January 2010

Silver Strand Training Complex DR A FT EN V IRONM EN TA L IMPACT STATEM EN T

Commander

United States Pacific Fleet

www.silverstrandtrainingcomplexeis.com
Silver Strand Training Complex 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Commander 

United States Navy Pacific Fleet 

Lead Agency:

Department of the Navy 

Action Proponent:

United States Pacific Fleet 

Cooperating Agency:

Department of Commerce 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Chapters 1-9 

Appendices A-D 

January 2010 

Point of Contact: Mr. Kent Randall 

 Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest 

 Code: OPME 

 2730 McKean St. Bldg. 291 

 San Diego, CA 92136-5198 

SILVER STRAND RANGE COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

ABSTRACT

COVER SHEET 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX

Lead Agency for the EIS: U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) 

Title of the Proposed Action: Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC) 

Affected Jurisdiction: County of San Diego, Cities of Coronado and Imperial Beach 

Designation: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

Abstract

This Draft EIS has been prepared by the Navy in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental 

Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (Title 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and Navy Procedures for Implementing NEPA (32 

CFR 775). Three alternatives are analyzed in this EIS. The No Action Alternative would continue 

baseline training activities of the same types, without change in the nature or scope of military 

activities. Implementation of Alternative 1 would increase training tempo from baseline 

conditions and add new types of training, conduct existing routine training in additional locations 

within SSTC established training areas, introduce new platforms and equipment into training, and 

increase access and availability to existing beach and inland training areas. Alternative 2 is 

identical to Alternative 1 except that it further increases access to beach training areas. 

This EIS addresses the potential environmental impacts that result or could result from activities 

under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. Environmental resource topics 

evaluated include land use, geology and soils, air quality, hazardous materials and waste, water 

resources, acoustic environment, marine biological resources, fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, 

terrestrial biological resources, birds, cultural resources, transportation and circulation, 

socioeconomics, and public health and safety. 

Prepared by: Department of the Navy 

Point of Contact: Mr. Kent Randall 

 Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest 

 Code: OPME 

 2730 McKean St. Bldg. 291 

 San Diego, CA 92136-5198 
SILVER STRAND RANGE COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

ABSTRACT

This page intentionally left blank 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX EIS JANUARY 2010 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... I 

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

1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 OVERVIEW OF SSTC AND NASNI TRAINING AREAS ....................................................................... 1-3

1.3 WHY THE NAVY TRAINS ................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3.1 PREDEPLOYMENT TRAINING .......................................................................................................... 1-7

1.3.2 SCHOOLHOUSE TRAINING .............................................................................................................. 1-7

1.4 THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE SSTC .................................................................................... 1-7

1.4.1 SSTC MISSION ............................................................................................................................... 1-7

1.4.2 STRATEGIC ATTRIBUTES OF SSTC ................................................................................................ 1-7

1.4.3 SSTC OPERATIONAL USERS .......................................................................................................... 1-8

1.4.4 TRAINING ACTIVITIES AT SSTC .................................................................................................... 1-9

1.4.5 NAVY TACTICAL TASKS AT SSTC ................................................................................................. 1-9

1.5 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................... 1-10

1.6 THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ....................................................................................... 1-12

1.6.1 NEPA PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................................................................................................... 1-12

1.6.2 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS CONSIDERED ............................................................ 1-13

1.7 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS ...................................................................................... 1-14

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

2.1 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.3 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION ................................................... 2-2

2.1.3.1 Alternate Training Complex Locations ....................................................................... 2-2 

2.1.3.2 Training Relocation to SSTC-S ................................................................................... 2-2 

2.1.3.3 Training Reductions .................................................................................................... 2-3 

2.1.3.4 Simulated Training ...................................................................................................... 2-3 

2.1.3.5 Construction and Use of Demolition Pit at SSTC-S .................................................... 2-3 

2.1.3.6 Allow Unrestricted Usage of Training Lanes 8, 9, and 10 if California Least Tern 

Nesting Threshold is Reached ........................................................................................................ 2-4 

2.1.3.7 Creating more than or less than 22 concurrent buffered and marked avoidance areas for 

Western Snowy Plovers ................................................................................................................. 2-4 

2.1.4 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................. 2-5

2.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE: BASELINE TRAINING AND ACCESS RESTRICTIONS .............................. 2-5

2.2.1 BASELINE TRAINING TEMPO .......................................................................................................... 2-5

2.2.2 DESCRIPTION OF BASELINE SSTC TRAINING ................................................................................ 2-6

2.2.3 SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX ACCESS RESTRICTIONS ................................................... 2-26

2.3 ALTERNATIVE 1: INCREASE TRAINING AND ACCESS TO SSTC TRAINING AREAS (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) ......................................................................................................................................... 2-27

2.3.1 INCREASED TRAINING TEMPO ..................................................................................................... 2-27

2.3.2 DESCRIPTION OF NEW TRAINING ................................................................................................. 2-27

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-1
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX EIS JANUARY 2010 

2.3.3 CONDUCT EXISTING ROUTINE TRAINING AT ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS WITHIN SSTC

ESTABLISHED TRAINING AREAS .................................................................................................. 2-30

2.3.4 INTRODUCTION OF PLATFORMS AND EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 2-30

2.3.4.1 Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles ............................................................................... 2-31

2.3.4.2 Offshore Petroleum Discharge System Updates........................................................ 2-31

2.3.4.3 MH-60R/S Seahawk Multi-Mission Helicopter ........................................................ 2-31

2.3.5 INCREASE ACCESS AND AVAILABILITY TO SSTC TRAINING AREAS ........................................... 2-31

2.4 ALTERNATIVE 2: INCREASE TRAINING AND FURTHER ENHANCE ACCESS TO SSTC TRAINING 

AREAS ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-34

2.5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................... 2-35

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

3.1 LAND USE AND RECREATION ......................................................................................................... 3.1-1

3.1.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 3.1-1

3.1.1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3.1-1 

3.1.1.2 Region of Influence .................................................................................................. 3.1-1

3.1.1.3 Plans and Policies ..................................................................................................... 3.1-1

3.1.1.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ................................................................................ 3.1-3

3.1.1.5 Existing Land Use at SSTC-N .................................................................................. 3.1-5

3.1.1.6 Recreation ............................................................................................................... 3.1-10

3.1.1.7 Current Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.1-12

3.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................... 3.1-12

3.1.2.1 Approach to Analysis ............................................................................................. 3.1-12

3.1.2.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 3.1-12

3.1.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) ...................................................................... 3.1-14

3.1.2.4 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................... 3.1-15

3.1.3 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................................................... 3.1-16

3.1.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................................. 3.1-16

3.1.5 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................................. 3.1-16

3.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................... 3.2-1

3.2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 3.2-1

3.2.1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3.2-1

3.2.1.2 Terrestrial Geology and Topography ....................................................................... 3.2-1

3.2.1.3 Marine Geology ........................................................................................................ 3.2-7

3.2.2 CURRENT MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................................. 3.2-8

3.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................................. 3.2-8

3.2.3.1 Approach to Analysis ............................................................................................... 3.2-8

3.2.3.2 No Action Alternative .............................................................................................. 3.2-9

3.2.3.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) ...................................................................... 3.2-11

3.2.3.4 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................... 3.2-13

3.2.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES.......................................................................................... 3.2-13

3.2.5 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.............................................................. 3.2-13

3.2.6 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................................. 3.2-13

3.3 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................. 3.3-1

3.3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 3.3-1

3.3.1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3.3-1

3.3.1.2 Federal Requirements ............................................................................................... 3.3-4

3.3.1.3 Local Requirements .................................................................................................. 3.3-7

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-2
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX EIS JANUARY 2010 

3.3.1.4 Current Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... 3.3-8

3.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................................. 3.3-8

3.3.2.1 Approach to Analysis ............................................................................................... 3.3-9

3.3.2.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 3.3-10

3.3.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) ...................................................................... 3.3-10

3.3.2.4 Hazardous Air Pollutants ........................................................................................ 3.3-11

3.3.2.5 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................... 3.3-12

3.3.3 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES.......................................................................................... 3.3-12

3.3.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.............................................................. 3.3-12

3.3.5 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................................. 3.3-12

3.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE .......................................................................................... 3.4-1

3.4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 3.4-1

3.4.1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3.4-1

3.4.1.2 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................. 3.4-1

3.4.1.3 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 3.4-5

3.4.1.4 Hazardous Waste ...................................................................................................... 3.4-6

3.4.1.5 Current Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... 3.4-7

3.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................................. 3.4-9

3.4.2.1 Approach to Analysis ............................................................................................... 3.4-9

3.4.2.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 3.4-11

3.4.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) ...................................................................... 3.4-13

3.4.2.4 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................... 3.4-14

3.4.3 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES.......................................................................................... 3.4-14

3.4.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.............................................................. 3.4-14

3.4.5 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................................. 3.4-14 

3.5 WATER RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 3.5-1

3.5.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 3.5-1

3.5.1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3.5-1

3.5.1.2 Federal and State Regulations .................................................................................. 3.5-1

3.5.1.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................. 3.5-4

3.5.1.4 Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 3.5-11

3.5.1.5 Water Use ............................................................................................................... 3.5-17

3.5.1.6 Current Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.5-18

3.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................... 3.5-18

3.5.2.1 Approach to Analysis ............................................................................................. 3.5-18

3.5.2.2 Approach to Analysis ............................................................................................. 3.5-19

3.5.2.3 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 3.5-19

3.5.2.4 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) ...................................................................... 3.5-24

3.5.2.5 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................... 3.5-26

3.5.3 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES.......................................................................................... 3.5-26

3.5.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.............................................................. 3.5-26

3.5.5 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................................. 3.5-26

3.6 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT (TERRESTRIAL) .................................................................................... 3.6-1

3.6.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 3.6-1

3.6.1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3.6-1

3.6.1.2 Sound Characteristics and Measurement .................................................................. 3.6-1

3.6.1.3 Department of Defense Ambient Sound Guidance Documents ............................... 3.6-5

3.6.1.4 Sensitive Receptors .................................................................................................. 3.6-7

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-3
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX EIS JANUARY 2010 

3.6.1.5 Existing Sound Sources and Levels .......................................................................... 3.6-9

3.6.1.6 Current Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.6-13

3.6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................... 3.6-13

3.6.2.1 Approach to Analysis ............................................................................................. 3.6-13

3.6.2.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 3.6-13

3.6.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) ...................................................................... 3.6-21

3.6.2.4 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................... 3.6-25

3.6.3 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................................................... 3.6-25

3.6.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................................. 3.6-25

3.6.5 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................................. 3.6-25

3.7 MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW .............................................................................. 3.7-1

3.7.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 3.7-1

3.7.1.1 Definition of Resource ............................................................................................. 3.7-1

3.7.1.2 Regional Setting ....................................................................................................... 3.7-1

3.7.1.3 Region of Influence .................................................................................................. 3.7-2

3.7.1.4 Regulatory Requirements ....................................................................................... 3.7-27

3.7.1.5 Current Management and Mitigation Measures ..................................................... 3.7-29

3.7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................... 3.7-32

3.7.2.1 Approach to Analysis ............................................................................................. 3.7-32

3.7.2.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 3.7-33

3.7.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) ...................................................................... 3.7-40

3.7.2.4 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................... 3.7-44

3.7.3 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES.......................................................................................... 3.7-44

3.7.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.............................................................. 3.7-44

3.7.5 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................................. 3.7-46

3.8 FISH ................................................................................................................................................ 3.8-1

3.8.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 3.8-1

3.8.1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3.8-1

3.8.1.2 Marine Fish Habitat .................................................................................................. 3.8-2

3.8.1.3 Ichthyoplankton ...................................................................................................... 3.8-12

3.8.1.4 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries ................................................................. 3.8-12

3.8.1.5 Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan ............................................. 3.8-13

3.8.1.6 Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................................................... 3.8-14

3.8.1.7 Current Management through Monitoring and Enhancement ................................ 3.8-14

3.8.1.8 Current Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.8-15

3.8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................... 3.8-15

3.8.2.1 Approach to Analysis ............................................................................................. 3.8-16

3.8.2.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 3.8-24

3.8.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) ...................................................................... 3.8-32

3.8.2.4 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................... 3.8-37

3.8.3 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES.......................................................................................... 3.8-37

3.8.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.............................................................. 3.8-37

3.8.5 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................................. 3.8-37

3.9 MARINE MAMMALS ....................................................................................................................... 3.9-1

3.9.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 3.9-1

3.9.1.1 Definition of Resource ............................................................................................. 3.9-1

3.9.1.2 Regional Setting ....................................................................................................... 3.9-1

3.9.1.3 Region of Influence .................................................................................................. 3.9-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-4
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX EIS JANUARY 2010 

3.9.1.4 Marine Mammals that May Inhabit or Regularly Transit the SSTC ........................ 3.9-1

3.9.1.5 Cetaceans .................................................................................................................. 3.9-4

3.9.1.6 Non-Threatened and Non-Endangered Pinnipeds .................................................... 3.9-8

3.9.1.7 Current Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.9-11

3.9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................... 3.9-13

3.9.2.1 General Approach to Analysis ................................................................................ 3.9-13

3.9.2.2 Regulatory and Biological Framework ................................................................... 3.9-14

3.9.2.3 Criteria for Assessing Marine Mammal Response to Underwater Detonations ..... 3.9-27

3.9.2.4 Acoustic Modeling of the Marine Environment ..................................................... 3.9-29

3.9.2.5 Estimating Marine Mammal Exposures to Underwater Detonations ..................... 3.9-35

3.9.2.6 Estimating Marine Mammal Exposures from Pile Driving Activites ..................... 3.9-37

3.9.2.7 Other Effects Considered ....................................................................................... 3.9-39

3.9.2.8 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 3.9-39

3.9.2.9 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) ...................................................................... 3.9-49

3.9.2.10 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................... 3.9-55

3.9.3 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES.......................................................................................... 3.9-55

3.9.4 IMPACTS TO MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES OR STOCKS ............................................................... 3.9-56

3.9.5 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.............................................................. 3.9-57

3.9.6 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................................. 3.9-57

3.10 SEA TURTLES ............................................................................................................................... 3.10-1

3.10.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 3.10-1

3.10.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3.10-1

3.10.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................................................... 3.10-3

3.10.1.3 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................... 3.10-7

3.10.1.4 Current Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.10-8

3.10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................... 3.10-9

3.10.2.1 Approach to Analysis ............................................................................................. 3.10-9

3.10.2.2 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 3.10-15

3.10.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) .................................................................... 3.10-21

3.10.2.4 Alternative 2 ......................................................................................................... 3.10-25

3.10.3 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................................................... 3.10-26

3.10.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ........................................................... 3.10-26

3.10.5 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ........................................................................................................... 3.10-26

3.11 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 3.11-2

3.11.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 3.11-2

3.11.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3.11-2

3.11.1.2 Terrestrial Communities and Cover Types ............................................................. 3.11-3

3.11.1.3 Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................................... 3.11-10

3.11.1.4 Federally Listed Species ....................................................................................... 3.11-11

3.11.1.5 Other Special Status Species ................................................................................ 3.11-14

3.11.1.6 Current Management and Mitigation Measures ................................................... 3.11-24

3.11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................... 3.11-33

3.11.2.1 Approach to Analysis ........................................................................................... 3.11-36

3.11.2.2 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 3.11-36

3.11.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) .................................................................... 3.11-41

3.11.2.4 Alternative 2 ......................................................................................................... 3.11-45

3.11.3 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................................................... 3.11-45

3.11.4 UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................................................ 3.11-45

3.11.5 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ........................................................................................................... 3.11-46

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-5
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX EIS JANUARY 2010 

3.12 BIRDS ........................................................................................................................................... 3.12-1

3.12.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 3.12-1

3.12.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3.12-1

3.12.1.2 Bird Groups ............................................................................................................ 3.12-4

3.12.1.3 Threatened or Endangered Species ....................................................................... 3.12-14

3.12.1.4 Other Special Status Birds .................................................................................... 3.12-29

3.12.1.5 Natural Resources Management Program and Current Mitigation Measures ...... 3.12-37

3.12.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................... 3.12-51

3.12.2.1 Approach to Analysis ........................................................................................... 3.12-52

3.12.2.2 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 3.12-54

3.12.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) .................................................................... 3.12-69

3.12.2.4 Alternative 2 ......................................................................................................... 3.12-75

3.12.3 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES IMPACTS ................................................................................... 3.12-76

3.12.3.1 California Least Tern ............................................................................................ 3.12-76

3.12.3.2 Western Snowy Plover ......................................................................................... 3.12-80

3.12.3.3 California Brown Pelican ..................................................................................... 3.12-82

3.12.3.4 Light-Footed Clapper Rail .................................................................................... 3.12-83

3.12.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................................................... 3.12-83

3.12.4.1 California Least Tern and Western Snowy Plover Measures ............................... 3.12-83

3.12.4.2 Training Activity Restrictions .............................................................................. 3.12-83

3.12.5 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ........................................................... 3.12-83

3.12.6 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ........................................................................................................... 3.12-84

3.12.6.1 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 3.12-84

3.12.6.2 Alternatives 1 and 2 .............................................................................................. 3.12-85

3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 3.13-1

3.13.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 3.13-1

3.13.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3.13-1

3.13.1.2 Regulatory Requirements ....................................................................................... 3.13-4

3.13.1.3 Silver Strand Training Complex-North .................................................................. 3.13-5

3.13.1.4 Silver Strand Training Complex-South .................................................................. 3.13-6

3.13.1.5 Submerged Archaeological Resources ................................................................. 3.13-10

3.13.1.6 Current Mitigation Measures ................................................................................ 3.13-12

3.13.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................... 3.13-12

3.13.2.1 Approach to Analysis ........................................................................................... 3.13-12

3.13.2.2 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 3.13-13

3.13.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) .................................................................... 3.13-15

3.13.2.4 Alternative 2 ......................................................................................................... 3.13-16

3.13.3 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................................................... 3.13-16

3.13.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ........................................................... 3.13-16

3.13.5 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ........................................................................................................... 3.13-16 

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ........................................................................................ 3.14-1

3.14.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 3.14-1

3.14.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3.14-1

3.14.1.2 Regional Setting ..................................................................................................... 3.14-2

3.14.1.3 Region of Influence ................................................................................................ 3.14-2

3.14.1.4 Key Regional Roadways ........................................................................................ 3.14-2

3.14.1.5 Installation Roadways and Gates ............................................................................ 3.14-5

3.14.1.6 On-base Roadways ................................................................................................. 3.14-6

3.14.1.7 Marine Vessels ....................................................................................................... 3.14-7

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-6
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX EIS JANUARY 2010 

3.14.1.8 Current Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.14-7

3.14.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................... 3.14-7

3.14.2.1 Approach to Analysis ............................................................................................. 3.14-8

3.14.2.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 3.14-8

3.14.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) ...................................................................... 3.14-9

3.14.2.4 Alternative 2 ......................................................................................................... 3.14-10

3.14.3 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................................................... 3.14-11

3.14.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ........................................................... 3.14-11

3.14.5 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ........................................................................................................... 3.14-11

3.15 SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN....................... 3.15-1

3.15.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 3.15-1

3.15.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3.15-1

3.15.1.2 Definition of Resource ........................................................................................... 3.15-1

3.15.1.3 Federal Requirements ............................................................................................. 3.15-1

3.15.1.4 Regional Employment ............................................................................................ 3.15-2

3.15.1.5 Regional Housing ................................................................................................... 3.15-2

3.15.1.6 Population Demographics ...................................................................................... 3.15-3

3.15.1.7 Children in the Communities .................................................................................. 3.15-5

3.15.1.8 Current Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.15-6

3.15.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................... 3.15-6

3.15.2.1 Approach to Analysis ............................................................................................. 3.15-6

3.15.2.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 3.15-7

3.15.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) ...................................................................... 3.15-7

3.15.2.4 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................... 3.15-8

3.15.3 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................................................... 3.15-8

3.15.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................................. 3.15-8

3.15.5 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................................. 3.15-8

3.16 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ...................................................................................................... 3.16-1

3.16.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 3.16-1

3.16.1.1 Definition of Resource ........................................................................................... 3.16-1

3.16.1.2 Regional Setting ..................................................................................................... 3.16-1

3.16.1.3 Region of Influence ................................................................................................ 3.16-1

3.16.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 3.16-1

3.16.2.1 Hazards Overview .................................................................................................. 3.16-1

3.16.2.2 Hazards Ashore (Beach Activities) ........................................................................ 3.16-5

3.16.2.3 Hazards Afloat (Water Activities) .......................................................................... 3.16-7

3.16.2.4 Current Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.16-7

3.16.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................... 3.16-9

3.16.3.1 Approach to Analysis ........................................................................................... 3.16-10

3.16.3.2 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 3.16-10

3.16.3.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) .................................................................... 3.16-12

3.16.3.4 Alternative 2 ......................................................................................................... 3.16-13

3.16.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................................................... 3.16-13

3.16.5 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ........................................................... 3.16-13

3.16.6 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ........................................................................................................... 3.16-13

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

4.1 PRINCIPLES OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 4-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-7
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX EIS JANUARY 2010 

4.1.1 IDENTIFYING GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS ................... 4-1

4.1.2 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS ......................................... 4-1

4.2 ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ....................................................................... 4-2

4.2.1 SPECIFIC PROJECTS ANALYZED ..................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2.2 OTHER ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.2.1 Commercial and Recreational Marine Traffic ............................................................. 4-4

4.2.2.2 Activities Contributing to Ocean Pollution ................................................................. 4-4

4.2.2.3 Activities Contributing to San Diego Bay Pollution ................................................... 4-5

4.2.2.4 Air Quality Emissions ................................................................................................. 4-5

4.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 4-5

4.3.1 LAND USE ...................................................................................................................................... 4-5

4.3.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ..................................................................................................................... 4-6

4.3.3 AIR QUALITY.................................................................................................................................. 4-7

4.3.3.1 Global Climate Change ............................................................................................... 4-8

4.3.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES ...................................................................................... 4-10

4.3.5 WATER RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................... 4-11

4.3.6 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT (TERRESTRIAL) .................................................................................. 4-12

4.3.7 MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 4-13

4.3.8 FISH .............................................................................................................................................. 4-13

4.3.9 MARINE MAMMALS ..................................................................................................................... 4-14

4.3.10 SEA TURTLES ............................................................................................................................... 4-17

4.3.11 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 4-18

4.3.12 BIRDS ........................................................................................................................................... 4-19

4.3.12.1 California Least Tern ................................................................................................. 4-20

4.3.12.2 Western Snowy Plover .............................................................................................. 4-21

4.3.12.3 California Brown Pelican .......................................................................................... 4-21

4.3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 4-21

4.3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ........................................................................................ 4-22

4.3.15 SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ....................... 4-22

4.3.16 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ...................................................................................................... 4-23

5 MITIGATION ...................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 LAND USE ......................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.3 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE ............................................................................................. 5-2

5.5 WATER RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 5-2

5.6 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT (TERRESTRIAL) ....................................................................................... 5-2

5.7 MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 5-3

5.7.1 CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF MARINE SPECIAL AQUATIC SITES ................................................... 5-3

5.7.2 CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF INVERTEBRATES AS WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY INDICATORS ... 

 ....................................................................................................................................................... 5-3

5.7.3 CURRENT MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................................ 5-3

5.7.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES............................................................................................... 5-3

5.8 FISH ................................................................................................................................................... 5-4

5.9 MARINE MAMMALS AND SEA TURTLES ........................................................................................... 5-4

5.9.1 CURRENT MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................................ 5-4

5.9.2 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES............................................................................................... 5-5

5.9.3 ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION MEASURES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED ...................................... 5-6

5.10 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 5-7

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-8
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX EIS JANUARY 2010 

5.10.1 INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................... 5-7

5.10.2 TERRESTRIAL HABITAT AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT .......................................................... 5-7

5.10.2.1 Delta Beach North and South ...................................................................................... 5-8

5.10.2.2 Dune Management ....................................................................................................... 5-8

5.10.3 HABITAT AREAS THAT ARE LEASED OR LICENSED ........................................................................ 5-8

5.10.3.1 South Bay Marine Biological Study Area ................................................................... 5-8

5.10.3.2 YMCA Camp Surf ....................................................................................................... 5-9

5.10.3.3 Lease to California Department of Parks and Recreation ........................................... 5-9

5.10.3.4 Salt Pond Connection to South San Diego Bay NWR ................................................ 5-9

5.10.4 SPECIES-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................. 5-9

5.10.4.1 Special Status Plants .................................................................................................. 5-10

5.10.4.2 Salt Marsh Bird’s Beak ............................................................................................. 5-11

5.10.4.3 Management of San Diego Fairy Shrimp .................................................................. 5-11

5.10.5 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................................ 5-11

5.11 BIRDS .............................................................................................................................................. 5-12

5.11.1 CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN AND WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER MANAGEMENT ............................... 5-12

5.11.1.1 Origin of the Navy’s Establishment of Protected Nesting Sites for Terns ................ 5-12

5.11.1.2 Navy Adaptation to the Expansion of Least Tern and Snowy Plover Nesting Colonies 

on SSTC .......................................................................................................................................... 

 5-13

5.11.1.3 Western Snowy Plover Management Evolvolution With Measures Adapted for NASNI 

Airfield and Expansion of the Navy Lodge ................................................................................. 5-15

5.11.1.4 Other Navy Agreements Related to California Least Terns ...................................... 5-15

5.11.1.5 Beach Lane Seasonal Conservation Areas and Marking/Avoidance Measures ........ 5-16

5.11.1.6 Communication of Training Area Protocols ............................................................. 5-17

5.11.1.7 Nest Relocation ......................................................................................................... 5-17

5.11.1.8 Predator Management and Control ............................................................................ 5-17

5.11.1.9 Nesting Deterrence through Habitat Modification and Harassment .......................... 5-18

5.11.1.10 Continued Site Preparation for Maintenance ............................................................. 5-18

5.11.1.11 Nest Substrate Enhancement ..................................................................................... 5-19

5.11.1.12 Signage and Education .............................................................................................. 5-19

5.11.1.13 Recreational Use Restriction ..................................................................................... 5-19

5.11.1.14 Rearing of Collected Eggs, Injured, and Sick Individuals ......................................... 5-19

5.11.1.15 Western Snowy Plover Health Study ........................................................................ 5-20

5.11.1.16 Monitoring for Effects and Adaptive Management ................................................... 5-20

5.11.2 LIGHT-FOOTED CLAPPER RAIL MANAGEMENT ........................................................................... 5-21

5.11.2.1 Underwater Detonation Measures ............................................................................. 5-21

5.11.3 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................................ 5-21

5.11.3.1 California Least Tern and Western Snowy Plover Measures .................................... 5-21

5.11.3.2 Training Activity Restrictions ................................................................................... 5-22

5.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................. 5-22

5.13 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ........................................................................................... 5-22

5.14 SOCIOECONOMICS ........................................................................................................................... 5-22

5.15 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ......................................................................................................... 5-23

5.15.1 EXERCISE PLANNING ................................................................................................................... 5-23

5.15.2 RANGE CONTROL ......................................................................................................................... 5-23

5.15.3 RANGE INSPECTION ...................................................................................................................... 5-23

5.15.4 COORDINATION PROCEDURES ..................................................................................................... 5-23

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-9
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX EIS JANUARY 2010 

6 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY NEPA ................................................... 6-1

6.1 POSSIBLE CONFLICTS WITH OBJECTIVES OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES, AND 

CONTROLS .................................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .............................. 6-4

6.3 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES .................................................. 6-4

6.4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL .............................................................. 6-4

6.5 NATURAL OR DEPLETABLE RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL ............... 6-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-10
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX EIS JANUARY 2010 

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE 1-1: SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX .................................................................................................... 1-2

FIGURE 1-2: SSTC-N TRAINING AREAS ..................................................................................................................... 1-4

FIGURE 1-3: SSTC-S TRAINING AREAS ...................................................................................................................... 1-5

FIGURE 2-1: PROPOSED INCREASE IN SSTC-N BEACH ACCESS AND AVAILABILITY FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES ........ 2-32

FIGURE 2-2: PROPOSED INCREASE IN SSTC-S BEACH AND INLAND AREA ACCESS AND AVAILABILITY FOR ALL 

ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................................ 2-33

FIGURE 3.1-1: REGIONAL JURISDICTIONS ................................................................................................................ 3.1-2

FIGURE 3.1-2: SSTC-N LAND USE .......................................................................................................................... 3.1-4

FIGURE 3.1-3: SSTC-S LAND USE ........................................................................................................................... 3.1-9

FIGURE 3.2-1: SSTC-NORTH SOIL COMPOSITION ................................................................................................... 3.2-3

FIGURE 3.2-2: SSTC-SOUTH SOIL COMPOSITION .................................................................................................... 3.2-4

FIGURE 3.2-3: LOCAL AND REGIONAL FAULTS IN PROJECT VICINITY ..................................................................... 3.2-6

FIGURE 3.4-1: LOCATION OF SSTC-N IRP SITES .................................................................................................... 3.4-8

FIGURE 3.5-1: CALIFORNIA CURRENT AND COUNTERCURRENT .............................................................................. 3.5-2

FIGURE 3.5-2: NASNI 100-YEAR FLOOD ZONES .................................................................................................... 3.5-5

FIGURE 3.5-3: BATHYMETRY AND CIRCULATION OF SAN DIEGO BAY .................................................................... 3.5-7

FIGURE 3.6-1: A AND C WEIGHTING SCALES .......................................................................................................... 3.6-3

FIGURE 3.6-2: SENSITIVE SOUND RECEPTORS ......................................................................................................... 3.6-8

FIGURE 3.7-1: HABITAT DEFINED BY TIDAL ELEVATION .......................................................................................... 3.7-3

FIGURE 3.7-2: OCEAN AND SAN DIEGO BAY BATHYMETRY IN THE VICINITY OF THE ROI ...................................... 3.7-4

FIGURE 3.7-3: CURRENT ROI VEGETATION AND SUBSTRATE DATA ....................................................................... 3.7-6

FIGURE 3.7-4: HABITAT AREAS IN BAYSIDE TRAINING AREAS BROKEN DOWN BY DEPTH CATEGORY AND WHETHER 

THEY ARE VEGETATED OR UNVEGETATED .................................................................................................... 3.7-7

FIGURE 3.7-5: DISTRIBUTION OF EELGRASS IN AND AROUND THE SSTC ROI IN THREE SEPARATE SURVEY YEARS ....... 

 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3.7-12

FIGURE 3.7-6: NEARSHORE VEGETATION AND SUBSTRATE DATA FOR THE NORTHERN BOAT LANES .................. 3.7-15

FIGURE 3.7-7: NEARSHORE VEGETATION AND SUBSTRATE DATA FOR THE SOUTHERN BOAT LANES ................... 3.7-16

FIGURE 3.7-8: INVERTEBRATE CATCH BLOCK TOTALS FOR TOP FOUR INVERTEBRATE SPECIES REPORTED BY CDFG

FROM 2002-2005 .......................................................................................................................................... 3.7-26

FIGURE 3.7-9: PERMANENT EELGRASS MONITORING TRANSECTS AND 2004 EELGRASS DENSITY INFORMATION . 3.7-31

FIGURE 3.7-10: EELGRASS MAPPING FROM THREE SEPARATE BAY-WIDE SURVEYS IN 1994, 1999, AND 2004,

FOCUSING ON THE BRAVO TRAINING AREA WHERE ELCAS, CAUSEWAY, AND LARGE VESSEL BEACHING 

OCCUR. ......................................................................................................................................................... 3.7-45

FIGURE 3.9-1: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEVERITY OF EFFECTS, SOURCE DISTANCE, AND EXPOSURE LEVEL ....... 3.9-23

FIGURE 3.9-2: GENERALIZED PATHWAYS OF SHOCK WAVES AND SOUND ENERGY .............................................. 3.9-32

FIGURE 3.9-3: ISO-VELOCITY PREDICTIONS OF PEAK PRESSURE AND ENERGY IN THE 1/3-OCTAVE-BAND OF HIGHEST 

ENERGY ABOVE 100HZ AS A FUNCTION OF RANGE FOR 15- AND 20-POUND CHARGES OF C4 EXPLOSIVE .. 3.9-35

FIGURE 3.9-4: CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND TRANSMISSION THROUGH AIR-WATER INTERFACE ......................... 3.9-43

FIGURE 3.11-1: PLANT COMMUNITIES OF NASNI BASED ON MOST RECENT VEGETATION MAP .......................... 3.11-4

FIGURE 3.11-2: PLANT COMMUNITIES OF SSTC-N (NAB CORONADO) BASED ON MOST RECENT MAPPING ....... 3.11-5

FIGURE 3.11-3: PLANT COMMUNITIES OF SSTC-S (NRRF) BASED ON MOST RECENT VEGETATION MAP ........... 3.11-6

FIGURE 3.11-4: LOCATION OF SAN DIEGO FAIRY SHRIMP OCCUPIED POOLS AT SSTC-S.................................... 3.11-13

FIGURE 3.11-5: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES AND HABITATS OF NASNI ................................................................ 3.11-16

FIGURE 3.11-6: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES AND HABITATS OF SSTC-N (NAB CORONADO) ................................ 3.11-17

FIGURE 3.11-7: SENSITIVE SPECIES AND HABITATS OF SSTC-S (NRRF) ............................................................ 3.11-18

FIGURE 3.11-8: LOCATIONS OF BRAND’S PHACELIA 2009. .................................................................................. 3.11-20

FIGURE 3.11-9: REGULATORY MANAGEMENT AREAS AND REAL ESTATE SUMMARY FOR NASNI AND SSTC-N 3.11-26

FIGURE 3.11-10: REGULATORY MANAGEMENT AREAS AND REAL ESTATE SUMMARIES FOR SSTC-S (NRRF) .. 3.11-27

FIGURE 3.11-11: AQUATIC HABITATS OF NASNI AND THEIR JURISDICTIONAL STATUS ..................................... 3.11-30

FIGURE 3.11-12: AQUATIC HABITATS OF SSTC-N AND THEIR JURISDICTIONAL STATUS.................................... 3.11-31

FIGURE 3.11-13: AQUATIC HABITATS OF SSTC-S (NRRF) AND THEIR JURISDICTIONAL STATUS ...................... 3.11-32

FIGURE 3.12-1: RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF WATERBIRDS IN SAN DIEGO BAY. ...................................................... 3.12-6

FIGURE 3.12-2: ABUNDANCE OF BIRDS IN SAN DIEGO BAY AND NEARSHORE OCEAN .......................................... 3.12-7

FIGURE 3.12-3: SPECIES RICHNESS OF BIRDS IN SAN DIEGO BAY AND NEARSHORE OCEAN ................................. 3.12-8

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-11
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX EIS JANUARY 2010 

FIGURES 3.12-4: UNITED STATES SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN SPECIES OBSERVED DURING THE MOST RECENT 

SAN DIEGO BAY BIRD SURVEYS. SURVEYS WERE NOT CONDUCTED DURING MAY AND JULY 2006. .......... 3.12-11

FIGURES 3.12-5: UNITED STATES SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN SPECIES OBSERVED DURING THE MOST RECENT 

SAN DIEGO BAY BIRD SURVEYS. SURVEYS WERE NOT CONDUCTED DURING MAY AND JULY 2006. .......... 3.12-12

FIGURE 3.12-6: NUMBER OF SHOREBIRDS OBSERVED DURING THE 2006-2007 SAN DIEGO BAY AVIAN SURVEYS. ......... 

 ................................................................................................................................................................... 3.12-13

FIGURE 3.12-7: REGIONAL PRODUCTIVITY OF CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN, 2008 BREEDING PAIRS ...................... 3.12-15

FIGURE 3.12-8: HISTORICAL STATEWIDE CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN BREEDING DATA, MARSCHALEK 2009. ..... 3.12-18

FIGURE 3.12-9: CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN NEST NUMBERS FROM NAVAL BASE CORONADO NESTING SITES ..... 3.12-20

FIGURE 3.12-10: TOTAL ADULT WESTERN SNOWY PLOVERS RECORDED FOR THE CALIFORNIA COAST DURING 

BREEDING SEASON WINDOW SURVEYS ...................................................................................................... 3.12-23

FIGURE 3.12-11: DISTRIBUTION OF WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER NESTS BY LOCATION FROM 1992 TO 2008. ....... 3.12-26

FIGURE 3.12-13: NUMBER OF CALIFORNIA BROWN PELICANS OBSERVED DURING THE MOST RECENT SAN DIEGO BAY 

BIRD SURVEYS ........................................................................................................................................... 3.12-35

FIGURE 3.12-14: LETTER DESIGNATIONS FOR BURROWING OWL MANAGEMENT AREAS ON NASNI ................. 3.12-50

FIGURE 3.13-1: SHIPWRECKS AND OBSTRUCTIONS IN THE SSTC AREA .............................................................. 3.13-11

FIGURE 3.14-1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION OF SSTC ........................................................................... 3.14-3

FIGURE 3.16-1: SSTC ESQD ARCS ....................................................................................................................... 3.16-3

FIGURE 3.16-2: PUBLIC LAND USES AND PROJECT HAZARD ZONES ...................................................................... 3.16-8

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-12
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX EIS JANUARY 2010 

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE 1-1: SUMMARY OF SSTC AND NASNI TRAINING AREAS ............................................................................... 1-6

TABLE 2-1: BASELINE AND PROPOSED TEMPOS FOR SSTC TRAINING ACTIVITIES ................................................... 2-12

TABLE 2-2: PROPOSED NEW TRAINING ACTIVITIES AT SSTC FOR ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2 ..................................... 2-28

TABLE 2-3: EXPANDED LOCATIONS OF ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................. 2-30

TABLE 2-4: AAV/EFV COMPARISON ....................................................................................................................... 2-31

TABLE 2-5: ALTERNATIVES SUMMARIES .................................................................................................................. 2-35

TABLE 3.1-1: RECREATIONAL AREAS NEAR SSTC ................................................................................................ 3.1-10

TABLE 3.1-2: SUMMARY OF EFFECTS .................................................................................................................... 3.1-16

TABLE 3.2-1: SOILS ON SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX AND PORTIONS OF NAVAL AIR STATION NORTH ISLAND

 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3.2-2

TABLE 3.2-2: SUMMARY OF EFFECTS .................................................................................................................... 3.2-13

TABLE 3.3-1: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ................................................................................................. 3.3-2

TABLE 3.3-2: BACKGROUND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY – CHULA VISTA MONITORING STATION ............................... 3.3-4

TABLE 3.3-3: DE MINIMIS LEVELS FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL CONFORMITY RULE ..... 3.3-5

TABLE 3.3-4: OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS AT SSTC AND PORTIONS OF NASNI WITH EVALUATION OF CONFORMITY ....... 

 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3.3-11

TABLE 3.3-5: SUMMARY OF EFFECTS .................................................................................................................... 3.3-12

TABLE 3.4-1: STATE OF CALIFORNIA LAWS ............................................................................................................ 3.4-5

TABLE 3.4-2: SSTC INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM SITES ....................................................................... 3.4-6

TABLE 3.4-3: NASNI INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM SITES .................................................................... 3.4-7

TABLE 3.4-4: WATER SOLUBILITY AND DEGRADATION PRODUCTS OF COMMON EXPLOSIVES ............................. 3.4-10

TABLE 3.4-5: CHEMICAL RESIDUE COMPOSITION OF UNDERWATER DETONATIONS ............................................. 3.4-11

TABLE 3.4-6: SUMMARY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES EFFECTS...................................................... 3.4-14

TABLE 3.5-1: NRWQC FOR SALTWATER ................................................................................................................ 3.5-3

TABLE 3.5-2: CALIFORNIA OCEAN PLAN MARINE WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES .................................................. 3.5-4

TABLE 3.5-3: DISCHARGE RESTRICTIONS FOR NAVY SHIPS .................................................................................. 3.5-11

TABLE 3.5-4: MINERAL COMPOSITION OF SEA WATER ......................................................................................... 3.5-12

TABLE 3.5-5: BEACH CLOSURES DUE TO HIGH COLIFORM BACTERIA LEVELS ..................................................... 3.5-16

TABLE 3.5-6: DESIGNATED BENEFICIAL USES OF SAN DIEGO BAY AND PACIFIC OCEAN WATERS ....................... 3.5-17

TABLE 3.5-7: SURFACE AND UNDERWATER DETONATIONS - NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................... 3.5-22

TABLE 3.5-8: SURFACE AND UNDERWATER DETONATIONS - ALTERNATIVE 1 ...................................................... 3.5-25

TABLE 3.5-9: SUMMARY OF EFFECTS .................................................................................................................... 3.5-27

TABLE 3.6-1: SOUND LEVELS OF SELECTED SOUND SOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTS .............................................. 3.6-4

TABLE 3.6-2: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANNOYANCE AND CDNL .......................................................................... 3.6-6

TABLE 3.6-3: NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER GUN SOUND COMPLAINT PREDICTION GUIDELINES ................ 3.6-7

TABLE 3.6-4: ACOUSTIC MEASUREMENTS DURING HISTORICAL FLEET EXERCISE (APRIL 2002) ......................... 3.6-11

TABLE 3.6-5: SINGLE HELICOPTER PASS-BY SOUND DURING AMPHIBIOUS RAID ON SSTC-S ............................... 3.6-14

TABLE 3.6-6: SHOTGUN SOUND LEVELS AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS DURING BREACHER TRAINING ..................... 3.6-15

TABLE 3.6-7: SOUND EFFECTS OF LCACS DURING AMPHIBIOUS LANDING ACTIVITIES ........................................ 3.6-15

TABLE 3.6-8: HIGHEST SOUND LEVELS FROM ELCAS INSTALLATION TRAINING AT BRAVO AND GREEN BEACHES ....... 

 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3.6-16

TABLE 3.6-9: SOUND FROM BLANKS USED DURING IMMEDIATE ACTION DRILLS .................................................. 3.6-18

TABLE 3.6-10: SOUND FROM BLANKS USED DURING HELL WEEK ACTIVITIES ..................................................... 3.6-19

TABLE 3.6-11: SUMMARY OF EFFECTS .................................................................................................................. 3.6-26

TABLE 3.7-1: TOTAL ACRES OF SUBMERGED HABITAT TYPES WITHIN SAN DIEGO BAY BASED ON BATHYMETRY 3.7-8

TABLE 3.7-2: AREA OF SUBMERGED HABITAT TYPES CONTAINED WITHIN ALL SAN DIEGO BAY ROI TRAINING 

AREAS, AND THE PROPORTION (PERCENT) IN THE SSTC COMPARED TO ALL SAN DIEGO BAY. ..................... 3.7-8

TABLE 3.7-3: EELGRASS AREAS OF THE SSTC ROI AND INDIVIDUAL SAN DIEGO BAY TRAINING AREAS ........... 3.7-13

TABLE 3.7-4: SUBSTRATE TYPE CONTAINED WITHIN OCEANSIDE SSTC ROI BOAT TRAINING LANES AND 

ANCHORAGES (SEE ASSOCIATED FIGURES 3.7-6 AND 3.7-7). ........................................................................ 3.7-17

TABLE 3.7-5: AREA OF VEGETATED SUBSTRATE CONTAINED WITHIN OCEANSIDE SSTC ROI BOAT TRAINING LANES 

AND ANCHORAGES (SEE ASSOCIATED FIGURES 3.7-6 AND 3.7-7). ................................................................ 3.7-17

TABLE 3.7-6: INFAUNAL INVERTEBRATE ABUNDANCE SAMPLED DURING THE BIGHT ’03 SURVEY ...................... 3.7-22

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-13
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX EIS JANUARY 2010 

TABLE 3.7-7: RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF COMMON INFAUNAL INVERTEBRATES (<33 FEET) AND A DEEPER (56 FOOT)

SITE .............................................................................................................................................................. 3.7-25

TABLE 3.7-8: CHRONOLOGY OF SECTION 404 (CWA) PERMITS, RECORDS OF DECISIONS, AND OTHER AGREEMENTS 

RELATED TO IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING EELGRASS ............................................... 3.7-30

TABLE 3.7-9: UNDERWATER EXPLOSIVE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED DURING THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE WHICH 

OCCUR AS BOTTOM LAID DETONATIONS. ALL ACTIVITIES OCCUR IN THE 14 OCEANSIDE TRAINING LANES. .. 3.7-36

TABLE 3.7-10: UNDERWATER BOTTOM LAID EXPLOSIVE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED DURING ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2

 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3.7-42

TABLE 3.7-11: SUMMARY OF EFFECTS .................................................................................................................. 3.7-46

TABLE 3.8-1: SUBMERGED HABITAT TYPES BASED ON BATHYMETRY WITHIN THE SAN DIEGO BAY AND SSTC BAY 

TRAINING AREAS ............................................................................................................................................. 3.8-2

TABLE 3.8-2: EELGRASS AREAS OF THE SSTC ROI AND INDIVIDUAL SAN DIEGO BAY TRAINING AREAS ............. 3.8-5

TABLE 3.8-3: RANKING OF TOP 10 “ECOLOGICAL INDEX” FISH SPECIES FOR TWO SURVEY REPORTS USING THE SAME 

METHODS IN SAN DIEGO BAY ........................................................................................................................ 3.8-8

TABLE 3.8-4: COMMON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SURF ZONE FISH SPECIES ............................................................ 3.8-9

TABLE 3.8-5: COMMON REEF FISH SPECIES NOT INCLUDING COASTAL PELAGIC OR SURF ZONE SPECIES PREVIOUSLY 

LISTED .......................................................................................................................................................... 3.8-10

TABLE 3.8-6: CATCH DATA FOR THE FIVE MOST ABUNDANT FISH SPECIES AND FISH SPECIES LIKELY TO OCCUR 

WITHIN THE ROI FOR THE YEARS 2002-2005 ............................................................................................... 3.8-11

TABLE 3.8-7: FISH SPECIES OF SAN DIEGO BAY TAKEN BY RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN ....... 3.8-13

TABLE 3.8-8: FISH THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE PACIFIC GROUNDFISH FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT COULD BE 

EXPECTED TO APPEAR IN THE REGION OF INTEREST ..................................................................................... 3.8-15

TABLE 3.8-9: IMPULSES THAT WOULD CAUSE NO INJURY, 1 PERCENT MORTALITY, OR 50 PERCENT MORTALITY TO 

COMMON SPECIES OF FISH THAT OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA AND THAT HAVE SWIM BLADDERS ............. 3.8-18

TABLE 3.8-10: UNDERWATER EXPLOSIVE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED DURING THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...... 3.8-28

TABLE 3.8.11: UNDERWATER EXPLOSIVE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED DURING ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2 .................. 3.8-35

TABLE 3.8-12: SUMMARY OF EFFECTS .................................................................................................................. 3.8-38

TABLE 3.9-1: SUMMARY OF CETACEAN AND PINNIPED SPECIES THAT MAY INHABIT, REGULARLY TRANSIT, OR 

SEASONALLY MIGRATE PAST THE SSTC ........................................................................................................ 3.9-2

TABLE 3.9-2: MARINE MAMMAL EFFECTS CRITERIA FOR UNDERWATER DETONATIONS FROM EXPLOSIVES < 2,000

LBS NET EXPLOSIVE WEIGHT ....................................................................................................................... 3.9-29

TABLE 3.9-3: SELECTED DISCRETE COMPUTATIONAL POINTS OF DEPTH AND RANGE .......................................... 3.9-33

TABLE 3.9-4: MAXIMUM UNDERWATER DETONATION ZONES OF INFLUENCE FOR “NO ACTION” ALTERNATIVE . 3.9-41

TABLE 3.9-5: MODELED ESTIMATES OF EXPOSED SPECIES FROM UNDERWATER DETONATIONS WITHOUT 

IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ................................................. 3.9-42

TABLE 3.9-3: MAXIMUM ZONES OF INFLUENCE FOR ELCAS ACTIVITIES ............................................................. 3.9-48

TABLE 3.9-6: ESTIMATES OF EXPOSED SPECIES TO ELCAS ACTIVITIES WITHOUT IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION 

MEASURES: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................................ 3.9-48

TABLE 3.9-7: MAXIMUM ZONE OF INFLUENCE FOR UNDERWATER DETONATION ACTIVITIES UNDER ALTERNATIVE 1.

 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3.9-51

TABLE 3.9-8: MODELED ESTIMATES OF SPECIES EXPOSED TO UNDERWATER DETONATIONS WITHOUT 

IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES UNDER ALTERNATIVE 1 ....................................................... 3.9-52

TABLE 3.9-9: ESTIMATES OF EXPOSED SPECIES TO ELCAS ACTIVITIES WITHOUT IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION 

MEASURES UNDER ALTERNATIVE 1 .............................................................................................................. 3.9-54

TABLE 3.9-10: SUMMARY OF EFFECTS .................................................................................................................. 3.9-58

TABLE 3.10-1: SUMMARY OF CRITERIA AND ACOUSTIC THRESHOLDS FOR UNDERWATER DETONATION IMPACTS TO 

SEA TURTLES .............................................................................................................................................. 3.10-12

TABLE 3.10-2: MAXIMUM ZONES OF INFLUENCE FOR NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .............................................. 3.10-19

TABLE 3.10-3: MAXIMUM ZONE OF INFLUENCE UNDER ALTERNATIVE 1. .......................................................... 3.10-24

TABLE 3.10-4: SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ................................................................................................................ 3.10-27

TABLE 3.11-1: TERRESTRIAL PLANT COMMUNITIES AND COVER TYPES WITHIN THE ROI BASED ON THE MOST 

CURRENT VEGETATION MAP FOR EACH AREA, AND INCLUDING THE DELTA BEACHES .................................. 3.11-3

TABLE 3.11-2: OTHER (NON-FEDERALLY LISTED) SPECIAL STATUS NON-AVIAN SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN THE 

PROJECT AREA ........................................................................................................................................... 3.11-15

TABLE 3.11-3: SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ................................................................................................................ 3.11-47

TABLE 3.12-1: NUMBER OF BIRDS OBSERVED PER MONTH DURING SAN DIEGO BAY WATERBIRD SURVEYS. ........ 3.12-9

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-14
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX EIS JANUARY 2010 

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-15

TABLE 3.12-2: NUMBER OF SHOREBIRDS OBSERVED EACH MONTH DURING THE FALLING TIDE SHORELINE SURVEY.

 ................................................................................................................................................................... 3.12-13

TABLE 3.12-3: SAN DIEGO BAY AND NAVAL BASE CORONADO (NBC) CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN PAIR AND OCCUPIED 

SITE INFORMATION ..................................................................................................................................... 3.12-19

TABLE 3-12.4: SUMMARY OF SNOWY PLOVER SIMULTANEOUS ACTIVE NEST NUMBERS, NBC 1999-2007 ....... 3.12-27

TABLE 3.12-5: SPECIAL STATUS AVIAN SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN THE ROI ...................................................... 3.12-29

TABLE 3.12-6: HABITAT USAGE AND ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES FOR SPECIAL STATUS BIRDS OBSERVED IN THE ROI.

 ................................................................................................................................................................... 3.12-31

TABLE 3.12-7: NASNI BURROWING OWL DATA. ............................................................................................... 3.12-49

TABLE 3.12-8: EXPLOSIVE EXPOSURES AND MORTALITY OF DUCKS .................................................................. 3.12-59

TABLE 3.12-9: MORTALITY AND INJURIES FOR DUCKS ON THE WATER SURFACE ............................................... 3.12-60

TABLE 3.12-10: UNDERWATER-BLAST CRITERIA FOR BIRDS DIVING BENEATH THE WATER SURFACE .............. 3.12-60

TABLE 3.12-11: UNDERWATER-BLAST CRITERIA FOR BIRDS DIVING ON THE WATER SURFACE ......................... 3.12-61

TABLE 3.12-12: INCIDENTAL TAKE ALLOWANCE AND ACTUAL TAKE FOR CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN ON NAVY 

BEACHES IN THE ROI. ................................................................................................................................ 3.12-78

TABLE 3.12-13: WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER HISTORICAL INCIDENTAL TAKE ALLOWANCE AND LEVEL OF TAKE IN THE 

ROI ............................................................................................................................................................ 3.12-80

TABLE 3.12-14: SUMMARY OF EFFECTS .............................................................................................................. 3.12-86

TABLE 3.13-1: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS AT SSTC-N ................................... 3.13-5

TABLE 3.13-2: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS AT SSTC-S .................................... 3.13-6

TABLE 3.13-3: HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS AT SSTC-S ....................... 3.13-9

TABLE 3.13-4: SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ................................................................................................................ 3.13-17

TABLE 3.14-1: LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................................. 3.14-1

TABLE 3.14-2: AVERAGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT SELECTED CORONADO ROAD SEGMENTS .................................. 3.14-4

TABLE 3.14-3: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES, DELAYS, AND LOS FOR SELECTED INTERSECTIONS ALONG 

SILVER STRAND BOULEVARD/SR-75 ............................................................................................................ 3.14-4

TABLE 3.14-4: AVERAGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT SELECTED IMPERIAL BEACH ROAD SEGMENTS ......................... 3.14-5

TABLE 3.14-5: SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION EFFECTS .................................................... 3.14-11

TABLE 3.15-1: ESTIMATED TOTAL EMPLOYMENT ................................................................................................. 3.15-2

TABLE 3.15-2: ESTIMATED TOTAL HOUSING UNITS .............................................................................................. 3.15-3

TABLE 3.15-3: ESTIMATED POPULATION GROWTH FOR SAN DIEGO COUNTY, SSTC, AND SURROUNDING AREA . 3.15-3

TABLE 3.15-4: POPULATION, RACE, AND ETHNICITY FOR THE SSTC ROI ............................................................ 3.15-4

TABLE 3.15-5: LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS FOR THE SSTC ROI .......................................................................... 3.15-4

TABLE 3.15-6: POPULATION OF CHILDREN IN THE SSTC ROI ............................................................................... 3.15-5

TABLE 3.15-7: SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS ...................................................................................... 3.15-9

TABLE 3.16-1: SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ................................................................................................................ 3.16-14

TABLE 4-1: PAST, PRESENT, AND PLANNED PROJECTS IN THE SSTC EIS ROI ........................................................... 4-2

TABLE 4-2: BACKGROUND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY – CHULA VISTA MONITORING STATION ..................................... 4-8

TABLE 4-3: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................................................. 4-9

TABLE 6-1: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................... 6-1
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX EIS JANUARY 2010 

This page intentionally left blank 

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-16
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1

1 ES 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

2 ES 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (Title 42 United States Code [U.S.C] 4321 et 

seq.) requires federal agencies to examine the environmental effects of major federal actions in an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is a detailed public document that provides an assessment 

of the potential effects of human, natural, or cultural environment. The United States (U.S.) Department 

of the Navy (Navy) is preparing this Draft EIS to assess the potential environmental impacts associated 

with ongoing and proposed naval training activities within the Navy’s Silver Strand Training Complex 

(SSTC) and southern nearshore areas of the Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI). Specifically, the 

Navy is proposing to continue current training and test and evaluation (T&E) activities conducted within 

the study area, increase training tempo from baseline conditions, conduct new types of training, conduct 

current routine training at additional locations within SSTC established training areas, introduce new 

platforms and equipment, and increase access and availability to existing beach and inland training areas. 

The Navy is the lead agency for the EIS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is a 

cooperating agency for this EIS. 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

28 

29 

31 

32 

33 

34 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

SSTC has been used by the Navy for over 60 years and is located on, and adjacent to, the Silver Strand, a 

narrow, sandy isthmus separating the San Diego Bay from the Pacific Ocean. SSTC is divided into two 

non-contiguous areas: SSTC-North (SSTC-N) and SSTC-South (SSTC-S). SSTC-N includes land areas 

on the northern-half of the Silver Strand peninsula, as well as adjacent nearshore waters of the Pacific 

Ocean and the San Diego Bay. SSTC-S includes land on the southern-end of the Silver Strand peninsula, 

as well as adjacent nearshore waters of the Pacific Ocean. SSTC-N and SSTC-S are separated by the 

Silver Strand State Beach. The NASNI training area is separate from SSTC, but it is used for similar 

types of training: it is composed of the beaches and near shore waters from Breaker’s Beach to Zuniga 

Jetty, west of the City of Coronado. These areas are depicted in Figure 1-1. The Navy is not proposing to 

expand the geographic area of SSTC or the NASNI training area. 

26 ES 1.2 STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE SSTC 

SSTC plays a vital part in the execution of the operational readiness mandate. SSTC has historically been, 

and continues to be, a critical training range for west coast naval amphibious, special warfare, and mine 

countermeasure activities. 

30 ES 1.2.1 SSTC Mission 

The mission of SSTC is to support U.S. Navy and Marine Corps amphibious, special warfare, and mine 

countermeasure training by providing local land, sea, and airspace support services; materiel; and training 

facilities that will help Naval and Marine Corps forces achieve and maintain the highest level of 

operational readiness. 

35 ES 1.2.2 Strategic Attributes of SSTC 

SSTC is critical to Navy training programs because of its unique combination of attributes that cannot be 

duplicated anywhere else in the world. These attributes are described below. 

Proximity to the Homeport of San Diego. Southern California is home to the nation’s largest 

concentration of naval forces. One-third of the U.S. Pacific Fleet makes its homeport in San Diego, 

including two aircraft carriers (with plans to homeport three), over 70 surface combatant ships, 

amphibious ships, and submarines; several aviation squadrons; and their officers and crews. These naval 

forces receive support from a range of naval installations in San Diego, including, Naval Amphibious 

Base (NAB) Coronado, NASNI, Naval Outlying Field (NOLF) Imperial Beach, Naval Base Point Loma, 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-2

and Naval Base San Diego. SSTC’s central location among these installations makes it a critical training 

range for multiple Navy commands headquartered on the installations. These commands are described in 

Section 1.3.4.1. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

Local installations provide critical support to training on SSTC, including, military command oversight 

for training, berthing and maintenance for vessel and aircraft used in training, housing for personnel being 

trained at SSTC, medical services for trainees, depots to supply training materials, and research and 

development services. The proximity of SSTC to equipment, personnel, facilities, and organizational 

services that are necessary for training at SSTC, is vital to the execution of Navy training. SSTC provides 

an efficient training area for commands that are headquartered in San Diego; thereby enabling the 

commands to meet the aggressive schedules through which groups of trainees are cycled each year. 

Keeping up with these schedules is necessary to meet the manning needs of the fleet and ensure readiness 

for troop deployment. 

Proximity to Other Training Ranges in the Southwest. The Navy manages a concentrated network of 

non-contiguous training ranges in the southwestern United States, including SSTC. This network of 

ranges includes San Clemente Island, NASNI, Naval Air Facility El Centro, NOLF Imperial Beach, Naval 

Air Station Fallon, Remote Training Site Warner Springs, Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, Camp 

Michael Monsoor, Camp Morena and ocean and air areas (Warning Area [W]-291) off the coast of 

Southern California. This network anchors a west coast regional training capability where each range 

provides unique, but complementary training resources for different levels and types of training; and it is 

the most capable and heavily used concentration of Navy ranges in the eastern Pacific Region. Naval 

forces utilize each of the range areas—depending on the training to be accomplished, and the training 

resources of a given range. SSTC is a critical asset within this network of training ranges, particularly in 

amphibious, special warfare, and mine coutnermeasure training. 

Proximity to Military Families. The region of San Diego is home to thousands of military families. Per 

NAVADMIN 300/06, the Navy is required to limit “personnel tempo” (i.e., the amount of time sailors 

spend away from home). Personnel tempo is an important factor in morale and retention. The centralized 

location of SSTC in San Diego allows the Navy to limit the amount of time sailors spend away from 

home. 

Training Environment and Terrain. The temperate, sub-tropical climate—and the attendant dry 

summers of southern California—allow for year-round training for Fleet readiness. The location of 

SSTC, with access to the oceanside’s rough waters and the bayside’s calm waters, allows personnel to 

start training in a calmer environment, and then quickly and transition to more challenging situations as 

their skills and fitness levels improve. SSTC is unique in this as there are no other training areas located 

in or around San Diego that have such a capability. Further, SSTC’s long stretches of open and accessible 

beach areas, established ocean anchorages, and the varied and vegetated inland terrain of SSTC-S, make 

the area ideal for amphibious, special warfare, and mine countermeasure training. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

1 

2 Figure ES-1: Silver Strand Training Complex

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-3
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-4

1 ES 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to improve the availability and quality of training opportunities at 

SSTC—to achieve required levels of operational readiness. In order to meet training requirements, the 

Navy proposes to continue current training activities, increase training tempo and types of training, 

conduct existing routine training at additional locations within SSTC’s established training areas, and 

increase access to and availability of existing beach and inland training areas. A detailed description of 

the Proposed Action is provided in Chapter 2. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

The Proposed Action is needed to provide a training environment consisting of training areas and range 

facilities with the capacity and capabilities to fully support required training tasks for operational units 

and military training units / schoolhouses and meet the operational readiness requirements of Title 10 of 

the United States Code (USC) 5062. The Navy needs to 

• continue current training and increase the number of existing training activities and introduce 

new training activities and platforms in support of Fleet Readiness Training Plan (FRTP) and 

surge requirements; 

• provide assured year-round access and unencumbered use of training areas to meet current 

and future training needs per the Navy Tactical Task List; 

• provide a training range and training facilities that afford operational commands the 

flexibility to achieve diverse and realistic training at SSTC. 

Each of these three needs is discussed in detail below. The Proposed Action would result in selectively 

focused, but critical enhancements and increases in training that are necessary if the Navy and Marine 

Corps are to maintain a state of military readiness commensurate with the national defense mission. 

22 ES 1.3.1 Need for Increased and Improved Training at SSTC 

The Navy and Marine Corps are continuously adapting to meet changing military readiness requirements. 

A number of changes within the Navy and Marine Corps are transforming and increasing the training 

requirements on SSTC: 

• The Navy’s approach to pre-deployment training (the FRTP), that requires a unit be ready to 

deploy much earlier in the pre-deployment training cycle (i.e., the ability to surge-deploy). These 

training cycles require operational commands to increase their training tempos. 

• U.S. Special Operations Command’s force expansion and restructuring per the December 2002 

Office of the Secretary of Defense Program Decision Memorandum, which includes the increase 

of Naval Special Warfare personnel operating on NAB Coronado, equivalent to one additional 

Sea, Air, and Land team. 

• The Navy’s Total Force Strategy, under which Explosive Ordnance Disposal groups have 

initiated a forcewide realignment, which emphasizes right-place, right-time training and has 

necessitated expanded use of Southwest Region training venues, including SSTC. 

• The Congressionally-authorized increase in Marine Corps personnel to 202,000 active-duty 

personnel will in turn increase the number of Marine Corps personnel cycling through training 

programs at SSTC. 

• Introduction of new platforms, training equipment, and service life extension programs for 

existing equipment require Navy personnel to begin new training on the new/upgraded 

equipment, while continuing to train on existing equipment. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-5

These changes reflect increasing and additional requirements for capabilities by overseas operational 

commanders like U.S. Central Command in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a need to accommodate increases 

in the number of personnel based in the southern California region. They will require an increase in 

training types and tempos at SSTC and NASNI and the incorporation of new platforms (e.g., aircraft and 

equipment) into training at SSTC. They also will require better use of existing training areas within 

SSTC, but not an expansion of SSTC. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

7 ES 1.3.2 Need for Year-round Access to Training Areas 

In 1983, the Navy initated consultations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because of the Navy’s 

proposed action to construct facilitites in support of the Light Airborne Multipurpose System MK III. In 

preparation for the consultation, the Navy concluded that the proposed action may affect about 68 

California least tern nests. California least tern is a federally-listed endangered bird under the ESA, and its 

displacement triggered a Section 7 consultation under ESA with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS). One of the results of the consultation was that 75 acres of Navy training beach at Delta North 

and South (Figure ES-1) were fenced and set aside as California least tern nesting areas. In 1984, the 

Delta beaches were formally designated as a least tern preserve and are not part of the areas utilized under 

the Proposed Action. 

Since then, the California least tern population has increased tenfold on SSTC, now reaching over 1,400 

nests. In addition, the California least tern has expanded its nesting range outside of Delta North and 

South, into and throughout SSTC-N's oceanside beach training lanes (Lanes 1 through 10). Throughout 

this period, the Navy has engaged in recurring ESA Section 7 consultations with the USFWS, with 

attention to ongoing military training on these lanes, and has implemented varying strategies to adapt to 

the growing California least tern nesting population and evolving Navy training needs at SSTC. These 

recurring consultations were conducted in parallel with the development of this EIS. 

Under the most recent biological opinion FWS-SDG-3452.3 and associated extensions, the Navy sets 

aside three beach training lanes (Lanes 8, 9, and 10) for California least tern nesting from April through 

September each year, in addition to expanded Delta North and South areas. The Navy restricts its training 

on these three training beaches for approximately 6 months out of the year. 

In anticipation of potential increased training at SSTC, the Navy has modeled future training projections 

to assess its near-future needs for the SSTC-N beach training areas. Results showed that the remaining 

seven SSTC-N oceanside beach lanes (Lanes 1 through 7) will be insufficient to support future training 

tempo requirements. As such, the Navy needs additional year-round training space to support future 

deployment schedules and personal tempo requirements. 

33 ES 1.3.3 Need for Flexibility and Realistic Training 

Military commands use SSTC to accomplish a wide variety of training. They value SSTC for its many 

different attributes, including unique site improvements as well as the attributes discussed in Section 

1.2.2. Each of these military commands has to be able to quickly adapt their training on SSTC to address 

ever-changing Navy requirements for combat readiness overseas. The commands need a range that 

realistically simulates environments that operators will encounter overseas, as well as a range that allows 

them the freedom to quickly alter their training to meet operational needs overseas. 

SSTC is located in a populated coastal area; its use for realistic military training can be constrained by 

adjacent residential, commercial, recreational, cultural, and sensitive natural resource uses. Operational 

constraints on training areas at SSTC make it challenging for Navy commands to support emerging and 

expected future training requirements. The military commands that use SSTC need it to be a range with 

minimal encumbrances that adversely affect training. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-6

1 ES 1.4 THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

NEPA requires federal agencies to examine the environmental effects of their Proposed Actions. This EIS 

is a detailed public document that provides an assessment of the potential environmental impacts 

associated with a proposed major federal action. The impacts to be analyzed are those that occur to the 

human environment, including natural and physical resources. The Navy is the lead agency for this EIS. 

NMFS is a cooperating agency, pursuant to 40 CFR Section 1501.6. NMFS has jurisdiction by law and 

special expertise on environmental issues that are being addressed in this EIS. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

8 ES 1.4.1 NEPA Public Participation 

The first step in the NEPA process is the publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) by the action 

proponent, after the decision is made to prepare an EIS. The NOI provides an overview of the proposed 

action and invites the public to participate in identifying the significant issues deserving of study (i.e., 

participate in scoping). The Navy initiated the process for determining the scope of issues by publishing a 

NOI to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register (66 FR 41009) on August 6, 2001. Copies of the NOI and 

the Agency Scoping Package were mailed to local, state, and federal elected officials; regulatory 

agencies; local municipal jurisdictions; public service providers; and other parties known or expected to 

be interested in the Proposed Action. A copy of the NOI is provided in Appendix A. 

Scoping is an early and open process for developing the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIS and for 

identifying issues related to a Proposed Action. During scoping, the public helps define and prioritize 

issues; the public conveys these issues to the Navy through written comments. As part of the EIS scoping 

process, the Navy held meetings on August 28 and 29, 2001 in Coronado and Imperial Beach, 

respectively; the meetings were designed to inform the public of the Proposed Action and to solicit the 

public’s participation and comments. The meetings were advertised and the NOI was published in the 

San Diego Union-Tribune from August 6-8, 2001, in the Coronado Eagle on August 8, 2001, and in the 

Imperial Beach Times on August 9, 2001. At each meeting, Navy representatives provided an overview of 

the Proposed Action and alternatives, the NEPA process, training exercises at SSTC, and potential 

environmental issues on SSTC. Comment sheets were distributed for the public to submit their concerns 

and comments. Also, a court reporter was available at each meeting to record oral comments. 

Independent of the public scoping meetings, the Navy conducted additional focused interviews. These 

interviews occurred during the 45-day scoping period and were designed to gather input from local city 

officials, regulatory agencies, and environmental organizations. 

Participants in the scoping process identified several areas of interest and concern, as well as ideas for 

alternatives to the Proposed Action, which are addressed throughout this EIS. The scoping process 

resulted in commentary on a variety of topics; the majority of comments received were related to the 

description of alternatives, other training alternatives, snowy plovers and least terns, marine resources, 

threatened and endangered species, and effects on environmental health, safety, and recreation. 

A notice of availability was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 41009 [6 August 2001]) and notices 

were placed in the aforementioned newspapers announcing the availability of the Draft EIS. The Draft 

EIS is now available for general review and is being circulated for review and comment. Public meetings 

will be advertised and held to receive public comments on the Draft EIS. A Final EIS will be prepared 

that responds to public comments received on the Draft EIS. Responses to public comments may take 

various forms as necessary, including correction of data, clarifications of and modifications to analytical 

approaches, and inclusion of additional data or analyses. The Final EIS is then released and followed by a 

30-day waiting period during which the Navy cannot issue a decision document. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-7

Finally, a Record of Decision (ROD) would be signed by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

(Installations & Environment) and be issued, no sooner than 30 days after the Final EIS is made available 

to the public. The ROD would summarize the Navy’s decision and identify the selected alternative, 

describe the public involvement and agency decision-making processes, and present commitments to 

specific mitigation measures. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

7 

8 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

39 

40 

6 ES 1.5 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS CONSIDERED

The Navy must comply with a variety of other federal environmental laws, regulations, and Executive 

Orders (EOs). These include (among other applicable laws and regulations) the following: 

9 • Clean Air Act 

• Coastal Zone Management Act 

• Endangered Species Act 

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

• EO 13045, Environmental Health and Safety Risks to Children 

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

• Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) 

• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

• Marine Mammal Protection Act 

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

• National Historic Preservation Act 

• Rivers and Harbors Act 

In addition, laws and regulations of the State of California appropriate to Navy actions are identified and 

addressed in the EIS. The EIS will facilitate compliance with applicable, appropriate state laws and 

regulations. 

25 ES 1.6 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

As presented in Chapter 1, the Navy proposes to implement actions within the SSTC. Components of the 

Proposed Action include 

• the continuation of current training and test and evaluation (T&E) activities conducted within the 

study area; 

• an increase in training tempo from baseline conditions and additions to types of training; 

• the carrying out of existing, routine training at additional locations within SSTC established 

training areas; 

• the introduction of new platforms and equipment; 

• increased access and availability to existing beach and inland training areas. 

Through implementation of the components listed above, the Proposed Action would support missionoriented requirements for SSTC through an increase in diverse and realistic training and improved 

accessibility to training areas. 

38 ES 1.6.1 Alternatives Development 

NEPA implementing regulations provide guidance on the consideration of alternatives in an EIS. The 

Navy is required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable project alternatives; further, 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-8

the Navy is required to briefly discuss the reasons for not evaluating those alternatives that were 

eliminated from further consideration and detailed study (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 

1502.14). 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

 

Alternatives must also include a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative ensures that agencies 

compare the potential impacts of a proposed major Federal action to the known impacts of maintaining 

the status quo. The potential impacts of the No Action Alternative are compared to the potential impacts 

from activities proposed under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. 

8 ES 1.6.2 Criteria for Developing Alternatives 

The alternatives were developed by the Navy after careful assessment by subject-matter experts, including 

units and commands that utilize SSTC, Navy environmental managers and scientists, and the 

consideration of public comments received during scoping. The Navy has developed a set of criteria for 

use in assessing whether a possible alternative meets the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action 

(refer to Section 1.5). These criteria require that SSTC 

• meet the requirements of individual and unit-level training (including schoolhouse training)1

; 

• meet training tempo requirements based on Fleet deployment schedules; 

• meet future training requirements with year-round, assured access to San Diego Bay, ocean, 

beach, and inland training areas; 

• provide a realistic training environment that simulates real world littoral combat conditions; 

• allow for the full range of required training elements; and 

• provide co-location of commands, equipment, facilities, and infrastructure that support existing 

and future training to meet training and personnel tempo requirements. 

Three alternatives are analyzed in the EIS: (1) The No Action Alternative, (2) Alternative 1, and (3) 

Alternative 2. The No Action Alternative would continue baseline training activities. The Navy would 

also continue to operate under existing access restrictions. Alternative 1 increases training tempo from 

baseline conditions, introduces new platforms and equipment into training, and decreases access 

restrictions and encumbrances on training areas. Alternative 2 is identical to Alternative 1 except that the 

Navy would utilize all ocean beaches along SSTC-N and SSTC-S, and all bayside training beaches, 

except the Delta North and South nesting habitat, for continuous, year-round training. Further detail 

regarding the alternatives considered in the EIS follows. 

30 ES 1.6.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration 

Having identified criteria for generating alternatives for consideration in the EIS, the Navy eliminated 

several alternatives from further consideration after initial review to satisfy 40 CFR Section 1502.14(a). 

Specifically, the following potential alternatives were not carried forward for analysis: 

• Alternate Training Complex Locations 

• Training Relocation to SSTC-S 

• Training Reductions 

1

 Schoolhouse training is typically conducted in formal courses with syllabi and instructors including both classroom 

and field work. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-9

1 • Simulated Training 

2 • Construction and Use of Demolition Pit at SSTC-S 

3 • Allow Unrestricted Usage of Training Lanes 8, 9, and 10 if California Least Tern Nesting 

4 Threshold is Reached 

6 

7 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

5 • Creating More Than or Less Than 22 Concurrent Buffered and Marked Avoidance Areas for 

Western Snowy Plover 

Rationale for eliminating these alternatives are provided in Chapter 2. 

8 ES 1.7 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE: BASELINE TRAINING AND ACCESS RESTRICTIONS

The Navy has been training at SSTC for over 60 years. Under the No Action Alternative, training 

activities would continue at baseline levels. SSTC would not accommodate an increase in training tempo 

or type required to execute the FRTP or introduce platforms or equipment. Under the No Action 

Alternative Navy would not accommodate training requirements for repositioned forces in the Southern 

California area. In addition, under the No Action Alternative, training access restrictions, including 

seasonal restrictions on Blue 2, Orange 1, and Orange 2 and in vernal pools would remain unchanged. 

Evaluation of the No Action Alternative in the EIS provides a baseline for assessing environmental 

impacts of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 2, as described in the following 

subsections. 

Each military training activity described in Chapter 2 of the EIS meets a requirement that can be 

ultimately traced to requirements from the National Command Authority. Over the years, the tempo and 

types of training have fluctuated at SSTC due to changing requirements brought about by the dynamic 

nature of international events, advances in warfighting doctrine and procedures, and force structure 

changes. Such developments have influenced the frequency, duration, intensity, and location of required 

training. The factors influencing tempo and types of training are fluid in nature, and will continue to 

cause fluctuations in training activities at SSTC. Accordingly, training data used throughout the EIS are a 

representative baseline for evaluating impacts that may result from the proposed training activities under 

the No Action Alternative. 

With reference to the selection criteria identified in Section ES 1.7.1, the No Action Alternative satisfies 

current Fleet training requirements; however, because the No Action Alternative does not propose 

increases in training tempo it does not accommodate training associated with the changes discussed in 

Section ES 1.3.2.1. It also does not introduce new platforms and equipment into the fleet. Nevertheless, it 

provides a valuable baseline against which to assess Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. 

32 ES 1.8 ALTERNATIVE 1: INCREASE TRAINING AND ACCESS TO SSTC TRAINING AREAS 

(PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Alternative 1, the Navy’s preferred alternative, is designed to meet Navy and Department of Defense 

(DoD) current and near-term operational training requirements. It meets the selection criteria listed in 

Section 2.1.2. Under Alternative 1, the Navy would increase the tempo of training, introduce new 

platforms and systems into training, conduct existing routine training at additional locations within SSTC 

training areas, introduce new platforms and equipment, and increase access and availability to SSTC 

training areas. The tempo of training would be increased to meet 100 percent of Navy NTA requirements. 

This represents an increase from the baseline tempo of 3,926 activities to approximately 5,543 activities 

annually. New platforms and equipment would include replacement of Amphibious Assault Vehicles with 

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles, an updated Offshore Petroleum Discharge System, and the MH-60R/S 

Seahawk Multi-Mission helicopter. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-10

Access and availability to SSTC training areas would be increased through opening of beach lanes Blue 2, 

Orange 1 and/or Orange 2 for training during the nesting season if one of the following two criteria are 

met: (1) Beach lanes Red 1 and 2, Green 1 and 2, and Blue 1 are being utilized and the additional training 

lane(s) are needed, (2) Attributes of those lane(s) make them more suitable for meeting training needs 

than other available training lanes Examples of lane attributes which may allow usage of Blue 2, Orange 1 

and/or Orange 2 include but would not necessarily be limited to: nearshore in-water conditions such as the 

presence of sand bars or holes, beach conditions such as slope and depth of the beach, distance from other 

training activities occurring on SSTC-N oceanside beach and boat lanes, and a need for diversity in 

training locations. The Navy would also buffer up to 22 concurrent western snowy plover nests for 

avoidance on SSTC oceanside beaches. The Navy would also allow limited training involving foot traffic, 

but not vehicle traffic, in the vernal pools when vernal pool conditions are determined to be dry. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

12 ES 1.9 ALTERNATIVE 2: INCREASE TRAINING AND FURTHER ENHANCE ACCESS TO SSTC

TRAINING AREAS

Alternative 2 meets Navy and DoD current and near-term operational training requirements, and further 

enhances training capabilities at SSTC. Under Alternative 2, proposed training tempo and types of 

training, training location and introduction of platforms and equipment into training, would be the same 

as described under Alternative 1. The Navy would increase the tempo of training to meet 100 percent of 

Navy NTA requirements. As described under Alternative 1, this would represent an increase from the 

baseline tempo of 3,926 activities to approximately 5,543 activities annually. The only differences 

between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are additional access and availability of SSTC-N training lanes. 

Under Alternative 2, the Navy would fully utilize all 7,000 yards of ocean beaches along SSTC-N and 

SSTC-S, and all bayside training beaches, except the Delta North and South nesting habitat (i.e., Alpha, 

Bravo, Charlie, Echo, Foxtrot, Golf, and Hotel) for continuous, year-round training. The Navy would 

continue to conduct existing management practice on the SSTC training beaches including nest 

relocation, predator management and control, habitat modification, site preparation for maintenance, nest 

substrate enhancement, signage and education, recreational use restrictions, and rearing of collected eggs, 

injured and sick individuals. 

28 ES 1.10 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The EIS describes existing environmental conditions and assesses the environmental effects of the 

Proposed Action and alternatives. The affected environment and environmental consequences are 

described and analyzed according to categories of resources. The categories of resources addressed, and 

their respective section numbers, in the EIS are listed within Table ES-1. 

In the environmental impact analysis process, the resources analyzed are identified and the expected 

geographic scope of potential impacts for each resource, known as the resource’s region of influence, is 

defined. The discussion and analysis, organized by resource area, covers the ocean lanes of the SSTC, the 

beach areas of SSTC-N and SSTC-S, the bayside training areas, the inland areas of SSTC-S, and the 

southern beaches and nearshore waters of NASNI to the extent affected resources or potential impacts are 

present. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-11

1 Table ES-1: Categories of Resources Addressed in the EIS 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

Land Use (3.1) Marine Mammals (3.9) 

Geology and Soils (3.2) Sea Turtles (3.10) 

Air Quality (3.3) Terrestrial Biological Resources (3.11) 

Hazardous Materials and Waste (3.4) Birds (3.12) 

Water Resources (3.5) Cultural Resources (3.13) 

Acoustic Environment (Terrestrial) (3.6) Transportation and Circulation (3.14) 

Marine Biological Resources (3.7) Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and 

Protection of Children (3.15) 

Fish (3.8) Public Health and Safety (3.16) 

The Navy has a comprehensive management program that considers biological resources, cultural 

resources, environmental compliance, and environmental resource education and interpretation. The basis 

for Navy environmental resource management at SSTC is a holistic, long-term view of human activities 

in conjunction with air/water quality, cultural resources, land uses, noise ordnances, waste management, 

or other marine or terrestrial biological resources such as, sensitive habitats and ESA-listed species. The 

Navy is responsible for compliance with federal environmental laws, rules, regulations, policies, and 

guidelines designed to protect marine and terrestrial environmental and cultural resources at SSTC, 

concurrent with the Navy’s sustained utilization of SSTC for training. Environmental programs at SSTC 

balance the need for environmental protection with the training mission, such that naval forces maximize 

the benefits of SSTC training assets while minimizing adverse effects on the environment. 

To achieve this balance, the Navy monitors the effects of training activities on environmental resources, 

using an adaptive management strategy to modify resource management in response to the ongoing influx 

and evaluation of monitoring data. Through this approach, the Navy’s environmental resource managers 

acquire information to identify potential impacts in a timely manner, thus allowing for ongoing 

adjustments to training and/or resource management while keeping the training mission on schedule to 

meet necessary training goals. The monitoring effort is focused not only on the environmental resource, 

such as a protected species, but also on the operational and administrative setting for training activities 

potentially affecting the resource. 

20 ES 1.11 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS

Environmental effects which may result from the implementation of the Navy’s Proposed Action or 

alternatives is summarized in Table ES-2. A summary of effects is presented for each of the resource 

categories previously listed in Table ES-1. 

24 ES 1.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts were analyzed following the objectives of NEPA of 1969, Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations, and CEQ guidance. Identifiable effects of actions occurring in the past and 

present were analyzed along with reasonably foreseeable future actions to assess additive impacts of the 

Proposed Action. Past, present, and planned projects were considered, as well as other activities occurring 

in the region, including marine traffic, activities contributing to water pollution, and air quality emissions. 

Cumulative effects were identified for the resource areas and determined minimal for land use, air quality, 

marine biological resources, fish, sea turtles, marine mammals, terrestrial biological resources, birds, 

cultural resources, transportation and circulation, socioeconomics, and public health and safety. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-12

Cumulative effects to geology and soils would be negligible relative to the scale of natural processes 

operating in the region of influence. Generation of hazardous materials and wastes would be managed as 

part of the overall hazardous waste stream and existing physical capacities would be sufficient to handle 

cumulative additions to the existing waste stream. Compliance with state and federal regulations would 

limit the release of pollutants to de minimis amounts, which would not result in substantial cumulative 

effects to water resources. At SSTC-S, training would also increase the number of intrusive noise events; 

acoustic effects would result even in the absence of other cumulative projects. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

8 ES 1.13 MITIGATION MEASURES

NEPA regulations require that the Federal action proponent study means to mitigate adverse 

environmental impacts of the Proposed Action or alternatives (40 CFR Part 1502.16). Additionally, an 

EIS is to include study of appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the Proposed Action or 

alternatives (40 CFR Part 1502.14[f]). Each of the alternatives, including the Proposed Action considered 

in the EIS, includes mitigation measures intended to reduce the environmental effects of Navy activities. 

Mitigation measures are discussed throughout the EIS in connection with affected resources, and are also 

addressed in Chapter 5, Mitigation Measures. 

SSTC is located in a populated coastal area, and its use for realistic military training is constrained by 

adjacent residential, commercial, recreational, cultural, and sensitive natural resource uses. As part of the 

Navy’s commitment to sustainable use of resources and environmental stewardship, the Navy 

incorporates measures that are protective of the environment into all of its activities. These include 

employment of best management practices, standard operating procedures, adoption of conservation 

recommendations, and other measures that mitigate the impacts of Navy activities on the environment. 

Some of these measures are generally applicable and others are designed to apply to certain geographic 

areas during certain times of year and for specific types of Navy training. Mitigation measures covering 

habitats and species occurring in the SSTC have been developed through various environmental analyses 

conducted by the Navy for land and sea ranges and adjacent coastal waters. These mitigation measures 

are issued to units and commands participating in an exercise. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1 Table ES-2: Summary of Effects 

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alte

3.1 Land Use 

• Current Navy activities include longestablished military land uses, and the 

Navy allows the public access to the public beaches adjacent to active training areas. Therefore, public would have 

ample access to the beach. 

• Alternative 1 would include activities 

that are consistent with long-established military land uses and the Navy allows the public access to public beaches adjacent to active training areas Use of training areas would increase under Alternative 1. 

• The effects of A

would be similaunder Alternativpublic access to to active training 

There are mitigation measures in place for other resources (e.g., Acoustic Environment [Section 3.6], Biological 

3.12], Public Health and Safety [Section 3.16]) that also apply to land use on SSTC, mainly through the stipulation 

3.2 Geology and Soils

• Only previously disturbed land areas are 

affected. Soil disturbances are minor and affect only portions of the area. 

• Sandy beaches are disturbed; however, 

the impacts are temporary. 

• Ocean bottom sediments are disturbed by 

underwater detonations, but the areas affected are small. 

• Proposed training activities would be 

comparable in type to existing activities, but the level of activity of some activities would increase. The level of disturbance of beach and inland surfaces would incrementally increase the potential for soil erosion, but would still be minor and affect only portions of the area. 

• Underwater detonations would affect a 

larger area of bottom sediments than under the No Action Alternative, but the area affected would be small. 

• With regard to s

effects of this alsimilar to those 1. Overall, the ewould be more wtraining areas foexperience a sliguse over Alterna

• Currently, sand (of a quality that is appropriate for nesting California least terns) is periodically replenished 

available, vegetation on the back dunes of SSTC beaches is maintained to reduce water and wind erosion, and vehicles are restricted to existing roads to minimize the loss of vegetation. 

• The NBC Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) includes strategies to minimize erosion 

works to implement these strategies. 

2 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1 Table ES-2: Summary of Effects (Continued) 

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alte

3.3 Air Quality

• No increases in emissions above 

baseline. 

• Emission increases would be less than 

the de minimis thresholds under the General Conformity Rule. No conformity determination is required. 

• Emission increa

the de minimis tGeneral Conformdetermination is 

The Navy currently has a comprehensive air quality management program. Mitigation measures that are part 

management practices are implemented at SSTC. Areas that are used for training exercises are vegetated, wh

emissions associated with ground disturbance. Aircraft, marine vessels, ground vehicles, and Tactical Support Ebe maintained and meet applicable emission standards (such as smog certification for on-road vehicles) i

requirements. 

3.4 Hazardous Materials and Wastes

• Use of expendable training materials 

deposits small amounts of nonhazardous inorganic materials on the land ranges which are collected where feasible at the conclusion of training. Only trace amounts of nonhazardous organic compounds are left following a detonation of explosives and are not expected to affect surrounding biological or physical resources. The Navy's existing hazardous materials management system is sufficient for handling hazardous materials needed for the baseline training activities. 

