noise on the beach at approximately 50 to 60 decibels, which 

is noted in the “quiet” range. This noise would be intermittent, occurring only when the hopper 

dredge or tug and barge transit to the nearshore to dispose sediment. 

The equipment chosen for the dredging must be based on the most efficient, cost effective 

option; however noise levels at the disposal beach in the “quiet” range will not have an adverse 

effect on surrounding land uses. 

Comment 4: Page 55, Section 7.A notes “Prior to construction, the Corps will provide a 14-day 

notification of planned activities to appropriate agencies and post information bulletins of scheduled 

work time and areas at appropriate offices. Equipment will be appropriately marked and lighted.” The 

City would encourage the Corps to complete additional public outreach by placing an article in the local 

Coronado Eagle & Journal newspaper and online citizen newsletters and websites before the project 

begins describing the project, construction hours and expected project duration. The City would also 

suggest that signs with contact phone numbers be posted along the public beach in the vicinity of the 

nearshore disposal site so the public will be informed of activities occurring off the coast. 

Response 4: The Corps will work with its Public Affairs Office to distribute information to the 

community prior to dredging and the dredge Contractor will place signs at the disposal beach. 

The Corps would also provide dredging information to the City of Coronado for further 

distribution to local concerned parties. 

COMMENT LETTER Native American Heritage Commission (December 27, 2011) 

Comments were taken from the attached letter and numbered by the Corps for response. 

Comment 1: Attached is a list of Native American contacts; they may have knowledge of cultural 

resources in the project area. It is advisable to contact the persons listed and seek to establish a “trust” 

relationship with them; if they cannot supply you with specific information about the impact on cultural 
resources, they may be able to refer you to another tribe or person knowledgeable of the cultural 

resources in or near the affected project area. 

Response 1: Per the mailing list in Appendix A, the supplied contacts were provided with the 

Draft SEA during the public review period. No comments from these contacts were received. 

Comment 2: Lead agencies should consider avoidance, in the case of cultural resources that are 

discovered. 

 

 Response 2: Known cultural resources in the dredge and disposal areas would be avoided per 

Sections 4.9 and 5.9 in the SEA. Environmental commitments in Section 7.0 of the SEA also 

include commitments related to cultural resources, including: 

 Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.13, in the event of any discoveries during dredging of either 

human remains, archeological deposits, or any other type of historic property, the 

dredging supervisor shall notify the Corps of Engineers’ Archeology Staff within 24 

hours (Mr. Steve Dibble at 213-452-3849 or Mr. John Killeen at 213-452-3861). The 

dredging supervisor shall immediately suspend all work in any area(s) where potential 

cultural resources are discovered. The dredging shall not resume in the area surrounding, 

i.e., immediately adjacent to, the potential cultural resources until the Corps of Engineers 

re-authorizes dredging, per 36 C.F.R. § 800.13. 

Comment 3: Even though a discovery may be in federal property, California Government Code §27460 

should be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of human remains during any groundbreaking 

activity; in such cases California Government Code §27491 and California Health & Safety Code 

§7050.5 will apply and construction cease in the affected area. 

Response 3: In the event of the discovery of human remains, construction would cease and Corps 

archeology staff would be notified to coordinate with the appropriate agencies. 

COMMENT LETTER City of Imperial Beach (October 10, 2011) 

See attached for comments in the form of e-mail correspondence, including the Corps’ response to 

comments. Additional correspondence occurred via phone between Corps Lieutenant Colonel Steven 

Sigloch and City of Imperial Beach Mayor Jim Janney. 
1825 STRAND WAY 

CORONADO, CA 92118 

January 12, 2012 

Josephine R. Axt, Ph.D. 

Chief, Planning Division 

CITV OF CORONADO 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

ATTN: Ms. Erin Jones, CESPL-PD-RN 

P.O. Box 5323711 

Los Angeles, California 90053-2325 

JAN 1 S ZGlZ 

OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER 

(61.9) 522-7335 

FAX (619) 522-7846 

Re: Supplement Environmental Assessment for the San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging 

Project planned for 2012 

Dear Ms. Jones: 

The City of Coronado appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Supplemental 

Assessment prepared for the above mentioned project. We are pleased that cultural surveys were 

completed in 2009 allowing for this supplemental assessment to consider nearshore disposal off 

the City of Coronado. Both nearshore disposal off of Imperial Beach and Coronado would likely 

be a benefit to our local beaches and would be consistent with our policies and Local Coastal 

Plan. 