• The Navy’s existing hazardous waste and 

materials management system is sufficient for handling hazardous materials and wastes needed for and generated by baseline training activities. 

• Under this alternative, the amounts of 

expended training materials would increase. The weight of expended flare and smoke canister residues would increase and the amounts of residues from detonations of underwater explosives would increase. Despite these increases, the amounts of expended materials would not have an adverse effect on physical or biological aquatic resources. 

• The Navy’s existing hazardous materials 

management system is sufficient for handling hazardous materials needed for the proposed training activities. 

• The Navy’s existing hazardous waste 

management system is sufficient for handling of wastes generated by the Proposed Action 

• Impacts would b

Alternative 1. 

• The Navy's general instructions (e.g., Chief of Naval Operations Instruction [OPNAVINST] 5090.1) and train

review processes serve to ensure that hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are stored and handled acurrent mitigation measures include its business plan (Section 3.4.1.3), Hazardous Waste Management Plan (H

Substance Release Integrated Contingency Plan (DoN 2008), and Regional Explosive HWMP (Section 3.4.1

collect expended training materials at the conclusion of a training activity to the extent practicable. 

2 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1 Table ES-2: Summary of Effects (Continued)

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alte

3.5 Water Resources

• No effects on surface water or 

groundwater hydrology (Silver Strand peninsula has no potable surface or groundwaters, so SSTC training activities do not affect freshwater water quality) 

• Consistent with Basin Plan and NRWQC • Releases of munitions constituents and 

other expended materials during training activities have no measurable effects on water quality 

• No long-term degradation of marine, 

surface, or ground water quality 

• Consistent with public uses of state or 

federal waters 

• No effects on surface water or 

groundwater hydrology (Silver Strand peninsula has no potable surface or groundwaters, so SSTC training activities do not affect freshwater water quality) 

• Consistent with Basin Plan and NRWQC • Increased releases of munitions 

constituents and other expended materials during training activities would not measurably affect water quality 

• No long-term degradation of marine, 

surface, or groundwater quality 

• Increased use of water areas for training 

would be consistent with public uses of state or federal waters 

• Vehicle, boat, an

amphibious landsimilar to Alternsame as describe

The Navy’s current practices affecting water quality, primarily hazardous materials handling and waste disposa

requirements in OPNAVINST 5090.1. Those requirements, in turn, were developed primarily to comply wiregulations. Efforts to preserve vegetation on the backsides of dunes along the shoreline may reduce erosion and sediments into adjacent surface waters. Collection of spent training materials at the conclusion of training activitiereduce the amounts of contaminants transported into adjacent waters. With respect to water use, the Navy miti

avoiding washing causeway pier sections in the ocean and by pumping seawater through its Offshore Petroleum training instead of using petroleum products. OPNAVINST also includes guidance on shipboard operations afloat

2 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1 Table ES-2: Summary of Effects (Continued)

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 

3.6 Acoustic Environment

• Existing ambient sound levels include 

sounds from various sources. Training at SSTC-S occasionally creates intrusive sound for short periods, especially during Amphibious Raid and Breacher training. Training at SSTC-N occasionally creates intrusive sound for short periods, especially during Elevated Causeway (ELCAS) installation training. Helicopter overflights and ship pass-bys of populated land areas would be audible for a few minutes per day in any one area, without contributing substantially to the long-term average sound level. Small arms (blanks) firing occasionally is audible for short periods in portions of the community. Routine on-site and offsite training-related activities, such as the operation of powered vehicles and equipment, add incrementally to the ambient background sound level, especially during weekdays. Taken together, these sound sources affect the acoustic environment of Silver Strand peninsula. 

• Sound levels generated by training would remain 

the same as the No Action Alternative, but training events producing sound would increase in frequency. Alternative 1 would increase the frequency of aircraft and amphibious vehicle training, ELCAS pile driving, shotgun Breacher 

activities, and use of blanks on the beach. 

• The ef

the acowould as the Altern

Activity planning often considers location (e.g., Breacher training are located in inland areas) and time of demergency personnel prior to exercises that include pyrotechnics or blanks. Call-outs during physical conditioninat night and when in residential areas. 

2 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1 Table ES-2: Summary of Effects (Continued)

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alte

3.7 Marine Biological Resources 

• On the beach , vehicle use, boat landings, 

helicopter landings, and foot traffic associated with a range of activities could cause temporary localized disturbances of infaunal invertebrates of the sand. 

• Minimal disturbance of sandy bottom 

habitat and increased turbidity from amphibious landings and underwater demolitions. 

• A total of 1.13 acres of eelgrass habitat 

may be impacted in the designated training lane within the Bravo training area. 

• Adverse modifications to benthic habitat 

resulting in affects to EFH occur on limited bases during amphibious landing and beach construction activities within within the Bravo training area. 

• Vehicle, boat, and helicopter use and 

amphibious landings would increase; however, effects are the same as described for the No Action Alternative. Amphibious activities conducted on the bayside would be limited to the same designated training lane within the Bravo training area. 

• Vehicle, boat, an

amphibious landsimilar to Alternsame as describeAlternative. 

Management practices are in place for jurisdictional waters and special aquatic sites. Potential impacts of up habitat/EFH for larger boat landings, ELCAS, and causeway insertions in the designated training lane on Bravo consistent with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. This mitigation will occur at an established NSites and be drawn as part of the Navy Eelgrass Mitigation Bank. 

2 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1 Table ES-2: Summary of Effects (Continued)

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alte

3.8 Fish 

• Small numbers of fish would be killed by 

shock waves from underwater detonations associated with the SSTC. However, underwater detonations would occur primarily in low-use habitats. 

• Noise associated with marine vessels is 

unlikely to affect fish as source levels from these sources are below those known to cause injury. Noise associated with pile driving would have some lethal and sublethal effects to fish but impacts would be localized due to the nature of the activity. 

• Groundfish are unlikely to be affected by 

activities in shallow waters. 

• Increases in pile driving and underwater 

detonation activities would increase the lethal and sublethal effect to fish species but fish assemblages would not be expected to be affected. 

• Increases in pile 

detonation activlethal and subletbut fish assemblexpected to be a

• Habitat mitigation for intertidal and subtidal areas (Section 3.7), including eelgrass, provide a degree of mitigatio

documented to reside within those habitats. 

• The mitigation for 1.13 acres of lost eelgrass habitat discussed in Section 3.7 would provide alternative habitat f

lost or displaced from eelgrass by activities described in this section, thus mitigating effects to fish. 

2 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1 Table ES-2: Summary of Effects (Continued)

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alte

3.9 Marine Mammals 

• Modeling estimates for the No Action 

Alternative indicate that exposures are not expected to result in slight injury, severe injury, or mortality of marine mammals. Without implementation of current mitigation measures, underwater detonations and pile driving could result in behavioral and temporary threshold shift (TTS) (Level B) harassment exposures. However, implementation of current mitigation measures minimizes potential impacts to marine mammal species in the SSTC ROI. 

• The implementation of current mitigation 

and monitoring procedures in the SSTC will minimize the potential for marine mammal exposures to pile-driving noise associated with ELCAS activities. 

• Ship collisions are unlikely due to the 

low density of marine mammals in the area. 

• Modeling estimates for Alternative 1 

indicate that without implementation of current mitigation measures, an increased tempo of underwater detonations and pile driving could result in an increase of behavioral and TTS (Level B) harassment. No exposures are expected to result in slight injury, severe injury, or mortality. Implementation of current mitigation measures would minimize potential impacts to marine mammal species in the SSTC ROI. 

• Ship collisions are unlikely due to the 

low density of marine mammals in the area and low vessel speed. 

• Effects from other activities are the same 

as described under the No Action Alternative. 

• With implement

mitigation measas described und

Mitigation measures for underwater detonations and ELCAS activities include monitoring of safety buffer 

activities to when marine mammals are outside prescribed buffer zones. 

3.10 Sea Turtles 

• Underwater detonations, vessel strikes, 

and noise associated with marine vessels and pile driving are unlikely to adversely impact sea turtles due to their rarity in the SSTC, the concentration of activities in ocean boat lanes, and implementation of mitigation measures. 

• Training tempo would increase; 

however, impacts are expected to be substantially the same as the No Action Alternative. 

• Training tempo 

however, impactsubstantially the Alternative. 

Current mitigation measures for pre- and post- underwater detonation and ELCAS monitoring, including restrictiturtles are within a safety buffer zone, will continue to be implemented. Similar mitigation measures for underwaimplemented for SWAG and ELCAS under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

2 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1 Table ES-2: Summary of Effects (Continued)

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alte

3.11 Terrestrial Biological Resources 

• Effects to San Diego Fairy Shrimp would 

be negligible. 

• Potential impacts to federal and state 

protected plants and invertebrates and California Native Plant Society special status plants from air and marine vessel activities are expected to be minimal, as activities occur in the air and below the high tide line. Foot and vehicle traffic may have the greatest effect on terrestrial biological resources; though effects are expected to be temporary and cease at the termination of an activity. 

• Effects on wildlife would be limited to 

temporary disturbance under this alternative. 

• Foot traffic in vernal pool areas could 

adversely impact individual fairy shrimp. However, impacts would be minimized, due to the low levels of foot traffic that would occur in the pools, and the limitation of those activities to when the vernal pools are dry. Potential impacts to the San Diego fairy shrimp are also associated with emergency vehicle use of unpaved roads in the vernal pool area. 

• Potential increased training on SSTC-N 

beach lanes Blue 2, Orange 1, and Orange 2 could increase impacts to special status plants and invertebrates in these areas while decreasing impacts at other locations. Some trampling of vegetation at these locations is expected, though the overall effect on non-avian biological resources is expected to be short term and of moderate intensity due to the potential overlap of concentrated activities in the dunes and upper beach areas. These activities do not pose longterm impacts, effects are expected to be temporary and cease at the termination of an activity. 

• Increased foot traffic could cause 

behavioral impacts to surrounding wildlife, though this effect is expected to be temporary. 

• Various activities have the potential to 

impact Brand’s phacelia on the beach in the Bravo training area. 

• Effects of Alter

different from tbecause of the iN oceanside tralevels would nothose activities lanes would be across the ROI. unrestricted traiaffected due to of use, whereas other lanes coulreduced usage. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alte

3.11 Terrestrial 

Biological 

Resources 

(Continued) 

• Under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, Vehicle Patrolling and LARC V Operator Training are 

Yellow 1 and 2 and Green 1 and 2, and will not occur in Red, Blue, or Orange Beach Lanes. 

• Under Alternative 1 and 2, training would not be allowed in vernal pools, including those containing San D

conditions are wet. Foot traffic would be permitted in the pools only when conditions are dry. In order to 

management is based on current species presence or absence, regular surveys would be conducted at least 

determine the status of San Diego fairy shrimp in the SSTC-South inland. These surveys would examine shrim

regard to periodic flooding in El Niño years, and the resulting possible changes in pool condition and species dis

• Current natural resource protection measures would continue, such as those derived through Navy Instructions, e

planning in the INRMPs, and the employment of best management practices and standard operating procedures environmental impacts. Existing measures include invasive species control, erosion control, inventory, monitorinenhancement. 

• For the San Diego fairy shrimp, under the Proposed Action training would not be allowed in vernal pools when c

traffic would be permitted in the pools when conditions are dry. Dry conditions would be determined by a qualif

NBC Botanist or Wildlife Biologist. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1 Table ES-2: Summary of Effects (Continued)

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alte

3.12 Birds 

• Current management practices restrict 

activities from occurring in some nesting areas during the breeding season, particularly three SSTC-N beach lanes Blue 2, Orange 1, and Orange 2 as well as Delta North and South. 

• Potential impacts from air and marine 

vessel activities, as well as LCAC activities are expected to be minimal to nesting species, as activities occur or are scheduled for areas with no or minimal nesting. 

• If diving or flocks of birds and found 

around an underwater detonation point, activities will be halted until the birds have left the area, which minimizes the potential for blast impacts to diving birds 

• Habitat for nesting and foraging 

migratory land birds, as well as for shorebirds and seabirds may be degraded due to the presence of foot traffic and from land detonations and pyrotechnics. None of these temporary effects are expected to have an adverse effect on migratory birds at the population level. 

• The majority of beach activities occur 

away from nests on the beach, below the high tide line. Activities occurring near the nesting area potentially affect nesting birds. However, current management practices minimize adverse effects. 

• Alternative 1 would have additional 

effects on birds. The increased frequency and intensity of these activities would encourage birds to avoid the area. 

• Vehicle patrolling and testing at SSTC-N 

would minimally impact nesting migratory birds or shorebird foraging under this Alternative, because these activities would be restricted to specific training lanes. 

• Habitat for nesting and foraging 

migratory land birds, as well as for shorebirds and seabirds may be degraded due to the presence of foot traffic, and noise from pyrotechnics. While impacts to nesting habitats would increase under this Alternative, existing infrastructure, training requirements, scheduling needs, and mitigation measures will naturally pull activities away from these habitat areas, minimizing impacts. None of the temporary effects from training are expected to have an adverse effect on migratory birds at the population level. 

• Effects are the s

No Action Altervessel activities ELCAS activitieactivities are the 

• Under Alternati

option of going and impact nestibirds that coinciwould also be imactivities will notraining lanes, hinfrastructure, trscheduling needmeasures causingravitate away f
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1 Table ES-2: Summary of Effects (Continued)

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alte

3.12 Birds (continued) 

• Loss in California least tern nesting 

would not decrease the nesting total below the 5,722 annual nests to maintain a stable rangewide population, and would be below the 2007 incidental take allowance issued by the USFWS. 

• Previously restricted beach areas for 

nesting California least terns and western snowy plovers would be affected by increases in beach activities, most notably those comprising of foot traffic or vehicle use. Loss in California least terns nesting would not decrease the nesting total below the 5,722 annual nests to maintain a stable rangewide population, and would be below the 2007 incidental take allowance issued by the USFWS. Consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of ESA is currently underway for this alternative. 

• Previously restr

nesting Californsnowy plovers wincreases in all bnotably those coor vehicle use. Lterns nesting wonesting total belnests to maintain population, and incidental take aUSFWS. 

• Mitigation measures include: communication and coordination of training area protocols, nest relocation, predat

control, habitat modification, site preparation, nest substrate enhancement, signage and education, recreational ucollected eggs, injured, and sick individuals, a western snowy plover health study, and monitoring. 

• Under Alternative 1, vehicle patrolling and LARC V Operator Training would not occur in Red, Blue or Orange 

Observation for birds will be conducted prior to and after underwater detonations and detonation activities woul

diving birds are present. Mitigation measures are described in detail in place as described in Section 3.12.4. 

2 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1 Table ES-2: Summary of Effects (Continued)

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alte

3.13 Cultural Resources 

• Vehicular activities and other ground 

disturbing activities are excluded from cultural resource sites and their immediate surrounding areas. Foot traffic does not constitute an adverse effect. 

• Training activities may occur in areas 

with known submerged cultural resources; however, resources are avoided as necessary to prevent damage. 

• Vehicular activities and other ground 

disturbing activities are excluded from cultural resource sites and their immediate surrounding areas. Foot traffic does not constitute an adverse effect. 

• Training activities may occur in areas 

with known submerged cultural resources; however, resources would be avoided as necessary to prevent damage. 

• The effects of A

resources would described under 

The Navy currently employs the following management practices to avoid impacts to cultural resources: restriccultural resource site that is known to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHPtraining access on or across the recorded areas of eligible or potentially eligible archaeological sites to foot traffic damage to the appearance, structure, or features of NRHP-eligible built properties is permitted without appropriatcompliance. 

2 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1 Table ES-2: Summary of Effects (Continued)

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alte

3.14 Transportation and Circulation 

• Intersections and roadways within the 

ROI experience an acceptable Level of Service (LOS). Although the intersections at Gates 1 and 2 experience unacceptable LOS, traffic related to the No Action Alternative represents less than 1% of the volume at these intersections. 

• Marine traffic is diverted from training 

areas while some training is being conducted; however, vessels are not prevented from getting to their desired locations. 

• Increases in military training vehicle 

trips per day would represent less than 2% of the total daily traffic and would be well within the capacities of the existing regional roadway network. 

• Intersections and roadways within the 

ROI experience an acceptable LOS. Although the intersections at Gates 1 and 2 experience unacceptable LOS, traffic related to Alternative 1 represents less than 1% of the morning volume and less than 2% of the evening traffic at these intersections. 

• Marine traffic is diverted from training 

areas while some training is being conducted; however, vessels are not prevented from getting to their desired locations. 

• Potential effects 

circulation from the same as effeof Alternative 1. 

The Navy strives to ensure that it retains access to oceanside and bayside training areas as necessary to accom

facilitating joint military-civilian use of such areas to the extent practicable and consistent with safety. These goal

use, and safety are promoted through various coordination and outreach measures, including publication of poten

planned for the oceanside and bayside areas through Notices to Mariners issued by the U.S. Coast Guard. 

2 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1 Table ES-2: Summary of Effects (Continued)

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alte

3.15 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Protection of Children 

• Navy presence currently has a beneficial 

socioeconomic impact on the region. 

• EO 12898 – There are no 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects from the No Action Alternative on low income populations. 

• EO 13045 – The No Action Alternative 

would not disproportionately affect children. 

• Socioeconomics - Existing regional 

population and associated housing impacts, employment rates, and regional economy would remain unchanged. 

• EO 12898 – There would be no 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on low income populations with the implementation of Alternative 1. 

• EO 13045 – EO 13045 – Alternative 1 

would not disproportionately affect children. 

• Impacts are exp

Alternative 1. 

Mitigation measures proposed for other resources (e.g., Water Resources [Section 3.5], Acoustic Environment Health and Safety [Section 3.16]) would serve to further minimize effects related to environmental justice and pro
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1 Table ES-2: Summary of Effects (Continued)

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alte

3.16 Public Health and Safety 

• Routine training activities conducted 

within SSTC pose little risk to public health or safety outside of the training areas. 

• Risks to the public from rotary-wing 

aircraft supporting SSTC training is minimal, based on past safety record, low number of flights, and over-water flight paths. 

• Risks to the public from marine vessels 

supporting SSTC training and small craft participating in training are minimal based on past safety record and established right-of-way conventions and avoidance procedures. 

• On-site training activities would 

increase. The Navy would continue to implement Range Control Coordination Procedures to avoid public safety issues. Public use may decrease because more frequent and visible use of beach training areas by military units could discourage the public from entering beach training areas. 

• Air support and marine vessel support 

and underwater detonations would increase, but for the reasons noted under the No Action Alternative, public safety would be maintained. 

• Impacts would b

Alternative 1. Inmore visible use Orange 2 may fuunauthorized acc

Mitigation measures for other resources that affect public health and safety (e.g. noise, hazardous materials and 

would be implemented. Current measures in place to ensure that nonparticipants are not endangered by Navy 

safety buffers for underwater detonations, existing guards and/or gates around many training areas, and monitoduring training. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-28 

1 ES 1.14 OTHER REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS

2 ES 1.14.1 Possible Conflicts with Objectives of Federal, State, and Local Plans, 

3 Policies, and Controls 

4 

5 

6 

7 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

Implementation of the Navy’s alternatives, including the Proposed Action for the SSTC EIS, would not 

conflict with the objectives or requirements of federal, state, regional, or local plans, policies, or legal 

requirements. The Navy will consult with regulatory agencies as appropriate during the NEPA process 

and prior to implementation of the Proposed Action to ensure requirements are met. 

8 ES 1.14.2 Relationship between Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 

The majority of activities addressed in the EIS would be categorized as long-term. For example, although 

the use of training areas for individual training activities (e.g., breacher) may be of short duration, the 

training areas would continue to receive increased and repeated use for the foreseeable future. As the 

Proposed Action includes an increase in training tempo, areas designated for training would accommodate 

a higher level of operational uses in the long-term which would, in turn, affect the long-term productivity 

of environmental resources in those areas. The Navy’s proposal to increase access and availability of 

SSTC-N and SSTC-S oceanside beach training lanes and SSTC-S inland areas for military training is an 

example of the balancing of long-term productivity of the environment with the need to address range 

capability shortfalls. Addressing such shortfalls through planning and accommodation of future training 

tempo requirements and deployment schedules will allow the Navy to more readily facilitate long-term 

resource management strategies while achieving the near-term goal of providing the capacity and 

capabilities to fully support required training tasks and meet the Title 10 mandate. 

21 ES 1.14.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

Increased training activities at the SSTC would result in the irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable 

energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil), natural gas, and gasoline 

construction equipment. Implementation of the Proposed Action would require fuels used by aircraft, 

vessels, and ground-based vehicles. Since fixed- and rotary-wing flight, amphibious vessels, and small 

craft activities could increase, total fuel use would increase. Fuel use by ground-based vehicles involved 

in training activities would also increase. Therefore, total fuel consumption would increase and this 

nonrenewable resource would be considered irreversibly lost. 

29 ES 1.14.4 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 

Increased training activities on SSTC would result in an increase in energy demand over the No Action 

Alternative. Although the required electricity demands would be met by the existing electrical 

infrastructure at SSTC, energy requirements would be subject to any established energy conservation 

practices. The use of energy sources would be minimized wherever possible without compromising 

safety, training, or testing operations. 

35 ES 1.14.5 Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and Conservation Potential 

Resources that will be permanently and continually consumed by project implementation include water, 

electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels. To the extent practicable, pollution prevention considerations are 

included. In addition, sustainable range management practices are in place that protect and conserve 

natural and cultural resources while preserving of access to training areas for current and future training 

requirements. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFTT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS i

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAAV Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle 

AAV Amphibious Assault Vehicle 

AB Assembly Bill 

ABLTS Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System 

ACS American Community Survey 

ADT average daily trips 

AESO Aircraft Environmental Support Office 

AGL Above Ground Level 

AICUZ Air Installation Compatible Use Zone 

AMNS Airborne Mine Neutralization System 

AOU American Ornithologists Union 

APCD Air Pollution Control District 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

APZ Accidental Potential Zone 

ARD Audible Recall Device 

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

ASBS Areas of Special Biological Significance 

ASDS Advanced SEAL Delivery System 

AUV Autonomous Underwater Vehicle 

BA Biological Assessment 

BASH Bird/Animal Aircraft Strike Hazard 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BEPA Bald Eagle Protection Act 

BIU Beach Interface Unit 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BO Biological Opinion 

BP before present 

BSSC Bird Species of Special Concern 

BTU Beach Termination Unit 

BUD/S Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL 

C Candidate 

C-4 Composition 4 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments 

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards 

CalCOFI California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries 

 Investigations 

Cal-EPA California Environmental Protection Agency 

Caltrans California Department of Transportation 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CASHPO California State Historic Preservation Office 

CCA California Coastal Act 

CCC California Coastal Commission 

CCD Coastal Consistency Determination 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CCR California Code of Regulations 

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

CDNL C-weighted Day Night Level 

CDPR California Department of Parks and Recreation 

CDMG California Department of Mines and Geology 

CE State Endangered 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

 Compensation and Liability Act 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFP CDFG Fully Protected 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CGS California Geological Survey 

CHPMM Center for Health Promotion and Preventative 

 Medicine 

CISS cast-in-steel-shell 

CLZ Craft Landing Zone 

CMP Coastal Management Plan 

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level 

CNO Chief of Naval Operations 

CNPS California Native Plant Society 

CNRSW Commander Navy Region Southwest 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

COMNAVSPECWARCOM Commander, Naval Special 

 Warfare Command 

COMNAVSURFPAC Commander, Naval Surface Force, 

 U.S. Pacific Fleet 

COMPACFLT Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet 

CPS Coastal Pelagic Species 

CQC Close Quarters Combat 

CQD Close Quarters Defense 

Cr Coastal Beaches (soil type) 

CRE Comprehensive Range Evaluation 

CRMP Coordinated Resource Management & 

 Planning Council 

CRRC Combat Rubber Raiding Craft 

CSC California Special Concern 

CT California Threatened 

CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency 

CV Coefficient of Variation 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DA Direct Action Operations 

dB decibel 

dBA A-weighted decibel 

dBC C-weighted decibel 

dBP peak decibel 

DDT dichlorodiphenyltricholoroethane 

DO Dissolved Oxygen 

DoD Department of Defense 

DoN Department of the Navy 

DNL Day-Night Noise Level 

DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control 

DWT dead weight tons 

DZ Drop Zone 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EFD Energy Flux Density 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

EFV Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ELCAS Elevated Causeway System 

EMFAC Emission Factors 

EMR Electromagnetic Radiation 

EO Executive Order 

EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

EODGRU Explosive Ordinance Disposal Group 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community 

 Right-to-Know Act 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESQD Explosive Safety Quantity Distance 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ii

EWTGPAC Expeditionary Warfare Training Group Pacific 

°F degrees Fahrenheit 

FC Federal Candidate Species 

FE Federal Endangered 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FFCA Federal Facilities Compliance Act 

FM Frequency Modulated 

FMP Fishery Management Plan 

FOD foreign object debris 

FRTP Fleet Response Training Plan 

FSC Federal Species of Concern 

FT Federal Threatened 

FTX Field Training Exercise 

g gram(s) 

GHG Greenhouse Gas 

GPS Global Positioning System 

ha hectare(s) 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 

HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern 

HC High Concern 

Md Made Lands (soil type) 

HERF Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Fuel 

HERO Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance 

HERP Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Personnel 

HI Highly Imperiled 

HMMWV High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle 

HMTA Hazardous Materials Transportation Act 

HMX High Melting Explosive 

HrC Huerhuero Loam (soil type) 

HRST Helicopter Rope Suspension Training 

HS Hydrogen sulfide 

HSC Health and Safety Code 

HuC Huerhuero Urban (soil type) 

HWMP Hazardous Waste Management Plan 

Hz hertz 

I MEF First Marine Expeditionary Force 

IAD Immediate Action Drills 

IBS Inflatable Boat, Small 

IED Improvised Explosive Device 

IHA Incidental Harassment Authorization 

INLS Improved Navy Lighterage System 

INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 

IRP Installation Restoration Program 

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers 

JLOTS Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore 

KCRC Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation 

 Committee 

kHz kilohertz 

kg kilogram(s) 

 km kilometer(s) 

 kph kilometer(s) per hour 

L liter 

LAMPS Light Airborne Multipurpose System 

LAR Lung Automatic Rebreather 

LARC V Lighter, Amphibious, Resupply, Cargo-5 ton 

LCAC Landing Craft, Air Cushion 

LCM Landing Craft Mechanized 

LCP Local Coastal Plan 

LCU Landing Craft Utility 

LD Lethal Dose 

Ldn Day-Night Noise Level 

Leq Equivalent Noise Level 

LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging 

LOS level of service 

LUPZ Land Use Planning Zones 

LZ Landing Zone 

m meter(s) 

m2

 square meter(s) 

m3 cubic meter(s) 

MAGTF Marine Air Ground Task Force 

MAT Maintenance and Training 

MATLAB Matrix Laboratory 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MC Munitions Constituent 

MCAS Marine Corps Air Station 

MCB Marine Corps Base 

MCM Mine Countermeasures 

MCT Marine Corps Task 

MW mini-enclosure 

MEC munitions and explosives of concern 

MEF Marine Expeditionary Force 

mg milligram 

MHHW Mean Higher High Water 

MIC Marina Loamy Coarse Sand (soil type) 

MLLW Mean Lower Low Water 

MMC Marine Mammal Commission 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MMR Military Munitions Rule 

MMRP Military Munitions Response Program 

MMS Marine Mammal Systems 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MPFUB Maritime Prepositioned Force Utility Boat 

mph mile(s) per hour 

MPS Maritime Prepositioning Ship 

MRA Marine Resources Assessment 

MRP Munitions Response Program 

msl mean sea level 

MSE Multiple Successive Explosions 

msec millisecond 

MWR Morale, Welfare, and Recreation 

μPa micropascal 

μg microgram 

μm micron 

MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Plan 

N North 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAB Naval Amphibious Base 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection 

 & Repatriation Act 

NASNI Naval Air Station North Island 

NAVFACSW Naval Facilities Engineering 

 Command Southwest 

NAVOCEANO Naval Oceanographic Office 

Navy U.S. Department of the Navy 

NRWQC National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 

NBC Naval Base Coronado 

NBG Naval Beach Group 

NBPL Naval Base Point Loma 

NCA National Command Authority 

NCW Naval Coastal Warfare 

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act 

NDDB Natural Diversity Database 

NE Not Eligible 

NECC Navy Expeditionary Combat Command 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iii

NEMS Navy Eelgrass Mitigation Sites 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NEW Net Explosive Weight 

NHPA National Register of Historic Places 

nm nautical mile(s) 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOLF Naval Outlying Landing Field 

NOTMAR Notice to Mariners 

NOx oxides of nitrogen 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRC National Research Council 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRRF Naval Radio Receiving Facility 

NRWQC National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 

NSR New Source Review 

NSW Naval Special Warfare 

NSWC Naval Special Warfare Center 

NTA Navy Tactical Task (Action)s 

NTTL Navy Tactical Task List 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRC National Wildlife Research Center 

OAMCM Organic Airborne Mine Countermeasures 

OASIS Organic Airborne Surface Influence Sweep 

OPA Oil Pollution Act 

O3 Ozone 

OPAREA Operating Area 

OPDS Offshore Petroleum Discharge System 

OPNAV Office of the Chief of Naval Operations 

OPNAVINST Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense 

OSP Optimal Sustainable Population 

OTB Over-the-Beach 

OUB Operation Utility Boat 

Pa Pascals 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

Pb Lead 

PACFLT U.S. Pacific Fleet 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyls 

PCFA Pacific Coast Feeding Aggregation 

PDM Program Decision Memorandum 

PE Potentially Eligible 

PETN pentaerythritol tetranitrate 

pH hydrogen ion concentration (alkalinity) 

PFMC Pacific Fisheries Management Council 

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns 

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns 

PMAR Primary Mission Areas 

POSD Port of San Diego 

PPA Pollution Prevention Act 

ppm parts per million 

ppt parts per thousand 

psi pounds per square inch 

R Radius 

RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy 

RCA Range Condition Assessment 

RCD Required Capabilities Document 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RDT&E Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 

RDX Royal Demolition Explosive 

RHA Rivers and Harbors Act 

RHIB Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat 

REFMS Reflection and Refraction in Multilayered 

 Ocean/Ocean Bottoms with Shear Wave Effects 

RL Received Exposure Levels 

RMS root mean squared 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROG Reactive Organic Gasses 

ROI Region of Influence 

ROWPU Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 

RRDF Roll on/Roll Off Discharge Facility 

RSD Rare in San Diego County 

RSEPA Range Sustainability Environmental Program 

 Assessment 

RTSWS Remote Training Site, Warner Springs 

RV Recreational Vehicle 

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board 

S South 

SAIA Sikes Act Improvement Act 

SALM Single Anchor Leg Moor 

SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments 

SANTEC San Diego Traffic Engineers Council 

SAR Stock Assessment Report 

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District 

SCB Southern California Bight 

SCE Southern California Eddy 

SCI San Clemente Island 

SCUBA Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus 

SDAB San Diego Air Basin 

SDIA San Diego International Airport 

SDUPD San Diego Unified Port District 

SDV SEAL Delivery Vehicles 

SEAL Sea, Air, and Land 

SEL Sound Exposure Level 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SIT Squadron Integrated Training 

SLI Slight Lung Injury 

SMNWR Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SO4 Sulfate 

SOC Special Operations Capable 

SOCAL Southern California 

SOF Special Operations Forces 

SOP Standard Operating Procedure 

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, Countermeasures 

SQT Seal Qualification Training 

SRA Sub Regional Area 

SR State Route 

SRO Sustainable Range Oversight 

SSLC Silver Strand Littoral Cell 

SSTC Silver Strand Training Complex 

SSSB Silver Strand State Beach 

SUROBS Surf Observations 

SV Sound Velocity 

SVP sound velocity profile 

SWAG Shock Wave Generator 

SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act 

SWFSC Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board 

T&E Test and Evaluation 

TAP Tactical Training Theater Assessment and Planning 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iv

TAR Training Area and Range 

TCP Traditional Cultural Properties 

Tf Tidal Flats (soil type) 

TL transmission loss 

TM tympanic membrane 

TMR tympanic membrane rupture 

TNT Trinitrotoluene 

TRAP Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel 

TRI Toxic Release Inventory 

TS Threshold Shift 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

TSD Treatment, Storage, or Disposal 

TSE Tactical Support Equipment 

TSNWR Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge 

TSS Total Suspended Solids 

TTS Temporary Threshold Shift 

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System 

UJTL Universal Joint Task List 

U.S. United States 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USAF United States Air Force 

USC United States Code 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USIBWC U.S. International Boundary Waters 

 Commission 

UUV Unmanned Underwater Vehicle 

UXO Unexploded Ordnance 

VFR Visual Flight Rules 

VSW Very Shallow Water 

W- Warning Area 

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center 

WQCA Water Quality Control Act 

yd yard(s) 

YMCA Young Men’s Christian Association 

ZOI zone of influence 

ZOE zone of exposure 
1 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 1-1 

1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (Navy) is preparing this Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with ongoing and proposed 

naval training activities within the Navy’s Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC) and southern near 

shore area of Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI). SSTC is a critical Navy range for west coast 

naval amphibious, special warfare, and mine countermeasure training activities, and has been used by the 

Navy for military training for over 60 years. 

SSTC is an integrated set of training areas located on and adjacent to the Silver Strand, a narrow, sandy 

isthmus separating the San Diego Bay from the Pacific Ocean. It is divided into two non-contiguous 

areas: SSTC-North (SSTC-N) and SSTC-South (SSTC-S). SSTC-N includes land areas on the northernhalf of the Silver Strand peninsula, as well as adjacent nearshore waters of the Pacific Ocean and the San 

Diego Bay. SSTC-S includes land on the southern-end of the Silver Strand peninsula, as well as adjacent 

nearshore waters of the Pacific Ocean. SSTC-N and SSTC-S are separated by the Silver Strand State 

Beach. The NASNI training area is composed of the beaches and near shore waters from Breaker’s Beach 

to Zuniga Jetty, west of the City of Coronado. These areas are depicted in Figure 1-1. 

The Navy is proposing to implement the follow actions within SSTC and the southern near shore area of 

NASNI: continue current training activities, increase training tempo from baseline conditions and the 

types of training, conduct existing routine training at additional locations within established training areas 

on SSTC and NASNI, introduce new platforms and equipment, and increase access to and availability of 

existing beach and inland training areas. The Navy is not proposing to increase the size of the SSTC or 

NASNI training areas. Details of the Proposed Action and alternatives are presented in Chapter 2. 

The Navy needs to implement its Proposed Action to provide a training environment, with the capacity 

and capabilities to fully support required training tasks for operational units and military schools—to 

achieve and maintain the required levels of operational readiness as mandated by Title 10 of the United 

States Code (USC) 5062. Title 10 requires the Navy to organize, train, equip, and maintain combat-ready 

naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas. 

The Proposed Action is designed to provide a training environment in which personnel can train and meet 

required levels of operational readiness. The decision to be made by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

(Installations & Environment) is to determine both the scope of training to be conducted and the nature of 

range improvements to be made within SSTC and the southern near shore area of NASNI, pursuant to the 

guidance provided in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 1501.1. 

To support an informed decision, the EIS identifies objectives and criteria for naval training activities at 

SSTC and the southern near shore area of NASNI. The core of the EIS is the development and analysis of 

a reasonable range of alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the Navy’s Proposed Action. 

Alternatives development is a complex process, particularly in the dynamic context of military training. 

The development of alternatives must meet the mandate for operational readiness. The criteria for 

developing and analyzing alternatives to meet these objectives are set forth in Chapter 2. Once 

alternatives are developed based on these criteria, analysis of the environmental effects of the alternatives 

is presented in Chapter 3. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 1-2 

Figure 1-1: Silver Strand Training Complex 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 1-3 

This Draft EIS is being prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of 

NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and Navy Procedures for Implementing NEPA (32 CFR 775). The 

Navy is the lead agency for this EIS; the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is a cooperating 

agency. 

NEPA efforts leading to this EIS started in 1995 with the initiation of an environmental assessment (EA). 

In 1999, the Navy determined that preparation of an EIS, rather than the completion of the EA, for 

training activities on SSTC, as well as the southern nearshore area of NASNI, was necessary because of 

the high density of nesting birds that are federally threatened or endangered on oceanside training beaches 

at SSTC, as well as the level of potential impact from the proposed action. 

1.2 OVERVIEW OF SSTC AND NASNI TRAINING AREAS

SSTC-N is composed of ten oceanside beach and boat training lanes (numbered as Boat Lanes 1 -10), 

ocean anchorage areas (numbered 101 through 178), bayside water training areas (Alpha through Hotel), 

and bayside beaches (Alpha through Charlie, Delta North and Delta South) (Figure 1-2 and Table 1-1). 

The anchorages lie offshore of SSTC-N in the Pacific Ocean and overlap a portion of Boat Lanes 1-10. 

The SSTC-N consists of 745 acres of land owned by the federal government and approximately 257 acres 

leased by the State of California. SSTC-S consists of four oceanside beach and boat training lanes 

(numbered as Boat Lanes 11-14), and inland training areas and facilities inside a fenced area (Figure 1-3 

and Table 1-1). SSTC-S consists of approximately 548 acres of land owned by the federal government 

down to the high tide line with offshore training areas leased from the State of California. In all, SSTC 

includes nearly 3.9 nautical miles (nm) of coastline (2.6 nm of coastline at SSTC-N and 1.3 nm of 

coastline at SSTC-S). 

The southern near shore area of NASNI is geographically separate from SSTC-N and SSTC-S, located 

adjacent to, and bordering the western edge of the City of Coronado. Training associated with the 

Proposed Action occurs on the southern beach and near shore training areas off of NASNI, from the rocky 

Zuniga Point and Jetty south to Breaker’s Beach (Figure 1-1 and Table 1-1). The NASNI training area is 

also under federal ownership. 

1.3 WHY THE NAVY TRAINS

The U.S. military is maintained at specific levels of operational readiness to ensure the freedom and 

safety of all Americans both at home and abroad. The Navy’s mission to achieve operational readiness, 

derived from Title 10 of the USC requires the Navy to “maintain, train and equip combat-ready naval 

forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas.” 

Modern war and security operations are complex: modern military actions require teamwork between 

hundreds or thousands of people and their various equipment, vehicles, ships, and aircraft, all working 

individually and as a coordinated unit to achieve success. Navy training addresses all aspects of the team 

from individual to joint efforts, and coalition teamwork. To acheive this, the Navy employs a building 

block approach to training. Training doctrine and procedures are based on operational requirements for 

deployment of naval forces. Training proceeds on a continuum—from the teaching of basic and 

specialized individual military skills (including schoolhouse training)1

, to intermediate skills (or small 

 

1

 Schoolhouse training is typically conducted in formal courses with syllabi and instructors including both classroom 

and field work. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 1-4 

Figure 1-2: SSTC-N Training Areas 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 1-5 

Figure 1-3: SSTC-S Training Areas 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 1-6 

Table 1-1: Summary of SSTC and NASNI Training Areas 

Training Area Description 

Boat Lanes (1-10) and 

Beach Training Areas 

(SSTC-N) 

The 10 ocean training lanes are each 500 yards wide stretching 4,000 yards seaward 

and forming a 5,000-yard-long contiguous training area. The boat lanes, similar to 

the beach areas, are identified by color and number (Yellow 1 through Orange 2, 

Figure 1-1). Each boat lane is 500 yards wide (1,000 yards per color) and follows the 

boat lanes by stretching 5,000 yards north to south. A demolition pit and obstacle 

course are located within the beach training areas. A rappel tower is located adjacent 

to the beach training area just inside the fenced compound. 

Bayside In-water and 

Beach Training Areas 

(SSTC-N) 

Bayside training beaches consist of Delta North and South, and Alpha through Charlie,

as well as bayside in-water training areas, Alpha through Hotel. This area also includes

the piers and Lilly Ann Drop Zone (DZ) (Figure 1-2). The Turner Field helipad is

located on land within the NAB Coronado bayside areas (Figure 1-2). 

Anchorages 

(SSTC-N) 

Anchorages are numbered 101 through 178 and are 654 yards in diameter. They are 

grouped together in an area located primarily due west of SSTC-N, east of Zuniga 

Jetty and the restricted areas on approach to the San Diego Bay entrance (Figure 1-

1). 

Boat Lanes (11-14) and 

Beach Training Areas 

(SSTC-S) 

There are four beach training areas as well as four contiguous boat lanes (11-14) at 

SSTC-S. The four ocean training lanes are each 500 yards wide stretching 4,000 

yards seaward. Each boat lane (1,000 yards per color) follows the other boat lanes by 

stretching 2,000 yards north to south and are divided (for scheduling purposes) into 

White 1 and 2 and Purple 1 and 2. Each color section is 1,000 yards wide for a total 

of 2,000 yards (Figure 1-3).

SSTC Inland Areas 

(SSTC-S) 

A multi-use facility located on land containing training infrastructure for use 

primarily by Naval Special Warfare (NSW) and Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

(EOD) forces, the Kaufman DZ is located at the south eastern corner of SSTC-S 

(Figure 1-3). A helipad is located adjacent to Building 902. 

NASNI Training Areas The NASNI training areas include the beaches and nearshore waters from Breaker’s 

Beach to Zuniga Jetty and the nearshore waters surrounding NASNI (see Figure 1-1). 

unit training), to advanced, integrated training events, and finally culminating in multiservice (Joint) 

exercises, or pre-deployment certification (e.g., certification of combat readiness) events. 

In order to provide experiences vital to success and survival, training must be as realistic as possible. In 

the early stages of training, the Navy often employs simulators and synthetic training to provide skill 

repetition and to enhance teamwork; but live training in a realistic environment is pivotal to the success of 

a mission and personnel survival. Realistic training requires sufficient land, sea, and airspace to maneuver 

tactically; further, this type of training requires realistic targets and objectives, the proper support 

equipment and on-range facilities, and an opposing force to create a realistic enemy. 

Training ranges like SSTC provide a controlled and safe environment with threat-representative targets 

that enable U.S. forces to conduct realistic, combat-like training as they undergo all phases of the 

graduated buildup needed for combat-ready deployment. Navy ranges provide the space necessary to 

conduct controlled and safe training scenarios representative of those that military men and women would 

face in actual combat. The ranges are designed to provide the most realistic training in the most relevant 

environments, replicating as closely as possible the expected challenges. The integration of undersea 

ranges with land-based ranges, safety landing fields, and amphibious landing sites are critical to this 

realism, allowing real-time practice of complex scenarios. Live training is the cornerstone of readiness for 

U.S. military forces in a security environment characterized by uncertainty and surprise. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 1-7 

1.3.1 Predeployment Training 

Predeployment training is governed by the Fleet Readiness Training Plan (FRTP). The FRTP establishes 

a training cycle that includes four phases: (1) maintenance; (2) unit-level training; (3) integrated training; 

and (4) sustainment. Established in 2003, the FRTP changed the Fleet training cycle, accelerating the 

cycle and necessitating near-simultaneous execution of similar training events. Navy forces must be ready 

to deploy with necessary force (or “surge”) on short-notice to directives from the commander-in-chief and 

the U.S. Secretary of Defense. One objective of the FRTP is to provide this surge capability. Deployment 

schedules are not fixed, but must remain flexible and responsive to the nation’s security needs. The 

capability and capacity of ranges such as SSTC to support the training continuum must be available when 

and as needed. 

1.3.2 Schoolhouse Training 

In addition to cyclical predeployment training governed by the FRTP, the Navy also has programs that 

train individuals that are newly reporting into Navy commands. Often called “schoolhouse” training, 

individual training is typically conducted in formal courses with syllabi and instructors including both 

classroom and field work. Individual training provides new military personnel with basic tactical 

knowledge, skills and abilities necessary for them to work within the unit and command to which they are 

assigned. 

1.4 THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE SSTC

SSTC plays a vital part in the execution of the operational readiness mandate. SSTC has historically been, 

and continues to be, a critical training range for west coast naval amphibious, special warfare, and mine 

countermeasure activities. 

1.4.1 SSTC Mission 

The mission of SSTC is to support U.S. Navy and Marine Corps amphibious, special warfare, and mine 

countermeasure training by providing local land, sea, and airspace support services; materiel; and training 

facilities that will help Naval and Marine Corps forces achieve and maintain the highest level of 

operational readiness. 

1.4.2 Strategic Attributes of SSTC 

SSTC is critical to Navy training programs due to its unique combination of attributes that cannot be 

duplicated anywhere else in the world. These attributes are described below. 

Proximity to the Homeport of San Diego. Southern California is home to the nation’s largest 

concentration of naval forces. One-third of the U.S. Pacific Fleet makes its homeport in San Diego, 

including two aircraft carriers, over 70 surface combatant ships, amphibious ships, and submarines; 

several aviation squadrons; and their officers and crews. Supporting these naval forces are a range of 

naval installations in San Diego, including Naval Amphibious Base (NAB) Coronado, NASNI, Naval 

Outlying Field (NOLF) Imperial Beach, Naval Base Point Loma, and Naval Base San Diego. SSTC’s 

central location amongst these installations makes it a critical training range for multiple Navy commands 

headquartered on the installations. These commands are described in Section 1.4.3. 

Local installations provide critical support to training on SSTC, including military command oversight for 

training, berthing and maintenance for vessel and aircraft used in training, housing for personnel being 

trained at SSTC, medical services for trainees, depots to supply training materials, and research and 

development services. The proximity of SSTC to equipment, personnel, facilities, and organizational 

services that are necessary for training at SSTC is vital to the execution of Navy training. SSTC provides 

an efficient training area for commands that are headquartered in San Diego; thereby enabling the 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 1-8 

commands to meet the aggressive schedules through which groups of trainees are cycled each year. 

Keeping up with these schedules is necessary to meet the manning needs of the fleet and ensure readiness 

for troop deployment. 

Proximity to Other Training Ranges in the Southwest. The Navy manages a concentrated network of 

training ranges in the southwestern United States, including SSTC. This network of ranges includes San 

Clemente Island, NASNI, Naval Air Facility El Centro, NOLF Imperial Beach, Naval Air Station Fallon, 

Remote Training Site Warner Springs, Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, Camp Michael Monsoor 

and ocean and air areas (Warning Area [W]-291) off the coast of Southern California. This network 

anchors a west coast regional training capability which provides complementary training resources for 

different levels and types of training, and is the most capable and heavily used concentration of Navy 

ranges in the eastern Pacific Region. Naval forces utilize each of the range areas as appropriate, 

depending on the training to be accomplished, and the training resources of a given range. SSTC is a 

critical asset within this network of training ranges, particularly in amphibious and special operations 

training. 

Proximity to Military Families. The region of San Diego is home to thousands of military families. Per 

NAVADMIN 300/6, the Navy is required to limit “personnel tempo” (i.e., the amount of time sailors 

spend away from home). Personnel tempo is an important factor in morale and retention. The centralized 

location of SSTC in San Diego allows the Navy to limit the amount of time sailors spend away from 

home. 

Training Environment and Terrain. The temperate, sub-tropical climate and the attendant dry summers 

of southern California allow for year-round training for Fleet readiness. The location of SSTC, with easy 

access to the oceanside’s rough waters and the bayside’s calm waters, allows personnel to start training in 

a calmer environment, and then quickly and easily transition to more challenging situations as their skills 

and fitness levels improve. SSTC is unique in this as there are no other training areas located in or around 

San Diego that have such a capability. Further, SSTC’s long stretches of open and accessible beach areas, 

established ocean anchorages, and the varied and vegetated inland terrain of SSTC-S, make the area ideal 

for amphibious, special warfare, and mine countermeasure training. 

1.4.3 SSTC Operational Users 

SSTC is critical to a wide-range of commands and units, many of which are headquartered on SSTC. 

These commands have invested decades of resources within and adjacent to SSTC and rely on SSTC to 

perform their daily training activities. 

Operational users conducting training at SSTC report to one of four major commands: 

• Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet Commander, Naval Surface Forces 

(COMNAVSURFOR); 

• Commander, Naval Special Warfare Command (COMNAVSPECWARCOM); 

• Commander, Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC); and 

• First Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF). 

COMNAVSURFOR. COMNAVSURFOR administers to assigned forces, conducts training, provides 

for logistics support, and exercises operational control of forces not assigned to other commanders as 

directed by Commander, U.S. Pacific. The mission of COMNAVSURFOR is to ensure maximum support 

is provided to maintain all surface units of the U.S. Pacific Fleet in the optimum state of training, 

readiness, discipline, and morale to ensure the maximum degree of readiness (Department of the Navy 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 1-9 

[DoN] 2004). COMNAVSURFOR has a variety of subordinate commands that are headquartered on 

SSTC-N including Naval Beach Group 1 and Maritime Expeditionary Security Group 1. 

COMNAVSPECWARCOM. COMNAVSPECWARCOM focuses on Special Warfare and is 

responsible for training, equipping, supporting, and providing trained and ready forces to combatant 

commanders ( DoN 2004). COMNAVSPECWARCOM and a number of its subordinate commands are 

headquartered on SSTC including: Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Group 1 and Naval Special Warfare 

Center, which runs the Basic Underwater Demolition/Sea, Air, and Land (SEAL) (BUD/S) training 

program. This training program is held only at SSTC; every recruit needs to complete the BUD/S course 

in order to become qualified as a Navy SEAL. Classes are conducted throughout the year. 

Commander, NECC. The mission of NECC is to organize, man, train, equip and maintain Navy 

expeditionary forces, be a global force provider of naval expeditionary capabilities to warfighting 

commanders, and to extend the maritime battlespace. NECC also provides effective waterborne and 

ashore anti-terrorism, force protection, and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief contingencies. Upon 

request, NECC supplements U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) homeland security requirements while training 

and equipping forces to support mission requirements. NECC has a number of subordinate commands 

that are headquartered on SSTC-N including: Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group 1 and Expeditionary 

Warfare Training Command Pacific (EWTGPAC) which have schools on SSTC. The schools provide 

scheduled year-round training for Navy sailors and Marines on SSTC. 

I MEF. I MEF is located at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (MCB CP). The mission of I MEF 

includes the training and predeployment certification of Marines, Marine units, and Marine Air Ground 

Task Forces. I MEF conducts the majority of its training on MCB CP, but occasionally trains at SSTC to 

diversify its training. 

1.4.4 Training Activities at SSTC 

Most of the training conducted at SSTC is individual-level, schoolhouse training discussed in Section 1.3. 

Two commands conduct individual-level schoolhouse programs at SSTC: NSW and EWTGPAC. NSW’s 

BUD/S program and SEAL Qualification Training build individual tactical abilities in multiple areas, 

including basic physical fitness, movement from water/air to land, reconnaissance, and basic field skills. 

EWTGPAC runs two individual-level and unit-level training programs at SSTC: Its Strategic Sealift 

program trains personnel in basic skills associated with the logistical movement of equipment and 

supplies from ship to shore; the Marine Raid and Troop Training Program prepares individuals and unitlevel teams in a variety of areas, including survival in-water, raids onto the beach, and reconnaissance. 

Integrated and sustainment phase training are also conducted at SSTC, to a lesser extent. Integrated phase 

training combines the elements of unit training into larger engagements in a simulated higher-threat 

environment. Integrated training differs from unit level training in complexity, intensity, duration, and 

level of threat. Sustainment phase training combines all the elements of the integrated phase into 

coordinated large-scale missions in a high-threat, combat environment in the period prior to deployment. 

Integrated and sustainment exercises are infrequent and occur primarily at sea, only occasionally 

including a small portion of SSTC. 

1.4.5 Navy Tactical Tasks at SSTC 

The content of U.S. military training is directed by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, who publishes the 

Universal Joint Task List [CJCSM 3500.04D]. Each of the military services develops specific statements 

of required tactical capabilities so military units are effective in organizing and maneuvering forces in 

battle to achieve a limited or immediate goal. The staff of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations 

published the Navy Tactical Task List 3.0, January 30, 2007, which provides the organizing structure of 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 1-10 

the training activities. Naval tactical capabilities are organized around seven major categories by Navy 

Tactical Task (NTA)/Marine Corps Task; four of the seven tasks are conducted at SSTC (Deploy/Conduct 

Maneuver, Develop Intelligence, Perform Logistics and Combat Service Support, and Protect the Force). 

Each major task is further defined by a hierarchy of subordinate tasks; detailed discussions of NTA 

subtasks that are currently performed or proposed at SSTC are described in Chapter 2. 

1.5 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to improve the availability and quality of training opportunities at 

SSTC to achieve required levels of operational readiness. In order to meet training requirements, the 

Navy proposes to continue current training activities, increase training tempo and types of training, 

conduct existing routine training at additional locations within SSTC’s established training areas, and 

increase access to and availability of existing beach and inland training areas. A detailed description of 

the Proposed Action is provided in Chapter 2. 

The Proposed Action is needed to provide a training environment consisting of training areas and range 

facilities with the capacity and capabilities to fully support required training tasks for operational units 

and military schools and meet the operational readiness requirements of Title 10 of the USC (10 USC 

5062). The Navy needs to: 

• Continue current training and increase the number of existing training activities and introduce 

new training activities and platforms in support of FRTP and surge requirements. 

• Provide assured year-round access and unencumbered use of training areas to meet current and 

future training needs per the Navy Tactical Task List. 

• Provide a training range and training facilities that afford operational commands the flexibility to 

achieve diverse and realistic training at SSTC. 

Each of these three needs is discussed in detail below. The Proposed Action would result in selectively 

focused, but critical enhancements and increases in training that are necessary if the Navy and Marine 

Corps are to maintain a state of military readiness commensurate with the national defense mission. 

1.5.1.1 Need for Increased and Improved Training at SSTC 

The Navy and Marine Corps are continuously adapting to meet changing military readiness requirements. 

A number of changes within the Navy and Marine Corps are transforming and increasing the training 

requirements on SSTC, including: 

• The Navy’s approach to pre-deployment training (the FRTP), that requires a unit be ready to 

deploy much earlier in the pre-deployment training cycle (i.e., the ability to surge-deploy). These 

training cycles require operational commands to increase their training tempos. 

• U.S. Special Operations Command’s force expansion and restructuring per the December 2002 

Office of the Secretary of Defense Program Decision Memorandum, which includes the increase 

of Naval Special Warfare personnel operating on NAB Coronado, equivalent to one additional 

SEAL team. 

• The Navy’s Total Force Strategy, under which EOD groups have initiated a forcewide 

realignment which emphasizes right-place, right-time training and has necessitated expanded use 

of Southwest Region training venues, including SSTC. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 1-11 

• The Congressionally-authorized surge in the strength of the Marine Corps to 202,000 active-duty 

personnel will in turn increase the number of Marine Corp personnel cycling through EWTGPAC 

training programs at SSTC. 

• Introduction of new platforms, training equipment and service life extension programs for 

existing equipment require Navy personnel to begin new training on the new/upgraded equipment 

while continuing to train on existing equipment. 

These changes reflect increasing and additional requirements for capabilities by overseas operational 

commanders like Central Command in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a need to accommodate increases in the 

number of personnel based in the southern California region. They’ll require an increase in training types 

and tempos at SSTC and North Island and the incorporation of new platforms (e.g., aircraft and 

equipment) into training at SSTC. They also will require better use of existing training areas within 

SSTC, but not an expansion of SSTC. 

1.5.1.2 Need for Year-round Access to Training Areas 

In 1983, the Navy initated consultations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because of the Navy’s 

proposed action to construct facilitites in support of the Light Airborne Multipurpose System MK III. In 

preparation for the consultation, the Navy concluded that the proposed action may affect about 68 

California least tern nests. California least tern is a federally-listed endangered bird under the ESA, and its 

displacement triggered a Section 7 consultation under ESA with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS). One of the results of the consultation was that 75 acres of Navy training beach at Delta North 

and South (Figure 1-2) were fenced and set aside as California least tern nesting areas. In 1984, the Delta 

beaches were formally designated as a least tern preserve and are not part of the areas utilized under the 

Proposed Action. 

Since then, the California least tern population has increased tenfold on SSTC, now reaching over 1,400 

nests. In addition, the California least tern has expanded its nesting range outside of Delta North and 

South, into and throughout SSTC-N's oceanside beach training lanes (Lanes 1 through 10). Throughout 

this period, the Navy has engaged in recurring ESA Section 7 consultations with the USFWS, with 

attention to ongoing military training on these lanes, and has implemented varying strategies to adapt to 

the growing California least tern nesting population and evolving Navy training needs at SSTC. These 

recurring consultations were conducted in parallel with the development of this EIS. 

Under the most recent Biological Opinion, FWS-SDG-3452.3 and associated extensions, the Navy sets 

aside three beach training lanes (Lanes 8, 9, and 10) for California least tern nesting from the beginning of 

April through September each year, in addition to expanded Delta North and South areas. The Navy 

restricts its training on these three training beaches for 6 months out of the year. 

In anticipation of potential increased training at SSTC, the Navy has conducted modeled schedule 

projections of future training to assess its near-future needs for the SSTC-N beach training areas (see 

Section 3.12.3.1). Results showed that the remaining seven SSTC-N oceanside beach lanes (Lanes 1 

through 7) will be insufficient to support future training tempo requirements. As such, the Navy needs 

additional year-round training space to support future deployment schedules and personal tempo 

requirements. 

1.5.1.3 Need for Flexibility and Realistic Training 

SSTC is located in a populated coastal area, and its use for realistic military training is constrained by 

adjacent residential, commercial, recreational, cultural, and sensitive natural resource uses. Operational 

constraints on training areas at SSTC make it challenging for Navy commands to support emerging and 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 1-12 

expected future training requirements. A training range that realistically simulates environments that 

operators will encounter overseas, and prevents encumbrances that adversely affect training, is an 

ongoing need of commands that train at SSTC. 

1.6 THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

NEPA requires federal agencies to examine the environmental effects of their Proposed Actions. This EIS 

is a detailed public document that provides an assessment of the potential environmental impacts 

associated with a proposed major federal action. The impacts to be analyzed are those that occur to the 

human environment, including natural and physical resources. The Navy is the lead agency for this EIS. 

NMFS is a cooperating agency, pursuant to 40 CFR Section 1501.6. NMFS has jurisdiction by law and 

special expertise on environmental issues that are being addressed in this EIS. 

1.6.1 NEPA Public Participation 

The first step in the NEPA process is the publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) by the action 

proponent after the decision is made to prepare an EIS. The NOI provides an overview of the proposed 

action and invites the public to participate in identifying the significant issues deserving of study (i.e., 

participate in scoping). The Navy initiated the process for determining the scope of issues by publishing a 

NOI to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register (66 FR 41009) on August 6, 2001. Copies of the NOI and 

the Agency Scoping Package were mailed to local, state, and federal elected officials; regulatory 

agencies; local municipal jurisdictions; public service providers; and other parties known or expected to 

be interested in the Proposed Action. A copy of the NOI is provided in Appendix A. 

Scoping is an early and open process for developing the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIS and for 

identifying issues related to a Proposed Action. During scoping, the public helps define and prioritize 

issues and convey these issues to the Navy through written comments. As part of the EIS scoping process, 

the Navy held meetings on August 28 and 29, 2001 in Coronado and Imperial Beach, respectively, which 

were designed to inform the public of the Proposed Action and to solicit the public’s participation and 

comments. The meetings were advertised and the NOI was published in the San Diego Union-Tribune

from August 6-8, 2001, in the Coronado Eagle on August 8, 2001, and in the Imperial Beach Times on 

August 9, 2001. At each meeting, Navy representatives provided an overview of the Proposed Action and 

alternatives, the NEPA process, training exercises at SSTC, and potential environmental issues on SSTC. 

Comment sheets were distributed for the public to submit their concerns and comments. A court reporter 

also was available at each meeting to record oral comments. 

Independent of the public scoping meetings, the Navy conducted additional focused interviews. These 

interviews occurred during the 45-day comment period and were designed to gather input from local city 

officials, regulatory agencies, and environmental organizations. Individual meetings were conducted 

between the Navy and the following: 

• Audubon Society 

• California Coastal Commission 

• California Department of Fish and Game 

• California Department of Parks and Recreation 

• San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 

• California State Lands Commission 

• City of Imperial Beach 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 1-13 

• NMFS 

• San Diego Association of Governments 

• San Diego Unified Port District 

• Sierra Club 

• Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

• USCG Marine Safety Office 

• USFWS 

• YMCA 

Participants in the scoping process identified several areas of interest and concern, and ideas for 

alternatives to the Proposed Action, which are addressed throughout this EIS. The scoping process 

resulted in commentary on a variety of topics; the majority of comments received were related to the 

description of alternatives, other training alternatives, snowy plovers and least terns, marine resources, 

threatened and endangered species, and effects on environmental health, safety, and recreation. 

A notice of availability was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 41009 [6 August 2001]) and notices 

were placed in the aforementioned newspapers announcing the availability of the Draft EIS. The Draft 

EIS is now available for general review and is being circulated for review and comment. Public meetings 

will be advertised and held to receive public comments on the Draft EIS. A Final EIS will be prepared 

that responds to public comments received on the Draft EIS. Responses to public comments may take 

various forms as necessary, including correction of data, clarifications of and modifications to analytical 

approaches, and inclusion of additional data or analyses. The Final EIS is then released and followed by a 

30-day waiting period during which the Navy cannot issue a decision document. 

Finally, a Record of Decision (ROD) will be signed by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations 

& Environment) and be issued, no sooner than 30 days after the Final EIS is made available to the public. 

The ROD will summarize the Navy’s decision and identify the selected alternative, describe the public 

involvement and agency decision-making processes, and present commitments to specific mitigation 

measures. 

1.6.2 Other Environmental Requirements Considered 

The Navy must comply with a variety of other federal environmental laws, regulations, and Executive 

Orders (EOs). These include (among other applicable laws and regulations) the following: 

• Clean Air Act 

• Coastal Zone Management Act 

• ESA 

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

• EO 13045, Environmental Health and Safety Risks to Children 

• Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) 

• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 1-14 

• Marine Mammal Protection Act 

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

• National Historic Preservation Act 

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

• Rivers and Harbors Act 

In addition, laws and regulations of the State of California appropriate to Navy actions are identified and 

addressed in this EIS. This EIS will facilitate compliance with applicable, appropriate state laws and 

regulations. 

1.7 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS

According to CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA, material relevant to an EIS may be incorporated 

by reference with the intent of reducing the size of the document (40 CFR 1502.21). Some of the 

programs and projects at the SSTC that have undergone, or are undergoing, environmental review and 

documentation to ensure NEPA compliance, and which are incorporated herein by reference, are listed 

below. All listings are authored by the Navy. 

• EA for the Naval Base Coronado Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) 

(2002) 

• EA for the San Diego Bay INRMP (2001) 

• Final EIS for Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (2003) 

• Marine Resource Assessment (MRA) for the SOCAL OPAREA (2005) 

• Naval Base Coronado INRMP (2002) 

• San Diego Bay INRMP (2000) 

• SOCAL Range Complex Final EIS / Overseas EIS (2008) 

• Programmatic EA for Grow the Force Permanent Bed Down Facilities at Marine Corps Base 

Camp Pendleton (2009) 
2 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-1 

2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

As presented in Chapter 1, the Navy proposes to implement actions within the Silver Strand Training 

Complex (SSTC). Components of the Proposed Action include 

• the continuation of current training and test and evaluation (T&E) activities conducted within the 

study area; 

• an increase in training tempo from baseline conditions and additions to types of training; 

• the carrying out of existing, routine training at additional locations within SSTC established 

training areas; 

• the introduction of new platforms and equipment; 

• increased access and availability to existing beach and inland training areas. 

Through implementation of the components listed above, the Proposed Action would support missionoriented requirements for SSTC through an increase in diverse and realistic training and improved 

accessibility to training areas. 

2.1 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

2.1.1 Alternatives Development 

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

consideration of alternatives in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Navy is required to 

rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable project alternatives; further, the Navy is 

required to briefly discuss the reasons for not evaluating those alternatives that were eliminated from 

further consideration and detailed study (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1502.14). 

Alternatives must also include a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative ensures that agencies 

compare the potential impacts of a proposed major Federal action to the known impacts of maintaining 

the status quo. The potential impacts of the No Action Alternative are compared to the potential impacts 

from activities proposed under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. 

2.1.2 Criteria for Developing Alternatives 

The alternatives were developed by the Navy after careful assessment by subject-matter experts, including 

units and commands that utilize SSTC, Navy environmental managers and scientists, and the 

consideration of public comments received during scoping. The Navy has developed a set of criteria for 

use in assessing whether a possible alternative meets the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action 

(refer to Section 1.5). These criteria require that SSTC 

1. meet the requirements of individual and unit-level training; 

2. achieve training tempo requirements based on Fleet deployment schedules; 

3. meet future training requirements with year-round, assured access to San Diego Bay, ocean, 

beach, and inland training areas; 

4. provide a realistic training environment that simulates real world littoral combat conditions; 

5. complete the full range of required training elements at SSTC; and 

6. provide co-location of commands, equipment, facilities, and infrastructure that support existing 

and future training to meet training and personnel tempo requirements. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-2 

2.1.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration 

2.1.3.1 Alternate Training Complex Locations 

Historically, as discussed in Section 1.2.3, SSTC continues to be a critical training range for the west 

coast naval amphibious and special warfare activities. SSTC derives its unique value and high utility for 

training of naval forces from its unique environment and terrain, as well as its proximity to the homeport 

of San Diego, other training ranges in the southwest, and military families. Local installations host naval 

organizations that provide military command oversight, facilities management, vessel and aircraft 

maintenance, depots to supply materials, and research and development services. The proximity of SSTC 

to equipment, personnel, facilities, and organizational services that are necessary for training at SSTC is 

vital to the efficient execution of Navy training. Training ranges outside of the San Diego area do not 

meet criteria #6, above, to provide co-location of commands, equipment, facilities and infrastructure that 

support existing and future training to meet training and personnel tempo requirements. SSTC is critical 

to Navy training programs due to its unique combination of attributes that cannot be duplicated. These 

unique attributes and training resources are described in detail in Section 1.2.3. These critical training 

resources are concentrated on SSTC, Naval Amphibious Base (NAB) Coronado, and portions of Naval 

Air Station, North Island (NASNI). 

Other military training areas located within the San Diego area, such as the Marine Corps Base (MCB) 

Camp Pendleton, San Clemente Island, Remote Training Site Warner Springs (RTSWS), do not meet the 

criterion necessary for amphibious and special warfare training (e.g. criteria #4). Further, these other 

training areas already sustain their own training activity schedules and priorities; thus, they would be 

unable to meet the tempo requirements of criteria #2. 

For the reasons outlined above, alternate training locations have been eliminated from further 

consideration in this EIS. 

2.1.3.2 Training Relocation to SSTC-S 

An alternative that would relocate part of or all training activities from SSTC-North (SSTC-N) to SSTCSouth (SSTC-S) was originally presented in the Notice of Intent for SSTC EIS as a component of 

Alternative 2 (Appendix A). The Navy considered the location of all of the training activities conducted 

on SSTC. Many training activities are already conducted on SSTC-S. The Navy considered each of the 

remaining activities on SSTC-N and found that it was not feasible to relocate them to SSTC-S because of 

its infrastructure and because of increased time requirements associated with planning, logistics, and 

training. 

SSTC-S beach lanes do not have the same physical attributes as their northern counterparts. The four boat 

lanes are more shallow in depth and do not provide adequate space for many activities, resulting in 

restricted maneuvering areas. The surf in front of SSTC-S has more sand bars, reducing its accessibility 

for landing craft; and there are no charted anchorage sites or moorings, which are required for some 

activities. Activities involving groups on foot originating out of housing and/or classrooms on SSTC-N 

would be infeasible because of the additional travel distance to SSTC-S—between two and six miles each 

way. Many training activities require facilities on SSTC-N that are not available on SSTC-S, including 

the extensive obstacle course on SSTC-N. Thus, this alternative cannot meet criteria #5 above because of 

the inability to train due to constraints or lack of resources at SSTC-S. 

In addition, the time required for planning, logistics, and transport would be increased if activities were 

relocated to SSTC-S. Increased planning time would be necessary due to working with training schedules, 

planning around lack of immediate highway access, and procuring and storing logistical transport 

vehicles. In addition, more planning and logistical time is involved in transporting the equipment and 

transition vessels berthed on NAB Coronado bayside around NASNI to arrive at the designated training 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-3 

site. As a result, training times would increase and training schedule requirements under criteria #2 and #6 

above would not be met. 

In addition, SSTC-S low-tide beaches are used by the public, while public use of SSTC-N beaches is 

restricted. This public usage would create additional training concerns and conflict with many activities in 

terms of safety (e.g., heavy equipment usage), security (clandestine attacks), and training realism. For the 

reasons outlined in this discussion, a relocation of training from SSTC-N to SSTC-S was eliminated from 

further consideration in the EIS. 

2.1.3.3 Training Reductions 

Reductions in training from current levels at SSTC would not support the Navy’s ability to meet training 

requirements consistent with the Fleet Readiness Training Plan (FRTP) (criteria #2 and #6). A reduction 

in the types, or tempo of training activities available at SSTC would mean that local units/users would 

have to routinely travel to other range complexes to fulfill training requirements. As outlined in Section 

2.1.3.1, this is not a feasible alternative. For these reasons, this alternative has been eliminated from 

further consideration in the EIS. 

2.1.3.4 Simulated Training 

An alternative that would rely entirely on computer-simulated training would not meet the purpose and 

need for the Proposed Action (Section 1.5). Although computer simulation is used to enhance combat 

performance, sailors and marines must be able to practice communicating, maneuvering, operating, 

repairing equipment, and firing weapons in as high-stress and realistic an environment as is possible, for 

days at a time, in order to achieve necessary levels of proficiency. Currently, the Navy (and Marine 

Corps) makes use of computer-simulated virtual training environments—the Navy conducts command 

and control activities without operational forces (constructive training) where possible. These training 

methods have substantial value in achieving limited training objectives. Computer technologies provide 

excellent tools for implementing a successful, integrated training program while reducing the risk and 

expense associated with military training. However, virtual and constructive training are an addition to, 

not a substitute for, live training. Unlike live training, simulated training does not provide the requisite 

level of training or realism necessary to attain combat readiness; and simulated training cannot replicate 

the high-stress environment encountered during an actual contingency situation (criteria #4 above). 

Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 

2.1.3.5 Construction and Use of Demolition Pit at SSTC-S 

An alternative that would construct a land demolition pit at SSTC-S for land detonation training was 

evaluated. Training activities evaluated under this alternative consisted of the detonation of explosives 

using various Net Explosive Weight (NEW) charges, up to 5 lbs, to fulfill requirements associated with 

explosive ordnance disposal and special warfare training. The Navy conducted noise modeling to predict 

the impulse sound levels the neighboring residences, recreational users, natural resources, etc., that use 

the land surrounding SSTC-S might experience from detonations in the proposed demolition pit. The 

Navy also evaluated other locations outside of SSTC for installation of demolition pit. In the end, the 

Navy found other potential locations and a different preferred location for land demolition training and 

will conduct separate NEPA documentation on these locations in the future as appropriate. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-4 

2.1.3.6 Allow Unrestricted Usage of Training Lanes 8, 9, and 10 if California Least Tern 

Nesting Threshold is Reached 

The Navy originally considered allowing full-year, unrestricted usage of Blue 2, Orange 1, and Orange 2 

beach lanes for training if 1,120 California least tern nests occur the previous year on Naval Base 

Coronado (NBC) property excluding nests in the lanes(s) (Blue 2, Orange 1, and/or Orange 2). If the 

nesting threshold was not met, the lanes would not be opened except in other proposed criterion. The 

intent of this consideration was to allow for unencumbered training while still ensuring a high level of 

California least tern nesting at SSTC. Under the nesting threshold of 1,120, the Navy would maintain 

more than its currently high percentage of breeding pairs (15 to 20 percent) at NBC necessary to support a 

viable population (5,000 pairs, as stated in Akcakaya et al. 2003). The California least tern nesting 

threshold was calculated as follows: 

NP = Number of pairs needed rangewide to maintain a viable population = 5,000 pairs, as 

provided in most recent population viability assessment (PVA) by Akcakaya et al. in 

2003. 

R = Ratio between nests observed statewide in a given year (8,173 nests in 2006) and the 

average between the estimated minimum and maximum number of breeding pairs 

statewide in the same year [(7,006 pairs + 7293 pairs) / 2], using 2006 data provided 

in the CDFG California Least Tern Breeding Survey (Marschalek 2007) (i.e. 8,173 

nests / 7,149.5 = 1.143 nests/pair). 

NBCF = Fraction of rangewide nests maintained on NBC lands = 1,605 nests on 

NBC/8,173 nests rangewide = 0.196, using data provided in the 2006 CDFG 

California Least Tern Breeding Survey. 

Nesting Threshold for the Least Tern = NP x R x NBCF = 5000 pairs x 1.143 nests/pair x 

0.196 = 1,120 nests. 

During consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), this criterion was eliminated from 

consideration and replaced with different criterion (Section 2.1.4). The USFWS felt that the criterion was 

too complicated, and that a nesting threshold would not be scientifically defendable. 

2.1.3.7 Creating more than or less than 22 concurrent buffered and marked avoidance 

areas for Western Snowy Plovers 

Currently, the Navy buffers and marks avoidance areas around each western snowy plover nest that 

establishes on SSTC. The Navy considered caps on the number of concurrent western snowy plover nests 

buffered at SSTC, as it was concerned that an increase in western snowy plover nesting population would 

adversely affect training. 

The Navy considered creating an avoidance cap of more than 22 concurrent western snowy plover nests, 

but found that that approach would render training lane(s) unusable. Twenty-two concurrent nests would 

translate into approximately two concurrent nests in each viable lane on SSTC (i.e., 14 training lanes 

excluding Lanes 1, 5, and 6, which have not historically had nests due to the shallow beach and 

hummocks). Two nests per lane could encumber 60 meters (m) of the 500 m beach lane width (12%). If 

the nests happen to be spaced closely together and/or close to the edge of the lane, the area in between the 

nests or between the nests and the edge of the lane may also become unusable for training (e.g., 40% of 

the training lane could be rendered unusable). Adding a third nest could render the entire lane unusable. 

Because of the potential impacts of 22 concurrent nests on military training on SSTC, the Navy also 

considered buffering less than 22 concurrent nests. However, the Navy believed that 22 nests would best 

support USFWS’s recovery criteria. The Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan provides a “management 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-5 

potential” for number of breeding birds broken down by location. The management potential for the 

action area is 95 breeding birds (including non-Navy Silver Strand State Beach (SSSB)). To meet the 

management potential, 48 pairs would need to be in the action area (including SSSB). NASNI supported 

at minimum 14 pairs in 2008, and SSSB supported 8 pairs. Assuming SSSB supports at least another 2 

pairs and the Delta Beaches another 2 pairs, 22 pairs would be needed at SSTC to meet the recovery goals 

in the action area. This does not include Coronado Beach which could also contribute to recovery of the 

western snowy plover. 

2.1.4 Proposed Action and Alternatives Considered 

Three alternatives are analyzed in this EIS: (1) The No Action Alternative, (2) Alternative 1, and (3) 

Alternative 2. These alternatives are summarized below and discussed in detail in the following sections. 

The No Action Alternative would continue baseline training activities. Approximately 3,926 activities are 

conducted. The Navy would also continue to operate under existing access restrictions. These include the 

restriction of training within beach lanes Blue 2, Orange 1, Orange 2, and Delta North and Delta South 

during the nesting season, except for designated beach crossing lanes. At SSTC-S, vehicle and foot traffic 

is not permitted in vernal pools. In addition, training is not permitted inside buffer zones that are 

established around all western snowy plover nests. 

Alternative 1 would increase training tempo from baseline conditions, conduct existing routine training at 

additional locations within SSTC established training areas, introduce new platforms and equipment into 

training, and increase access and availability to existing beach and inland training areas. Training would 

be allowed in Blue 2, Orange 1, and/or Orange 2 during the nesting season if other similar lanes are 

occupied or otherwise unavailable for use, or if attributes of these lanes make them more suitable for 

training than other similar lanes. The Navy would restrict training from occurring in buffer zones 

surrounding up to 22 western snowy plover nests at one time, not all western snowy plover nests. Also, 

the Navy would conduct training involving foot traffic, but not vehicle traffic, in the vernal pools when 

conditions are determined to be dry. 

Alternative 2 is identical to Alternative 1, except that the Navy would utilize all 7,000 yards of ocean 

beaches along SSTC-N and SSTC-S, and all bayside training beaches, except the Delta North and South 

nesting habitat (i.e., Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Echo, Foxtrot, Golf, and Hotel) for continuous, year-round 

training. Similar to the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, the Navy would continue to conduct 

existing management practices on these lanes, including, nest relocation, predator management and 

control, habitat modification, site preparation for maintenance, nest substrate enhancement, signage and 

education, recreational use restrictions, and rearing of collected eggs, injured and sick individuals. Delta 

North and Delta South would continue to be managed as a California least tern nesting habitat during the 

five to six month breeding season, and used for training during the non-nesting period. Monitoring of the 

California least tern and western snowy plover at SSTC-N oceanside beaches would be performed for 

effect and take associated with military training. 

2.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE: BASELINE TRAINING AND ACCESS RESTRICTIONS

The No Action Alternative would continue current training under baseline operational tempos. Access 

restrictions would remain unchanged. Details regarding the No Action Alternative are contained in the 

following subsections. 

2.2.1 Baseline Training Tempo 

Under the No Action Alternative, training activities would continue at baseline levels. Evaluation of the 

No Action Alternative in this EIS provides a baseline for assessing environmental impacts of Alternative 

1 and Alternative 2, as described in the following subsections. Baseline training activities conducted on 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-6 

SSTC are described below. Each military training activity described in this EIS meets a requirement that 

can be traced to requirements from the National Command Authority. The No Action Alternative’s 

current baseline tempo of 3,926 activities—organized into basic categories by Navy Tactical Tasks 

(NTA). 

Over the years, the tempo and types of training activities have fluctuated within SSTC because of 

changing environments, the introduction of new technologies, the dynamic nature of international events, 

advances in warfighting doctrine and procedures, and force structure changes. Such developments have 

influenced the frequency, duration, intensity, and location of required training. The factors influencing 

tempo and types of operations are fluid in nature, and will continue to cause fluctuations in training 

activities at SSTC. Accordingly, operational data used throughout this EIS are a representative baseline 

for evaluating impacts that may result from the proposed training activities under the No Action 

Alternative. 

The U.S. military commenced operations in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror; the 

deployment of units overseas caused many range complexes, including SSTC, to experience temporary 

decreases in usage. Additionally, the focus of individual and unit training has temporarily shifted from 

SSTC to inland (desert or mountainous) environments to prepare personnel for conditions they will 

encounter in combat operations overseas. Thus, historical usage at SSTC was evaluated to determine the 

baseline training tempo at SSTC. Training at SSTC is not only expected to return to normal baseline 

levels after the conclusion of military combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to increase beyond 

baseline levels to support organizational realignments and address new surge requirements. 

With reference to the selection criteria identified in Section 2.1.2, the No Action Alternative satisfies 

Fleet training requirements; however, because the No Action Alternative does not propose increases in 

operation it does not accommodate training associated with the changes discussed in Section 1.4. Also, 

the No Action Alternative does not introduce new platforms and equipment into the fleet; nevertheless, it 

provides a valuable baseline against which to assess Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. 

2.2.2 Description of Baseline SSTC Training 

SSTC has a key role in providing training assets in support of Navy, Marine Corps, and Special 

Operations individual and unit/Fleet training activities. A wide range of military commands, using a 

variety of personnel, vessels, vehicles, equipment, and aircraft, train at SSTC in different ways to meet 

their military readiness requirements. General descriptions of vessels, vehicles, and aircraft used in 

training activities is provided in Appendix B. A brief description of training activities are listed in Table 

2-1 which also presents an elaboration of tempos for baseline training, total number of days devoted to 

each activity and specific training location areas within SSTC. In practice, some training activities may be 

combined with others to create more comprehensive, integrated training. Each of the basic NTA 

categories listed encompasses defined activities that are listed following Section 2.2.2 in Table 2-1 and 

analyzed in this EIS by grouping components of each activity (aircraft operations, marine vessel use, 

underwater detonation, etc.). For purposes of later comparison, training tempos proposed under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 are also provided. 

As discussed in Chapter 1, tactical training activities as a part of the FRTP cover the spectrum of tactical 

training levels. Table 2-2 is representative of activities which are typical of the type of training that is 

currently being conducted at SSTC. The majority of activities are individual or unit level training 

consisting of 2 to 60 persons. Select activities coordinate and integrate multi-warfare missions from 

multiple units and, thus, are larger in scale, complexity, intensity, and duration. 

Maneuver—Move Forces (NTA 1.1.2). Anchoring, towing, and mooring to a buoy are conducted by 

marine vessels within the Silver Strand Anchorages Area, which lay south of Zuniga Point and within the 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-7 

colored boat lanes as far south as the Orange 1 boat lane. During mooring activities, Rigid Hull Inflatable 

Boats (RHIBs) support personnel transfer and observation. This training may be done day or night. 

Mine Countermeasures (NTA 1.3.1). Mine Countermeasures (MCM) and surface training at SSTC 

consist of activities conducted by Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), Naval Special Warfare (NSW), 

and Helicopter Sea Combat units and involve location, identification, neutralization, and management of 

floating or underwater ordnance. 

Simulated (inert) water mines may be floating, mid-column, or bottom-laid on the oceanside waters of 

SSTC-S from the shore. The mines are located and assessed using diving or swimming teams arriving on 

inflatable boats or para-dropped into the water from aircraft, typically UH-60 helicopters. Flares or smoke 

grenades may be used to signal personnel. Navy-owned marine mammals housed at Naval Base Point 

Loma are also sometimes used to locate mines. The simulated mines are neutralized using a variety of 

charges and at a variety of depths. The locations, depth and tempo of these activities are presented in 

Table 2-2. After neutralization, the mines may be raised, towed to shore, and beached. Water activities 

may also include the use of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) that hover over the ocean bottom 

and explore the area, photographing and collecting hydrographic information. 

Maritime Interdiction (NTA 1.4.6). Maritime Interdiction training at SSTC consists of Visit, Board, 

Search, and Seizure unit training activities for afloat units within the waters defined by SSTC-N beach 

lanes. The activities involve the interception, hailing, and armed boarding and search of a vessel 

underway or at anchor, primarily using boats, but sometimes involve helicopter assistance. 

Amphibious Operations (NTA 1.5.4). Amphibious activities at SSTC are designed to prepare personnel 

for insertion/extraction on the beach and dealing with aggressor forces on the beach. Insertion may occur 

via boat, swimming, aircraft, or vehicles. Expeditionary Warfare Training Group Pacific (EWTGPAC), 

First Marine Expeditionary Force, Naval Beach Group and NSW conduct these training activities. 

Amphibious training occurs throughout SSTC. 

Personnel learn to handle small inflatable craft, such as Combat Rubber Raiding Craft (CRRCs) and 

Inflatable Boats Small (IBSs), including navigation to and from the shore, passage through surf 

conditions, and landing on the beach. 

Personnel learn to tow the craft and launch them from larger Landing Craft Utility (LCUs) offshore. 

Preparation for landing may include hydrographic reconnaissance of bottom terrain and clearing of 

obstacles, as well as observation of surf rhythms. Once on the beach, personnel also train on dealing with 

aggressor forces, which may include the use of pyrotechnics and blanks to simulate attacks. Training also 

includes setting up a Craft Landing Zone for Landing Crafts, Air Cushioned (LCACs), or hovercrafts, to 

land on the beach. 

The LCAC operates in waters regardless of depth, underwater obstacles, shallows or adverse tides. It can 

proceed inland on its air cushion, clearing obstacles up to four feet, regardless of terrain or topography, 

including mud flats, sand dunes, ditches, marshlands, riverbanks, wet snow, or slippery and icy 

shorelines. 

Amphibious raids that can incorporate multiple amphibious activities are conducted at SSTC-S. Airborne 

raids can include insertion of personnel from helicopters that land on the beach or rappel from helicopters 

hovering over the beach. Waterborne raids include beaching of inflatable craft, landing craft, and 

hovercraft. The Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) is used in these waterborne raids and is an armored 

amphibious vehicle capable of seamlessly transporting Marines from Naval ships located beyond the 

visual horizon to inland objectives. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-8 

Surface raids include heavy tracked and light-wheeled vehicles offloaded from landing craft onto the 

beach. Activities may also include reconnaissance and response to mock enemy personnel on the beach. 

Naval Special Warfare (NTA 1.5.6). Training conducted under this NTA develops combat-ready NSW 

units, including Sea, Air, and Land (SEAL) teams, for clandestine Over-the-Beach (OTB) and 

amphibious assaults. Activities are conducted on both the bayside and oceanside of SSTC. NSW training 

on specialized, individual mission skills and physical fitness training (as opposed to Unit-level training) 

are categorized under NTAs 4.9.1 and 4.9.4, respectively. 

During OTB training, personnel approach a beach lane from the water in CRRCs. The team waits for an 

advance swimmer to signal the area is safe for landing. The team portages (carries their CRRC) to the 

other side of SSTC isthmus and continues the drill while being prepared for any threat or situation. 

Activities may include concealing small boats on the beach by covering them with sand or carrying them 

to another beach, where the group reenters the water. Alternatively, the team may be inserted in front of a 

beach jetty and instructed to portage their inflatable boats over the jetty as a team. Personnel may also 

proceed inland and perform stalking activities where they conceal themselves with vegetation and move 

and hide through vegetation. Often, hydrographic reconnaissance is included in this training. Amphibious 

assaults consist of amphibious landings and may include setting up multiple observation posts on the 

beach. Mock enemy personnel may be used in the activities to simulate attacks. Other activities include 

testing of vehicles and practicing vehicle patrolling on the beach. Breacher training is also conducted at 

SSTC-S on temporary doors and frames erected in or near the existing bunkers. Training on manual (e.g., 

sledgehammers), gas compression, and shotgun breaching techniques are performed on these temporary 

doors. 

Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance (NTA 2.2.3). This activity consists of Helicopter Rope 

Suspension Training (HRST)/Cast and Recovery Operation, performed by EOD and NSW units, and the 

use of SEAL Delivery Vehicle/Advanced SEAL Delivery System (SDV/ASDS) by SDV Teams. 