During the course of our review of the Supplemental Assessment, a few questions and concerns 

arose and those comments are identified below. 

1. Page 8, Section 1.5.8 indicates "the Coronado designated nearshore disposai site is the 

least-cost, environmentally acceptable disposal site for this maintenance dredging project." Just 

to clarify, does this mean it is the least preferred, or does this statement mean it has the least cost 

and least environmental issues associated with disposal? Perhaps this statement should be reworded for clarification. ):> 

2. Page 10, Section 3.1 and Figure 4: Given that one of the purposes of the project is to, 

"provide beach nourishment material for downcast beaches severely eroded by littoral 

processes," (see Purpose and Need from Executive Summary) the City of Coronado requests that 

any disposal ih the Coronado Beach Nearshore Disposal Area (Figure 4) be confined to the most 

southerly portion of said site .. Disposal in this area of the site would likely benefit the beaches in 

greatest need of replenishment (south of the Hotel del Coronado in front the Coronado Shores 

(high rise condominiums) development. We are also sympathetic to the City of Imperial Beach's 

need for sand. 
Ms. Jones 

Page 2 

January 12,2012 

3. Pages 28, 29, and 44: The noise levels of the various equipment (Hopper Dredge or 

Clamshell and Scow) are not identified in the analysis. Rather, each agency's noise ordinances 

are specified and existing noise levels described with a statement that, "Any permits required by 

the City of San Diego, the City of Imperial Beach, and the City of Coronado Beach to dredge and 

dispose during nighttime hours and meet noise ordinances would be obtained by the selected 

Contractor." The City will not issue a permit that would allow for construction to occur in 

evening hours, which does not comply with local noise ordinances. 

Page 44 notes "Dredging and disposal would occur for a maximum of 100 days, and noise levels 

would return to ambient conditions upon project completion; therefore, impacts would be 

temporary and not significant." The Environmental Assessment should be revised to identify the 

expected noise levels of the proposed equipment and analyzed for their potential impact on users 

of the beach, residential, hotel, and commercial uses adjacent to the shoreline. The equipment 

which generates the least amount of noise should be used. If the equipment generates noise that 

exceeds local standards, the environmental assessment should propose mitigation to offset 

impacts. For example, it may be necessary to limit nearshore disposal activities to 12 hours 

instead of 24 hours. The Environmental Assessment should clarify that the Corps will monitor 

noise levels to ensure compliance with local standards. 

4. Page 55, Section 7.A notes "Prior to construction, the Corps will provide a 14-day 

notification of planned activities to appropriate agencies and post information bulletins of 

scheduled work time and areas at appropriate offices. Equipment will be appropriately marked 

and lighted." The City would encourage the Corps to complete additional public outreach by 

placing an article in the local Coronado Eagle & Journal newspaper and online citizen 

newsletters and websites before the project begins describing the project, construction hours and 

expected project duration. The City would also suggest that signs with contact phone numbers 

be posted along the public beach in the vicinity of the nearshore disposal site so the public will 

be informed of activities occurring off the coast. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration of our comments. This project has been delayed 

several times and we are hopeful that the Corps is able to commence the project in 2012. Please 

feel to contact my office if you would like to discuss any of our comments. 

Sincerely, 

Blair King 

City Manager 

BKlmic 

cc: Mayor and Councilmembers 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 

915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364 

SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 

(916) 653-6251 

Fax (916) 657-5390 

Web Site www.nahc.ca.90v 

e-mail: ds_nahc@pacbell.net 

December 27, 2011 

Ms. Erin Jones, Environmental Planner 

U.S. Department of the Army 

P.O. Box 532711 

Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 

Edmund G Brown Jr Governor 

Re: SCH#2011121080 NEPA Notice of Completion; proposed Environmental Assessment 

(EA) for the "San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project" located in the San 

Diego Harbor, Federal Channel; San Diego County, California 

Dear Ms. Jones: 

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) is the California State Trustee 

Agency' pursuant to Public Resources Code §21070 for the protection of California's Native 

American Cultural Resources. The NAHC is also a 'reviewing agency' for environmental 

documents prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq), 36 CFR Part 800.3, .5 and are subject to the Tribal and interested Native American 

consultation as required by the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (Section 106) 

(16 U.S.C. 470; Section 106 [f] 110 [f] [k], 304). The provisions of the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. 3001-3013) and its implementation (43 

CFR Part 10.2), and California Government Code §27491 may apply to this project if Native 

American human remains are inadvertently discovered. 

The NAHC is of the opinion that the federal standards, pursuant to the abovereferenced Acts and the Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ; 42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq) 

are similar to and in many cases more stringent with regard to the 'significance' of historic, 

including Native American items, and archaeological, including Native American items at 

least equal to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA.). In most cases, federal 

environmental policy require that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in 

the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a 

'significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

The NAHC conducted a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of its Inventory and Native 

American Cultural Resources were not identified in the project area you specified; early and 

quality consultation with the Native American on the attached list may provide detailed 

information of sites with which they are aware. Also, the absence of archaeological resources 

does not preclude their existence. Even though no Native American cultural resources were 

identified in the NAHC search, this area is known to the California NAHC to contain SUbstantial 

archaeological/Native American cultural resources. 

The NAHC Sacred Lands File Inventory of the Native American Heritage Commission is 

established by the California Legislature pursuant to California Public Resources Code 

§§5097.94(a) and 5097.96. The NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory is populated by submission to 

the data by Native American tribes and Native American elders; In this way it differs from the 

California and National Register of Historic Places under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Secretary of 
the Interior. 

The NAHC, pursuant to Appendix B of the Guidelines to the California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA) is designated as the agency with expertise in the areas of issues of cultural 

significance to California Native American communities. Also, in the 1985 California Appellate 

Court decision (170 Cal App 3rd 604), the court held that the NAHC has jurisdiction and special 

expertise, as a state agency, over affected Native American resources, impacted by proposed 

projects including archaeological, places of religious significance to Native Americans and burial 

sites 

Culturally affiliated tribes are to be consulted to determine possible project impacts 

pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Early consultation with 

Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries once 

a project is underway. The NAHC recommends as part of 'due diligence', that you also 

contact the nearest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information 

System (CHRIS) of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for other possible 

recorded sites in or near the APE (contact the Office of Historic Preservation at 916-445-

7000). 

Attached is a list of Native American contacts is attached to assist you; they may 

have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. It is advisable to contact the 

persons listed and seek to establish a 'trust' relationship with them; if they cannot supply 

you with specific information about the impact on cultural resources, they may be able to 

refer you to another tribe or person knowledgeable of the cultural resources in or near the 

affected project area. 

Lead agencies should consider avoidance, in the case of cultural resources that are 

discovered. A tribe or Native American individual may be the only source of information 

about a cultural resource; this is consistent with the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq Sections. 

106, 110, and 304) Section 106 Guidelines amended in 2009. Also, federal Executive 

Orders Nos. 11593 (preservation of cultural environment), 13175 (coordination & 

consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are helpful 

NEPA regulations provide for provisions for aCcidentally discovered archeological 

resources during construction and mandate the processes to be followed in the event of an 

accidental discovery of any human remains in a project location other than a 'dedicated 

cemetery. Even though a discovery may be in federal property, California Government 

Code §27460 should be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of human remains 

during any groundbreaking activity; in such cases California Government Code §27491 

and California Health & Safety Code §7050.5 will apply and construction cease in the 

affected area. 

Cc: 

ou have any q 

contact e 

tions about this response to your request, please do not 

6) 653-6251. 
Barona Group of the. Capitan Grande 

Edwin Romero, Chairperson 

1095 Barona Road Diegueno 

Lakeside ,CA 92040 

sue@barona-nsn.gov 

(619) 443-6612 

619-443-0681 

La Posta Band of Mission Indians 

Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson 

California Native American Contacts 

San Diego County 

December 27,2011 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Anthony R. Pico, Chairperson 

PO Box 908 Diegueno/Kumeyaay 

Alpine , CA 91903 

jrothauff@viejas-nsn.gov 

(619) 445-3810 

(619) 445-5337 Fax 

Kumeyaay Cultural Historic Committee 

Ron Christman 

PO Box 1120 Diegueno/Kumeyaay 56 Viejas Grade Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay 

Boulevard ,CA 91905 

gparada@lapostacasino. 

(619) 478-2113 

619-478-2125 

San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians 

Allen E. Lawson, Chairperson 

PO Box 365 Diegueno 

Valley Center, CA 92082 

allenl@sanpasqualband.com 

(760) 749-3200 

(760) 749-3876 Fax 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Danny Tucker, Chairperson 

5459 Sycuan Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay 

EI Cajon ,CA 92021 

ssilva@sycuan-nsn.gov 

619 445-2613 

619445-1927 Fax 

This list is current only as of the date of this document. 