SDV/ASDS activities are composed of multiple individual activities, including navigation runs, 

hydrographic reconnaissance, OTB, and underwater detonation training. SEAL Delivery Systems were 

designed to reduce the risk to Navy Special Warfare forces (SEALs) when required to transit from a 

submarine to shore. The submersible is capable of operating independently or with other existing Navy 

ships and allows NSW teams to arrive near their target with only a short swim or immersion. 

During HRST training, personnel are attached to ropes, or slide on fast ropes, or jump into water from 

helicopters. Some activities require personnel to swim to shore from the drop site, and others extract the 

personnel from the site. HRST is the collective term for rappel, fast rope, and Special Insertion/Extraction 

activities. HRST systems were developed as a means to insert or extract ground force personnel 

(primarily reconnaissance teams) by helicopter into or from situations where aircraft landings are 

impractical due to terrain or tactical situations. Cast and Recovery activities deal with the delivery and 

retrieval of CRRC into open water from a helicopter. 

SDV/ASDS activities are composed of multiple individual activities, including navigation runs, 

hydrographic reconnaissance, OTB, combat swimmer, and underwater detonation training. Activities may 

culminate in Full Mission Profiles that are graded to certify personnel for deployment. 

Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-the-Shore (NTA 4.5.6). Naval Beach Group units 

and EWTGPAC provide support during amphibious assaults to load and unload ships with equipment and 

supplies without the benefit of deep draft-capable, fixed port facilities in friendly or undefended territory. 

Essentially, these units create and operate facilities ashore where no facilities exist, and bring equipment 

and supplies from ships at sea to ashore staging points for use by forces ashore. They require shore 

support activities including the use of heavy equipment. This type of activity is called Joint Logistics 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-9 

Over-the-Shore and is composed of several types of activities depending on what has to be done to unload 

the ships. 

Under this NTA, there are five basic Cargo Offloading and Transfer activities used. These include a rollon roll-off discharge facility, floating causeway insertion/retraction, barge ferry insertion/extraction of 

causeway piers, elevated causeways (ELCAS), and Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS) offload. The 

ELCAS provides an interface between lighterage (small craft designed to transport cargo or personnel 

from ship to shore) and shore by bridging the surf zone. It is assembled by joining standard causeway 

sections together and can be assembled in 10 days. 

Additional logistical training includes transfer of equipment from amphibious ships to LCUs, deployment 

of the Offshore Petroleum Discharge System (OPDS) and Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System 

(ABLTS), which transfer petroleum and water products to the shore (only water is used during training), 

and Landing Craft, Utility and Landing Craft, Mechanized (LCU/LCM) towing and beaching. OPDS 

provides a semipermanent, all-weather facility for bulk transfer of refined bulk petroleum (e.g., JP5 and 

JP8) directly from an offshore tanker to a Beach Interface Unit (BIU) located immediately inland from the 

high watermark. Major OPDS components are: the OPDS tanker with booster pumps and spread mooring 

winches, a recoverable Single Anchor Leg Moor (SALM) to accommodate four tankers up to 70,000 dead 

weight tons, ship to SALM hose lines, up to four miles of six-inch (internal diameter) conduit for 

pumping liquids to the beach (only one mile is used during training), and two Beach Termination Units 

(BTUs) to interface with the shoreside systems. The ABLTS Hosereel system provides the capability to 

deliver fuel and/or water from ship to shore. System includes 10,000 feet of six-inch buoyant hose for 

fuel, and 10,000 feet of four-inch buoyant hose for water. 

Beach party command posts may be established on the beach to support and direct onshore logistical 

activities. Beach camps and Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Units (ROWPUs) may be set up to 

support and supply personnel operating on the beach over multiple days. The ROWPU provides potable 

water from any water source. The ROWPU produces potable water from a variety of raw water sources 

such as wells, lakes, seas, lagoons, rivers, oceans and ice holes. The water is pumped from its raw source 

into the ROWPU module. Next, it is run through a multi-media filter where it undergoes ion exchange. It 

is then pumped through a cartridge filter which is usually spiral-wound cotton. This process clarifies the 

water of any particles larger than five micrometers and eliminates almost all turbidity. 

Mission Area (NTA 4.9.1). NSW conducts a comprehensive set of diving and ocean training classes, 

insertions, extractions, reconnaissance, information relay, Close Quarters Combat (CQC), and other 

training at SSTC. Combat-ready NSW units and physical fitness training are categorized under NTAs 

1.5.6 and 4.9.4, respectively. NSW Mission Area Qualification Training is composed of the following 

general activity categories: 

Naval Special Warfare Diving and Beach Activities. Numerous activities are performed to enhance NSW 

skills. Hydrographic Reconnaissance is conducted to survey underwater terrain conditions for amphibious 

landings. Reconnoitering of beaches and surf conditions are performed to find and clear underwater 

obstacles and to determine the feasibility of landing an amphibious force on a particular beach. Activities 

are also performed with Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V-Closed Circuit Breathing Diving which 

recirculates exhaust air. Trainees also must be comfortable with open-circuit Self-Contained Underwater 

Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) dive training to complete their training. Activities may include OTB 

activities (discussed under NTA 1.5.6). 

Naval Special Warfare Land Warfare. This training provides students with combat skills in the foot patrol 

of SSTC beach lanes and inland areas while in formations. Inert weapons are carried to simulate combat 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-10 

realism. Trainees are required to react to various situations such as defensive measures to perceived 

threats. 

Naval Special Warfare Advanced Training. This training provides classroom and practical training in 

special warfare. Personnel observe locations and record activity by photo images, sketching, or range 

estimation. Personnel learn to control Unmanned Aircraft System (UASs) for overhead flights for more 

observation. Similar activities entail the clandestine patrols of teams to assess risks of potential enemy 

forces. CQC / Close Quarters Defense activities train personnel with the skills to safely and efficiently 

move through a building. Activities may be performed in conjunction with OTB activities (discussed 

under NTA 1.5.6). Activities could also include insertion from helicopter or light wheeled vehicles to 

secure a building or area for a larger team. Classroom training may also be conducted in communications 

and special programs. Through a culmination of learned skills, classroom and experiential, students are 

trained for any possible situation. Squadron Integrated Training (SIT) brings team members, equipment, 

air assets, and EOD components of a squadron together for conducting a one-mission or multi-mission 

scenario. SIT incorporates many skills including reconnaissance, data collection and analysis, and urban 

movement. 

Physical Fitness Training (NTA 4.9.4). NSW and other units conduct a wide variety of physical training 

for individuals stationed on SSTC. Personnel must complete timed runs, marches with backpacks, boat 

paddling and portages, and ocean swims in a variety of temperatures, terrains, distances, and surf 

conditions to pass the training requirements. Occasionally, military working dogs also engage in physical 

conditioning activities. The obstacle course on Yellow 2 beaches are used to assist in physical 

conditioning. 

Industrial and Environmental Health Services (NTA 4.12.6). Navy Environmental and Preventive 

Medicine Unit Five provides consultation and recommendations in matters of preventive medicine and 

environmental health to commands afloat and ashore. They conduct environmental health site 

assessments to understand the potential health risks in operational environments. Training at SSTC is 

usually conducted as part of another training event and consists of establishing a small camp and 

interacting with other units. Students learn how to provide preventative medicine to field personnel. Part 

of their training may include learning to conduct and analyze air and soil samples in areas where 

operations occur. 

Protect Against Combat Area Hazards (NTA 6.1.1). MCM and surface activities at SSTC consist of 

training activities conducted by EOD units and involve location, identification, neutralization, and 

management of surface emplaced ordnance. 

Simulated (inert) surface emplaced munitions may be placed or buried on the beach or inland throughout 

SSTC. The munitions are located using a variety of methods, including mounted and dismounted 

searching, probing techniques and metal detectors. Buried munitions may require hand tools and digging 

for excavation. Once exposed and identified, the simulated munitions may be transported offsite for 

neutralization. Training may include OTB activities where personnel are inserted into the water via boat 

or helicopter, clandestinely move towards shore and inland areas, perform land patrolling and 

reconnaissance activities, and may include reaction to simulated attacks from aggressor forces using 

pyrotechnics and blanks. 

Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of Operations (NTA 6.3.1). These activities are conducted 

by Naval Coastal Warfare (NCW), Harbor Defense Command Units, and Mobile Inshore Undersea 

Warfare Units throughout SSTC and the San Diego Bay. Joint Exercises with personnel from EOD and 

Amphibious Construction Battalion can periodically occur as schedule and unit availability dictates. The 

activities consist of a field training event, conducting port and coastal waterborne force protection, harbor 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-11 

defense, seaward security, as well as military activities other than war. Manning can vary from 50 to 

1,000 personnel depending on scope and participation of the activity. During field training, NCW 

campsites include erection of tents (communication gear, conference room, operations center, operational 

galley, field mess, and 14-person berthing tents) and generators. When NCW boat units participate, up to 

30 small armed patrol boats (32-foot) are used to conduct simulated patrol missions on San Diego Bay, in 

the vicinity of NAB Coronado. The field activity lasts from four to 14 days. 

Combat Terrorism (NTA 6.3.3). Small attacks are conducted on boats within SSTC anchorages and 

SSTC-N boat lanes. Afloat Training Group coordinates the training event, providing observers and 

assisting in providing small attack boat services. For this activity, one or two small boats or personal 

watercraft conduct attack activities on units afloat. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-12 

Table 2-1: Baseline and Proposed Tempos for SSTC Training Activities 

# ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION LOCATION

DAYS TO 

COMPLETE EACH 

EVENT

EVENTS PER 

YEAR

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVES 

1&2 

NTA 1.1.2 Conduct Maneuver-Move Forces 

1 Anchoring 

Surface ship or small craft crew develop 

proficiency in precision anchoring at 

designated anchorage. 

Anchorages 1 72 72 

2 Towing 

Surface ship or small craft crew develop 

proficiency in towing and being towed 

exercise. 

SSTC-N Boat Lanes 

1-10 1 30 30 

3 Moor to Buoy Surface ship or small craft crew develop 

proficiency in mooring to a buoy. 

SSTC-N Boat Lanes 

1-10 1 36 36 

NTA 1.3.1 Perform MCM 

4 Parachuting 

Personnel parachute from aircraft into water 

or land drop zones. Flares or smoke grenades 

may be used to signal personnel. 

All SSTC Boat 

Lanes 1-14 

SSTC-S Inland 

Echo 

1 216 228 

5 MCM 

Activities are performed from a small craft to 

locate and identify suspected ordnance either 

at mid-column or on the sea floor at a water 

depth of ≤ 72 feet. A detachment dives to 

locate the suspected ordnance. Once located, a 

single explosive charge (10-20 pounds NEW) 

is placed next to the ordnance to neutralize it. 

The neutralized mine is then raised, towed to 

shore, and beached. 

All SSTC Boat and 

Beach 

Lanes 1-14 1 32 58 

6 Floating Mine 

Personnel are inserted into the ocean via 

helicopter or 24-foot vessel, swim to the 

floating mine in water depths of less than 72 

feet, and place a single explosive 

countercharge (less than 5 pounds NEW) on 

the mine. The team retreats a safe distance 

prior to command detonation of a single 

countercharge. 

All SSTC Boat 

Lanes 1-14 1 25 53 

7 Dive Platoon 

Divers are inserted into the ocean via 

helicopter or 24-foot vessel, dive to depths of 

30-72 feet and detonate sequential charges on 

an inert mine shape placed on the bottom with 

3.5 pounds NEW. 

All SSTC Boat 

Lanes 1-14 1 8 8 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-13 

Table 2-1: Baseline and Proposed Tempos for SSTC Training Activities (Continued) 

# ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION LOCATION

DAYS TO 

COMPLETE EACH 

EVENT

EVENTS PER 

YEAR

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVES 

1&2 

8

Very Shallow 

Water (VSW) 

Operator Course 

Personnel gain proficiency in the use of new 

equipment during diving activities. One to two 

RHIBs transport personnel to the site to 

conduct the training course. 

All SSTC Boat 

Lanes 1-14 8 4 6 

9 VSW MCM 

Locating, identifying, and neutralizing mines 

(placing explosives on mines for the purposes 

of destroying them) placed either mid-column 

or on the sea floor at a water depth of ≤ 24 feet 

(10-20 pounds NEW). Personnel are 

transported to a location in one to two RHIBs 

and place transponders into the water. The 

transponders hover over the bottom to provide 

divers with shallow-water navigation 

instruction. 

All SSTC Boat 

Lanes 1-14 

Alpha, Bravo, 

Charlie, Echo 

1 120 156 

10

Autonomous 

Underwater 

Vehicle (AUV)/ 

Unmanned 

Underwater 

Vehicle (UUV) 

Training on use of AUVs and UUVs. One to 

two RHIBs are used to transport personnel to a 

site. Two transponders are placed in the water, 

with an AUV between them. AUVs and UUVs 

explore the area, photograph, and collect 

hydrographic information. After analysis is 

complete, appropriate Navy marine mammals 

are dispatched to localize and mark potential 

objects, followed by divers who clear the area 

of identified hazards. Approximately 3% of 

activities involve placing a single 10-15 pound 

NEW charge in water depths from 10 to 72 feet 

on the oceanside, on the bottom or up to 20 

feet from the surface, to neutralize the 

simulated mine. 

All SSTC Boat 

Lanes 1-14 

Breakers Beach 

Delta I, II, and 

Delta North 

1 120 156 

11

MK8 Marine 

Mammal/Marine 

Mammal Systems 

(MMS) 

SCUBA assisted personnel and Navy marine 

mammals work together to detect specified 

underwater objects. Personnel work with the 

help of marine mammals to detect underwater 

objects. Approximately 10% of training 

involves the setting of a 13- or 29-pound NEW 

charge to detonate the objects. Sequential 

detonations operate at water depths of 10 to 72 

feet and are bottom laid. Single charges are 

laid within water depths of 24 to 72 feet, 20 

feet from the surface or below. 

All SSTC Boat 

Lanes 1-14 

Breakers Beach 1 175 208 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-14 

Table 2-1: Baseline and Proposed Tempos for SSTC Training Activities (Continued)

# ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION LOCATION

DAYS TO 

COMPLETE EACH 

EVENT

EVENTS PER 

YEAR

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVES 

1&2 

12 Mine 

Neutralization 

Personnel are inserted via helicopter or 

vessel for underwater demolition training 

consists of eight sequential charges placed on 

the sea floor using 3.5-pound NEW explosive 

charges on various inert mine shapes in water 

depths of 30 to 72 feet to maintain 

qualifications. 

All SSTC Boat 

Lanes 1-14 1 4 4 

NTA 1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interdiction 

13 Visit, Board, 

Search, and Seizure 

Activity involves multi-national training 

consisting of interception, hailing, and armed 

boarding and search of a vessel underway or 

at anchor from another vessel. 

SSTC-N Boat 

Lanes 1-10 

Naval Base San 

Diego 

1 30 42 

NTA 1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations 

14 Small Boat 

Handling 

Consists of maneuvering a CRRC in a 

confined space (individual and unit training). 

Consists of students conducting various 

approaches to a pier. 

Foxtrot 1 94 94 

15

Swimmer 

Conditioning – Bay 

and Ocean with fins 

Involves timed San Diego Bay and ocean 

swims with fins in a variety of conditions 

where groups of students participate in 

training. Swim course prepares students with 

progressive difficulty and varied 

conditioning swims. 

SSTC-N Boat 

Lanes 1-10 

Foxtrot 

1 189 189 

16

Basic 

Reconnaissance 

Course Final 

Mission 

Insertion of persons in small groups offshore 

by dropping personnel and small inflatable 

boats via helicopter (helocasting). Each 

group proceeds to shore in the boats, beaches 

their boats, and proceeds inland. Training 

scenarios may include shore observation 

prior to landing, and clandestine movements 

from the surf to inshore locations. 

All SSTC-S Boat 

and Beach 

Lanes 11-14 

SSTC-S Inland 

Waters outside 

boat lanes 

1 8 8 

17 Obstacle Course 

Personnel navigate the obstacle course that is 

established on the Yellow 2 Beach on SSTCN. The obstacle course is often combined 

with a run on SSTC-N oceanside beaches. 

SSTC-N Beach 

Lane-Yellow 2 1 138 142 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-15 

Table 2-1: Baseline and Proposed Tempos for SSTC Training Activities (Continued)

# ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION LOCATION

DAYS TO 

COMPLETE EACH 

EVENT

EVENTS PER 

YEAR

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVES 

1&2 

18 Hydrographic 

Reconnaissance 

Students swim and survey underwater terrain 

conditions from small watercraft or nearshore insertion on reconnaissance missions to 

find underwater obstacles and identify 

conditions for a beaching party. The training 

may also include the clearing of obstacles. 

Swimmers use weights and soundings to 

measure depth and the activity occasionally 

includes foot patrols on the beach. 

All SSTC Boat 

Lanes 1-14 

Breakers Beach 

Delta III 

1 40 44 

19 Surf Observations 

(SUROBS) 

Groups of students clandestinely patrol to a 

predetermined position on the beach to 

observe, monitor, and analyze the various 

surf rhythms and conditions. 

All SSTC-N Beach 

Lanes 1 116 116 

20

CRRC/IBS Surf 

Passage/ Boat 

Team Organization 

and Function 

Groups of students show their competence in 

navigation of CRRCs and inflatable boat 

small from the beach out through the surf 

zone to a predetermined point, simulate 

evacuation and recovery, flip and right, and 

return to shore through the surf. Boat teams 

may launch from an amphibious ship up to 

50 miles offshore. This is designed to 

develop offshore, over-the-horizon 

navigation skills. Students may also perform 

conditioned swims. 

SSTC-N Boat 

Lanes 1-10 

Breakers Beach 

Foxtrot 

1 72 72 

21

CRRC Towing and 

High Speed 

Maneuver 

Preparation of CRRCs for towing by another 

craft and also towing another craft. Students 

in boats maneuver vessels at high speeds in 

formations with other boats. 

Echo, Foxtrot, Golf 1 8 8 

22

CRRC / LCU 

Launch and 

Recover Bay and 

Ocean 

Students launch CRRCs from a LCU into the 

water from SSTC-N piers or SSTC beach. 

The CRRCs are then recovered by personnel. 

All SSTC Boat and 

Beach 

Lanes 1-14 

Delta I, II, Echo 

1 24 24 

23

CRRC Navigation, 

Bay and Ocean 

Runs 

Demonstration of competence in piloting and 

navigation of CRRCs in the San Diego Bay 

and ocean. 

All SSTC Boat and 

Beach 

Lanes 1-14 

Echo, Foxtrot, Golf 

1 26 26 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-16 

Table 2-1: Baseline and Proposed Tempos for SSTC Training Activities (Continued)

# ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION LOCATION

DAYS TO 

COMPLETE EACH 

EVENT

EVENTS PER 

YEAR

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVES 

1&2 

24

Amphibious Raid 

Course Final 

Mission 

A maximum of 110-130 students train 

simultaneously. Students embark from 

SSTC-N piers and transit to NASNI via 

landing craft that launch inflatable boats that 

proceed to the NASNI beaches. 

Breakers Beach, 

Echo, Foxtrot, 

Golf, 

NASNI, and San 

Diego Bay waters 

around NASNI 

1 24 24 

25 Amphibious Raid 

May include insertion of up to 150 personnel 

in various mission scenarios. Personnel may 

be inserted onto shore via helicopter 

hovering or landing; AAVs; and/or CRRCs 

launched from an amphibious ship offshore, 

and landing craft. When on shore, personnel 

activities may include reconnaissance for 

intelligence gathering, preparation for dive 

activities, manual and machine excavations, 

and use of small arms (blanks) and 

pyrotechnics. 

SSTC-S Boat 

Lanes 11-14 

SSTC-S Inland 

3 2 18 

26 Direct Action (DA) 

Similar to Amphibious Raid, includes 

insertion of up to 90 personnel onto the shore 

via helicopter, CRRCs, and/or light wheeled 

vehicles. Reconnaissance, dive activities, 

small arms (blanks), pyrotechnics, 

simunitions, boat breaching, snipers (w/bullet 

traps), and beach patrols are all part of the 

complete activity. Personnel may proceed 

inland and perform live fire of small arms 

inside the bunkers and breaching outside the 

bunkers. 

SSTC-S Boat 

Lanes 11-14 

SSTC-S Inland 

3 2 18 

27 Craft Landing Zone 

(CLZ) 

CLZ Team surveys and marks beach for one 

LCAC ingress/egress. Provides personnel to 

safely guide LCAC to designated shore 

landing area. 

All SSTC Boat and 

Beach 

Lanes 1-14 

Breakers Beach 

1 4 4 

NTA 1.5.6 Conduct NSW 

28

Swimmer/CRRC 

OTB Insertions/ 

Extraction with 

Pyrotechnics/ 

Blanks 

Raiding parties launch approximately 1,000 

yards off beaches allowing for swimmers to 

swim ahead and scout the beach and then 

allow CRRCs to proceed to the beach. May 

include patrols on the beach and inland, 

burying CRRCs in vegetation to conceal 

them, and use of small arms, blanks, and 

pyrotechnics to simulate attacks. 

All SSTC Boat and 

Beach 

Lanes 1-14 

SSTC-Inland 

4 52 86 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-17 

Table 2-1: Baseline and Proposed Tempos for SSTC Training Activities (Continued)

# ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION LOCATION

DAYS TO 

COMPLETE EACH 

EVENT

EVENTS PER 

YEAR

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVES 

1&2 

29 OTB Stalk 

Personnel swim to the beach from CRRCs 

that were helo-cast into the water. SEAL 

team personnel then clandestinely move up 

the beach to scout an area. 

All SSTC-S Boat 

and Beach 

Lanes 11-14 

SSTC-Inland 

1 16 24 

30 Immediate Action 

Drills 

Personnel swim to the beach from CRRCs 

that were helo-cast into the water. Mock 

enemies fire blank ammunition and use 

pyrotechnics; the raiding party takes evasive 

action in response. 

All SSTC-S Boat 

and Beach 

Lanes 11-14 

SSTC-S Inland 

1 8 12 

31 Breacher Training 

Training designed to provide experience 

knocking down doors to breach a building or 

structure. 

Breacher training provides training for 

entering a building or structure using manual, 

compressed gas, torch, or shotgun. 

Conducted at SSTC-S inside the fence line, 

frequently temporary doors and frames are 

constructed to simulate exterior and interior 

door breaching. 

SSTC-S Inland 

(Bunker 98, 

Interior of Bunker 

99) 

1-5 9 20 

32 Amphibious 

Warfare 

Comprehensive training that includes 

insertion onto and extraction from the beach, 

noncombatant evacuation, and hydrographic 

reconnaissance. 

SSTC-N Boat and 

Beach Lanes 1-8 

SSTC-S Boat and 

Beach 

Lanes 11-14 

Bravo, Delta I, II, 

III, Echo, Fox, 

Golf, Hotel 

1 50 84 

33 Mobility Primary 

Mission Area 

Personnel are inserted onto the beach via 

RHIBs or Mark V SOC. Provides hands on 

training on gear set up configurations, 

reconnaissance of the beach, and develops an 

observation base. 

SSTC-N Boat and 

Beach Lanes 1-8 

SSTC-S Boat and 

Beach 

Lanes 11-14 

Bravo, Delta I, II, 

III, Echo, Fox, 

Golf, Hotel 

1 200 200 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-18 

Table 2-1: Baseline and Proposed Tempos for SSTC Training Activities (Continued)

# ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION LOCATION

DAYS TO 

COMPLETE EACH 

EVENT

EVENTS PER 

YEAR

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVES 

1&2 

34 Escape and Evasion This activity is designed to enhance boat 

operators’ skills in escape and evasion 

techniques. The activity consists of 

simulated attacks on special operations 

crafts. Two RHIBs and two-Mark V SOC 

are used for the training. 

SSTC-N Boat and 

Beach Lanes 1-8 

Bravo 1 20 84 

NTA 2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance 

35 Helicopter Rope 

Suspension 

Training/Cast & 

Recovery 

Insertion and/or extraction of ground force 

personnel (primarily reconnaissance teams) 

by helicopter into or from rough terrain or 

urban areas. Cast and recovery of inflatable 

boats and personnel into the water, 

rappelling and fastroping over land and 

water. Some activities require personnel to 

swim to shore from the drop site and others 

extract the personnel from the site. 

All SSTC Boat and 

Beach 

Lanes 1-14 

SSTC-S Inland 

Alpha, Bravo, 

Charlie, Delta I, II, 

III, Echo, Hotel, 

Foxtrot 

1 124 154 

36 Rappel & Fast 

Rope Training 

Rappelling from the rappel tower north of 

the obstacle course that is located on Yellow 

Beach. 

SSTC-N Beach 

Lane 1-Yellow 1 6 11 

37 SEAL Delivery 

Vehicle (SDV)/ 

Advanced SEAL 

Delivery System 

(ASDS) 

Certification to 

Deploy 

Designed to certify SDV Team operators for 

deployment, activities include DA, 

reconnaissance, and/or counter-terrorism 

activities. Training may include navigation 

runs into and out of the San Diego Bay, 

hydrographic reconnaissance, OTB training, 

combat swimmer, and underwater detonation 

training (a single timed charge of 10 pound 

or less NEW in water depths of 24 feet or 

less placed from mid-water column to the 

seafloor), that may be conducted in 

coordination with other training activities. 

All SSTC-N Boat 

and Beach 

Lanes 1-10 

Delta III, Echo, 

Foxtrot, Golf, 

Hotel 14 14 40 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-19 

Table 2-1: Baseline and Proposed Tempos for SSTC Training Activities (Continued)

# ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION LOCATION

DAYS TO 

COMPLETE EACH 

EVENT

EVENTS PER 

YEAR

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVES 

1&2 

NTA 4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-the-Shore 

38

Offshore Petroleum 

Discharge System 

(OPDS) 

Consists of five training subcomponents 

including the Beach Termination Unit 

(BTU), Operation Utility Boat (OUB) 

Technicians, OUB Coxswain, Dive Boat 

Operation Technician, and Single Anchor 

Leg Moor (SALM) Training. This activity 

trains personnel in the transfer of petroleum 

(though only sea water is used during 

training) from ship to shore. From 

approximately 1 mile offshore, the OUB 

technicians and underwater construction 

team divers roll out conduit from a ship 

offshore, deploy the SALM mooring which 

sinks to and settles on the ocean floor, and 

use anchors at various points along the 

conduit to secure it to the seafloor. The 

conduit terminates at the shore location of 

the BTU manifold. 

All SSTC-N Boat 

and Beach 

Lanes 1-10 

Bravo 

Waters outside of 

boat lanes 

25 6 6 

39

Amphibious Bulk 

Liquid Transfer 

System (ABLTS) 

Deployment of the ABLTS. Using warping 

tugs to deploy a 10,000-foot-long floating 

liquid (seawater) transfer conduit from a 

commercial tanker to a Beach Interface Unit 

(BIU) onshore. 

All SSTC-N Boat 

and Beach 

Lanes 1-10 

Bravo 

15 4 5 

40

Barge Ferry 

Causeway/ 

Coxswain Training 

Navigation course for the barge ferry 

consisting of navigation, beaching and 

retracting drills, and surf handling. Beaching 

drills include connecting causeway sections. 

A barge ferry consists of one powered 

causeway section connected to one or more 

nonpowered sections. 

All SSTC-N Boat 

and Beach 

Lanes 1-10 

Bravo 

1- 3 34 54 

41

Causeway Pier 

Insertion and 

Retraction 

Bulldozers dig notches in the beach in order 

to make an anchor point for the floating pier 

which is beached using a barge ferry. Pier 

sections are added end-to-end until the 

causeway extends out over the surf zone. 

Training is conducted on both older 

causeway systems and on the newer, 

improved Navy lighterage system (INLS). 

SSTC-N Boat and 

Beach Lanes 3-10 

Bravo 

2 -5 9 10 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-20 

 Table 2-1: Baseline and Proposed Tempos for SSTC Training Activities (Continued)

# ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION LOCATION

DAYS TO 

COMPLETE EACH 

EVENT

EVENTS PER 

YEAR

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVES 

1&2 

42 ELCAS A pier is constructed off of the beach The 

pier is designed to allow for offload of 

materials and equipment from supply ships. 

Piles are driven into the sand with an impact 

hammer. Causeway platforms are then 

hoisted and secured onto the piles with 

hydraulic jacks and cranes. The ELCAS 

pier, including associated piles, is removed 

at the conclusion of training. 

All SSTC-N Boat 

and Beach 

Lanes 1-10 

Designated Bravo 

Beach training lane 8 -10 2 4 

43 Establish Beach 

Party Command 

Post 

Establishment of a command post. Training 

includes using bulldozers and backhoes to 

dig ravines and perimeter trenches and 

adding camouflaging netting to provide 

defensive security. Latrines are setup and 

mobile generators are brought in for power. 

An observation post is set up. Mock 

aggressors may be dispatched to simulate an 

attack. 

All SSTC-N Boat 

and Beach Lanes 1-

10 

4 16 16 

44 Sterngate Marriage 

to Amphibious 

Ship/LCU; 

Embark/Debark 

Welldeck 1 

An amphibious ship is linked with an LCU. 

The LCU drops its bow ramp and 

approaches an amphibious vessel in order to 

transfer personnel, rolling stock, and 

supplies without embarking the vessel. LCU 

Embark/Debark requires the amphibious 

ship to lower down by releasing ballast water 

in order to embark the LCU in the welldeck 

or debark from the welldeck. 

All SSTC-N Boat 

and Beach Lanes 1-

10 

Waters outside 

boat lanes 1 40 40 

45 LCU/ LCM 

Beaching 

Personnel practice navigating the surf and 

beaching LCUs and LCMs and rescuing 

beached watercraft. Bulldozers may also 

assist pushing the craft off the beach. 

All SSTC Boat and 

Beach Lanes 1-14 

Designated Bravo 

Beach training lane 

1 60 60 

46 LCU/LCM 

Towing/Being 

Towed 

Training with LCUs and LCMs allow pilots 

to practice rescuing beached water craft via 

towing. Bulldozers may also assist pushing 

craft off the beach. 

All SSTC-N Boat 

and Beach Lanes 1-

10 

Designated Bravo 

Beach training lane 

1 60 60 

47 Communications 

Training 

Personnel train in setting up a radio and 

practicing communications procedures. 

All SSTC-N Beach 

Lanes 

SSTC S Inland 

Bravo, Delta I, II, 

III 

2 1 2 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-21 

Table 2-1: Baseline and Proposed Tempos for SSTC Training Activities (Continued)

# ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION LOCATION

DAYS TO 

COMPLETE EACH 

EVENT

EVENTS PER 

YEAR

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVES 

1&2 

48 Field Training with 

a Beach Camp 

Provides training in the establishment and 

disestablishment of a self-sustaining camp of 

up to 850 persons. The camp includes 

erection of tents (operational galley, field 

mess, shower and latrine units, and 

berthing), generators and boiling units, light 

panels, refrigeration units, laundry units, and 

water purification units. Mock aggressor 

may also be used to attack the campsite. 

All SSTC-N Beach 

Lanes 14 1 2 

49

Maritime 

Prepositioning 

Ships (MPS) 

Offload 

Materials and supplies are offloaded from an 

amphibious ship offshore onto a RRDF, a 

causeway platform. 

All SSTC-N Boat 

and Beach Lanes 1-

10 

5 1 2 

50

Reverse Osmosis 

Water Purification 

Unit (ROWPU) 

ROWPU is set up on the beach and extracts 

seawater and converts it into potable water 

via reverse osmosis and chlorination. The 

unit includes a generator with berms 

constructed around it to provide support. 

All SSTC-N Beach 

Lanes 4 4 4 

51

Roll-On Roll-Off 

Discharge Facility 

(RRDF) 

Causeway platforms are set up off the beach 

and supplies are transferred from a ship to 

the beach. The causeway sections are 

inserted onto the beach by ferry barges 

which are piloted by personnel performing 

concurrent training. 

All SSTC-N Boat 

and Beach Lanes 1-

10 

Foxtrot 

5 1 2 

52 MPFUB Operator 

Course 

MPFUB Operator Course includes pier 

approaches, surf salvage, beaching and 

retracting on the oceanside, offshore 

maneuvering, towing, and offshore 

navigating. 

All SSTC-N Boat 

and Beach 

Lanes 1-10 

Designated Bravo 

Beach Training 

Lane, Delta I, II, III 

9 2 2 

53 LARC V Operator 

Training 

Training with LARC Vs allow pilots to 

practice start-up/shut-down procedures, 

maintenance, towing, anchoring, 

maneuvering on land and at sea, and surf 

negotiation. 

SSTC-N Boat and 

Beach 

Lanes 1, 2, 5-8 

Delta I, II, III 

6 1 1 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-22 

Table 2-1: Baseline and Proposed Tempos for SSTC Training Activities (Continued)

# ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION LOCATION

DAYS TO 

COMPLETE EACH 

EVENT

EVENTS PER 

YEAR

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVES 

1&2 

NTA 4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training 

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 

Lung Automatic 

Rebreather (LAR) 

V Closed Circuit 

Breathing Diving 

Training on usage of the LAR V, and 

underwater breathing device that 

recirculates exhaust air. This allows the 

diver to stay submerged and remain 

undetected. 

Alpha, Bravo, 

Charlie, Delta III, 

Echo, Fox, Golf, 

Hotel, Glorietta Bay, 

San Diego Bay, 

Naval Base San 

Diego. 

1 126 126 

55 Open Circuit 

Breathing Diving 

Personnel train on the use of SCUBA in 

the most varied underwater terrain. 

All SSTC-N Boat 

and Beach 

Lanes 1-10 

Alpha, Bravo, 

Charlie, Delta I, II, 

III, Echo, Fox, Golf, 

Hotel 

Breakers Beach 

1 12 12 

56 OTB Field Training 

Personnel paddle to the beach undetected 

while an advance swimmer swims ahead to 

observe for enemy movement and signal 

the landing party to come ashore. The team 

patrols and remains prepared for 

unexpected situations. Afterwards, they 

discretely reenter the water and paddle 

back offshore. Held over a 5-day/night 

period. 

All SSTC Boat and 

Beach 

Lanes 1-14 

Delta I, Echo 

Breakers Beach 

5 36 36 

57 Rock Portage 

Students gain proficiency in navigating 

around and portaging over a rock jetty. 

Following the small surf passage, multiple 

teams must carry their raft over the rock 

jetty formations for a realistic training 

experience. 

All SSTC-N Boat 

and Beach 

Lanes 1-10 

Breakers Beach and 

Zuniga Jetty 

Coronado Rock Jetty 

4 18 20 

NSW Land Warfare 

58 Land Patrolling 

Students patrol the beach in a single file 

line and communicate with each other 

nonverbally through hand signals and 

gestures. Inert weapons are carried to 

simulate combat realism. 

All SSTC Beach 

Lanes 1-14 

SSTC Inland 

Alpha 

1 18 18 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-23 

Table 2-1: Baseline and Proposed Tempos for SSTC Training Activities (Continued)

# ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION LOCATION

DAYS TO 

COMPLETE EACH 

EVENT

EVENTS PER 

YEAR

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVES 

1&2 

59 Immediate Action 

Drills 

Small groups of trainees are required to 

react to various situations such as 

reconnaissance, or by initiating offensive 

and defensive measures to perceived 

threats during land patrolling. Personnel 

may use blanks, simunitions, and 

pyrotechnics to initiate action. 

All SSTC Beach 

Lanes 1-14 

SSTC Inland 

1 5 6 

NSW Advanced Training 

60 

OTB 

Insertion/Photo 

Reconnaissance 

Personnel swim to shore, breach the 

perimeter beach fence, and perform photo 

reconnaissance on the interior of SSTC-S. 

All SSTC-S Boat and 

Beach 

Lanes 11-14 

SSTC Inland 

Beach areas outside 

SSTC-S fenceline 

1 31 31 

61 Photo Image 

Capture 

Photographing, downloading, and sending 

photographic images to command centers. SSTC-S Inland 14 3 4 

62 

Field Skills 

(Observation Drills, 

Sketching, Range 

Estimation) 

Timed drills in observing, sketching, and 

estimating range to targets. SSTC-S Inland 1 22 24 

63 

Stalking, 

Movement, HideSites 

Training provides teams with the skills to 

clandestinely patrol an inland area and 

assess risks from potential enemy forces. 

Team members learn to camouflage 

themselves and move through an area 

undetected. 

SSTC-N Boat LanesRed 1&2 

SSTC-S Beach 

Lanes-White and 

Purple 1&2 

SSTC Inland 

5 8 8 

64 

Close Quarter 

Combat/Close 

Quarter Defense 

Training in clearing a building or structure 

of enemy personnel. Personnel and 

occasionally military trained dogs 

(inserted via helicopter, CRRCs, or lightwheeled vehicles) move on the periphery, 

breach through doors, and move through 

the internal sections of a building or 

structure, locating and extracting 

individuals and securing the area for a 

larger team. 

All SSTC-S Boat and 

Beach 

Lanes 11-14 

SSTC-S Inland 

1 109 198 

65 Communications Classroom instruction and a practical test, 

evaluation, and movement. SSTC-S Inland 5 6 6 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-24 

Table 2-1: Baseline and Proposed Tempos for SSTC Training Activities (Continued)

# ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION LOCATION

DAYS TO 

COMPLETE EACH 

EVENT

EVENTS PER 

YEAR

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVES 

1&2 

66 UAS Training 

Low-level take off/landing practice and 

training for UASs used for observation and 

enhanced reconnaissance. 

SSTC-S Inland 5 12 12 

67 Around the World 

Students paddle in CRRCs from beach lane 

Yellow-1, around NASNI, to bayside 

SSTC, cross over to the oceanside through 

tunnel at Silver Strand State Beach 

(SSSB), and portage or paddle back to 

Yellow-1 during a timed interval. 

All SSTC-N Boat 

and Beach 

Lanes 1-10 

Alpha, Bravo, 

Charlie, Delta I, II, 

III, Echo, Foxtrot 

NASNI, 

Breakers Beach 

1 6 6 

NTA 4.9.4 Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other Nation Units and Individuals 

NSW Physical Fitness Training 

68 Physical Training 

Runs 

As an essential part of training, BUD/S 

running groups averaging 30-150 persons 

run a variety of distances on the beach 

ranging from 4-6 miles. Trainees may 

occasionally have a military working dog 

participating in the physical conditioning. 

Timed runs also are conducted for 4- and 

14-mile distances which extend outside of 

SSTC. 

All SSTC Beach 

Lanes 1-14 

SSSB 

1 464 464 

69 Physical Readiness 

Training 

Training with timed runs along the beach, 

open-water swims, push-ups, and sit-ups 

make up near-daily physical fitness 

conditioning and can include organized 

runs of students or staff personnel of up to 

100 persons. 

All SSTC-N Boat 

and Beach 

Lanes 1-10 

SSTC Inland 

Delta III, Foxtrot 

1 280 280 

70 Swim Training 

Ocean swim in a variety of temperatures 

and surf conditions. Students also swim in 

groups for 2-, 3.5-, and 5.5-mile swims. 

The location of the swim depends on the 

ocean conditions. 

All SSTC-N Boat 

and Beach 

Lanes 1-10 

Alpha, Bravo, 

Charlie, Delta I, II, 

III 

Waters off of SSSB 

and Coronado City 

Beach 

1 170 172 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-25 

Table 2-1: Baseline and Proposed Tempos for SSTC Training Activities (Continued)

# ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION LOCATION

DAYS TO 

COMPLETE EACH 

EVENT

EVENTS PER 

YEAR

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVES 

1&2 

71 Hell Week 

Consists of a period of nonstop training 

revolving around learned activities: surf 

passage in inflatable boats, rock portage, 

“around the world” paddling, hydrographic 

reconnaissance, running, swimming, and 

use of the obstacle course. The existing 

SSTC-N demolition pit may be filled with 

water and used for temperature 

conditioning. 

All SSTC Boat and 

Beach 

Lanes 1-14 

Alpha-Hotel 

SSTC-S Inland, 

NASNI 

Breakers Beach 

Waters around 

NASNI, 

SSSB beach, and 

Coronado City 

Beach 

5 6 6 

72 Rucksack March 

While carrying a 65-75 pound pack, 

students hike 5 to 14 miles within specified 

time limits. 

All SSTC Beach 

Lanes 1-14 

SSTC-S Inland 

Coronado beach 

SSSB 

1 54 54 

73 Monster Mash 

Course consisting of a minimum 10-mile 

run, 2-mile swim, 3-mile boat paddle, and 

rock portage. 

All SSTC Boat and 

Beach 

Lanes 1-14 

SSTC-S Inland 

Coronado beach 

SSSB 

1 6 6 

NTA 4.12.6 Provide Industrial and Environmental Health Services 

74 

Conduct 

Environmental 

Health Site 

Assessment 

Usually conducted as part of another 

training event and consists of establishing 

a small camp and interacting with other 

units to practice providing preventative 

medicine to field personnel. Part of their 

training may include learning to collect 

and analyze air and soil samples in areas 

where operations occur. 

SSTC-S Beach 

Lanes- Purple 1&2 

SSTC-S Inland 

3 3 3 

NTA 6.1.1 Protect Against Combat Area Hazards 

75 

Conventional 

Ordnance/ 

Improvised 

Explosive Device 

(IED) Response 

On-foot search for exposed and buried 

inert (nonexplosive) unexploded ordnance 

(UXO) and IEDs. Metal detectors and hand 

tools are used to discover and excavate 

buried UXOs. After UXOs and IEDs have 

been properly identified, a detachment 

simulates neutralization of threats using 

render-safe procedures and simulated 

detonation in place. 

All SSTC-N Beach 

Lanes 1 64 120 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-26 

Table 2-1: Baseline and Proposed Tempos for SSTC Training Activities (Continued)

# ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION LOCATION

DAYS TO 

COMPLETE EACH 

EVENT

EVENTS PER 

YEAR

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVES 

1&2 

76 

Land Mine 

Detection/ 

Neutralization 

On-foot search for inert (nonexplosive) 

land mines buried in the sand. Once 

probing techniques using hand tools and 

metal detection uncover buried land mines, 

a detachment group simulates 

neutralization of the mines using simulated 

explosives. 

All SSTC-N Beach 

Lanes 1 24 45 

NTA 6.3.1 Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of Operations 

77 

Field Training 

Exercise (FTX) 

(e.g., SEAHAWK) 

Provides training in conducting port and 

coastal waterborne force protection, harbor 

defense, and seaward security. Manning 

can vary from 50 to 1,000 personnel 

depending on scope and participation. 

Armed patrol boats conduct simulated 

patrol missions in the San Diego Bay. 

Campsites are established, including 

erection of tents (communication gear, 

conference room, operations center, 

operational galley, latrines, field mess, and 

14-person berthing) and generators. 

SSTC-S Inland 

Delta I, II, III, Echo, 

and Foxtrot 

San Diego Bay 

1-14 53 53 

NTA 6.3.3 Combat Terrorism 

78 Small Boat Attack A small boat performs an attack in the 

form of runs on an anchored ship. 

SSTC-N Boat Lanes 

1-10 

Breakers Beach 

1 30 36 

2.2.3 Silver Strand Training Complex Access Restrictions 

The regulatory environment for SSTC is complicated, particularly due to the existence of several 

Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species (described in Section 1.4.2). Existing SSTC biological 

environmental management and associated training restrictions are a result of historical consultations with 

USFWS. The history of ESA consultation, as well as a discussion of environmental management 

practices at SSTC, is provided in the relevant sections of Chapter 3 of this EIS. The majority of access 

restrictions were proposed by the Navy in an effort to protect listed species on its land, consulted on with 

the USFWS, and formalized in a number of previous Biological Opinions and Memorandums of 

Understanding issued by the USFWS addressing impacts to the California least tern and western snowy 

plover. The Navy has continuously modified its management program and associated access restrictions 

over the years to adapt to the changing distribution and population of listed species as well as evolving 

training needs. The following is a summary of the current access restrictions on SSTC that are proposed 

for modification under Alternatives 1 and 2. Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would continue 

its existing access restrictions. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-27 

• Protected nesting habitat for the California least tern and western snowy plover within SSTC-N 

occurs on three oceanside training lanes (Blue 2, Orange 1, and Orange 2) and two bayside 

training areas (Delta North and South), which restricts military foot and vehicle traffic except in 

defined beach crossing lanes during breeding seasons (March to September) of western snowy 

plover and California least tern. 

• Buffers up to 30 meters in diameter are established around western snowy plover nests that are 

identified in the training areas. Training activities are not allowed in the buffered areas. 

• Vehicle traffic within SSTC-S inner training areas is restricted to roads. Training activities are not 

allowed in vernal pools. 

The access restrictions outlined above are only those that may be modified under Alternative 1 or 

Alternative 2. Other restrictions that would remain unchanged are addressed in the respective resource 

sections in this EIS. 

2.3 ALTERNATIVE 1: INCREASE TRAINING AND ACCESS TO SSTC TRAINING AREAS 

(PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Alternative 1, the Navy’s preferred alternative, is designed to meet Navy and Department of Defense 

(DoD) current and near-term operational training requirements. It meets the selection criteria listed in 

Section 2.1.2. Under Alternative 1, the Navy would increase the tempo of training, introduce new types of 

training activities, conduct existing routine training at additional locations within SSTC training areas, 

introduce new platforms and equipment, and increase access and availability to SSTC training areas. 

2.3.1 Increased Training Tempo 

Under Alternative 1, the Navy would increase the tempo of training to meet 100 percent of Navy NTA 

requirements. This represents an increase from the baseline tempo of 3,926 activities to approximately 

5,343 activities annually (Table 2-1). 

Proposed increases under Alternative 1 were based on the commands needs to meet required training 

levels. Training tempos proposed under this alternative consider changing training requirements, 

introduction of new technologies, the dynamic nature of international events, advances in warfighting 

doctrine and procedure, and force structure changes. 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would meet the training requirements for units, resulting in a 100-percent 

support level for Navy NTA tempo requirements. The required level of tactical training and testing would 

be achieved while recognizing logistical, personnel, budgetary, and environmental considerations. 

2.3.2 Description of New Training 

Under Alternative 1 (and Alternative 2), the Navy would continue to conduct current training as described 

under the No Action Alternative and would increase training tempo as shown in Table 2-1. In addition to 

an increase in tempo, the Navy proposes to conduct new types of training as summarized in Table 2-2. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-28 

Table 2-2: Proposed New Training Activities at SSTC for Alternatives 1 and 2 

OP 

# ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION LOCATION

DAYS TO 

COMPLETE 

EACH 

EVENT

EVENTS PER 

YEAR

NTA 1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures (MCM) 

N1

Shock Wave 

Action 

Generator 

(SWAG) 

SWAG is a tool used by EOD to disarm enemy limpet mines 

which have been attached to the hull of a ship. The SWAG is 

composed of a cylindrical steel tube, 3 inches long and 1 inch 

wide, containing approximately 15 grams (0.033 pounds) of 

explosives. The single explosive charge is highly focused and is 

equal to two diver recall devices. For SWAG training, a metal 

sheet containing an inert mine is lowered from the side of a 

small vessel, such as an LCM-8 craft or CRRC. Divers place a 

single SWAG on the mine that is located mid-water column, 

within water depths of 10-20 feet. A bag is placed over the mine 

to catch falling debris. 

All SSTC 

oceanside Boat 

Lanes 1-14 

Echo 

1 90 

N2 

Surf Zone 

Test 

Detachment/ 

Equipment 

T&E 

To support clearance capability in the surf zone (out to 10 feet 

of water), EOD would test and evaluate the effectiveness of new 

detection and neutralization equipment designated for surf 

conditions. 

All SSTC 

 Boat and 

Beach Lanes 

1-14 

Echo 

1 200 

N3 UUV 

Neutralization 

Training consists of placing 2 sequential charges consisting of a 

Seafox (3.3 pounds) or Archerfish (3.57 pounds) charge placed 

from depths of 10 feet to the bottom in water depth less than 72 

feet. 

All SSTC 

 Boat and 

Beach Lanes 

1-14 

1 4 

N4 AN/AQS-20 

Mine Hunting 

The training would involve an MH-60S helicopter deploying 

into the water and towing the AN/AQS-20 active high 

resolution, side-looking, multibeam sonar system for hunting 

simulated (inert) mines along the ocean floor. 

All SSTC 

oceanside Boat 

Lanes 1-14, in 

water depths 

greater than 40 

feet. 

1 200 

N5 

AN/AES-1 

Airborne 

Laser Mine 

Detection 

System 

The training would involve an MH-60S helicopter using a 

helicopter-mounted Light Detection and Ranging blue-green 

laser technology to detect, classify, and localize floating and 

near-surface moored mines in shallow water. Mines used in 

training are inert. 

All SSTC 

oceanside Boat 

Lanes 1-14 in 

water depths 

greater than 40 

feet. 

1 48 

N6 

AN/ALQ-220 

Organic 

Airborne 

Surface 

Influence 

Sweep 

(OASIS) 

The training would involve an MH-60S helicopter towing the 

OASIS device that emulates magnetic and acoustic signatures of 

the ships in the water. 

All SSTC 

oceanside Boat 

Lanes 1-14, in 

water depths 

greater than 40 

feet. 

1 100 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-29 

Table 2-2: Proposed New Training Activities at SSTC for Alternatives 1 and 2 (Continued) 

OP 

# ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION LOCATION

DAYS TO 

COMPLETE 

EACH 

EVENT1

EVENTS PER 

YEAR

NTA 1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures (MCM) 

N7 

Airborne 

Mine 

Neutralization 

System 

(AMNS) 

The training would involve an MH-60S helicopter deploying an 

AMNS underwater vehicle into the water that searches for, 

locates, and destroys mines. The vehicle is self-propelled and 

unmanned. Approximately 20% of the training would involve 

the AMNS being remotely detonated (3.5-pound NEW) when it 

encounters a simulated (inert) mine shape. 

All SSTC 

oceanside Boat 

Lanes 1-14, in 

water depths 

greater than 40 

feet. 

1 48 

NTA 1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

N8

Tactical 

Recovery of 

Aircraft and 

Personnel 

(TRAP) 

To simulate the rescue of a downed helicopter and its crew 

through an amphibious raid, usually at nighttime, TRAP 

consists of the insertion of up to 75 personnel ashore via four to 

six helicopters hovering and/or landing. Activities include foot 

movement ashore, manual excavations, light-wheeled vehicles, 

and use of small arms (blanks) and pyrotechnics to simulate 

attacks. 

All SSTC-S 

Beach Lanes 

SSTC-S Inland 

1 4

NTA 1.5.6 Conduct Naval Special Warfare 

N9

Underwater 

Demolition 

Qualification/ 

Certification 

Demolition Requalifications and Training provides teams with 

experience in underwater detonations by conducting detonations 

on metal plates near the shoreline. At water depths of 10 to 72 

feet two sequential 12.5-13.75 pound NEW charges are placed 

on the bottom or a single 25.5-pound charge is placed from a 

depth of 20 feet to the bottom. 

All SSTC 

 Boat and 

Beach Lanes 

1-14 

1 12

N10 

Vehicle 

Patrolling and 

Testing 

Personnel use the beach and inland areas for driving 

familiarization of various vehicles, and gear configuration and 

setup. 

SSTC-N 

Beach SSTC-S 

Beach SSTC-S 

Inland 

1 50 

N11 

NSW 

Underwater 

Demolition 

Training 

Up to 40 persons participate in the activity, which involves 

small groups swimming to shore from four inflatable boats 

located approximately 1,000 yards offshore; boats may be 

beached on shore. A single charge of less than 10 pounds NEW 

(if detonated on the bottom) or less than 3.6 pounds NEW (if 

within five feet of the surface) is manually detonated near the 

shoreline in water less than 24 feet deep. 

All SSTC 

 Boat and 

Beach Lanes 

1-14 

1 12 

1

The training activities listed in Table 2-2 take around 2-5 hours, depending on a variety of factors including training 

conditions and skill levels of the personnel being trained. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-30 

2.3.3 Conduct Existing Routine Training at Additional Locations within SSTC 

Established Training Areas 

Under Alternative 1 (and Alternative 2), the Navy proposes to conduct the existing routine training at 

additional locations within SSTC established training areas (Table 2-3). These activities would be 

conducted in established training areas that are currently being used for other types of training. 

Table 2-3: Expanded Locations of Activities 

OP # ACTIVITY CURRENT LOCATIONS

EXPANDED

LOCATIONS

NTA 1.1.2 Conduct Maneuver-Move Forces

1 Anchoring All SSTC-N Boat 

Lanes 1-10 

All SSTC-N Boat 

Lanes 1-10 

Breakers Beach 

NTA 1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

19 SUROBS All SSTC-N Beach 

Lanes 1-10 

All SSTC Beach Lanes 

1-14 

NTA 1.5.6 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

31 Breacher Training 

SSTC-S Inland 

(Bunker 98, 

Bunker 99 Interior) 

SSTC-S Inland 

(Bunker 98, Northwest and 

east of Bunker 99, Bunker 

99) 

NTA 4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-the-Shore

48 Field Training with a 

Beach Camp 

All SSTC-N Beach 

Lanes 1-10, 

All SSTC Beach Lanes 

1-14 

SSTC-S Inland 

49 MPS 

Offload 

All SSTC-N Boat and 

Beach Lanes 1-10 

All SSTC Boat and 

Beach Lanes 1-14 

SSTC-S Inland 

50 ROWPU All SSTC-N Beach 

Lanes 1-10 

All SSTC Beach Lanes 

1-14 

SSTC-S Inland 

NTA 4.9.1 Naval Special Warfare Diving and Beach Operations

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving

All SSTC-N Boat and 

Beach Lanes 1-10 

Breakers Beach 

Alpha-Hotel 

All SSTC Boat and 

Beach Lanes 1-14 

Breakers Beach 

Alpha-Hotel 

57 Rock Portage 

All SSTC-N Boat and Beach 

Lanes 1-10 

Breakers Beach and Zuniga Jetty 

Coronado Rock Jetty 

All SSTC Boat and Beach 

Lanes 1-14 

Breakers Beach and 

Zuniga Jetty 

Coronado Rock Jetty 

NTA 6.1.1 Conduct Explosive Ordnance Disposal

75 Conventional Ordnance/IED 

Response 

All SSTC-N Beach 

Lanes 1-10 

All SSTC Beach Lanes 

1-14 

76 

Land Mine Detection/ 

Neutralization 

All SSTC-N Beach 

Lanes 1-10 

All SSTC Beach Lanes 

1-14 

2.3.4 Introduction of Platforms and Equipment 

SSTC is required to accommodate and support training with new vessels, aircraft, and vehicles as they 

become operational in the Fleet. Based on knowledge of future training requirements, the Navy has 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-31 

identified a need for replacement of AAVs with Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (EFV) and updates to 

the current OPDS. Following is a discussion of each of the new platforms and equipment. Environmental 

planning documentation related to new platforms and equipment field and basing has been incorporated 

by reference (Section 1.7). 

2.3.4.1 Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles 

Replacement of AAVs currently in use with EFVs provides many advantages to the Navy, including 

enhanced survivability, ship to shore movement, and operational capabilities. The EFV differs from the 

AAV primarily in its improved in-water capabilities, exhibiting an extended in-water range over the AAV 

and a significantly higher top speed (DoN 2003). The EFV is also larger and heavier than the AAV. 

Differences between the AAV and EFV are summarized in Table 2-4. 

Table 2-4: AAV/EFV Comparison 

AAV EFV 

Top Speed 

Sea 8 mph (13 kph) 29 mph (47 kph) 

Land 45 mph (72 kph) 45 mph (72 kph) 

Size 

Length 26 feet (7.9 m) 29 feet 10 in (9.1 m) 

Width 10 feet 9 in (3.3 m) 12 feet (3.7 m) 

Weight Empty 42,108 pounds (19,100 kg) 62,880 pound (28,522 kg) 

2.3.4.2 Offshore Petroleum Discharge System Updates 

The current OPDS training at SSTC is described in Table 2-1 and consists of rolling out a four mile fluidtransfer conduit from the beach out to approximately one mile offshore and anchoring it to the seafloor 

with a SALM. The improved OPDS system would have a self-sinking hose that could extend up to eight 

miles offshore, but like the current OPDS, would still be rolled out to approximately one mile offshore 

during training activities at SSTC. 

2.3.4.3 MH-60R/S Seahawk Multi-Mission Helicopter 

Primary missions for the MH-60S Seahawk Multi-Mission helicopter include troop transport, vertical 

replenishment, and mine warfare. These aircraft will feature advanced sensors and weapons systems 

including new organic airborne mine countermeasures systems (DoN 2008). Training associated with the 

MH-60 S Seahawk Multi-Mission Helicopter would require establishment of a shallow water (inert) 

minefield in the oceanside training lanes of SSTC in water depths greater than 40 feet. Approximately 15 

mine shapes would be anchored on the bottom or moored at various water depths, and would remain in 

place up to 6 months before Navy divers would recover them for refurbishment and 

repositioning/relocation. 

2.3.5 Increase Access and Availability to SSTC Training Areas 

Under Alternative 1, the Navy is proposing to increase access and availability of SSTC oceanside Beach 

Training Lanes 1 through 10 and SSTC-S inland areas for military training. The proposed changes are 

described below and depicted on Figures 2-1 and 2-2. The Navy is in the process of consulting with the 

USFWS through the ESA Section 7 process on the proposed access increases and other elements of this 

Alternative. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-32 

Figure 2-1: Proposed Increase in SSTC-N Beach Access and Availability for All Alternatives 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-33 

Figure 2-2: Proposed Increase in SSTC-S Beach and Inland Area Access and Availability for All 

Alternatives 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-34 

Increase Access to Oceanside Beach Lanes 8-10 (Blue 2, Orange 1, and Orange 2). To accommodate the 

proposed training tempo and to increase flexibility for training, the Navy is proposing two independent 

criterion that, if either is met, would allow for conditional usage of SSTC-N training lanes Blue 2, Orange 

1, and/or Orange 2 for training during the nesting season. 

The first criterion allows for use of Blue 2, Orange 1, and/or Orange 2 for training when a training lane(s) 

is needed and other suitable training lanes are already occupied and unavailable for use. Beach lanes Blue 

2, Orange 1, and/or Orange 2 would be used during the nesting season if Beach Lanes Red 1 and 2, Green 

1 and 2, and Blue 1 are being used and additional training lanes(s) are needed for training. The beach 

lanes would be opened one at a time, based on need, with Blue 2 being opened first, Orange 1 being 

opened second, and Orange 2 being opened last, where such selection will maintain the realism of training 

and training needs. 

Under the second criterion, training would be allowed in Blue 2, Orange 1, and/or Orange 2 if attributes 

of those lane(s) make them more suitable for meeting training needs than other available training lanes 

Examples of lane attributes which may allow usage of Blue 2, Orange 1 and/or Orange 2 include but 

would not necessarily be limited to: nearshore in-water conditions such as the presence of sand bars or 

holes, beach conditions such as slope and depth of the beach, distance from other training activities 

occurring on SSTC-N Oceanside beach and boat lanes, and a need for diversity in training locations. 

Increase Access to Oceanside Beach Lanes 1 through 14. The Navy proposes to limit the number of 

western snowy plover nests that will be marked and buffered for avoidance on SSTC-N and SSTC-S 

oceanside beaches to no more than 22 nests at one time. Staking would continue to mark the perimeter of 

a buffer zone with a diameter of 30 meters or less around the western snowy plover nests. If more than 22 

western snowy plover nests are established in the oceanside SSTC training lanes at one time, those in 

excess of 22 would not be buffered. 

Increase Access to SSTC-S Inland Training Areas. The Navy is proposing to allow foot traffic associated 

with training in vernal pools when conditions are dry. Training activities would not be allowed in vernal 

pools when conditions are wet. 

2.4 ALTERNATIVE 2: INCREASE TRAINING AND FURTHER ENHANCE ACCESS TO SSTC

TRAINING AREAS

Alternative 2 meets Navy and DoD current and near-term operational training requirements, and further 

enhances training capabilities at SSTC. It meets the criteria listed in Section 2.1.2 by: providing the 

resources needed to meet the requirements of individual and unit-level training; accommodating required 

training tempos; allowing for year-round, assured access to San Diego Bay, ocean areas, beach areas, and 

inland training areas; providing a realistic training environment; accommodating the full suite of required 

training elements at SSTC; and providing co-location of commands, equipment, facilities, and 

infrastructure that support existing and future training. Under Alternative 2, proposed training tempo and 

types of training, training location, as well as the introduction of new platforms and equipment into 

training, would be the same as described under Alternative 1. The Navy would increase the tempo of 

training to meet 100 percent of Navy NTA requirements (Table 2-1). As described under Alternative 1, 

this would represent an increase from the baseline tempo of 3,926 activities to approximately 5,343 

activities annually. The only differences between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are additional access 

and availability of SSTC-N training lanes. 

Under Alternative 2, the Navy would fully utilize all 7,000 yards of ocean beaches along SSTC-N and 

SSTC-S, and all bayside training beaches, except the Delta North and South nesting habitat (i.e., Alpha, 

Bravo, Charlie, Echo, Foxtrot, Golf, and Hotel) for continuous, year-round training. The Navy would 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-35 

continue to conduct existing management practice on these lanes including nest relocation, predator 

management and control, habitat modification, site preparation for maintenance, nest substrate 

enhancement, signage and education, recreational use restrictions, and rearing of collected eggs, injured 

and sick individuals. Delta North and Delta South would continue to be managed as a California least tern 

nesting habitat during the five to six month breeding season, and used for training during the non-nesting 

period. Monitoring of the California least tern and western snowy plover at SSTC-N oceanside beaches 

would be performed for effect and “take” associated with military training. 

2.5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 2-5 summarizes the key attributes of the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1 (Preferred 

Alternative), and Alternative 2. These alternatives have been addressed in further detail in Sections 2.2, 

2.3, and 2.4, respectively. 

As summarized in the table, Alternatives 1 and 2 would increase the tempo of training to meet the FRTP 

mandate for Fleet readiness and mission preparedness with a focus on enhanced training in littoral 

settings. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also include increases in the types and locations of training. The 

difference between the two alternatives is in level of access and availability to SSTC-N oceanside training 

areas. Under Alternative 1, select training lanes would be open only if others are being utilized or have 

attributes that make them more suitable for training. Alternative 2 proposes open, year-round usage of 

these SSTC-N oceanside training areas; all SSTC oceanside training lanes would be open for use, 

regardless of time of year. 

Table 2-5: Alternatives Summaries 

Tempos Types of 

Activities 

Training 

Locations 

Access and 

Availability of 

Training Areas 

Introduction of 

Platforms and 

Equipment 

No Action 

Alternative 

Baseline 

tempo 

(3,926) 

No new 

types of 

activities 

would be 

introduced. 

No new 

training 

activities 

would be 

added. 

Existing access 

restrictions would 

continue. 

Existing platforms would 

continue to be used. 

Alternative 1 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Increase 

in annual 

tempo 

(5,343) 

Introduction 

of new 

activities. 

Additional 

locations in 

established 

training 

areas. 

Access to oceanside 

beach lanes and SSTC-S 

training areas would 

conditionally increase. 

EFVs, MH-60S and 

updated OPDS system. 

Alternative 2 

Increase 

in annual 

tempo 

(5,343) 

Introduction 

of new 

activities. 

Additional 

locations in 

established 

training 

areas. 

Access to oceanside 

beach lanes would be not 

be restricted for training. 

Access to SSTC-S 

training areas would be 

conditionally increased. 

EFVs, MH-60S and 

updated OPDS system. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-36 

This page intentionally left blank 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.0-1

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

3.0 CHAPTER ORGANIZATION

This chapter describes existing environmental conditions and assesses the environmental effects of the 

Proposed Action and alternatives described in Chapter 2. The affected environment and environmental 

consequences are described and analyzed according to categories of resources. The categories of 

resources addressed in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are: 

Land Use and Recreation (3.1) Marine Mammals (3.9) 

Geology and Soils (3.2) Sea Turtles (3.10) 

Air Quality (3.3) Terrestrial Biological Resources (3.11) 

Hazardous Materials and Waste (3.4) Birds (3.12) 

Water Resources (3.5) Cultural Resources (3.13) 

Acoustic Environment (Terrestrial) (3.6) Transportation and Circulation (3.14) 

Marine Biological Resources (3.7) Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and 

Protection of Children (3.15) 

Fish (3.8) Public Health and Safety (3.16) 

In the environmental impact analysis process, the resources analyzed are identified and the expected 

geographic scope of potential impacts for each resource, known as the resource’s region of influence, is 

defined. The discussion and analysis, organized by resource area, covers the oceanside lanes of the Silver 

Strand Training Complex (SSTC), the beach areas of SSTC-North and SSTC-South (SSTC-S) (the 

bayside training areas, the inland areas of SSTC-S, and the southern beaches and nearshore waters of 

Naval Air Station North Island, to the extent affected resources or potential impacts are present (see 

Figure 1-2). The analyses presented are addressed by similarity of activity, such as aircraft exercises, 

marine vessel exercises, Landing Craft, Air Cushion activities, underwater detonations, Elevated 

Causeway / Pile Driving, beach exercises and inland exercises. These training activities are broken down 

further for specific resource analyses – for example, beach activities can be organized into groups such as 

vehicle use, foot traffic, manual excavations, fluid transfer activities, pyrotechnics, simunitions/blanks, or 

solid waste. 

For each resource area, specific activities (as listed in Chapter 2, Tables 2-1 through 2-3) are listed in 

terms of the potential to affect the subject resource. The analysis of listed activities considers the type, 

frequency, duration, and intensity of the activity, as well as use of existing training equipment (vessels, 

vehicles, and aircraft as described in Appendix B). In addition, platforms and training equipment 

associated with force structure changes (described in Section 2.3.5) are also considered as part of the 

analysis of training activities. 

Activities with the potential to affect the resource are carried forward for environmental analysis in the 

EIS. For example, the potential impact associated with aircraft during training is anticipated to be 

minimal on marine plant and invertebrate populations and this type of activity will not be assessed. In 

contrast, the potential for impacts of air activities on air quality is much higher and requires a more 

detailed level of analysis. Each resource introduction presents a brief explanation of the logic utilized to 

determine which training activities are included or excluded for effects analysis. In addition, criteria used 

to assess the significance of environmental impacts are provided – based on existing regulatory statutes or 

industry standards –for applicable resources. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.0-2

3.0.1 Environmental Management and Mitigation Measures 

The Navy has a comprehensive management program that considers biological resources, cultural 

resources, environmental compliance, and environmental resource education and interpretation. 

Environmental management is the means by which the environment, including natural and cultural 

resources, is conserved, protected, enhanced, and restored while ensuring military readiness and 

sustainability. The basis for Navy environmental resource management at SSTC is a holistic, long-term 

view of human activities in conjunction with air/water quality, cultural resources, land uses, noise 

ordnances, waste management, or other marine or terrestrial biological resources such as, sensitive 

habitats and Endangered Species Act - listed species. 

The Navy is responsible for compliance with federal environmental laws, rules, regulations, policies, and 

guidelines designed to protect marine and terrestrial environmental and cultural resources at SSTC, 

concurrent with the Navy’s sustained utilization of SSTC for training. Environmental programs at SSTC 

balance the need for environmental protection with the training mission, such that naval forces maximize 

the benefits of SSTC training assets while minimizing adverse effects on the environment. 

To achieve this balance, the Navy monitors the effects of training activities on environmental resources, 

using an adaptive management strategy to modify resource management in response to the ongoing influx 

and evaluation of monitoring data. Through this approach, the Navy’s environmental resource managers 

acquire information to identify potential impacts in a timely manner, thus allowing for ongoing 

adjustments to training and/or resource management while keeping the training mission on schedule to 

meet necessary training goals. The monitoring effort is focused not only on the environmental resource, 

such as a protected species, but also on the operational and administrative setting for training activities 

potentially affecting the resource. 

In describing and analyzing affected resources and environmental consequences, the following 

subsections in this chapter identifies current mitigation measures such as Standard Operating Procedures, 

Best Management Practices, and Conservation Measures that are integral to the activities covered by the 

Proposed Action and alternatives. The subsections in this chapter also identifiy further measures the Navy 

proposes that are not currently being undertaken that would mitigate environmental impacts to a given 

resource. Mitigation measures are also presented in Chapter 5. 
3.1 Land Use 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

LAND USE 3.1-1

3.1 LAND USE AND RECREATION

3.1.1 Affected Environment 

3.1.1.1 Introduction 

3.1.1.1.1 Definition of Resource 

For purposes of this analysis, land use is defined as the natural conditions and/or human-modified 

activities occurring at a particular location. Human-modified land use categories include residential, 

commercial, industrial, transportation, communications and utilities, agriculture, institutional, 

recreational, and other developed use areas. Management plans and zoning regulations determine the type 

and extent of land use allowable in specific areas, and are intended to protect specifically designated or 

environmental sensitive areas. 

Recreational resources are defined as those amenities that provide for relaxation, rest, activity, education, 

or other opportunities for leisure services and community support that lead to an enhanced quality of life. 

These include natural reservations, parks, parkways, beaches, fishing areas, playgrounds, and community 

gardens. 

3.1.1.1.2 Regional Setting 

Naval Base Coronado (NBC) is an important Navy installation and is located in San Diego County—a 

county that has the largest concentration of naval forces in the United States (U.S.). NBC includes Naval 

Air Station, North Island (NASNI), Naval Amphibious Base (NAB) Coronado, and Naval Radio 

Receiving Facility (NRRF). The Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC) is located on NAB Coronado 

and NRRF property. SSTC is located between the City of Coronado to the north, and the City of Imperial 

Beach to the south. STTC is located on the Silver Strand peninsula, an isthmus of land between the 

Pacific Ocean to the west and San Diego Bay to the east (Figure 3.1-1). NASNI is located at the north end 

of the Coronado peninsula, northwest of the City of Coronado. Land use in the surrounding area consists 

of mixed residential and commercial, hotel/motel uses, commercial recreation, civic use, open space, and 

military land uses. 

3.1.1.2 Region of Influence 

The Region of Influence (ROI) for land use and recreation includes inside the boundaries of SSTC-North 

(SSTC-N) and SSTC-South (SSTC-S), the neighboring areas of SSTC-N and SSTC-S, the southern 

beaches of NASNI (from Breakers Beach to Zuniga Jetty), and the adjacent waters of the San Diego Bay 

and Pacific Ocean. 

3.1.1.3 Plans and Policies 

The SSTC is on federally owned land, as well as on land leased from the State of California, which is 

excluded from local and state jurisdictions with regard to land use controls. Nevertheless, programs, 

policies, and local land use plans (e.g., each city plans its land use by preparing and adopting a staterequired General Plan, as well as a Local Coastal Plan (LCP) for property within the coastal zone) for 

surrounding areas are discussed within this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Navy has 

developed land use planning documents relevant to the project site, which also are addressed in this EIS. 

3.1.1.3.1 Naval Amphibious Base Coronado Master Plan 

The NAB Coronado Master Plan gives interim direction for realistic and logical physical planning policy 

and ensures efficient, orderly use and development of facilities and real estate. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

LAND USE 3.1-2

Figure 3.1-1: Regional Jurisdictions 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

LAND USE 3.1-3

3.1.1.3.2 City of Coronado Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan 

The City of Coronado’s land use plan is the culmination of Coronado’s LCP; it consolidates and 

coordinates Coronado’s LCP Policy Group background reports (City of Coronado 2004); further, the land 

use plan presents policy, action, and land use proposed by the city to implement the requirements and 

intent of the California Coastal Act (CCA) of 1976, as amended. 

3.1.1.3.3 City of Coronado Zoning Ordinance 

The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate land use, intensity, building construction, and to 

control development. The zoning map for the City of Coronado denotes SSTC as a military zone. Land 

use adjacent to SSTC is zoned as open space and multiple-family residential (City of Coronado 2009). 

The Zoning Ordinance denotes the land across Glorietta Bay from NAB Coronado as a combination of 

open space, commercial recreation, and civic use. 

3.1.1.3.4 City of Coronado Glorietta Bay Master Plan 

The purpose of the Glorietta Bay Master Plan is to enhance its critical shoreline property for the benefit of 

the Coronado community, to enhance public access and recreational opportunities along the bayfront, and 

to provide for a new community center and City Hall in a park-like setting. Glorietta Bay borders NAB 

Coronado to the northwest (City of Coronado 2008) (Figure 3.1-2).

3.1.1.3.5 City of Imperial Beach General Plan and Coastal Plan 

The City of Imperial Beach General Plan and Coastal Plan is the city’s constitution for physical 

development and change (City of Imperial Beach 1994). The land use element of this plan designates the 

area adjacent to NRRF as public facility, urban reserve, and single-family residential. 

3.1.1.3.6 San Diego Unified Port District Master Plan 

The San Diego Unified Port District (SDUPD) Master Plan is intended to provide the official planning 

policies for the physical development of the tide and submerged lands granted to the San Diego Unified 

Port District (SDUPD 1996). Portions of NBC are within the Port District’s planning jurisdiction: all inwater bayside training areas and the bayside training beaches; the Navy coordinates accordingly, as it 

relates to Navy activities in these areas. However, SDUPD has no regulatory authority over land owned 

by the federal government. NAB Coronado, including the beaches of Delta South, Alpha, Bravo, and 

Charlie, are lands owned by the Federal government (Figure 3.1-2). The submerged lands adjacent to 

these areas are deeded submerged lands. All other lands and submerged lands on the bayside of the NAB 

Coronado are not deeded and are zoned wetlands and estuary under the Land and Water Use Element of 

the Master Plan. The remaining areas on the bayside of SSTC are active solar salt evaporation ponds (Salt 

Works). 

3.1.1.4 Coastal Zone Management Act 

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (16 USC Section 1451) encourages coastal states to 

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

planning program; participating states submit a Coastal Management Plan (CMP) to the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration for approval. Under the CZMA, federal agency actions within or outside 

the coastal zone that affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried 

out in a manner that is consistent to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of the 

approved state management programs. Each state defines its coastal zone in accordance with the CZMA. 

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

federal government or which is held in trust by the Federal government (16 USC 1453). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

LAND USE 3.1-4

Figure 3.1-2: SSTC-N Land Use 

(NASNI) 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

LAND USE 3.1-5

The Navy will submit a Coastal Consistency Determination in accordance with the CZMA. 

3.1.1.5 Existing Land Use at SSTC-N 

3.1.1.5.1 SSTC-N Overview 

As shown in Figure 3.1-2, SSTC-N is located on the north-central portion of the Silver Strand peninsula. 

SSTC-N is bounded on the north by the City of Coronado. Silver Strand Boulevard (State Route [SR]-75) 

runs parallel to the ocean connecting the City of Coronado with the City of Imperial Beach and separates 

SSTC-N’s bayside facilities from the oceanside training beaches. Downtown San Diego is situated 3 

miles north of SSTC across the San Diego Bay. The San Diego International Airport is north of 

Downtown San Diego; approximately five miles from SSTC (Figure 3.1-1). 

SSTC-N comprises approximately 831 acres. About 257 acres are beach area property that the Navy has 

leased from the State of California since 1982 (Figure 3.1-2). The lease for the property will expire in 

August 2021. The extreme southeasterly portion of SSTC-N bayside is leased by the Navy to California 

for use as a park and campground. The remainder of the land is held in fee simple by the Navy. SSTC-N’s 

leased area boundary along the coastline varies. At the northwest boundary of SSTC-N to approximately 

the center point of the Yellow Boat Lane 2, the westerly boundary extends out to the mean high water 

line. South of the centerline of the Yellow Boat Lane 2 the westerly boundary extends out from between 

100 to 500 feet offshore from the ordinary high water mark. 

3.1.1.5.2 SSTC-N Surrounding Land Use 

City of Coronado 

SSTC-N is surrounded by a variety of land uses in the City of Coronado. Immediately north of SSTC-N, 

on the oceanside, is the Coronado Shores—a 1,467-unit, high-rise condominium complex located 

between SR-75 and the Pacific Ocean. North of SSTC-N, on the bayside, is a municipal park and 

administrative offices of the City of Coronado. The remaining portions of the City of Coronado, north of 

SSTC-N, consist of residential, commercial, retail, and hotel development uses—including the Hotel Del 

Coronado. Commercial development is primarily based along Orange Avenue. Community support 

facilities in the City of Coronado include a library, churches, educational facilities, a combined police and 

fire station, and hospital. Various parks and recreational facilities exist nearby, including a golf course 

and public beaches. Schools located within the City of Coronado are shown on Figure 3.1-2. Sacred Heart 

(K through 8) is the closest school to SSTC-N and is approximately 0.7 mile from the northern boundary. 

Silver Strand Elementary School is located within SSTC-N boundaries east of SR-75 on the bayside. 

To the south of SSTC-N is Silver Strand State Beach (SSSB) and on the bayside—east of Silver Strand 

Boulevard—is the Loews Coronado Bay Resort Hotel. Farther south of the Resort Hotel is the Coronado 

Cays residential community. The Coronado Cays consist of single-family and multi-family residences, 

recreational facilities, commercial activities, a park, open space, and public services. Large areas of 

undeveloped wetlands surround the Coronado Cays, these wetlands are preserved as a condition of the 

development of the Coronado Cays community (Department of the Navy [DoN] 1998). 

Silver Strand State Beach 

SSSB stretches from the southern end of SSTC-N, west of SR-75, to the northern end of SSTC-S. 

Camping facilities and other recreational activities are available on the beach side. The bayside of the 

park, north of the Loews Coronado Bay Resort, is restricted to pedestrian traffic only. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

LAND USE 3.1-6

San Diego Bay 

The San Diego Bay is a natural harbor adjacent to downtown San Diego. The San Diego Bay is frequently 

used by recreational boaters from surrounding marinas and mooring areas. The City of San Diego, City of 

Coronado, City of Imperial Beach, City of Chula Vista, and National City all surround, and have an 

interest in activities within San Diego Bay. The Sweetwater Canal, located in south San Diego Bay is the 

site of the National City Marina and Pepper Park. Further south in San Diego Bay is the Chula Vista 

Marina. Both marinas are recreational boating access points that contribute to the amount of vessels 

within San Diego Bay (Figure 3.1-1). 

Glorietta Bay is located to the north of SSTC-N on the bayside and is used by the public for recreation 

and pleasure boating (Figure 3.1-2). The majority of the SSTC operational piers are located at Glorietta 

Bay. 

Fiddler’s Cove Marina and Recreational Vehicle (RV) Park is located to the south of SSTC-N on the 

bayside along Silver Strand State Highway/SR-75, just north of Loews Coronado Resort (Figure 3.1-2); it 

is operated by the Navy. The marina has approximately 150 moorings and approximately 130 dock slips; 

the RV Park offers year-round camping. Both facilities are open to active duty, retirees, Department of 

Defense (DoD) civilians, and sponsored civilian guests. 

In San Diego Bay, there is a designated restricted area from the northern and eastern boundary of NAB 

Coronado (33 CFR 334.860) (Figure 3.1-2); activities such as swimming, fishing, waterskiing, and 

mooring are not allowed within this area. All vessels entering the restricted area must proceed across the 

area by the most direct route and without unnecessary delay. For vessels under sail, necessary tacking 

constitutes a direct route. 

SSTC-N On-site Land Use 

SSTC-N occupies approximately 831 acres of which approximately 370 acres can be considered 

urbanized or occupied by buildings, paved roads, etc. Land uses at SSTC-N include both military and 

nonmilitary functions and facilities. On-base land use is separated into five distinct areas according to 

their use: Main Base, training beaches, recreational marina, military family housing, and public recreation 

areas—areas leased by the Navy to California). The entire oceanside of SSTC-N is used for training. The 

south bayside of SSTC-N is used for military family housing, a recreational marina, limited training 

activities, and a least tern nesting preserve. Oceanside and bayside training areas are accessible via on-site 

gates on SSTC-N. The extreme southeasterly portion of SSTC-N bayside is leased to California for use as 

a park and campground (Figure 3.1-2). 

NAB Coronado is the primary developed area and contains over 170 buildings. Land use within the 

boundaries of NAB Coronado is divided into 10 categories: activities, training, maintenance, supply, 

medical, administration, housing, community support, recreation, and utilities. Turner Field is a 

helicopter-landing pad on NAB Coronado and is used for training (Figure 3.1-2). This facility is located 

near the eastern edge of NAB Coronado; the pad is used for a wide-range of activities, including as a 

staging area for helicopter casts, special patrol insertion/extraction, and other waterborne activities that 

require loading/unloading personnel or equipment. Operational facilities are primarily concentrated along 

the north bayside area of NAB Coronado. This area includes 21 permanent berthing piers for the 

watercraft used for amphibious training, such as landing craft, high-speed patrol boats (Mark Vs), training 

barges, causeways and warping tugs. In addition, the piers serve as an area for limited training activities, 

including practice dives, boat maneuvers, and docking. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

LAND USE 3.1-7

SSTC-N Oceanside Training Beaches 

SSTC-N oceanside training beaches are located west of SR-75 to the south of NAB Coronado. The 

majority of amphibious training at SSTC-N is conducted at these beaches. The oceanside training beaches 

are divided into five colored training areas (Yellow, Red, Green, Blue, and Orange), each consisting of 

two 500-yard-wide beach lanes (Yellow 1 and 2, Red 1 and 2, Green 1 and 2, Blue 1 and 2, Orange 1 and 

2). These beach lanes each have a corresponding boat lane labeled 1-10. The training beaches are 

undeveloped with the exception of several training facilities. Public access to the beach is controlled by a 

guard posted on the northern edge of Yellow 1. The southern half of Yellow Beach (Yellow 2) includes 

an obstacle course, a helicopter mockup, a causeway staging area, rappelling facilities, and surf towers. 

The excavated area surrounded by a chain-link fence, which is located on a small portion of both Green 

Beach and Blue Beach was previously used as a demolition pit; currently, use of this area is limited to 

blasting caps and pyrotechnic ordnance during the last day of training for Basic Underwater 

Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) students. For this last day of training, the dirt/sand pit is filled with ocean 

water—water pumped into the pit via a hose above the crest, which then percolates through the sand. 

Blasting caps and pyrotechnics are used for training enhancement while BUD/S students perform 

activities in the water. 

Training access to the SSTC-N oceanside training beaches is provided either from SR-75 or NAB 

Coronado oceanside. A hard-pack sand roadway, parallel to SR-75, runs along the beach and provides a 

consistent vehicular connection to the training beaches. This sand path is also available through Gate 2 

(oceanside) and south along Frontage Road to Yellow Beach. Two crossing lanes have been established 

from the hard-pack sand roadway to the tidal zones: one between boat/beach lanes Blue 8 and Orange 9 

and another to the south of boat/beach lane Orange 10. These lanes provide beach training access with 

limited interference with nesting areas. 

SSTC-N Bayside Training Areas 

Bayside training areas used for Navy training include Delta North and South beaches located south of the 

SSTC-N piers; the Delta I, II, and III bay training areas located directly off the Delta North and South 

beaches; and the beach and bay training areas of Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie located adjacent to Navy 

housing north of Fiddler’s Cove (Figure 3.1-2). Four other training areas are also located in San Diego 

Bay (Echo, Foxtrot, Golf, and Hotel). On SSTC-N bayside, a fence parallel to Silver Strand Boulevard 

from the Rendova housing area to Fiddler’s Cove prevents public access from the land to bayside training 

areas. Vehicular access to Bravo Beach is available through the military family housing area or directly 

from SR-75 along a road north of the state park. 

3.1.1.5.3 Existing Land Use at SSTC-S 

SSTC-S Overview 

SSTC-S is located at the southern end of the Silver Strand peninsula. It is bounded on the north by SSSB, 

on the south and southeast by the City of Imperial Beach, and on the east by a United States Fish and 

Wildlife (USFWS) National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (Figure 3.1-3). SSTC-S is separated from SSTC-N 

by SSSB, the Loews Coronado Bay Resort, and the Coronado Cays residential development. 

SSTC-S comprises about 548 acres of land that is held in fee-simple by the Navy and is surrounded by a 

variety of land uses. SSTC-S is owned by the federal government down to the mean high tide line (Figure 

3.1-3). The YMCA Camp Surf is located within a fenced area at the border of the City of Imperial Beach 

and is leased by the Navy to the YMCA. SR-75 divides SSTC-S into oceanside and bayside portions 

(Figure 3.1-3). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

LAND USE 3.1-8

SSTC-S Surrounding Land Use 

City of Imperial Beach 

Land use bordering SSTC-S to the south within the City of Imperial Beach is zoned single-family 

residential, public facility, urban reserve, and seacoast commercial zoning. Land uses immediately south 

of SSTC-S are predominantly residential. There are two schools located within the immediate vicinity of 

SSTC-S: West View Elementary located approximately 0.06 mile from the southern boundary and 

Bayside Elementary located approximately 0.5 mile from the eastern boundary (Figure 3.1-3). 

The beachfront of the City of Imperial Beach is one of the city’s best recreational assets and is used by the 

local population, and many inland communities because of the proximity of the beach to neighboring 

cities. The city jurisdictional border to the north is identified by a demarcation sign at the SSTC-S border. 

San Diego Bay 

To the east of SSTC-S is the southernmost part of San Diego Bay. San Diego Bay has natural salt 

marshes, and the salt ponds are part of a 130-year-old ecosystem. There are two refuge units within the 

USFWS NWR, the Sweetwater Marsh Unit and the South San Diego Bay Unit. The Sweetwater Marsh 

Unit is 316 acres located on the eastern edge of the San Diego Bay adjacent to the cities of San Diego, 

National City, and Chula Vista (Figure 3.1-1). The South San Diego Bay Unit consists of about 2,300 

acres, 800 hundred acres of which are leased to the USFWS by the California State Lands Commission to 

protect several species of threatened and endangered birds that live and feed in the salt ponds. The San 

Diego Bay Unit includes portions of the open bay, active solar salt evaporation ponds (Salt Works), and 

the western end of the Otay River drainage basin (referred to as the Otay River floodplain) (Figure 3.1-1). 

Most of what remains of San Diego Bay’s historic coastal salt marsh and intertidal mudflat habitat is 

preserved within these two refuge units (USFWS 2006). 