Alpine , CA 92001 

(619) 445-0385 

Jamul Indian Village 

Kenneth Meza, Chairperson 

P.O. Box 612 Diegueno/Kumeyaay 

Jamul , CA 91935 

jamulrez@sctdv.net 

(619) 669-4785 

(619) 669-48178 - Fax 

Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians 

Mark Romero, Chairperson 

P.O Box 270 Diegueno 

Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 

mesagrandeband@msn.com 

(760) 782-3818 

(760) 782-9092 Fax 

Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of the statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, 

Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. 

This list is applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed 

SCH#2009014006; NEPA Notic; proposed Environmental Assessment (EA) for the San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project; located 

in the San Diego Harbor; San Diego County, California. 
Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians 

Carmen Lucas 

P.O. Box 775 DieguenoPine Valley , CA 91962 

(619) 709-4207 

Inaja Band of Mission Indians 

Rebecca Osuna, Spokesperson 

2005 S. Escondido Blvd. Diegueno 

Escondido ,CA 92025 

(760) 737-7628 

(760) 747-8568 Fax 

Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee 

Steve Banegas, Spokesperson 

California Native American Contacts 

San Diego County 

December 27, 2011 

Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office 

Will Micklin, Executive Director 

4054 Willows Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay 

Alpine , CA 91901 

wmicklin@leaningrock.net 

(619) 445-6315 - voice 

(619) 445-9126 - fax 

Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office 

Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson 

4054 Willows Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay 

Alpine , CA 91901 

michaelg@leaningrock.net 

(619) 445-6315 - voice 

(619) 445-9126 - fax 

Ipai Nation of Santa Ysabel 

Clint Linton, Director of Cultural Resources 

1095 Barona Road DieguenolKumeyaay P.O. Box 507 Diegueno/Kumeyaay 

Lakeside ,CA 92040 

(619) 742-5587 - cell 

(619) 742-5587 

(619) 443-0681 FAX 

San Pasqual Band of Indians 

Kristie Orosco, Environmental Coordinator 

P.O. Box 365 Luiseno 

Valley Center, CA 92082 Diegueno 

(760) 749-3200 

council@sanpasqualtribe.org 

(760) 749-3876 Fax 

This list is current only as of the date of this document. 

Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 

cjlinton73@aol.com 

(760) 803-5694 

cjlinton73@aol.com 

Kumeyaay Diegueno Land Conservancy 

M. Louis Guassac 

P.O. Box 1992 Diegueno/Kumeyaay 

Alpine , CA 91903 

guassacl@onebox.com 

(619) 952-8430 

Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of the statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, 

Section 5097.94 ofthe Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 ofthe Public Resources Code. 

This list is applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed 

SCH#2009014006; NEPA Notic; proposed Environmental Assessment (EA) for the San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project; located 

in the San Diego Harbor; San Diego County, California. 
California Native American Contacts 

San Diego County 

December 27,2011 

Inter-Tribal Cultural Resource Protection Council 

Frank Brown, Coordinator 

240 Brown Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay 

Alpine , CA 91901 

FIREFIGHTER69TFF@AOL. 

«619) 884-8437 

Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee 

Bernice Paipa, Vice Spokesperson 

P.O. Box 1120 Diegueno/Kumeyaay 

Boulevard ,CA 91905 

(619) 478-2113 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Andrea Najera, Cultural Resources Manager 

36190 Church Road, Suite 1 Diegueno/Kumeyaay 

Campo ,CA 

(619) 478-9046 

(619) 478-5818 - FAX 

This list is current only as of the date of this document. 

Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of the statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, 

Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. 

This list is applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed 

SCH#2009014006; NEPA Notic; proposed Environmental Assessment (EA) for the San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project; located 

in the San Diego Harbor; San Diego County, California. 
1

Jones, Erin L SPL

From: John, Scott M SPL

Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:23 AM

To: Jones, Erin L SPL

Subject: FW: San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging (UNCLASSIFIED)

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

Here's the City of IB correspondence that you requested.  

Scott

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Greg Wade [mailto:gwade@cityofib.org]

Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 16:34

To: John, Scott M SPL

Cc: Gary Brown; Jim Janney

Subject: RE: San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging (UNCLASSIFIED)

Scott ~

Both the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Supplemental Environmental Assessment

(SEA) for this project specifically state that the placement of the dredged sand "in the

nearshore waters at Imperial Beach" is the "preferred alternative" for this project.   This

quite clearly summarizes the agreement between the Corps and the City of Imperial Beach that

the sand for this project would be placed off Imperial Beach ‐ an agreement that previously

required NO financial participation by the City.  Only after the Corps inquired about (but

did not require) financial participation, did the City look to the Port for assistance.  When

the Port agreed to participate, it did so by explicitly requesting that the language

regarding "incremental costs" be added to recital 10 in the MOA.  This language, which was

NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL MOA LANGUAGE PROVIDED TO US BY THE ARMY CORPS, was expressly

added by the Port (not the Corps) to ensure that its funds would only be used to benefit the

City of Imperial Beach (it party because the Port and its tenants apparently already

contribute to a harbor dredge maintenance fund).  During the drafting of the MOA, there was

never any mention of a Corps policy requiring that "incremental" costs associated with

transporting the sand to Imperial Beach would have to be borne by the City.   In fact, the

word "incremental" is not found anywhere in the original draft MOA provided to the City by

the Corps.  To suggest now that this language was included in the MOA to express a Corps

policy is not only inaccurate but it is also, in my opinion, somewhat disingenuous.

Beyond that, a fair argument could also be made that placing the dredged sand at the Coronado

receiver site might not actually be the least‐cost alternative.  The Coronado receiver site

is in an area known as the Zuniga Shoal which is a large area of sand that effectively piles

up against the Zuniga jetty.   Given its proximity to the Harbor Entrance and Approach

Channel and the prevailing south‐to‐north longshore currents, it is highly likely that sand

from the Zuniga Shoal actually spills into and contributes to the "shallowing" of the Harbor

Approach and Entrance Channel, thereby contributing to the very maintenance issue the Corps

is attempting to address.  Placing another 500,000 cubic yards of sand in this area will very

likely accelerate the rate at which the channel will fill by adding to an already massive

shoal of beach sand almost directly adjacent to the Harbor Approach and Entrance Channel.  

Given the prevailing longshore currents, it is reasonable to expect that, relatively soon
2

after placement, much of this sand will spill back into the Channel, thereby accelerating the

time‐frame within which the channel will once again need to be dredged.  In the long run,

this will cost the Corps more money, not less.  Given the proximity of the Coronado receiver

site to the Harbor Entrance and Approach Channel, the longshore currents, the amount of sand

already in this area and the amount of newly‐dredged sand proposed for placement, the Corps

would be unwise to assume that placing the dredged sand off Coronado would be the least‐cost

alternative.  Placing the sand at Imperial Beach, though slightly more expensive in the near‐

term, would likely save money in the long‐term.  And, once again, placing the sand at

Imperial Beach would have far greater beach replenishment benefits than would placing the

sand at Coronado, where a wide, sandy beach already exists.  As a partner to both the Coastal

Sediment Task Force and the Coastal Sediment Management Working Group, the Corps should seek

not only to meet its maintenance responsibilities with this project but it should also seek

to maximize regional beach replenishment objectives.  We urge the Corps, therefore, to

heavily consider the short‐ versus long‐term costs as well as the significantly greater beach

replenishment benefits derived from placing the sand at Imperial Beach as opposed to

Coronado.

Once again, we simply ask that the Corps uphold its previously agreed‐upon commitment to the

City of Imperial Beach to place the sand dredged for this project in the nearshore off

Imperial Beach as contemplated in both the EA and SEA for the project.

Greg Wade

Community Development Director

City of Imperial Beach

Community Development Dept.  

825 Imperial Beach Blvd.  

Imperial Beach, CA 91932

Phone: (619) 628‐1354 ‐ Fax: (619) 424‐4093 gwade@cityofib.org ‐ www.cityofib.com

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: John, Scott M SPL [mailto:Scott.M.John@usace.army.mil]

Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 9:55 AM

To: Greg Wade

Subject: RE: San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

Greg ‐  

We are not asking the City of Imperial Beach to contribute funds towards the maintenance

dredging project. In the past, the city has expressed an interest in having sand that was

dredged as a result of maintenance in the federal navigation channels in San Diego Harbor

placed in their nearshore in order to benefit their local beaches. We are happy to

accommodate this request, but cannot do so without being compensated for the extra cost of

doing this work.