SSTC-S On-site Land Use 

The SSTC-S property is divided into three distinct districts: SSTC-S Operational and Support Area, 

YMCA Camp Surf, and the SR-75 and Ecological Preserve area. Formerly, these areas were used to 

operate the facilities and systems necessary to provide communications support for the Navy and Defense 

Communications System. Also known as the NRRF, SSTC-S is the site of the Wullenweber antenna array 

(Wullenweber). The majority of land on SSTC-S was operationally constrained and restricted from public 

use due to activities associated with the Wullenweber; however, the antenna is no longer in use. Land 

uses on SSTC-S include supply/storage functions (near Bunkers 99 and 100); military recreation facilities 

including an athletic field, playing courts, showers, a clubhouse, and picnic facilities (located near 

Bunkers 98 and 99); and four, former military family housing units (located along the southern boundary) 

that are now used for administrative purposes. 

SSTC-S Oceanside Training Beaches 

SSTC-S oceanside training beaches are located west of SR-75 and south of SSSB. The oceanside training 

beaches are divided into two training beaches (White and Purple), each consisting of two 500-yard-wide 

beach lanes (White 1 and 2, Purple 1 and 2). These beach lanes each have a corresponding boat lane 

labeled 11-14 that are owned by the Navy down to the mean high tide line (Figure 3.1-3). Training access 

to these beaches is provided through the main gate to SSTC-S at Silver Strand Blvd.

SSTC-S Bayside 

Navy training on the bayside of SSTC-S is limited because of a fence that restricts access from the 

highway. Emory Cove is used to launch small crafts; however, vessels are launched and remain within the 

bayside training areas at SSTC-N (Figure 3.1-3). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

LAND USE 3.1-9

Figure 3.1-3: SSTC-S Land Use 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

LAND USE 3.1-10

SSTC-S Inland 

Training areas located within the fence line of SSTC-S are accessed through the Silver Strand Gate, off of 

Palm Avenue in Imperial Beach. Various training activities occur within the bunkers located to the north 

of the decommissioned Wullenweber. Parachute activities occur to the east of the Wullenweber antenna 

array at the Kaufman parachute drop zone, located to the southeast (Figure 3.1-3). 

3.1.1.5.4 NASNI (Breakers Beach to Zuniga Jetty) 

NASNI is located adjacent to, and borders the western edge of the City of Coronado. The NASNI training 

area is under federal ownership and includes the beaches and nearshore waters from Breaker’s Beach to 

Zuniga Jetty (Figure 3.1-2). Only the nearshore areas around southern NASNI, the Zuniga Jetty, and 

Breaker’s Beach are being analyzed in this EIS. 

3.1.1.6 Recreation 

Recreation facilities are defined as those amenities that provide for rest, activity, education, or other 

opportunities for leisure services and community support that lead to an enhanced quality of life. These 

include nature preserves, parks, parkways, beaches, playgrounds, and community gardens. Outdoor 

recreation involves programs, activities, or opportunities dependent upon the natural environment. 

Examples include fishing, picnicking, surfing, bird-watching, hiking and interpretive trails, and camping 

areas. Many outdoor recreational opportunities are available in the SSTC ROI (Table 3.1-1). 

Table 3.1-1: Recreational Areas near SSTC 

Recreational 

Area Description 

Gator Beach 

Gator Beach is the recreational beach used by military personnel and their families at 

SSTC-N and is not open to the public. This beach is located on the northernmost 

oceanside portion of SSTC-N. Gator Beach functions as a buffer between the 

amphibious training activities to the south and the nonmilitary residential 

development to the north. Facilities at this beach include restrooms, cabanas, 

barbecue grills, and a children’s playground.

Fiddler’s Cove 

A recreational marina and RV campground, known as Fiddler’s Cove, is located on 

the bayside immediately south of the Delta Beach South and is operated by the Navy. 

This marina contains 500 boat (power and sail) slips, mooring points, a boat ramp, 

boat repair facilities, office space, classrooms, and rental facilities. In addition, up to 

40 small catamarans can be beached on the north beach of Fiddler’s Cove. The RV 

park contains 50 hard-stand camper spaces with electrical hookups. These facilities 

are open to active duty, retirees, DoD civilians, and sponsored civilian guests

Silver Strand 

State Park 

Just south of the enlisted family housing complex on the bayside of SSTC-N is a 40-

acre parcel leased to the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation for 

use as an interpretive trail system and campground. Further south of this parcel, on 

the oceanside, is SSSB. The State Beach has 2.5 miles of ocean frontage and 0.5 

miles of frontage on the San Diego Bay. The entrance to the park is from SR-75, 

which serves as a divider between the oceanside of the park and the bayside. Park 

facilities include four large parking lots that can accommodate up to 1,000 vehicles, 

restrooms and cold showers, and fire rings for cookouts. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

LAND USE 3.1-11

Table 3.1-1: Recreational Areas near SSTC (Continued) 

Recreational 

Area Description 

YMCA Camp 

Surf 

The YMCA operates a youth camp on 80 acres at the southwest corner of SSTC-S on 

land leased from the Navy, including a portion of the oceanside beach. The camp is 

operated from mid March to early November and services an average of 9,000 youths 

and adults during that timeframe. The camp includes 9 cabins, 5 platform tents, and 

other tent set up areas with a total of 252 bunks. There is also a beach camping area 

that can accommodate up to 250 people. 

Ecological 

Preserve 

A portion of SSTC-S property fronting San Diego Bay is bounded by the South San 

Diego Bay Unit of the USFWS NWR (east of S-75). The Navy has an agreement 

with the City of Coronado to provide public access to this area to further public 

education about the ecological reserve. SR-75 separates the fenced portion of SSTCS from the salt marsh ecological preserve and salt evaporation ponds. 

Coronado 

Municipal Beach 

There is one public ocean beach in the City of Coronado, the Coronado Municipal 

Beach. It is located adjacent to SSTC-N. Existing facilities include the main lifeguard 

tower and the restroom facilities, near the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and 

Isabella Avenue, and the portable lifeguard towers. All of these facilities are open to 

the public and are accessible through the City of Coronado. 

San Diego Bay 

San Diego Bay is widely used for a variety of commercial and recreational activities, 

including commercial shipping, recreational boating, sailing, and sport fishing. There 

are several yacht clubs headquartered in San Diego Bay in addition to a large number 

of public and private marinas. Formal sailboat regattas and informal racing are 

conducted throughout the San Diego Bay and in the ocean year-round, including the 

waters surrounding SSTC-N and SSTC-S. 

Pacific Ocean 

The Pacific Ocean is widely used for a variety of commercial and recreational 

activities include boating, sailing, surfing, and sport fishing. Activities originate from 

San Diego Bay, Coronado Municipal Beach, Silver Strand State Beach, and Imperial 

Beach. Commercial and recreational activities often transit along the SSTC-N and 

SSTC-S boat lanes. 

Bayshore Bike 

Route 

The San Diego Bay Bike Route is a 25-mile bike trail. To begin, cyclists can take the 

passenger and bicycle ferry across to Coronado from Harbor Drive or may begin 

anywhere along the route. Most of the path runs along Coronado bike lanes or 

separated bike paths. A 9-mile stretch along the south and west sides of San Diego 

Bay (Silver Strand) follows the former Coronado Branch of the San Diego and 

Arizona Eastern Railroad. The rails are still visible in some places and allow for 

scenic views of San Diego along the Silver Strand. 

Imperial Beach 

The City of Imperial Beach, located south of SSTC-S, is responsible for the 

beachfront from its city limit south to the Tijuana Slough NWR. The beach is 

designated as a public facility, and ownership of the beaches is retained by the public. 

Within the Coastal Zone of Imperial Beach several routes are designated as bicycle 

routes. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

LAND USE 3.1-12

3.1.1.7 Current Mitigation Measures 

There are no mitigation measures implemented to minimize impacts specific to land use in the SSTC 

ROI. However, the Navy strives to be a good neighbor to the community by maintaining, to the greatest 

extent practicable, land use compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and providing public access 

whenever possible. The Navy recognizes the importance of public access and works with the community 

to ensure access to the public beach areas. Further, there are mitigation measures in place for other 

resources that apply to land use on SSTC, mainly through the stipulation of training parameters (e.g., 

Acoustic Environment [Section 3.6], Biological Resources [Sections 3.7-3.12], Public Health and Safety 

[Section 3.16]). 

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences 

This resource section focuses on groups of training activities that have the potential to result in an impact 

to land use. Similar types of activities are grouped together in the discussion to facilitate the impacts 

analysis. Types of activities that could affect land use include air, beach, inland, San Diego Bay, and 

ocean activities. These activity groupings identified in Chapter 2 and analyzed in this section consist of 

the following: 

• Air Activities: 4, 6, 7, 12, 16, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 37, 64, 66 (Table 2-1), and N4-N8 (Table 2-

2); 

• Beach Activities: 5, 15-18, 20, 24-30, 32, 33, 36, 38-48, 50-53, 56-59, 64, and 67-77 (Table 2-1); 

• Inland Activities: 31 and 64 (Table 2-1); and 

• San Diego Bay and Ocean Activities: 4-7, 10-12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 25-28, 35, 37-42, 44-46, 50-53, 56-

57, 67, 70, 71 (Table 2-1), N2, N4-N7, and N9 (Table 2-2). 

Activities that do not have the potential to affect land use include the following: Activities 1-3, 8-9, 13-

14, 19, 21-23, 34, 49, 54-55, 61-63, 65, 78 (Table 2-1) and N1, N3, N11 (Table 2-2). These activities are 

not discussed further within this section. 

3.1.2.1 Approach to Analysis 

Factors considered in assessing significance include the extent or degree to which implementation of an 

alternative would cause substantial change to currently approved or proposed land use regulations. The 

analysis of land use concerns are centered on the potential exclusion of public access to the public 

beaches of SSTC-S (below the high tide line) and the public land adjacent to Navy training areas. Further, 

since certain sound levels can create land use incompatibilities or be inconsistent with local land uses, the 

effects of ordnance- and aircraft-generated sound are addressed in Section 3.6 as it relates to the location 

of sensitive noise receptors. 

3.1.2.2 No Action Alternative 

3.1.2.2.1 Air Activities 

Both military and nonmilitary entities have been conducting aircraft activities in the area for well over 60 

years. The San Diego International Airport is located just five miles north of SSTC. Military aviation 

activities conducted within the SSTC include activities 4, 6, 7, 12, 16, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 35, 66 (Table 2-

2). 

Under the No Action Alternative, aircraft activities would continue to result in overflights of public land 

adjacent to SSTC. Aircraft are required to approach and depart from the training beaches over the water, 

so an estimated 80 percent of their flight occurs over the water. Aircraft overflights associated with the 

No Action Alternative would not directly change the ownership, land use, management, recreation or 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

LAND USE 3.1-13

visual setting of the area beneath it. Aircraft activities occur over communities already subjected to these 

types of activities. Sound associated with aircraft activities, as well as compatibility of sound levels with 

existing and proposed land use and sensitive noise receptors, is addressed in Section 3.6. 

3.1.2.2.2 Beach Activities 

Beach training activities are conducted within areas currently designated for military training use. 

Activities that would restrict public access to public beaches (below the high tide line at SSTC-S) include 

5, 15-18, 20, 24-30, 32, 33, 36, 38-48, 50-53, 56-59, 64, and 67-77 (Table 2-1). Since these activities are 

consistent with established land uses, ongoing training activities have no impact on current land uses 

within the installation. Some training activities are conducted outside SSTC and NASNI boundaries. For 

land use purposes these include training activities 16, 24, 38, 44, 57, 60, 68, 70-73, and 77 (Table 2-1). 

Types of training outside the installation boundary include activities such as rock portage, anchoring, 

insertion of personnel into the water, and transfer of personnel in the water between vessels and can occur 

at the Coronado Rock Jetty, SSSB, offshore of SSSB, outside the SSTC-S fence line, and in the San 

Diego Bay waters around NASNI. Since activities conducted outside SSTC and NASNI boundaries do 

not result in land use conflicts and do not interfere with public recreation or access to the beach, they have 

no impact on current land use. Sound associated with beach activities (Amphibious Training and 

Munitions) as well as compatibility of noise levels is addressed in Section 3.6 (Acoustic Environment). 

At SSTC-N, public access is currently restricted on SSTC-N beach areas from Coronado Municipal 

Beach to the north and SSSB to the south. As discussed above, the Navy leases the oceanside beaches and 

nearshore waters on SSTC-N, and a fence that runs parallel to SR-75 precludes public access on the 

bayside. 

At SSTC-S, the Navy owns the oceanside beach down to the mean high tide line and precludes public 

access to the beach training lanes (White 1 and 2 and Purple 1 and 2), above the mean high tide line. 

Activities listed above may require one or more beach lanes to be restricted to public access below the 

mean high tide line. While these activities are being conducted, safety personnel are stationed as a buffer 

to keep nonparticipants from harm and to ensure mission security. Civilians are restricted from the 

training area while these activities are being conducted. When public access to the beach below the high 

tide line is restricted, it may only be restricted within one of the beach lanes, allowing public access to 

other areas of the beach below the high tide line. Navy training scheduling varies depending on fleet 

deployment schedules and is not limited to any days of the year. Beach access restrictions may last one to 

four hours; however, on average, these activities would typically require the beach to be closed for about 

2 hours. One activity, the Immediate Action Drill (IAD) (Activity 59, Table 2-1) can require the beach to 

be closed up to eight hours. During IAD, one to two beach lanes are used for training purposes. The 

public would be restricted from using the beach area (to the extent of these two beach lanes); however, 

they would not be restricted access to other adjacent public beach areas. Therefore, the public would have 

ample access to the beach. 

3.1.2.2.3 Inland Activities 

Inland training activities are conducted within areas currently designated for military training use. Since 

these activities are consistent with established land uses within SSTC-N, SSTC-S, and NASNI, ongoing 

training activities have no impact on current land use within the installation. 

Sound associated with inland activities 31 and 64 (Table 2-1), as well as compatibility of sound levels, is 

addressed in Section 3.6 (Acoustic Environment). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

LAND USE 3.1-14

3.1.2.2.4 San Diego Bay and Ocean Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, activities that require ocean or San Diego Bay access restrictions 

include 4-7, 10-12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 25-28, 35, 37-42, 44-46, 50-53, 56-57, 67, 70, and 71 (Table 2-1). 

Clearance requirements for these activities range from less than an acre to up to 18 acres. Military use of 

the ocean area off SSTC, NASNI, and the San Diego Bay area is compatible with civilian use. When 

naval vessels are conducting activities that are not compatible with other uses, they are confined to an 

operating area with specific clearance requirements that do not preclude free flowing commercial or 

recreational boating traffic within the offshore and San Diego Bay area. In addition, training activities in 

the nearshore areas off of SSTC-N and SSTC-S are delayed or moved if the range cannot be cleared of 

nonparticipating vessels and individuals and clearance is required for public safety or mission security. 

3.1.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would increase the training tempo from 3,926 activities to 5,343 

activities annually. Implementation of Alternative 1 would also include the introduction of new types of 

training, conducting existing routine training at additional locations within SSTC established training 

areas, and increasing training access to and availability of existing beach and inland training areas. 

3.1.2.3.1 Air Activities 

Under Alternative 1, air activities would continue to use existing approach and departure corridors from 

the training beaches over the water. In addition to an increase in the No Action tempo, activities N4, N5, 

N6, N7, and N8 (Table 2-2) are proposed to be conducted under Alternative 1. The latter activity (N8, 

Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel) would involve landing or hovering of helicopters at SSTCS, at nighttime. The other activities (Activities N4-N7) would involve the transit of helicopters offshore 

from NASNI to SSTC boat training lanes but the craft would not land within the training complex nor 

hover over land. 

Under Alternative 1, existing aircraft activities would continue to result in overflights of public land 

adjacent to SSTC. New aircraft overflights associated with Alternative 1 would not directly change the 

ownership, land use, management, recreation, or visual setting of the area beneath it. Aircraft activities 

would continue to occur over communities already subjected to these types of activities. The Amphibious 

Raid exercise (Activity 25, Table 2-1) would continue to represent the most intense aircraft event at SSTC 

(increase from 2 to 18 events per year). Sound associated with aircraft activities as well as compatibility 

of noise levels is addressed in Section 3.6 (Acoustic Environment).

3.1.2.3.2 Beach Activities 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would increase training tempo and introduce new activities to the SSTC 

beaches (N2, N8, N10, and N11 [Table 2-2]). Training activities would continue to be conducted within 

areas currently designated for military training use and within areas outside SSTC and NASNI as 

described under the No Action Alternative. Since these activities would be consistent with established 

land uses, proposed training activities would have no impact on current land use. Sound associated with 

beach activities (Amphibious Training and Munitions) as well as sensitive noise receptors and 

compatibility of noise levels is addressed in Section 3.6 (Acoustic Environment). 

Under Alternative 1, the increase in training tempo would result in an associated increase in beach 

closures at SSTC-S. Under Alternative 1, the Navy would continue existing safety protocols to keep 

nonparticipants from harm and to ensure mission security (as discussed under the No Action Alternative). 

For public safety purposes, the Navy would continue to restrict public access to the beach at SSTC-N out 

to 500 yards offshore and to SSTC-S (above and below the mean high tide line). Under Alternative 1, the 

Navy would not preclude the public to access the public beach adjacent to the training areas. At SSTC-S, 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

LAND USE 3.1-15

public access above the mean high tide line on Navy-owned land would continue to be restricted. The 

Navy would also continue to restrict public access below the mean high tide line in the training lanes 

during some training activities for public safety or mission security reasons (Activities 16-18, 20, 24-30, 

32, 33, 36, 38-41, 43-48, 50-53, 56-59, 64, and 68-77 [Table 2-1]). Under Alternative 1, Activities N9 and 

N14 would require public access restrictions below the mean high tide line. As described under the No 

Action Alternative, the IAD (Activity 59, Table 2-1) can require the beach to be closed up to eight hours. 

During IAD, one to two beach lanes are used for training purposes. The public would be restricted from 

using the beach area (to the extent of these two beach lanes); however, they would not be restricted access 

to other adjacent public beach areas. 

3.1.2.3.3 Inland Activities 

Under Alternative 1, inland training activities would continue to be conducted within areas currently 

designated for military training use. Since these activities are consistent with established land uses within 

SSTC-N, SSTC-S, and NASNI, proposed increases in training activities would have no impact on current 

land use within the installation. 

Under Alternative 1, Breacher Training (Activity 31, Table 2-1), would be conducted at Bunker 98 and 

interior and exterior of Bunker 99. All buildings are located within the fenced boundaries of SSTC-S. 

Sound associated with training activities as well as sensitive noise receptors and compatibility of noise 

levels is addressed in Section 3.6 (Acoustic Environment). Public access to public land (e.g., below the 

high tide line) would not be restricted during breacher training. 

3.1.2.3.4 San Diego Bay and Ocean Activities 

Under Alternative 1, activities that require ocean or San Diego Bay access restrictions and clearance 

requirements would be the same as those described under the No Action Alternative. Military use of the 

ocean area off SSTC, NASNI, and the San Diego Bay area is compatible with civilian use. When naval 

vessels are conducting activities that are not compatible with other uses, they would continue to be 

confined to an operating area with specific clearance requirements that would still allow free flowing 

commercial or recreational boating traffic within the offshore and San Diego Bay area. In addition, 

training activities in the nearshore areas off of SSTC-N and SSTC-S would continue to be delayed or 

moved if the range cannot be cleared of nonparticipating vessels and individuals and clearance is required 

for public safety or mission security purposes. 

3.1.2.4 Alternative 2 

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the training tempo from 3,926 activities to 5,343 

activities annually. Implementation of Alternative 2 would also include the introduction of new types of 

training, conducting existing routine training at additional locations within SSTC established training 

areas, and increasing training access to and availability of existing beach and inland training areas. The 

only differences between Alternative 1 and 2 is that, under Alternative 2, training tempo would increase 

and all SSTC-N oceanside beach training areas would be available for Navy training regardless of time of 

year. Despite the increase in training tempo, training activities would continue to be compatible with onsite and surrounding land use and recreational resources. The change in the availability of the SSTC-N 

beach lanes for training purposes would not alter land use, as the beach lanes are currently and would 

continue to be used for military training. Impacts regarding public beach access would be the same as 

those described under Alternative 1. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

LAND USE 3.1-16

3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are warranted. Mitigation measures in place for other resources (e.g., Acoustic 

Environment, Biological Resources, Public Health and Safety), which affect land use on SSTC, would 

continue to be implemented. 

3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 

There are no unavoidable adverse environmental effects to land use as a result of implementation of any 

of the alternatives. 

3.1.5 Summary of Effects 

Table 3.1-2 summarizes the effects and mitigation measures for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, 

and Alternative 2. 

Table 3.1-2: Summary of Effects 

Alternative Effects 

No Action Alternative 

• Current Navy activities include long-established military land uses, and 

the Navy allows the public access to the public beaches adjacent to 

active training areas. 

Alternative 1 

• Alternative 1 would include activities that are consistent with longestablished military land uses and the Navy allows the public access to 

public beaches adjacent to active training areas Use of training areas 

would increase under Alternative 1. 

Alternative 2 

• The effects of Alternative 2 on land use would be similar to the effects 

described under Alternative 1. The Navy allows the public access to 

public beaches adjacent to active training areas. 

Mitigation Measures • There are mitigation measures in place for other resources (e.g., 

Acoustic Environment [Section 3.6], Biological Resources [Sections 

3.7-3.12], Public Health and Safety [Section 3.16]) that also apply to 

land use on SSTC, mainly through the stipulation of training 

parameters. 
3.2 Geology and Soils 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.2-1

3.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.2.1 Affected Environment 

3.2.1.1 Introduction 

3.2.1.1.1 Resource Definition 

Topographic characteristics, geologic formations, soil conditions and erosion potential, and seismic and 

faulting conditions, in addition to landslide and liquefaction potential, are discussed in this section. The 

geologic resources of an area consist of its soil and bedrock materials. This includes sediments and rock 

outcroppings in the onshore and nearshore environments. For the purposes of this Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS), the terms soil and rock refer to unconsolidated and consolidated materials, respectively. 

3.2.1.1.2 Regional Setting 

Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC) is located in Southern California, a region noted for its intense 

seismic activity. The action area is located on the coastal plain that occupies the western portion of the 

Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The coastal plain consists of numerous marine and nonmarine 

terraces of sedimentary rocks dissected by stream valleys. Most of the soils within the coastal terraces are 

comprised of sandy loams, clay loams, and clays. At the base of the western mountain slopes, the soils are 

generally well-drained sandy loams or silt loams over decomposed granitic or meta-volcanic rock (Pryde 

1992). 

3.2.1.1.3 Region of Influence 

The Region of Influence for the alternatives addressed in this EIS includes the topography, geology, soils, 

and seismic hazards of the SSTC and the southern, nearshore area of Naval Air Station North Island 

(NASNI). 

3.2.1.2 Terrestrial Geology and Topography 

3.2.1.2.1 Topography 

The topography of the lands around San Diego Bay is characterized by gently sloping ground at an 

average elevation of about 10 feet above mean sea level (msl). Silver Strand peninsula, which lies 

between San Diego Bay and the Pacific Ocean, is generally level, with slopes typically between 1 and 5 

percent. The average elevation of Silver Strand peninsula, including SSTC-North (SSTC-N), is also about 

10 feet above msl, and the elevation rarely exceeds 15 feet above msl (Department of the Navy [DoN] 

1989). 

SSTC-South (SSTC-S) slopes gently from about 35 feet above msl at its northern end to about 10 feet 

above msl at its southern end. Most of SSTC-S lies on a plateau at an elevation of about 30 feet above 

msl, from which the terrain slopes gradually down toward the Pacific Ocean to the west and toward the 

tidelands of San Diego Bay to the east. A few small depressions on SSTC-S form seasonal pools and 

waterfowl habitats during the winter. 

3.2.1.2.2 Geology 

SSTC is underlain by the Quaternary-age Bay Point Formation and surficial deposits of natural beach 

sands and dredge fill soils. The Bay Point Formation is composed of marine, lagoonal, and nonmarine 

sources of poorly consolidated fine- and medium-grained, pale brown, fossiliferous sandstone (United 

States Department of Agriculture [USDA] 1973). Beach deposits are composed of unconsolidated sand 

and silt derived from many sources as a result of longshore drifts and alluvial discharges from major 

stream courses. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.2-2

No artificial fill soils are located on SSTC-S. 

3.2.1.2.3 Soils 

Soil types on the Silver Strand peninsula vary by location. North Island is mapped as primarily Marina 

Loamy Coarse Sand (USDA 1973). The southeastern portion of North Island abutting the City of 

Coronado is mapped as filled soils. Soils on Breakers Beach and Zuniga Point are mapped as Coastal 

Beaches (Table 3.2-1). 

Table 3.2-1: Soils on Silver Strand Training Complex and Portions of Naval Air Station North 

Island 

Soil Type Training Areas Soil Characteristics 

Marina Loamy Coarse 

Sand (MIC) 

SSTC-N, SSTC-S Medium grain, with low shrink-swell potential, 2-9 percent 

slope, 0.6-20.0 permeability (inches/hour), depth >5 feet, 

severe erodability potential. Mean annual precipitation 12-14 

inches. Mean annual air temperature 60-62 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F). 

Huerhuero Loam (HrC) SSTC-S Very fine grain, with high shrink-swell potential, 2-9 percent 

slope, 0.6-2.0 permeability (inches/ hour), depth >5 feet, 

severe erodability potential. Mean annual precipitation 10-12 

inches. Mean annual air temperature 60-62°F. 

Huerhuero Urban (HuC) none 

Coastal Beaches (Cr) NASNI (beaches), 

SSTC-N, SSTC-S 

Low shrink-swell potential, severe erodability potential. 

Partially, regularly covered by water. No vegetation. Mean 

annual precipitation 12-14 inches. Mean annual air 

temperature 60-62°F. 

Tidal Flats (Tf) SSTC-N Level, barren, saline soils inundated daily by tidal waters. 

Higher elevations may support sparese salt-tolerant 

vegetation. Texture ranges from very fine sand to clay. High 

shrink-swell potential, severe erodability potential 

Made Lands (Md) none Variable – depends upon source of fill materials 

Source: USDA 1973. 

Soils on the bayside portion of SSTC-N are mostly hydraulic fill (Figure 3.2-1). These soils are composed 

of loose to moderately dense, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand with gravel and shell, and become 

saturated at a depth of about 26 feet below grade (DoN 1992). This fill is underlain by Bay Point 

Formation deposits. 

Soils on the southern bayside portion of SSTC-N consist of Marina Loamy Coarse Sand. These soils are 

very deep, excessively drained, loamy coarse sands to loamy sands that occur on beach ridges. These soils 

have a high infiltration rate, a slow to medium runoff rate, and a severe erosion potential. The topsoil is 

loamy coarse sand to loamy sand, ranging from 6 to 14 inches thick. The subsoil is loamy coarse sand to 

loamy sand 27 to 47 inches thick (USDA 1973). 

Soils on the bayside portion of SSTC-S include Marina Loamy Coarse Sand and Huerhuero Loam Sand 

(Figure 3.2-2). These soils have low to medium fertility, a slow permeability rate, a slow to medium 

runoff rate, and a severe erodability potential. The topsoil is sandy loam to loam 5 to 30 inches thick. The 

subsoil is clay, to clay loam, to sandy loam, 45 to 67 inches thick (USDA 1973). 

The oceanside portions of SSTC-N and SSTC-S are mapped as Coastal Beaches, sandy and gravelly areas 

along the open shoreline of the Pacific Ocean. Beach soils sampled on Silver Strand by the U.S. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.2-3

Figure 3.2-1: SSTC-North Soil Composition
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.2-4

Figure 3.2-2: SSTC-South Soil Composition 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.2-5

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are a mixture of fine-grained silty sands and well-graded to poorly 

graded medium-grained sands, with a fine grains content of 1 to 5 percent (USACE 2003). Beach soils 

have a high infiltration rate. The rate of water transmission is also high, resulting in low runoff potential. 

These soils are highly erodible. The beaches are exposed to constant sea-action and coastal winds and are, 

therefore, subject to further erosion. The dunes along the oceanside of Silver Strand peninsula are also 

subject to erosion from prevailing coastal winds, surf, storm surge, and military training maneuvers. 

3.2.1.2.4 Geologic Hazards 

The California Geological Survey (CGS) classifies faults as either active or potentially active, according 

to the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972 (California Division of Mines and Geology 

[CDMG] 1990). CGS defines an active fault as a fault that has exhibited surface displacement within the 

Holocene Epoch (the last 11,000 years). A fault that has exhibited surface displacement during the 

Pleistocene Epoch (which began about 1.6 million years ago and ended about 11,000 years ago) is defined 

as potentially active. Earthquake magnitude is measured according to the Richter scale. 

SSTC lies in coastal San Diego County, which is an active seismic region. Major active or potentially 

active faults in the San Diego area include San Jacinto and Elsinore faults located approximately 66 miles 

and 44 miles east of SSTC, respectively; La Nacion Fault, located approximately 7 miles east of SSTC; 

and Rose Canyon Fault, crossing NASNI north of SSTC-N (Figure 3.2-3). Offshore faults include 

Coronado Bank Fault and San Clemente Fault, located approximately 12 and 41 miles to the west in the 

Pacific Ocean, respectively. 

There is also a north-trending pattern of secondary faults, including (from north to south) the Spanish 

Bight, Coronado, and Silver Strand Faults. These secondary faults are considered to be splays of the Rose 

Canyon Fault. Rose Canyon Fault is considered to be active by the CDMG, and could produce a 

maximum credible earthquake of 7.0 on the Richter Scale. 

The seismic hazards most likely to be detrimental to SSTC are ground shaking and liquefaction resulting 

from a large earthquake generated on a major regional or locally active fault. Liquefaction is defined as 

the transformation of soils from a solid to a liquid state during ground shaking. Liquefaction generally 

requires loose, unconsolidated silts or sands at or near the groundwater table. Liquefaction can result in 

differential settlement of structures, damaged foundations, and downed utility lines. Portions of SSTC are 

located on hydraulic fill or sand, so the project area is highly susceptible to liquefaction and settlement 

from ground shaking during an earthquake. A major earthquake on a local fault could render SSTC 

unsuitable for training until liquefaction abates. 

The threat of flooding by tsunami is a potential hazard because of the proximity of SSTC to the ocean. 

Tsunamis are long, shallow, high-velocity ocean waves that are typically generated by seismic activity. 

Historically, the highest recorded tsunami in San Diego County was 4.6 ft, following the 1960 Chilean 

earthquake (DoN 1992). An earthquake along San Clemente Fault, which shows evidence of vertical 

separation parallel to the coastline, could generate a tsunami along the California coast (Inman and 

Nordstrom 1973). Associated currents could be strong enough to damage structures in the water or along 

the coastline. 

Seiches are surges of liquids in confined bodies of liquid, such as reservoirs or tanks. They can be caused 

by ground shaking during an earthquake. Such events may inundate shorelines and possibly cause some 

flooding. A review of relevant literature indicates that San Diego Bay is not prone to seiches. 

Landslides typically occur on steep slopes in soils with high shrink-swell characteristics, such as clays. 

Because SSTC is relatively flat, with no major slopes, and the soils are well-drained loamy sands, 

landslides are not a potential hazard. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.2-6

Figure 3.2-3: Local and Regional Faults in Project Vicinity 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.2-7

3.2.1.3 Marine Geology 

3.2.1.3.1 San Diego Bay 

Historically, the San Diego Bay floor and margins were characterized by sand, silt, clay, mud (silt and 

clay less than 62 microns in diameter), and mudstone. Sands were most common at the mouth and along 

the western margins of San Diego Bay, while finer mud deposits characterized the eastern margins and 

southern extremity of San Diego Bay (Peeling 1975). According to studies in 1980 by San Diego Gas & 

Electric Company, the thickness of San Diego Bay floor muds averages 0 to 8 feet. The mud sits upon 

layers of sand and sandy-silt, which rest on older semiconsolidated sediments. The diversion of the San 

Diego River and the damming of the Sweetwater and Otay Rivers have reduced natural sedimentation 

sources into San Diego Bay. 

Without human intervention, San Diego Bay may have eventually (in geologic time) filled up with 

sediment delivered by the San Diego, Otay, and Sweetwater Rivers. The northward drift of beach sand 

that connected Coronado Island with the mainland, and Coronado and North Islands together, eventually 

could have blocked or nearly blocked the harbor entrance. Breakwaters, channel maintenance, and tidal 

action prevent this process from occurring (Norris and Webb 1990). 

During the century prior to the 1960s, the annual dredging rate averaged 4.3 to 6.1 million cubic yards, 

which is 3 to 6 times the former (background) yearly sediment input. This annual dredging rate was 

roughly 17 to 34 times the current yearly sediment input to San Diego Bay. The severely reduced 

sediment input is further confirmed by the unusually low volume of maintenance dredging conducted in 

interior channel areas (Smith 1976). As a result of all the above, sediment composition and distribution 

are highly altered from their historical conditions. 

3.2.1.3.2 Pacific Ocean 

The marine portions of SSTC are located in Silver Strand Littoral Cell (SSLC). A littoral cell is a coastal 

compartment that contains a complete cycle of littoral (beach) sedimentation, including sources, transport 

pathways, and sinks. SSLC extends south along the coast from Point Loma in the United States to the 

southern end of Playas de Tijuana in Baja California Sur, Mexico. The Tijuana River Delta is a major 

shoreline feature within SSLC. 

SSLC has been the subject of many shoreline studies since the early 1960s. Many recent reports were 

produced by USACE as part of the Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study (Inman et al. 1986; 

USACE 1985, 1987). These studies reveal that the advance and retreat of the shoreline have varied 

greatly over the last several decades, primarily as a result of beach nourishment projects and wave 

erosion. 

In the past, the large volume of sediment discharge from the Tijuana River ensured a continuing supply of 

sand and sediment entering SSTC from the south. The damming of the Tijuana River has decreased its 

sediment load by an estimated 70 percent, however, and beaches in Imperial Beach and Coronado are 

experiencing rapid erosion. Erosion is most noticeable to the south of Coronado, at Imperial Beach and 

Playas de Tijuana. Historical surveys and photographs reveal average annual erosion rates of about 3 feet 

per year (USACE 2003). The sand movement along the shoreline is predominantly toward the north, with 

occasional reversals. The primary sink for beach sands is a shoal off Zuniga Jetty at the entrance to 

San Diego Bay. 

SSTC ocean shores are characterized by sand beaches, wave-cut rocky platforms, and gravel beaches. 

Along SSTC-S, soft-bottom habitat characterizes the ocean floor, with a short stretch of cobble bed at a 

depth of about 55 feet. Coarse shell debris was observed along the alignment of South Bay Ocean Outfall 

from about 50 to 80 feet deep, with finer sediments inshore and offshore. A study area one mile to the 

north and parallel to this outfall alignment indicated substantially more low-relief rocks, boulders, and 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.2-8

cobbles from approximately 48 feet out to about 90 feet in depth (U.S. International Boundary Waters 

Commission 1998). 

The sea floor within the region consists of soft sand and mud, hard-shale bedrock, and cobble/ 

boulder fields, with finer-grain clays more common in deeper water and sandy sediments along the 

shoreline. Hard substrate is found along the shoreline at shallow and deep rock reefs, while 

cobble/boulder habitats are most common near the mouths of rivers and streams. Centaur Associates 

(1984) found that, except in some submarine canyons, the regional sea floor habitats generally consist of 

mud (silts and clays) in water depths of 300 feet or more. 

3.2.2 Current Mitigation Measures 

The Navy has implemented the following measures to mitigate the effects of its training activities on 

soils: 

• Sand (of a quality that is appropriate for nesting California least terns) is periodically replenished 

on Delta beaches when available. 

• Vegetation on the back dunes of SSTC beaches is maintained to reduce water and wind erosion. 

• In inland SSTC-S areas, vehicles are restricted to existing roads to minimize the loss of 

vegetation. 

In addition, the Naval Base Coronado (NBC) Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) 

includes strategies to minimize erosion on SSTC and the Navy works to implement these strategies. 

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences 

This resource section focuses on groups of activities that could accelerate soil erosion or loss of 

sediments. Geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, liquefaction, and tsunamis will affect all training 

activities if the event reaches sufficient magnitude. Soil erosion is a natural process occurring on all land. 

Erosion processes include sheet and rill erosion, gullying, and wind erosion. Accelerated soil erosion is 

defined as a net loss of soil due to land use 

Similar types of activities are grouped together (aggregated) for ease of analysis. Types of activities that 

could affect soils and sediments include intense or extensive foot traffic on sandy beaches, beach landings 

of large motorized vessels, large beach camps, and substantial soil (e.g., by bulldozer) or sediment (e.g., 

by driving piles) displacement. Activities without the potential to affect soils or sediments are air, ground, 

surface and mid-column water activities, including 2-4, 6, 8, 9, 13-16, 18, 21, 23, 35, 44, 49, 54, 55, 63, 

66, 70, 78, and N1, N4-N7 (Tables 2-1 and 2-2). Other activities without the potential to affect soils or 

sediments are anchoring (Activity 1, Table 2-1), dispersed or small-footprint foot traffic, or foot traffic on 

hard surfaces (16, 17, 19, 30, 36, 47, 57-64, 67, 72, and 73 [Table 2-1]), small beach camps (Activity 74, 

Table 2-1), beach landings by small boats (20, 22, 24, 29, 33, 34, 56 [Table 2-1]), and land training 

activities that do not disturb surface soils (Activities 31 and 65, Table 2-1). 

3.2.3.1 Approach to Analysis 

Potential geology and soil impacts are limited to elements of current and proposed activities that could 

affect onshore and bay/ocean bottom sediments or that could be affected by geologic hazards. Aircraft 

activities are not expected to affect geology and soils. Potential bay/ocean sediment contamination issues 

are addressed in the Water Resources impact analysis (Section 3.5). 

Impacts associated with geology and soils can be direct or indirect. Direct impacts result from physical 

soil disturbances or topographic alterations, while indirect impacts include risks to individuals and 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.2-9

facilities from geologic hazards. Factors considered in determining whether an impact would be 

significant or substantial include the potential for substantial change in soil stability and physical effects 

on ocean bottom sediments and natural ocean processes (e.g., sedimentation and currents). 

The extent of direct land use effects on soil erosion depends on the nature, frequency, and duration of the 

activity, and on the topography of the training area, the soil type, and prevailing meteorological 

conditions (e.g., surface wind speeds and seasonal rainfall patterns). Because the rainy season in San 

Diego is relatively short and the incidence of heavy rainfall events is relatively low, wind erosion is 

expected to account for a portion of overall soil transport. In general: 

• Longer training activities result in more soil disturbance than shorter activities, 

• Areas frequently disturbed are more prone to erosion than areas seldom disturbed, 

• Sloped areas have higher erosion rates than level areas, 

• Finer soils are affected more by disturbance than coarser soils, 

• Erosion from surface flows of rain storm runoff occurs mostly from October to April, and 

• The intensity of wind erosion of soils is related to wind speed, with noticeable entrainment of 

loose alluvial soils beginning at wind speeds of about 12 miles per hour. 

Currently available methods and information are insufficient to fully quantify these effects; however, a 

qualitative analysis of training impacts on the soils of the training areas is provided. 

3.2.3.2 No Action Alternative 

3.2.3.2.1 Inland Activities 

Training activities under the No Action Alternative may alter erosion rates in upland areas by disturbing 

surface soils. Foot and vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces increase wind and water erosion of soils by 

reducing vegetative cover and breaking up the soil crust. The excavating, grading, and trenching of 

unpaved surfaces is an intentional disturbance and redistribution of these inland soils. 

Under the No Action Alternative, 24 separate training activities will take place in the inland portions of 

SSTC-S (4, 16, 25, 26, 28-31, 47, 58-66, 69, 71-74, and 77 [Table 2-1]). On inland portions of SSTC-S, 

vehicles are restricted to existing roads, so they do not disturb soils. Because the site has low relief and is 

well vegetated, dispersed, low-intensity training activities do not affect surface soils. Six activities, 

however, could affects soils (25, 26, 68, 69, 71, and 77 [Table 2-1]). 

The most intense use of SSTC-S Inland, in terms of effects on soils, is the Field Training Exercises 

(FTXs) (e.g., SEAHAWK), which include large, multiday camps. This intensive use (roughly about one 

exercise per week) results in unavoidable surface disturbance, and damage to or loss of vegetation. Past 

exercises have resulted in the loss of vegetative cover over several acres. Depending upon their timing, 

relative to seasonal conditions such as summer drought (when plant growth is minimal) and winter rain 

storms, these soil disturbances and surface hydrology alterations could accelerate natural erosion 

processes. However, the topography of the site,with low areas landward of a barrier of beach dunes along 

the western fence line, serves to contain eroded soils on-site. Thus, off-site transport of soils is expected 

to be negligible. Long-term use of the uplands on SSTC-S for overnight camps would not cause soils to 

be transported from the higher elevations of the site to the lower elevations because the area is relatively 

flat and vegetation on the site would retain the soils. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.2-10

3.2.3.2.2 Beach Activities 

Training activities at SSTC affect beach sands by disturbing their surfaces and increasing their erosion 

potential. Some logistics activities alter surface contours directly or involve the use of special equipment 

(e.g., bulldozer) that has enhanced potential for disturbance. The discussion below focuses on these 

aspects of training. 

Foot and Vehicle Traffic 

Training activities under the No Action Alternative may affect beaches directly by disturbing the surface 

of the ground, as discussed above for upland areas. Training activities that generate extensive foot traffic 

on beaches include 17, 25, 26, 32, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, and 77 (Table 2-1). Together, these 10 SSTC 

training activities generate an estimated 1,350,000 person-hours of foot travel on SSTC beaches. 

Approximately 80 percent of this activity occurs on SSTC-S Inland, with about 13 percent occurring on 

SSTC-N and seven percent occurring on SSTC-S. Of the activities listed, only Hell Week activities may 

occur on Breakers Beach at NASNI. 

The use of wheeled vehicles on beaches, especially on the wet lower portion of the beach, has no longterm effect on beach sands. Tracked heavy equipment and vehicles, such as the bulldozers used in several 

of the Logistics Over the Shore (NTA 4.5.6) activities, have a larger footprint than wheeled vehicles. On 

soft ground, they compact the surface when traveling in a straight line, but create ruts and loose soil when 

turning. Bulldozers may be used for beach preparation, including construction of temporary sand ramps 

and beach access roads. They also drag and secure beach termini of logistics systems (e.g., Beach 

Interface Unit [BIU] of Amphibious Bulk-Liquid Transfer System [ABLTS], Beach Termination Unit 

[BTU] of the Offshore Petroleum Discharge System [OPDS]). Where training activities require natural 

beach contours to be altered, they are restored using bulldozers, to the extent practical, at the conclusion 

of the activity. Thus, training units ensure that heavy equipment use on SSTC beaches has no long-term 

effect on beach sands. 

Bulk Liquid Transfers 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy will conduct up to 14 simulated bulk-fuel transfers (Activities 

38, 39, and 50 [Table 2-2]). During such training exercises, seawater pumped through the transfer line 

onto the beach must be returned to the sea. Training units use a return hose to ensure that seawater 

discharges do not affect beach soils. 

3.2.3.2.3 Water Activities 

Existing training activities in nearshore and surf zone areas, as well as those on the wet portion of the 

beach, have continuing effects on bottom sediments and beach sands. Bottom sediments in the surf zone 

(or in shallow waters on the bayside) are stirred up by turbulence from the propellers of small, powered 

watercraft. Fine sediments are suspended in the water column more frequently, and for longer durations, 

than under natural conditions. Larger watercraft, such as Landing Craft Units (LCUs), may stir up large 

amounts of sand and sediment. Maneuvering and positioning powered pontoons and barges in shallow 

water also stirs up bottom sediments. Construction training in the San Diego Bay and ocean occurs in 

Causeway Pier Insertion/Extraction, Elevated Causeway (ELCAS), and OPDS training exercises. These 

exercises occur 19 times per year under baseline conditions. Ocean floor construction disturbs bottom 

sediments. 

The amount of sediment disturbed may be insignificant for an individual activity; however, the aggregate 

effect of these periodic disturbances could be to accelerate the erosion of beach sands and enhance 

longshore transport of nearshore bottom sediments along the training beaches. By increasing the 

frequency of sediment disturbance and the length of time the sediments remain suspended in the water 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.2-11

column, training activities in very shallow water could enhance the lateral transport of sediments to the 

north in the relatively strong longshore current along Silver Strand. 

Under baseline conditions, approximately 10,000 small boats and amphibious vehicles and vessels per 

year land on SSTC beaches (Appendix C). Beach landings temporarily result in loss of beach sand and 

sediments. Ocean sediment transport, however, will deposit new sediment in areas disturbed by beach 

landings. These training activities have no long-term or widespread effects on bottom topography or 

sediment quality. 

Underwater detonations of up to 20 pounds Net Explosive Weight (NEW) may occur on the ocean floor 

in conjunction with training activities. An estimated 37 bottom-laid or near-bottom underwater 

detonations per year occur in the waters off SSTC, which may result in a crater. Depending upon the sizes 

of the explosives charges and their locations in the water column, these activities could create craters in 

the bottom sediments up to 10 feet in diameter, for a total surface area of (π*r2

 = 3.14*25 = ) 78.5 square 

feet (Naval Ordnance Laboratory 1973). These detonations at or near the bottom surface would 

temporarily disturb about (37*78.5 =) 2,905 square feet of bottom surface, or about 0.07 acre. These 

detonations create shallow craters and resuspend bottom sediments into the water column. Craters fill in 

over time, with sediments settling out of the water column or transported laterally by currents. Based on 

worst-case assumptions on the sizes of craters left by these detonations, the effects of these detonations 

are negligible. 

3.2.3.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

3.2.3.3.1 Inland Activities 

Under Alternative 1, approximately 25 types of training would occur on the inland portions of SSTC-S. 

Training activities under Alternative 1 would have similar effects to those described for the No Action 

Alternative in Section 3.2.3.2.1. Under Alternative 1, six training activities would be a concern for soil 

impacts. The most intense use of SSTC-S Inland would be FTXs (e.g., SEAHAWK), as under the No 

Action Alternative. For the reasons discussed above and under the conditions described above for the No 

Action Alternative, these activities could accelerate natural erosion processes. The topography of the site, 

however, with low areas landward of a barrier of beach dunes along the western fence line, serves to 

contain eroded soils on-site. Thus, off-site transport of soils is expected to be negligible. Long-term use of 

the uplands on SSTC-S for overnight camps would not cause soils to be transported from the higher 

elevations of the site to the lower elevations because the area is relatively flat and vegetation surrounding 

the site would retain the soils. 

3.2.3.3.2 Beach Activities 

Training activities at SSTC would affect beach sands and sediments by disturbing their surfaces and 

increasing their erosion potential. Some logistics activities would alter surface contours directly or 

involve the use of special equipment (e.g., bulldozer) that has enhanced potential for disturbance. The 

discussion below focuses on these aspects of training. 

Foot and Vehicle Traffic 

Training activities under Alternative 1 could affect beaches directly by disturbing the surface of the 

ground, as discussed above for upland areas. Training activities that could generate extensive foot traffic 

on beaches include 17, 25, 26, 32, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 77, N8, and N10 (Table 2-1 and Table 2-1). These 

12 SSTC training activities could generate an estimated 1,390,000 person-hours of foot travel on SSTC 

beaches. Approximately 77 percent of this activity would occur on SSTC-S Inland, about 13 percent 

would occur on SSTC-N, and about 10 percent would occur on SSTC-S. Of the activities listed above, 

only Hell Week activities could occur on Breakers Beach at NASNI. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.2-12

The use of wheeled vehicles on beaches, especially on the wet lower portion of the beach, would have no 

long-term effect on beach sands. Tracked heavy equipment and vehicles, such as the bulldozers used in 

several of the Logistics Over-the-Shore (NTA 4.5.6) activities, have a larger footprint than wheeled 

vehicles. On soft ground, they compact the surface when traveling in a straight line, but create ruts and 

loose soil when turning. Bulldozers would be used for beach preparation, including construction of 

temporary sand ramps and beach access roads. They also would drag and secure beach termini of logistics 

systems (e.g., BIU of ABLTS and BTU of the OPDS). Where training activities require natural beach 

contours to be altered, they would be restored using bulldozers, to the extent practical, at the conclusion 

of the activity. Thus, training units would ensure that heavy equipment use on SSTC beaches would have 

no long-term effect on beach sands. 

Bulk Liquid Transfers 

Under Alternative 1, the Navy would conduct up to 15 simulated bulk-fuel transfers (Activities 38, 39, 

and 50 [Table 2-1]). During such training exercises, seawater pumped through the transfer line onto the 

beach must be returned to the sea. Standard practice for training units is to use a return hose so that the 

seawater discharges would not affect beach soils. During bulk-liquid transfer activities, transfer lines on 

the beach could be buried to secure them, which could disturb some beach soils. 

3.2.3.3.3 Water Activities 

Under Alternative 1, the increase in disturbance of surf zone beach sediments would be roughly 

proportional to the increase in landings of large amphibious vessels and vehicles, which would increase 

by about 72 percent. Underwater construction training exercises would increase 16 percent from baseline 

conditions. Other natural and manmade sources of disturbance along the Silver Strand would continue to 

affect beach sediments. Beach replenishment by the federal government would continue to be necessary 

for long-term maintenance of the sandy beaches, even without the increase in training activities under 

Alternative 1. 

Under Alternative 1, over 13,100 small boats, amphibious vehicles and vessels per year could land on 

SSTC beaches. Beach landings would temporarily result in loss of beach sediments. But, ocean sediment 

transport would deposit new sediment in areas disturbed by beach landings. These training activities 

would have no long-term or widespread effects on bottom topography or sediment quality. 

Under Alternative 1, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) would replace the Amphibious Assault 

Vehicle (AAV). The EFV is 50 percent (10 tons) heavier than the AAV, but also is slightly longer and 

wider. The bearing weight of the EFV’s tracks on the ground thus would be slightly greater than that of 

the AAV. The typical speed of the EFV during training exercises would be the same as the AAV. Up to 

six EFVs would participate in up to 18 Amphibious Raids (Activity 25) per year. Based on this level of 

activity and the total distances anticipated to be traversed by the EFVs, the introduction of this new 

weapons platform would not affect soils or erosion potential. 

Underwater detonations of up to 29 pounds NEW may occur on the ocean floor in conjunction with 

training activities. An estimated 79 bottom-laid or near-bottom underwater detonations per year would 

occur in the waters off SSTC. These detonations would resuspend bottom sediments into the water 

column. Depending upon the sizes of the explosives charges and their locations in the water column, these 

detonations could create craters in the bottom sediments up to 10 feet in diameter, for a total surface area 

of (π*r2

 = 3.14*25 = ) 78.5 square feet (Naval Ordnance Laboratory 1973). These detonations could 

disturb up to (78.5*79 =) 6,200 square feet of bottom surface, or about 0.15 acre would be temporarily 

disturbed. Craters fill in over time, however, with sediments settling out of the water column or 

transported laterally by currents. Based on worst-case assumptions on the sizes of craters left by these 

detonations, the effects of these detonations would be negligible. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.2-13

3.2.3.4 Alternative 2 

The only difference between Alternatives 1 and 2 is that, under Alternative 2, all SSTC-N oceanside 

beach training areas would be available for use, regardless of time of year. Under Alternative 2, foot and 

vehicle traffic would be more dispersed than under Alternative 1. Areas supporting sensitive biological 

resources would experience more disturbance than under the No Action Alternative or Alternative 1. 

These effects are addressed under Terrestrial Biological Resources (Section 3.11) and Birds (Section 

3.12). In addition to surface soil disturbance, foot and vehicle traffic could compact surface soils, 

resulting in less infiltration and more runoff of rainfall. 

3.2.4 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Current best management practices, in place to mitigate the effects of training activities on soils, would 

continue to be implemented at SSTC. 

3.2.5 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 

There are no unavoidable adverse effects on geology and soils as a result of implementation of any of the 

alternatives. 

3.2.6 Summary of Effects 

Table 3.2-2 summarizes the effects and mitigation measures for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, 

and Alternative 2. 

Table 3.2-2: Summary of Effects 

Alternative Effect 

No Action 

Alternative 

• Only previously disturbed land areas are affected. Soil disturbances are minor and affect 

only portions of the area. 

• Sandy beaches are disturbed; however, the impacts are temporary. 

• Ocean bottom sediments are disturbed by underwater detonations, but the areas affected 

are small. 

Alternative 1 

• Proposed training activities would be comparable in type to existing activities, but the level 

of activity of some activities would increase. The level of disturbance of beach and inland 

surfaces would incrementally increase the potential for soil erosion, but would still be 

minor and affect only portions of the area. 

• Underwater detonations would affect a larger area of bottom sediments than under the No 

Action Alternative, but the area affected would be small. 

Alternative 2 • With regard to soils and sediments, the effects of this alternative would be similar to those 

described for Alternative 1. Overall, the effects of Alternative 2 would be more widely 

dispersed and training areas formerly avoided would experience a slightly increased level 

of use over Alternative 1. 

Mitigation 

Measures 

• Currently, sand (of a quality that is appropriate for nesting California least terns) is 

periodically replenished on Delta beaches when available, vegetation on the back dunes of 

SSTC beaches is maintained to reduce water and wind erosion, and in inland SSTC-S 

areas, vehicles are restricted to existing roads to minimize the loss of vegetation. 

• Currently, disturbed areas of beach are restored as needed with bulldozers. 

• The NBC INRMP includes strategies to minimize erosion on SSTC and the Navy works to 

implement these strategies. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.2-14

This page intentionally left blank 
3.3 Air Quality 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

AIR QUALITY 3.3-1

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3.1 Affected Environment 

3.3.1.1 Introduction 

3.3.1.1.1 Definition of Resource 

Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants that have been determined to be 

of concern with respect to the health and welfare of the general public by the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA). The USEPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for these pollutants. The seven major pollutants of concern, called “criteria pollutants,” are 

carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), suspended particulate 

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

microns in diameter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). Primary NAAQS are established to protect public health. 

Secondary NAAQS may also be established to avoid other adverse impacts to the public welfare such as 

odors or visibility effects. Areas that violate a federal air quality standard are designated as nonattainment areas. 

Ambient air quality refers to the atmospheric concentration of a specific compound (amount of pollutants 

in a specified volume of air) that occurs at a particular geographic location. The ambient air quality levels 

measured at a particular location are determined by the interactions of emissions, meteorology, and 

chemistry. Emission considerations include the types, amounts, and locations of pollutants emitted into 

the atmosphere. Meteorological considerations include wind and precipitation patterns affecting the 

distribution, dilution, and removal of pollutant emissions. Chemical reactions can transform pollutant 

emissions into other chemical substances. Ambient air quality data are generally reported as a mass per 

unit volume (e.g., micrograms per cubic meter [μg/m3

] of air) or as a volume fraction (e.g., parts per 

million [ppm] by volume). 

Pollutant emissions typically refer to the amount of pollutants or pollutant precursors introduced into the 

atmosphere by a source or group of sources. Pollutant emissions contribute to the ambient air 

concentrations of criteria pollutants, either by directly affecting the pollutant concentrations measured in 

the ambient air or by interacting in the atmosphere to form criteria pollutants. Primary pollutants, such as 

CO, SO2, Pb, and some particulates, are emitted directly into the atmosphere from emission sources. 

Secondary pollutants, such as O3, NO2, and some particulates, are formed through atmospheric chemical 

reactions that are influenced by meteorology, ultraviolet light, and other atmospheric processes. PM10 and 

PM2.5 are generated as primary pollutants by various mechanical processes (for example, abrasion, 

erosion, mixing, or atomization) or combustion processes. However, fine particulate matter (PM10 and 

PM2.5) can also be formed as secondary pollutants through chemical reactions or by gaseous pollutants 

condensing into fine aerosols. In general, emissions that are considered “precursors” to secondary 

pollutants in the atmosphere (such as Reactive Organic Gases [ROG] and oxides of nitrogen [NOx], which 

are considered precursors for O3), are the pollutants for which emissions are evaluated to control the level 

of O3 in the ambient air. 

The State of California has identified four additional pollutants for ambient air quality standards: 

visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. The California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) has also established the more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(CAAQS). Areas within California in which ambient air concentrations of a pollutant are higher than the 

state and/or federal standard are considered to be non-attainment for that pollutant. Table 3.3-1 details 

both the federal and state ambient air quality standards. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

AIR QUALITY 3.3-2

Table 3.3-1: Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 

NAAQS1 CAAQS 

Primary Secondary Concentration 

Ozone (O3) 

1-Hour - 

Same as 

Primary Standard 

0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3

) 

8-Hour 0.075 (147 μg/m3

) 

ppm 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3

)

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3

) None 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 

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

Nitrogen Dioxide 

(NO2) 

Annual Average 0.053 ppm (100 

μg/m3

) Same as 

Primary Standard 

0.030 ppm (56 μg/m3

) 

1-Hour - 0.18 ppm (338 μg/m3) 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

Annual Average 0.03 ppm (80 

μg/m3

) - - 

24-Hour 0.14 ppm (365 

μg/m3

) - 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3

) 

3-Hour - 0.5 ppm (1300 

μg/m3

) - 

1-Hour - - 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 

Suspended Particulate 

Matter (PM10) 

24-Hour 150 μg/m3

Same as 

Primary Standard 

50 μg/m3

Annual 

Arithmetic Mean - 20 μg/m3

Fine Particulate Matter 

(PM2.5) 

24-Hour 35 μg/m3

Same as 

Primary Standard 

- 

Annual 

Arithmetic Mean 15 μg/m3

 12 μg/m3

Lead (Pb)

30-Day Average - - 1.5 μg/m3

Calendar Quarter 1.5 μg/m3

Same as 

Primary Standard 3-Month Rolling - 

Average 0.15 μg/m3

Hydrogen Sulfide (HS) 1-Hour 

No Federal Standards 

0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) 

Sulfates (SO4) 24-Hour 25 μg/m3

Visibility Reducing 

Particles 

8-Hour 

(10 am to 6 pm, 

Pacific Standard 

Time) 

In sufficient amount to 

produce an extinction 

coefficient of 0.23 per 

kilometer due to particles 

when the relative humidity is 

less than 70%. 

Vinyl chloride2 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3

) 

1

NAAQS (other than O3, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be 

exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged 

over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when 99% of the daily 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 

98% of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. 

2

The CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as “toxic air contaminants” with no threshold level of exposure for adverse 

health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient 

concentrations specified for these pollutants. 

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter. 

Source: CARB 2010, USEPA 2010.
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

AIR QUALITY 3.3-3

Toxic air pollutants, also called hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), are a class of pollutants that do not have 

ambient air quality standards but are examined on an individual basis when there is a source of these 

pollutants. The State of California has identified particulate emissions from diesel engines as a toxic air 

pollutant. 

Notwithstanding the lack of USEPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, in 2006, the California 

Legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 

32 requires the CARB, the State agency charged with regulating statewide air quality, to adopt rules and 

regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020. As the 

policy making process continues, CARB is considering a broader set of mitigation measures, including 

carbon sequestration projects and best management practices that are technologically feasible and costeffective. Greenhouse gases as defined under AB 32 include: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, 

hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. 

3.3.1.1.2 Regional Setting 

Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC) and the portions of Naval Air Station, North Island (NASNI) that 

are utilized for training are located within San Diego County and are under the jurisdiction of the San 

Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The APCD is the agency responsible for the administration 

of federal and state air quality laws, regulations, and policies in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), which 

is contiguous with San Diego County. 

The SDAB and all of Southern California lay in a semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the Eastern 

Pacific Region. The coastal island is characterized by sparse rainfall (most of which occurs in the winter 

season) and hot, dry summers, tempered by cooling sea breezes. In San Diego County, the months of 

heaviest precipitation are November through April, averaging 10.29 inches annually. The mean 

temperature in the San Diego Bay area, as reported by monitors at San Diego International Airport, is 

63.2 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (Western Regional Climate Center [WRCC] 2005). The mean maximum and 

mean minimum temperatures are 69.9°F and 56.4°F, respectively (Id.). 

In December 2002, the APCD submitted a maintenance plan for the 1-hour NAAQS for O3 and requested 

redesignation from a serious O3 nonattainment area to attainment. An attainment area is a geographic area 

that meets or does better than the NAAQS for a particular pollutant. As of July 28, 2003, the SDAB was 

reclassified as an attainment area for the 1-hour NAAQS for O3. On April 15, 2004, the SDAB was 

designated a basic nonattainment area for the 8-hour NAAQS for O3, and on July 15, 2005, the 1-hour 

NAAQS for O3 was rescinded. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was challenged on their 

justification for “basic” nonattainment designations and published proposed for all “basic” nonattainment 

areas for the 8-hour NAAQS for O3. The SDAB would be classified as a moderate nonattainment area 

under the revised classification. In 1994, the SDAB attained the standard for CO; the air basin is 

considered a maintenance area for CO and has been subject to a maintenance plan. The SDAB is currently 

in attainment for the NAAQS for all other criteria pollutants. The SDAB is currently classified as a 

nonattainment area under the CAAQS for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. 

The APCD operates a network of ambient air monitoring stations throughout San Diego County. The 

purpose of the monitoring stations is to measure ambient concentrations of the pollutants and determine 

whether the ambient air quality meets the CAAQS and the NAAQS. The nearest ambient monitoring 

station to the project site is located in Chula Vista, California. Ambient concentrations of pollutants over 

the last five years, as recorded at the Chula Vista monitoring station are presented in Table 3.3-2. 

Both the 1-hour CAAQS for O3 and the federal 8-hour O3 standards were exceeded once in 2004 as 

reported by the Chula Vista monitoring station. The previous federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard was 

exceeded once in 2003; however, the exceedance occurred during the Cedar Fire event in San Diego 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

AIR QUALITY 3.3-4

County. The Chula Vista monitoring station also recorded measurement exceedances of state PM10 and 

PM2.5 standards during the period from 2003 to 2007. As shown in Table 3.3-2, the data from the 

monitoring station indicates that air quality is in attainment of all other state and federal standards. 

Table 3.3-2: Background Ambient Air Quality – Chula Vista Monitoring Station 

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 20041 20051 20061 20071 20081 CAAQS1 NAAQS1

O3

8 hour 0.087 0.081 0.068 0.087 0.083 0.070 0.075 

1 hour 0.097 0.093 0.084 0.105 0.107 0.09 - 

PM102 

Annual 

Arithmetic 

Mean 

25.8 

μg/m3

26.5 

μg/m3

26.3 

μg/m3

25.5

μg/m3

26.2

μg/m3 20 μg/m3

 50 μg/m3

24 hour 44 

μg/m3 52 μg/m3 52 μg/m3 57 μg/m3

 53 μg/m3 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3

PM2.5

Annual 

Arithmetic 

Mean 

12.2 

μg/m3

11.8 

μg/m3

11.2 

μg/m3

12.5 

μg/m3

12.3 

μg/m3 12 μg/m3

 15 μg/m3

24 hour 32.7 

μg/m3

34.3 

μg/m3

30.2 

μg/m3

77.8

μg/m3

32.9

μg/m3 - 35 μg/m3

NO2

Annual 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.015 0.015 - 0.053 

1 hour 0.072 0.071 0.074 0.082 0.072 0.25 - 

CO 8 hour 2.48 2.13 2.20 2.2 1.9 9.0 9 

1 hour 3.9 2.8 2.7 3.1 2.0 20 35 

SO2

Annual 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 - 0.030 

24 hour 0.016 0.005 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.04 0.14 

3 hour3 0.021 0.009 0.013 0.007 0.005 - 0.5 

1 hour 0.042 0.016 0.017 0.012 0.007 0.25 - 1

Concentrations in ppm unless otherwise indicated

2

California averages reported for PM10 3

Secondary NAAQS 

“–”= not available from current website data 

Source: www.arb.ca.gov (all pollutants except 1-hour CO and 1-hour and 3-hour SO2 and annual data for 2007) 

www.epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html (1-hour CO and 1-hour and 3-hour SO2 and annual data for 2007) 

3.3.1.1.3 Region of Influence 

Specifically identifying the Region of Influence (ROI) for air quality requires knowledge of the type of 

pollutant, emission rates of the pollutant source, proximity to other emission sources, and local and 

regional meteorology. The ROI for the SSTC and NASNI is defined by the SDAB. For inert pollutants 

(all pollutants other than O3 and its precursors), the ROI is generally limited to a few miles downwind 

from the source. However, for a photochemical pollutant such as O3, the ROI may extend much farther 

downwind. O3 is a secondary pollutant that is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions of 

previously emitted pollutants, or precursors (ROG and NOx). The maximum effect on O3 levels from 

precursors tends to occur several hours after the time of emission during periods of high solar load and 

may occur many miles from the source. O3 and O3 precursors transported from other regions can also 

combine with local emissions to produce high local O3 concentrations. 

3.3.1.2 Federal Requirements 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), air quality impacts must be evaluated and 

assessed with regard to the significance of their impacts. NEPA is applicable to areas that are within the 

United States Territory, typically defined as within 12 nautical miles of shore and on land. In addition to 

NEPA, the Clean Air Act (CAA) and New Source Review (NSR) are applicable to analyses of impacts to 

air quality. These federal requirements are discussed in the following sections. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

AIR QUALITY 3.3-5

3.3.1.2.1 Clean Air Act 

The USEPA is the agency responsible for enforcing the CAA of 1970 and its 1977 and 1990 

amendments. The purpose of the CAA is to establish NAAQS, which classify areas as to their attainment 

status relative to NAAQS; develop schedules and strategies to meet the NAAQS; and to regulate 

emissions of criteria pollutants and air toxics to protect public health and welfare. Under the CAA, 

individual states are allowed to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations, provided they 

are at least as stringent as federal standards. The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) established new 

deadlines for achievement of NAAQS, dependent upon the severity of nonattainment. 

The USEPA requires each state to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP), which describes how that 

state will achieve compliance with NAAQS. A SIP is a compilation of goals, strategies, schedules, and 

enforcement actions that will lead the state into compliance with all federal air quality standards. Each 

change to a compliance schedule or plan must be incorporated into the SIP. In California, the SIP consists 

of separate elements for each air basin, depending upon the attainment status of the particular air basin. 

The CAAA also requires that states develop an operating permit program that would require permits for 

all major sources of pollutants. The program would be designed to reduce criteria pollutant emissions and 

control emissions of hazardous air pollutants by establishing control technology guidelines for various 

classes of emission sources. Under the CAA, state and/or local agencies may be delegated authority to 

administer the requirements of the CAA, including requirements to obtain permits to operate stationary 

sources on Navy installations. Section 3.3.1.3 discusses the local permitting requirements for equipment 

that is subject to these requirements. 

Under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 93 and the provisions of Part 51, Subchapter C, 

Chapter I, Title 40, Appendix W of the CFR, of the CAA as amended, federal agencies are required to 

demonstrate that federal actions conform with the applicable SIP. In order to ensure that federal activities 

do not hamper local efforts to control air pollution, Section 176(c) of the CAA, 42 United States Code 

(USC) 7506(c) prohibits federal agencies, departments, or instrumentalities from engaging in, supporting, 

providing financial assistance for, licensing, permitting or approving any action which does not conform 

to an approved SIP or federal implementation plan. The provisions of Part 51, Subchapter C, Chapter I, 

Title 40, of the CFR, in effect December 27, 1993, applicable to the subparts listed in this regulation were 

adopted by the APCD as Rule 1501—Conformity of General Federal Actions. 

The USEPA general conformity rule applies to federal actions occurring in nonattainment or maintenance 

areas when the total direct and indirect emissions of nonattainment pollutants (or their precursors) exceed 

specified thresholds. The emission thresholds that trigger requirements of the conformity rule are called 

de minimis levels. Table 3.3-3 identifies the federal nonattainment pollutants and the relevant de minimis

emission thresholds. 

Table 3.3-3: De Minimis Levels for Determination of Applicability of General Conformity Rule 

De Minimis Levels, (tons/year)

Air Basin CO NOx ROG NO2 PM10 PM2.5 SO2

SDAB 100 100 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Federal actions that are exempt from conformity determinations must also demonstrate that the action’s 

emissions would not be regionally significant. Regionally significant emissions are defined as 10 percent 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

AIR QUALITY 3.3-6

or more of the projected regional emissions in the air basin in which the Proposed Action occurs. Should 

emissions be regionally significant, a Conformity Determination would be required. 

3.3.1.2.2 New Source Review 

A NSR is required when a source has the potential to emit any pollutant regulated under the CAA in 

amounts equal to or exceeding specified major source thresholds (100 or 250 tons per year), predicated on 

the source’s industrial category. A major modification to the source also triggers a NSR. Any new or 

modified stationary emission source requires construction and operating permits from the APCD. 

Through the APCD’s permitting process, all stationary sources are reviewed and are subject to a NSR 

process. The NSR process ensures that factors such as the availability of emission offsets and their ability 

to reduce emissions are addressed and conform with the SIP. 

3.3.1.2.3 Executive Order 12088 

Executive Order (EO) 12088 requires each federal agency to comply with “applicable pollution control 

standards” defined as “the same substantive, procedural, and other requirements that would apply to a 

private person.” The EO further requires federal agencies to cooperate with the USEPA, state, and local 

environmental regulatory officials. To ensure cost-effective and timely compliance with applicable 

pollution control standards, the USEPA Administrator is required to provide technical advice and 

assistance to executive agencies. EO 12088 also states that disputes between the USEPA and other federal 

agencies, regarding environmental violations, shall be elevated to the Office of Management and Budget 

for resolution. In 2000, Section 1-4 Pollution Control Plan, of EO 12088 was revoked in part by EO 

13148, which was later rescinded in January 2007 by EO 13423. 

3.3.1.2.4 Executive Order 13423 

EO 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, was issued to 

ensure that all Federal agencies conduct environmental, transportation, and energy-related activities under 

the law in support of their respective missions in an environmentally, economically, and fiscally sound, 

integrated, continuously improving, efficient, and sustainable manner. EO 13423 requires (a) that Federal 

agencies improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, (b) the use of renewable 

energy to the extent feasible, (c) Federal agencies reduce water consumption intensity, (d) the use of 

goods and services that meet sustainable practices, (e) that Federal agencies reduce the amount of 

hazardous and toxic waste generated and implement waste management procedures, (f) implementation of 

sustainable building practices, (g) the agency to reduce fuel consumption for fleet vehicles, (h) Federal 

agencies to use electronic products that meet energy and environmental requirements. Each federal 

agency is responsible for meeting the goals and requirements of this order. 

3.3.1.2.5 Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 5090.1 

The Navy, in fulfilling the requirements of EO 13423, has developed Chief of Naval Operations 

Instruction (OPNAVINST) 5090.1, which contains guidance for environmental evaluation. Chapter 5 and 

Appendix F of 5090.1 contain guidance for air quality analysis and general conformity determinations. 

In order to demonstrate conformity with the CAA, a project must clearly demonstrate that it does not 

cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area; increase the frequency or severity of 

any existing violation of any standard in any area; or delay timely attainment of any standard, any 

required interim emission reductions, or other milestones in any area. A conformity applicability analysis 

is required for each of the nonattainment pollutants or its precursor emissions. 

Compliance with the conformity rule can be demonstrated in several ways. Compliance is presumed if the 

net increase in direct and indirect emissions from a federal action would be less than the relevant de 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

AIR QUALITY 3.3-7

minimis level. The Proposed Action must also demonstrate that its net emission increase is not regionally 

significant, where regionally significant is defined as 10 percent of basin-wide emissions. If net emissions 

exceed the relevant de minimis value, or if a project is regionally significant, a formal conformity 

determination process must be followed. 

3.3.1.3 Local Requirements 

As indicated previously, in San Diego County, the APCD is the agency responsible for the administration 

of federal and state air quality laws, regulations, and policies. Included in the APCD’s tasks are 

monitoring of air pollution, preparation of the SIP for the SDAB, and the promulgation of rules and 

regulations. The SIP includes strategies and tactics to be used to attain the federal O3 standard within San 

Diego County. The SIP elements are taken from the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) and the 

APCD plan for attaining the state O3 standard, which is more stringent than the federal standard. The 

APCD’s rules and regulations include procedures and requirements to control the emission of pollutants 

and to prevent adverse impacts. 

Applicable APCD rules and regulations include: 

• Rule 11 – Exemptions from Rule 10 Permit Requirements. Rule 11 provides exemptions from the 

requirements of Rule 10 to obtain permits for certain categories of sources. Rule 11 specifically 

exempts the following sources used at the SSTC: mobile sources; any reciprocating internal 

combustion engine with a brake horsepower rating of less than 50; any engine mounted on, 

within, or incorporated into any motor vehicle, train, ship, boat, or barge, that is used exclusively 

to load or unload cargo; portable pile drivers and construction cranes that are routinely dismantled 

and transported to noncontiguous locations for temporary use; any portable internal combustion 

engine or gas turbine engine used exclusively in conjunction with military tactical support 

equipment (TSE); and any portable equipment that is registered in accordance with District Rule 

12.1. 

• Rule 12 and Rule 12.1 – Registration of Specified Equipment/Portable Equipment Registration. 

Rule 12 and 12.1 allow for the registration of internal combustion engines that are registered 

under the APCD’s or CARB’s registration program in lieu of permitting under Rule 10. 

• Rule 50 – Visible Emissions. Rule 50 limits emissions of visible emissions from any single 

source of emissions whatsoever and any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more 

than three minutes in any period of 60 consecutive minutes which is darker in shade than that 

designated as Number 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of 

Mines, or of such opacity as to obscure an observer’s view to a degree greater than does smoke of 

a shade designated as Number 1 on the Ringelmann Chart. It should be noted that the use of 

obscurants for the purpose of training military personnel and the testing of military equipment by 

the United States Department of Defense on any military reservation and equipment used 

exclusively for the purpose of flash-over fire fighting training are exempt from the requirements 

of Rule 50. 

• Rule 51 – Nuisance. Rule 51 requires that a person shall not discharge from any source 

whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, 

nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger 

the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public or which cause or have a 

natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. 

• Regulation XV – Federal Conformity. The purpose of Regulation XV and Rule 1501 are to assure 

that federal agencies do not take or support actions which are in any way inconsistent with the 

efforts of the APCD to achieve the NAAQS, and that federal agencies do not fail to take 

advantage of opportunities to assist in the achievement of the NAAQS. Under the CAA Section 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

AIR QUALITY 3.3-8

176(c), as amended (42 USC 7506(c) et. seq.) and regulations under 40 CFR part 51 Subpart W, 

no department, agency or instrumentality of the federal government shall engage in, support in 

any way or provide financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve any activity which does 

not conform to an applicable implementation plan. 

These regulations require that facilities constructing, altering, or replacing stationary equipment that may 

emit air pollutants obtain an Authority to Construct permit. Further, APCD regulations require stationary 

sources of air pollutants to obtain and maintain Permits to Operate for all stationary sources subject to the 

requirements of Regulation II. The Navy must submit applications to the APCD for their review and 

approval. The APCD is responsible for the review of applications and for the approval and issuance of 

these permits. Once a permit is issued, the Navy is responsible for compliance with the conditions 

specified in the permit, and is responsible for quantification of emissions associated with the permitted 

unit. Certain equipment is allowed to be registered under Rule 12 in lieu of obtaining a permit to operate. 

The APCD does not have quantitative emissions limits for construction activities, nor for long-term 

emissions that may result from increased vehicle use or other mobile sources. The specific prohibitions 

set forth in Rules 50 and 51 require compliance with restrictions on emissions of visible matter, nuisance 

emissions (such as odors or dust), and particulates. These rules would apply to as the use of ordnance and 

combustion equipment in individual training exercises. 

Under APCD Rule 11(d)(2)(xv), any portable internal combustion engine or gas turbine engine used 

exclusively in conjunction with military TSE is exempt from the requirements of the APCD to obtain a 

permit. Military equipment is registered with the CARB, which allows the CARB to account for operation 

of such equipment in the emissions budgets contained within the SIP. 

3.3.1.4 Current Mitigation Measures 

The Navy currently has a comprehensive air quality management program. Mitigation measures that are 

part of the Navy’s air quality management practices are implemented at SSTC. For example, vehicles 

participating in training exercises that occur on unpaved surfaces travel at slow speeds, which minimizes 

fugitive dust generation. Training areas at SSTC include beach areas, where vehicles typically travel on 

hard-packed or wet sand with minimal silt content, which also minimizes fugitive dust generation. 

Aircraft, marine vessels, ground vehicles, and military equipment are maintained and meet applicable 

emission standards (such as smog certification for on-road vehicles) in accordance with state 

requirements. 

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

This resource section focuses on groups of activities that have the potential to result in an impact to the 

ambient air quality. As discussed in Chapter 2, similar types of activities are grouped together to facilitate 

the impacts analysis. Types of activities that could affect air quality include aircraft activities, marine 

vessel activities, amphibious activities, ground vehicles activities, and above ground ordnance and small 

arms usage. Based on the review of Tables 2-1, 2-2, and Appendix C of this document, every training 

activity involves some type of equipment or activity that would result in air emissions. Components of 

training activities that do not have the potential to affect air quality include swimming and non-motorized 

combat raiding rubber crafts (CRRCs), physical training exercises not involving the use of ground 

vehicles, and underwater detonations, which would not release air emissions to the atmosphere. Also, any 

aircraft activities occurring higher than 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL) would not affect the ambient 

air quality because emissions would occur above the atmospheric boundary layer that traps pollutants 

within the ambient air that could affect ground-level air quality (USEPA 1992). 

Activities involving aircraft that could affect air quality include 4, 6, 12, 16, 25, 28-30, 35, 37, 64, 66 

(Table 2-1), and N3-N9 (Table 2-2). Activities involving marine vessels that could affect air quality 

include 1-6, 8-18, 20-30, 32-35, 37-46, 48, 49, 51-55, 60, 64, 71, 73, 77, 78 (Table 2-1), N1-N3, and N9 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

AIR QUALITY 3.3-9

(Table 2-2). Activities involving ordnance and/or small arms use that could affect air quality include 4, 6, 

7, 9, 12, 25, 26-28, 30- 35, 43, 48, 57, 60-62, 64, 71, 75-77 (Table 2-1), N2, N8, and N11 (Table 2-2). 

Activities involving ground vehicles that could affect air quality include 4-12, 14, 15, 17-23, 25-31, 35-

43, 45, 46-52, 54-77 (Table 2-1), N1, N2, N8, N10 and N11 (Table 2-2). 

3.3.2.1 Approach to Analysis 

The data for air quality analyses is based on current and proposed training activities at SSTC and on the 

southern beaches of NASNI as described in Chapter 2. Increases in tempo under the Proposed Action 

from baseline conditions were evaluated using the same methodology for calculating emissions as was 

used for the baseline evaluation presented below. Training scenarios were used to estimate the number of 

aircraft, marine vessels, and ordnance participating in SSTC activities for the No Action Alternative (i.e., 

baseline activities), with increases evaluated for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Emissions were calculated based on information on the types of aircraft, marine vessels, ground vehicles, 

and TSE involved in each training activity as summarized in Appendix C. Information regarding specific 

operation of each emission source was based on interviews with training officers involved in the training 

exercises; this information provided estimates of the duration of training activities and the number of 

hours that emission sources would be used for each activity. Where information was not available, it was 

assumed that emission sources would operate for eight hours per day. Training activities were assumed to 

occur within three nautical miles of the shore unless otherwise indicated. Aircraft activities at SSTC were 

assumed to occur below an altitude of 3,000 feet AGL. 

The Proposed Action would not result in additional personal vehicle emissions. 

3.3.2.1.1 Emissions Evaluation Methodology 

Aircraft Activities 

The methodology for estimating aircraft emissions involves evaluating the type of activity, the number of 

hours of operation, the type of engine, and the mode of operation for each type of aircraft. The operational 

characteristics of aircraft activities for the baseline were obtained from Navy records. Emissions 

occurring above 3,000 feet were considered to be above the atmospheric inversion layer and would not 

impact the local air quality. Aircraft flights, for the most part, originate from onshore air stations, but 

some are from aircraft carriers offshore. It was assumed that landings and takeoffs of aircraft participating 

in SSTC activities would be counted in the emission inventory for each individual base or carrier where 

the aircraft originated. It was assumed that training activities would occur regardless of whether the 

training occurs at SSTC, and that takeoffs and landings would originate from the individual base or 

carrier where aircraft are based regardless of the Proposed Action requirements. Specific operational 

modes for aircraft were identified by the Navy for training in which aircraft are involved. Emissions for 

aircraft activities were then calculated based on the Navy’s Aircraft Environmental Support Office 

(AESO) data for specific aircraft models (AESO 1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b, 2001a, 2001b).

Surface Ship Activities 

Marine vessel traffic in the SSTC is composed mainly of vessels providing various services for the 

military training activities and tests. A number of nonmilitary commercial vessels and recreational vessels 

are also regularly present at areas surrounding SSTC. Because they are present regardless of military 

activities, they are not considered to be part of the baseline emissions attributable to Navy activities. For 

the purpose of determining the baseline emissions, only military vessels and those vessels responsible for 

providing support are considered. The methodology for estimating marine vessel emissions involves 

evaluating the type of activity, the number of hours of activity, the type of propulsion engine, and the type 

of generator used onboard for each type of vessel. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

AIR QUALITY 3.3-10

Emission factors for vessels were based on engine emission data and provided by JJMA Consultants 

(JJMA 2001) and are presented in Appendix C. 

Naval Ordnance 

Ordnance emissions result from firing naval flares, smoke grenades, simulated grenades, blanks, 

simunitions, and land detonations used in the various training activities. Ordnance was classified into 

various types (smoke, flares, grenades, etc.). Emission factors for specific types of ordnance were 

obtained from the USEPA’s AP-42 emission factor database. For underwater detonations, it was assumed 

that air emissions would be minimal as emissions would not be released directly into the atmosphere.

Emissions from Ground Vehicles 

Ground vehicles involved in training activities at SSTC include combustion emissions from government 

vehicles such as trucks, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs), Lighter, 

Amphibious, Resupply, Cargo-5 ton (LARC Vs), logistical vehicles, vans, construction equipment, etc. 

used in various training activities. Emissions associated with ground vehicles were estimated based on 

emission factors for specific equipment, or for ground vehicles, from the CARB’s Emission Factors 

(EMFAC) 2007 model, which provides emission factors for on-road vehicles, or the OFFROAD model. 

Tactical Support Equipment 

Tactical Support Equipment includes equipment such as generators that would be used during training 

activities. Emissions from TSE have been estimated based on information provided on the usage of TSE 

for various training activities, using the USEPA’s emission factors from AP-42 for combustion 

equipment. 

3.3.2.1.2 Baseline Emissions 

The emissions baseline levels provide a basis for evaluating potential emission increases associated with 

the Proposed Action and alternatives. For the purpose of estimating PM2.5 emissions, it was assumed that 

PM10 emissions associated with combustion would be composed of 99 percent PM2.5 (South Coast Air 

Quality Management District [SCAQMD] 2006). Baseline emissions are summarized in Table 3.3-4. 

Detailed emission calculations are provided in Appendix C. 

3.3.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative involves conducting training at the baseline levels. The emissions levels 

would remain constant for those baseline emission sources that are not affected by other federal, state, or 

local requirements to reduce air emissions. Emissions associated with motor vehicles may decrease due to 

the implementation of federal and California CAA requirements to reduce tailpipe emissions. 

Emissions for the No Action Alternative reflect baseline levels that are currently occurring in the SSTC. 

As a result, no net emission increases would result from implementation of the No Action Alternative. 

With no net emission increases expected, the No Action Alternative is exempt from the General 

Conformity Rule. 

3.3.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would increase the training tempo from 3,926 activities to 5,343 

activities annually. Implementation of Alternative 1 would also include the introduction of new types of 

training activities, conducting existing routine training activities at additional locations within SSTC 

established training areas, and increasing access to and availability of existing beach and inland training 

areas. Emissions associated with Alternative 1 are summarized in Table 3.3-4. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

AIR QUALITY 3.3-11

As discussed in Section 3.3.2.1.2, operational parameters for increased training were based on interviews 

with training officers at SSTC. The increased training tempo proposed under Alternative 1 would result in 

increases in air emissions. Table 3.3-4 presents a summary of the emissions associated with activities at 

SSTC under Alternatives 1 and 2 in comparison to the No Action Alternative. Emission calculations are 

provided in Appendix C. 

Table 3.3-4: Operational Emissions at SSTC and Portions of NASNI with Evaluation of Conformity 

Emissions (tons/year) 

Emission Source CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5

No Action Alternative 

Aircraft 6.0 5.1 0.6 0.3 3.1 3.1 

Surface Ships 170.1 124.8 45.8 53.5 21.5 21.5 

Ordnance 0.22 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 

Ground Vehicles/Military equipment 24.0 46.6 5.7 2.1 3.3 3.3 

Total 200.4 176.5 52.1 56.0 28.2 28.2 

 

Alternatives 1 and 2 

Aircraft 21.6 16.5 2.7 1.1 9.0 9.0 

Surface Ships 199.2 155.3 55.2 73.9 27.6 27.6 

Ordnance 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 

Ground Vehicles/Military equipment 27.1 44.5 6.2 2.6 3.8 3.8 

Total 248.2 216.3 64.1 77.8 40.8 40.8 

 

Alternatives 1 and 2 Increases over Baseline 47.8 39.8 12.0 21.8 12.6 12.6

De minimis Limits 100.00 100.00 100.00 N/A N/A N/A 

San Diego Air Basin forecast emissions for 20101 270,793 57,451 63,035 

1

Emissions for year 2010 are from CARB emissions inventory website, http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emseic1_query.php

To address the requirements of the General Conformity Rule, the net emissions increase or decrease over 

the baseline level for Alternative 1 was calculated. Emission calculations are provided in Appendix C. As 

shown in Table 3.3-6, the emissions increases for CO, NOx and ROG are below the de minimis thresholds 

for requiring a full conformity determination and are less than 10 percent of the projected regional 

emissions in the SDAB, and therefore not regionally significant. The General Conformity Rule is 

therefore not applicable. A Record of Non-Applicability is included in Appendix D. 

3.3.2.4 Hazardous Air Pollutants 

As discussed above, the USEPA has listed 188 substances that are regulated under Section 112 of the 

CAA, and the state of California has identified additional substances that are regulated under state and 

local air toxics rule. HAPs are emitted from a variety of processes that are associated with Southern 

California (SOCAL) Range Operations, including combustion sources and ordnance use. Trace amount of 

HAPs are emitted from sources participating in SSTC training activities, including aircraft, marine 

vessels, ground vehicles, ground support equipment, and ordnance. The amounts that would be emitted 

are small in comparison with the emissions of criteria pollutants; emission factors for most HAPs from 

combustion sources are roughly three or more orders of magnitude lower than emission factors for criteria 

pollutants. Emissions of HAPs from ordnance use are smaller still, with emission factors ranging from 

roughly 10-5 to 10-15 lbs of individual HAP per item for cartridges to 10-4 to 10-13 lbs of individual HAPs 

per item for mines and smoke pots (USEPA 2006). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

AIR QUALITY 3.3-12

Emissions of HAPs would occur over the entire training complex and would be subject to dispersion due 

to wind mixing and other dissipation factors. Because the majority of activities occur in restricted areas 

where no sensitive receptors (i.e., residents, schools, hospitals, etc.) are located, no health effects would 

be anticipated from emissions of HAPs. 

3.3.2.5 Alternative 2 

The only difference between Alternative 1 and 2 is that, under Alternative 2, all SSTC-North oceanside 

beach training areas would be available for Navy training, regardless of time of year. Therefore, activity 

emissions associated with Alternative 2 would be the same as those described above for Alternative 1 

(Table 3.3-4). Under Alternative 2, the proposed change in access and availability to existing beach and 

inland training areas would not result in a change in activity emissions from Alternative 1. 

As discussed under Alternative 1, the emissions increases for CO, NOx and ROG are below the de 

minimis thresholds for requiring a full conformity determination, and the General Conformity Rule is 

therefore not applicable. A Record of Non-Applicability is included in Appendix D. 

3.3.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

No adverse effects on air quality were identified for any of the alternatives described; therefore, no 

proposed mitigation measures are necessary. However, current mitigation measures, implemented as part 

of the Navy’s air quality management program and practices, would continue to be implemented at SSTC. 

3.3.4 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 

There are no unavoidable adverse environmental effects to air quality as a result of implementation of any 

of the alternatives. 

3.3.5 Summary of Effects 

Table 3.3.5 summarizes the effects of and mitigation measures for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 

1, and Alternative 2. 

Table 3.3-5: Summary of Effects 

Alternative Effects 

No Action Alternative • No increases in emissions above baseline. 

Alternative 1 • Emission increases would be less than the de minimis thresholds under 

the General Conformity Rule. No conformity determination is required. 

Alternative 2 • Emission increases would be less than the de minimis thresholds under 

the General Conformity Rule. No conformity determination is required. 

Mitigation Measures 

• The Navy currently has a comprehensive air quality management 

program. Mitigation measures that are part of the Navy’s air quality 

management practices are implemented at SSTC. Areas that are used for 

training exercises are typically vegetated, which reduces fugitive dust 

emissions associated with ground disturbance. Aircraft, marine vessels, 

ground vehicles, and TSE are required to be maintained and meet 

applicable emission standards (such as smog certification for on-road 

vehicles) in accordance with state requirements. 
3.4 Hazardous Materials and Waste 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 3.4-1

3.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE

3.4.1 Affected Environment 

3.4.1.1 Introduction 

3.4.1.1.1 Definition of Resource 

This section describes hazardous materials used in and waste generated by Silver Strand Training 

Complex (SSTC) training. Most of hazardous materials and wastes are associated with vessels, ordnance, 

or other materials used on SSTC; and if released into the environment, hazardous materials and wastes 

could pose a hazard to human health or the environment. 

Hazardous materials are solid, liquid, semisolid, or gaseous chemical substances that are procured for 

specific uses, such as for vehicle operation. These chemical substances may pose a hazard to human 

health or the environment. In general, these materials pose hazards because of their quantity, 

concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics. 

Hazardous wastes are solid wastes (i.e., used or expended materials for which no further use is possible or 

intended). Hazardous wastes may be generated through the use of hazardous materials that retain their 

hazardous character, or hazardous wastes may be generated through the use of non-hazardous materials in 

a manner that imparts one or more hazardous characteristics to the waste. A hazardous waste may be a 

solid, liquid, semisolid, or contain gaseous material that, alone or in combination with other substances, 

may (a) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, 

or incapacitating reversible illness; or (b) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to humans or the 

environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous 

wastes generally are regulated separately from hazardous materials, and typically are handled separately 

from hazardous materials. 

3.4.1.1.2 Regional Setting 

SSTC and Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) are located in a heavily-populated, urban area with a 

variety of land uses. These installations are located on the Silver Strand peninsula and are only 

accessible—to emergency personnel, residents and visitors during an incident response—from the greater 

San Diego metropolitan area via Coronado Bridge to Coronado and through Imperial Beach on State 

Route (SR)-75. 

3.4.1.1.3 Region of Influence 

The Region of Influence (ROI) for hazardous materials is the area where these materials are used during 

training at SSTC and the southern beaches at NASNI. 

The ROI for hazardous wastes includes both SSTC and NASNI beaches where the wastes are generated, 

and the onshore storage, transportation, and disposal facilities where the hazardous wastes are managed. 

The ROI also includes portions of San Diego Bay and the ocean offshore of SSTC. 

3.4.1.2 Regulatory Framework 

Hazardous materials and wastes are regulated by federal laws and regulations. The relevant laws to the 

Proposed Action include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA; 42 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] Section [§] 6901 et seq.), the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA; 49 U.S.C. §5101 

et seq.), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; 42 

U.S.C. §9601 et seq.), the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA; 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 11,001-11,050), the Oil Pollution Act (OPA; 33 U.S.C. §2701 et seq.), the Toxic Substances Control 

Act (TSCA), and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA; 42 U.S.C. Chapter 133). Comprehensively, 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 3.4-2

the regulations adopted to implement these laws govern the storage, use, and transportation of hazardous 

materials and wastes from their origin to their ultimate disposal. The recovery and cleanup of 

environmental contamination resulting from accidental releases of these materials also are addressed in 

the regulations. In addition, the Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP; 10 U.S.C. §2710) 

addresses response actions at non-operational ranges. State of California laws and regulations generally 

implement federal requirements, but broaden their application or impose additional regulatory 

requirements in some areas. 

3.4.1.2.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

The Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) (P.L. 89-272, 79 Stat. 992) of 1965 was enacted to address solid 

waste management. Hazardous wastes are defined by RCRA, the 1976 amendment to the SWDA. The 

SWDA was further amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. 

RCRA applies only to materials that first meet the regulatory definition of a solid waste. RCRA 

specifically defines a hazardous waste as a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of 

its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may cause or significantly 

contribute to an increase in mortality; or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating reversible 

illness; or pose a hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, disposed of, 

or otherwise managed (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 261.10). A solid waste is a hazardous 

waste if it is not excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste under Section 261.4(b), and it is either a 

specifically listed waste or exhibits any ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic characteristics (40 CFR Part 

261, Subpart C). 

Under RCRA, hazardous materials are considered solid wastes—and thus fall under the definition of 

hazardous wastes—if they are used in a manner constituting disposal, rather than for their intended 

purpose. Military munitions become subject to RCRA when transported off-range for storage, 

reclamation, treatment, disposal; if buried or land filled on- or off-range; or if they land off-range and are 

not immediately rendered safe or retrieved. Transportation, storage, and disposal of these items are 

governed by RCRA. 

In 1997, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published its Final Military 

Munitions Rule (MMR) (40 CFR § 266.200-206). The MMR identifies when conventional and chemical 

military munitions become hazardous wastes under RCRA, and provides for their safe storage and 

transport. Under the MMR, military munitions include, but are not limited to, the following items: 

• Confined gaseous, liquid, and solid propellants; 

• Explosives; 

• Pyrotechnics; 

• Chemical and riot agents; and 

• Smoke canisters. 

The MMR defines training; research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E); and clearance of 

unexploded ordnance and munitions fragments on active or inactive ranges as normal uses of the product. 

When military munitions are used for their intended purpose, they are not considered to be a solid waste 

for regulatory purposes. Under the MMR, wholly inert items and nonmunitions training materials are not 

defined as military munitions. These materials are not excluded from regulation as hazardous wastes 

under RCRA. 

The Federal Facilities Compliance Act (FFCA) of 1992 amended RCRA to ensure a complete and 

unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity with regard to administrative fines and penalties on federal 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 3.4-3

facilities. Under the FFCA, Navy facilities are required to comply with State hazardous waste substantive 

and procedural requirements, including obtaining State permits. 

3.4.1.2.2 Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) 

For air, sea, or land transportation, the U.S. Department of Transportation defines a hazardous material as 

a substance or material that is capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when 

transported in commerce (49 U.S.C. 5101, et seq.; 49 CFR 172.101, Appendix B). The HMTA regulates 

the transportation of hazardous materials, including ordnance. 

3.4.1.2.3 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) 

Under CERCLA Section 101 (14), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, a 

hazardous substance is defined as any substance that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical and 

chemical characteristics, poses a potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment. 

CERCLA has established national policies and procedures to identify and clean up sites contaminated in 

the past by hazardous substances. The Navy implements cleanups of CERCLA sites through the 

Installation Restoration Program (IRP). 

The migration of hazardous substances from historical waste deposits can pose a risk to public health. The 

IRP was developed to identify, assess, characterize, and clean up or control contamination from past 

hazardous waste disposal operations and hazardous materials spills at Department of Defense (DoD) 

facilities. The IRP is intended to be a tool for identifying and cleaning up any contaminant releases that 

could endanger public health, welfare, or the environment. 

The IRP process has three phases. Phase I, the Site Inspection Phase, includes identifying potential 

hazardous waste sites through interviews, record searches, and minimal sampling. Phase II, the Remedial 

Investigation/Feasibility Study Phase, includes sampling and remediation design planning. Phase III is the 

Remedial Design/Remedial Action Phase, in which the site is remediated or secured. IRP sites on SSTC 

are addressed below. 

3.4.1.2.4 Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) 

The MMRP addresses response actions at non-operational ranges where munitions and explosives of 

concern (MEC) or munitions constituents (MC) are present in the environment from historical uses. MEC 

is defined as unexploded ordnance (UXO), discarded military munitions, and MC present in high enough 

concentrations to pose an explosive hazard. MC in lower concentrations are not considered MEC, but 

may require a response based upon risk to human health or the environment. 

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2002 required the DoD to create an inventory of MMRP sites 

in the United States (U.S.) (10 U.S.C. § 2710[a]) and to create a protocol with which to prioritize sites 

within each facility, state, or region and across the U.S. (10 U.S.C. Section 2710[b]). 10 U.S.C. Section 

2710(a) states that sites that were or are under military control that have a demonstrated presence of MEC 

or MC contamination or are suspected of having MEC are eligible for entry into the MMRP. 

The Range Sustainability Environmental Program Assessment (RSEPA) was developed to provide a 

consistent approach for assessing the environmental condition of operational ranges. The RSEPA is a 

range compliance management process to ensure long-term sustainability using a phase approach of 

assessment. The RSEPA process is applied to all operational test and training ranges within the U.S. and 

its territories where munitions are used or were used. The RSEPA process systematically assesses the 

present environmental compliance conditions and ensures best management practices are in place to 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 3.4-4

assure operational test and training ranges are not posing a significant off-site risk to human health or the 

environment. 

3.4.1.2.5 Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act 

Sec. 203 of Executive Order (EO) 13148 (Right-to-Know and Pollution Prevention) states that "[t]hrough 

timely planning and reporting under the EPCRA, Federal facilities shall be leaders and responsible 

members of their communities.” Thus, a federal agency reports its use of hazardous and toxic chemicals 

in accordance with EPRCRA. Access to this information contributes to improvements in chemical safety 

and protection of local communities. The guidance for Federal facilities has been incorporated into Chief 

of Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST) 5090.1. For each installation, the Navy annually submits 

EPCRA 312, Tier II forms to the emergency responders (Fed Fire) and the San Diego County Certified 

Unified Program Agency (CUPA), and the EPCRA 313 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Form R to 

USEPA, with courtesy copies to the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) and the 

Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

3.4.1.2.6 Oil Pollution Act (OPA) 

OPA requires oil storage facilities and vessels to submit plans to the federal government describing how 

they will respond to large, unplanned releases. In 2002, OPA was amended by the Oil Pollution 

Prevention and Response; Non-Transportation-Related Onshore and Offshore Facilities; Final Rule (40 

CFR Part 112). This Rule requires Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans and 

Facility Response Plans. These plans outline the requirements to plan for, and respond to, oil and 

hazardous substance releases. Oil and hazardous substance releases are reported and remediated in 

accordance with current Navy policy. Naval Amphibious Base (NAB) Coronado has a SPCC Plan; 

however, SSTC training does not store sufficient quantities of oil to require coverage under the plan. 

3.4.1.2.7 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

TSCA requires reporting, record-keeping, and testing, and establishes restrictions on chemical substances 

or mixtures. TSCA also addresses the use and disposal of specific chemicals, such as asbestos and leadbased paint. In general, TSCA limits the manufacture, distribution, use, and disposal of chemical 

substances that pose a threat to human health. At one time, asbestos was commonly included in building 

materials such as concrete, masonry, caulks, flooring and ceiling tiles, and mastics; and lead was often 

used in exterior paints. Friable asbestos is present on and around the foundations of demolished buildings 

on SSTC-S. 

3.4.1.2.8 Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) 

The PPA focuses on source reduction, reducing pollution through changes in production, operation, and 

use of raw materials. The PPA addresses other practices that increase efficiency in the use of natural 

resources, or protect natural resources through conservation. 

3.4.1.2.9 State Laws and Regulations 

Cal-EPA develops, implements, and enforces the State's environmental protection laws that ensure clean 

air, clean water, clean soil, safe pesticides, and waste recycling and reduction. Cal-EPA is comprised of 

several agencies, boards, departments, and offices, with no single entity having sole authority for 

hazardous materials and wastes. Within Cal-EPA, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is 

responsible for the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. DTSC regulates hazardous 

waste, pollution prevention, and clean-up of contamination. However, Cal-EPA delegates much of its 

responsibility for hazardous materials management to local governments, under the CUPA program. 

Local governments and communities form CUPAs to effectively manage the acquisition, maintenance, 

and control of hazardous materials in their jurisdictions, and to avoid overlapping roles between federal, 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 3.4-5

State, and local agencies. In Southern California, CUPAs have typically formed on a county-by-county 

basis. In San Diego County, the CUPA is the San Diego Department of Environmental Health, which is 

responsible for hazardous materials and hazardous wastes regulation. State hazardous materials and 

hazardous wastes laws are summarized in Table 3.4-1. 

The Navy complies with applicable State regulations under EO 13148, Greening the Government 

Through Leadership in Environmental Management; DoD Directive 4165.60, Solid Waste Management; 

and Navy guidelines for hazardous materials and wastes management found in OPNAVINST 5090.1. 

3.4.1.3 Hazardous Materials 

3.4.1.3.1 Management 

According to the Navy’s Waste Management Plan for Navy Region Southwest, hazardous material 

business plans and unified facility permits are required for all Navy facilities that store hazardous 

materials exceeding 200 cubic feet of a compressed gas, 500 pounds of a solid, or 55 gallons of a liquid 

(Department of the Navy [DoN] 2007). These hazardous materials business plans provide guidance and 

direction on the use, storage, and compliance activities for hazardous materials. Adherence to approved 

plans assures that hazardous materials used for training are properly managed. 

Table 3.4-1: State of California Laws 

Law / Regulation Description 

Hazardous Materials Release Response 

Plans and Inventory Act (6.95 Health and 

Safety Code [HSC]) / 19 California Code of 

Regulations (CCR), Division 2, Chapter 4 

Requires facilities using hazardous materials to prepare 

hazardous materials business plans, and establishes the 

California Accidental Release Prevention Program 

Hazardous Waste Control Act (6.5 HSC / 22 

CCR, Division 4.5) 

Regulates the generation, transportation, storage, 

treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste 

Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement 

Act (Proposition 65; 6.6 HSC / 22 CCR, 

Division 4) 

Regulates the discharge of contaminants to groundwater 

3.4.1.3.2 Transport 

Transport on public roads of dangerous substances—hazardous materials and nonfused munitions—is 

controlled and regulated by the Federal Department of Transportation (49 CFR 177). The State enforces 

federal transportation safety regulations within its jurisdiction. Generally, munitions and other dangerous 

articles may be transported on public highways if proper safety procedures are followed. Bulk hazardous 

material loads are prohibited from using Coronado Bridge; thus hazardous materials for Naval Base 

Coronado (NBC) must be transported via Imperial Beach on SR-75. 

3.4.1.3.3 Use 

Hazardous materials currently used in support of physical aspects of SSTC training activities include 

petroleum products, coolants, cleaning compounds, batteries, explosives, and pyrotechnic materials. Most 

of the hazardous materials used at SSTC are stored in the Hazardous Material Minimization Center at 

NBC. Ordnance is stored in Ready Service Lockers. 

Training activities involve numerous vehicles, aircraft, ships, boats, and support craft. These manned 

vessels do not intentionally release any hazardous constituents into the water. However, small amounts of 

diesel fuel or engine oil may leak onto the ground or into the water. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 3.4-6

3.4.1.4 Hazardous Waste 

3.4.1.4.1 Management 

NAB Coronado, on which a portion of SSTC is located, is a hazardous waste, Large-Quantity Generator 

and Transporter under RCRA (USEPA RCRA Identification Number CA9170023130). NAB Coronado 

was last inspected by the San Diego CUPA in January 2008; at that time NAB was found to be in 

compliance with general generator requirements (USEPA 2009). SSTC training activities generate 

hazardous wastes primarily through operation of vehicles and equipment required for training. These 

waste streams include used batteries, spill cleanup materials, used petroleum products, and ordnance 

remnants and residues. Commander, Navy Region Southwest prepared a Hazardous Waste Management 

Plan (HWMP) (DoN 2007) and a Regional Explosive Hazardous Waste Management Plan (DoN 2004) 

for Navy facilities in the San Diego region. These plans provide comprehensive and consistent guidance 

to personnel at SSTC-North (SSTC-N) and SSTC-South for characterization, storage, disposal, and 

record-keeping of RCRA and non-RCRA wastes. 

For SSTC marine activities, environmental compliance policies and procedures applicable to shipboard 

operations are defined in OPNAVINST 5090.1. These instructions reinforce the Clean Water Act 

prohibition against discharging harmful quantities of hazardous substances into or upon U.S. waters out to 

200 nautical miles. Navy ships are required to conduct operations in such a manner as to minimize or 

eliminate any adverse impacts on the marine environment. 

There are several satellite accumulation areas and one 90-day accumulation area at SSTC. Hazardous 

waste is collected from the 90-day accumulation area and transported by a Defense Reutilization and 

Marketing Office contractor to an approved Treatment, Storage, or Disposal (TSD) facility. 

3.4.1.4.2 CERCLA Sites 

There are six IRP sites on SSTC-N. Five of these sites were identified during an initial assessment 

conducted in 1986. In 1993, subsequent studies resulted in a recommendation of further investigation for 

four of the sites and the exclusion from further investigation of Site 5 (now managed through the MMRP, 

as outlined in Section 3.4.1.4.3). Further investigation in 1995 resulted in a decision of no further action 

for Site 1 and identification of an additional IRP site (Site 6). Table 3.4-2 lists the five IRP sites and the 

status of each. One IRP site, a rubble disposal area, exists on SSTC-S. These sites generally resulted from 

historical generation of hazardous substances during activities such as vehicle maintenance and repair, 

burning of motor oils, releases of fuels and solvents from fueling facilities and equipment shops, and 

releases of sandblast grit and paint. 

Table 3.4-2: SSTC Installation Restoration Program Sites

Site Description Status 

1 (SSTC-N) Building 603 disposal pit Decision of no further action 

2 (SSTC-N) Old refuse disposal and burn area Further investigation being conducted 

3 (SSTC-N) New paint shop site Further investigation being conducted 

4 (SSTC-N) Sandblast grit disposal Further investigation being conducted 

6 (SSTC-N) Morale, Welfare, and Recreation 

(MWR) Marina 

Removal action conducted/Further 

investigation being conducted 

10 (SSTC-S) Rubble disposal area No further investigation planned 

Source: Navy Environmental Leadership Program 2000 

At NASNI, 12 major IRP sites have been identified (Navy Environmental Leadership Program 2000). Of 

these, Sites 1, 5, 6, and 7 are located in areas adjacent to SSTC training on NASNI. These sites are 

described in Table 3.4-3. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 3.4-7

Table 3.4-3: NASNI Installation Restoration Program Sites 

Site Description Status 

1 (NASNI) Shoreline sediments. Sixteen outfalls known 

to have discharged industrial hazardous 

wastes in the past. 

Some outfall areas have been 

remediated. 

5 (NASNI) Golf Course Garbage Disposal Area. Solid 

waste disposal area 1942-1965. Contained 

both solid and chemical wastes. 

Perimeter monitoring is in place. 

6 (NASNI) Public Works Salvage Area. Removal action 

in 1996 removed polychlorinated biphenyl 

(PCB)-contaminated soils. 

No further action recommended for this 

site. 

7 (NASNI) Building 39 runoff catchment area. Past use 

for gunnery school and missile engine test 

site. 

No further remedial action 

recommended. 

Source: Navy Environmental Leadership Program 2000 

No IRP sites will be disturbed by SSTC training activities. 

3.4.1.4.3 Military Munitions Response Program Sites 

Approximately 40 acres of San Diego Bay shore located approximately two miles south of the City of 

Coronado served as a disposal area for dredge spoils from a 1966 San Diego Bay dredging project. The 

dredged material used to fill the site was later discovered to contain UXO from the military. In 1969, 

approximately seven feet of clean fill material was placed on top of the site. 

In 1984, the Navy set aside 75 acres on Silver Strand as a California least tern nesting preserve. The 

disposal area is located within the preserve. The location of this area is provided in Figure 3.4-1. This area 

was then designated as Delta South, and is now fenced and inaccessible to the public. The disposal area 

was included in the IRP during an initial assessment in 1986, and was designated as IRP Site 5. In 1990, a 

UXO sweep was conducted by the Navy, and the area was certified free of surface ordnance. The site, 

now referred to as MMRP Site 5, has been transferred to the MMRP, and is undergoing further 

investigation. 

The only NASNI MMRP site is Site 8, which was moved from the IRP. This site is currently undergoing 

a Site Inspection. All IRP and MMRP sites are non-operational clean-up sites and ranges. No MMRP 

sites will be disturbed by SSTC training activities. 

Delta South is a designated Navy training area per Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, San 

Diego Instruction 3120.1E. It is frequently used by operational groups local to San Diego for land 

maneuvering and amphibious exercises; no live-fire activities are conducted at Delta South. Training at 

Delta South does not include intrusive activities such as digging, and is considered appropriate to protect 

the safety of Navy operators. 

3.4.1.5 Current Mitigation Measures 

The Navy's general instructions (e.g., OPNAVINST 5090.1) and training activity planning and review 

processes serve to ensure that hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are stored and handled 

appropriately. The Navy’s current mitigation measures include its HWMP, NBC Hazardous Substance 

Release Integrated Contingency Plan (DoN 2008), and Regional Explosive HWMP (Section 3.4.1.4). 

Navy personnel also collect expended training materials at the conclusion of a training activity, to the 

extent practicable. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 3.4-8

Source: Navy Environmental Leadership Program 2000 

Figure 3.4-1: Location of SSTC-N IRP Sites 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 3.4-9

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences 

This resource section focuses on groups of activities that could involve certain aspects of hazardous 

materials management. As discussed previously, similar types of activities are grouped together 

(agglomerated) for ease of analysis. Types of activities that could affect hazardous materials management 

are those that use hazardous materials, store bulk chemicals in the training area, generate hazardous 

wastes, or release hazardous constituents into the environment. These include Activities 4-7, 9-12, 25-28, 

30-35, 37, 43, 48, 50, 56, 57, 59-62, 64, 71, 77 (Table 2-1) and N1, N3, N7-N9, and N11 (Table 2-2). 

Activities that do not involve the use of hazardous materials, storage of bulk chemicals or hazardous 

wastes on the site, or release hazardous constituents include the following: 1-3, 8, 13-24, 29, 36, 38-42, 

44-47, 49, 51, 52-55, 58, 63, 65-70, 72-76 (Table 2-1) and N2, N4-N6, and N10 (Table 2-2). As noted in 

Section 3.4.1.4.3, IRP and MMRP sites would not be affected by current or proposed training activities at 

SSTC and are not discussed further in the analysis. 

3.4.2.1 Approach to Analysis 

This section addresses hazardous materials and wastes in their broadest sense, because their definitions 

under various federal and State regulations—intended to accomplish diverse governmental objectives and 

constrained by specific legal authorities—are not entirely consistent with the actual environmental and 

human health effects of substances and materials and thus the following definitions are used. Hazardous 

materials and hazardous wastes were defined in Section 3.4.1.1.1. Hazardous constituents are hazardous 

materials or substances present at low concentrations within, or as a minor component of, a matrix, 

package, or construct that is nonhazardous in normal use (e.g., a radio battery). Used munitions are 

ordnance items that have been expended by firing or detonation. 

Often, hazardous constituents are used to enhance a material by increasing strength, reducing weight, 

improving reliability, lowering life-cycle costs, reducing wear, or slowing degradation. Hazardous 

constituents can be released from their parent material (matrix) when it is disturbed, degraded, or 

destroyed. The particular hazardous features of these hazardous constituents are generally recognized and 

understood by their users. Safe handling and pollution prevention measures are a routine part of systems 

programs to minimize and manage their effects throughout the acquisition process. Among the issues 

addressed are the types, amounts, and distribution of hazardous constituents associated with the Navy 

training activities outlined in Chapter 2 of this Environmental Impact Statement. 

Materials that contain hazardous constituents include munitions, batteries, telemetry systems, fuel, and 

hydraulic fluid. Wastes that may contain hazardous constituents include waste oil, aerosols, batteries, 

used munitions, and cleaning compounds. These materials can affect human health or the environment 

through direct contact, or through leaching or dispersion of their hazardous constituents. 

The significance of potential impacts associated with hazardous materials, constituents, substances, and 

wastes is based primarily on their characteristics, distribution, transportation, storage, and disposal. 

Factors used to assess significance include the extent or degree to which implementation of an alternative 

would substantially increase the human health risk or environmental exposure resulting from the storage, 

use, transportation, and disposal of these materials and substances. A second measure of significance is 

whether the use, transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous items are consistent with the various 

federal and State laws regulating these materials. 

3.4.2.1.1 Explosives 

Explosives in modern military ordnance are generally solid-cast explosive fills, formed by melting the 

constituents and pouring them into steel or aluminum casings. Most new U.S. Navy formulations contain 

plastic-bonded explosives that use plastic or other polymer binders to increase their stability (Janes 2005, 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 3.4-10

2006). Royal Demolition Explosive (RDX)/High Melting Explosive (HMX) blends have generally 

replaced trinitrotoluene (TNT) in plastic-bonded formulations. 

Munitions constituents of concern include cyclonitramines, such as RDX and HMX, and their degradation 

products. RDX is subject to photolysis and biodegradation once exposed to the environment. As a group, 

military-grade explosives have low water solubility (the amount of a substance that can dissolve into 

water) (Table 3.4-4), and are relatively immobile in water. The degradation and dissolution of these 

materials may be further slowed by the physical structure and composition of blended explosives, which 

contain multiple chemical compounds, often with additional binding agents. For example, Composition 

(C)-4 is 91 percent RDX and nine percent plasticizers. 

3.4.2.1.2 Other Munitions Constituents 

Other munitions constituents of concern include pyrotechnic (illumination and smoke) compounds, 

propellants, primers, and metals (e.g., iron, manganese, copper, lead, zinc, antimony, mercury) released 

from both initiation primers and ordnance casing corrosion. Common primers include lead azide, lead 

styphnate, and mercury fulminate. Pentaerythritol tetranitrate is a major component of detonation cord 

and blasting caps. Phosphorus, potassium perchlorate, and metal nitrates are common ingredients of 

pyrotechnics, flares, and smokes. In particular, the heavy metals tend to accumulate in surface soils 

because of their generally low solubility and their elemental nature—they may oxidize or otherwise react 

with natural substances, but do not break down in the manner of organic compounds. 

Table 3.4-4: Water Solubility and Degradation Products of Common Explosives 

Compound Water Solubility 

(milligrams per liter at 20°C) 

Salt (sodium chloride) [for comparison] 357,000 

Ammonium perchlorate 249,000 

Picric acid 12,820 

Nitrobenzene 1,900 

Dinitrobenzene 500 

Trinitrobenzene 335 

Dinitrotoluene 160-161 

Trinitrotoluene 130 

Tetryl 51 

Pentaerythritol tetranitrate 43 

RDX 38 

HMX 7 

White phosphorus 4 

Source: DoN 2007 

3.4.2.1.3 Explosives Residues 

The explosive residues generated when ordnance functions as designed (high-order detonation), or 

experiences a low-order detonation, generate constituents of concern. A high-order detonation is a 

complete detonation of maximum velocity that consumes almost all explosive constituents. Low-order 

detonation is either incomplete detonation or detonation at lower than maximum velocity, and explosive 

constituents remain along with combustion byproducts. The major explosive residues of organic nitrated 

compounds such as RDX include water, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen (Brinkley and 

Wilson 1943; John 1941 and 1943; Renner and Short 1980; Cook and Spillman 2000). High-order 

detonations result in almost complete conversion of explosives (99.997 percent or more [U.S. Army 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 3.4-11

Corps of Engineers 2003]) into such inorganic compounds, whereas low-order detonations result in 

incomplete conversion (i.e., a mixture of the original explosive and its byproducts). For example, Table 

3.4-5 lists the calculated chemical byproducts of high-order underwater detonation of TNT, RDX, and 

related materials. 

High-order detonations spread micron-sized and submicron-sized particles over hundreds of square 

meters. Field studies indicate that explosives residues include 0.003 percent or less of the original 

quantity of material, although the amounts of explosives residues vary among different types of ordnance. 

Table 3.4-5: Chemical Residue Composition of Underwater Detonations 

Component Percent by Weight, by Explosive Compound 

TNT RDX Composition B 

Nitrogen 18.2 37.0 29.3 

Carbon dioxide 27.0 24.9 34.3 

Water 5.0 16.4 8.4 

Carbon monoxide 31.3 18.4 17.5 

Carbon (elemental) 10.6 - 2.3 

Ethane 5.2 1.6 5.4 

Hydrogen 0.2 0.3 0.1 

Propane 1.6 0.2 1.8 

Ammonia 0.3 0.9 0.6 

Methane 0.2 0.2 0.2 

Hydrogen cyanide <0.0 <0.0 <0.0 

Methyl alcohol <0.0 <0.0 - 

Formaldehyde <0.0 <0.0 <0.0 

Other compounds <0.0 <0.0 <0.0 

Source: Renner and Short 1980 < indicates “less than”. 

3.4.2.2 No Action Alternative 

3.4.2.2.1 Hazardous Materials 

Munitions 

Various types of small, expendable training items are shot, thrown, dropped, or placed within the training 

areas. These items include smoke grenades, and flares of various types. These items are used in relatively 

small quantities for selected training activities, and are scattered over a large area. Recognizable items 

such as smoke grenades expended on the beach are collected, to the extent practicable, at the conclusion 

of the exercise. Items that are expended on the water, and fragments that are not recognizable as training 

materials (e.g., flare residue), generally are not collected. 

Under the No Action Alternative, about 3,520 smoke grenades and flares are used at SSTC (Appendix C). 

At an average weight of about 0.85 pound per item (DoN 2008), about 2,990 pounds per year of these 

wastes (3,520 x 0.85 pound each = 2,990 pounds) would be generated. Solid flare and pyrotechnic 

residues may contain, depending upon their purpose and color, aluminum, magnesium, zinc, strontium, 

barium, cadmium, and nickel, as well as perchlorates. Although pyrotechnic residues include hazardous 

constituents, most of them are present in small amounts or low concentrations, and are bound up in 

insoluble compounds. As inert, incombustible solids, with low concentrations of leachable metals, these 

materials do not meet the criteria for hazardous wastes. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 3.4-12

Under the No Action Alternative, about 265,000 small arms rounds and simunitions (a non-lethal 

projectile used to simulate live fire) per year are fired at SSTC, including about 187,300 blanks, about 

77,600 simunitions, and up to 150 shotgun shells (Appendix C). The blanks are assumed to leave no solid 

residues on the range. At an approximate weight of about 0.02 pound each, the expended simunitions of 

dye-coated plastics used during Close Quarter Combat (CQC)/Close Quarter Defense (CQD) training 

weigh about 0.8 tons. Expended materials accumulate in areas used for training activities, such as the 

CQC/CQD training facility. Exercise participants collect visible, expended training materials to the extent 

practicable. 

Approximately 1,200-1,820 pounds per year of explosives (Appendix C) are used for surface and below 

water training (Table 3.5-6). The major byproducts of these detonations are nitrogen, carbon dioxide, 

water, and carbon monoxide. Only trace amounts of organic compounds are left following a detonation of 

explosives and are not expected to affect surrounding biological or physical resources. 

Petroleum Products and Other Chemical Use 

Under the No Action Alternative, petroleum products and other materials are stored in bulk, primarily at 

SSTC-N NAB Coronado; and all maintenance and fueling of vehicles and vessels involved in training 

occurs there. Quantities of hazardous materials appropriate to the particular training event are transported 

to SSTC training areas. Materials potentially present in the training areas include various fuels, oil and 

hydraulic fluids, batteries of various types; pyrotechnical devices such as flares and smoke grenades; 

explosive items such as blanks, blasting caps, and explosives; paint; and water treatment chemicals used 

for Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit (ROWPU) (Activity 50, see Table 2-1) training (sodium 

hexamonophosphate, sodium hypochlorite, and citric acid in 5-gallon pails). 

Unintended releases of hazardous materials could pose a risk primarily to on-site military personnel, and 

secondarily to individuals in adjacent areas. However, over a recent three-year period (2005-2007), there 

were only four training-related spills (one on land and three on the water) that totaled less than 40 gallons. 

A single spill (ruptured bulldozer hydraulic line) accounted for 35 gallons, or almost 90 percent of the 

total. The other spills included oily waste or fuel; onsite personnel responded using spill response 

materials, such as absorbent pads. Thus, when these materials are used as intended, and in accordance 

with the Navy’s safety policies and procedures, these materials do not pose a risk to on-site personnel or 

the community as active controls minimize spills and responses to spills are immediate. 

3.4.2.2.2 Hazardous Wastes 

Wastes from training activities at SSTC include waste petroleum products, used coolants, various types of 

expended training materials, brine and backwash from the ROWPU training, and batteries. Most of these 

waste types are nonhazardous, some (e.g., batteries) may qualify as universal wastes (wastes that are not 

designated as hazardous wastes, but containing materials that need to be prevented from release into the 

environment), and some of the wastes are hazardous under RCRA. Hazardous wastes are stored in 

satellite accumulation areas on SSTC and in a 90-day storage area at NAB Coronado, and transported 

along SR-75 by truck to regional hazardous waste TSD facilities. Under the No Action Alternative, SSTC 

would continue to produce similar quantities of hazardous wastes. 

Hazardous wastes derived directly from SSTC training activities represent an insignificant portion of the 

volume of hazardous wastes shipped to regional and national waste disposal facilities. The State and 

Federal government will continue to assure that such facilities have ample capacity to accommodate 

industrial, commercial, and governmental wastes in the future. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 3.4-13

3.4.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

3.4.2.3.1 Hazardous Materials 

Under Alternative 1, the amount of hazardous materials used for training at SSTC would increase over the 

No Action Alternative. Thus, the quantity of hazardous materials transported to SSTC along SR-75 and 

the hazardous materials at SSTC would increase. However, the maximum quantities of these materials 

stored on-site would not increase, because the increases would not trigger the need for expanded storage 

facilities. Consequently, impacts to the on-base hazardous materials management system would be the 

same as the No Action Alternative. 

Munitions 

Alternative 1 would generate substantially more expended munitions residues than the No Action 

Alternative. Under Alternative 1, about 5,190 smoke grenades and flares (Appendix C) would be used at 

SSTC, an increase over the No Action Alternative of about 48 percent. At an average weight of about 

0.85 pound per item (DoN 2008), about 4,410 pounds per year of these wastes (5,190 x 0.85 pound each 

= 4,410 pounds) would be generated. Although pyrotechnic residues include hazardous constituents, these 

constituents are present in small amounts or low concentrations, and are bound up in insoluble 

compounds. As inert, incombustible solids with low concentrations of leachable metals, smoke and flare 

residues do not meet the criteria for hazardous wastes. 

Under Alternative 1, about 343,000 small arms rounds and simunitions per year are fired at SSTC, 

including about 201,000 blanks, about 141,000 simunitions, and up to 1,400 shotgun shells. The blanks 

are assumed to leave no solid residues on the range. At an approximate weight of about 0.02 pound each, 

the expended simunitions of dye-coated plastics during CQC/CQD training weigh about 1.4 tons. 

Expended materials would accumulate in areas used for these training activities, such as in the CQC/CQD 

facility. Exercise participants would collect visible expended training materials to the extent practical. 

About 2,451-3,480 pounds per year of explosives are used for surface and underwater training. As 

indicated in Table 3.4-4, the major byproducts of these detonations are nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water, 

and carbon monoxide. Only trace amounts of organic compounds would be left following an underwater 

detonation of explosives. At such concentrations, these substances would have no effect on water quality. 

Petroleum Products and Other Chemicals 

Under Alternative 1, the same types of petroleum products and other chemicals would be present on the 

beach during training exercises, and in the same quantities as the No Action Alternative. ROWPU 

training would continue at the same number of training activities as the No Action Alternative. Shore 

training activities requiring the presence of bulk chemicals would occur more frequently than the No 

Action Alternative. For these reasons, the potential effects of staging petroleum products and other bulk 

chemicals on the beaches during training would be somewhat greater than those described in the No 

Action Alternative. 

3.4.2.3.2 Hazardous Wastes 

Under Alternative 1, SSTC would produce more wastes than are produced under the No Action 

Alternative. Wastes from training activities at SSTC would include waste petroleum products, used 

coolants, various types of expended training materials, brine and backwash from the ROWPU training, 

and batteries. Most of these waste types would be nonhazardous, some (e.g., batteries) may qualify as 

universal wastes, and some of the wastes are hazardous under RCRA. Hazardous waste shipments to TSD 

facilities (primarily by truck along SR-75) would also increase. The number of hazardous waste satellite 

accumulation points and the size of the 90-day storage facility likely would not increase. The increase in 

waste generation would be accommodated within the existing management program. The maximum 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 3.4-14

quantities of hazardous wastes stored on-site would not increase. 

3.4.2.4 Alternative 2 

The only difference between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 is that all SSTC-N oceanside beach training 

areas would be available for Navy training, regardless of time of year under Alternative 2. Therefore, 

impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be the same as those described above for Alternative 1. 

Increased access and availability at SSTC-N training areas would not increase the use of hazardous 

materials or wastes. 

3.4.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

No adverse effects associated with hazardous materials or wastes were identified; therefore no mitigation 

measures are warranted. However, current mitigation measures, including implementation of practices 

outlined in Navy plans (listed in Section 3.4.1.5) and the collection of expended training materials, would 

continue to be implemented. 

3.4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 

There are no unavoidable adverse environmental effects associated with hazardous materials and wastes 

as a result of implementation of any of the alternatives. 

3.4.5 Summary of Effects 

Table 3.4-6 summarizes the effects of the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. 

Table 3.4-6: Summary of Hazardous Materials and Wastes Effects 

Alternative Effects 

No Action 

Alternative 

• Use of expendable training materials deposits small amounts of training 

materials on the land ranges. Most of the degradation products of these 

materials are nonhazardous inorganic materials and are collected where 

feasible at the conclusion of training. Only trace amounts of nonhazardous organic compounds are left following a detonation of 

explosives and are not expected to affect surrounding biological or 

physical resources. 

• The Navy's existing hazardous materials management system is sufficient 

for handling hazardous materials and wastes needed for and generated by 

the baseline training activities. 

Alternative 1 

• Under this alternative, the amounts of expended training materials would 

increase. The weight of expended flare and smoke canister residues would 

increase and the amounts of residues from detonations of underwater 

explosives would increase. Despite these increases, the amounts of 

expended materials would not have an adverse effect on physical or 

biological aquatic resources. 

• The Navy’s existing hazardous materials management system is sufficient 

for handling hazardous materials needed for the proposed training 

activities. 

• The Navy’s existing hazardous waste management system is sufficient for 

handling of wastes generated by the Proposed Action. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 3.4-15

Table 3.4-6: Summary of Hazardous Materials and Wastes Effects (Continued) 

Alternative Effects 

Alternative 2 • Impacts would be similar to those for Alternative 1. 

Mitigation Measures 

• The Navy's general instructions (e.g., OPNAVINST 5090.1) and training 

activity planning and review processes serve to ensure that hazardous 

materials and hazardous wastes are stored and handled appropriately. The 

Navy’s current mitigation measures include its business plan (Section 

3.4.1.3), HWMP, NBC Hazardous Substance Release Integrated 

Contingency Plan (DoN 2008), and Regional Explosive HWMP (Section 

3.4.1.4). Navy personnel also collect expended training materials at the 

conclusion of a training activity to the extent practicable. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 3.4-16

This page intentionally left blank 
3.5 Water Resources 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-1

3.5 WATER RESOURCES

3.5.1 Affected Environment 

3.5.1.1 Introduction 

3.5.1.1.1 Definition of Resources 

This section addresses the sources, availability, and uses of surface waters and groundwater. Hydrology 

addresses bodies of water, water transfers, and the horizontal (geographic) and vertical (topographic) 

distribution of water within the environment. Water quality addresses the physical and chemical 

composition of water as affected by natural conditions and human activities. Hydrology is described to 

provide a basis for understanding the relationship between the Proposed Action and the water resources in 

the area of potential effect. Water quality is described to provide a basis for evaluating impacts from the 

possible release of pollutants from training activities such as use of vehicles, personnel movements, 

expenditures of training materials, and detonation of explosives. 

3.5.1.1.2 Regional Setting 

The Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC) is located on Silver Strand peninsula in southern San Diego 

County. To the east of the Silver Strand peninsula lies San Diego Bay, a large enclosed bay that is heavily 

used for recreational, commercial, industrial, and institutional purposes. To the west of the peninsula lies 

the Pacific Ocean. Ocean waters off SSTC - from Point Conception south to Mexico - are part of the 

Southern California Bight (SCB), which is influenced by two major oceanic currents: the southwardflowing, cold-water California Current and the northward-flowing, warm-water California Countercurrent 

(also known as the Davidson Current). The mixing of these two currents in the SCB strongly influences 

patterns of ocean water circulation and temperatures (Figure 3.5-1). 

3.5.1.1.3 Region of Influence 

The Region of Influence (ROI) for marine water resources at SSTC can be partitioned into three areas: the 

bayside training zones within San Diego Bay (sandy beaches, mudflats, and the nearshore environment); 

the oceanside intertidal and nearshore training lanes of SSTC-North (SSTC-N), SSTC-South (SSTC-S), 

and the Breakers Beach and Zuniga Point portions of Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI); and the 

offshore ocean environment of SSTC-N and SSTC-S including the ocean anchorages. Freshwater 

resources include all surface water and groundwater on these properties. 

3.5.1.2 Federal and State Regulations 

3.5.1.2.1 Federal Regulations 

Clean Water Act (CWA) 

Federal statutes play an important role in protecting surface and ocean waters, and preserving wetlands. 

The principal federal law on water quality is the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 United States Code [USC] 

§ 1251 et seq.). The CWA was enacted by Congress to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of United States (U.S.) waters. The CWA is administered by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 

The CWA protects the nation's waters from pollution by setting water quality standards for surface waters 

and by limiting discharges of pollutants into U.S. waters. The CWA also establishes permitting 

requirements for wastewater discharges to surface waters. The CWA prohibits the intentional discharge of 

hazardous substances, including petroleum products, into U.S. waters in quantities harmful to the public 

health or welfare, or to the environment. The CWA is the primary federal statute governing the discharge 

of dredge or fill materials into U.S. waters. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-2

Figure 3.5-1: California Current and Countercurrent 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-3

Relevant CWA sections include: 

• Section 303 requires States to establish and enforce water quality standards to protect and enhance 

beneficial uses of water for such purposes as recreation and fisheries; 

• Section 304 requires USEPA to publish water quality criteria that reflect the latest scientific 

knowledge on the effects of pollutants in water; 

• Section 313 requires Federal agencies to observe State and local water quality regulations; 

• Section 401 requires States to establish water quality standards for waters in the U.S. territorial sea. 

Section 401 further requires any applicant for a Section 404 permit to provide certification from the 

State in which the discharge originates that the discharge will comply with applicable water quality 

standards; 

• Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged and fill materials into navigable waters of the U.S.. 

As required under the CWA, USEPA has established National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 

(NRWQC) (USEPA 2006). The NRWQC are recommended ambient concentrations of specific 

contaminants in marine waters necessary to protect ecological and human health. The criteria are not 

rules, and have no regulatory effect; however, they can be used to develop regulatory requirements, based 

on concentrations that will have an adverse effect on the qualities necessary to sustain beneficial uses of 

U.S. waters. Table 3.5-1 shows the NRWQC for hazardous constituents that may be present in wastes 

generated by activities described in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

Table 3.5-1: NRWQC for Saltwater 

Contaminant Concentration (μg/L) 

Maximuma Chronicb

Nickel 74.0 8.2 

Lead 210.0 8.1 

Cadmium 40.0 8.8 

Copper 4.8 3.1 

Mercury 1.8 0.94 

Notes: μg/L - micrograms per liter; (a) the maximum concentration is 

an estimate of the highest concentration to which an aquatic 

community can be exposed briefly without resulting in an 

unacceptable effect; and (b) the chronic concentration is an estimate of 

the highest concentration to which a marine community can be 

exposed indefinitely without resulting in an unacceptable effect. 

Source: USEPA 2006

Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) 

The Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 401, 403) controls the construction of structures in 

navigable waters of the U.S. RHA Section 10 authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to 

regulate structures and works in, over, under, or affecting navigable waters of the U. S. For example, a 

Section 10 permit from USACE is required to place any permanent or temporary piles in navigable 

waters. The RHA defines navigable waters as those waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and 

which were used, are now used, or may be used for interstate or foreign commerce. USACE jurisdiction 

extends to the ordinary high water mark of navigable waters. 

3.5.1.2.2 State Regulations 

The State of California’s principal law on water resources is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control 

Act (WQCA) (California Water Code §§ 13000-13999.10). The WQCA gives the State Water Resources 

Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) responsibility for 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-4

protecting the waters within their regions. The RWQCBs also implement provisions of the CWA 

delegated to states which regulates point (industrial) and nonpoint (storm water) sources of pollution. 

The WQCA directs local RWQCBs to establish beneficial uses for water bodies in California; the WQCA 

controls water quality to ensure that these beneficial uses are not degraded. Under the authority of 

California law, the SWRCB has promulgated the Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of 

California (Ocean Plan) (SWRCB 2005), which contains numerical water quality objectives for 

protection of beneficial uses (Table 3.5-2). 

Table 3.5-2: California Ocean Plan Marine Water Quality Objectives 

Contaminant 

Concentration (μg/L) 

Instantaneous 

Maximum 

Six-Month 

Median 

Nickel 50 5 

Lead 20 2 

Cadmium 10 1 

Copper 30 3 

Mercury 0.4 0.04 

Notes: μg/L - micrograms per liter. 

Source: SWRCB 2005 

Under California law, water quality criteria have been promulgated for the coastal watersheds of San 

Diego County (Basin Plan, RWQCB 2007); these criteria are analyzed to determine the significance of 

impacts on fresh water quality. 

3.5.1.3 Hydrology 

3.5.1.3.1 Drainage Basin 

SSTC and NASNI are part of the Coronado Subunit of the Otay Hydrographic Unit; the Coronado 

Subunit consists of Coronado Peninsula. No natural streams or major drainages occur within the 

Coronado Subunit; although SSTC-S has wetlands, vernal pools, and natural and manmade drainage 

channels. Groundwater on Coronado Peninsula—because of its proximity to San Diego Bay and the 

Pacific Ocean—is too saline for potable uses (RWQCB 2007; DoN 1992). Accordingly, the Basin Plan

exempts the Coronado Subunit from Municipal Groundwater as a beneficial use (RWQCB 2007). 

3.5.1.3.2 Floodplains and Wetlands 

Coastal areas of NASNI, less than 10 feet above mean sea level (msl), are within the 100-year floodplain 

(Figure 3.5-2). The 100-year flood is defined as the largest flood with a recurrence interval of 100 years 

or less, based on current topography, recorded precipitation, and tidal surge. The 100-year floodplain is 

the zone that would be subject to flooding during a 100-year storm event, combined with a very high tide 

or seismic ocean wave. SSTC is susceptible to flooding from local storm runoff or seismic ocean waves 

due to its low-lying, flat terrain. 

A combination of low, sloping terrain, poor drainage, and a high water table create seasonal pools of 

storm water runoff in several depressions in the east-central and southern portions of SSTC-S 

(Department of the Navy [DoN] 2004). Runoff from an area of about 60 acres in the City of Imperial 

Beach and seawater infiltration during high winter tides contribute to the seasonal formation of these 

pools. Ditches connecting low-lying areas on the eastern portions of SSTC-S to culverts under State 

Route (SR)-75 drain to San Diego Bay, and drainage channels carry storm water runoff from the central 

portions of SSTC-S to a sump pump at the YMCA Camp Surf that drains to the ocean. A USACE 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-5

wetlands delineation in 2002 identified 59.6 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, mostly non-tidal pickleweed, 

and 11.3 acres of nonwetland U.S. waters 

Figure 3.5-2: NASNI 100-Year Flood Zones 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-6

on the site (shown in Section 3.11, Figure 3.11-11). A seasonal freshwater pond of about 0.7 acre, fed by 

storm water runoff from Imperial Beach, occupies the central portion of YMCA Camp Surf in the 

southwestern corner of SSTC-S. 

3.5.1.3.3 San Diego Bay 

San Diego Bay (Figure 3.5-3) is a naturally formed, crescent-shaped embayment. It is separated from the 

Pacific Ocean by Silver Strand Pennisula, a long, narrow sand spit that extends from the City of Imperial 

Beach to North Island. The mouth of San Diego Bay is about 0.6 mile wide, and is aligned north-to-south 

between Point Loma and Zuniga Point. From the mouth of Otay River to the tip of Point Loma, San 

Diego Bay is about 15 miles long, and varies from 0.2 to 3.6 miles in width. It is 17 square miles in area 

at Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) (Wang et al. 1998). The outer-half of San Diego Bay is narrow, 

averaging about 0.6 to 1.2 miles, while the inner-half is much wider, averaging about 2.0 to 2.4 miles. 

Prior to major filling activities, which began in 1888 and intensified just before and during World War II, 

San Diego Bay had an area of 21 to 22 square miles, as defined by the mean high tide line of 1918. About 

six square miles of San Diego Bay, or about 27 percent, have been filled, based on this high tide line 

(Smith 1976). Only 17 to 18 percent of the original San Diego Bay floor remains undisturbed by dredge 

or fill (Smith 1976). 

Several major freshwater basins drain into San Diego Bay. These basins include Sweetwater River, which 

drains to the south-central portion of San Diego Bay; Chollas Valley, which drains to the central portion 

of the Bay; and Otay River and Telegraph Canyon, which drain to southern San Diego Bay. In winter— 

when San Diego County receives most of its precipitation—fresh water enters San Diego Bay via storm 

drains, urban runoff, streams, and flood control channels. In summer, freshwater flows into San Diego 

Bay are minimal, and evaporation of water from the surface of the Bay increases. San Diego Bay is an 

“inverse” embayment—where evaporation exceeds freshwater inputs—creating a net inflow of ocean 

water. 

Bathymetry 

With a water volume of approximately 287,000,000 cubic yards (Chadwick et al. 1999), San Diego Bay’s 

depth ranges from 59 feet near the mouth, to less than three feet at the southern end. It has an average 

depth of 21 feet below msl (Wang et al. 1998). The northern area of San Diego Bay, generally north of 

Coronado Bridge, is deep—about 39 feet on average. In the central area of San Diego Bay, generally 

between Coronado Bridge and Sweetwater Flood Control Channel, water depth averages about 10 feet. In 

southern San Diego Bay, water depth generally is less than about eight feet, and deep water is found only 

in areas that were dredged for shipping channels. 

There has always been a narrow, natural channel deepening at the mouth, possibly cut by river floods at a 

time when sea level was much lower (Peeling 1975). This channel continues to be deepened by dredging 

for safe passage of ships seeking sheltered anchorage at port. Figure 3.5-3 shows the most recently 

surveyed bathymetry of the San Diego Bay floor (Scientific Services 1994 for DoN). This map also 

shows the bathymetry of the nearshore oceanside of the SSTC, in 7-foot intervals. 

Hydrology and Hydrodynamic Regions of San Diego Bay 

San Diego Bay circulation may be driven by wind, tides, temperature, and density gradients associated 

with seasonal, tidal, and diurnal cycles. In San Diego Bay, circulation is primarily related to tides, 

because winds are of mild magnitude and there is a low fetch (short distance for winds to pick up speed) 

(Wang et al. 1998). Tides in San Diego Bay are classified as mixed diurnal/semi-diurnal, with the semidiurnal component dominant (Largier 1995). Generally, the tides in San Diego Bay consist of two low 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-7

Figure 3.5-3: Bathymetry and Circulation of San Diego Bay 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-8

and two high tides per day on an approximately two-week, spring-neap tidal cycle, that is associated with 

the phase of the moon. Tides do not follow a 24-hour cycle, so some days experience only three of the 

four tides within the calendar day. 

Driven by the ebb and flood of the tides, the currents in San Diego Bay change direction approximately 

every six hours (i.e., two flood and two ebb tides each day). Tidal currents are strongest near the mouth of 

San Diego Bay. Tidal current velocities decrease toward the head of San Diego Bay, due to the relatively 

smaller upstream tidal prism volume. In southern San Diego Bay, tidal currents are very weak (Largier 

1995). Local winds can induce surface currents in San Diego Bay independent of tidal influences. 

The mean tidal range—the difference between mean lowest low water and the mean highest high water—

is about 5.7 feet and the maximum tidal range is about 10 feet (DoN 1998). Near SSTC, the average tidal 

range is about three feet. The strength of the tides affects the rate at which San Diego Bay is flushed (i.e., 

San Diego Bay water exchanged with ocean water). Flushing rates during minimum tidal exchanges can 

be one-third to one-fourth the rates observed during maximum tidal exchanges. 

Tidal exchange in San Diego Bay exerts control over the flushing of contaminants, salt and heat balance, 

and residence time of water (Chadwick 1997). The ebb and flood of tides mix ocean and San Diego Bay 

waters. Tides produce currents, induce changes in salinity, and alternately expose and wet portions of the 

shoreline. Tidal flushing and mixing are important for dispersing pollutants, maintaining water quality, 

and moderating water temperature that has been affected by exchange with the atmosphere or heating. 

Based on the residence time of water in different areas from the mouth to the southern salt ponds, Largier 

(1996, 1997) described four hydrodynamic subregions of San Diego Bay: 

• Marine Region. Circulation in the marine region is dominated by tidal exchange within the 

ocean. In San Diego Bay, this area of efficient flushing is within perhaps three to four miles of the 

entrance. Residence time of water in this portion of San Diego Bay is just a few days. The net 

result of these circulation patterns in San Diego Bay is the presence of cold, clean ocean water at 

depth (Largier 1996, 1997). 

• Thermal Region. In the thermal region—still in northern San Diego Bay but extending to 

approximately Glorietta Bay—currents are driven primarily by surface heating. The vertical 

exchange of water results from entry of a cold, oceanic plug at depth with the flood tide, then the 

receding of warm, San Diego Bay surface water with the ebb tide. 

• Seasonally Hypersaline Region. Between Glorietta Bay and Sweetwater Marsh National 

Wildlife Refuge (SMNWR) is a seasonally hypersaline region. Water is stratified by salinity 

gradients induced by evaporation. 

• Estuarine Region. South of the SMNWR is an estuarine region where occasional inputs of 

freshwater discharge from the mouths of the Otay and Sweetwater Rivers. Residence time of 

water in this portion of San Diego Bay can exceed one month. 

Variations in the width of San Diego Bay affect the strength of the tidal current. For example, currents are 

strong in the narrow region near Coronado Bridge. Drift studies indicate that pollutants spilled in this area 

would disperse rapidly. Conversely, pockets such as Glorietta Bay have average residence times much 

longer than nearby locations in the main San Diego Bay, inhibiting the dispersal of pollutants. 

Ocean waves affect circulation, turbidity, and sediment transport. The height and frequency of waves also 

can affect the uses suitable for San Diego Bay waters. The narrow entrance to San Diego Bay protects its 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-9

interior from ocean waves, so the surface of San Diego Bay is relatively calm except when strong local 

winds generate steep, short-period waves. Short-period waves in San Diego Bay can be two to three feet 

high (Michael Brandman Associates 1988). 

Temperature, Salinity, and Turbidity 

Temperature and density gradients, both with depth and along a longitudinal cross-section of San Diego 

Bay, drive tidal exchange of San Diego Bay and ocean water beginning in the spring and continuing into 

fall. Salinities near the San Diego Bay entrance approach those of the Pacific Ocean. In contrast, salinities 

in southern San Diego Bay are greater than in the ocean in late summer, but can be lower in the winter 

following rain. Turbidity is elevated in bays and estuaries due to shallow depths, stream discharges, storm 

runoff, or algal blooms. Waters of San Diego Bay become more turbid, or less transparent, as distance 

increases from the entrance. 

3.5.1.3.4 Pacific Ocean 

Offshore Currents 

The oceanic circulation off the coast of California is dominated by a long-term mean southward flow 

associated with the California Current. The California Current (Figure 3.5-1) flows from north to south 

along the California coast. This cold-water current diverges from the coast at Point Conception and flows 

south along the edge of the continental shelf. This current is considered the western boundary of the SCB. 

Underlying the California Current at a depth of approximately 275 fathoms is the California 

Undercurrent, which flows northward. 

In southern California, the current divides into a southward extension and a recirculating flow toward the 

coast. The north-flowing current, called the Davidson Current, flows northward between the California 

Current and the coast. As the Davidson Current approaches the Channel Islands and Point Conception, 

part of the current turns east and south along the coast. The recirculation forms a counterclockwise eddy 

that is present most of the year. This surface current pattern is sometimes referred to as the Southern 

California Eddy (SCE). 

The strength and influence of the various currents in the SCB vary seasonally. Between July and 

November (the Oceanic period), the California Current dominates nearshore circulation, and the SCE is 

well developed. Between December and February (the Davidson period), the California Undercurrent 

becomes stronger, and partially displaces the California Current westward, weakening the SCE. Between 

March and June (the Upwelling period), longshore winds drive surface water offshore, and deeper, colder 

water moves onshore. 

Currents move large amounts of water with varying levels of temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen 

(DO), and nutrients in and out of the study area. These water movements vary in strength, and are 

influenced by weather patterns and seasonal variations. In addition, currents along the coast are 

influenced by coastline orientation, bottom topography, and tides. Kelp forests may slow ocean currents 

to one-third of their normal speed. 

Littoral Circulation 

Local currents in nearshore waters are complex and include longshore currents caused by waves striking 

the shore at oblique angles, which flow parallel to the shore, and cross-shore and rip currents, which move 

in an onshore-offshore direction. The combination of these currents makes up the littoral transport 

process. Overall, longshore currents produce a net drift and sediment transport (turbidity) from south to 

north. Wave exposure affects the receiver beaches from the south and west. The currents closest to shore 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-10

vary in response to coastline orientation, bottom topography, and tides. Kelp forests may slow ocean 

currents to one-third of the normal rate (San Diego Association of Governments [SANDAG] 2000). 

The nearshore ocean is an exposed, open subtidal area called the Silver Strand Littoral Cell (SSLC), 

which extends from south of the international border to the Zuniga Jetty at San Diego Bay for over 17 

miles of coastal reach. The main features of this littoral cell are the coastal bluffs of the Playa de Tijuana 

in Baja California, the Tijuana River delta, and the broad sandy beaches of the Silver Strand. The shoal 

located adjacent to Zuniga Jetty impounds sand transported to the north along the Silver Strand beaches in 

the lee of Point Loma. Within the SSLC, variations in the seasonal wave energy elicit substantial sand 

movement both longshore and on- and offshore (SANDAG 2000). Silver Strand Penninsula, a sand spit 

deposited by a northward-bound eddy of the coastal current on the west, separates San Diego Bay from 

the Pacific Ocean. Sand transport along the beach in the SSLC generally has a net northward direction of 

117,715 to 196,192 cubic yards per year (Moffatt & Nichol 2000). 

Beach recession has occurred south of Coronado and at Imperial Beach. Historically, the sand transported 

was laid down from deposition emanating from the Tijuana River. Since the damming of the river in 

1937, however, the sand supply has been cut off and beaches have undergone severe erosion (Peeling 

1975) south of Coronado and at Imperial Beach. Zuniga Jetty, which runs parallel to Point Loma at the 

San Diego Bay inlet, was built to control erosion near the inlet, changing San Diego Bay’s hydrodynamic 

characteristics by diverting both northward-bound sediment and currents (Wang et al. 1998). 

The coastal currents in the SSLC were measured between 1986 and 1988 for the Tijuana Oceanographic 

Engineering Study. The mean water flow was measured by current meters at 15 stations in U.S. and 

Mexican waters. These current meter data were augmented by satellite imagery and other studies (U.S. 

International Water and Boundary Commission [USIBWC] 1998). 

Subsequently, flow patterns in this area were modeled (Hendricks 1988). The principal pattern is a 

relatively uniform longshore flow north and south along the coast; this pattern represented about 60 to 65 

percent of the variance in current measurements. Another intermittent flow pattern is a recurring eddy 

south of Point Loma with a counterclockwise circulation of varying intensity that can extend six to nine 

miles offshore and approximately 11 miles along the shore. About 87 percent of the variability in current 

meter data is accounted for by these two patterns. 

Wave Action 

Shoreline circulation is strongly influenced by wave action. Northerly swells during late fall, winter, and 

early spring are caused by northern storms, while southerly swells during summer and fall result from 

tropical storms and wind patterns. Wave data collected to the south of SSTC in Imperial Beach indicate 

that the predominant wave direction is from the west to southwest, with a nearly continuous northerly 

transport through Imperial Beach and along Silver Strand. 

Ocean swells exert a significant influence upon the water column and nearshore bottom habitats. Wave 

energy (swell) initiates the resuspension and transport of bottom sediments. The highest wave height and 

energy tend to be during winter and spring due to storms from the North Pacific (SANDAG 2000). 

Upwelling and Stratification 

Upwelling occurs when northern winds displace surface waters offshore, resulting in replacement by 

colder, deeper waters. These colder waters have lower DO concentrations, but they have higher salinity 

and are richer in nutrients. Upwelling occurs from late March through July in San Diego County. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-11

Downwelling occurs when southern winds push offshore waters toward the shore, thus pushing nearshore 

surface waters down and causing warmer waters and lower salinity than is typical for deeper waters. 

Nearshore water visibility ranges between 5 and 20 feet; however, visibility is substantially reduced in the 

surf zone by sediment disturbance from wave action and rip currents. Intertidal waters of beaches are 

characteristically turbid due to the high energy activity in the nearshore environment (SANDAG 2000). 

Seasonal upwelling and downwelling affect marine water quality within the nearshore ocean 

environment. 

Waters are stratified in terms of temperature during the summer and early fall, unstratified during the 

winter, and transitional (e.g., stratification weakening or strengthening) in late fall and spring. 

Thermoclines are barriers to mixing between surface and bottom waters. Surface water temperatures trend 

highest from June through September and lowest from November through February. In contrast, 

temperatures near the bottom generally are higher from October through January and lower from April 

through June. Historical temperatures in the study area range from 52 to 74 degrees Fahrenheit (o F) near 

the surface and from 49 to 61o F near the bottom. Water temperatures near the beach tend to be more 

uniform throughout the water column due to turbulent mixing and shallower depths (SANDAG 2000). 

3.5.1.4 Water Quality 

The water quality of ephemeral pools, vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, and permanent pools on SSTC-S 

is unknown because the qualities of these waters have not been studied. To the extent that water quality 

affects the suitability of these habitats for plants and wildlife, this issue will be addressed in the 

discussion of biological resources. As discussed under Hydrology, no potable surface or ground waters 

exist on Silver Strand peninsula. Therefore, this discussion focuses on marine water quality. 

SWRCB adopted the California Ocean Plan (Ocean Plan) in 1974, and amended it in 1988, 1990, 1997, 

2001, and 2005 (SWRCB 2005). The Ocean Plan prescribes effluent quality requirements, management 

principles for waste dischargers, and specific waste discharge prohibitions. 

The CWA prohibits the discharge of hazardous substances into or upon U.S. waters, out to a distance of 

200 nautical miles. Historically, vessel discharge standards have been established individually by the 

coastal states. This state-by-state approach has proved to be problematic for the military. To resolve this 

issue, USEPA has proposed and is developing Uniform National Discharge Standards for military vessels. 

Table 3.5-3 summarizes current waste discharge restrictions for Navy vessels in the coastal zone 

(OPNAVINST 5090.1). Local Navy policy may be more restrictive than the limits shown in Table 3.5-2. 

Table 3.5-3: Discharge Restrictions for Navy Ships 

Waste Type Criteria For U.S. Waters (0-3 nautical miles) 

Black Water (sewage) No discharge 

Grey Water (from sinks 

and showers) 

If vessel is equipped to collect grey water, pump out when in port. If 

not, then direct discharge is permitted 

Oily Waste Discharge allowed if waste has no visible sheen. If equipped with Oil 

Content Monitor, discharge if < 15 parts per million of oil. 

Garbage No discharge 

Hazardous Materials No discharge 

Medical Wastes No discharge 

Source: OPNAVINST 5090.1, Section 22, Environmental Compliance Afloat. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-12

3.5.1.4.1 San Diego Bay 

Marine water quality is determined by complex chemical and physical processes. Its dynamic equilibrium 

is evident in a variety of indicators, including temperature, salinity, and DO and nutrient concentrations. 

The major constituents of sea water are water, sodium chloride, dissolved gases, minerals, and nutrients. 

Table 3.5-4 lists the major mineral components of seawater. 

Pertinent chemical characteristics of marine waters include temperature, salinity, and density, and the 

concentrations of hydrogen ions (pH), DO, and nutrients. The major ions present in seawater are sodium, 

chloride, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and sulfate. Seawater has a high buffering capacity, due 

primarily to the presence of dissolved carbon and hydrogen. Most of the dissolved carbon in the sea 

originates from the equilibrium reaction of dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2) and water. This CO2-

carbonate balance buffers seawater, keeping the pH between 7.5 and 8.5. 

Table 3.5-4: Mineral Composition of Sea Water 

Constituent Concentration 

 (Parts per million) Constituent Concentration 

 (parts per million) 

Chloride 18,890 Bromide 65 

Sodium 10,560 Strontium 13 

Sulfate 2,560 Boron 4.6 

Magnesium 1,272 Fluoride 1.4 

Calcium 400 Aluminum 0.16-1.9 

Potassium 380 Barium 0.05 

Bicarbonate 142 Silicate 0.04-8.6 

Note: Several other minerals are present in seawater at concentrations less than 1.0 part per million 

Source: U.S. Geological Survey 1983. 

Primarily, water quality in north-central San Diego Bay is affected by tidal flushing and currents. Water 

quality also is influenced locally by freshwater inflows. Portions of San Diego Bay are listed as impaired 

water body by the RWQCB due to excessive concentrations of one or more contaminants (RWQCB 

2007).1

 A total of 172 acres of San Diego Bay are designated as contamination hot spots, which are a 

management priority in the total maximum daily load process. Hot spots are identified as having toxic 

sediments and degraded benthic communities, due to both point and non-point sources. The hot spots 

closest to SSTC are at Glorietta Bay and Coronado Cays. 

Gross water quality characteristics (e.g., salinity, temperature, and DO) form a gradient within San Diego 

Bay: waters in the northern San Diego Bay being similar to ocean conditions; waters in southern San 

Diego Bay being strongly affected by shallow depths, fresh water inflows; and insulation, and waters in 

the central San Diego Bay being intermediate in character. 

Temperature 

Water temperature is an important physical characteristic of the marine environment. Temperature 

controls the rate at which chemical reactions and biological processes occur (Waller 1996). Temperature 

also strongly influences vertical stratification and mixing. Most aquatic organisms thrive within a narrow 

range of temperature. A greater number of species live in the moderate temperature zones, with fewer 

 

1 Impaired waters are those waters that do not meet water quality standards for one or more pollutants; thus, they are impaired for 

their designated use.
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-13

species tolerant of extremes in temperature. The massive volume of large water bodies moderates the rate 

at which their temperature changes in response to natural processes, and marine organisms typically 

cannot survive rapid or substantial temperature fluctuations. 

Surface water temperatures in northern San Diego Bay range from lows of 54°F to 58°F in winter months 

to highs of 71°F to 74°F in summer months. Water temperatures in southern San Diego Bay tend to be 

warmer both in winter (59°F) and in summer (74°F). Vertical thermal stratification is well-developed in 

the waters off the mouth of San Diego Bay in summer, with temperature differences of about 18°F. In 

winter, vertical temperature differences are about 3.6°F. 

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 

The amount of DO present in seawater varies with the rate of production by plants, consumption by 

animals and plants, bacterial decomposition, and surface interactions with the atmosphere. When surface 

water sinks, it retains its store of oxygen (Waller 1996). 

DO concentrations vary with season, depth, and location within San Diego Bay. Although no direct 

information is currently available, well-mixed areas within San Diego Bay, including SSTC training 

areas, should maintain DO concentrations similar to nearshore ocean conditions, which vary seasonally 

and vertically. Surface DO levels measured in 1988 ranged from 7.6 to 10.1 milligram per liter (mg/L) 

(Engineering Science 1988). In southern San Diego Bay, DO concentrations are affected by other 

environmental factors, such as limited water exchange rates and circulation, higher water temperatures, 

oxygen uptake by organisms, and consumption of oxygen by decaying organic matter. DO values in San 

Diego Bay as low as 5 mg/L have been reported (Michael Brandman Associates 1988). 

Salinity 

Salinity is a measure of the salt (sodium chloride) content of seawater. The salinity of seawater is 

approximately 35 parts per thousand (ppt) of salt in water. Variations in the salinity of seawater are linked 

primarily to climatic conditions. The salinity of seawater is affected by freshwater inflow, temperature, 

evaporation, and depth. 

Salinity varies most at the surface of the water. Evaporation increases the salinity of surface waters, while 

rain and inflows of fresh water from streams decrease salinity. Salinity is relatively constant in northern 

San Diego Bay because of high exchange rates with the ocean, but it can vary considerably in southern 

San Diego Bay. Salinity near the harbor entrance ranges from 32.8 to 33.7 ppt (Engineering Science 

1988). Salinity in the southern San Diego Bay ranges from 31 to 37 ppt, or nearly a 20 percent change. 

Salinity also varies with the season. Water in San Diego Bay is much warmer and saltier than adjacent 

ocean waters in summer (Largier 1995). With increasing distance from the mouth of San Diego Bay (at 

least one tidal excursion), residence time increases to several days, and significant temperature gradients 

are observed. At longer residence times, the heat content is saturated and an evaporative increase in 

salinity occurs. These conditions are typical of low inflow estuaries in California where, during the long, 

dry summer, evaporative losses exceed the supply of fresh water from precipitation and runoff. At such 

times, the salinity of San Diego Bay waters substantially exceeds that of the ocean—a condition called 

hypersalinity. Within this hypersaline regime, inverse circulation (net inflow takes place in a surface 

layer, and net outflow in a bottom layer) may be observed. In some areas, a small freshwater inflow 

persists during the dry season and an estuarine (brackish) regime occurs. 

Turbidity 

Water clarity is measured in terms of the amount of turbidity (i.e., the amount of particulate matter in 

suspension in the water column). The turbidity of San Diego Bay waters is affected by phytoplankton 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-14

blooms; inputs of fine sediments from surface runoff during and after storms; sediment resuspension by 

winds, waves, and human activities; and discharges from wastewater treatment plants. Consequently, an 

increase in turbidity can limit light penetration and the level of primary production. Turbidity in San 

Diego Bay varies both temporally and spatially. In general, water clarity is about 6.6 feet. 

Contaminants 

Major contaminants found in San Diego Bay include chlorinated hydrocarbons, polychlorinated 

biphenyls, toxic components of petroleum hydrocarbons, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, heavy 

metals, and organotins such as tributyltin (DoN 1998). The sources of these compounds include effluents 

from non-point storm drain runoff (municipal and industrial); vessel-related contaminants from 

maintenance, antifouling paints (military, commercial, and private vessels), and marina discharges; and 

residues of prior industrial discharges. Recent sediment sampling in San Diego Bay near SSTC-N 

indicates that—while concentrations of some contaminants are elevated above background levels—no 

contaminants were present at concentrations which would adversely affect marine organisms (Port of San 

Diego 2002). The Ecological Assessment of San Diego Bay (City of San Diego 1998) stated that “[i]n 

comparison to other bays and harbors in the Southern California Bight...San Diego Bay has relatively 

low levels of widespread contamination and has considerably less contamination than in decades past.” 

Sediment studies performed in 1998 and 2002 for dredging projects in San Diego Bay indicate that 

sediments are substantially free of chemical contamination, as compared to a reference site (Naval Oceans 

Systems Center 2002). Additional sediment samples were collected in December 2002 for a dredging 

project in San Diego Bay. Samples were collected to the project depth (plus 2 feet of overdredge) of 44 

feet below mean low water. Concentrations of heavy metals in test sediments were comparable to the 

heavy metal concentrations in the reference sample collected from the ocean. In general, man-made 

organic chemicals were either not detected in the sediment samples or were found in trace concentrations. 

Sediment samples from the Tijuana Oceanographic Engineering Study indicate that organic carbon, 

biological and chemical oxygen demand, sulfides, total nitrogen, arsenic, lead, nickel, zinc, copper, 

chromium, cyanide, and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) are highest in the northwestern portions 

of San Diego Bay. Sediments in the central areas of the Bay were highest in mercury, cadmium, silver, 

and phenol. Higher concentrations of nickel, zinc, copper, chromium, and DDT were found in sediments 

adjacent to Tijuana Estuary (USIBWC 1998). 

3.5.1.4.2 Pacific Ocean 

Ocean water quality offshore of the Silver Strand peninsula is influenced by natural conditions such as 

thermal stratification, upwelling, tides, and currents; by surface runoff and river discharges; and by 

wastewater discharges. Three wastewater treatment plants in the region discharge treated wastewater to 

the Pacific Ocean via two outfalls. Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant has an ocean outfall north of 

Coronado that discharges wastes at a location 4.5 miles offshore at a depth of 320 feet. South Bay 

Reclamation Plant and International Wastewater Treatment Plant have an ocean outfall that discharges 

wastes at a location 3.5 miles offshore at a depth of 100 feet. 

Temperature 

In the waters offshore of SSTC, seasonal thermoclines (water layers of markedly differing temperatures) 

stratify the water column. Surface temperatures are more affected by atmospheric conditions, and tend to 

fluctuate along lines of latitude. Surface water temperatures vary seasonally in association with 

upwelling, climatic conditions, and latitude. Water temperatures closer to the coast tend to be more 

uniform throughout the water column due to turbulent mixing and shallower depths. Nearshore locations 

are shallower and have slightly higher temperatures. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-15

Warming by the sun is the primary factor that affects surface water temperatures in southern California 

from June to October. Surface water temperatures are highest from June through September and lowest 

from November through February. Temperatures near the bottom are higher from October through 

January and lower from April through June. Waters are stratified during the summer and early fall, 

unstratified during the winter, and transitional (e.g., stratification weakening or increasing) in late fall and 

spring. Thermoclines limit the mixing of surface and bottom waters. 

Baseline monitoring of ocean conditions for South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant 

between July 1995 and June 1996 showed that mean bottom temperatures at the 90-foot depth stations 

increased from about 52°F in July to about 58°F in December, and then declined to a range of about 52°F 

to 55°F in winter and spring. Mean surface temperature increased from about 62°F in July to about 71°F 

in September, and declined to about 58°F in February. In May and June, mean surface temperatures began 

to rise to about 52°F and 69°F, respectively (USIBWC 1998). Surface temperatures of waters along the 

coast of the SCB range from about 54°F in the winter to about 70°F in the summer. Temperatures of 

bottom waters in the study area range from about 49°F to 61°F. 

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 

Historical DO concentrations range from 5.0 to 11.6 mg/L throughout the SCB. Surface water DO 

concentrations at sites off San Diego were 7.8 mg/L and 8.3 mg/L during a June 1999 survey (SANDAG 

2000). The bottom water DO concentration at surveyed locations was 8.6 mg/L. Surface and nearshore 

waters generally have higher concentrations of DO due to continuous wave action and atmospheric 

mixing. A DO level equal to or greater than 5 mg/L has been recommended as a general standard of 

acceptable water quality for aquatic life. 

During baseline monitoring for the South Bay Ocean Outfall, offshore DO concentrations decreased with 

depth and distance from shore, and mean high values were highest during the summer and fall. At a depth 

of 90 feet, mean concentrations in summer ranged from 7.7 to 8.8 mg/L. A high mean value of 8.9 mg/L 

was recorded in October. DO concentrations declined in winter and then increased in the spring, except 

during April, when the lowest recorded value of 6.9 mg/L occurred due to upwelling (USIBWC 1998). 

Salinity 

Historically, salinity has been fairly uniform, ranging from approximately 32 to 34 ppt throughout the 

SCB. Salinity tends to be homogenous throughout the water column; with differences between the surface 

and the bottom typically less than one ppt. Salinity of both surface and bottom waters may be slightly 

higher from April to August due to upwelling of denser bottom waters. Maximum thermal stratification 

was observed in June 1996, when salinity was 33.7 ppt at the surface and 38.3 ppt at a depth of 180 feet. 

In December 1996, the range of salinity was narrow and inverted, with a value of 33.4 ppt at the surface 

and 33.4 ppt at 180 feet. There were insufficient data to explain the inversion, and upwelling did not 

appear to be a factor (USIBWC 1998). 

Turbidity 

Ocean water quality parameters monitored by the City of San Diego (see “Contaminants” discussion 

below) include Total Suspended Solids (TSS), a measure of turbidity, oil and grease, and sediment 

quality. Monitoring data indicate that the waters offshore of Silver Strand typically have higher-thanaverage levels of TSS (e.g., 11.5 to 23.2 mg/L in 2002) and low levels of oil and grease. Tidal flushing of 

San Diego Bay is responsible for higher levels of turbidity beyond the Bay's entrance, and increased 

turbidity in shallow waters in September and October are associated with seasonal phytoplankton blooms 

(red tides). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-16

Contaminants 

The City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department has monitored water quality offshore of 

Silver Strand since 1999 under the City's South Bay Ocean Outfall, located south of the Tijuana River 

estuary on the U.S-Mexico border. Ocean water quality monitoring by the City over the last three to five 

years provides a good understanding of typical water quality conditions in the area of potential effect. 

Local ocean water quality is generally good, with episodes of poor water quality associated with heavy 

storm runoff and sewage spills. 

The County Health Department closes public beaches to water-contact recreation when coliform bacteria 

counts indicate a potential risk to public health. The number of closures per year is shown in Table 3.5-5 

for three locations along Silver Strand. The number of days that the beaches are closed increases from 

north to south, and most closures are associated with a sewage spill or possible sewage spill. The data 

indicate that Tijuana River and South Bay Ocean Outfall discharges strongly influence water quality in 

this area. Storm water runoff has a relatively minor influence on local water quality. 

Table 3.5-5: Beach Closures Due to High Coliform Bacteria Levels 

Location 

Beach Closures By Calendar Year (Days) 

2003 2004 2005 2006 

S R S R S R S R 

NASNI Beach 0 0 9 0 15 0 1 0 

Silver Strand State Beach 4 0 21 4 31 0 11 0 

YMCA Camp Surf 20 4 50 0 80 2** 55 0 

Notes: S - caused by sewage spill or possible sewage spill; R - attributed to storm water runoff. ** - cause unknown. 

Source: County of San Diego Department of Health 2005, 2006. 

Sediments offshore of Silver Strand have above-average levels of organic loading and concentrations of 

some metals (aluminum, arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc), but they are not present 

at concentrations that pose a risk to public health or the environment. Traces of synthetic organic 

contaminants (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) are occasionally detected in sediments, but to date 

have been well below a threshold of concern (USACE 2002). 

3.5.1.4.3 Beneficial Use Designations 

The RWQCB prepared a Basin Plan that identifies beneficial uses of local surface waters, water quality 

objectives necessary to protect designated beneficial uses, and water quality standards to achieve the 

objectives (RWQCB 2007). These designations address water quality, not the apportioning or 

consumption of the available resources. Thirteen beneficial uses of San Diego Bay and 12 beneficial uses 

of the Pacific Ocean are designated by the RWQCB. These beneficial uses are described in Table 3.5-6. 

The SWRCB’s Ocean Plan guides the management and protection of offshore marine water quality in 

California (SWRCB 2005). The Ocean Plan designates several beneficial uses of ocean waters along the 

San Diego coast: shellfish harvesting, industrial water supply, water recreation, navigation, fishing, 

mariculture, preservation and enhancement of Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), rare and 

endangered species, marine habitat, fish migration, and fish spawning (these Pacific Ocean uses also are 

designated in the Basin Plan). The Ocean Plan identifies two ASBS's in the San Diego region: the San 

Diego - La Jolla Ecological Reserve and the San Diego Marine Life Refuge. Both of these locations are 

north of Point Loma; the ROI for SSTC does not contain any ASBS. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-17

3.5.1.5 Water Use 

3.5.1.5.1 San Diego Bay 

The diverse uses of San Diego Bay waters include ocean shipping, transportation, tourism, military use 

for Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, and recreational boating and fishing. No commercial fishing occurs in 

San Diego Bay. A portion of the central San Diego Bay offshore of Naval Amphibious Base, Main Base 

is designated as a Restricted Area in the Code of Federal Regulations (Figure 3.16-2 in Section 3.16, 

Public Health and Safety). A large rectangular area in the central San Diego Bay is designated for 

regattas; this regatta area lies partly within the Navy’s designated restricted area. 

Table 3.5-6: Designated Beneficial Uses of San Diego Bay and Pacific Ocean Waters 

Beneficial Use San Diego 

Bay 

Pacific 

Ocean Description 

Industrial Service 

Supply √ √ Industrial activities that do not depend primarily on water 

quality 

Navigation √ √ Shipping, travel, or other transportation 

Recreation - Water 

Contact √ √ Body contact water sports where ingestion of water is 

reasonably possible 

Recreation - NonWater Contact √ √ Uses of water requiring proximity to water but not 

normally involving body contact 

Commercial and Sport 

Fishing √ √ Commercial or recreational collection of fish and other organisms, including those used for human consumption 

Preservation of 

Biological Habitats of 

Special Significance 

√ √

Uses of water that support designated areas or habitats, 

such as established refuges, parks, or sanctuaries where 

natural resources require special protection 

Estuarine Habitat √ Uses of water that support estuarine ecosystems, including 

preservation of estuarine ecosystems 

Wildlife Habitat √ √ Uses of water that support terrestrial ecosystems, 

including preservation of terrestrial ecosystems 

Preservation of Rare 

and Endangered 

Species 

√

Uses of water that support habitats necessary for the 

survival and maintenance of plant or animal species 

protected by state or federal laws. 

Marine Habitat √ √ Uses of water that support marine ecosystems, including 

preservation of kelp, fish, shellfish, and wildlife 

Aquaculture √ Aquaculture and mariculture of plants and animals for 

human consumption or bait. 

Migration of Aquatic 

Organisms √ √ Uses of water that support habitat necessary for migration 

Spawning, 

Reproduction, and 

Early Development 

√ √

Uses of water that support high quality aquatic habitats 

suitable for reproduction and early development of 

anadromous fish. 

Shellfish Harvesting √ √

Uses of water that support habitats suitable for collection 

of filter-feeding shellfish for human consumption or 

commercial or sport purposes. 

Source: SDRWQCB 2007 

The San Diego Bay Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (Port of San Diego and DoN 2007) 

attempts to quantify the use of San Diego Bay waters in terms of ship traffic. On the basis of shore-based 

visual surveys of portions of San Diego Bay and interviews with users, estimates of annual ship traffic for 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-18

four categories of vessels (commercial, recreational, Navy vessel, and Navy small boat) were made for 

each cell of a grid superimposed on San Diego Bay. This analysis indicates that portions of San Diego 

Bay used for SSTC training activities are not used by commercial or Navy vessels. Recreational boat 

traffic in these areas was estimated at less than 1,000 boats per year, and Navy small boat traffic was 

estimated at between 1,000 to 2,500 boats per year. 

Assuming for analytical purposes that most of the recreational boat traffic occurred on weekends, that 

central San Diego Bay represented roughly 35 percent of the 17 square miles of San Diego Bay surface, 

and that most of the boat traffic occurred over an eight-hour period, then the density of recreational boat 

traffic is about 0.2 boat per square mile. Based on the same assumptions, Navy small boat density is about 

0.5 boat per square mile. These rough estimates indicate that the potential for conflicts between SSTC 

training activities and public use of San Diego Bay waters is negligible, and need not be further 

addressed. 

3.5.1.5.2 Pacific Ocean 

Public uses of Pacific Ocean waters adjacent to SSTC are broader than those of San Diego Bay, including 

swimming, snorkeling, surfing, Self-contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) diving, and 

commercial fishing in addition to those listed for San Diego Bay. Little useful data on the public use of 

this area are available. An EIS / Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Imperial Beach 

(Silver Strand Shoreline Final General Reevaluation Report, USACE 2002) provides the following annual 

estimates of use for shore and nearshore recreation along its 3.5 miles of beach front: 

 1.8 million beach goers, 

 8,000 beach anglers, and 

 400 fishing boats providing an estimated 10,000 fishing trips. 

While these data may be useful for the city's land use and socioeconomic planning purposes, they do not 

provide quantitative information on the actual use of ocean waters off Imperial Beach, and may not be 

representative of other beach areas, such as Silver Strand State Beach or Coronado Municipal Beach. 

3.5.1.6 Current Mitigation Measures 

The Navy’s current practices affecting water quality—primarily hazardous materials handling and waste 

disposal practices—are based on requirements in OPNAVINST 5090.1. Those requirements were 

developed to comply with federal environmental regulations. Efforts to preserve vegetation on the 

backsides of dunes along the shoreline may reduce erosion and reduce transport of sediments into 

adjacent surface waters. Collection of spent training materials at the conclusion of training activities may 

incrementally reduce the amounts of contaminants transported into adjacent waters. 

With respect to water use, the Navy mitigates potential effects by avoiding washing causeway pier 

sections in the ocean and by pumping seawater through its Offshore Petroleum Discharge System during 

training instead of using petroleum products. OPNAVINST includes guidance on shipboard operations 

afloat. 

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.5.2.1 Approach to Analysis 

This resource section focuses on groups of activities that could affect hydrology, water quality, or 

designated beneficial uses of water. As discussed in Chapter 2, similar types of activities are grouped 

together (agglomerated) for ease of analysis. Types of activities that could affect hydrology are those that 

alter topography or bathymetry. Types of activities that could affect water quality are those that could 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-19

increase turbidity or increase concentrations of water pollutants. Types of activities that could affect 

designated beneficial uses are those that alter water quality in a way that affects commercial, recreational, 

or institutional uses of ocean, bay, or wetland areas (the area has no groundwater resources to be 

affected). Activities that do not have the potential to adversely affect water resources—and are not 

addressed below—include 17, 19, 31, 36, 43, 47, 58, 59, 61-63, 65, 66, 68, 72, 74-76, and N11 (Table 2-1 

and Table 2-2). 

3.5.2.2 Approach to Analysis 

Factors considered in evaluating the effects of an alternative on surface hydrology include the extent to 

which the Proposed Action or alternatives would: 

• Substantially alter surface hydrology on land ranges to the detriment of the physical environment 

(i.e., result in substantial flooding or ponding of surface runoff); or 

• Violate laws or regulations established to protect or manage water resources (see discussion of 

CWA and RHA, Section 3.5.1.2.1). 

Factors considered in evaluating the effects of an alternative on water quality include the extent to which 

the Proposed Action or alternative would: 

• Produce concentrations of chemicals in fresh waters that exceed criteria in the Basin Plan (see 

discussion of Basin Plan in Section 3.5.1.2.2);

• Produce concentrations of chemicals in marine waters that exceed Ocean Plan objectives (Table 

3.5-2), or 

• Substantially affect existing or future beneficial uses (see Section 3.5.1.4.3 for a discussion of 

these regulatory designations under the RWQCB’s Basin Plan and Ocean Plan). 

Factors considered in evaluating the effects of an alternative on water use include the extent to which the 

Proposed Action or alternatives would: 

• Conflict with public use of state or federal waters, or 

• Otherwise discourage public use of state or federal waters. 

No federal or state regulations seek to apportion use of San Diego Bay or ocean waters between public 

and institutional uses. Federal regulations pertaining to public safety and homeland security are addressed 

in Section 3.16, Public Health and Safety. 

3.5.2.3 No Action Alternative 

3.5.2.3.1 Hydrology 

The surface hydrology of SSTC, including seasonal wetlands and USACE jurisdictional wetlands, is 

described in Section 3.5.1.3.2. Training activities at SSTC do not permanently alter topography or surface 

flows. 

Certain training activities result in minor topographic alterations of the SSTC beaches (e.g., Offshore 

Petroleum Discharge System (OPDS) Beach Termination Unit, Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System 

(ABLTS) Beach Interface Unit and Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction; Activities 38, 30, and 41, 

respectively [see Table 2-1]), but disturbed areas are graded to restore the pre-existing conditions at the 

conclusion of the training exercise. Landing craft cause temporary, minor alterations in bottom 

topography at the shoreline that are eventually restored to their natural contours by wave action and 

currents. Piles placed in the water during Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) training (Activity 42, 

Table 2-1) create some local turbulence during the short periods they are in place (see discussion below). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-20

Fluid transfer training activities (Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit [ROWPU], Activity 40, Table 

2-1) withdraw small amounts of seawater from the surf zone and discharge similar quantities at another 

location. 

OPDS (Activity 38, see Table 2-1), consists of a two-mile-long underwater conduit anchored to the sea 

floor; when deployed and anchored, OPDS disturbs and resuspends bottom sediments. OPDS presents a 

minor barrier to currents and the natural movement of sediments when in place. This activity occurs an 

average of up to six times per year, the conduit is in place for nine days during each exercise—for a total 

of 54 days per year—and the conduit is not placed in the same location during each training evolution; 

therefore, this activity has no long-term effects on the ocean bottom. During training, seawater rather than 

petroleum products is pumped through the system, eliminating any risk of accidental leaks or spills of 

petroleum. 

The placement of piles in shallow water during ELCAS training (Activity 42, see Table 2-1) requires a 

Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit and may require a CWA Section 404 permit from USACE. 

Before issuing a Section 404 permit, USACE requires a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, which is 

issued by the RWQCB. This activity occurs two times per year, and each training evolution lasts 14 to 28 

days. The piles create small depressions in the sea floor and obstruct water flow, but to an insignificant 

degree because the piles have a small cross-section. When the pile is being driven and extracted, ocean 

bottom sediments are disturbed, substantially increasing turbidity near the pile; however, this is a local 

and temporary effect. In addition, the Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction (Activity 41) would require 

a Section 404 permit because it requires excavation and fill below the high tide line. 

Effects of training activities on soil erosion and sediment transport are addressed in Section 3.2, Geology 

and Soils. 

3.5.2.3.2 Water Quality 

Silver Strand peninsula has no potable surface or groundwaters, so SSTC training activities do not affect 

freshwater water quality. The water quality analysis is focused on the potential effects of the training 

activities on the marine waters of San Diego Bay and the nearshore Pacific Ocean. Water quality 

parameters of concern consist of physical characteristics—such as temperature, density, stratification, 

clarity, dissolved gases, and suspended sediments—and water pollutants. Military training activities at 

SSTC have no known effects on water temperature, density, stratification, or dissolved gases. Hazardous 

materials use, discharges of wastes, underwater detonations, and sediment resuspension, however, could 

affect turbidity (water clarity) and concentrations of water pollutants. 

Hazardous Materials 

Training involves the use of fuels, engine oil, hydraulic fluids, batteries, flares, and explosives with 

hazardous constituents that may adversely affect water quality. Anti-corrosion coatings typically include 

cadmium. Anti-fouling paints may contain copper, and batteries may contain lead, cadmium, or mercury. 

These hazardous substances may be present in materials leaked or spilled in the water, or in runoff from 

surfaces flushed with water. They also may leach from surfaces in contact with the water. 

Petroleum Products 

Minor quantities of petroleum products including fuel, oil, hydraulic fluids, and lubricants, may enter San 

Diego Bay and ocean waters during routine transit of Navy vessels and equipment conducting training 

activities. The hazardous constituents of petroleum products—such as fuels, engine oil, and hydraulic 

fluid—are hydrocarbons. The most toxic components of petroleum products are polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons, such as benzene, toluene, xylene, and naphthalene. These chemicals are relatively volatile, 

and highly water soluble. Used engine oil, fuel additives, and hydraulic fluids also may contain low 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-21

concentrations of toxic metals such as chromium, cadmium, and nickel. The small quantities of these 

substances released into the environment are not anticipated to affect water quality. 

Because of the number of potential sources and the stresses placed on personnel and equipment during 

training, small leaks or spills may occasionally occur due to equipment failure (e.g., burst hydraulic line) 

or human error. According to Navy spill reports, training activities at SSTC were responsible for four 

spills of primarily fuel and hydraulic fluid between 2005 and 2007. One spill was reported as 35 gallons 

of hydraulic fluid on the beach, and the other three spills were less than five gallons. Such spills are 

cleaned up by on-site personnel, using spill control equipment and supplies stored on Navy vessels, 

military vehicles, and military facilities. Thus, the unrecovered spill materials left in the water would be a 

small portion of the quantity originally spilled. Overall, the quantities of petroleum products leaked or 

spilled during training activities will likely be negligible. 

Coatings 

Concentrations of copper and other toxic constituents of marine vessel antifouling coatings are a concern 

in San Diego Bay, as are anode materials used in cathodic protection systems. Training activities, 

however, have little or no effect on concentrations of these substances in San Diego Bay and ocean 

waters. Training at SSTC does not affect the number of large Navy vessels stationed in San Diego or the 

length of time they are present. Smaller vessels and personal watercraft stored out of the water when not 

in use have insufficient contact time with the water to be a notable source of contaminants. 

Pyrotechnics 

Flare and pyrotechnic residues contain a variety of metal oxides (e.g., aluminum, magnesium). These 

residues also contain perchlorate compounds. These wastes are addressed in Section 3.4, Hazardous 

Materials and Wastes. That analysis concluded that only trace amounts of these residues are deposited on 

the ranges, and they are not expected to affect surrounding biological or physical resources. 

Explosives 

Under the No Action Alternative, SSTC training activities require the detonation of small amounts of 

explosives on the water surface and underwater. Up to 1,610 pounds of explosives are used each year for 

underwater detonations (Table 3.5-7). Combustion products of typical military explosives such as Royal 

Demolition Explosive (RDX) and pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) consist of common gases and 

relatively inert inorganic salts. For example (Section 3.4), exploding 10 pounds of Composition (C)-4, 

which is 91 percent RDX, produces about 3.7 pounds of nitrogen, 25 pounds of CO2, 1.6 pounds of water, 

1.8 pounds of carbon monoxide, 0.2 pound of ethane, 0.03 pound of hydrogen, 0.02 pound of propane, 

0.09 pound of ammonia, and 0.02 pound of methane. The major products of combustion—nitrogen, CO2, 

and water—are all common components of the atmosphere. As discussed in Section 3.4.1.4.1, although 

combustion is likely less than 100 percent, and residues of these detonation wastes may remain in the 

water and sediment, they are present in trace concentrations that do not affect water quality. Furthermore, 

due to ocean circulation, these trace concentrations immediately disperse throughout a larger volume of 

ocean waters. 

Other Chemicals 

Activity 50, ROWPU (Table 2-1) requires the staging on the beach of water treatment chemicals, 

including sodium hexametaphosphate (calgon), sodium hypochlorite (bleach), and citric acid. These 

chemicals are stored in five-gallon pails that remain sealed until use; the chemicals are mixed with water 

and added to dispensing pumps. The potential for a chemical spill is avoided by use of these small storage 

containers and by staging at the site only the quantities needed for the exercise. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-22

Table 3.5-7: Surface and Underwater Detonations - No Action Alternative 

Activity1 Events/Year 

(#, Total 

[Bottom]) 

Explosives (pound, NEW) 

# Description Per Event Per Year 

5 Mine Countermeasures 32 (16) 10 – 20 320 – 640 

6 Floating Mine 25 (0) 5 125 

7 Dive Platoon 8 (2) 8 x 3.5 224 

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle 

(AUV)/Unmanned Underwater Vehicle 

(UUV) Activities (3% of activities) 

4 (1) 10 – 15 40 – 60 

11 Marine Mammal System (10% of activities) 16 (10) 13-20 312 

12 Mine Neutralization 4 (4) 8 x 3.5 112 

37 SEAL Delivery Vehicle/Advanced SEAL 

Delivery System 

14(4) 10 140 

TOTAL2 103 (37) – 1,200 – 1,6103

1 see Table 2-1

2

 Totals rounded to three significant digits; # - number 

3 Rounded to three significant digits 

The ROWPU unit generates a stream of concentrated brine that is collected in a storage tank and then will 

be discharged to the sewer or percolated through the sand. Brine (concentrated salt water) may be lethal 

for biological organisms, but the small amounts generated would be quickly diluted into large volumes of 

ocean water, limiting any adverse effects to a very minimal area. 

Waste Discharges 

As noted in Table 3.5-3, discharges of black water from Navy ships within three nautical miles of shore 

are prohibited. Most of the SSTC training activities take place within this zone, so discharges of black 

water associated with training at SSTC are not expected. Grey water discharges are permitted within 3 nm 

of shore if no pierside collection capabilities exist (OPNAVINST 5090.1). NAB Coronado has readily 

available pierside collection capabilities. Accordingly, discharges of black and grey water will not be 

further addressed in this analysis. 

One possible source of water quality degradation is the discharge of solid wastes produced by training 

participants on vessels afloat. The Navy has instituted solid waste management guidelines and procedures 

for surface ships through its Environmental Compliance Afloat (OPNAVINST 5090.1). The guidelines 

stipulate minimum distances from shore for discharges of solid wastes. The Navy vessels supporting 

training activities at SSTC do not intentionally discharge any solid wastes into the water. Similarly, shorebased personnel are required to collect and dispose of solid wastes properly. The amount of solid wastes 

inadvertently entering marine waters from training activities is negligible. 

Resuspension of Sediments 

Contaminants from many sources accumulate in bay and ocean bottom sediments over time. Ship 

movements and amphibious exercises may stir up bottom sediments. These activities can temporarily 

increase the concentration of suspended sediments and increase turbidity in the vicinity of the training 

exercise. 

Detonating underwater explosives charges in shallow water also stirs up sediments, with a short-term 

increase in turbidity in the vicinity of the exercise. Several training activities would involve detonating 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-23

underwater explosives charges of up to 20 pounds. Depending upon the sizes of the explosives charges 

and their locations in the water column, these activities could create craters in the bottom sediments up to 

10 feet in diameter, for a total surface area of (πr

2

 = 3.14*25 = ) 78.5 square feet (Naval Ordnance 

Laboratory 1973). A total of 103 such training events are held per year under the No Action Alternative 

(Table 3.5-7). Of these events, approximately 37 detonations will occur at or near the bottom surface, so 

approximately (78.5*37 =) 2,900 square feet of bottom surface would be temporarily disturbed. Shifting 

of bottom sands and sediments in response to currents, tides, and bottom surge would eventually fill in 

craters and benthic fauna would recolonize the area. 

When SSTC training activities disturb bottom sediments, re-suspending them in the water, sediment 

contaminants may re-enter the water. Sediments offshore of Silver Strand have above-average loads of 

organic materials and of some toxic metals (USACE 2002, City of San Diego 2003, 2004). Because 

training resuspends small quantities of sediments (as identified above under Hydrology) relative to the 

volume of water and these activities are intermittent; however, the re-suspension of bottom sediments 

during SSTC training activities is an insignificant source of contaminants. Thus, this aspect of water 

quality does not need to be considered further in this analysis. 

Beneficial Uses 

The RWQCB identified 13 beneficial uses for San Diego Bay and 12 beneficial uses for the Pacific Ocean 

(Table 3.5-6). The RWQCB identifies water quality objectives to prevent degradation of these existing or 

potential beneficial uses. The proposed training activities would not measurably affect monitored water 

quality parameters, so they would not affect the potential of these waters for their designated uses. 

3.5.2.3.3 Water Use 

Water use is restricted surrounding some training activities for public safety and security of Navy 

equipment, vessels, and personnel used during the training. For instance, areas where personnel are 

swimming, diving, or parachuting into the water are cleared of boats for safety (approximately 0.5 acres). 

Areas surrounding an underwater explosive (approximately 16 acres) are cleared prior to detonations for 

public safety. Areas surrounding hoses that are deployed from ship to shore during ABLTS/OPDS 

training (approximately 18 acres) and areas of pier construction during ELCAS training (approximately 8 

acres) are cleared for public safety and equipment security (Activity 42, Table 2-1). Areas around an 

LCAC landing site (approximately 0.75 acres) also are cleared for public safety. 

In total, training requires portions of the ocean or bay to be closed to the public for about 5,000 hours per 

year under the No Action Alternative. Thus, by dividing the total number of hours of closure by the total 

number of hours in a year, during approximately 55 percent of the year, varying sections of the ocean or 

bay would be closed if no training is conducted concurrently. However, training is likely to overlap in 

time in an unpredictable way, which results in two or more areas being closed for a shorter total 

percentage of the year. 

The size of the water area that is closed for each training activity is relatively small when compared to 

total Bay and Ocean waters available for uses described in the Basin Plan. In addition, the durations of 

most training activities are short, usually less than one day. The public has multiple, alternate, equally 

suitable Ocean and Bay locations that it can use during training activities. In addition, the areas are not 

permanently closed off from use; closures are temporary, and areas are reopened at the conclusion of 

training. Areas closed off for Navy use also change from training activity to training activity. Water use 

for any area of the Ocean/Bay is not permanently lost. For these multiple reasons, under the No Action 

Alternative, Navy training activities at SSTC are consistent with the Basin Plan. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-24

3.5.2.4 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

3.5.2.4.1 Hydrology 

Under Alternative 1, land training activities would have the same types of effects on topography, and thus 

on surface hydrology, as described for the No Action Alternative. However, the rate (number/year) of 

these activities, would generally increase under Alternative 1. The exercise participants would restore 

preexisting conditions following large-scale topographic modifications and natural processes such as 

wave action and wind erosion/deposition would reduce or eliminate small-scale modifications over time. 

Accordingly, long-term effects of training on hydrology would be minimal. 

Under Alternative 1, the level of training activity for the OPDS (Activity 38, see Table 2-1) would be the 

same as under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, the potential environmental effects would be as 

described for the No Action Alternative. 

Under Alternative 1, the number of ELCAS (Activity 42, see Table 2-1) training events would increase 

from two to four per year. Each training evolution would require 14 to 28 days to complete, so these four 

events would be in progress a total of 56 to 112 days per year. The effects of an individual training event 

would be as described under the No Action Alternative; however, ocean bottom sediments would be 

displaced and local turbidity would be increased twice as often as under the No Action Alternative. These 

activities would occur over no more than 112 days of the year and their effects on water resources still 

would be minor. 

Underwater detonations could affect ocean bottom contours by creating craters. Under Alternative 1, the 

number of underwater detonation training events would increase to 311 per year (Table 3.5-8). Assuming 

that up to 79 detonations would occur on or near the unprotected bottom surface, bottom sediments over 

an area of up to 6,200 square feet could be temporarily disturbed. Shifting of bottom sands and sediments 

by currents, tides, and bottom surge would eventually fill in craters and benthic fauna would recolonize 

the area. 

ROWPU (Activity 50, Table 2-1) requires the staging of water treatment chemicals, a generator and fuel 

tank on the beach; and the generation and possible discharge of brine, as discussed under the No Action 

Alternative. Under Alternative 1, the number of these exercises would increase from two to four per year. 

The potential for bulk chemical spills would remain insignificant, and the discharge of brine would be 

accomplished to avoid adverse effects on marine organisms. 

3.5.2.4.2 Water Quality 

Hazardous Materials 

The hazardous constituents of concern under Alternative 1 would be the same as those described under 

the No Action Alternative. The training tempo under Alternative 1 would be greater than under the No 

Action Alternative, as would the expenditures of training materials on the beaches and in the water. 

Effects on water quality would be about the same because the overall quantities of expended materials 

would still be small relative to the volumes of soil and water in which they would be expended; and 

because the hazardous constituents in these expended items would be present in small amounts and would 

be released into the environment over long periods. 

Under Alternative 1, SSTC training activities would require the detonation of small amounts of 

explosives on the water surface and underwater. Under Alternative 1, between 2,250 and 3,200 pounds of 

explosives would be used each year. Combustion of typical military explosives such as RDX and PETN 

releases common gases (e.g., nitrogen, CO2) and relatively inert inorganic salts. Although combustion is 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-25

less than 100 percent, and residues of these hazardous materials may remain in the water and sediment, 

these trace concentrations would not measurably affect monitored water quality parameters. 

Table 3.5-8: Surface and Underwater Detonations - Alternative 1 

Activity Events/Year 

(#, Total 

[Bottom]) 

Explosives (pound, NEW) 

# Description Per Event Per Year 

5 Mine Countermeasures 58 (29) 10 – 20 580 – 1,160 

6 Floating Mine 53 (0) 5 265 

7 Dive Platoon 8 (8) 8 x 3.5 224 

10 AUV/UUV Activities (3% of activities) 4 (1) 10 – 15 40 – 60 

11 Marine Mammal System (10% of activities) 16 (10) 13 – 29 208 - 464 

12 Mine Neutralization 4 (4) 8 x 3.5 112 

37 SDV/ASDS 40 (10) 10 400 

N1 Shock Wave Generator 90 (0) 0.033 3 

N3 UUV Neutralization 4 (1) 2 x (3.3 – 3.57) 26.4 – 28.6 

N7 Airborne Mine Neutralization System (10% 

of activities) 

10 (3) 3.5 35 

N9 Underwater Demolition Requalifications 12 (9) 2 x (12.5 – 13.75), 

or 1 x 25.5 

300 – 330 

N11 Naval Special Warfare Demolition Training 12 (4) 5 – 10 60 – 120 

TOTAL1 311 (79) – 2,250 – 3,200 1

 Totals rounded to three significant digits 

Beneficial Uses 

The RWQCB identified 13 beneficial uses for San Diego Bay and 12 beneficial uses for the Pacific Ocean 

(Table 3.5-6). The RWQCB identifies water quality objectives to protect these existing or potential 

beneficial uses from degradation. Water quality objectives are achieved primarily through the 

establishment of waste discharge requirements (RWQCB 2007). Because the proposed training activities 

would not measurably affect monitored water quality parameters in the ROI, they would not affect the 

potential of these waters for their designated uses. 

3.5.2.4.3 Water Use 

Water use would be restricted surrounding some training activities for public safety and for the security of 

Navy equipment, vessels, and personnel used during the training. For instance, areas would be cleared of 

boats for safety reasons where personnel are swimming, diving, or parachuting into the water 

(approximately 0.5 acres). Areas surrounding an underwater explosive (approximately 16 acres) would be 

cleared prior to detonations for public safety. Areas surrounding hoses that are deployed from ship to 

shore during ABLTS/OPDS training (approximately 18 acres), and the area of pier construction during 

ELCAS training (approximately 8 acres) would be cleared for public safety and equipment security. 

Areas around an LCAC landing site (approximately 0.75 acres) would also be cleared for public safety. 

In total, training would require closure of portions of the ocean or bay for about 7,500 hours per year 

under Alternative 1. This level of use would translate into closures of varying sections of the ocean or bay 

for about 85 percent of the year if no training were conducted concurrently. However, training would 

likely overlap in time in an unpredictable way, which would result in multiple areas being closed for a 

shorter total percentage of the year. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-26

The size of the water area that would be closed for each training activity is relatively small when 

compared to total bay and ocean waters available for the uses described in the Basin Plan. In addition, the 

durations of most training activities would be short, usually less than one day. The public would have 

multiple, alternate, equally suitable ocean and bay locations that it could use during training activities. In 

addition, the areas would not be permanently closed off for use; closures would be temporary, and areas 

would be reopened at the conclusion of training. Areas closed off for use would also change from training 

activity to training activity. Permanent loss of water use is not anticipated for any area of the ocean or 

bay. For these multiple reasons, under Alternative 1, Navy training activities at SSTC are consistent with 

the Basin Plan. 

3.5.2.5 Alternative 2 

The only difference between Alternatives 1 and 2 is that, under Alternative 2, all SSTC-N oceanside 

beach training areas would be available for Navy training, regardless of time of year. Therefore, with 

respect to Pacific Ocean and San Diego Bay waters, impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be the 

same as those described above for Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, the proposed changes in access to 

and availability of existing beach and inland training areas would not result in a difference in the 

Proposed Action’s effects on water resources, as described under Alternative 1.

3.5.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Current mitigation measures to protect water quality would continue to be implemented. 

3.5.4 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 

No unavoidable adverse environmental effects on water quality would result from implementing any of 

the alternatives. 

3.5.5 Summary of Effects 

Table 3.5-9 summarizes the water quality effects of the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and 

Alternative 2. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-27

Table 3.5-9: Summary of Effects 

Alternative Effect 

No Action Alternative 

• No effects on surface water or groundwater hydrology (Silver Strand 

peninsula has no potable surface or groundwaters, so SSTC training 

activities do not affect freshwater water quality) 

• Consistent with Basin Plan and NRWQC 

• Releases of munitions constituents and other expended materials during 

training activities have no measurable effects on water quality 

• No long-term degradation of marine, surface, or ground water quality 

• Consistent with public uses of state or federal waters 

Alternative 1 

• No effects on surface water or groundwater hydrology (Silver Strand 

peninsula has no potable surface or groundwaters, so SSTC training 

activities do not affect freshwater water quality) 

• Consistent with Basin Plan and NRWQC 

• Increased releases of munitions constituents and other expended materials 

during training activities would not measurably affect water quality 

• No long-term degradation of marine, surface, or groundwater quality 

• Increased use of water areas for training would be consistent with public 

uses of state or federal waters 

Alternative 2 

• Vehicle, boat, and helicopter use and amphibious landings would increase 

similar to Alternative 1. Effects generally are the same as described for 

Alternative 1. 

Mitigation Measures 

• The Navy’s current practices affecting water quality, primarily hazardous 

materials handling and waste disposal practices, are based on 

requirements in OPNAVINST 5090.1. Those requirements, in turn, were 

developed primarily to comply with federal environmental regulations. 

Efforts to preserve vegetation on the backsides of dunes along the 

shoreline may reduce erosion and thus reduce transport of sediments into 

adjacent surface waters. Collection of spent training materials at the 

conclusion of training activities also may incrementally reduce the 

amounts of contaminants transported into adjacent waters. 

• With respect to water use, the Navy mitigates potential effects by 

avoiding washing causeway pier sections in the ocean and by pumping 

seawater through its OPDS during training instead of using petroleum 

products. OPNAVINST includes guidance on shipboard operations afloat. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

WATER RESOURCES 3.5-28

This page intentionally left blank 
3.6 Acoustic Environment (Terrestrial) 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-1 

3.6 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT (TERRESTRIAL) 

3.6.1 Affected Environment 

3.6.1.1 Introduction 

This section addresses potential impacts on the human terrestrial environment in the vicinity of Silver 

Strand Training Complex (SSTC) from sound generated by Navy activities identified in the alternatives, 

including the Proposed Action. Estimates for sound generated in the terrestrial environment should not be 

used to evaluate sound in water because energy propogates through air at different rates and levels than 

energy propogates through water. Potential impacts of sound in the marine environment are addressed in 

Section 3.10.2.1. Potential impacts of sound on terrestrial biological resources are addressed in Section 

3.11, Terrestrial Biology, and Section 3.12, Birds. Potential impacts of sound on marine biological 

resources are addressed in Section 3.9, Marine Mammals and Section 3.10, Sea Turtles. 

3.6.1.1.1 Definition of the Resource 

The acoustic environment consists of ambient sound levels in the air, on land, and around water areas 

adjacent to SSTC. 

3.6.1.1.2 Regional Setting 

SSTC is located in an urban area, where both day and night average ambient sound levels are expected to 

be high. Some of the major land uses found in the area of San Diego Bay (e.g., Naval Air Station, North 

Island [NASNI], San Diego International Airport [SDIA], Port of San Diego) are industrial, and are major 

sources of ambient sound in the communities adjacent to SSTC. However, the sub-region surrounding 

SSTC includes large areas of open space and residential communities, which contribute very little to 

background sound levels. The Silver Strand is bounded by San Diego Bay on the east and the Pacific 

Ocean on the west, limiting the land areas and land uses exposed to local sound sources. Land uses on 

Silver Strand are mature—the majority of the lands have been developed, the existing land uses are longstanding and not expected to change substantially in the future, and little new construction occurs in these 

areas. 

3.6.1.1.3 Region of Influence 

The region of influence for airborne sound includes all areas surrounding SSTC where sound from 

military training activities is or could be audible above background sound levels. 

3.6.1.2 Sound Characteristics and Measurement 

3.6.1.2.1 Sound Characteristics 

Sound results from vibrations, introduced into a medium such as air, that stimulate the auditory nerves of 

a receptor to produce the sensation of hearing. Sound is undesirable if it interferes with communication, is 

intense enough to damage hearing, or diminishes the quality of the environment. Human responses to 

sound vary with the types and characteristics of the sound source, the distance between the source and 

receptor, receptor sensitivity, the background sound level, and other factors such as time of day. Sound 

may be intermittent or continuous, steady or impulsive, and may be generated by stationary sources such 

as industrial plants or transient sources such as cars and aircraft. 

Sound energy travels in waves. Its intensity at a receptor varies as a function of source intensity, the 

characteristics of the sound wave, the distance between source and receiver, and environmental 

conditions. Reflection, refraction, diffraction, and absorption are physical interactions between sound 

waves and surfaces or the medium through which the sound travels. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-2 

Urban environments include near-constant, long-term sound sources which create a background sound 

level, and intermittent, intrusive sources which create sound peaks that are noticeably higher than the 

background levels. The extent to which an intrusive sound affects a given receptor in the environment 

depends upon the degree to which the intruding sound exceeds the background sound level. Both 

background and intrusive sound may affect the quality of life in a given environment. Cumulative, longterm exposure to excessive background sound is recognized as the primary cause of hearing loss. 

Intrusive sound, although not a cause of permanent hearing loss, can contribute to stress, irritability, loss 

of sleep, and impaired work efficiency. 

Impulsive sound is short in duration—less than one second—and high in intensity. Impulsive sound has 

an abrupt onset and decays rapidly; it is characteristic of small arms fire and sonic booms, and is 

expressed in peak, unweighted decibels (dBP). Although impulsive sound is short in duration, it may be a 

source of discomfort for many people: the rapid onset of sound may produce a “startle” effect 

(Department of the Navy [DoN] 1978). 

3.6.1.2.2 Sound Spectrum 

Sound oscillates in waves, and the rates of oscillation (frequencies) are measured in cycles-per-second, or 

Hertz (Hz). The human ear can detect sounds ranging in frequency from about 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz, with 

the ear most sensitive to frequencies from 1,000 to 4,000 Hz (United States [U.S.] Army 2005). Most 

environmental sounds consist not of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies that vary in 

intensity. Sound frequencies from Navy training activities vary greatly. Some examples of frequencies at 

peak sound energy include fixed-wing aircraft (2,000 – 4,000 Hz), small arms (approximately 500 Hz), 

explosives (approximately 31 Hz), street vehicles (approximately 60 Hz), and diesel trucks 

(approximately 250 Hz) (DoN 1978; U.S. Army 2005). 

The human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the frequency range of human 

hearing; the human ear cannot detect lower frequencies as well as it can detect higher frequencies. Thus, 

the "raw" sound intensity as measured by mechanical devices is selectively weighted—or filtered—to 

simulate the non-linear response of the human ear. The two accepted weighting networks are the C scale 

and the A scale (Figure 3.6-1). 

Weighting networks are used in sound meters to adjust their frequency response to “raw” (unweighted) 

measured sounds. The A-weighting network is designed to duplicate the sensitivity of the human ear, and 

heavily discounts sound energy at low frequencies and at very high frequencies. In several studies, a 

person’s judgment of the loudness of a sound has been shown to correlate well with the A-weighted 

values of those sounds (DoN 1978). For this reason, the A scale is the most common weighting scheme 

for community sound measurements and standards, and is used for most environmental noise evaluations. 

These adjusted sound levels are termed "A-weighted" sound levels, denoted as dB(A) or simply dBA. The 

A-weighted scale is used internationally in sound standards and regulations. Therefore, dBA is the 

primary sound metric to be used in analyzing sound effects under Environmental Consequences because 

its characteristics are reflective of the human ear’s frequency response. 

The C-weighting network weights sound energy levels equally across the frequency range of human 

hearing, while discounting some of the very high and very low frequencies at each end of the range. 

Accordingly, the C scale closely resembles the actual sound pressure level received by sound level 

meters, and is often used to calibrate sound meters. C-weighted measurements are more useful than Aweighting for biological organisms, other than humans, because biological organisms have different 

ranges of hearing than humans. C-weighted sound levels also are often used for the analysis of lowfrequency sounds such as artillery and detonations. Sound measurements thus adjusted are termed "Cweighted" sound levels, denoted as dB(C) or simply dBC. Because dBC is not weighted to account for 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-3 

human hearing frequencies, this metric is not used for analysis in this document because this section 

analyzes acoustic effects of training exercises on humans. 

Source: U.S. Army 2005 

Figure 3.6-1: A and C Weighting Scales 

Impulsive sound is measured and expressed in dBP (peak). Peak impulsive sound weighting is used for 

single-event sound, or impulsive sound events that last less than 1 second in duration, such as gun noise. 

It is measured in unweighted decibels (dBP). Peak sound (dBP) does not correlate directly with timeaveraged ambient sound standards. The peak sound values presented in this analysis are PK-15, or the 

calculated peak sound level expected to be exceeded 15 percent of the time. PK-15 accounts for statistical 

variation in the peak sound level due to weather conditions (U.S. Army 2005). The PK-15 sound value is 

conservative (e.g., PK-50, or the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time, is the median sound level 

and is lower for a given sound than PK-15), and is considered to represent meteorological conditions that 

favor atmospheric transmission of sound. 

3.6.1.2.3 Sound Duration and Timing 

Transient sound is defined as an “event having a beginning and an end where the sound temporarily rises 

above the background and then fades into it” (U.S. Army 2005). These types of sounds, measured in 

terms of Sound Exposure Level (SEL), are associated with vehicles driving by or aircraft overflights. The 

SEL is based on two characteristics of transient sound, duration and intensity, where a long duration, low 

intensity event can be as annoying as a high intensity, shorter event. The SEL is the total acoustic energy 

in an event from background to background (computed from 10 to 20 dB from the event peak), 

normalized to one second (U.S. Army 2005). This number represents all the acoustic energy for the event 

in a one-second period. 

A continually varying sound level over a given period can be described as a single "equivalent" sound 

level (Leq) that contains an amount of sound energy equal to that of the actual sound level. Thus, the Leq is 

a measure of the average acoustic energy over a stated period. Periods can be any length, but are 

associated with some meaningful period, such as an eight-hour Leq for an office, or a one-hour Leq for a 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-4 

classroom lecture (U.S. Army 2005). The Leq is averaged over a 1-, 8-, or 24-hour period. The Leq is used 

to describe continuous sound sources, and may be obtained by averaging the A-weighted sound levels 

(dBA) over a selected period. This level is the estimation of the continuous sound level that would be 

equivalent to the fluctuating sound signal under consideration (DoN 1978). 

The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and Day-Night Average Noise Level (DNL or Ldn) are 

24-hour average measures of ambient sound that are weighted to account for differences in community 

sensitivity to sound at night. The CNEL metric adds a 5-dBA penalty, or weight, to the evening (7 p.m. - 

10 p.m.) Leq, and a 10-dBA weight to the nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) Leq. The DNL (Ldn) metric adds a 

10-dBA penalty, or weight, to the nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) Leq. In accordance with Naval Facilities 

(NAVFAC) sound guidance document, P-970 Planning in the Noise Environment, CNEL is the preferred 

metric for assessing sound in California, and is used in this analysis. A list of typical community sound 

sources and their intensities is provided in Table 3.6-1. 

3.6.1.2.4 Sound Intensity and Perception 

Sound intensity is expressed in decibels (dB), a logarithmic scale that compares the power of an 

acoustical signal to a reference power level. A sound level of zero decibels is defined as the threshold of 

human hearing. The quietest environmental conditions yield sound levels of about 20 dBA. Typical nighttime sound levels in quiet residential areas have a sound level of about 35 to 45 dBA. Normal speech has 

a sound level of about 60 dBA at a distance of about one meter. A freight train passing by at about 15 

meters yields a sound level of about 85 dBA. The human pain threshold is about 120 dBA (Table 3.6-1). 

Table 3.6-1: Sound Levels of Selected Sound Sources and Environments 

Source Sound Level 

(dBA) 

Human Perception of 

Loudness 

(relative to 70 dBA) 

Military Jet Takeoff w/afterburner at 

50 feet 

Civil Defense Siren 

130 

Above Threshold of 

Pain 

Commercial Jet Takeoff at 200 feet 120 Threshold of Pain 

32 times as loud 

Pile Driver at 50 feet 110 16 times as loud 

Ambulance Siren at 100 feet 

Power Lawn Mower at 3 feet 100 Very Loud 

8 times as loud 

Motorcycle at 25 feet 

Propeller Plane at 1,000 feet 90 4 times as loud 

Garbage Disposal at 3 feet 

Passenger car, 65 mph at 25 feet 80 2 times as loud 

Vacuum Cleaner at 3 feet 

Living Room Stereo at 15 feet 70 Moderately Loud 

(Reference Loudness) 

Normal Conversation at 5 feet 60 1/2 as loud 

Light Traffic at 100 feet 50 1/4 as loud 

Distant Bird Calls 40 Quiet 

1/8 as loud 

Soft Whisper at 5 feet 30 1/16 as loud 

 0 Threshold of Hearing 

Notes: dBA—decibels, A-weighted 

Source: ISE 1997

A 1-dB change in the sound level is not perceptible to humans (imperceptible change). A 3-dB change is 

barely perceptible and a 5-dB change is clearly noticeable. A change in sound level of 10 dB represents 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-5 

more than a three-fold change in sound intensity. However, a 10-dB change is perceived by the human ear 

as a doubling or halving in loudness. 

3.6.1.2.5 Sound Propagation and Attenuation 

Sound energy radiates outward from its source. This sound energy attenuates (decreases in intensity) as it 

moves away from its source because of geometric spreading of the sound energy, atmospheric absorption, 

ground attenuation, and shielding. Sound metrics for discrete sources are expressed in terms of a distance 

from the source (a typical reference distance is 50 feet, or 15 meters). 

Sound waves from point sources radiate in a spherical pattern, with the wave intensity attenuating due to 

geometric spreading by 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source (U.S. Army Center for Health 

Promotion and Preventive Medicine [CHPPM] 2005). Line sources such as roads generate composite 

sound waves from numerous moving point sources that radiate outward in parallel planes; these waves 

attenuate due to geometric spreading by only 3 dB per doubling of distance. 

At substantial distances from the source, air absorption and ground attenuation have a substantial affect 

on sound propagation. The efficiency of atmospheric absorption varies over the range of sound 

frequencies. At frequencies around 2,000 Hz, air absorption is about 20 dB per kilometer (km). At 1,000 

Hz, it is about 7 dB per km. At frequencies below 125 Hz, it is less than 1 dB per km. Factors for ground 

attenuation and barrier attenuation likewise vary by frequency. In practice, empirical determinations of 

sound attenuation (i.e., measuring the actual source in its proposed location) are best able to account for 

all possible factors. 

3.6.1.3 Department of Defense Ambient Sound Guidance Documents 

Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 5090.1 contains guidance for considering time-averaged 

community sound levels in environmental evaluations (DoN 2007). Chapter 17, Noise Prevention Ashore, 

contains guidance for sound control and abatement of Navy shore activities. Planning in the Noise 

Environment (DoN 1978), provides compatibility criteria for various land uses. Separate evaluation 

criteria apply to impulsive sound events. CHPPM has also developed Department of Defense (DOD) 

guidance for military operational noise, including Operational Noise Manual: An Orientation for 

Department of Defense Facilities (CHPPM 2005). 

3.6.1.3.1 Time-Averaged Sound Levels 

Ambient sound standards regulate ambient sound levels through time-averaged sound level (Leq) limits. 

Sound standards for land use compatibility established by DoD and civilian jurisdictions are expressed in 

terms of the DNL or CNEL. Based on numerous sociological surveys and recommendations of federal 

interagency councils, the most common benchmark for assessing environmental sound impacts is a CNEL 

of 65 dBA. Sound levels up to 65 dBA, CNEL are considered to be compatible with land uses such as 

residences, transient lodging, and medical facilities. Appropriate sound mitigation is recommended for 

new development in areas where the CNEL exceeds 65 dBA. A sound level of 75 dBA, CNEL is a 

threshold above which individuals in the community may experience annoyance and minor health effects. 

CHPPM has defined the following three land use planning zones to account for annoyance from 

installation training sound (CHPPM 2005): 

• Noise Zone I includes all areas in which the ADNL (A-weighted DNL) is less than 65 dBA; 

Noise Zone I is the zone farthest from the sound source and includes all areas not within the other 

two Noise Zones. This area is suitable for all types of land uses. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-6 

• Noise Zone II includes all areas in which the ADNL is between 65 and 75 dBA. Sound exposure 

in this zone is substantial, and allowable land uses include manufacturing, warehousing, 

transportation, and resource protection. Residential development in this zone is not normally 

recommended. 

• Noise Zone III includes all areas in which the ADNL is above 75 dBA. Sound-sensitive land 

uses, such as housing, schools, churches and medical facilities, are not recommended for this 

zone.

3.6.1.3.2 Impulse Sound 

Community annoyance from impulsive sound is assessed by DoD using CDNL (C-weighted day-night 

sound level), but also may be assessed using ADNL. The relationship between CDNL and annoyance has 

been estimated, based on community reaction to impulsive sounds over several years (Table 3.6-2). 

Whereas occupational sound levels are assessed in terms of hearing loss, environmental sound levels are 

assessed in terms of their potential to interfere with personal, workplace, and community activities, and in 

terms of their potential to annoy occupants of nearby land uses. 

NAVFAC P-970 indicates that impulse sounds should be considered separately when the peak sound 

level exceeds 110 dB. The effects of impulse sounds should be determined based on CNEL (DoN 1978). 

Table 3.6-3 presents DoD guidelines for evaluating the effects on the community of impulsive gun sound. 

The DoD developed metrics to evaluate the effects of peak impulse sound from military sources on 

sensitive receptors. These metrics are presented in Table 3.6-3 and are expressed in unweighted peak 

impulse levels (dBP) rather than C-weighted sound levels (dBC). Impulsive sound limits—as presented in 

Table 3.6-3—correspond to areas of low to high risk of sound complaints (CHPPM 2007). These 

impulsive sound levels are used to assess the extent of impulsive effects on the region. 

Table 3.6-2: Relationship Between Annoyance and CDNL 

CDNL Individuals Highly Annoyed (%) 

48 2 

52 4 

57 8 

61 14 

65 23 

69 35 

Note: Analyses in this section primarily use dBA, and therefore, DoD 

community annoyance standards will be in terms of the ADNL equivalent of 

CDNL values. 

Source: U.S. Air Force 2008 

Technical literature (e.g., Schomer 2005) suggests that “regular” impulse sounds be given a 5-dBP 

penalty to properly account for their characteristics; and values of 12 to 15 dBP are suggested for highly 

energetic impulsive sound. As Table 3.6-3 indicates, the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) 

recommends a 15-dBP weighting for rapid-fire impulse sound. Such an adjustment moves a sound source 

up one risk category. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-7 

Table 3.6-3: Naval Surface Warfare Center Gun Sound Complaint Prediction Guidelines 

Predicted Sound Level 

(dBP) 

Risk of Complaints Action 

< 115 LOW Fire all programs 

115 - 130 MODERATE Fire important tests. Postpone non-critical 

testing if possible 

>130 HIGH Only extremely important tests should be fired. 

Note: for rapid-fire test programs or programs that involve many repetitions of impulse sound, reduce allowed sound 

levels by 15 dBP 

Source: U.S. Army, 2005, Operational Noise Manual (Table A-4) 

A separate criterion is used to determine the need for hearing protection from blast sound. Hearing 

protection is required for exposure to any sound level greater than 140 dBP. Distance to 140 dBP contour 

in meters = 300 times the cube root of the weight of explosive in kilograms (D = 300 ×W1/3) (U.S. Army, 

2003). 

3.6.1.4 Sensitive Receptors 

Sound-sensitive receptors are human activities or land uses that may be subject to substantial interference 

from sound. Land uses associated with sensitive receptors include residential dwellings, mobile homes, 

hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes, education facilities, recreational facilities and areas, and 

libraries. 

Sensitive receptors surrounding SSTC are identified by geographic location below, and are shown in 

Figure 3.6-2. Recreational and commercial users of adjacent ocean and San Diego Bay waters are 

considered to be sensitive receptors; however, these receptors are assumed to be dispersed over large 

areas (i.e., low density) and are assumed to be mobile—their locations will gradually change relative to 

land-based sound sources. 

3.6.1.4.1 SSTC - North 

Sensitive receptors adjacent to SSTC-North (N) include the Coronado Shores residential and commercial 

area; Rendova Housing (military); Coronado Cays residential area; Military Family Housing located 

across from Beach Lanes 7-10; and Silver Strand State Beach (SSSB). 

• Coronado Shores is a beach-front community of 15 high-rise condominium complexes, adjacent 

to Hotel Del Coronado, on the Pacific Ocean. 

• Rendova Housing is located within Naval Amphibious Base (NAB) Coronado, and is for both 

unaccompanied personnel and families. 

• Military Family Housing at the southern end of SSTC-N is adjacent to the Alpha, Bravo, and 

Charlie beaches and across State Route (SR)-75 from Boat Lanes 7 through 10. This housing area 

consists of single-family and duplex housing units, some of which front San Diego Bay. Silver 

Strand Elementary School is located within this military housing area. 

• Coronado Cays is a small housing community of upscale homes on the bay side of Silver Strand, 

where most homes feature boat slips. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-8 

Figure 3.6-2: Sensitive Sound Receptors 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-9 

• SSSB is a public beach with activities such as camping, swimming, surfing, boating, and 

picnicing. SSSB has pedestrian traffic on all beaches, as well as in pedestrian tunnels between the 

Ocean and Bay sides. 

3.6.1.4.2 SSTC-South 

Sensitive receptors near SSTC-South (SSTC-S) include Coronado Cays, SSSB, South Bay Biological 

Study Area (SBBSA), YMCA Camp Surf, and residences in Imperial Beach. Coronado Cays and SSSB 

have already been described in the previous section. Loews Coronado Bay Resort Hotel and Coronado 

Cays residential development are located north of SSTC-S along the western side of SR-75, opposite 

SSSB. Land use on the southern side of SSTC-S in Imperial Beach is predominantly residential. 

• SBBSA is a 27-acre site in the northeastern corner of SSTC-S. 

• YMCA Camp Surf lies in the extreme southwestern corner of SSTC-S; this facility is an 

overnight recreational camp for children. 

• Sensitive receptors in Imperial Beach include three elementary schools: West View, Bayside, and 

Imperial Beach; the area also includes Mar Vista High School. Residential areas of Imperial 

Beach are located more than 2,000 feet south of Boat Lane 14, adjacent to the southern boundary 

of SSTC-S. 

3.6.1.5 Existing Sound Sources and Levels 

The principal sources of ambient sound at SSTC are motor vehicle traffic along SR-75 and other major 

local roadways, aircraft activities at NASNI and Naval Outlying Landing Field (NOLF) Imperial Beach, 

and SSTC activities. Commercial aircraft activities at SDIA and large vessels on San Diego Bay and 

offshore of the Silver Strand also contribute to background sound levels at SSTC. 

3.6.1.5.1 Traffic Sound 

SR-75 is a major source of sound along Silver Strand between the southern limits of Coronado and the 

northern limit of Imperial Beach, especially during late evening and early morning hours. Low levels of 

traffic sound from SR-75 are audible in SSTC training areas. Factors affecting the traffic sound level 

include the volume of vehicles, their average speed, and the mix of vehicles (primarily the number of 

trucks). In 2008, the annual average daily (24-hour) traffic volume on SR-75 was 23,700 at SSTC-N and 

17,800 at SSTC-S (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2009). 

Average sound levels at adjacent receptors from traffic on SR-75 were estimated using the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) highway Traffic Noise Model and traffic data available from Caltrans 

(FHWA 1977; Caltrans 2004). The average daytime sound level at 100 feet from the centerline of the 

roadway is estimated to be 67 dBA. The corresponding sound level at 155 feet from the centerline is 

estimated at 65 dBA. Traffic sound levels at Coronado Cays residences are lower because there is a sixfoot-high sound wall between the residences and SR-75. Traffic sound levels in the Coronado Cays park 

and residential area on April 7, 2002 ranged from 52 to 58 dBA, as shown in Table 3.6-4. 

According to Caltrans, average daily traffic volumes on SR-75 are projected to increase by about 30 

percent (between Coronado Cays and NAB Coronado) to 40 percent (between Coronado Cays and 9th 

Street in Imperial Beach) by about 2023 (Caltrans 2003). Increases in peak-hour traffic volumes are 

estimated to be somewhat less, at about 20 to 25 percent. These projected increases will result from new 

development and from current trends in per-capita automobile trips not associated with military training. 

A doubling of traffic volume, assuming that average vehicle speeds remained about the same rather than 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-10 

decreasing with increased congestion, would increase traffic sound along SR-75 by about 3 dBA. Sound 

levels would only increase by 3 dBA because a doubling of intensity in a line sound source only results in 

a 3-dBA increase (U.S. Army 2005). Thus, the projected increases in traffic volumes on SR-75 would not 

result in a noticeable increase in community sound levels. 

3.6.1.5.2 Aircraft Sound 

Aircraft activities at NASNI and SDIA are constant. SSTC training beaches are located outside of the 65-

dBA sound contours for NASNI and SDIA (City of San Diego 2007). The NASNI 65-dBA sound contour 

lies northwest of the Coronado Shores residences. SSTC-S is located outside of the 65-dBA sound 

contour for NOLF Imperial Beach (DoN 1989). Although SSTC training beaches are outside of 65-dBA 

sound contours for these facilities, aircraft activities at these facilities still would contribute slightly to the 

background sound level. 

3.6.1.5.3 Sound from Military Activities at SSTC 

Principal sound sources associated with SSTC training activities are land and water vehicle engines, 

hovercraft fans, tracked vehicles, small arms fire, blasting caps, underwater explosives, Elevated 

Causeway System (ELCAS) training which includes pile driving, call-outs from large groups, helicopters, 

and fixed-wing aircraft. Some amphibious training activities, specifically hovercraft activities and pile 

driving, create sound levels that could affect adjacent land uses. One of the locations where ELCAS 

training is conducted is on Bravo Beach, adjacent to military housing and near Fiddler’s Cove Marina. An 

existing demolition pit, located on Blue 1 beach, uses blasting caps and pyrotechnic ordnance, primarily 

during Hell Week (Activity 72, Table 2-1). 

Hovercraft, or Landing Craft, Air Cushion, (LCACs) produce the highest continuous sound levels of all 

amphibious training activities (Table 3.6-4). An LCAC can generate a level of 84 dBA at a distance of 

345 feet from the hovercraft when its engines are running at 80 percent power. When the engines are 

operated at 45 percent power, the area within which sound levels are equal to or greater than 84 dBA 

shrinks to 120 feet. 

Sound caused by Navy activities was measured at eight locations on April 7, 2002, between 7 a.m. and 12 

noon. Sound levels were measured on this day because an amphibious exercise was scheduled for the 

SSTC beaches. Measurement locations are described in Table 3.6-4. A sound meter was placed 

approximately five feet above the ground at each measurement location. In addition to measuring sound 

levels on April 7, 2002, the acoustic engineer conducting the study queried residents near the 

measurement sites about their perceptions of sound from military training at SSTC. The responses are 

provided in Table 3.6-4. 

Sound levels at sensitive receptors from SSTC activities vary with the number of sources operating, the 

operating mode, the distance from source to receptor, the topography between the source and receptor, 

and meteorology. Two of the louder SSTC sound sources are (LCAC) hovercraft and helicopters. The 

April 7, 2002 activities observed from measurement location CC-4 (Figure 3.6-2) included LCACs and a 

helicopter. As shown in Table 3.6-4, short-term sound levels at CC-4 during LCAC and helicopter 

activities ranged from 70 to 86 dBA. The sound levels were measured with an unobstructed line of sight 

to most of the sources, and from distances—approximately 400 to 800 feet —that are similar to those of 

the sensitive receptors closest to the operating areas. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 

Table 3.6-4: Acoustic Measurements During Historical Fleet Exercise (April 2002) 

Location 

Start 

time 

(duration 

in 

minutes) 

Average 

Sound 

Level 

dBA Leq

Event 

Sound Levels 

dBA 

Comments 

IB-1. Imperial Beach, opposite 106 Carnation Avenue, at former entrance to YMCA Camp Surf 

0744 

(59) 

48 No events of note. Ambient sound is surf and a faint low engin

vessels) at 47-48 dBA. Without engine soFleetEx activities barely and occasionally viestimate 1,000 to 2,000 feet to the north). Phovercraft offshore.1 Other sources of sound 

aircraft overflights, occasional vehicles on chirping. No discernable acoustic change eveis increased FleetEx activity. 

0849 

(62) 

52 No events of note. 

Military truck on Carnation Ave. at 72 dBA 

Similar to first hour. Higher overall sound leactivity on Carnation Ave., increased single-efew passes by a powered paraglider, wind gus

dogs. Passing residents report “a ton of activit

CC-1. Coronado Cays. Approximately 200 feet south of entrance, inside sound wall between SR-75 and residences. 

0707 

(14) 

57 No events of note Principal background sound source is hig

measurements. At CC-1, sound also from tra

levels 49 dBA with no traffic; 58 dBA with internal traffic. 

CC-2. Coronado Cays. Approximately 900 feet south of entrance, in park opposite and south of fire station. Approximately 350 feet east of sound wall at SR-75 and 100 feet west of residences. 

0730 

(82) 

54 0835 FleetEx 

“boats” audible and seen immediately off shore. Sound levels approx 60 dBA 

Sound levels 47 dBA with no traffic; 53 dBA sources include fire truck start. 

CC-3. Coronado Cays. West of CC-2 in park opposite and south of fire station. Approximately 150 feet east of sound wall at SR-75. 

0857 

(25) 

57 No events of note Sound levels 49 dBA with no traffic; 52 dBA 

with internal traffic. Other sound sources incoverflight, and motorized hang glider. 

0937 

(7) 

56 0936 Military vessel 

pass at about 60 dBA average, peak at 64 dBA 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 

Table 3.6-4: Acoustic Measurements During Fleet Exercise (April 2002) (Continued) 

Location 

Start time, 

(duration 

in minutes) 

Average 

Sound 

Level 

dBA Leq

Event 

Sound Levels 

dBA 

Comme

CC-4. Coronado Cays. Approximately 4,200 feet south of entrance, at break in the sound wall between Coronado Parks building and residences. View to beach on western side of SR-75. 

1038 

(59) 

68 1037 White helicopter (maybe 

non-military) pass at 71 dBA, as a 2nd LCAC comes ashore approximately 500 feet south of LCAC-24. Helicopter hovers at 75 dBA.  1046 LCAC-24 starts main engine, lifts up at 85-86 dBA, departs beach quickly.  1132 LCAC (#3) ashore approximately 300 feet south of opposite CC4, sound in low 70s dBA.  1136 LCAC #2 start, lift and depart, sound in mid 70s dBA. 

LCAC-24 parked on beach appropoint opposite measurement locatidling for internal power sourcpropellers stopped. Sound level ano traffic on SR-75 (a rare occurrLCAC #3 at idle with troops unloResident who lives in a CoronaSan Diego Bay (east), with no withat he was awakened at 6:30 a.m

1144 

(43) 

65 1215 Inbound LCAC # 4 ashore 

then south to where LCAC #2 parked; approximately 25 seconds > 70 dBA.  1224 LCAC #3 depart; approximately 70 seconds > 74 dBA with peak at 79 dBA. 

1 Resident of 106 Carnation says only sound heard from Navy activities is occasional aircraft. 2 Residents living near intersection of Carnation and Silver Strand said they rarely hear much from NRRF. Did hear “pounding” one night recently. 3 Resident mentioned previously hearing “booms,” and assuming it might be shelling at San Clemente Island. A caretaker at Camp Surf commente

nights before 07 April and said it sounded like a generator. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-13 

3.6.1.6 Current Mitigation Measures 

Sound effects of Navy training activities at SSTC are managed primarily via administrative controls 

(planning). Activity planning often considers location (e.g., Breacher training is located in inland areas) 

and time of day. Call-outs during physical conditioning training are minimized at night and when in 

residential areas. The Navy also notifies local emergency personnel prior to training exercises that include 

the use of pyrotechnics or blanks. 

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences 

This resource section focuses on only groups of activities that could generate sufficient sound to cause 

complaints from nearby occupants. As discussed previously, similar types of activities are grouped 

together (aggregated) for ease of analysis. Types of activities that could have such effects are those near 

sensitive sound receptors that involve: low-level aircraft (e.g., helicopter transits or hovering) or LCAC; 

pile driving; use of blasting caps, blanks, or small arms; operation of heavy equipment or machinery; or 

large groups of participants. Training activities without such elements include Activities 1-3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 

13-24, 26, 29, 33, 34, 36, 37, 44-47, 52-58, 60-62, 65, 67, 70, 72-74, 77, 78, N2-N4, N10, and N13 

(Tables 2-1 and 2-2). 

3.6.2.1 Approach to Analysis 

Public concerns about sound in general may include hearing loss, non-auditory health effects, 

conversation interruption, sleep interference, distraction, and annoyance. Training activities at SSTC do 

not generate sound at intensities that could contribute to hearing loss in off-site public areas, so this issue 

is not further addressed. Thus, at these intensities, the potential effects would be conversation 

interruption, sleep interference, distraction, and annoyance. 

The potential sound effects of the Proposed Action were determined through empirical measurements, use 

of established sound equations, and use of predictive models where actual measurements were not 

available. Empirical measures of various existing sources at SSTC are presented above in Section 3.6.1.5. 

Shotgun blasts at the Breacher training facilities on SSTC-S were evaluated with the BNOISE2 model. 

This model was developed by the U.S. Army to calculate blast sound exposure contours from large guns 

and explosives charges. BNOISE2 takes into consideration the source (gun or explosives), the number 

and timing of sound events, range attributes, weather, and - for guns - directivity of the muzzle. The 

sound source intensities are based on empirical data collected on military ranges. Estimated peak singleevent sound intensities (dBP, unweighted decibels) were expressed in units of PK-15. 

3.6.2.2 No Action Alternative 

3.6.2.2.1 Aircraft 

Under existing (baseline) conditions, about 778 helicopter sorties are flown for SSTC training, or about 

15 sorties per week, for approximately 1,130 hours per year. The helicopters are required to approach and 

depart from the training beaches over the water, so an estimated 80 percent of their flight occurs over the 

water. For some of the mine countermeasures training, helicopters may log up to four hours of flight time, 

mostly over water. For other training activities, the duration of helicopter activities is much shorter. The 

infrequent, short-duration pass-bys over public areas constitute discrete, intrusive sound events that, while 

noticeable because they substantially exceed the ambient background sound level, contribute very little to 

the hourly average sound level. 

Most of the aircraft support for training activities at SSTC is provided by the SH-60 and CH-53E 

helicopters. The SH-60 helicopter (typical aircraft for training activities at SSTC) can produce singleevent pass-by sound levels approaching 91 dBA at 200 feet from the source, while hovering produces 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-14 

sounds levels approximately 90 dB, SEL at 50 feet (U.S. Army 2006; DoN 2009). At distances beyond 

about 3,990 feet (pass-by) and 890 feet (hovering), sound from these sources would be at or below typical 

background sound levels (<65 dBA) for a typical daytime urban area. These sound levels are assumed to 

be reasonably representative of the average sound emissions from the types of helicopters used in training 

at SSTC. 

Amphibious Raid training represents the most intense use of helicopter support for training at SSTC, with 

up to 15 helicopters per exercise. Amphibious Raid primarily occurs on White 2 and Purple 1 (Boat and 

Beach Lanes 12 and 13), with up to four helicopters operating simultaneously on the Beach Lanes. The 

closest sensitive receptor would be the SBBSA (approximately 2,860 feet [870 meters] away). Based on 

the sound emission factor for the SH-60 helicopter, a single airborne helicopter pass-by at 500 feet above 

ground level on the closest portions of SSTC-S would produce a one-minute Leq of about 50 dBA at 

SBBSA (Table 3.6-5). Four helicopters operating in that general area may generate a combined sound 

level of up to 56 dBA, one-minute Leq, at SBBSA. Amphibious Raid Activities are expected to occur only 

twice per year, for a period of three days, under the No Action Alternative. 

Table 3.6-5: Single Helicopter Pass-by Sound during Amphibious Raid on SSTC-S 

Sensitive Receptor

Source/Receptor 

Slant Distance 

(feet/meters)

Estimated 

One—Minute Leq

(dBA)

Coronado Cays 3,290 / 1,000 49 

Silver Strand State Beach 3,200 / 970 49 

South Bay Biological Study Area 2,860 / 870 50 

YMCA Camp Surf 4,400 / 1,340 46 

Imperial Beach Residential Area 5,810 / 1,770 44 

Notes: Leq estimated from reference sound level of 91 dBA at 200 feet, assuming distance attenuation for a point 

source of about six decibels per doubling of source-receptor distance. Background sound level is assumed to be 

about 60-65 dBA during the day and about 45-55 dBA at night, depending upon location relative to SR-75. 

Other training exercises on SSTC, such as Direct Action (DA) (up to eight helicopters), also require use 

of helicopters, but helicopter sound during DA activities would be lower than during Amphibious Raid 

activities because fewer helicopters participate. Sound from helicopter pass-bys would be below the 

typical daytime background sound level of about 60-65 dBA for receptors more than 900 feet from the 

sound source. Thus, aircraft activities associated with training at SSTC would seldom affect the acoustic 

environment on adjacent lands. 

3.6.2.2.2 Breacher Training 

Breacher training (Activity 31, Table 2-1) is conducted quarterly at Bunker 98 and Bunker 99 on the 

inland portion of SSTC-S. Under the No Action Alternative, approximately 150 12-gauge shotgun blasts 

per year would occur. Breacher training occurs 45 days per year, so this training activity occasionally 

affects the acoustical environment. 

The sound of shotgun blasts was modeled for Breacher training events at Bunker 98 (Table 3.6-6), but 

these results also are applicable for training at Bunker 99. The closest sensitive receptors to Bunkers 98 

and 99 are SBBSA and SSSB, which would experience peak sound levels of 100 dBP and 81 dBP, 

respectively. Noise levels at these receptors would be above the typical background noise level, but would 

be short in duration. Although noise from Breacher training would be above the background sound level 

at sensitive receptors, impulse sound from Breacher training would be intermittent (an average of about 

three shotgun blasts per day), and would not substantially affect the acoustic environment. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-15 

Table 3.6-6: Shotgun Sound Levels at Sensitive Receptors During Breacher Training 

Source Sensitive Receptor Source/Receptor Distance 

(feet/meters)

Peak Noise Level 

(PK-15, dBP) 

Bunker 98

Coronado Cays 3,034 / 925 78 

Silver Strand State Beach 2,478 / 755 81 

South Bay Biological Study Area 1,315 / 401 100 

YMCA Camp Surf 5,254 / 1,601 71 

Imperial Beach Residential Area 5,502 / 1,677 75 

Note: Peak noise levels modeled using the U.S. Army’s BNOISE2 noise model and the source-receptor distances shown above. Model input and 

output on file with NAVFAC SW. 

3.6.2.2.3 Amphibious Training 

Amphibious training involves numerous powered vehicles and equipment with a variety of sound 

signatures and intensities. About 10,000 landings of boats and amphibious vehicles occur annually at 

SSTC under the No Action Alternative. 

One of the primary sources of sound associated with these activities is the LCAC; these vessels are used 

in the Amphibious Raid and Craft Landing Zone (Activities 25 and 27) activities, for a total of six 

activities with eight LCAC landings per year under the No Action Alternative. LCAC landings would 

primarily occur on White 2 and Purple 1 Beach Lanes on SSTC-S, and Green 1 and 2 on SSTC-N; 

however, LCAC landings could occur at all SSTC Beach Lanes. Powered by four gas turbine engines, an 

LCAC produces sound in proportion to its load requirements. Sound from LCACs can range from 74 

dBA (at idle) to 104 dBA (underway) at 100 feet from the source. Amphibious training events held at 

SSTC-S have the most potential for adverse sound effects from landing craft because of the proximity of 

sensitive receptors (Table 3.6-7). 

The effect of this source on sound levels in the community depends upon how long the LCACs remain in 

the training area, and whether they are idling or moving. LCACs approach and depart the training beach 

under power, but idle while on the beach, resulting in about five minutes underway and about 15 minutes 

of idle sound per 20-minute event. LCACs produce a peak sound level of about 65 dBA at a distance of 

approximately 280 feet when idle, and 8,900 feet when underway. Sound produced while LCACs are 

idling on the beaches is substantially less than sound produced while underway. 

Table 3.6-7: Sound Effects of LCACs during Amphibious Landing Activities 

 Source Sensitive Receptor 

Source/Receptor 

Distance 

(feet/meter) 

Estimated 5-

minute Leq

(dBA) 

SSTC-S (Beach 

Lanes White 1 and 

Purple 2) 

Coronado Cays 3,250 / 990 49 

Silver Strand State Beach 3,160 / 960 49 

South Bay Biological Study Area 2,820 / 860 50 

YMCA Camp Surf 4,370 / 1,330 46 

Imperial Beach Residential Area 5,790 / 1,760 44 

SSTC-N (Beach 

Lanes Green 1 and 2) 

Coronado Shores 8,840 / 2,690 40 

Rendova Housing 5,110 / 1,550 45 

Military Family Housing / Silver Strand 

Elementary School 2,490 / 760 62 

Coronado Cays 10,210 / 3,100 39 

Silver Strand State Beach 7,490 / 2,280 42 

Notes: Based on peak single LCAC sound emission when underway. Leq estimated from reference sound level of about 104 dBA at 100 feet), 

assuming distance attenuation for a point source of about six decibels per doubling of source-receptor distance. Background sound level is 

assumed to be about 60-65 dBA during the day and about 45-55 dBA at night, depending upon location relative to SR-75. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-16 

When underway, LCACs would produce 62 dBA, five-minute Leq and 50 dBA, five-minute Leq at the 

nearest sensitive receptors for SSTC-N and SSTC-S, respectively (see Table 3.6-7). Sound at the closest 

sensitive receptor would be below the typical daytime background sound level (assumed to be about 65 

dBA). 

Sources of sound from Logistics-Over-the-Shore training include boats, air compressors, cranes, 

generators, bulldozers, heavy trucks, and pile-drivers. Marine vessels and powered platforms mostly 

maneuver offshore, where sound-sensitive receptors are few. The infrequent movements of ships in 

support of training activities at SSTC would not contribute measurably to the background ambient sound 

level. 

Piles are used to secure and support ELCAS (Activity 42, Table 2-1) in shallow water. Pile-driving 

produces intrusive sound events that are more annoying and distracting than continuous sound such as 

from traffic on SR-75, or than common single-event sounds, such as an aircraft pass-by, because the onset 

of intrusive sounds occurs without much buildup or warning. Piles are driven close to shore, and, 

although each ELCAS activity lasts for 14 days, pile driving is completed in 10 days. ELCAS training 

occurs in Red, Green, and Blue Beaches on SSTC-N Surfside and on Bravo Beach at SSTC-N, but can 

also occur in all Oceanside SSTC-N training lanes. In this section, only ELCAS training at Bravo Beach 

and Green Beach are quantitatively analyzed because these are the locations where training are most 

likely to occur (one in each location per year) and Bravo Beach has the shortest distance to sourcereceptors. 

ELCAS training occurs 24 hours per day. Each pile requires about 15 minutes to drive, with one pile 

being driven every two hours, for a total of about 10 to 12 piles per day. Each pile takes approximately 

25-30 strikes per minute over the 15 minute period to be securely set. The sound source is intermittent. In 

between each pile (approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes), the driver is re-positioned, and sound levels are 

returned to low level equipment, near ambient levels. If the peak sound level for pile-driving is assumed 

to be about 100 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, then the 15-minute Leq would be about 97 dBA at 100 feet. 

The estimated peak sound levels and15-minute Leqs at selected sensitive receptors are provided in Table 

3.6-8. 

Table 3.6-8: Highest Sound Levels From ELCAS Installation Training at Bravo and Green Beaches 

Source Sensitive Receptor Approximate 

Distance (feet/m) 

Sound Level (dBA) 

Peak 15-min Leq

Pile-driving off 

Bravo Beach 

(reference distance 

150 feet off-shore) 

Coronado Shores 13,530 / 4,110 51 48 

Rendova Housing 9,760 / 2,970 54 51 

Military Family Housing / Silver 

Strand Elementary School 320 / 100 84 81 

Coronado Cays 5,710 / 1,740 59 56 

Silver Strand State Beach 3,320 / 1,010 64 61 

Pile-driving off 

Green Beach 

(reference distance 

150 feet off-shore) 

Coronado Shores 9,540 / 2,900 54 51 

Rendova Housing 5,830 / 1,772 59 56 

Military Family Housing / Silver 

Strand Elementary School 1,790 / 544 69 66 

Coronado Cays 9,490 / 2,885 54 51 

Silver Strand State Beach 6,770 / 2,058 57 54 

Notes: Leq - equivalent noise level. Peak sound level and Leq estimated from reference sound level of 100 dBA at a distance of 50 feet and the 

source-receptor distances shown above, assuming distance attenuation of six decibels per doubling of source-receptor distance for a point 

source. Estimated sound is solely from the sources cited; the background sound levels at the receptors are assumed not to contribute 

substantially to the overall sound level. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-17 

Sound generated by pile-driving continues for long periods, dominating the acoustic environment in its 

vicinity. The values presented in Table 3.6-8 are for the sections of ELCAS that are installed closest to 

shore (about 150 feet), representing approximately the noisiest period of ELCAS installation. As the 

ELCAS is constructed, piles are driven further away from the shore, with the furthest pile being driving 

1,200 feet from the shore. 

The distance from the ELCAS pile installation activities to the 65 dBA, 15-minute Leq is estimated to be 

2,000 feet. For training on Bravo Beach, this includes the Military Family Housing adjacent to Bravo 

Beach and Silver Strand Elementary School. Assuming that the building envelopes of the housing and 

school provide about 15 dBA of sound attenuation (with windows open), then interior sound levels would 

be about 66 dBA during pile driving, which could interfere with conversation (about 65 dBA at a distance 

of three feet) and other verbal communication (e.g., classroom activities), as well as disrupt sleeping. 

Excluding weekends, one 10-day ELCAS installation at Bravo Beach could affect Silver Strand 

Elementary School for up to 8 days per year, by intermittently disrupting the communication in classroom 

environment, if classes are being conducted during the training. The Military Family Housing area 

adjacent to Bravo Beach, especially housing units with a direct line of sight to the beach, could 

experience conversation interruption or sleep disruption during ELCAS installation training at Bravo 

Beach. 

For training on Green Beach, Silver Strand Elementary School is outside of the 65 dBA contour, 15-

minute Leq; however, the northern portion of the Military Family Housing may be within the contour. This 

housing area, especially the housing units closest to Silver Strand Highway, could experience intermittent 

conversation interruption or sleep disruption during ELCAS training on Green Beach. Building 

envelopes of the houses and the school would help to attenuate this noise. As the ELCAS is constructed 

and piles are driven farther away from the shore, received noise levels would be reduced and much of this 

housing would fall outside of the 65 dBA contour. 

Background sound levels in urban areas are substantially lower during late night and early morning hours 

than during the day; pile-driving during these portions of the day may be especially noticeable. 

Background sound levels in urban areas tend to be lower on the weekend, especially on Sundays. ELCAS 

installation during these periods may be perceived as more intrusive than during the week. Because the 

background sound level would be lower, the sound would be more audible at beaches, parks, and other 

recreational areas farther from the training area. Twenty days per year of repetitive, intrusive sound might 

be unpleasant for some occupants and beach park users, but would not substantially alter the long-term 

ambient sound environment in the community. 

Other elements of the ELCAS installation, including bulldozers, heavy trucks, and cranes, would 

contribute to intrusive sound associated with this training activity. Generators and air compressors 

contribute continuous sources of sound. These additional sources of sound would not be noticeable at the 

distances shown in Table 3.6-8 because they would be below background sound levels. 

3.6.2.2.4 Munitions 

Under the No Action Alternative, several training activities involve setting off blasting caps, grenade 

simulators, or explosives, or firing blanks. Floating Mine training activities include 25 events per year in 

which about one blasting cap each is detonated, for a total of 25. Because the tempo of activities is low, 

these events would have minimal, short-term effects on the acoustical environment. 

About 358 training events held per year for 17 types of land training include the firing of blanks or 

simulated munitions (known as “simunitions”). One intense use of blanks occurs during Immediate 

Action Drills (IAD) exercises, when up to 625 blanks per hour may be fired (assuming an eight-hour 

event over five days), that occur primarily on Red Beach Lanes. These events occur at SSTC-N, SSTC-S, 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-18 

or on the NASNI beaches. A blank produces a peak sound level of about 99 dBA at a distance of 350 

feet.1

 Six hundred and twenty five blanks fired within an hour from the same approximate location at 

SSTC-N produce an hourly Leq of about 75 dBA at the closest sensitive receptor (Rendova Housing area, 

Table 3.6-9), Six hundred and twenty five blanks fired within an hour from the same approximate location 

at SSTC-S produce an hourly Leq of about 73 dBA at the closest sensitive receptor (SBBSA, Table 3.6-9), 

Table 3.6-9: Sound from Blanks used during Immediate Action Drills 

Sensitive Receptor Approximate 

Distance (feet/m) 

Sound Level (dBA) 

Peak One-Hour Leq

Coronado Shores 5,950 / 1,810 74 67 

Rendova Housing 2,260 / 690 83 75 

Military Family Housing / Silver 

Strand Elementary School 5,370 / 1,630 75 68 

Coronado Cays 13,110 / 3,990 68 60 

Silver Strand State Beach 10,390 / 3,160 70 62 

Coronado Cays 2,560 / 778 80 72 

Silver Strand State Beach 890 / 271 80 72 

South Bay Biological Study Area 8,790 / 2,672 81 73 

YMCA Camp Surf 16,520 / 5,022 77 69 

Imperial Beach Residential 13,820 / 4,201 75 67 

Note: Peak noise levels and Leq’s estimated from reference sound level of 99 dBA at 350 feet and the source-receptor 

distances shown above, assuming distance attenuation of six decibels per doubling of source-receptor distance for a 

point source. 

Hell Week activities occur six times per year, including an early morning breakout from buildings on the 

western side of SR-75 across from NAB Main Base and training at the existing Demo Pit on SSTC-N. 

Community sound levels are very low during early morning hours, so discrete sound events may be 

audible at greater distances from the source. Up to fifteen thousand 7.62-mm and up to two thousand 

0.50-caliber blanks may be fired annually for the six Hell Week breakouts, or about 2,830 blanks per 

breakout. Assuming that the breakout event occurs over a one-hour period, and are fired from 

approximately the same location, this quantity of blanks would generate peak sound of about 87 dBA at 

Rendova Housing area (approximately 890 feet away), with a hourly Leq of about 86 dBA and a peak 

sound of 73 dBA at the Coronado Shores (approximately 2,560 feet away) with an hourly Leq of 72 dBA 

(Table 3.6-10). 

Intervening structures can reduce the sound level at offsite sensitive receptors by 15 to 20 dBA. At this 

time of day, a peak sound event of this lesser magnitude (about 72-67 dBA) is above the expected 

background sound level of < 60 dBA. The Hell Week Breakout is located across SR-75 from NAB Main 

Base, where few sensitive receptors would be exposed to this sound. Such a sound level in this area of 

Coronado six times per year in the early morning may disturb some visitors or residents in the Military 

Family Housing or Coronado Shores. The use of up to 100 grenade simulators per year (about 16-17 per 

training activity) would not add substantially to the overall sound level; due to the nature of logarithmic 

addition, an increase from 2,830 to 2,847 noise events of similar magnitude would not perceptibly change 

the hourly average Leq. 

 

1

 Small arms firing can produce peak noise levels of 90 to 100 dB at 500 feet and 80 to 90 dB at 1,000 feet for the most common 

types of small arms. Most blank ammunition for small arms has a smaller propellant charge than that used for live ammunition. 

As a result, noise from small arms blank ammunition generates noise levels about four decibels below those of live ammunition, 

or about 96 dB at 500 feet, 102 dB at 250 feet, and 108 dB at 125 feet (assumes 6 dB per doubling of distance). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-19 

Hell Week events at the Demolition Pit on Blue 1 Beach, occurring primarily on weekdays, include the 

use of about twelve thousand 7.62-mm blanks and 100 grenade simulators annually. The Demolition Pit is 

located on the beach opposite Fiddlers Cove, where loud sounds may affect the Military Family Housing 

area and Silver Strand Elementary School (approximately 760 feet away). Assuming that these activities 

take place over five 8-hour days, then an average of about 50 blanks may be fired per hour; these can 

generate an hourly Leq of about 70 dBA at the military housing area and the elementary school. 

The events described above (Over-the-Beach [OTB] exercises, Hell Week breakout and demolition pit 

sound) may be distracting to individuals in nearby public areas. Sound levels at Rendova Housing and 

Military Family Housing on Silver Strand would be above typical urban daytime background sound 

levels. Hell Week activities take place primarily during the day, so most residents would not be home. 

Residents indoors would experience a lower sound level than those participating in outdoor activities. 

Table 3.6-10: Sound from Blanks used During Hell Week Activities 

Source Sensitive Receptor Source-Receptor 

Distance (feet/m) 

Sound Level (dBA) 

Peak 1-hr Leq

Breakout Compound 

(west side of SR-75 

across from NAB) 

Coronado Shores 2,560 / 780 73 72 

Rendova Housing 890 / 270 87 86 

Military Family Housing/ 

Silver Strand Elementary School 8,790 / 2,670 57 56 

Coronado Cays 16,520 / 5,020 49 48 

Silver Strand State Beach 13,820 / 4,200 51 50 

Demolition Pit on 

Blue 1 Beach 

Coronado Shores 10,560 / 3,210 55 36 

Rendova Housing 6,850 / 2,080 60 42 

Military Family Housing/ 

Silver Strand Elementary School 760 / 230 89 70 

Coronado Cays 8,460 / 2,570 58 39 

Silver Strand State Beach 5,740 / 1,750 63 44 

Note: Peak noise levels and Leq’s estimated from reference sound level of 99 dBA at 350 feet and the source-receptor distances shown above, 

assuming distance attenuation of six decibels per doubling of source-receptor distance for a point source.

3.6.2.2.5 Foot and Vehicle Traffic 

Land training activities, other than those addressed under separate subsections above, consist mostly of 

movements of groups of trainees on foot across the beach and movements of passenger vehicles on the 

beach or on established roads in SSTC. These activities are not substantial sources of offsite sound. 

Three physical training activities; Physical Conditioning Runs, Physical Conditioning Training, and Hell 

Week (Activities 68, 69, and 71, Table 2-1) include having large groups of trainees running through offbase areas sometimes calling or singing out a cadence. These activities occur a total of about 750 times 

per year, or an average of about three times per day. Depending upon the number of individuals 

participating, the combined voices of these groups can be heard in adjacent public areas. 

A single person shouting can generate peak sound of approximately 88 dBA at 3.3 feet (one meter) 

(Harris 1997). Sound from shouting would decline to about the background sound level (65 dBA) within 

approximately 50 feet. Assuming 100 personnel would participate in an exercise, a one-minute Leq would 

be below the typical urban daytime background sound level for all identified sensitive receptors except 

SSSB. During early morning hours, when background noise levels in adjacent areas may be less than 50 

dBA, such sounds may be heard at substantially greater distances. Personnel run along the hard- and softpack sand on SSSB. Sound from personnel calling out during running may temporarily disturb public use, 

but would pass quickly, based on the purpose of the training exercises. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-20 

3.6.2.2.6 Summary – No Action Alternative 

Overall, existing military training activities on SSTC include several sources of sound, primarily 

impulsive sound events, that are audible in adjacent residential, commercial, recreational, and open space 

areas in both Coronado and Imperial Beach. Major sources of sound include helicopters used for insertion 

and extraction of exercise participants, amphibious vessels involved in landing exercises, pile-drivers 

involved in ELCAS training, and munitions used in a variety of exercises. Collectively, these sources 

generate sound on a majority of weekdays and infrequently at night and on weekends. 

Coronado Shores would be minimally affected by training at SSTC. Blanks and simunitions would be the 

primary sound sources that personnel may hear at Coronado Shores. Although peak sound events would 

be audible during the day, the hourly Leq would be below the typical urban background sound level. Other 

training exercises, such as ELCAS or LCAC landings, are located a substantial distance from Coronado 

Shores, and would be below the background sound level. Coronado Shores is primarily residential, and 

daytime sound would not be expected to have a substantial effect because most residents would be at 

work, school, or participating in other daytime activities. Training exercises held at night or in the early 

morning (Hell Week) could infrequently annoy residents because the background sound level is lower at 

night. 

Rendova Housing would be primarily affected by sound from the use of blanks or simunitions during 

training exercises. Sound from amphibious landings, helicopter overflights, and ELCAS training would 

be below the typical urban background sound level. Residents of Rendova Housing could experience peak 

outdoor sound of about 75-87 dBA from blanks and simunitions on SSTC-N, but these events would be 

infrequent. Peak sound within structures could be about 55 to 72 dBA. Intermittent impulsive noise at this 

level may interrupt conversations, distract individuals, or interfere with sleep. Although these sound 

levels could affect residents, particularly at night, these sound levels represent the most intense use of 

blanks during training on SSTC-N. Most training exercises would occur during the day, when residents 

are not home, and would be short in duration. 

Sound from SSTC training would have the greatest effect on the Military Family Housing across from 

Boat Lanes 7-10 and on Silver Strand Elementary School. ELCAS training on Bravo Beach may produce 

sound levels at the Military Family Housing of up to 81 dBA, 15-minute Leq during pile driving, which 

would occur periodically during the day and night. Intermittent impulsive noise at this level may interrupt 

conversations, distract individuals, or interfere with sleep. ELCAS training would only occur twice per 

year under the No Action Alternative, but may disrupt the classroom environment during the day and 

disturb residences during the evening and night. Intermittent pile-driving (one pile every two hours) 

would have a greater affect on the houses that are closest to Bravo Beach during training at Bravo Beach, 

and on the houses closest to the Highway for training on the Oceanside beach lanes. Sound from blanks 

and simunitions used during Hell Week could produce an hourly Leq of about 70 dBA at Military Family 

Housing and the Elementary School, which would be above the typical daytime urban background sound 

level. Training exercises early in the morning would have a greater effect on residents than those 

occurring later in the day because the background sound level is lower at that time. 

Residences of Coronado Cays would not be affected by SSTC training during the day because training 

sound levels at the near edge of this development would be below the assumed daytime background 

sound level. Sound at night may temporarily disturb residents who are eating dinner, relaxing, or sleeping, 

but these sound events are not expected to interrupt normal nighttime routines. Residences closest to the 

near edge of the development would experience the highest sound levels, but few training exercises occur 

at night. 

Residential areas of Imperial Beach, including Westview Elementary School, would be minimally 

affected by sound from SSTC training. Sound from Breacher Training may be audible, but would be 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-21 

intermittent (only 150 shotgun blasts per year). Sound from other training exercises would be below 

background sound levels. Residents indoors would not be expected to be affected by training sound 

because the building envelope would reduce interior sound levels by about 15 dBA. Sound levels may be 

audible to residents participating in outdoor activities, but sound would not disrupt activities or normal 

routines. 

Public use of SSSB would be minimally affected by SSTC training. Sound from large-scale training 

exercises at SSTC-S and SSTC-N would produce sound levels at SSSB below the typical daytime 

background sound level. Sound from SR-75, breaking surf, and wind would all contribute to the 

background sound level. Intermittent sound would not be expected to startle recreationalists on the beach 

because of the low received sound level. Overnight use of the beach is in enclosed vehicles only, which 

further reduces the perceived sound level. 

Public use of SBBSA may experience intermittent sounds from Breacher Training. Sound from other 

training exercises at SSTC-S would be below the background sound level. Sound from Breacher Training 

would occur infrequently, with 150 shotgun blasts per year. Peak sound from blanks and simunitions 

during beach training events such as IADs may be up to 81 dBA. Public use of SBBSA is for outdoor 

recreation; and public use is not likely to be disrupted by occasional impulsive sound from SSTC training 

events. 

YMCA Camp Surf is located in the southern portion of SSTC-S, and would experience minimal levels of 

sound from SSTC training. Intermittent sound from Breacher training may be audible at YMCA Camp 

Surf, but would not be loud enough to substantially disrupt outdoor activities. Other training activities 

would not be expected to affect outdoor recreation because sound levels would be below the typical urban 

nighttime background sound level. SSTC nighttime training activities may be audible, but are not 

expected to startle individuals or disrupt overnight activities at Camp Surf because sound produced by 

breaking surf and blowing winds would mask training noise. 

3.6.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

3.6.2.3.1 Vehicle Traffic on SR-75 

Future traffic volume increases on SR-75 associated with training on SSTC, the only high-volume, highspeed road in the area, would be insufficient to noticeably affect ambient sound levels in the ROI. 

Increases in vehicle traffic on other local roads likewise would have no substantial effect on ambient 

sound levels. Military traffic on local roads would be a minor portion of this traffic. Thus, project-related 

traffic sound would not substantially affect the acoustical environment under Alternative 1. 

3.6.2.3.2 Aircraft 

Helicopter sorties for training activities at SSTC under Alternative 1 would increase to about 2,220 sorties 

(an increase of about 180 percent relative to the No Action Alternative) or by about 3,600 hours per year. 

The Amphibious Raid activity (Activity 25, Table 2-1) would continue to represent the most intense 

aircraft sound event at SSTC. The frequency of these events would increase to 18 per year under 

Alternative 1. This increase in the frequency of intrusive sound events would be noticeable to the public. 

Sound levels produced by helicopters during Amphibious Raid exercises would be the same as under the 

No Action Alternative. 

One new training activity under Alternative 1 would be Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel 

(TRAP) (N9, Table 2-2), to be held on SSTC-S. This operation would employ up to five helicopters at 

once, would occur at night, and would last one to two hours. Due to the logarithmic nature of sound 

increases, and assuming that the helicopters would be evenly spaced over a large area, the maximum 

sound level at the nearest receptor from this operation would be about the same as from eight helicopters 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-22 

during the Amphibious Raid activities. However, if helicopter arrivals and departures occurred over a 

longer period, then the length of time that sound-sensitive receptors were affected would increase. 

However, the effect of these increases on average hourly community sound levels would be negligible 

because the intensity of helicopter use during the individual events would not change. Thus, the effects of 

aircraft activities at SSTC under Alternative 1 would be about the same as described for the No Action 

Alternative. 

3.6.2.3.3 Breacher Training 

Under Alternative 1, Breacher training would occur 20 times per year, with approximately five days per 

exercise. Breacher training (Activity 31, Table 2-1) would still be conducted at Bunker 98, Bunker 99, 

plus an additional training at a site west of Bunker 99 on the inland portion of SSTC-S. Breacher training 

at Bunker 98 would be closest to sensitive receptors. Shotgun blasts would increase to 1,400 annually, but 

the intensity of this sound source under Alternative 1 would be the same as under the No Action 

Alternative (Table 3.6-6). 

Sensitive receptors adjacent to SSTC-S would experience the same noise levels as under the No Action 

Alternative, but the number of noise events would substantially increase. Breacher training would occur 

during daylight hours. Impulsive sound from shotgun blasts would have less of an effect on sensitive 

receptors than predicted by modeling because of the background sound generated by SR-75. With 

approximately 1,400 shotgun blasts per year (approximately 14 per day when Breacher training occurs), 

sound from shotgun Breacher training would be intermittent, and would not substantially affect the 

acoustic environment. 

3.6.2.3.4 Amphibious Training 

Amphibious craft landings at SSTC would increase from about 10,000 landings per year under the No 

Action Alternative to about 13,800 landings per year under Alternative 1. LCAC landings would increase 

from 8 to 40 per year, a roughly five-fold increase. The level of complaints in the community from sound 

associated with LCAC training could increase slightly. However, the frequency, duration, and intensity of 

intrusive sound from amphibious training would be too low to measurably affect long-term average 

community sound levels. 

Under Alternative 1, Logistics Over-the-Shore training activities would increase slightly to 270 events per 

year over the No Action Alternative. The locations where Causeway Pier Insertion and ELCAS training 

take place would remain the same as under the No Action Alternative. Estimated sound levels from 

ELCAS training at the nearest sound-sensitive receptors would be as shown in Table 3.6-8. With an 

increase in training rates from two events to four events per year (20 days of pile driving activities to 40 

days of pile driving; piles are driven for approximately 15 minutes every two hours), the exposure of 

nearby sensitive receptors to the sound levels projected for this activity would double. ELCAS training 

could interrupt verbal communication and disrupt sleep in the Military Family Housing area and Silver 

Strand Elementary School when piles are being driven at Bravo Beach, but would not have an effect on 

the long-term acoustical environment. 

3.6.2.3.5 Munitions 

Under Alternative 1, several training activities involve setting off blasting caps or explosives, or firing 

blanks. Floating mine training activities include 53 events per year in which a single blasting cap is 

detonated. A blasting cap generates a sound level of about 99 dBA at a distance of about 350 feet; the 

distance to the 65 dBA contour would be about 3.3 miles. However, because the tempo of activities is 

low—about one event per week—and the distance from which these activities would occur offshore, 

these events would have minimal effect on the long-term acoustical environment in areas of public use. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-23 

Alternative 1 would include a new training activity that uses blanks—TRAP. TRAP would require up to 

1,250 discharges of blanks per activity. TRAP would occur four times per year, with an additional 

potential 5,000 blanks per year being expended. Each activity would be conducted over a four-hour 

period, so about 300 blanks would be discharged per hour (about five per minute). At the reference 

distance of 350 feet, these discharges would generate an hourly average sound level (Leq) of about 88 

dBA. 

Under Alternative 1, the annual number of blanks or simunitions used during training would increase by 

about 16 percent (394,000 vs. 341,000) relative to the No Action Alternative (see Appendix C). The 

sound generated from the firing of a single blank would be as described for the No Action Alternative. 

Peak sound levels from the noisiest training events (e.g., Swimmer / Combat Rubber Raiding Craft OTB, 

Hell Week Breakout, Hell Week Demolition Pit) would not change. However, the total number of soundgenerating training activities would increase by approximately 48 percent. 

3.6.2.3.6 Foot and Vehicle Traffic 

Land training activities, other than those addressed under separate subsections above, consist mostly of 

movements of groups of trainees on foot traversing the beach. These activities are not substantial sources 

of offsite sound. 

Similar to the No Action Alternative, three physical training activities; Physical Conditioning Runs, 

Physical Conditioning Training, and Hell Week (Activities 68, 69, and 71, Table 2-1) include having 

large groups of trainees running through off-base areas and calling or singing out a cadence. However, the 

number of these activities would not increase under Alternative 1; the effects on adjacent land uses would 

be the same as under the No Action Alternative. 

3.6.2.3.7 Summary – Alternative 1 

Training increases under Alternative 1 would minimally affect the acoustic environment at Coronado 

Shores. Use of blanks and simunitions would increase slightly (approximately 16 percent), but the sound 

levels for individual activities would be the same as under the No Action Alternative. Although peak 

sound would be audible during the day, the hourly Leq would be below the background sound level. The 

number of exercises with intensive use of blanks and simunitions would increase slightly. Nighttime and 

early morning training exercises that would use blanks and simunitions (Hell Week) could affect residents 

in the early morning, but the number of Hell Week training exercises would remain the same as under the 

No Action Alternative. 

Residents of Coronado Shores would continue to be minimally affected by training at SSTC under 

Alternative 1. Blanks and simunitions would be the primary sound sources that personnel may hear at 

Coronado Shores. The hourly Leq would continue to be below the typical urban background sound level 

during the day. Training exercises held at night or in the early morning (Hell Week) would have the same 

effects as under the No Action Alternative, as the tempo and location of training would not change. 

Residents of Rendova Housing would be primarily affected by sound from the use of blanks or 

simunitions during training exercises at SSTC-N. The number of blanks used during training would 

increase by 16 percent under Alternative 1, but the majority of training exercises would occur during the 

day, when residents are at jobs, school, or participating in outdoor activities. The training activities with 

the most intense use of blanks could disturb residents, particularly if they occurred at night. This 

disturbance could include interference with communication, distraction, and – for night and early morning 

activities – sleep disturbance. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-24 

Sound from SSTC training would continue have the greatest effect on the Military Family Housing across 

from Boat Lanes 7-10 and on Silver Strand Elementary School. Sound from ELCAS training would 

increase under Alternative 1. ELCAS training would increase from two to four exercises per year. 

ELCAS training on Bravo Beach would produce sound levels of up to 81 dBA, 15-minute Leq during pile 

driving, which would occur several times per day. The increase in training activities would result in 20 

additional days of pile driving per year. This activity could effect the residences closest to ELCAS 

training and on Silver Strand Elementary School, including interference with speech and hearing, 

distraction, and – for night and early morning activities – sleep disturbance, Sound from blanks and 

simunitions used during Hell Week would remain the same as under the No Action Alternative. Sounds 

from blanks and simunitions used during Hell Week would remain the same under the No Action 

Alternative, as the tempo and location of training would remain the same. 

As in the No Action Alternative, Residences of Coronado Cays would not be substantially affected by 

increases in SSTC training under Alternative 1 because sound levels at the near edge of this development 

would be below the background sound level. The increase in the number of Breacher Training activities 

would increase the number of intermittent sound events, but these events would primarily occur during 

the day. Sound during the night may temporarily distract residents who are eating dinner, relaxing, or 

sleeping, but would not be expected to substantially disturb normal nighttime routines. 

Public use of SSSB would be minimally affected by increases in SSTC training under Alternative 1. 

Sound from intensive training exercises at SSTC-S and SSTC-N would produce sound levels below the 

daytime background sound level. Sound from SR-75, breaking surf, and wind would contribute to the 

background sound level. Intermittent sound from training activities would not be expected to startle 

recreationalists on the beach because of the low received sound level. 

Public use of SBBSA would experience a large increase in intermittent sounds from Breacher Training, 

from 150 shotgun blasts under the No Action Alternative to 1,400 shotgun blasts per year under 

Alternative 1. Sound from other training exercises at SSTC-S would be below the typical urban 

background sound level. Sound from Breacher Training would occur infrequently, and primarily during 

the day. Public use of SBBSA is for outdoor recreation; and public use is not likely to be disrupted by 

occasional impulsive sound from SSTC training events. 

YMCA Camp Surf would experience minimal levels of sound from the increase in SSTC training. 

Intermittent sound from Breacher training may be audible at YMCA Camp Surf, but sound levels would 

not be loud enough to substantially disrupt outdoor activities. Other training activities would not be 

expected to affect outdoor recreation because sound levels would be below the background sound level. 

Residential areas in Imperial Beach, including Westview Elementary School, would not be affected by 

sound from SSTC training because of the substantial distance from training sound sources. Sound from 

Breacher Training could be audible during the night, but this training activity occurs primarily during the 

day. Sound from other training exercise would be below background sound levels. 

Overall, proposed military training activities on SSTC would generate noticeable sound on weekdays 

during the year, primarily as impulsive events that would be audible in adjacent residential, commercial, 

recreational, and open space areas in both Coronado and Imperial Beach. Major sources of sound would 

include helicopters used for insertion and extraction of exercise participants, amphibious vessels involved 

in landing exercises, pile-drivers involved in ELCAS training, munitions used in a variety of exercises, 

and explosives used in demolition pit and breacher training exercises. Collectively, these sources would 

generate noise on weekdays and infrequently at night and on weekends. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-25 

3.6.2.4 Alternative 2 

The only substantive difference between Alternative 1 and 2, with regard to the acoustic environment, is 

that all SSTC-N beach training areas would be available for use, regardless of time of year. As a result of 

this increased availability, some training exercises may be conducted on SSTC-N Beach Lanes 8-10 when 

availability is limited on SSTC-N Beach Lanes 1-7 or if the beach lanes provide attributes more 

conducive to training than other available lanes. This shifting of activities is expected to be minimal, and 

the largest sound generating activities are not expected to shift into Lanes 8-10. The SSTC-N lane access 

change is not expected to affect long-term average sound levels. There would be no increase in the 

number of training exercises from Alternative 1 to Alternative 2. Therefore, impacts associated with 

Alternative 2 are expected to be the same as those described above for Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, 

the proposed change in access to and availability of existing beach and inland training areas would not 

result in sound impacts noticeably different than those identified for Alternative 1.

3.6.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Current mitigation measures (Section 3.6.2) would continue to be implemented for Navy training at 

SSTC. 

3.6.4 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 

Under the alternatives, sound produced during training exercises would be unavoidable; however, the 

majority of the sound from training activities would be below background levels at surrounding sensitive 

receptors. 

3.6.5 Summary of Effects 

Table 3.6-11 summarizes potential effects on the acoustic environment near SSTC from military activities 

identified in the alternatives including the Proposed Action. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3.6-26 

Table 3.6-11: Summary of Effects 

Alternative Summary of Effects 

No Action Alternative 

• Existing ambient sound levels include sounds from various sources. 

Training at SSTC-S occasionally creates intrusive sound for short 

periods, especially during Amphibious Raid and Breacher training. 

Training at SSTC-N occasionally creates intrusive sound for short 

periods, especially during ELCAS installation training. Helicopter 

overflights and ship pass-bys of populated land areas would be audible 

for a few minutes per day in any one area, without contributing 

substantially to the long-term average sound level. Small arms (blanks) 

firing occasionally is audible for short periods in portions of the 

community. Routine on-site and off-site training-related activities, 

such as the operation of powered vehicles and equipment, add 

incrementally to the ambient background sound level, especially 

during weekdays. Taken together, these sound sources affect the 

acoustic environment of Silver Strand peninsula. 

Alternative 1 

• Sound levels generated by training would remaining the same as the 

No Action Alternative, but training events producing sound would 

increase in frequency. Alternative 1 would increase the frequency of 

aircraft and amphibious vehicle training, ELCAS pile driving, shotgun 

Breacher activities, and use of blanks on the beach. 

Alternative 2 • The effects of Alternative 2 on the acoustical environment are 

expected to be the same as the effects described under Alternative 1. 

Mitigation Measures • Activity planning often considers location (e.g., Breacher training are 

located in inland areas) and time of day. Navy notifies local 

emergency personnel prior to exercises that include pyrotechnics or 

blanks. Call-outs during physical conditioning training are minimized 

at night and when in residential areas. 
3.7 Marine Biological Resources 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-1

3.7 MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW

This section begins with an overview of the affected marine environment of the Silver Strand Training 

Complex (SSTC) by describing habitat types in the Region of Influence (ROI) and their acreages, 

followed by the communities associated with these habitats. The habitats are organized by tidal depth 

from shallow to deep. The organisms that comprise the communities are described by species group in 

greater detail in the sections that follow this overview, beginning with Marine Plants and Invertebrates 

(Section 3.7.1.3.2). Chapters on Fishes, Marine Mammals, and Sea Turtles follow (Sections 3.8, 3.9, and 

3.10). Terrestrial Biological Resources are then addressed (Section 3.11). Birds are described separately 

from terrestrial or marine biological resources (Section 3.12) because they cross the terrestrial-marine 

interface (sea turtles and marine mammals stay aquatic in SSTC training areas). All of the following 

chapters and their respective descriptions of individual species groups, marine habitats, or marine 

communities reference back to this introductory overview, as appropriate. Abundance and diversity of 

these species groups are quantified if possible, to provide a full picture of the functions provided by the 

affected environment. The current management of these resources in the ROI is also provided, as 

appropriate. 

3.7.1 Affected Environment 

3.7.1.1 Definition of Resource 

This section describes the habitat types and the biotic communities expected to be present in the SSTC 

area that potentially could be affected by the Proposed Action. The potential effects are analyzed, and a 

discussion is presented concerning current management and mitigation practices. 

3.7.1.2 Regional Setting 

The project area is in the eastern Pacific Ocean coastal region referred to as the Southern California Bight 

(SCB) and is directly affected by two ocean currents. The colder, more northerly California Current and 

the southern, warm-water Davidson Current influence the ocean within the SCB. These two currents 

“mix” in the Santa Barbara Channel. The water within the southern portion of the SCB is generally 

warmer and more saline than that within the northern area (Hickey 1993). These differing conditions, as 

well as upwelling of cooler, nutrient-rich waters, influence the unusually diverse marine biota within the 

SCB (Murray and Littler 1981). The offshore portion of SSTC is adjacent to the mouth of San Diego Bay 

and is comprised of primarily sandy soft bottom surf zone habitat interspersed with low relief rocky 

cobble habitat within the coastal pelagic zone. 

In the coastal zone and waters of San Diego Bay, biological conditions mirror that of southern 

California’s other coastal bays and estuaries. San Diego Bay is located in an arid region of Mediterranean 

climate and is fed by small, seasonal rivers and streams. As a result, the fish assemblages are largely 

devoid of freshwater and anadromous species and are dominated by estuarine resident and marine migrant 

fishes (Allen et al. 2006). Unlike the majority of southern California bays and estuaries, San Diego Bay is 

comparatively large and, therefore, displays considerable habitat diversity and environmental gradients. 

These gradients are especially apparent during the winter months when most rainfall occurs. 

The sheltered waters function as a nursery for fish and a stopover and rest area for migratory birds. They 

also support a number of endemic or rare fish and wildlife species. San Diego Bay supports local resident 

fishes and birds, as well as those that migrate to and from these waters for specific life cycle needs, 

including harvested fish such as California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), and important prey of 

larger fish, seabirds, and marine mammals, such as northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax). 

San Diego Bay contributes more protected, shallow, bay habitats to the Pacific Flyway waterbird 

populations than any other bay or estuary situated along the 180-mile coastal region of southern 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-2

California. When compared to midwinter populations of the SCB, San Diego Bay provided habitat for 

more than half of the entire midwinter duck population. The majority of the regional surf scoter 

(Melanitta perspicillata, 72 percent) and brant (Branta bernicla, 66 percent) populations were present in 

central and south Bay. Forty-four percent of the region’s bufflehead population used central and south bay 

in 1994, as did a similar percentage of scaup (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a). Thirty-one percent 

of the midwinter brant population used central and south bay (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 

1995a). San Diego Bay provides breeding, wintering, and/or stopover habitat for most of the shorebirds 

identified in the U.S. Shorebird Plan as having primary importance within the region. 

The SSTC and San Diego Bay are situated within an urban context where there is intense shore and water 

use, both current and historical. In immediate proximity to the largest naval complex in the world and 

California’s second largest incorporated city, San Diego Bay receives water and urban runoff from a 

watershed of 415 square miles where 50 percent of the county’s population lives or works. The legacy of 

historical dredging, filling, direct sewage delivery, and pollutants that still persist in “hot spots” have 

modified the benthic environment that supports marine plants and invertebrates such that biological 

assemblages have changed in comparison to past marine communities. While San Diego Bay’s military 

history began very early at the turn of the 19th Century with World War I, major filling of marshlands and 

deepening of the bay were primarily related to its development as a commercial harbor beginning in the 

late 1800s and first half of the 20th century, rather than to military use. Due to this history, San Diego Bay 

is listed as an impaired water body, under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303[d], by the California 

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) due to identified pollutants (Regional Water Quality 

Control Board [RWQCB] 2007). The 1997 National Sediment Quality Survey determined that San Diego 

Bay, San Francisco Bay, and offshore areas around San Diego and Los Angeles appear to have the most 

significant sediment contamination in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Region 9 (USEPA 

1997). 

An added pressure on the marine communities has been the depletion and modification of the habitats in 

the region from their historical condition. Compared to historical acreages, there has been a 70 percent 

loss of salt marsh, 84 percent loss of intertidal areas other than salt marsh, and a 42 percent loss of 

shallow subtidal waters. Conversely, since San Diego Bay was first dredged in 1914, deep water habitat 

has doubled. Available shoreline habitats have also experienced physical alteration, with 74 percent of the 

shoreline now armored with artificial hard structures, a type of substrate not native to San Diego Bay. 

Upland transition areas needed by many species are now scarce and have been converted to urban uses 

such as military, commercial and residential development, and public facilities and infrastructure. Fresh 

water and sediment that were formerly delivered to San Diego Bay by several rivers and creeks are now 

almost completely impounded by dams and have been replaced by storm water flows. 

While San Diego Bay’s habitat losses are similar to those of other bays, this complicates an assessment of 

impacts due to local causes versus regional or more distant causes. Native wildlife that are increasing in 

number, include the more generalist species and those tolerant of human disturbance such as the western 

gull (Larus occidentalis), common raven (Corvus corax clarionensis), and American crow (Corvus 

brachyrhynchos hesperis). Shrinking habitat locally, regionally, and along the entire Pacific Flyway is 

probably the most important issue to survival of many birds dependent on San Diego Bay (e.g. Brown et 

al. 2001, Shuford and Gardali 2008). 

3.7.1.3 Region of Influence 

The marine ROI can be partitioned into three zones: 1) the bayside training zones within the San Diego 

Bay (sandy beaches, mudflats, and the nearshore environment); 2) portions of the intertidal to nearshore 

(<0.5 nautical miles [nm]) ocean area off the southern beaches of Naval Air Station, North Island 

(NASNI); and 3) the intertidal to nearshore (<3 nm) ocean area encompassing the training lanes at SSTC-
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-3

N and SSTC-S, and ocean anchorages. The marine ROI encompasses an array of habitat types controlled 

to various degrees by bathymetry, hydrology, temperature, salinity, and substrate type (Section 3.4 Water 

Quality and 3.7.1.3.1 Marine Geology). The influence of these factors results in habitat partitioning into 

distinct environments that contain species indicative of those environments (Figure 3.7-1). The 

interaction of physical bottom substrate and the overlying water column, in conjunction with the mixing 

of bay and ocean waters, is complex considering tidal fluctuation, freshwater input, and circulation 

(Figure 3.7.2). 

SOURCE: Adapted from DON/POSD 2000 

1

 Lower limit of salt marsh is defined by lower limit of cordgrass (Spartina foliosa). These tidal elevations are 

estimated based on salt marshes neighboring those of the San Diego Bay. This is as low as +2.3 ft (0.7 m) MLLW 

in Mission Bay (Levin et al. unpubl. data). In Tijuana Estuary and Anaheim Bay, lower limits range from +3.5 to 

+5.25 ft (+1.1 to +1.6 m) MLLW (Zedler et al. 1992; Massay and Zembal 1979). 

2

 Mudflat zone derived from lower limit of cordgrass to upper limit of eelgrass (0.0). 

3

 In the San Diego Bay, depth of eelgrass varies with regions as follows: south San Diego Bay 0.0 to –7 ft (0.0 to –2 

m) MLLW; Central Bay 0.0 to –8 ft (0.0 to –2.4 m) MLLW; North Bay 0.0 to –13 ft (0.0 to –4 m) MLLW. Near the 

mouth in North Bay, there is a different form (wider blades) that extends down to –18 to –24 ft (–5.5 to –7.3 m).

Figure 3.7-1: Habitat Defined by Tidal Elevation 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-4

Figure 3.7-2: Ocean and San Diego Bay Bathymetry in the Vicinity of the ROI 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-5

3.7.1.3.1 Marine Habitats Overview 

Marine habitats vary by depth (bathymetry), tidal inundation, bottom substrate, and whether they are 

vegetated or unvegetated. There are other factors that define habitat condition, but these are the 

fundamental variables by which mapping has taken place in the ROI. Figure 3.7-3 provides an overview 

of marine habitats based on vegetation and substrate. 

San Diego Bay Habitats 

Figure 3.7-3 depicts current ROI vegetation and substrate data, and Figure 3.7-4 shows the habitat areas 

broken down with depth categories added, focusing on the bayside training areas. The acreages shown in 

these figures are reported in Table 3.7-1, which lists the total acreage of submerged habitat types in San 

Diego Bay. Table 3.7-2 lists the acreages within the SSTC training area, and the proportion of these 

habitats in the SSTC compared to the entire San Diego Bay. 

Intertidal Zone 

Intertidal areas in the ROI are adjacent to the dry shore, between the high and low tide line, and are 

subject to varying degrees of tidal submergence. There are several subareas of intertidal habitat based on 

the influence of tides described in the sections that follow. The intertidal zone is a highly dynamic area 

because of its variable exposure to air. Plant and wildlife species must adapt to extremes in temperature 

and dehydration, as well as salinity stress. 

Southern Coastal Salt Marsh

Southern coastal salt marsh is a higher-elevation intertidal community, characterized and caused by ocean 

flooding of low-lying areas at high tide. The tide is the most important source of water, nutrients, and 

oxygen to the salt marsh due to the semiarid climate of the ROI and low annual rainfall (MacDonald et al. 

1990). The level of salinity in the water at any point in the salt marsh is directly related to its distance 

from the ocean, with areas further from the ocean having lower concentrations of salt. Organisms in the 

salt marsh position themselves according to their level of salt tolerance. Typically high in productivity, 

salt marshes are important nurseries for many species of marine fish, feeding grounds for birds, and home 

to a wide variety of invertebrates. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-6

Figure 3.7-3: Current ROI Vegetation and Substrate Data 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-7

Figure 3.7-4: Habitat Areas in Bayside Training Areas Broken Down by Depth Category and 

Whether They Are Vegetated or Unvegetated 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-8

Table 3.7-1: Total Acres of Submerged Habitat Types within San Diego Bay Based on Bathymetry 

Depth Habitat Type Area 

Acres 

(> +2.0 feet) Salt Marsh 823 

(+2 feet to -2 feet) Intertidal (excluding salt marsh) 1,802 

(> +2.0 feet) Salt Ponds 1,608 

(-2 feet to -12 feet) Shallow 4,799 

(-12 feet to -20 feet) Moderately Deep 2,219 

(< -20 feet) Deep 4,443 

Total 15,694 acres 

Source: Navy-Port eelgrass mapping as surveyed in 2004, and U.S. Navy bathymetry data as surveyed 

1994 by Scientific Services 

Table 3.7-2: Area of Submerged Habitat Types Contained within All San Diego Bay ROI Training 

Areas, and the Proportion (percent) in the SSTC Compared to All San Diego Bay. 

Habitat Depth Area 

Acres 

Percent of San Diego 

Bay 

Intertidal (+2 feet to -2 feet) 32.37 2 

Shallow (-2 feet to -12 feet) 846.16 18 

Moderately Deep (-12 feet to -20 feet) 982.73 44 

Deep (< -20 feet) 22.27 0.5 

Source: Navy-Port eelgrass mapping as surveyed in 2004, and U.S. Navy bathymetry data as surveyed 

1994 by Scientific Services 

Note: Approximately 30 acres of open water are owned in fee by the Navy in the ROI (Table 3.11-1). 

The pickleweed subtype of salt marsh occurs along the northeast boundary of SSTC-S east of SR-75, at 

the YMCA Camp Surf, and east of the Wullenweber antennae in the central portion of SSTC. Near San 

Diego Bay the dominant species are pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), 

saltwort (Batis maritima), woolly seablite (Suaeda taxifolia), and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). Internal to 

SSTC-S, none of the salt marsh is currently subject to tidal influence. The remnant marsh is now isolated 

from San Diego Bay by roads and salt ponds. The pickleweed series internal to SSTC-S is dominated by 

alkali heath, saltgrass, glasswort (Salicornia subterminalis), and open salt flat areas. 

Marine organisms use the areas of salt marsh still exposed to the tide when the tide is in, taking advantage 

of the abundant food resources. Topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), arrow goby (Clevelandia ios), California 

killifish (Fundulus parvipinnis), and longjaw mudsucker (Gillichthys mirabilis) are all expected in salt 

marshes, due to their prevalence at the Sweetwater Marsh (Johnson 1999). Young round stingray 

(Urobatus halleri) and California halibut also are expected. Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), gadwall (A. 

strapera), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), American 

avocet (Recurvirostra americana), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), and Belding’s savannah 

sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) are found, and nest, higher in the marsh (Unitt 2004). The 

community is also rich in benthic invertebrates (Jacobs 1997). Marsh areas that are no longer exposed to 

tidal cycles, such as the interior of SSTC-S, are still used by raptors, songbirds, mammals, and other 

nonaquatic fauna. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-9

Intertidal Flats

Intertidal flats of San Diego Bay include mudflats, sand flats, and salt flats. They occur between the 

highest-high and lowest-low tide zones, or otherwise between the lowest cordgrass (beginning of the salt 

marsh) and highest eelgrass, approximately +3 to 0 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) in San Diego 

Bay. This zone normally lacks vegetation. The most extensive intertidal flats in or adjoining SSTC-N and 

SSTC-S are along the northern shore of the salt ponds, north of the northernmost levee continuing along 

the bayside boundary of SSTC-S, and off the shore of Delta beaches. Narrow intertidal flats also occur 

along the margins of tidal channels of the salt marshes of south San Diego Bay such as at SSTC-S and the 

Delta beaches, and these may be used as feeding areas by the light footed clapper rail and Belding’s 

savannah sparrow. Mudflats have been replaced by fill, concrete bulkheads, and a variety of other 

stabilization structures in the north San Diego Bay and the eastern shoreline of the central San Diego Bay 

to provide for recreational, commercial, industrial, and military uses. A well-developed mudflat is 

anaerobic and stable due to a lack of significant wave action. 

When the tide comes in, numerous fish, sharks, and rays move in to forage in the flats. While most 

mudflat fish are tidal visitors, and some remain at low tide in shallow drainage channels, a short list of 

species are full-time residents. These are species that can live in the burrows of marine invertebrates 

(Moyle and Cech 1982). Other fish are seasonal visitors during juvenile life stages: California halibut, 

California halfbeak (Hyporhamphus rosae), and striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) (Johnson 1999). 

Studies on tidal flats elsewhere have demonstrated that it is frequently only the juvenile decapod 

crustaceans such as shrimp, as well as demersal fish that forage on tidal flats while the adults and pelagic 

larvae stay offshore. The tidal flats function as nurseries for the resident juveniles and the subadults, 

which migrate to the subtidal area to avoid low tide conditions on the flats. While relatively constant 

salinities and temperatures in offshore waters benefit larval development, these larvae eventually drift 

onto tidal flats so that the juvenile stages of these fish may take advantage of high temperatures, abundant 

food, and the absence of large predators (Reise 1985). 

When the tide recedes, biodiversity in the mudflat becomes much more visible to even the casual 

observer. Shorebirds congregate sometimes by the thousands to consume invertebrate prey. Each species 

specializes in a certain zone, evident by the length of its bill and feeding behaviors that help access the 

different lifestyles and niches of mud-dwelling species. In the flats that adjoin the salt ponds of south San 

Diego Bay, the USFWS made 50,000 bird observations of 67 species, primarily seabirds and shorebirds, 

during year-long, weekly surveys in 1993-1994 (USFWS 1995). More recent year-long monthly 

shorebird surveys in 2006-2007, in this same area, observed 46,176 total birds including 95 species 

(Tierra Data 2008). 

Sand flats and beaches remain aerobic and typically experience more turbulence from waves, preventing 

development of permanent burrows. Sandy beaches are more strongly zoned than mudflats (Castro and 

Huber 1997), because they tend to have a steeper gradient topographically and because coarse grain sizes 

allow for more rapid and differential drying. The upper beach is drier than the lower beach because water 

drains away from the upper beach more rapidly. Beach hoppers, sand fleas and isopods may be expected 

there. On the lower beach, polychaetes, clams, and other animals predominate. 

Artificial Hard Substrate

San Diego Bay presently has 45.4 miles of armored shoreline (where man-made, hard structures are used 

to protect developed sites along San Diego Bay) out of 64.4 total miles of shoreline, or 74 percent of the 

shoreline. There are also 131 acres of surface structures shading San Diego Bay waters, in both intertidal 

and subtidal habitats. Protection is needed because unprotected shoreline sites will erode when exposed to 

tidal fluctuation, storm waves, storm surges, and surface runoff. Pier pilings, bulkheads, rock riprap, 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-10

floating docks, sea walls, mooring systems, and derelict ships/ship parts form this extensive artificial 

habitat (i.e., armored shoreline, artificial hard substrate). Artificial hard shoreline occurs along the 

northernmost bayside areas and along a small area bayside in the northern part of the SSTC-S. These hard 

structures are used to protect developed sites along the shore and these armored substrates have become 

habitats for many forms of marine life, including native and nonnative lobster, crabs, worms, mussels, and 

starfish. These areas may also provide refuge and feeding areas for certain juvenile and predator fish, such 

as perches, basses, dogfish, opaleye, and croaker. A hardened shoreline typically produces a very steep 

shore profile that can provide elevated roosting sites for San Diego Bay waterbirds to conserve energy 

and avoid harsh weather conditions (Ogden 1995). However, these structures with very steep slopes or 

riprap in which the niches have been filled with concrete provide very poor quality habitat. Different 

types of artificial hard substrate will support different abundances and types of marine organisms. The 

surface roughness and complexity of a structure can affect its ability to provide refuge niches and allow 

retention of water at low tides. Seawalls provide the poorest habitat for marine species, as their relatively 

smooth surfaces and vertical angles reduce suitable areas for attachment. 

Salt Pond 

Salt ponds are large, persistent, saline impoundments of estuarine, ocean, and San Diego Bay water that 

are currently, or have been, managed primarily for salt production. A portion of the salt pond complex is 

owned by the Navy at the northeast corner of SSTC-S, and it is managed in cooperation with USFWS – 

Refuges. This area is rich in shorebirds due to the abundance of invertebrate forage, and is also used by 

nesting seabirds (on the dikes). Gulls, terns, black skimmers (Rynchops niger niger), and pelicans, 

including the California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), use the dikes for evening 

roosts. Dikes separating the ponds support significant nesting colonies of western snowy plover 

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), Belding’s savannah sparrow, black-necked stilt (Himantopus 

mexicanus mexicanus), black skimmer, and Caspian, Forster’s, gull-billed, royal, and California least 

terns (Sterna sp.). One of only two nesting colonies of elegant terns (Sterna elegans) in the United States 

can be found at the salt ponds. 

Shallow Subtidal 

Continually submerged, these shallow habitats extend from the low tide zone (-2.2 to -12 feet MLLW) 

and can either be vegetated or unvegetated. Shallow soft-bottom areas, with their associated fauna and 

flora, were the primary subtidal habitat in San Diego Bay prior to its development. The shallow subtidal 

habitat can be found across 3,734 acres (28 percent) of the south San Diego Bay, portions of south-central 

San Diego Bay, and narrow strips along the shoreline of north and north-central San Diego Bay. This 

habitat makes up about half of the in-water bayside training areas of SSTC-N, and connects with the 

northeastern tip bayside in SSTC-S. Sediment grain sizes tend to be very coarse (0 to 5 percent fines) to 

coarse (5 to 25 percent fines). The abundance and biomass of organisms is much higher in shallow 

waters, including invertebrates (Ranasinghe et al. 2007), fish (Allen 1999, Pondella et al. 2006) and bird 

abundance and diversity (Ogden 1994, USFWS 1995, Tierra Data 2008). Shallow waters support many 

thousands of resident and migratory birds every year for foraging and resting. The bird groups that appear 

to use these areas preferentially are bottom-feeding divers such as surf scoter and scaup (Aythya affinis

and A. marila nearctica), dabbling brant, plunge divers such as terns, and the surface-foraging black 

skimmer (Ogden 1994, USFWS 1994). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-11

Unvegetated Shallow Soft Bottom

Soft bottoms of unconsolidated sediment are unstable and shift in response to tides, wind, waves, 

currents, human activity, or biological activity such as bottom fish feeding, or bat rays (Myliobatis 

californica) excavating pits to reach buried clams. Few plants and animals have adapted to this 

instability—eelgrass is one of the few. Because animals and plants lack attachment sites in this 

environment, they must burrow into the substrate to prevent from being washed away by currents, and so 

are called “infauna.” Competition for space is ameliorated partly by organisms occupying various depths 

within the substrate. Invertebrates such as sponges, gastropod mollusks, and some larger crustaceans and 

tunicates live on the surface. 

An important structural component of unvegetated shallows is the presence of extensive masses or mats 

of living algal material interspersed with areas of exposed sediment that may extend into the intertidal 

zone (Ford 1968, Ford and Chambers 1974). The dense, heavily branched red alga (Gracilaria verrucosa) 

forms the bulk of this mat, which also includes other red algae (i.e., Hypnea valentiae and Griffithsia 

pacifica). Some of these mats are loosely anchored in the sediment, while others drift just above the 

bottom. Mats can be one to two feet thick during the warmest months of the year. Underwater 

observations indicate that these algal mats are an important microhabitat feature, because they provide 

cover or refuge from predators for many species of motile invertebrates and fish, much like marsh 

vegetation does for birds. The algae also appear to serve as a food source for some invertebrates. The 

living plant material and detritus constitute a primary food source for California killifish and other fish, 

crabs, isopods, gastropod mollusks, and some aquatic birds (MacDonald et al. 1990). 

Unvegetated shallows support species assemblages of benthic invertebrates and demersal fish that are 

distinct from vegetated shallows (Kramer 1990, Takahashi 1992a, Allen 1997). Many of these 

invertebrates serve as food sources for the demersal fish that are restricted to or occur primarily in these 

unvegetated shallow areas of soft sediment. An example is the California halibut, a flatfish species of 

commercial and recreational value. The small juvenile halibut is restricted primarily to unvegetated 

shallows of unconsolidated sediment in bays and estuaries (Allen 1982, Kramer 1990), where they feed 

on invertebrate fauna (Drawbridge 1990). Unvegetated shallows therefore provide a key nursery for 

halibut. 

Vegetated Shallow Soft Bottom

Eelgrass (Zostera marina), a native marine angiopserm, provides a key benthic habitat in San Diego Bay. 

Eelgrass habitats rank among the most productive habitats in the ocean (Nybakken 1997). As has 

occurred in bays and estuaries all along the Pacific coast and elsewhere in the world, eelgrass beds in San 

Diego Bay have suffered substantial loss due to their location in sheltered waters where human activity is 

concentrated. They are currently located in patches along the bayside shore of SSTC-N and SSTC-S 

(Figure 3.7-5). In San Diego Bay, these beds extend from 0 feet MLLW to depths of approximately -23 

feet MLLW, depending on levels of light and water turbidity. In south San Diego Bay the range is from 0 

to -7 feet MLLW, central San Diego Bay zero to -10 feet MLLW, and north San Diego Bay 0 to -13 feet 

MLLW. Near the mouth in north San Diego Bay, a different variant of eelgrass (wider blades) grows 

from -16 to -23 feet MLLW (Hoffman 2001). Table 3.7-3 presents the acreages of eelgrass present in 

Navy bayside training lanes. Two hundred and forty-eight acres of eelgrass are present with all the 

bayside training lanes representing approximately 13% of the total bayside training area. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-12

Figure 3.7-5: Distribution of Eelgrass in and Around the SSTC ROI in Three Separate Survey Years 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-13

Table 3.7-3: Eelgrass Areas of the SSTC ROI and Individual San Diego Bay Training Areas 

Bayside Training 

Area 

Square 

Kilometers Acres 

Alpha 0.0200 4.94 

Bravo 0.0465 11.5 

Charlie 0.0402 9.94 

Delta-I 0.0907 22.4 

Delta-II 0.1139 28.1 

Delta-III 0.2065 51.0 

Echo 0.0209 5.17 

Foxtrot 0.3505 86.6 

Golf 0.0878 21.7 

Hotel 0.0273 6.73 

Total 1.004 248 

Source: Data from 2004 baywide eelgrass survey performed by Merkel & 

Associates using eelgrass cover of 25 percent or greater. 

Eelgrass beds are an important component of the San Diego Bay food web. Much of its productivity 

enters the food web as detritus or decayed material consumed by invertebrates. Fishes and invertebrates, 

such as juvenile lobster, use eelgrass beds to escape from predators, as a food source, and as a nursery. 

Fish documented to use eelgrass beds include topsmelt, guitarfish, diamond turbot, bat ray, dwarf perch, 

arrow goby, jack mackerel, pipefish, Pacific sardine, striped mullet, and walleye surfperch (Department of 

the Navy [DoN] 2000). The plants provide surfaces for egg attachment and sheltered locations for 

juveniles to hide and feed. Fish produced from these beds are consumed by fish-eating birds, including 

the endangered California least tern. Waterfowl, especially surf scoter, scaup, and brant are present in 

high numbers in late fall and winter in eelgrass beds. 

Eelgrass beds are the most productive areas on the soft bottom. Roots and rhizomes help stabilize the 

unconsolidated substrate by forming an interlocking matrix that inhibits erosion. The plants themselves 

keep water clearer by trapping fine sediments and preventing their resuspension (Takahashi 1992b). 

Leaves cut down wave action and currents; the resulting decrease in turbulence causes more fine sediment 

to be deposited. Abundant algae and invertebrates that grow on the leaf blades provide primary and 

secondary productivity for consumption by larval and juvenile fish. Sediments within eelgrass beds are 

loaded with detrital leaves, rhizomes, and nutrients that fuel infaunal invertebrates. When epibenthic 

invertebrate abundances are low, this indicates impaired food chain support functions (Rutherford 1989). 

Moderately Deep Subtidal 

Moderately deep subtidal habitat, defined as water depth ranging from -12 to -20 feet MLLW, covers 

approximately 2,219 acres or 17 percent of San Diego Bay, and occurs primarily off the coast of SSTC-N 

and in inlets of north San Diego Bay. Of this, 887 acres or 44 percent is in the ROI. Moderately deep 

subtidal is by far the majority of San Diego Bay marine habitat in the ROI. It extends from the 

approximate lower depth of most eelgrass beds to the approximate edge of the shipping channel. It 

represents areas that generally have been dredged in the past, but are not maintained as navigational 

channels. The most recent dredging record at these depths off of SSTC-N occurred from 1941 to 1945, 

and sediments vary widely in this region, from 5 to 95 percent fines. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-14

The moderately deep south San Diego Bay region is dominated by round stingray, spotted sand bass 

(Paralabrax maculatofasciatus), California halibut, slough anchovy, and barred sand bass (P. nebulifer) 

(Allen 1998, Pondella et al. 2006). Moderately deep water is used in higher numbers, compared to other 

San Diego Bay locations, for resting by bottom feeding diving birds, especially rafting surf scoter, scaup, 

bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), and plunge divers, such as terns and brown pelicans (Ogden 1995, 

USFWS 1995). The federally endangered California least tern and brown pelican forage in these areas. 

While these depths generally do not support eelgrass in this part of San Diego Bay, the substrate may be 

covered with turf algae or marine invertebrates such as sea pens. Sea pens are colonial marine cnidarians 

belonging to the order Pennatulacea. 

Deep Subtidal 

Deep subtidal habitat includes the surface water, water column, and sediments for areas greater than -20 

feet MLLW. It is associated primarily with navigational channels. Except for a few areas in north San 

Diego Bay that have no dredging record, all deep subtidal habitat has been dredged since the 1940s; most 

was dredged in the 1960s or more recently. Since very little of this habitat occurs in the ROI, it is not 

discussed further. 

Habitats of the Nearshore Ocean and Surf Zone 

This habitat includes the area offshore, or the oceanside of SSTC-N and SSTC-S, and includes the marine 

waters off of the sandy beaches of NASNI, SSTC-N (the yellow through orange boat lanes), and SSTC-S 

(including the white and purple boat lanes). Also included are the ocean anchorages that partially overlap 

the SSTC-N ocean boat lanes. 

Habitats on the oceanside of the SSTC can be described by a combination of depth, substrate, and wave 

energy. The nearshore area is primarily soft bottom, and spans from exposed sandy beaches to the water 

column above the inner shelf. The coastal nearshore areas are classified as surf zone and coastal pelagic 

zone up to 100 miles westward as described by Allen et al. (2006) and others. The high-energy surf zone 

and shallow (< 98 feet MLLW) areas dominated by sand and low-lying (<7 feet MLLW) rocky reef and 

cobble are typical of much of the southern California coastline, and are illustrated in Figure 3.7-6. 

Utilizing the habitat classification system developed for SANDAG and California Coastal Conservancy 

(Merkel & Associates, Inc. et al. 2002), the majority of the area is described as a Subtidal/Soft 

Bottom/Sand ecotype, with a low to moderate energy ecotype modifier, due to seasonal variability with 

respect to wave energy. 

The offshore area also includes portions classified as Subtidal/Hard Bottom/Cobble/Understory algae and 

adjacent habitat within the ROI as Subtidal/Hard Bottom/Boulder/Rock Reef/Kelp Bed ecotypes (the 

latter associated with Point Loma). The algal communities such as kelp beds add structure in shallow 

water, fostering a richer species assemblage. The basic habitat data for nearshore ocean areas is provided 

by the San Diego Nearshore Program, as reported from surveys in 2002. Figure 3.7-6 and Figure 3.7-7 

show the habitat of the nearshore area in the northern and southern portions of the ROI, respectively. 

Tables 3.7-4 and 3.7-5 quantify the corresponding habitat areas. This program uses a habitat classification 

system that integrates elements from a number of previously created classification systems, including the 

Marine and Estuarine Ecosystem and Habitat Classification developed by National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Allee et al. 2000). The Nearshore Program is a cooperative effort 

of the NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG), USFWS, and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), among others. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-15

Figure 3.7-6: Nearshore Vegetation and Substrate Data for the Northern Boat Lanes 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-16

Figure 3.7-7: Nearshore Vegetation and Substrate Data for the Southern Boat Lanes 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-17

Table 3.7-4: Substrate Type Contained within Oceanside SSTC ROI Boat Training Lanes and 

Anchorages (see associated Figures 3.7-6 and 3.7-7). 

Training Area Substrate Type Square 

Kilometers Acres 

SSTC-N Oceanside 

Lanes 

Sand 16.0 3,956 

Cobble 1.72 424 

Boulder 0 0 

Total 17.7 4,379 

SSTC-S Oceanside 

Lanes 

Sand 8.34 2,062 

Cobble 0.44 108 

Boulder 0 0 

Total 8.78 2,170 

Note: Substrate data provided by San Diego Nearshore Program – 2002 

Table 3.7-5: Area of Vegetated Substrate Contained within Oceanside SSTC ROI Boat Training 

Lanes and Anchorages (see associated Figures 3.7-6 and 3.7-7). 

Operational Area Vegetation Type 

Square 

Kilometers Acres 

SSTC-N Oceanside 

Lanes 

Surfgrass/Eelgrass 0 0 

Understory Algae 0.013 3.26 

Kelp/Macroalgae 0 0 

SSTC-S Oceanside 

Lanes 

Surfgrass/Eelgrass 0 0.00 

Understory Algae 0.42 103 

Kelp/Macroalgae 0 0 

Note: Vegetated substrate data provided by San Diego Nearshore Program - 2002 

The area near SSTC-N has a southwest exposure, while the SSTC-S and Imperial Beach area, just four 

miles to the south, has a west exposure. A survey conducted that encompassed portions of the area 

containing existing U.S. Navy anchorages and boat lanes on the oceanside of the Silver Strand confirmed 

that SSTC-N is composed of nearly 100 percent sand (Tierra Data Inc. 2006). Anomalies in the sonar 

transects in several areas were found to be sand ridges or waves composed of primarily coarse sand and 

shell fragments; this is indicative of areas of focused wave energy from wave refraction. The northern 

area is classified as having low to moderate wave energy due to its seasonal variability with respect to 

wave energy. 

Towards SSTC-S and Imperial Beach, substrate type and relief were more variable. While the bottom 

contained primarily sand (90 percent), similar to offshore of SSTC-N, video imagery displayed a 

physically disturbed site where sand movement and large storms scour the bottom on a seasonal basis. 

This scoured area continues offshore at least 3,281 feet. Substrate and associated communities fluctuated 

frequently, without relation to depth, and contained hard bottom with boulders, rock reef, kelp bed 

habitat, and cobbly understory algae habitat subtype. This area is considered to be high energy for waves 

and unstable. 

The proportion of hard substrate habitat at any given time relates to the amount of sand in the littoral cell 

and relief height. These substrate qualities include relief height (low, high), texture (smooth, pitted, 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-18

cracked), size, and composition (sandstone, mudstone, basalt, granite). Substrates that are of higher relief, 

greater texture, and greater size generally have the richest assemblages of marine species. Cobbles, which 

roll and move about within the wash zone can prevent marine life from establishing. Rocks and reefs of 

low height are subjected to seasonal burial and uncovering associated with the onshore and offshore 

migration of sand. Such low-lying substrate tends to contain less biodiversity and be dominated by 

opportunistic annual turf vegetation or sand-tolerant species. The boulder and cobble areas observed off 

SSTC-N and SSTC-S have low to moderate densities of attached algae including various red algae, giant 

kelp (Macrocsytis pyrifera), and encrusted coralline algae. 

Moving further offshore to depths where seasonal sand movement is less, hard substrates do not need to 

have as high a relief to support perennial species. Kelp beds are an important habitat associated with 

offshore reefs; however, kelp beds observed in the ROI are ephemeral and not persistent. Giant kelp is 

one of the first species to be eliminated in physically stressed habitats (wave or sand scour). El Niño 

conditions, which result in higher than average temperatures and low nutrients, have been linked to 

periodic and widespread reductions in kelp canopy. The kelp community, dominated by giant kelp, ranges 

from water depths of about -20 to -120 feet MLLW It is a unique habitat that provides food, shelter, 

substrate, and nursery areas for many species of fish and invertebrates. 

An important function of the nearshore environment is the transport of plankton into and out of San Diego 

Bay for coastal species that depend on access to the warm, sheltered, shallow waters during early life 

cycle stages. Within the water column are microscopic species of phytoplankton and zooplankton, 

including the larvae of many fish and crustaceans. The movement and distribution of plankton is 

completely dependent on currents and tides. Phytoplankton are an important primary producer in all areas 

of the ROI Feeding on phytoplankton and with a potentially completely different seasonal cycle are 

zooplankton, including abundant meroplankton or “temporary plankton,” the larval forms of invertebrates 

that later settle to the bottom and become benthic juveniles and adults. These forms occur together with 

species called holoplankton, which are zooplankton that spend their entire lives in the open water 

environment in planktonic form. The density and diversity of holoplankton are greater in the nearshore 

ocean and north San Diego Bay, which is closer to coastal ocean water (Ford 1968). Some zooplankton 

migrate vertically through the water column from day to night, as well as horizontally with tidal 

movement. 

Because of their importance and distinctive mode of life, planktonic larvae of fish are considered a 

separate category of plankton called ichthyoplankton. The California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries 

Investigations (CalCOFI) unit has conducted standardized ichthyoplankton surveys, primarily offshore of 

California and Baja California, since 1951. Survey methods and results are described by Moser et al. 

(1993). Geographic Information System maps of egg and larval distributions of managed species have 

been developed from data collected during these surveys (NMFS 1998 and 2003). 

3.7.1.3.2 Marine Plants and Invertebrate Community Overview 

This section describes the marine plant (including marine algae) and invertebrate communities as a 

resource in the nearshore and offshore areas of the SSTC, and portions of the ROI in San Diego Bay, for 

the purpose of comparing the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and the alternatives. 

This includes the water and physical substrate in the benthic environment that support plankton, algae, 

plants, and invertebrates. Representative biological communities comprised of characteristic plant, algae 

and invertebrate species exist within habitats that are typically defined by depth, substrate, temperature 

and tidal exposure. The surf wash line that contains beach wrack left by high tides is considered the 

beginning of terrestrial habitat and is discussed in that section. The intertidal zone on the surf side extends 

to about -6 feet MLLW which is similar to its lowest elevation in mudflats on the San Diego Bay side of 

the SSTC. The intertidal zone also includes artificial structures as habitat, such as piers, docks, and riprap. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-19

Salt marsh plants and vegetation are treated as a terrestrial biological resource in this document. Fisheries 

for macroinvertebrates such as sea urchins and lobsters are briefly described in this section. 

Marine Algal Community 

The ecological contribution and diversity macroalgae (seaweeds) is substantial in San Diego Bay, where 

over 50 species have been documented. They are the principal producers in the ecosystem and provide an 

important food source. Additional structure is also imparted by larger algal species and eelgrass. 

Additionally, an important food resource for zooplankton and filter-feeders is provided by the many algal 

species that reproduce with swimming gametes and zoospores to enhance their dispersal. 

Algal species are found in association with a wide range of habitats. In some cases, these associations are 

strongly tied to physical substrate. Some algae are found on sandy substrate, and many that grow 

subtidally on rocky substrate are also found on hard intertidal surfaces. In other cases, the relationship 

seems to be opportunistic—any or all are commonly found in a given habitat. 

In San Diego Bay, macroalgae belong to three different taxonomic groups or Phyla: Chlorophyta (green 

algae), Phaeophyta (brown algae), and Rhodophyta (red algae). The differences among the phyla 

primarily relate to photosynthetic pigments, certain physiological processes, and reproductive/life history 

characteristics. Macroalgae differ primarily by photosynthetic pigments, physiological processes, and 

reproductive/life history characteristics. 

• Chlorophyta—Nine species of green algae can be found in San Diego Bay: Cladophora sp. 

Ceramium eatonianum, Eryopsis corticulans, Derbesia marina, Chaetomorpha linum, Ulothrix

sp. (woolly hair), Enteromorpha sp., Ulva expansa (sea lettuce), and Ulva tacnista. 

• Phaeophyta—There are 12 native species of brown algae that are consistently found in San Diego 

Bay: Egregia laevigaia, Eisenia arborea, Undaria pinnatifida, Porphyra perforta, Dictyota 

flabellate, Ectocarpus spp., Fucaceae sp., Sargassum agarhianum, Sargassum muticum, 

Sargassum palmeri, Colpomenia sinuosa, Endarachne binghamiae, and Scytosiphon lomentaria. 

• Rhodophyta—The largest group of algae, represented by 25 species, is the red algae: Gigartina 

tepida (turkish towel), Tiffaniella snyderae, Polysiphonia pacifica, and Hypnea valentiae, 

shallow water:Antithamnion sp. and Polysiphonia pacifica, and Aglaothamnion cordatum. Many 

species of red algae are quite small and may be present only cryptically attached to a variety of 

structures or as epiphytes, living atop another plant or algal form. 

Typically found in San Diego Bay’s shallow subtidal areas are the green algae Chaetomorpha linum, 

Cladophora sp., Enteromorpha sp., and Ulva expansa (sea lettuce); the brown algae Sargassum palmeri;

and the red algae Gigartina tepida, Gelidium nudifrons, Gigartina sp., Gracilaria lemaneiformis Hypnea 

valentiae, and Tiffaniella snyderae. 

Mudflat areas may be covered with algae, such as the red algae Sarcodiotheca gaudichaudii and

Antithamnion sp. Toward the uppermost elevations, green algae such as Enteromorpha sp., Cladophora

sp. and Ulva spp. can form extensive mats (Mudie 1970). Burrows and siphon-holes of benthic 

invertebrates, tiny invertebrates that live among the grains of substrate (meiofauna), and algae and detritus 

fill the sediment with hidden activity, and are all necessary to support the food chain and mineral cycles 

of San Diego Bay. Snails, crabs, and polychaete worms (deposit feeders) glean the surface for detrital bits 

and algae. Filter-feeders such as clams, mussels, and small crustacean isopods and amphipods collect 

plankton, algae, and detritus as they wash by when the tide is in. The deposit feeders and filter feeders 

together are extremely efficient processors of the living and dead plankton. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-20

In the salt marsh, the productivity for epibenthic algae underneath the open canopy is high compared to 

salt marshes outside of southern California (Zedler 1992a). Annual productivity of dense algal mats 

beneath the marsh canopy could match or exceed that of vascular plants in local marshes. Rudnicki 

(1986) found the maximum volume of macroalgae where circulation was reduced and where prevailing 

winds moved the floating mats. 

Eelgrass Community 

Eelgrass has an extremely rapid growth rate, high net productivity, and a very high level of biomass 

(McRoy and McMillan 1977). Its importance as habitat is evident from the great diversity of both its 

associated invertebrate and fish faunas (Phillips 1984, Hoffman 1986, Takahashi 1992a). In the course of 

a five-year study (1997-2002) which compared fish abundances at a Navy eelgrass mitigation site in the 

north bay among introduced reef enhancement structures, the eelgrass mitigation planting, an established 

eelgrass site, and Zuniga Jetty, several species of fish were found in eelgrass beds after 44 visits and 1056 

transects sampled (Pondella 2006). These were topsmelt, guitarfish, diamond turbot, bat ray, dwarf perch, 

arrow goby, jack mackerel, pipefish, Pacific sardine, striped mullet, and walleye surfperch. Vantuna 

Research Group (2006) suggested that, baywide, eelgrass provides valuable habitat for several important 

species in San Diego Bay: kelp bass, kelpfish, barred sand bass, and California halibut use eelgrass 

primarily as juveniles, while spotted sand bass and shiner perch are present in eelgrass throughout their 

life cycles. 

Because of its physical structure, eelgrass beds provide microhabitats for a wide variety of invertebrates 

and small fish, primarily by increasing the available substrate surface and by providing effective shelter. 

Phillips (1984) and Takahashi (1992a) reported the following four functional groupings of animals living 

within eelgrass beds in San Diego Bay: 

1. Epifauna living on the eelgrass blades and using them as a substrate for attachment. 

2. Epifauna living on the surface of the sediment, sometimes also moving onto the eelgrass blades. 

3. Infauna living in the sediment of the bed, with some of these moving onto the blades during the 

eelgrass growing season. 

4. Invertebrates and fish living in or above the eelgrass canopy. This last group involves animals 

that move easily in and out of the bed at different times of day or on a seasonal basis. 

The distribution and abundance of eelgrass in San Diego Bay have changed significantly over time, 

declining and improving along with the water quality condition in San Diego Bay (Ford and Chambers 

1974, Lockheed 1979, Hoffman 1986). The density and biomass of eelgrass beds in San Diego Bay and 

elsewhere also vary widely from one season to another (Marsh 1973, Takahashi 1992b). The main factors 

responsible appear to be depth, sediment grain size distribution, nutrients, light levels, temperature, and 

salinity (Phillips and Lewis 1984). Black brant (Branta bernicla nigricans), a goose that uses eelgrass as 

its predominant food, has been an indicator of eelgrass abundance in San Diego Bay since the 1880s. 

Reports of 50,000 to 100,000 brant in Spanish Bight alone (an inlet between Coronado and North Island 

that was filled in 1941) suggest abundant eelgrass beds during that period. In 1941 there were reports of 

the complete loss of all eelgrass, reaching a low point in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Brant abundance 

in 1942 totaled 1,100 individuals for the entire San Diego Bay (USFWS 1995). Since the elimination of 

sewage deposition into San Diego Bay waters in 1963, eelgrass appears to grow naturally or as a result of 

revegetation throughout San Diego Bay wherever it can grow. Shallow subtidal areas that remain 

unvegetated may remain so due to turbidity, high temperature, or unknown reasons. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-21

Marine Invertebrate Community 

This section describes the marine invertebrates of the ROI, primarily epifauna (animals that live upon the 

surface of sediments) and infauna (animals that live buried in the substrate such as in burrows) of 

sediments of the ocean floor. These animals are extremely abundant, especially in San Diego Bay. The 

major intertidal and subtidal habitats of the SSTC together support more than 650 documented species of 

marine, estuarine, and salt marsh invertebrates (DoN 2000). These include marine representatives of all 

the major invertebrate phyla (as well as insects and spiders important as components of the salt marsh 

community). In addition to the large number of invertebrate species and their taxonomic and functional 

diversity, many invertebrate populations are represented in the nearshore ocean environment, and are 

abundant in San Diego Bay. All of these characteristics make them important ecological components of 

SSTC habitats and essential food sources for marine fish, birds, and other invertebrate animals in those 

habitats. 

Organisms that live in the benthos have a patchy distribution due to changes in sediment particle size on 

the floor of San Diego Bay or the ocean and changes to their own reproduction and dispersal mechanisms, 

which have a clumped pattern. Despite this spatial variability, the type and abundance of invertebrates 

present within various regions of San Diego Bay and in nearshore ocean waters of the SSTC remain 

dominated by infaunal invertebrates inhabiting soft-bottom sediments. These include polychaete worms, 

crustaceans, molluscs, and species of oligochaete and nematode worms (Kinnetic Laboratories Inc. 1990). 

The availability of differing substrate types within each subregion shapes the associated invertebrate 

community and in turn the fish assemblages preying upon them. Important regional data on benthic 

invertebrates has been collected continuously since 1951 (CalCOFI) and provides a baseline of 

documented species. San Diego Bay specific surveys have largely been limited to studies investigating for 

development impacts or mitigation studies and lack a comprehensive evaluation of all substrate types and 

values. However, the recent effort at a more comprehensive, region-wide sampling has started to improve 

the availability of data. During the Southern California Bight 1998 Regional Monitoring Project (Bight 

’98, Bay et al. 2000), the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project collected a total of 1,172 

megabenthic invertebrates, representing 43 taxa, in San Diego Bay. The nonindigenous bivalve 

Musculista senhousia was present in more than 70 percent of the samples, making it the most widely 

distributed trawl-caught invertebrate in San Diego 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 50 percent of the total catch. 

Benthic sediments in the nearshore ocean and San Diego Bay were sampled for infaunal invertebrate 

abundance, with results summarized by major taxonomic groups detailed in Table 3.7-6 (Ranasinghe et 

al. 2007). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-22

Table 3.7-6: Infaunal Invertebrate Abundance Sampled during the Bight ’03 Survey 

General 

Location Sampling Station Infaunal Abundance 

Crustaceans Molluscs Polychaetes Other Total 

San Diego 

Bay 

Old San Diego River 

Mouth 3 1 1 1 6 

Convair Lagoon 147 20 528 139 834 

Glorietta Bay 37 158 628 19 842 

Central Bay 306 274 1647 101 2328 

Delta South 148 462 492 183 1285 

Sweetwater Channel 56 83 813 97 1049 

Coronado Cays 49 73 351 340 813 

Ocean 

Nearshore SSTC-S 50 38 78 24 190 

Offshore SSTC-N 47 5 107 7 166 

Offshore Imperial Beach 30 10 76 14 130 

Note: Samples were collected using a 0.1m2 modified Van Veen Grab 

Soft Bottom, Unconsolidated Sediment 

The subtidal bottom of the SSTC consists primarily of unconsolidated sediments. These include various 

grain size mixtures of sand, silt, and clay, depending on the degree of water movement and other 

environmental factors. The silt and clay fractions together are also classified in a more general way as the 

mud fraction. Portions of the ROI shoreline of south San Diego Bay, and along the western shoreline of 

central San Diego Bay, have relatively extensive intertidal areas of unconsolidated sediment forming 

mudflats and sand flats. With some notable exceptions, these relatively natural intertidal flats are absent 

from the remainder of San Diego Bay, where they have been replaced by concrete bulkheads and a wide 

variety of other man-made structures. 

Unconsolidated sediment or soft bottom habitats in the intertidal and subtidal areas of San Diego Bay are 

fairly unstable, and very unstable in the ocean waters. To avoid being carried away, infauna burrow into 

the substrate, as well as use the substrate for food and protection from predators. They can be disturbed 

easily by human activity, wind, waves, tidal currents, and feeding by bottom fish and shorebirds. 

Relatively few species form part of the epifauna, which are invertebrates such as sponges, gastropod 

molluscs, and some larger crustaceans and tunicates that spend all or most of their time on the sediment 

surface. 

Deposit feeders predominate in soft bottom areas with large amounts of mud. In the San Diego Bay 

mudflats, the California horn snail (Cerithidea californica) is characteristic (Thompson et al. 1993). The 

fiddler crab (Uca crenulata) burrows into the mud banks in the high-tidal zone. The mud or yellow shore 

crab (Hemigrapsus oregonesis) is more common and inhabits a wider zone than the fiddler crab. Also 

common are the littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea) and the California jackknife clam (Tagelus 

californianus). These species prefer mud because it contains more bacteria, which is their food. In 

contrast, suspension feeders are more common in soft bottom areas where sandy sediments predominate, 

such as in some areas of central and north San Diego Bay, and in the ocean waters. Bacteria associated 

with the detritus and sediment are believed to be a primary food source of deposit feeders. These 

invertebrates tend to consume muddy sediments in preference to sandy ones because the surface area to 

volume ratio is greater in mud, allowing more bacterial colonization of the grain surfaces. As a result, 

deposit feeding species tend to predominate in soft bottom areas with large amounts of silt and clay, the 

primary sediment type throughout most of San Diego Bay. Another reason for this relationship is that 

more detritus accumulates in the interstitial spaces between fine sediment particles than between those of 

larger grain size. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-23

Some soft bottom invertebrates are so small that they live and move around in the spaces between the 

sediment grains or attach to the grains. These are called the interstitial fauna. They include protozoans, 

nematodes, hydroids, polychaete and oligochaete worms, flatworms, copepods, gastrotrichs, kinorhynchs, 

rotifers, archiannelids, and gnathostomulids. It should be noted that most of these interstitial species do 

not appear in the species list for San Diego Bay or elsewhere; most pass through the 0.02-inch sieves 

normally used to process standard infauna samples. 

Detritus is also considered to be the most important food source for the interstitial fauna, as it is for larger 

infauna and invertebrates. However, many interstitial species are predators or scavengers. Others are 

grazing herbivores that feed on diatoms living in the upper few millimeters of the sediment. 

An unusual animal, a colonial ectoproct or bryozoans called Zoobotryon verticillatum, is present on the 

bottom sediment throughout much of south San Diego Bay, where it forms large, flexible, tree-like 

masses during the warmer months of the year. Some clumps are attached to shell material embedded in 

the sediment or attached to algae, while much of it simply moves around freely on the bottom. Like the 

benthic plants discussed above, it serves as food for a variety of invertebrates and as refuge or cover for 

both motile invertebrates and small fish. It is a suspension feeder. 

Because of their limited coverage, the data currently available are insufficient to characterize the 

numerically dominant species of these major taxonomic groups in central San Diego Bay. The most 

complete, recent species list for infauna of these areas of San Diego Bay is that reported in Table 7 of the 

study by Fairey et al. (1996). However, comparison of the data for infaunal invertebrates reported from 

north and central San Diego Bay by Ford et al. (1975) and Fairey et al. (1996) with those for the south 

San Diego Bay (MacDonald et al. 1990) indicates that there is considerable overlap, with many of the 

same species occurring in all three areas. 

Unvegetated shallows support species assemblages that are distinct from vegetated shallows (Kramer 

1990, Takahashi 1992a, Allen 1997). Many of the invertebrates serve as food sources for the demersal 

fish, such as the small juvenile halibut that are restricted primarily to unvegetated shallows of 

unconsolidated sediment in bays and estuaries (Allen 1982, Kramer 1990). 

Eelgrass Beds 

On the basis of a seasonal study of eelgrass beds in central San Diego Bay, Takahashi (1992b) and 

Takahashi and Ford (1992) reported 117 different species or higher taxa of invertebrates associated with 

this habitat. Polychaete worms were the dominant group during all seasons and at all sampling sites. Of 

these, the two dominant infaunal species were Lumbrineris zonata and Exogone lourei, both considered to 

be deposit feeders. Most of the abundant polychaete species found in eelgrass beds are deposit feeders. 

Takahashi (1992b) found that the other dominant invertebrate groups in San Diego Bay eelgrass beds 

were crustaceans and molluscs. Among crustaceans, the dominant forms were either tube-forming or 

infaunal amphipods. Tanaid crustaceans were more abundant than amphipods only in the January 

samples. The high densities of amphipods in eelgrass beds may occur because of the protection afforded 

by the eelgrass blades. The introduced Asian mussel, Musculista senhousia, was the dominant bivalve 

mollusc at all sites throughout the study. Gastropod mollusc species were also dominant forms. 

Takahashi (1992b) found that, besides a greater number of infaunal species, densities were considerably 

higher in the San Diego Bay eelgrass beds sampled than those values reported for adjacent, unvegetated 

areas of unconsolidated sediment. In addition, the infaunal species composition of these two habitats 

differed very markedly, with consistently greater numbers of polychaete, amphipod, and mollusc species 

present in the eelgrass bed habitat and with relatively few species common to both habitats. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-24

Artificial Structures 

Davis et al. (2002) studied the communities on the riprap lining San Diego Bay to illustrate the role of 

wave exposure in structuring the intertidal communities. On average, riprap and natural rocky habitats in 

wave-exposed environments in southern California did not differ from each other in diversity or 

community composition. Sessile species made up the majority of species recorded, and no differences 

were found in diversity or community structure when they were part of the analyses. Mobile species, 

when considered on their own were more diverse on natural shores, largely driven by a handful of 

molluscan species that were relatively uncommon (Pister 2007). 

A multiseason study was conducted on the concrete and wooden piling structures of the B Street, 

Broadway, and Navy piers during 1972–1973 (Ford et al. 1975). The results of this study showed that 

epifaunal invertebrates and associated algae living on the pilings changed fairly markedly in species 

composition and abundance from one season to the next. Pilings were sampled at a series of intertidal and 

subtidal depths to obtain quantitative data on species composition, abundance, and distribution of marine 

algae, invertebrates, and fish. Sponges, cnidarians (sea anemones, hydroids, and others), bryozoans, 

polychaete worms, crustaceans, molluscs, and tunicates dominated the rich sessile (attached to the bottom 

or a surface) and free-living invertebrate fauna associated with concrete and wooden pier pilings in this 

study area in terms of numbers of species, abundance, surface coverage, and biomass (Ford et al. 1975). 

These same animal groups also appear to be the dominant forms on similar structures elsewhere in San 

Diego Bay. Of the invertebrate species encountered on pier pilings in the study area during the period 

September 1972–August 1973, five (2 percent) were sponges, 24 (8 percent) were cnidarians, seven (2.5 

percent) were bryozoans, 89 (30 percent) were polychaetes, 75 (27 percent) were crustaceans, 65 (23 

percent) were molluscs, and seven (2.5 percent) were tunicates (Ford et al. 1975). With the exception of 

the purple-hinge rock scallop, Crassadoma gigantea, none of these species is of commercial or sport 

fishing importance. 

Nearshore Ocean and Surf Zone 

The nearshore is occupied by species commonly associated with sand and wave action, such as tubebuilding polychaete worms (Diopatra ornate), sand dollar (Dendraster excentricus), and sea pansy 

(Renilla kollikeri). Other sand bottom species include sea pens (Stylatula elongate), the bivalve Tellina 

modesta, and the gastropod Caecum crebricinctum. Key predators in sandy subtidal habitats can include 

armored sea stars (Astropecten spp.), bat rays, round stingrays, leopard sharks (Triakis semifasciata), 

California halibut, and sole (Family Pleuronectidae). 

While most species are those associated with the nearshore coastal pelagic sandy bottom, there are also 

species commonly associated with hard substrate in the boulder and cobble areas of SSTC-S (Tierra Data 

Inc. 2006). Most invertebrates were observed attached to understory fleshy algae and persisted in the form 

of epiphytic bryozoans within the cobble and boulder areas. Cobble areas were interspersed with gravel 

and sand and appeared to have a relatively low biomass of both algae and invertebrates. Several ornate 

tubeworms (Diopatra ornata) were observed as well as shells from various bivalves. 

Macroinvertebrate species commonly associated with the understory algae present off of SSTC-S include 

sea urchins, seastars, and gastropods, although most nearshore phyla are represented. The invertebrate 

communities in the understory algae ecotype are similar to those found in kelp beds. 

The upper intertidal or splash zone is characterized by simple green algae (Chaetomorpha, 

Enteromorpha, Ulva), barnacles (Balanus spp., Cthamalus sp.), limpets (Lottia spp.), and periwinkles 

(Littorina spp.). Coralline algae (Corallina spp.) is expected to be a dominant algae on the sparse, low 

relief rocky substrate in the mid-to-low intertidal zone, typical of other San Diego beaches (SANDAG 

2000). Intertidal substrates less influenced by sand burial and abrasion often support California mussel 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-25

(Mytilus californus), gooseneck barnacle (Pollicipes polymerus), aggregating sea anemones (Anthopleura 

elegantissima), hermit crabs (e.g., Pagurus), a variety of snails (e.g., Lithopoma, Kelletia, Tegula), 

chitons (e.g., Mopalia), and annual species of algae. 

Whereas the density of surface-dwelling (epifaunal) species declines with depth, that of the burrowing 

infauna increases (Barnard 1963), probably because of the greater stability of the sediments (Thompson et 

al. 1993). There also appears to be a shift from infaunal communities dominated by crustaceans (such as 

lobsters, crabs, and shrimp) to communities in which polychaetes (marine worms) are predominant. 

Oliver et al. (1980) ascribed this pattern in Monterey Bay to the effects of substrate disturbance. In San 

Diego County (Dexter 1978; VanBlaricom 1978), amphipod crustaceans dominated infaunal assemblages 

at both shallow (< 26 feet) and moderately deep (56 feet) sites, but the densities of common infaunal 

species were about two orders of magnitude higher at the deep site (Table 3.7-7). Polychaetes dominated 

the infaunal assemblage in samples from sites deeper than about 66 feet (Thompson et al. 1993). 

Table 3.7-7: Relative Abundance of Common Infaunal Invertebrates (<33 feet) 

and a Deeper (56 foot) Site 

Imperial Beach (3-33 feet) La Jolla (56 feet) 

Taxonomic Group Number/m2 Percent of 

Total Number/m2 Percent of Total 

Polychaetes (marine worms) 99 5 2400 16 

Crustaceans 219 56 10900 72 

Molluscs 42 11 1500 10 

Other 34 9 400 3 

Note: The shallow site was off of Imperial Beach (Dexter 1978) and the deeper site was off of La Jolla 

(VanBlaricom 1982), as reported in Thompson et al. (1993). m2

 – square meters

Sport Fishing Species 

Some species of common intertidal and subtidal bivalve molluscs inhabiting south San Diego Bay are 

used as human food, and the area has long been considered good for clam digging. These include the 

banded, smooth, and wavy cockle clams (Chione californiensis, C. fluctifraga, and C. undatella), the 

littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea), the bent-nosed clam, and others (Ford and Chambers 1973). 

However, the size of most individuals of these species appears to be small compared with those in nearby 

clamming areas, such as the San Diego River mouth. The jackknife clam (Tagelus californianus and T. 

subteres), rosy razor clam (Solen rosaceus), and other small bivalves are commonly used as bait for 

fishing. The ghost shrimp is also used as bait. 

On the ocean side, several of the catch blocks reported by CDFG (blocks 860, 877, and 878 using all gear 

types) from 2002-2005 overlap the SSTC activity area. The top four species are shown below in Figure 

3.7-8. Other catches include warty sea cucumber, spider crab, top snail, spot prawn, Kellet’s whelk, 

octopus, and ghost shrimp. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-26

Note: Catch blocks overlap nearshore ocean SSTC activity areas dependent on fishery

Figure 3.7-8: Invertebrate Catch Block Totals for Top Four Invertebrate Species 

Reported by CDFG from 2002-2005 

Invasive Species 

Aquatic invasive species disrupt the balance of natural ecosystems by consuming or competing with 

native plants and animals, altering biogeochemical cycles, and reducing native biodiversity. Invasive 

marine species have arrived in the ROI from all over the world through direct and indirect means, and for 

intentional and unintentional purposes. Invasion risks stem from hull fouling, ballast water exchanges, 

and from aquarium, pet, nursery, aquaculture, and seafood industry trade. The following vectors could 

pertain to the ROI (as identified by CDFG 2006): ships and boats; dry docks, navigation buoys and 

marine floats; floating marine debris, such as floating nets and plastic detritus; recreational boats and 

equipment such as small recreational craft, snorkeling and self-contained underwater breathing apparatus 

(SCUBA) gear, fins, wetsuits, jet skis, and similar materials; restoration projects due to the movement of 

marsh, dune, or seagrasses as well as associated organisms; intracoastal spread by unknown mechanisms; 

and natural migrations to new areas. 

USACE permit projects involving disturbing activities in bay substrates require surveys for Caulerpa

taxifolia, an invasive aquatic alga. The Navy conducts project related surveys within the bay concurrently 

with routine inventories in San Diego Bay, such as monitoring eelgrass transects to evaluate eelgrass 

habitat and confirm the absence of Caulerpa spp.. Native to the Indian ocean and believed to be an 

accidental introduction of the aquarium trade into southern California coastal waters, the alga produces a 

large amount of a single chemical that is toxic to fish and other would-be predators. In areas where the 

species has become well established, it has caused ecological and economic devastation by overgrowing 

and eliminating native seaweeds, seagrasses, reefs, and other communities. This alga is considered a 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-27

substantial threat to marine ecosystems in Southern California, particularly to the extensive eelgrass 

meadows that make coastal waters such a rich and productive environment for fish and birds. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act as “those waters and substrate 

necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” For the purpose of interpreting 

the definition of EFH, “waters” include aquatic areas and the associated physical, chemical, and 

biological properties that are used by fish, and may include historic areas where appropriate; “substrate” 

includes sediment, hard-bottom structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; 

and “necessary” means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and a healthy ecosystem. The 

complete life cycle is included in spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. The coastal waters 

of southern California—up to 3 miles offshore—to 200 nm offshore (i.e., the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone) are designated as EFH for the species listed in the Coastal Species Fishery Management Plans 

(FMP) and the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. 

Under the EFH program, all federal agencies must consult with NMFS on any action or Proposed Action 

that may adversely affect EFH. An adverse effect may include direct (e.g., contamination or direct kills), 

indirect (e.g., loss of prey), site-specific, or habitat-wide impacts. Consultations are conducted in 

conjunction with other federal statutes, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), CWA, or 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). NMFS provides recommendations to minimize, offset, or mitigate 

impacts. Within 30 days the federal agency responds with a description of measures to be taken, or with a 

scientifically sound explanation for not following recommendations. 

It is the policy of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations that temporary or minimal impacts are not 

considered to adversely affect EFH. Temporary impacts are those that are limited in duration and that 

allow the particular environment to recover without measurable impact. Minimal impacts are those that 

may result in small changes to the affected environment and insignificant changes in ecological functions. 

Even minor, localized effects can be adverse when the reduction in the quality and/or quantity of EFH is 

significant. Types or categories of Navy actions may be removed from further consultation requirements 

if NMFS determines that they will likely result in no more than minimal individual or cumulative adverse 

effects individually or cumulatively. The U.S. Navy is currently informally consulting with the NMFS 

regarding potential effects to EFH; and an EFH assessment is concurrently being drafted to establish all 

potential EFH impacts. 

The Navy is in the process of studying EFH throughout San Diego Bay (Merkel, 2008 in prep). The 

purpose of this study is to facilitate the valuation of habitats in the context of the EFH designation with 

special focus on the habitat types most likely to be impacted by Navy activities or to be used in the 

mitigation for potential Navy project impacts. The completion of this project will result in two products: 

1) a broad scale, qualitative assessment of the dominant habitat classifications within San Diego Bay with 

a map and description of those habitats; and 2) a detailed and quantitative description of a smaller set of 

habitats determined to be of greatest concern to the Navy. The habitat characterization is intended not 

only to provide information on the use of habitat by managed fish species, but also to provide information 

on ecosystem function and productivity within the dominant habitats present in the bay. The study will 

better describe and identify EFH locations in order to minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse effects 

on this habitat and to identify actions that may encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH. 

3.7.1.4 Regulatory Requirements 

For projects and federal activities within marine waters key jurisdictions and laws pertain based on 

parameters such as distance from shore, tidal depth, habitat and individual species group. Since the 

location in conjunction with the proposed action can trigger different regulations based on these factors a 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-28

number of laws and regulations may apply. In this section we will discuss Magnuson Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as it pertains to EFH and 

eelgrass and mudflats because other regulatory discussions occur elsewhere in this EIS. Examples are: 

ESA, Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality, Executive Order 

11990 “Protection of Wetlands”, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

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

marine and anadromous fish species. The water areas of SSTC are designated as EFH for two FMPs: the 

Pacific Groundfish and Coastal Pelagics FMP’s (Pacific Fishery Management Council [PFMC] 1998a, 

1998b). EFH that is considered to be particularly important to the long-term productivity of populations 

of one or more managed species, or to be particularly vulnerable to degradation, may also be identified by 

NMFS as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC). Eelgrass beds are considered a HAPC, and are 

located throughout the San Diego Bay. 

Both mudflats and eelgrass beds are considered “Special Aquatic Sites” under Section 404 of the CWA, 

and therefore projects that cause discharge of dredge or fill must be permitted by the USACE. Any type 

of in-water construction that affects substrate, therefore, must be permitted. The USEPA Guidelines under 

the CWA for Special Aquatic Sites, in addition to the broader guidelines, apply a burden of proof 

requirement to demonstrate that no practicable alternatives exist that will meet a project’s purpose. 

Under Section 404 of the CWA mitigation requirements, eelgrass is also managed in compliance with the 

Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, created jointly in 1991 by USFWS, NMFS, and CDFG 

This policy established protocols for mitigating adverse impacts to eelgrass. Project sponsors must follow 

the guidelines of how and when to survey, map, choose a mitigation site, replant, monitor, and establish 

success criteria for the eelgrass. Delays in any of these stages can result in financial penalties. 

Since mudflats are used by many migratory birds, mostly shorebirds, and may be occupied by the 

federally threatened western snowy plover (protected under the ESA), USFWS is often the lead authority 

on activities in mudflats. Both NMFS and CDFG comment on activities in mudflats as they provide 

forage for fish. The California Coastal Commission (CCC) also regulates mudflats under their definition 

of a wetland, which includes a 100-foot buffer on the upland edge (14 California Code of Regulations 

[CCR] 13577). 

Mudflats are also considered a Special Aquatic Site under the CWA. The INRMP gives priority to 

unvegetated mudflats for when restoration opportunities arrive, because it has historically a habitat that 

has been filled or dredged since the late 1800s, such that it is one of the most absent habitats in the bay 

compared to its historic area. The Navy and Port of San Diego have both sought to recover some mudflat 

acreage in various restoration work because of the high priority placed on it in the joint INRMP. The 

Navy succeeded in adding some such acreage when it established Homeport Island in the ROI. 

The Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) training operation has been covered under a Clean Water Act 

Section 404 permit since 1994 at Orange Beach (oceanside), and since 1995 at Bravo Beach (bayside). 

The Navy made a request to the USACE in October 1995 for a modification to their bayside Bravo permit 

due to changes in the number of causeway sections and frequency of the activity, in preparation for an 

October 1995 Bravo ELCAS operation. Letters in 1991 and in 1995 from NMFS expressed concern that 

adverse effects to eelgrass associated with ELCAS were not properly mitigated for. An environmental 

assessment process had begun by then. When the ELCAS permit for Bravo Beach expired again in 

February 1998, a letter requesting permit extension was met with negative comments from the USFWS 

and NMFS because of the delayed NAB Operations and Training EA. This EA was never completed due 

to the increased presence of CLT and western snowy plovers, and eelgrass impact concerns and it was 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-29

suggested (and later confirmed) that the EA should be developed into an EIS. Table 3.7-8 summarizes the 

chronology of CWA-related permits and other agreements associated with Navy impacts to jurisdictional 

waters within the ROI. 

3.7.1.5 Current Management and Mitigation Measures 

3.7.1.5.1 Current Management of Marine Special Aquatic Sites 

Eelgrass is mapped throughout San Diego Bay about every three to five years jointly by the Navy and 

Port of San Diego as part of implementing the San Diego Bay Integrated Natural Resources Management 

Plan (INRMP). Eelgrass transects are monitored on an annual basis by the Navy and Port of San Diego. 

Current Management of Invertebrates as Water and Sediment Quality Indicators 

The Navy participates in the national water quality monitoring program called Mussel Watch. NOAA’s 

National Status and Trends Program Mussel Watch Project (1986-present) monitors bioaccumulation in 

mussels, plus other parameters offshore in south San Diego Bay and intertidal and offshore in north San 

Diego Bay. NOAA also conducts the National Benthic Surveillance Program (1984-present) to examine 

physical, chemical, and biological (diseases and bioaccumulation in fish) parameters in offshore areas of 

central and north San Diego Bay. 

3.7.1.5.2 Current Mitigation Measures 

The sections above describe special aquatic sites, and what the Navy does to monitor their status and to 

comply with state and federal regulations. EFH is further discussed in Section 3.8.1.4. 

Eelgrass is managed in compliance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, created 

jointly in 1991 by USFWS, NMFS, and CDFG, which established protocols for mitigating adverse 

impacts to eelgrass. Project sponsors must follow the guidelines of how and when to survey, map, choose 

a mitigation site, replant, monitor, and meet success criteria for the eelgrass. Delays in any of these stages 

can result in financial penalties. The Navy has established several Navy Eelgrass Mitigation Sites 

(NEMS) to compensate for past impacts and to mitigate future impacts on eelgrass habitat within San 

Diego Bay. Eelgrass that has been planted and not used to compensate for previous losses is banked for 

future use in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Five eelgrass mitigation 

sites contributing to the bank have already been constructed and met the five-year performance standards 

required by NMFS. This mitigation banking agreement between the Navy and NMFS was recently signed 

as the Navy’s Eelgrass Mitigation Bank Management Plan, and establishes a system of management, 

administration, and accounting for the Navy (DoN, 2008). The principal goal of the mitigation bank is to 

establish functional eelgrass habitat qualifying as a special aquatic site, as defined in 40 CFR 230.40-45, 

within San Diego Bay for mitigating impacts associated with projects and operational training needs, and 

to establish credits from surplus habitats for future use. A Mitigation Bank Technical Team, a 

multiagency team, provides technical expertise in and support for implementing the Bank. The team 

includes the Navy as Chair, USACE, USFWS, NMFS, and CDFG. 

Besides the NEMS, the Navy maintains permanent eelgrass monitoring transects in San Diego Bay that 

are monitored every year (Figure 3.7-9) and bay wide mapping of eelgrass density classes is conducted 

every three to five years in a joint Navy-Port of San Diego effort (1994, 1999/2000, 2004, and 2008, the 

most current 2008 data was recently made available (DoN, 2009). This monitoring program allows the 

Navy to track fluctuations in the coverage, extent, and health of eelgrass in San Diego Bay. These data 

provide a valuable long-term perspective that can help identify effects from catastrophic, as well as 

seasonal natural and anthropogenic events. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-30

Table 3.7-8: Chronology of Section 404 (CWA) Permits, Records of Decisions, and Other 

Agreements Related to Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters, Including Eelgrass 

Project Driver of Consultation or Agreement Document and Year 

ELCAS and other training at SSTC-N. 

Permit acquired for ELCAS activities at Orange Beach (oceanside) and 

Bravo Beach (bayside). ELCAS training conducted in September 1991 

resulted in documented loss of 7,800 square feet of eelgrass at Charlie 

Beach. 

USACE Permit 94-20-006-00DZ-ATF 

In-water Construction Orange Beach 

Ocean Side. 1994 

USACE Permit No. 95-20066-DZ 

Bayside ELCAS at Bravo Beach. 1995 

Modification to bayside (Bravo Beach) ELCAS activity permit to 

facilitate Navy ELCAS exercises twice a year with 12 causeway sections. 

Modification to USACE Permit 

95-20066-DZ 1995 

Amendment to allow time extension to 28 February 1999 for temporary 

amphibious training activities and completion of final NEPA 

(environmental assessment) and ESA compliance documents. 

Amendment to Permit 95-20066-DZ 

under 33 CFR 325.6(d) 1998 

Extended Bravo Beach ELCAS training permit for one year. Permit Extension 95-20066-DZ 1998 

Extended completion date under permit from 28 February 1999 to 28 

February 2005. Regular updates since 2005. 

Permit Extension 95-20066-DZ 1999 

Establish eight-acre eelgrass mitigation site to replace 6.7 acres lost at the 

wharf site. An upland area of 14 acres was excavated at Pier Bravo to 

compensate for the loss of 13.4 acres of intertidal and subtidal habitat. 

Nuclear Carrier (CVN) I Environmental 

Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision 1995. USACE Permit 

Create 27 acres of intertidal/subtidal habitat off the south shore of SSTCN using dredge material; establish fish habitat enhancement structures 

within the site; create 4-acre eelgrass mitigation bank south of SSTC-N; 

create 1.5 acres of intertidal habitat by excavating existing uplands on the 

west shore of NAS North Island (near Pier Bravo). 

CVN II Environmental Impact 

Statement and Record of Decision with 

USACE Permit No. 982004900-KMM 

2000 

Navy Eelgrass Mitigation Sites (NEMS) and Eelgrass Mitigation Bank. 

NEMS are preestablished Navy locations for mitigating eelgrass. The 

eelgrass banking agreement is used for mitigation, as appropriate, for 

impacts associated with military construction, maintenance, and 

operational needs, and to establish surplus credits for future use. 

NEMS ongoing 

Banking Agreement signed 2008 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-31

Figure 3.7-9: Permanent Eelgrass Monitoring Transects and 2004 Eelgrass Density Information 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-32

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences 

In order to assess the impact of the Proposed Action on the marine plant and invertebrate resources 

(including algae) in the ROI, training was divided into constituent activities that have the potential to 

impact the environment. These activities occur at a defined frequency, duration, intensity, and location in 

space; therefore, their effect on the environment can be assessed, based on the best available biological 

information. 

There are seven activities addressed in the following analysis: marine surface vessel activities, underwater 

detonations on the sea floor, amphibious activities, and beach activities including fluid transfer, vehicle 

use, concentrated foot traffic, and manual excavations. Information about the location where the activities 

take place as well as their footprint was obtained through interviews with Navy training professionals. 

The types of military activities that could affect marine plants and invertebrates are those that take place 

in the marine environment and are described below. Each of these activities may be found in common 

among multiple training activities (Tables 2-2 and 2-3 in Chapter 2). When the activities are combined, 

they encompass the total effect of the increased frequency of training activities on the environment. 

Certain activities are excluded from analysis because they are not expected to affect marine plants, algae, 

or invertebrates. For example, marine vessels that do not land are excluded, whereas landing craft are 

analyzed because they may scour the bottom of the nearshore or intertidal area as they beach. Marine 

vessels provide support to a host of activities and are subsequently analyzed for effect; however, portions 

of training activities in which interactions between personnel/craft and marine invertebrates and plants are 

anticipated to be extremely infrequent, such as swimming, SCUBA diving, or activities that utilize only 

nonmotorized combat raiding rubber craft (CRRCs), are excluded from individual activity analysis as 

potential impacts from interactions would be minimal to nonexistent (Activities 8, 14, 18, 20, 54-56, 60, 

64, 67, 69-71, 73, 78, Table 2-2). Activities that occur inland at SSTC-S or air activities are not discussed 

in this analysis. Exercises which contain air activities that are excluded from this analysis include 

Activities 4, 6, 7, 16, 25, 26, 29, 30, 35, and 66 (Table 2-2). Training activities that occur exclusively on 

the land portion of SSTC (Activities 15, 17, 19, 31, 36, 43, 47, 48, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63 65, 68, 72, 74, 75, 

76, and N11, Tables 2-2 and 2-3) that are not anticipated to interact with the marine environment are 

excluded from this analysis as they are not expected to impact marine plants or invertebrates that may be 

present adjacent to SSTC beaches or bayside training areas. 

Foot traffic, manual excavations, or raid and reconnaissance activities across the intertidal zone are 

normally excluded from analysis because it is dispersed across a large area with low plant or invertebrate 

density. However, concentrated foot traffic over rock jetties has a higher likelihood of impacting 

invertebrates, so it is discussed here. 

Midwater detonations are excluded because they are very unlikely to affect high numbers of invertebrates; 

in contrast, sea floor detonations are analyzed here where invertebrates are more concentrated compared 

to the water column. Invertebrates in the form of ichthyoplankton are analyzed under Fishes (Section 3.8). 

3.7.2.1 Approach to Analysis 

Each analysis section that follows lists the included activities, with an example accounting how the level 

of activity was calculated or analyzed, such as the number of troops, units, vessels, landing craft, events, 

etc. Following this, the location of the activity and how large a footprint each activity normally requires is 

considered, such as the general location on the water where the activity takes place. The location of the 

activity can determine how it could affect resources that are not evenly dispersed across the environment. 

SSTC-N, SSTC-S, and portions of NASNI all support different resource patterns layered with different 

management strategies. In addition to this, military trainers use the landscape in certain ways to instruct 

trainees for combat. For example, the Silver Strand beaches stretch inland, showing a positive slope, from 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-33

the high tide line to about 20 yards inland, towards a feature called the beach “crest.” This crest is a high 

point on the beach where the slope of the shore changes from positive to neutral (the beach levels out). 

Military trainers use this feature in the design of exercises and activities sometimes stay below this crest 

or can concentrate around or above it. 

Once the activities are analyzed, this information is juxtaposed with the resource of concern. Activities 

under alternatives avoid effects on marine algae, plants, and invertebrates in areas where densities of 

these organisms are the greatest: the salt marsh, mudflat, and salt pond. Effects may be considered where 

activities take place in the subtidal environment, which is primarily soft bottom substrate, and the 

intertidal sandy beaches up to the wrack line (the row of debris that demarks the last high tide). Sandy 

beaches are a stressful environment for plant and invertebrate organisms, which must adapt to extremes of 

temperature, dehydration (dessication), and salinity, as well as the mechanical wash and backwash of 

waves. These extremes are pronounced on sandy shores, and so sandy shores are less biologically diverse 

due to the magnitude of environmental rigor these species have to endure. The invertebrate community of 

the sandy beach may be characterized by short life spans and rapid population turnover. The abundance 

and diversity of fauna of a typical sand flat can also vary by orders of magnitude within and among years 

(Nybakken 1997). Animals with permanent burrows are few, and the composition of fauna is dominated 

by pioneering species. Invertebrate densities increase as wetting and drying of the sand grains becomes 

less extreme, and wave turbulence is reduced at lower tidal elevations. The exception to the relatively 

barren beach environment is the wrack line (the accumulated organic debris left behind as the high tide 

recedes), which provides forage for shorebirds and can function as a precursor to dune formation and 

vegetation establishment on the upper beach (the beach wrack line and higher elevations are addressed 

separately under 3.11 Terrestrial Biological Resources and 3.12 Birds). 

The baseline condition for marine plants and invertebrates is estimated, based on the information 

described under the Affected Environment, in terms of relative abundance of plants, algae, and 

invertebrates. However, while the information is the best available, data on absolute abundance of these 

organisms for San Diego Bay or the nearshore coastal areas of interest are isolated and few. Thus, effects 

on marine plants and invertebrates are expressed in relative terms. 

Disturbance of marine plants and invertebrates or modification of their habitat from activities are 

evaluated based on the area the individual activity encompasses and the value and type of habitat known 

to occur within the specific footprint. The size of the effect is determined by comparing the area of impact 

to habitat availability or scarcity, and whether the impacted resource has a special sensitivity status as 

recognized by governing resource agencies. Effects are also considered larger if the intensity, duration, or 

frequency of the activity is such that the area cannot recolonize to former species abundance levels; the 

loss of habitat or habitat value (based on organism density or relative abundance) is considered permanent 

compared to background variation in these conditions. Training that does not interface with the marine 

environment (air and terrestrial activities) will not be analyzed by individual activity in this analysis and 

will be summarized to have no impacts to marine habitats or communities. 

3.7.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would maintain the baseline level and types of training that occur in the ROI 

as listed in Chapter 2 (Table 2-1); current management measures would also remain unchanged. As 

discussed in the Approach to Analysis, this section focuses on groups of activities that have the potential 

to result in an impact to marine plants or invertebrates. 

3.7.2.2.1 Marine Vessel Activities 

Vessels used in the ROI consist of power-driven surface ships and small craft. Power-driven vessels may 

be either propelled by water jet pump or propeller however the effect of these different forms of 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-34

propulsion on marine plants and invertebrates is assumed to be approximately equivalent. Sailing vessels 

and vessels under oars are excluded from this analysis because they do not affect marine plants or 

invertebrates in the ROI. Power-driven surface craft can be used in entirely water-based activities where 

trainees practice navigation, mock boat attacks, boarding drills, safety monitoring for swimmers, and 

other activities. These water-only boat activities are excluded from analysis because the boats remain in 

deeper water where they do not contact the ocean or San Diego Bay floor, including with their propellers. 

Potential impacts to marine plants and invertebrates from marine vessel activities are focused on activities 

that involve operating or landing within the intertidal environment and have the potential for disturbing 

the underlying substrate that may contain marine plants or organisms at varying densities based on habitat 

conditions. These impacts include churning and excavation of sediment, and potential chopping of 

eelgrass blades and reproductive structures. 

In addition to water-only activities, boats in the ROI may come ashore or beach to deliver trainees or 

equipment to and from shore. This beaching activity has a potential for effect as the boat contacts and 

disturbs the marine plants, algae, or invertebrates in the sediment where it lands. Propeller-driven craft 

impact eelgrass and marine algae beds if they are used in the calmer San Diego Bay waters where these 

organisms grow, especially on lower tides, and if deeper-draft vessels are utilized.. In the following 

breakdown for analysis purposes, the very nearshore and boat beaching activities are divided into small 

and large power-driven vessels. The many take place in the oceanside training lanes, but some also take 

place in the bayside Bravo training area. Both jets and propellers may stir up sediment, and thus result in 

a short-term, temporary increase in turbidity. Turbidity obscures light and thus affects the ability of 

photosynthetic plants and plankton to produce energy from sunlight, and the ability for predatory fish and 

macroinvertebrates to forage. Mudflats and salt marsh areas, which are rich in marine algae and 

invertebrates, are not an entry point chosen by operators of propeller-driven craft, due to the likelihood of 

grounding. 

Small power-driven vessels are used in almost every water-based training activity in the ROI, either as a 

principal element of the training or for support, such as safety and security boats. Under the No Action 

Alternative, training activities involve propeller and jet driven surface craft. Activities occur in both San 

Diego Bay and in the oceanside training lanes, and to varying degrees vessels land on beaches in both 

areas. These vessels include zodiacs, CRRCs, Rigid Hull inflatable Boats (RHIBs), Landing Craft Utility 

(LCUs), Landing Craft Mechanized (LCMs), barge ferries, warping tugs, and Maritime Prepositioned 

Force (MPF) Utility Boats. These vessels come ashore or beach under 21 separate training activities under 

the No Action Alternative. Small vessel beaching takes place primarily in the oceanside training lanes, 

except under Activities 21, 32, 33, and 34 (Table 2-1). The number of vessels uses in each activity varies, 

but on average is four boats per event, with CRRCs and RHIBS being used in the majority of events, as 

detailed in Appendix B. 

The effect of small, power-driven boats on the oceanside beach lanes may be discounted due to the 

dispersed nature of the activity in areas of high-energy surf and expected low abundance of invertebrates. 

While the potential effect is present bayside, it is reduced to small patches of eelgrass, bayside entries at 

low tide, locations of repeated entry, and mechanized craft only when they land ashore, such as from the 

churning of boat propellers in eelgrass beds. Regrowth of eelgrass and associated invertebrate 

colonization occurs quickly when water temperature and clarity are favorable. For example, Pondella 

(2006) assessed the success of an eelgrass mitigation site completed in 1997 at North Island for fishes 

over a five-year period surveyed regularly from September 1997 to September 2002. The newly created 

eelgrass habitat performed at the level of an existing, nearby eelgrass bed in about one year. The overall 

analysis found that the mitigation eelgrass habitat was not significantly different from the reference 

eelgrass habitat in terms of fishes. Eelgrass reestablishes on its own from plant propagules, and 

invertebrates recolonize relatively quickly. Therefore, any effect is considered localized, on the order of a 

very few square feet, and temporary. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-35

Because of their greater size and power, large power-driven vessels have more potential impact on marine 

plants and invertebrates in the ROI. These vessels include MK V Special Operations Craft (SOC), 

LCM/LCUs, and other boats for transporting large number of people or equipment. During certain 

activities these boats get close to shore and can beach. Activities which include beaching of large powerdriven vessels or those in which the vessels get close enough to shore to disturb the substrate or could 

cause an increase in turbidity with propeller or jet disturbance are presented in Chapter 2 (Table 2-1) and 

detailed in Appendix B. The large vessel beaching activities occurring in San Diego Bay that could 

potentially impact eelgrass habitat are limited to a designated training lane on Bravo Beach. 

LCACs are very large marine vessels that approach the shore and potentially beach. They are not driven 

by underwater propellers but ride on the surface of the water on a cushion of air. Under the No Action 

Alternative LCAC (Activity 27, Table 2-1) occurs four times annually. They are scheduled to occur on 

any oceanside beach training area including lanes 1-14 and the Breakers Beach area of NASNI. Its 

footprint includes its physical structure plus the area surrounding it, which is affected by the strong winds 

it produces. An LCAC comes ashore near the crest of the beach. 

The LCAC approaches the sandy beach and disperses sediments and vegetation in its path through wind 

and direct impact. The safety zone for humans around an LCAC is a 100-yard radius, although sand can 

be blown further at times. The density of invertebrates in the sand itself is low compared to muddy or 

vegetated environments. This is due to the coarse grains and highly dynamic and stressful nature of the 

beach environment for many organisms, subject to wind and wave turbulence, salt spray, shifting 

sediment, high temperatures, and desiccation. The effect to vegetation and organisms could be temporary 

or long-term depending on the interval between landings and whether they take place in the same location 

or are dispersed to different lanes. 

The LCAC, like other marine vessels, is potentially a vector via intracoastal dispersal of aquatic invasive 

or nuisance species, with travel between Camp Pendleton and the Silver Strand. This kind of dispersal has 

been recorded in northern California for dispersal among bays by vessels moving along the coast (CDFG 

2006). The possibility of invasive species introduction increases with intracoastal movement of these 

craft, although a majority are stationed locally. As with all invasive species risk, individual activities carry 

an extremely small risk of invasive species introduction. Such risk accumulates with multiple activities 

but the vessels moving up and down the coast represent a small proportion of the total vessels in San 

Diego Bay, and so the increased risk, while present, may be discounted. In addition, the 2009 San Diego 

Bay INRMP, which follows along with federal and state priorities by identifying invasive species as one 

of the most important threats to aquatic ecosystems, proposes an interagency, baywide program to detect 

and control such invasions. 

The effect of large, power-driven vessels on the oceanside beach lanes may be discounted due to the 

dispersed nature of the activity in areas of high-energy surf and expected low abundance of invertebrates. 

There is a potential effect present to eelgrass and associated invertebrate communities present bayside; 

however, it is restricted to small patches of eelgrass, bayside entries at low tide, and locations of repeated 

entry. Bayside beaching of large vessels is restricted to the designated training lane within Bravo area. 

Marine vessel activities in the SSTC ROI would not measurably alter the water or sediment quality from 

debris or discharge sufficient to impact EFH. Adverse modifications to benthic habitat resulting in affects 

to EFH occur on limited bases during marine vessel landing activities within eelgrass habitat. The 

disturbance of eelgrass at this location will be mitigated through the NEMS, as discussed in Section 

3.7.1.5. 

3.7.2.2.2 Underwater Detonations on the Sea Floor 

Underwater detonations that take place under the No Action Alternative (Activities 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 

37, Table 2-1) are detailed in Table 3.7-9. All detonations occur in the oceanside training lanes within 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-36

Table 3.7-9: Underwater Explosive Activities Conducted during the No Action Alternative which 

occur as bottom laid detonations. All activities occur in the 14 oceanside training lanes. 

Underwater 

Detonation 

Operation 

NEW1

(lb) 

Number of 

Detonations 

Water 

Depth

(feet) 

Charge Depth Tempo 

MCM2 10 to 20 1/op ≤ 72 Bottom 16 ops/yr 

UUV3 Ops 10 to 15 1/op 10 ≤ 72 Bottom to 10 feet 

from surface 4 ops/yr 

MMS4 Ops 13 2/op 10 ≤ 72 Bottom 8 ops/yr 

MMS Ops 13 1/op 24 ≤ 72 Bottom to 20 feet 

from surface 8 ops/yr 

SDV/ASDS < 10 1/op ≤ 24 Bottom-Mid 14 ops/yr 

Dive Platoon* 3.5 8/op 10 – 72 Bottom 8 ops/yr 

Mine Neutral* 3.5 8/op 30 – 72 Bottom 4 ops/yr 1 NEW: Net Explosive Weight; 2 MCM: Mine Counter Measures; 3

 UUV: Unmanned Underwater Vehicle; 4

MMS: Marine Mammal Systems; SDV: Seal Delivery Vehicle * Note - Unless otherwise specified, all 

sequential charges are conducted either less than 10-seconds apart or greater than 30-minute apart. Charges 

are presented in terms of NEW in pounds. 

designated boat lanes 1-14. Detonations occur in water ranging in depth from 6 feet to 72 feet depending 

on the activity. 

The habitat within the oceanside boat training lanes utilized for underwater detonations is primarily soft 

bottom sediment, with cobble or small patch, rocky reefs scattered throughout the area. Offshore depth 

within the ROI is less than 100 feet and macroalgae are generally considered ephemeral (last a very short 

time) within this area. Previous bathymetric and biological surveys document a physically disturbed area 

seasonally affected by wave action and longshore transport of sand. While invertebrate densities are 

poorly known, it is recognized that such densities are low in the sandy nearshore open environment 

compared to San Diego Bay locations and comparing soft and hard substrate. 

For purposes of this analysis, only those detonations that are set on the sea floor are considered as 

potentially affecting marine plants, algae, or invertebrates, since marine invertebrates are concentrated in 

and on the bottom sediment. It is not known how much sediment is excavated by various blast sizes, so it 

is conservatively assumed that all sediment containing infauna in the blast zone is disturbed, and effects 

to invertebrates are discussed in relative terms. As a conservative estimate for this analysis, all 

detonations for any activity with a possible charge depth of “bottom” (Table 3.7-9) are considered bottom 

detonations. As such, it is assumed that up to 62 blast sequences (for an approximate total of 154 

detonations) on the sea floor may occur per year within the oceanside boat lanes ranging from 3.5 to 20 

pounds Net Explosive Weight (NEW). 

Detonations on the oceanside of SSTC-N are most likely to be in unvegetated, soft substrate, given its 

predominance in the area proposed for this activity. Both free-floating and infaunal invertebrates that are 

closest to the blast could be killed. Invertebrates that have gas-filled organs and are close to the blast 

would experience injury or mortality due to blast pressure. The substrate and water column affected from 

a detonation near the bottom (about 78.5 square feet of direct impact per detonation, Geology and Soils, 

Section 3.2.3.2.3, Naval Ordnance Laboratory 1973) is expected to recolonize, similarly to what is 

expected after a storm in an active, highly disturbed environment, or such as recovery in a boating 

channel that is routinely dredged. The impact of such disturbance would not be expected to cause 

catastrophic mortality or change community structure. Soule and Oguri (1976) looked at recolonization of 

infaunal species after dredging, compared to a reference site. Two to three years were required for the 

community to stabilize (Rhoads et al. 1978). A wide range of studies from many regions report a range of 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-37

time to reestablish a stable community at between 1-1/2 and 12 years. Due to frequency of blasts (62/year 

bottom laid), these areas would be expected to recover their previous community structure. Plants and 

algae directly in the blast area would not likely return if the disturbance was repeated in the exact same 

location; however, blasts may or may not be repeated in the same location (except for blast sequences). 

The offshore boat lanes used for the detonation activities are expected to have relatively low background 

densities of invertebrates due to the dynamic and disturbed nature of the underwater environment from 

the action of waves, wind, and storms. 

Assuming 78.5 square feet of impact, this amounts to a total area of 4,867 square feet of impacted area 

per year. Comparing this 4867 square feet against the area of roughly fourteen training lanes typically 

used for underwater detonation training (14 lanes x 500 yards x 4000 yards x 9 square feet/square yard) 

=252,000,000 square feet, or about 5,785 acres, which translates into 0.00002 percent of the training area. 

Any localized effect on these areas would be masked by the effects of longshore transport and wave 

energy in this environment. Any localized effect on these areas would be masked by the effects of 

longshore transport and wave energy in this environment. Even the areas of hard substrate are largely 

composed of cobbles. Cobbles roll in this environment, continually disturbing the invertebrate 

community. Based on this analysis the effects to marine plants, algae, or invertebrates are considered 

inconsequential compared to background, natural disturbance conditions. 

Underwater detonation activities in the SSTC ROI would not measurably alter the water or sediment 

quality from debris or discharge sufficient to impact EFH. Modifications to benthic habitat from 

detonations placed on the bottom occur infrequently and only within the SSTC ocean training lanes. 

Benthic habitat within the SSTC ocean training lanes is dominated by a physically dynamic sandy/cobble 

bottom that is both expansive limited in EFH value. Impacts to from underwater detonations may effect 

but not likely to adversely affect EFH habitat and the Navy intends to informally consult with NMFS. 

3.7.2.2.3 Amphibious and Beach Activities 

Training encompassed in this section include amphibious activities and beach activities. Amphibious 

activities include the use of amphibious vehicles (AAVs and LARC Vs) and ELCAS training. Beach 

activities included in this analysis are fluid transfer activities, vehicle use, foot traffic and manual 

excavations. Training activities include the use of training areas within both San Diego Bay and the 

nearshore environment. Potential effects from these activities include vehicle transit within ROI waters, 

and habitat modification similar to those described above for Marine Vessel Activities. 

Amphibious Activities 

Amphibious activities include amphibious vehicles such as AAVs, and Lighter, Amphibious, Resupply, 

Cargo-5 ton (LARC Vs) as well as amphibious elements of ELCAS activities. It also includes amphibious 

offloading of equipment (Activity 49, Maritime Prepositioning Ships Offload, Table 2-1) as well as pile 

driving associated with ELCAS (Activity 42, Table 2-1). Finally, these activities sometimes involve the 

use of bulldozers on the beach for floating pier assemblage (Activities 41 Causeway Pier Insertion and 

Retraction, 45 LCU/LCM Beaching, and 46 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed [Table 2-1]), or for 

insertion of the elevated causeway (Activity 42). 

Amphibious vehicles in the ROI have similar effects to those mentioned above in the Marine Vessels 

section. While operating offshore and above the line of debris left by the most recent high-tide level 

(wrack line) they have minimal interaction with marine plants or invertebrates and so their effect is 

discountable. When vehicles are coming ashore, they can create tracks in the nearshore environment, 

causing temporary ruts to form with sediment compaction and possible localized mortality of infauna. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-38

ELCAS activities involve the erection of a temporary pier or causeway utilizing floating barges and a pile 

driver to drive 24-inch diameter metal pilings to secure the barges in place. Most of the causeway remains 

floating offshore with pilings driven into the sediment. Associated activities involve accessing beach 

areas through the surf zone using floating and land-based heavy equipment, some of which may affect 

eelgrass habitat at the point of beach access. The ELCAS pier is normally 1200 feet in length with piles 

driven every 40 feet with the exception of the last causeway sections where additional support piles are 

utilized. The ELCAS pier is three pontoons wide with the exception of the last section which is nine 

pontoons wide with fenders. An ELCAS would most likely consist of 58 pier piles (29 per side), 29 pier 

head piles, and 16 pier head fender piles, for a total of 103 piles. Pier construction takes approximately 10 

days, this averages to 10 piles driven per day. It takes approximately 10 minutes to drive and set a pile. 

Typically, one pile is driven every 2 hours. The driving of piles to support the elevated causeway system 

disturbs sediment and eelgrass, as well as causes an increase in turbidity at the site of the pile driving. 

Pressure waves and sound generated from pile driving activities affect marine plants and animals within 

the immediate area and are most pronounced for burrowing infaunal invertebrates that are unable to move 

away from the affected area. There is a potential effect present to eelgrass and associated invertebrate 

communities present bayside. Since bayside ELCAS training is restricted to Bravo Beach, the 

disturbance of eelgrass at this location will be fully offset by mitigation through the NEMS, as discussed 

in Section 3.7. Considering the limited number of events that ELCAS takes place (four events per year 

distributed between the oceanside training lanes and Bravo Beach) in conjunction with relatively small 

areas of substrate that pile driving affects (a few square meters at each location) compared to similar 

adjacent habitat, recolonization will also likely occur rapidly between ELCAS events. 

Causeway activities occur primarily on SSTC-N oceanside boat training areas 1-10, but also periodically 

in the designated training lane within bayside training area Bravo. This activity occurs during nine 

separate training events per year, spanning eight to ten days per event under the No Action Alternative. 

Like the ELCAS, there is a potential effect present to eelgrass and associated invertebrate communities 

present in the bayside training area. Since bayside causeway training is restricted to Bravo Beach, the 

disturbance of eelgrass at this location will also be fully offset by mitigation through the NEMS, as 

discussed in Section 3.7. 

Both bayside and oceanside locations are sandy in the intertidal area affected, and therefore contain low 

densities of invertebrates that could be disturbed by the onshore portion of the activity. The potential 

number of animals affected is low. Except for the locally disturbed substrate area, the site is expected to 

recolonize quickly from adjacent areas due to the prevalence of relatively short-lived, opportunistic, and 

mobile species in these sandy substrates. Sandy beaches remain aerobic and typically experience more 

turbulence from waves, preventing development of permanent burrows. The shoreline is a stressful 

environment, subject to wind and wave turbulence, salt spray, shifting sands, high temperatures, and 

desiccation. A number of plants and animals have become adapted to this instability and are found only 

on dunes or beaches. The fact that this exercise is performed relatively infrequently (nine times per year 

distributed between the oceanside and Bravo training areas), in effect minimizes the disturbance by 

allowing time for recolonization from adjacent sites that remain more intact. The overall impact to 

marine plants and invertebrates is minimal due to low densities and the small area of impact relative to the 

total beach area. 

Amphibious and Beach activities in the SSTC ROI would not measurably alter the water or sediment 

quality from debris or discharge sufficient to impact EFH. Adverse modifications to benthic habitat 

resulting in affects to EFH occur on limited bases during amphibious landing and beach construction 

activities within eelgrass habitat. Amphibious landing and beach construction activities within eelgrass 

habitat are constrained to training lane Bravo and impacts to EFH are offset by replacement of effected 

eelgrass habitat addressed in Section 3.7.1.5. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-39

Beach Activities 

While beach activities take place almost entirely out of the water on the training beaches, components of 

the activities may still represent a potential effect to marine communities in the nearshore area (classified 

as surf zone and coastal pelagic zone up to 100 miles westward as described by Allen et al. (2006) and 

others), or in areas below the high tide line. Beach activities may take place on the hard pack sand 

between the high and low tide line if the tide is out. Activities above the wrack line are also analyzed in 

Section 3.11, Terrestrial Biological Resources. 

Fluid Transfer 

Fluid transfer training events involve the intake of seawater and the discharge of water back into San 

Diego Bay. Fluid transfer activities consist of transferring salt water to simulate fuel transfer, under the 

activity Offshore Petroleum Discharge System (OPDS), Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System 

(ABLTS), and bringing saltwater ashore for desalinization, under the activity Reverse Osmosis Water 

Purification Unit (ROWPU) (Activities 38, 39, and 50, respectively, Table 2-1). 

During an OPDS activity, a fuel transport conduit is towed offshore from a beach termination unit (BTU). 

Water is pumped to a beach interface unit to simulate fueling and then returned to the ocean with a hose. 

This activity occurs six times per year under the No Action Alternative. During an ABLTS activity salt 

water is pumped ashore from a floating hose extending up to 10,000 feet offshore. The water is pumped 

into a beach interface unit and then returned to the ocean with a hose. This activity occurs four times per 

year for 15 days per training event under the No Action Alternative. During ROWPU training, salt water 

is brought ashore and desalinized. Hypersaline water is then typically stored in a bladder and transported 

offsite for sewerage. ROWPU occurs four times per year under the No Action Alternative. 

The conduit is expected to have discountable effects on marine plants and invertebrates. Since these 

activities take place in the nearshore ocean where substrate disturbance is naturally high and invertebrate 

densities are low, the temporary and localized effect of these activities compared to the available beach 

and sea floor is expected to be minimal. This is because the difference between any effect and the 

background condition, which is already a high-disturbance environment, would not be distinguishable. 

Vehicle Use 

Vehicle use under the No Action Alternative consists of safety and logistical vehicles, bulldozers, fourwheel drive vehicle training, and amphibious vehicles on the shore. Bulldozers are used to grade the 

beach, excavate sand, recreate hummocks, and push beached vessels that are stuck back into the water. 

Cranes are used to move equipment and boxes around. During MPF offload/Roll On Roll Off Discharge 

Facility (RRDF) activities (49 and 51, Table 2-1), all types of equipment including LARC Vs can be 

offloaded, set up, and operated on the beach. Vehicle use is common to most of the exercises that occur 

on SSTC; even exercises that do not otherwise access the shore require onshore vehicles that monitor for 

safety and logistical reasons. This activity consists of vehicles driving or sitting stationary on the beach 

from the best vantage point, and out of the way of other beach activities. If they are observing or 

supporting offshore activities they may transit along the beach crest or on the hard pack sand between the 

crest and high tide line. Vehicle use occurs throughout the beach zone including below the high tide line 

and in the intertidal zone where marine invertebrates occur at their greatest density. 

Vehicle patrolling (Activity 53, Table 2-1) occurs approximately six times per year under the No Action 

Alternative in during LARC V Operator Training. In this activity operators learn to drive the LARC V onand offshore. The only impact these activities would have on marine plants or invertebrates would be 

sediment disturbance caused by temporary rutting of the beach below the high tide line. However, all such 

disturbances would be highly localized and short term, given the highly variable intertidal environment, 

and would not have any lasting effects on plants or invertebrates. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-40

Driving and parking vehicles in the intertidal area affects invertebrates by direct impact or by crushing of 

burrows if the tide is out. However, the effect is small and not quantifiable because invertebrate biomass 

is low in a sandy environment due to instability of the sediments and extreme gradients of desiccation. 

They recolonize quickly because that is what they are adapted to do in a shifting environment; for 

instance, invertebrate beach dwellers tend to be very fast burrowers in the surf zone (Little 2000). 

Burrows such as of sand crabs and lugworms cannot maintain themselves in the coarse, non-cohesive 

sands in the upper beach area, while in the lower beach area where sediments are finer, infauna is more 

abundant. 

Vehicle travel is a recognized means of spreading aquatic invasive species (CDFG 2006); however, beach 

vehicles are expected to be generally locally based and not traverse between aquatic environments. Most 

aquatic invasive species, in addition, do not thrive in the stressful beach environment. 

Foot Traffic 

Concentrated foot traffic has the highest potential for effect during activities on rock jetties, where marine 

plants and invertebrates are expected to be relatively more abundant than on soft sediments. Activities use 

nonmotorized boats which the students portage over both the Zuniga and Coronado rock jetties (Activity 

57, 71, 73, Table 2-1), potentially affecting marine invertebrates encrusting these rock formations. These 

activities can include up to 60 students in five to seven groups traversing the rocks with boats while 

heading to and from shore. However, the overall effect on marine invertebrates in an area dominated by 

tidal fluctuation and wave action, from these activities is low and, if present, temporary, and discountable. 

3.7.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative 1 increases the current level and types of training that occur in the ROI. Current management 

of marine plants and invertebrates would remain unchanged. This section focuses on groups of activities 

that have the potential to result in an impact to marine plants or invertebrates. As discussed previously, 

similar types of activities are grouped together to facilitate the analysis. 

3.7.2.3.1 Marine Vessel Activities 

Power-driven vessel use would increase under Alternative 1 as presented in Chapter 2, both in large and 

small vessels, detailed in Appendix B. Seven new activities involving marine vessels would be added 

under Alternative 1 (N1, N2, N3, N4, N6, N7 and N9, Table 2-2). The total number of vessels varies per 

activity, but multiplying the number of vessels by the number of events in which they are used, and 

summing over all the activities, results in an approximate number of 12,800 vessels used per year, over 

10,100 under the No Action Alternative (Appendix C). Assuming training occurs only on weekdays, the 

average number of marine vessels utilizing the ROI per weekday would be 49 vessels performing varying 

activities. The greatest increases to marine vessel activities would be attributed to new activities: Shock 

Wave Generator (SWAG) Surf Zone Test Detachment (Activities N1 and N2, respectively, Table 2-2), 

and towed Organic Airborne Mine Countermeasures (OAMCM) systems (Activities N4, N6, N7, Table 2-

2), as well as increases to existing activities (SDV/ASDS Cert training and Barge Ferry/Causeway 

Coxswain training [Activities 37 and 40, respectively, Table 2-1]). 

The proposed increase in the use of propeller-driven craft would result in a proportional increase in 

potential impacts to eelgrass and marine algae beds in the San Diego Bay waters as well as during 

activities when beaching occurs at low tide in San Diego Bay. This is a small proportion of overall marine 

vessel activity. Given that the potential footprint of repeated or more than temporary impact is small and 

localized within the designated training lane within Bravo beach, minimally disturbed eelgrass in other 

areas would recover quickly and would most likely suffer no long-term loss of net production. Therefore, 

this impact would be considered negligible. Marine vessel activities in the SSTC ROI would not 

measurably alter the water or sediment quality from debris or discharge sufficient to impact EFH. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-41

Adverse modifications to benthic habitat resulting in affects to EFH occur on limited bases during marine 

vessel landing activities within eelgrass habitat. The disturbance of eelgrass at this location will be 

mitigated through the NEMS, as discussed in Section 3.7.1.5. 

The potential for invasive aquatic species introduction would increase with increased use of marine 

vessels, both because of their movement to and from potentially infested areas, and due to hull fouling in 

the harbor. The vessel increase, however, still represents a small fraction of overall vessel movement in 

San Diego Bay, and the increased risk is considered negligible. 

The presence of additional vessels in the San Diego Bay may also result in an increased loss of abundance 

and diversity of marine plants and invertebrates. The reasons for the correlation between boat numbers 

and the loss of invertebrate fauna species are not documented well, but could relate to the use of biocidal 

paints as an antifouling agent in harbors, other water quality issues, and general disturbance of these 

areas. Of the overall increase in vessel use under Alternative 1, there would be a small increase in actual 

vessels used in the San Diego Bay and so the increased potential for impacts in the San Diego Bay would 

be considered negligible. 

Under Alternative 1, mine neutralization activities can involve an array of equipment including UUVs, 

lasers, divers, and helicopters towing surface sleds and submerged equipment through simulated threat 

minefields with the goal of clearing a safe channel through the minefield for the passage of friendly ships. 

Using a variety of external OAMCM systems, the MH-60S crew searches for mines and mine-like shapes, 

detects and identifies them, then neutralizes them. These systems include the AN/AQS-20A Advance 

MCM Sonar, the AN/ALQ-220 OASIS mine sweeping system, and the Airborne Mine Neutralization 

System (AMNS, N4, N6, and N7, Table 2-2). All activities would be conducted in the SSTC oceanside 

boat lanes at depths greater than 40 feet. 

The potential impacts of OAMCM systems on marine plants and invertebrates would primarily be 

associated with the expenditure of ordnance near or on the bottom and incidental release of other 

materials in exercises that would be conducted at SSTC oceanside in the 14 boat lanes. The resulting 

debris and/or discharges may affect the physical and chemical properties of benthic habitats and the 

quality of surrounding marine waters, in turn affecting populations of marine plants and invertebrates. 

The analysis of water quality effects associated with OAMCM systems is provided in Section 3.5, Water 

Resources, and indicates that effects from mine neutralization activities to water quality are anticipated to 

be minimal. The effect of small towed underwater vessels on the invertebrate and marine plant 

community in the oceanside boat lanes would be minimal due to the dispersed nature of the activity and 

expected low abundance of invertebrates and plants in the water column. 

In support of the mine neutralization activities described above, Alternative 1 would include the 

installation of a mine neutralization training area in the boat lanes of SSTC. This would consist of a 

relatively small training minefield for use with AN/AQS-20A, OASIS, ALMDS, and AMNS activities. 

There would be approximately 15 mine shapes, both moored and bottom shapes, lowered into place by 

boat in the water of 40 to 75 feet in depth in oceanside waters of SSTC. Concrete anchors would hold the 

mine shapes in place, one for each mine shape. Each anchor would measure 2.0 to 2.5 feet on each side, 

between 8 and 15 square feet per anchor, which represents a total area of effect from concrete anchors of 

234 square feet, which represents less than 0.0001 percent of available benthic habitat in the SSTC boat 

lanes. Sediment disturbance possibly affecting benthic invertebrates would occur during anchor 

placement and could recur with subsequent anchor maintenance activities or during mine shape 

deployment or recovery. However, all such disturbances would be highly localized and short term, and 

would not have any lasting effects on bathymetry or sediments. 

3.7.2.3.2 Underwater Detonations 

Underwater detonations that would take place under Alternative 1 in the 14 oceanside training lanes and 

are bottom laid explosives are detailed in Table 3.7-10 below and would increase measurably from 103 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-42

activities under the No Action Alternative to 311 activities under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, five 

additional activities (Table 2-3) would be conducted: SWAG (N1) and Unmanned Underwater Vehicle 

(UUV Neutralization (N3), AMNS (N7), Demolition Requalification and Training/Underwater 

Detonations (N9), and NSW Underwater Demolition Training (N11) and the footprint of activities would 

be expanded to include SWAG detonations of up to 15 grams NEW within San Diego Bay. 

The proposed increase in detonation frequency from the No Action Alternative would include the addition 

of the SWAG detonations in both the bayside and oceanside boat lanes. The proposed bayside training 

lane, Echo, is an area fluctuating between approximately 10 to 20 feet in depth depending on the tide. The 

detonations affect a small area in San Diego Bay. The area affected by the blast is small, approximately 

equivalent to a small firecracker, with low blast pressure at the source (thus usable by divers). Only 

invertebrates suspended in the water column and in immediate proximity would be directly affected. The 

effect on marine plant, algae, and invertebrates would be negligible. 

Mine neutralization activities involving OAMCM systems would be conducted in the SSTC oceanside 

boat lanes at depths greater than 40 feet. AMNS use would result in the deployment of a neutralizer, 

which is detonated in only 20 percent of AMNS activities (Table 3.7-10). Similar to the No Action 

Alternative, only those detonations that are set on the sea floor are considered to potentially affect marine 

plants, algae, or invertebrates, since marine invertebrates are concentrated in and on the bottom sediment. 

Table 3.7-10: Underwater Bottom Laid Explosive Activities Conducted during Alternatives 1 and 2 

Underwater 

Detonation 

Operation 

NEW1

(pounds) 

Number of 

Detonations 

Water 

Depth 

(feet) 

Charge Depth Tempo 

MCM2 10 to 20 1/op ≤ 72 Bottom 29 ops/yr 

UUV3 Ops 10 to 15 1/op 10 ≤ 72 Bottom to 10 feet 

from surface 4 ops/yr 

MMS4 Ops 13 & 29 2/op 10 ≤ 72 Bottom 8 ops/yr 

MMS Ops 13 & 29 1/op 24 ≤ 72 Bottom to 20 feet 

from surface 8 ops/yr 

Dive Platoon* 3.5 8/op 30 – 72 Bottom 8 ops/yr 

Qual/Cert5 12.5 – 

13.75 2/op 10 – 72 Bottom 8 ops/yr 

Qual/Cert 25.5 1/op 40 – 72 Bottom to 20 feet 

from surface 4 ops/yr 

Demo Training < 10 1/op ≤ 24 Bottom 4 ops/yr 

SDV/ASDS < 10 1/op ≤ 24 Bottom-Mid 40 ops/yr 

Mine Neutral* 3.5 8/op 30 – 72 Bottom 4 ops/yr 

UUV Neutral 3.3 & 

3.57 2/op 10 – 72 Bottom to 10 feet 

from surface 4 ops/yr 

AMNS 3.53 1/op 40 – 72 Mid – Bottom 10 ops/yr 

Charges and are presented in terms of NEW in pounds. 

1

NEW: Net Explosive Weight; 2MCM: Mine Counter Measures; 3 UUV: Unmanned Underwater Vehicle; 4 MMS: 

Marine Mammal Systems; 5

 Qual/Cert: Qualification or Certification trials; 

* Note - Unless otherwise specified, all sequential charges are conducted either less than 10-seconds apart or 

greater than 30-minute apart.

The total area of marine substrate potentially affected from all underwater detonations in the oceanside 20 

lanes for Alternative 1 would be approximately .0236 acres in the ocean boat lanes, which is 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-43

approximately 0.00004 percent of the available boat lane training area. This is an estimated increase of 

111 percent in area impacted by activities due to the increase of detonations on or near the bottom (62 to 

131), in frequency of several activities, and of new detonations from UUV Neutralization and AMNS 

(Activities N3 and N7, Table 2-2). Plants and algae attached to bottom substrate in the immediate vicinity 

of a detonation (approximately 75 square feet) would likely be directly impacted. Because the expected 

densities of invertebrates in this dynamic ocean environment are low, the combination of the small area 

surrounding the blast site that is directly affected and short recovery times for invertebrates mean the area 

would be expected to recolonize following underwater detonations, starting with pioneer types of 

invertebrates. The increased detonations on the oceanside of SSTC-N under Alternative 1 are more likely 

to affect free-floating and infaunal invertebrates; however, due to low densities and short recovery times, 

this difference is also negligible and the effects to marine plants and invertebrates and EFH would be 

similar to that described under the No Action Alternative. 

3.7.2.3.3 Amphibious and Beach Activities 

Amphibious Activities 

Alternative 1 adds three more ELCAS activities and one more causeway insertion at the same locations as 

the No Action Alternative. As described in Section 3.7.2.2.3, the potential number of animals affected is 

low. The ELCAS and causeway insertion sites are expected to recolonize quickly from adjacent areas. 

The fact that this exercise is consistently done at the same location at Bravo Beach minimizes the 

disturbance by allowing for better recolonization from adjacent sites. The overall impact to marine plants 

and invertebrates is minimal and the impact from the addition of three ELCAS activities and one 

causeway activity would be considered negligible. Impacts to eelgrass in the designated training lane 

within Bravo Beach would be mitigated through the NEMS, as discussed in Section 3.7.1.5. 

Beach Activities 

Fluid Transfer 

Fluid transfer activities increase 15 events per year under Alternative 1. Potential effects to marine 

resources would be the same as those described under the No Action Alternative. 

Vehicle Use 

In addition to an increase in safety and logistical vehicle use under Alternative 1, vehicle patrolling is 

added to the ROI. Vehicle patrolling takes place on SSTC-N about 50 times per year during a single 

exercise under Alternative 1. It would involve vehicles driving along the hard pack and soft pack sand 

patrolling the beach in directions determined by the trainees so that they can learn to drive and operate the 

vehicles in varying terrain. It is limited to SSTC-N beach lanes Yellow 1 and 2 and Green 1 and 2. 

Vehicle use is conservatively estimated to impact about half of the available beach lanes over the course 

of the year. 

The expected increase in driving and parking vehicles on the beach and its effect on marine plant and 

invertebrate populations is not quantifiable compared to the No Action Alternative. The effect is small 

because only a small proportion of the vehicle use would occur below the beach crest and in the intertidal 

zone where invertebrates concentrate and because invertebrate densities in this sandy environment are 

low. They would recolonize quickly due to short life spans and rapid population turnover. The 

confinement of vehicle patrolling to Yellow and Green lanes, and the low percentage of time this activity 

would occur below the beach crest, reduces its effect on marine invertebrates. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-44

Foot Traffic 

As described previously, concentrated foot traffic has the highest potential for effect during activities on 

rock jetties, where marine plants and invertebrates are expected to be relatively more abundant than on 

soft sediments. While there is a slight increase in activities under Alternative 1, the overall effect on 

marine invertebrates in an area dominated by tidal fluctuation and wave action, would remain low and, if 

present, temporary, and discountable. 

3.7.2.4 Alternative 2 

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the training tempo to the same levels as those proposed 

for Alternative 1. The only difference between Alternative 1 and 2 is that, under Alternative 2, all SSTCN oceanside beach training areas would be available for Navy training, regardless of time of year. 

Therefore, the minimal impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be the same as those described above 

for Alternative 1, though minimally dispersed across a larger area on the oceanside of SSTC-N due to the 

lack of training area restrictions. 

3.7.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

To mitigate for potential impacts of large vessel beaching, causeway insertion, and ELCAS construction 

to eelgrass in the designated training lane within Bravo Beach, the Navy will mitigate for potential 

eelgrass habitat occurring in this lane. 

Error! Reference source not found. shows the extent of eelgrass in the designated training lane within 

Bravo Beach as surveyed in 1994, 1999, and 2004. The variation in extent of eelgrass between these 

surveys could be due to artifacts of mapping or environmental conditions that effect eelgrass growth. 

The 1999 survey indicates that the maximum extent of potential eelgrass habitat in this designated 

training lane is 1.13 acres. While SSTC training may not actually impact all of the eelgrass habitat in the 

designated training lane within Bravo Beach, the Navy plans to mitigate for this the full extent of eelgrass 

habitat occurring in this lane, 1.13 acres. Mitigation would be done through the Navy’s Eelgrass 

Mitigation Bank. Mitigatation would occur consistent with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation 

Policy. 

3.7.4 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 

There are no unavoidable adverse environmental effects to marine resources as a result of implementation 

of any of the alternatives. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-45

Figure 3.7-10: Eelgrass Mapping from Three Separate Bay-wide Surveys in 1994, 1999, and 2004, 

Focusing on the Bravo Training Area Where ELCAS, Causeway, and Large Vessel Beaching 

Occur. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-46

3.7.5 Summary of Effects 

The summary of effects is the same as that described above for unavoidable effects (Table 3.7-11). 

All alternatives avoid effects on marine algae, plants, and invertebrates in areas where densities of these 

organisms are the greatest: the salt marsh, mudflats, and salt pond. 

Table 3.7-11: Summary of Effects 

Alternative Effects 

No Action Alternative

• On the beach , vehicle use, boat landings, helicopter landings, and foot 

traffic associated with a range of activities could cause temporary localized 

disturbances of infaunal invertebrates of the sand. 

• Minimal disturbance of sandy bottom habitat and increased turbidity from 

amphibious landings and underwater demolitions. 

• A total of 1.13 acres of eelgrass habitat may be impacted in the designated 

training lane within the Bravo training area. 

• Adverse modifications to benthic habitat resulting in affects to EFH occur 

on limited bases during amphibious landing and beach construction 

activities within within the Bravo training area. 

Alternative 1 

• Vehicle, boat, and helicopter use and amphibious landings would increase; 

however, effects generally are the same as described for the No Action 

Alternative. Amphibious activities conducted on the bayside would be 

limited to the same designated training lane within the Bravo training area. 

Alternative 2 • Vehicle, boat, and helicopter use and amphibious landings would increase 

similar to Alternative 1. Effects generally are the same as described for the 

No Action Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures 

• Management practices are in place for jurisdictional waters and special 

aquatic sites. Potential impacts of up to 1.13 acres of eelgrass habitat for 

larger boat landings, ELCAS, and causeway insertions in the designated 

training lane on Bravo Beach will be mitigated consistent with the 

Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. This mitigation will occur 

at an established NEMS and be drawn as part of the Navy Eelgrass 

Mitigation Bank. 
3.8 Fish 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-1

3.8 FISH

3.8.1 Affected Environment 

3.8.1.1 Introduction 

3.8.1.1.1 Definition of Resource 

This section describes the fish and fish assemblages expected to be present in the Silver Strand Training 

Complex (SSTC) area that potentially could be affected by the Proposed Action. The potential effects are 

analyzed; and a discussion is presented concerning current management and mitigation practices. 

3.8.1.1.2 Regional Setting 

The offshore area is part of the Pacific Ocean region referred to as the Southern California Bight (SCB), 

and is directly affected by two ocean currents. The colder, northern California Current and the southern, 

warm-water Davidson Current influences the ocean within the SCB. These two currents mix in the Santa 

Barbara Channel. The water within the southern portion of the SCB is warmer and more saline than the 

water within the northern area (Hickey 1993). These differing conditions—as well as upwelling of cooler, 

nutrient-rich waters—influence the unusually diverse marine biota within the SCB region (Murray and 

Littler 1981). 

In the coastal zone and waters of San Diego Bay, biological conditions mirror that of other southern 

California coastal bays and estuaries. San Diego Bay is located in an arid region of Mediterranean climate 

and is fed by small, seasonal rivers and streams. As a result, the fish assemblages are largely devoid of 

freshwater and anadromous species, and are dominated by estuarine resident and marine migrant fish 

(Allen et al. 2006 and VRG 2009). Unlike the majority of southern California bays and estuaries, San 

Diego Bay is comparatively large and displays considerable habitat diversity and develops environmental 

gradients, especially during the winter months when most rainfall occurs. The offshore portion of SSTC is 

adjacent to the mouth of San Diego Bay and is comprised of primarily sandy soft-bottom surf zone 

habitat, interspersed with low relief rocky cobble habitat within the coastal pelagic zone out to 328 feet. 

The SSTC and San Diego Bay are situated within an urban area, where there is intense shore and water 

use—both current and historical. In proximity to a large Naval complex and California’s second largest 

city, San Diego Bay receives waters and urban runoff from a watershed of 415 square miles, where 50 

percent of the county’s population lives or works. The legacy of historic dredging, filling, direct sewage 

delivery, and pollutants that still persist have modified the benthic environment that supports marine 

plants and invertebrates vital to the fish species during multiple life stages; thus, biological assemblages 

have changed in comparison to past marine communities. Due to this history and identified pollutants, 

San Diego Bay is listed as an impaired water body under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303[d] by the 

California State Water Resources Control Board (Regional Water Quality Control Board 2007). These 

pollutants influence the population dynamics of invertebrates living in San Diego Bay sediments. An 

added pressure on the marine communities is the depletion and modification of the habitats in the Region 

of Influence (ROI) from historic conditions. Compared to historic acreages, there has been a 70 percent 

loss of salt marsh, 84 percent loss of intertidal areas other than salt marsh, and a 42 percent loss of 

shallow subtidal waters. Conversely, since the San Diego Bay was first dredged in 1914, deep-water 

habitat has doubled. Also, available shoreline habitats have experienced physical alteration, with 74 

percent of the shoreline now armored with artificial hard structures—a type of substrate not native to the 

ROI. Fresh water and sediment formerly delivered to the San Diego Bay by several rivers and creeks are 

now almost completely impounded by dams and replaced by storm water flows. 

3.8.1.1.3 Region of Influence 

The marine ROI can be partitioned into three zones: the bayside training zones within the San Diego Bay 

(sandy beaches, mudflats, and the nearshore environment); portions of the intertidal to nearshore (<0.5 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-2

nautical miles [nm]) ocean area off the southern beaches of Naval Air Station, North Island (NASNI); and 

the intertidal to nearshore (<3 nm) ocean area encompassing the training lanes at SSTC-North (SSTC-N) 

and SSTC-South (SSTC-S), and ocean anchorages. Fish species that occur in this area for any portion of 

their life cycle are discussed in this chapter. 

3.8.1.2 Marine Fish Habitat 

The aquatic marine environment within the ROI supports diverse fish assemblages that reflect the great 

variety of aquatic habitats that are available to fish. Aquatic habitat delineation is discussed in Section 

3.7. This section describes what is known about fish populations in the ROI and functions performed by 

the waters of the ROI to support fish productivity. Within the aquatic portion of the ROI—waters below 

mean higher high water—a wide variety of fish habitat types are represented. Fish habitat is described in 

terms of depth and substrate (Allen et al. 2006 and VRG 2009); the type and amount of ecological 

information on fish are not equable among habitats or among species. What is known about fish habitat 

reflects various investigator interest, sampling logistics, and economic and political considerations. 

Fish habitat types previously used to describe waters within the ROI are divided into those within San 

Diego Bay and those within coastal nearshore waters adjacent to the San Diego Bay, out to a depth of 

approximately 600 feet. San Diego Bay fish habitat types are segregated by depth (intertidal, shallow 

subtidal, moderately deep subtidal, and deep channel, Table 3.8-1), vegetation (vegetated versus 

unvegetated) and substrate (soft bottom, mudflat, rip rap, rocky reef) (Horn 1980; Horn and Allen 1981; 

Allen 1985, 1997, 2006, and VRG 2009) as previously presented in Section 3.7. The majority of general 

literature regarding fish habitat places San Diego Bay into a single category: bays and estuaries— a 

representation of large bays and estuaries of Southern California that give way to smaller embayment’s 

where freshwater input is largely restricted to the winter months when rainfall is most prevalent. 

Table 3.8-1: Submerged habitat types based on bathymetry within the San Diego Bay 

and SSTC Bay training areas 

Habitat Depth 

(ft – MLLW1) 

San Diego Bay 

(acres) 

SSTC ROI 

(acres) 

Salt Marsh > +2 823 - 

Intertidal (excluding salt marsh) +2 to -2 1,802 32 

Salt Ponds > +2.0 1,608 - 

Shallow -2 to -12 4,799 846 

Moderately Deep -12 to -20 2,219 983 

Deep < -20 4,443 22 

Total 15,694 1,883 

1

 Mean Lower Low Water 

Near-coastal fish habitat is partitioned similarly into defined substrate and depth criteria; and it includes 

surf zone, coastal pelagic zone, and continental shelf representing soft substrata and rocky intertidal, 

rocky reefs, kelp beds, and deep rocky habitats representing hard substrata (Allen et al. 2006 and VRG 

2009). Individual fish species are classified within specific habitat types, but realistically the majority of 

fish known to occur within the ROI transit between or through multiple habitats during some portion of 

their life or life stage. Several fish species documented to occur within the ROI make seasonal or diurnal 

movements through multiple habitat types when aggregating, foraging, and/or spawning. Estuarine and 

marine habitats within the ROI vary by depth (bathymetry), tidal inundation, bottom substrate, and 

whether they are vegetated or unvegetated as previously presented in Section 3.7. Figure 3.7-1 depicts 

tidal elevation of the habitats described in Section 3.7 and this section, and Table 3.8-1 shows the acreage 

of submerged habitat types and their respective depths below mean lower low water (MLLW) in the San 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-3

Diego Bay and within the SSTC ROI. Figure 3.7-3 provides an overview of marine habitats based on 

vegetation and substrate within the ROI, and Figure 3.7-4 focuses on the SSTC Bay training areas. 

3.8.1.2.1 Intertidal Zone 

Intertidal areas in the ROI are between the high and low tide line, and are subject to varying degrees of 

tidal submergence. There are several subareas of intertidal habitat based on the dominant substrate type 

and associated biological communities. The intertidal zone is a highly dynamic area because of its 

variable exposure to air, extreme temperature fluctuations, and utilization by both aquatic and terrestrial 

organisms. Fish species residing or utilizing the intertidal zone must adapt to unique, extreme physical 

and biological conditions. The intertidal zone within the ROI contains several fish habitat types further 

described within this section. 

Southern Coastal Salt Marsh 

Southern coastal salt marsh is a unique and important habitat within San Diego Bay (Section 3.7.1.3.1). 

Fish use the areas of salt marsh still exposed to the tide when the tide is in, taking advantage of the 

abundant food resources. Topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), arrow goby (Clevelandia ios), California killifish 

(Fundulus parvipinnis), and longjaw mudsucker (Gillichthys mirabilis) are all expected in salt marshes, 

due to their prevalence at the Sweetwater Marsh (Johnson 1999). Young round stingray (Urobatus 

halleri) and California halibut (Paralichthys californicus) are expected during curtain times of the year as 

well. 

Intertidal Habitat 

As presented in Section 3.7.1.3.1, intertidal habitat of the San Diego Bay includes salt marshes, mudflats, 

sand flats and salt flats, and portions of artificial hard substrate that provide valuable habitat for a variety 

of flora and fauna .When the tide comes in, numerous fish, sharks, and rays move in to forage in the flats. 

While most common intertidal fish are tidal visitors, some remain at low tide in shallow drainage 

channels or are species that can live in the burrows of marine invertebrates (Moyle and Cech 1982). 

Resident intertidal fish include the California killfish, longjaw mudsucker and the arrow goby. Other fish 

common in intertidal habitats include estuarine resident fish such as bay pipefish (Syngnathus 

leptorhynchus), deepbody anchovy (Anchoa compressa), and spotted sand bass (Paralabrax 

maculatofasciatus). Additionally, marine migrant fish, either diurnal or seasonal visitors, California 

halibut, shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata), round stingray, and others make up the remainder of the 

fish species commonly found utilizing intertidal habitat. 

Surf zone and sand flat fish habitat is constrained to the ocean portion of the ROI. The fish associated 

with intertidal surf zone/sand flat habitat live in a turbulent environment described as exposed coastal 

beaches. The turbulence and currents associated with intertidal sand flat habitat require high-energy 

expenditures by fish that live there; but turbulence provides a constant source of small, disoriented 

invertebrates that are exceptionally vulnerable to capture by fish. Common fish to intertidal areas of 

exposed coastal beaches are made up of a diverse group of fish including active plankton feeders 

:northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax); roving substrate feeders – California corbina (Menticirrhus 

undulates); flatfish – California halibut; migratory species – White seabass (Atractoscion nobilis); beach 

spawners – California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis); and piscovores – leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata), 

among others. Most species found in the intertidal surf zone/sandflat habitat are widely distributed in 

coastal habitats; few are found primarily in the surf (Moyle and Cech 1982, Allen et al. 2006). 

Artificial Hard Substrate 

Artificial hard substrate within the ROI consists of rip rap and quay wall constructed to stabilize shoreline 

areas and provides important diverse habitat, as discussed in Section 3.7.1.3.1. Natural hard substrate 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-4

within San Diego Bay occurs on a very limited spatial extent based on National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration charts. Davis et al. (2002) reported on average, intertidal riprap—and natural rocky 

habitats in wave-exposed environments—in southern California did not differ from each other in 

diversity, or community composition. The most common fish species, reported by Davis et al. (2002) 

during rip rap fish transects at each site, appeared directly related to the sites distance from the entrance of 

San Diego Bay. Open-coast rocky intertidal and rocky reef species; wooly sculpin (Clinocottus analis); 

opaleye (Girella nigricans); and black surfperch (Embiotosa jacksoni) were among the most abundant 

species during rip rap fish survey transects—with only the south San Diego Bay sites reporting any true 

estuarine resident fish species. Artificial hard substrate areas provide refuge and feeding areas for certain 

fish, such as perches, basses, sculpin, opaleye, and blennies that utilize rocky substrate that is of limited 

availability within San Diego Bay. 

Salt Pond 

Salt ponds are large, persistent, saline impoundments of estuarine, ocean and bay water that are, or were, 

managed for salt production. San Diego Bay has natural salt marshes, and the salt ponds are part of a 130-

year old ecosystem, the majority of which are still utilized by the Western Salt Company Salt Works. No 

fish are documented to inhabit the salt ponds within the ROI. 

3.8.1.2.2 Shallow Subtidal 

The shallow subtidal encompasses approximately half of San Diego Bay and is comprised of several 

habitat types. These habitat types were described in Section 3.7.1.3.1. The abundance and biomass of fish 

is much higher in shallow waters compared to deeper waters (Allen 1999, Allen et al. 2006). The majority 

of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in San Diego Bay is constrained to the tidal range defined by the shallow 

subtidal habitat; consequently eelgrass habitats represent a substantial portion of high-value fish habitat 

throughout the ROI. Shallow subtidal habitat within San Diego Bay is mostly represented in the south and 

south central bay. Allen (1999) reported that Slough anchovies (Anchoa delicatissima) ranked third 

overall in numerical abundance and sixth in biomass for the five-year period of the study; and that the 

slough anchovies occupied the midwaters of the intertidal, nearshore and channel subhabitats—mainly in 

the South and South Central 

Ecoregions of San Diego Bay 

While the shallow subtidal habitat is divided into two habitat modifiers,—vegetated versus unvegetated—

the associated fish assemblages differ in composition and location. Allen (1999) found that similar 

numbers of fish were taken in the vegetated and unvegetated areas over all sampling methods. The 

distinction between the two shallow subtidal habitats is the vertical distribution of fish density. Analysis 

of fish sampling methods among gear types displayed marked differences in vegetated versus unvegetated 

habitat supporting the findings of Hoffman (1986) that fish catches were twice as large over eelgrass 

habitats, compared to unvegetated sites (Allen 1999). 

Unvegetated Shallow Soft Bottom 

As discussed in Section 3.7.1.3.1, underwater observations indicate that algal mats present in unvegetated 

shallows are an important microhabitat feature—they provide cover or refuge from predators for many 

species of motile invertebrates and fish, much like marsh vegetation does for birds. The living plant 

material and detritus constitute a primary food source for California killifish, as well as an ancillary food 

source for other fish (Macdonald et al. 1990). 

Unvegetated shallow areas support assemblages of benthic invertebrates and demersal fish that are 

distinct from vegetated shallow areas (Kramer 1990, Takahashi 1992a, Allen 1997). Many of these 

invertebrates serve as a food source for the demersal fish that occur in these unvegetated shallow areas of 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-5

soft sediment. Common species to unvegetated shallow soft bottom include marine migrants California 

halibut, round stingray (Urolophus halleri), and diamond turbot (Hypsopsetta guttulata) 

Vegetated Shallow Soft Bottom 

As discussed in Section 3.7.1.3.1, eelgrass, a native marine angiopserm, provides a critical benthic habitat 

in San Diego Bay. Table 3.8-2 displays the acreages of eelgrass present in SSTC bayside training lanes. 

Abundant algae and invertebrates that grow on the leaf blades provide primary and secondary 

productivity for consumption by larval and juvenile fish. Fish and invertebrates use eelgrass beds to 

escape from predators, as a food source, and as a nursery. The eelgrass beds provide surfaces for egg 

attachment and sheltered locations for juveniles to hide and feed. Eelgrass beds provide important habitat 

for several bay-estuarine fish species, including bay pipefish, barred pipefish (Syngnathus auliscus), 

shiner perch, and giant kelpfish (Heterostichus rostratus) (Allen et al. 2002). 

Table 3.8-2: Eelgrass Areas of the SSTC ROI and Individual San Diego Bay Training Areas 

Bayside Training 

Area 

Square 

Kilometers Acres 

Alpha 0.0200 4.94 

Bravo 0.0465 11.5 

Charlie 0.0402 9.94 

Delta-I 0.0907 22.4 

Delta-II 0.1139 28.1 

Delta-III 0.2065 51.0 

Echo 0.0209 5.17 

Foxtrot 0.3505 86.6 

Golf 0.0878 21.7 

Hotel 0.0273 6.73 

Total 1.004 248 

Source: Data from 2004 baywide eelgrass survey performed by Merkel & 

Associates using eelgrass cover of 25 percent or greater. 

3.8.1.2.3 Moderately Deep Subtidal 

The moderately deep subtidal in San Diego Bay extends from the approximate lower depth of most 

eelgrass beds to the approximate edge of the shipping channel; it represents areas that have been dredged 

in the past, but are not maintained as navigational channels. The moderately deep subtidal in San Diego 

Bay is dominated by round stingray, spotted sand bass, California halibut, slough anchovy, and barred 

sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer) (Allen 1998, Pondella et al. 2006). 

3.8.1.2.4 Deep Subtidal 

Deep subtidal habitat includes the surface water, water column and sediments for areas greater than 20 ft 

MLLW; it is associated with navigational channels. Except for a few areas in north bay that have no 

dredging record, all deep subtidal habitat has been dredged since the 1940s, with most of the dredging in 

the 1960s or more recently. Since very little of this habitat occurs in the ROI, it is not further discussed. 

3.8.1.2.5 Nearshore Ocean and Surf Zone 

This habitat includes the area offshore, or oceanside of SSTC-N and SSTC-S, and includes the marine 

waters off of the sandy beaches of NASNI, SSTC-N (including the yellow through orange boat lanes), 

and SSTC-S (including the white and purple boat lanes). Also included are the ocean anchorages that 

partially overlap the SSTC-N ocean boat lanes. These habitats were described in Section 3.7.1.3.1. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-6

Habitats on the oceanside of the SSTC can be described by a combination of depth, substrate, and wave 

energy. The nearshore area is primarily soft bottom, and spans from exposed sandy beaches to the water 

column above the inner-shelf. The coastal nearshore areas are classified as surf zone and coastal pelagic 

zone up to 100 miles westward, as described by Allen et al. (2006). The high energy surf zone and 

shallow (water depth < 98 feet) areas dominated by sand and low lying (< 6.6 feet) rocky reef and cobble 

are illustrated in Figure 3.7-3. Utilizing the habitat classification system developed for San Diego 

Association of Governments and California Coastal Conservancy (Merkel & Associates, Inc. et al. 2002), 

the majority of the area is described as a Subtidal/Soft Bottom/Sand ecotype, with a low to moderate 

energy ecotype modifier, because of seasonal variability with respect to wave energy. 

Higher abundances and species diversity of invertebrates are found on long, gently sloping beaches, while 

lower abundances and diversity are present on steep, coarse-grained beaches. Demersal fish, common in 

sandy beach habitat in San Diego County, include bat rays, round stingrays, leopard sharks, California 

halibut, and sole (Family Pleuronectidae). 

3.8.1.2.6 San Diego Bay 

Bays and estuaries are known to be important nursery and refuge areas for marine fish (Cronin and 

Mansueti 1971, Haedrich and Hall 1976). Bays and estuaries are recognized as important fish habitat, 

serving especially as spawning and nursery sites, migration routes, and areas naturally supporting large 

populations of certain coastal fish species (Elliot 2002). Estuaries are among the most productive areas on 

earth, and the fish biomass in this habitat rank with that of the marine regions of upwelling, coral reefs, 

and kelp beds (Allen et al. 2006). Principal estuarine residents in San Diego Bay include Pacific staghorn 

sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), bay pipefish, and arrow goby, which are all synonymous with large 

estuaries throughout California. Other common estuarine species are California killifish, slough anchovy, 

deep body anchovy, spotted sand bass, and several other species of goby. Marine migrant fish are a major 

component of the fish assemblages found in San Diego Bay and utilize different portions and habitats of 

the San Diego Bay at various life stages. Marine migrants are dominated by topsmelt, shiner perch 

(Cymatogaster aggregate), juvenile California halibut, and yellowfin croaker (Umbrina roncador), 

among others. Another important characteristic of the fish inhabiting southern California bays and 

estuaries, including San Diego Bay, is that they form distinct species assemblages found nowhere else 

(Horn 1980; Horn and Allen 1981; Allen 1985, 1997; Macdonald et al. 1990). 

Over 100 species of native fish are documented in San Diego Bay (Macdonald et al. 1990; Allen 1999; 

Pondella et al. 2006). Pondella et al. (2006) collected 57 species from two quarterly surveys in 2005—

studies not substantially different from Allen’s study (1999), which collected species assemblage data 

over a much longer period. During 20 seasonal sampling periods (July 1994 to April 1999), Allen (1999) 

reported 78 species of fish from throughout San Diego Bay. This contrasts with 56 species in 1892 

(Eigenmann 1892), and only 25 species between 1968 and 1979 (Ford 1968; Ford et al. 1971; Lockheed 

1979), which correspond to a period when waters of the ROI were recovering from many decades of raw 

sewage delivery. Allen (1998) and the Pondella et al. (2006) employed an Ecological Index to identify 

fish species that dominate San Diego Bay based on abundance, biomass, and frequency of occurrence. 

This index is expressed as: 

Ecological Index = %N x %W x %F 

Where N = Abundance, W = Biomass, and F = Frequency 

This measure is a modification of the Index of Relative Importance, which is used extensively in studies 

considering prey species from the gut contents of fish (Pinkas et al. 1971). Pondella et al. (2006) repeated 

this analysis in 2005. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-7

Sampling performed by Allen et al. (1999) and Pondella et al. (2006) integrated sampling designs to 

investigate various habitats within the San Diego Bay, providing insight to the partitioning of fish 

abundance within distinct ecoregions and defined habitat types. The bayside training areas are all located 

within the South Central Ecoregion and are composed of moderately deep, shallow subtidal, and intertidal 

habitat, both vegetated (eelgrass) and unvegetated. 

With an average of data from all ecoregions and years, Allen et al. (1999) estimated the numerical density 

of fish in San Diego Bay to be 1.75 individuals per square meter. On average, San Diego Bay contains 85 

million fish, based on the estimated surface area. Most individuals were made up of northern anchovies 

(42 million); but there were on average almost 18 million slough anchovies, 10 million topsmelt, 3 

million sardines, three million arrow gobies, and nearly two million shiner perch (Allen et al. 1999). 

Common higher level carnivorous fish such as round stingray, spotted sand bass, and California halibut 

were estimated to number 280,000, 133,000, and 80,000, respectively (Allen et al. 1999). The best 

estimates of numerical density for the individual ecoregions were 2.03 individuals/m2

 for the North 

Ecoregion, 1.93 individuals/m2

 for the North Central Ecoregion, 0.81 individuals/m2 for the South Central 

Ecoregion, and 1.15 individuals/m2

 for the South Ecoregion (Allen et al. 1999). The 10 species 

considered to be most dominant by Allen (1998) and by Pondella et al. (2006) based on their Ecological 

Index values, are listed in Table 3.8-3. Seven of the 10 species listed by Allen (1999) were included in the 

top 10 ecological index species in the Pondella et al. (2006) study. Ranking order was similar in both 

studies and only the Pacific sardine was noticeably absent in the Pondella ecological index ranking table; 

it was replaced by the deepwater anchovy, a similar schooling baitfish. 

Results from Pondella et al. (2006) survey are similar to Allen et al. (2002) in which topsmelt, round 

stingray, northern anchovy (ranked 8th in 2005), slough anchovy and spotted sand bass were ranked first 

through fifth, respectively. The similarity suggests that these species are critical components of the 

trophic structure of San Diego Bay; and that they may serve as good proxy to the overall health of the fish 

in the San Diego Bay ecosystem (Pondella et al. 2006). 

The dominant fish assemblages in San Diego Bay were associated with regional area and habitat type. 

Species that were found to be numerically dominant (e.g., northern anchovy, slough anchovy, and 

topsmelt) during previous surveys showed a greater affinity to the northern portion of San Diego Bay, 

while the South-Central Ecoregion provided important nursery habitat for young of the year (YOY) for a 

wide range of San Diego Bay resident and marine migrant fish species. However, Allen (1999) and 

Pondella et al. (2006) found that the South-Central Ecoregion contained the lowest density, biomass, and 

diversity of fish species among all the ecoregions of the San Diego Bay. 

Fish species and assemblages are commonly partitioned by habitat. Species groups with wide spread 

distributions among major habitat types are referred to as generalists, while those with restricted 

distributions are specialists. Considering that San Diego Bay and the ROI contain both diverse and 

distinct habitat types, the fish utilizing these areas are made up of a mixture of both resident specialists 

(e.g., arrow gobies, bay pipefish) and generalists (e.g., spotted sand bass, northern anchovies). The total 

amount of submerged habitat within San Diego Bay is 15,694 acres (San Diego Bay Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Plan [INRMP] 2000). The ROI within San Diego Bay contains 1,999 acres of 

submerged fish habitat divided into four categories: 1) deep (< -20 feet MLLW), 2) moderately deep (-12 

to -20 feet MLLW), 3) shallow (-2 to -12 feet MLLW), and 4) intertidal (+2 to -2 feet MLLW). This 

represents 12.7 percent of all available fish habitat within San Diego Bay. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-8

Table 3.8-3: Ranking of Top 10 “Ecological Index” Fish Species for Two Survey Reports Using the 

Same Methods in San Diego Bay 

Scientific name Common name Rank 1994-1999 

(Allen et al. 1999) 

Rank 2005 

(Pondella et al. 2006) 

Atherinops affinis Topsmelt 1 2 

Urobatus halleri round stingray 2 1 

Engraulis mordax northern anchovy 3 7 

Anchoa delicatissima slough anchovy 4 3 

Paralabrax maculatofasciatus spotted sand bass 5 5 

Paralabrax nebulifer barred sand bass 6 10 

Paralichthys californicus California halibut 7 9 

Cymatogaster aggregata shiner surfperch 8 6 

Sardinops sagax Pacific sardine 9 48 

Heterostichus rostratus giant kelpfish 10 13 

Anchoa compressa deepbody anchovy 34 4 

Myliobatis californica bat ray 18 8 

Submerged fish habitat within the San Diego Bay portions of the ROI encompasses deep, (22.3 acres) or 

0.5 percent; moderately deep, (987.7 acres) or 44.3 percent; shallow, (846.2 acres) or 17.6 percent; and 

intertidal, (32.4 acres) or 1.8 percent of the total within each habitat type (Table 3.7-3). The South-Central 

Ecoregion is unique in that the eastern portion of the ecoregion is nearly completely dominated by 

armored shoreline (piers and quay wall) adjacent to deep water and the western portion (the San Diego 

Bay portion of the ROI) is comprised of gradual sloping bathymetry ending in intertidal mudflats and 

beaches. The North and North-Central Ecoregions contain narrow bands of moderately deep habitat 

because the shorelines associated with these areas are steeply sloped. Conversely, the South Ecoregion is 

dominated by salt marsh and expansive eelgrass habitats, with shorelines that are gently sloped 

terminating at deep dredged channels. The moderately deep habitat within the San Diego Bay portion of 

the ROI represents the greatest area and percentage with respect to other habitats, considering the regional 

partitioning of habitat. 

Eelgrass habitats contain a wide variety of fish species and span areas from intertidal to moderately deep 

subtidal depending on differing regions of San Diego Bay. Hoffman (1986) compared abundance and 

biomass of fish utilizing eelgrass beds and adjacent u 

Unvegetated areas in three sections of San Diego Bay and concluded that eelgrass sites supported nearly 

twice as many individual fish. Density estimates from square enclosures used to enumerate burrowinhabiting fish species such as gobies found densities of approximately 3.6 ind/m2 (Allen 1999). The 

higher catches—at vegetated sites in five of ten possible gear comparisons performed by Allen et al. 

(1999)—were consistent with previous studies and, considering gear limitations, likely understated fish 

densities within vegetated habitat. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-9

3.8.1.2.7 Coastal Nearshore 

The habitats and associated fish communities of the nearshore coastal areas within the ROI are classified 

as surf zone and coastal pelagic zone (Allen et al. 2006). The nearshore area that encompasses the ROI is 

primarily soft bottom and spans from exposed sandy beaches to the water column above the inner shelf, 

typical of much of the southern California coastline. The coastal nearshore habitat within the ROI is high 

energy surf zone and shallow (< 100 feet) nearshore areas dominated by sand and low lying (< 6.0 feet) 

rocky reef and cobble (as described in Section 3.7.1.3.1). The fish common to these areas occur over the 

more shallow portions of the shelf and the soft bottom surrounding rock reef and kelp bed environments. 

The fish assemblages of this area tie all the shallow water habitats closely together (Allen 1985). Fish 

observations within the San Diego region have recently been described by Merkel & Associates Inc. et al. 

(2002). A bathymetric survey of the area immediately offshore of the Silver Strand confirmed substrate 

conditions (Tierra Data Inc. 2006). The understory algae associated with the cobble substrate is comprised 

of primarily fleshy red algae; and canopy-forming macroalgae are mostly absent or infrequent. Associated 

invertebrate and fish communities in the understory algae habitat are similar to those found in kelp beds. 

Fish species commonly found in southern California kelp beds include topsmelt, surfperch, northern 

anchovy, California sheephead (Semicosiphus pulcher), and several species of bass (Paralabrax spp) and 

rockfish (Sebastes spp.).

Considering the substantial overlap of surf zone soft bottom and coastal pelagic habitat, in conjunction 

with the proximity of rocky reef kelp forest habitat, the range of fish species likely to occur within the 

ROI is broad. Fish species associated with the surf zone soft bottom overlap considerably with San Diego 

Bay and estuarine species, as well as YOY of other coastal pelagic species. Most species in the surf zone 

occur in other coastal habitats, and a few species occur primarily in the surf (Allen et al. 2006). Common 

species in the southern California surf zone are listed in Table 3.8-4. 

Table 3.8-4: Common Southern California Surf Zone Fish Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name 

Engraulis mordax Northern anchovy Atherinopsis californiensis Jacksmelt 

Atherinops affinis Topsmelt Leuresthes tenuis California grunion 

Hyperprosopon argenteum Walleye surfperch Seriphus politus Queenfish 

Anchoa compressa Deepbody anchovy Amphistichus argenteus Barred surfperch 

Menticurrhus undulates California corbina Umbrina roncador Yellowfin croaker 

Urobatus halleri Round stingray Mustelus californicus Gray smoothhound 

Roncador stearnsii Spotfin croaker Triakis semifasciata Leopard shark 

Micrometrus minimus Dwarf perch Syngnathus exilis Barcheek pipefish 

Heterostichus rostratus Giant kelpfish 

Source: Pondella et al. 2006 

Coastal pelagic species inhabit the open water environment over the inner shelf, but they usually occur 

within a few kilometers of shore. Species include planktivores, such as anchovies; roving stratum-feeders, 

such as croakers and California corbina (Menticurrhus undulates); and piscivores, such as Pacific 

mackerel (Scomber japonicas), Pacific bonita (Sarda chiliensis), and California barracuda (Sphyraena 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-10

 argentea), among others. Upwelling—and the mechanisms that regulate primary production—affects the 

temporal and spatial variability of the multiple trophic levels represented by this group of fish. 

Fish species associated with rocky reefs and kelp beds overlap with other nearshore habitat types; and 

although kelp and other macroalgae play a substantial role abundance and distribution of these species, 

the kelp and microalgae are only one of many factors that affect the distribution of these nearshore fish 

species. Recent estimates suggest that kelp forest habitat supports between 6 and 15 times the density of 

fish compared to a similar area of soft substrate (Bond et al. 1999). The complexity and type of structure 

(rock) play an important factor in the variation and density of rocky reef fish. The greater the complexity 

of the reef structure, the larger the surface area for encrusting invertebrates and attached algae; hence, the 

availability of food for associated fish species. In turn, the complexity and type of structure provide 

shelter for smaller fish and invertebrates, to protect them from higher-level predatory fish, increasing 

species diversity. Kelp bed and rocky reef fish overlap considerably with coastal pelagic, surf zone, and 

some deep rock habitat species. Because of the seasonal and diurnal nature of many fish species, the 

rocky reef/kelp forest habitats have a high-diversity of fish, invertebrate, and algal species. The most 

common rocky reef/kelp forest species are listed in Table 3.8-5. 

The ROI is typical of much of the California coastline, encompassing a primarily soft sand bottom 

interspersed with variable hard substrate in conjunction with one of the few large bay and estuarine 

systems, San Diego Bay. Factors affecting the nearshore habitat and associated fish species include wave 

action, sediment transport, and influences from freshwater systems. 

Table 3.8-5: Common Reef Fish Species Not Including Coastal Pelagic or Surf Zone Species 

Previously Listed 

Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name 

Chromis punctipinnis Blacksmith Medialuna californiensis Halfmoon 

Brachyistius frenatus Kelp surfperch Sebastes atrovirens Kelp rockfish 

Oxyjulis californica Senorita Rhacochilus toxotes Rubberlip surfperch 

Xenistius californiensis Salema Sebastes serriceps Treefish 

Gymnothorax mordax California moray Anisotremus davidsonnii Sargo 

Pleuronichthys coenosus CO turbot Heterodontus francisci California hornshark 

Hypsypops rubicundus Garabaldi Semicossyphus pulcher California sheephead 

Paralabrax clathratus Kelp bass Halichoeres semicinctus Rock wrasse 

Stereolepis gigas Giant black seabass Atractoscion nobilis White seabass 

Caulolatilus princeps Ocean whitefish Damalichthys vacca Pile perch 

Embiotoca jacksoni Black surfperch Hypsurus caryi Rainbow perch 

Scorpaena guttata California scopionfish Coryphopterus nicholsii Blackeye goby 

Cephaloscyllium ventriosum Swell shark Paralabrax nebulifer Barred sand bass 

Cheilotrema saturnum Black croaker 

Source: Pondella et al. 2006 

The Tijuana River, located just south of the action area, and San Diego Bay are substantial contributors of 

sediment, fresh water, and nutrients, and are major contributors in shaping the subtidal community 

dynamics of nearshore Silver Strand. Biological communities associated with the hard bottom substrate 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-11

within the study area fluctuate in presence and density both seasonally and spatially due to the areas’ 

exposure, depth, and proximity to sediment and freshwater sources. 

Few studies have concentrated on evaluating the density and diversity of fish species of nearshore soft 

bottom habitat in contrast to investigations of kelp forests. In order to enumerate the abundance of fish 

within the ocean portions of the ROI, California Department of Fish and Game catch block data was 

analyzed for the years 2002-2005. Portions of catch blocks 860, 877, and 878 incorporate a portion of the 

ROI and thus were included in the analysis. Catch in pounds-per-year for all gear types and methods for 

the five most abundant targeted fish species and fish species likely to occur at least within a portion of the 

ROI are presented in Table 3.8-6. The most abundant species in terms of pounds caught were tuna (all 

species), white seabass, California sheephead, California halibut, swordfish (Xiphias gladius), and shark 

(all species), respectively. Use of these data in relationship to the ROI should take into consideration the 

fact that substantial portions of the catch blocks occur outside the ROI; and a majority of these fish 

species are captured using gill nets, which are restricted to beyond three miles of the mainland coast, also 

placing them well outside of the ROI. Additional species encompassed in the catch block data include 

several species known to occur within San Diego Bay during some life stage, as well as fish known to 

utilize nearshore surf zone areas for opportunistic foraging and/or spawning. 

Table 3.8-6: Catch Data for the Five Most Abundant Fish Species and Fish Species Likely to Occur 

Within the ROI for the Years 2002-2005 

Common Name Gear Type Total Pounds (2002-2005) 

Tuna – all All 94,925 

Seabass – white All 78,530 

Sheephead - California All 71,132 

Halibut - California All 46,064 

Swordfish All 39,843 

Shark – all All 35,590 

Barracuda - California All 17,233 

Rockfish – all All 14,745 

Sardine - Pacific All 4,741 

Scorpionfish All 4,696 

Species listed in the catch block data are associated with hard bottom habitat such as California 

sheephead, scorpion fish (Scorpaena guttata), rockfish (all species), cabezon (Scorpaenichthys 

marmoratus), and lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus); these species only transit or forage within the ocean 

portions of the ROI on a limited basis, considering the proximity of primary hard bottom habitat to the 

north at Point Loma and south at Imperial Beach. Pelagic species including California barracuda, Pacific 

mackerel, Pacific sardines (Sardinops sagax caerulea), and Pacific bonita use the nearshore portion of the 

ROI to varying degrees depending on oceanographic conditions that affect primary production and food 

availability. Pelagic species use the upper portion of the water column and are considered seasonal 

migrants, not documented to inhabit surf zone areas for substantial time periods. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-12

 Considering the habitat contained with the coastal nearshore portions of the ROI the most likely species 

to frequent the surf zone areas shallower than 20 feet MLLW are perch, croaker, California grunion, 

topsmelt, YOY white seabass, and California halibut. All of these are well adapted to the physical rigors 

of the surf zone habitat and take advantage of suspended material for foraging. Love et al (1986) 

documented that queenfish (Seriphus politus), white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), and northern 

anchovy had the greatest index of community importance for soft bottom habitat at 6 meters depth for 

three southern California beaches. California grunions are known to spawn on nearby Imperial Beach 

(United States Army Corps of Engineers 1995) and the Coronado Strand. California grunion spawn at 

night as the highest tides recede; after approximately two weeks the recently hatched fish larvae are swept 

out to sea during high tides. California grunion use the upper intertidal habitat of beaches for spawning 

from late February to early September; Grunion activity is expected to be concentrated from late March to 

early June. 

3.8.1.3 Ichthyoplankton 

Planktonic fish larvae are an important and distinctive mode of life considered a separate category of 

plankton called ichthyoplankton; they have been studied extensively in south San Diego Bay (Department 

of the Navy [DON]/Port of San Diego [POSD] 2000). It appears that ichthyoplankton species 

composition and abundance differ substantially from juvenile/adult fish composition and abundance of 

south San Diego Bay. This means the value of south San Diego Bay for juvenile and adult fish is different 

from its value for fish eggs and larvae—when data from Allen (1998) are compared with plankton data 

from south San Diego Bay. Studies cited in DON/POSD 2000 describe a seasonal study in which conical 

net tows were taken at eight, south San Diego Bay stations every two to four weeks over a one-year 

period (1972–1973). The primary purposes of this research were to describe and evaluate the species 

composition and seasonal dynamics of larval fish in the area, and to assess possible effects from the South 

Bay Power Plant. Researchers identified the eggs and larvae of 18 species of fish from the study area, and 

found that the eggs of two species—the deepbody anchovy and the diamond turbot—accounted for over 

97 percent of the planktonic eggs collected; however, juvenile and adults of these species were not 

common in fish catches (Allen 1998). One taxonomic group consisting of the larvae of arrow, cheekspot, 

and shadow gobies, accounted for over 87 percent of the fish larvae sampled during the one-year period. 

Atherinid larvae, consisting of the topsmelt and jacksmelt (Atherinopsis californiensis), accounted for 8.5 

percent, while the remaining 4.5 percent included representatives of ten other species or higher taxa. 

Several of these species exhibited seasonal patterns of occurrence, and it was concluded that the 

ichthyoplankton assemblage of south San Diego Bay contained fewer species than occur in coastal waters 

along the Pacific coast of the United States. 

3.8.1.4 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries 

Fish in San Diego Bay taken by commercial or recreational fishing are listed in Table 3.8-7. Those 

species that support a commercial fishery are indicated with an asterisk. Commercial fishing no longer 

occurs in San Diego Bay: the last commercial fishery, for striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) in south San 

Diego Bay, ended in 1998. However, seven species inhabiting San Diego Bay support commercial 

fisheries elsewhere in southern California waters. The most important of these is the California halibut, 

The northern anchovy is taken commercially for use as live bait. In addition, the Pacific sardine is taken 

as part of this catch. Fish caught for live bait are brought and held in bait receivers located in north San 

Diego Bay, where they are sold to commercial and recreational fisherman. A much larger group of 

species are caught within the San Diego Bay by recreational fisherman and by those who fish for 

subsistence. At least 58 species are involved in the recreational catch. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-13

Table 3.8-7: Fish Species of San Diego Bay Taken by Recreational and Commercial Fishermen 

Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name

Osteichthyes bony fish Pleuronichthys ritteri spotted turbot 

Atherinops affinis Topsmelt Pleuronichthys verticalis hornyhead turbot 

Atherinopsis californiensis Jacksmelt Cheilotrema saturnum black croaker 

Leuresthes tenuis California grunion Atractoscion nobilis* white seabass 

Hippoglossina stomata bigmouth sole Genyonemus lineatus white croaker 

Xysteurys liolepis fantail sole Menticurrhus undulates California corbina 

Caranx caballus green jack Roncador stearnsii spotfin croaker 

Caranx hippos crevalle jack Seriphus politus queenfish 

Trachurus symmetricus jack mackerel Umbrina roncador yellowfin croaker 

Chanos chanos milkfish Sarda chiliensis Pacific bonito 

Clupea harengus pallasii Pacific herring Scomber japonicas Pacific mackerel 

Sardinops sagax caeruleus* Pacific sardine Scomberomorus sierra sierra 

Scorpaena guttata sculpin Medialuna californiensis halfmoon 

Scorpaenichthys marmoratus cabezon Morone saxatilis striped bass 

Amphistichus argenteus barred surfperch Paralabrax clathratus* kelp bass 

Cymatogaster aggregata shiner surfperch Paralabrax maculatofasciatus spotted sand bass 

Damalichthys vacca pile surfperch Paralabrax nebulifer barred