It states in the 10th recital of the contributed funds MOA that was executed between the City

of Imperial Beach and the Los Angeles District of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers on September 1st, 2010 that, "the Contributed funds shall be provided

for the incremental costs of the Government transporting the materials from Coronado Beach to

Imperial Beach".  

The primary purpose of this project is to maintain the federal navigation channel in San

Diego Harbor for safe navigation, not to place sand on local beaches. The federal government
3

would be spending roughly a half million dollars to place sand at Imperial Beach versus the

least cost, environmentally acceptable disposal location, Coronado Beach. That directly

impacts the amount of material that can be dredged out of the federal navigation channel. As

you know, the San Diego Harbor project is dredged on an infrequent basis. The need to

thoroughly dredge the entrance channel is greater than ever and a complete project will keep

it maintained for many years hopefully.  

I understand the city does not have funding to contribute at this time. If you still wish to

have sand placed in the nearshore of Imperial Beach, perhaps alternates sources can be

approached for funds as was the case in 2010.  

Scott

______________________

Scott John

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

213.452.3388 office

213.309.4807 cell

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Greg Wade [mailto:gwade@cityofib.org]

Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 16:17

To: John, Scott M SPL

Cc: Gary Brown; Jim Janney

Subject: RE: San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging (UNCLASSIFIED)

Scott ~

Thanks for the information.  The request that Imperial Beach "bear the cost"

to have the sand for this project placed off Imperial Beach rather than Coronado, however, is

very new and surprising information.  After having gone through what we have with this

project, including meeting with the Colonel to ensure that this sand would not be placed in

an area (off Coronado) that neither wanted or needed the sand and, more importantly, would

receive little if any beach replenishment benefit, it is quite surprising now, at this late

date, to be advised that a financial contribution will be required in order to have the sand

placed off Imperial Beach.  When we were previously asked by the Corps to consider providing

funding for the project, we were not advised that this was a requirement, rather, that it was

simply a budget shortfall that necessitated the additional funding.  When we successfully

arranged to have the Port provide additional funding to help the project proceed, again we

were not advised that this was a requirement or Corps policy.  The City of Imperial Beach was

only ever asked to consider a financial contribution in the interest of moving the project

forward for the benefit of both the Corps and the City of Imperial Beach.  And we did so in

the interest of cooperation and mutual benefit.

At this point, all funding available to the City of Imperial Beach for beach replenishment

purposes has been allocated to SANDAG's Regional Beach Sand Project II.  Simply stated, the

City has no money available to contribute to the Harbor Maintenance Dredge project.  In light

of this new information at this late date, I would ask that the Corps reconsider in the

interest of moving forward with what we believed was an already mutually agreed‐upon project.

Greg Wade

Community Development Director

City of Imperial Beach

Community Development Dept.  

825 Imperial Beach Blvd.  

Imperial Beach, CA 91932

Phone: (619) 628‐1354 ‐ Fax: (619) 424‐4093 gwade@cityofib.org ‐ www.cityofib.com
4

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: John, Scott M SPL [mailto:Scott.M.John@usace.army.mil]

Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 2:35 PM

To: Greg Wade

Subject: San Diego Harbor Maintenance Dredging (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

Greg ‐  

Here is the tentative timeline for the solicitation of a maintenance dredging contract for

San Diego Harbor. We are planning the project so that it does not interfere with the SANDAG

RBSP II project.

Advertise: 12/1/11

Bid Open: 1/15/12

Award: 1/30/12

The EA is being written to cover 550,000cy of material in the same area of the entrance

channel that previous iterations of the project were proposing to dredge. The reason for the

larger volume is because of the funding that we are planning to receive in FY12. The

environmental window for this area is from April 1st to September 15th.

In order to place material in the nearshore of Imperial Beach versus Coronado Beach (the

least cost, environmentally acceptable disposal location) we will need to setup a contributed

funds MOA with the City of Imperial Beach. I will check to see if the 2010 MOA can be amended

or if a new one will have to be created. There is approximately 450,000cy of material

available in the entrance channel to dredge, although the amount actually dredged will depend

on bid prices. Assuming a hopper dredge is used, our cost estimators calculated an

incremental cost of $1.47 per cubic yard to move the material the extra distance from

Coronado Beach to Imperial Beach. The City of Imperial Beach will have to bear this cost if

you wish to have material placed in your nearshore based on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

policy.  

Please let me know how the city would like to proceed as we are starting to get the design

together and will need to move on the MOA.

Scott

____________________________

Scott John

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

213.452.3388 office

213.309.4807 cell

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE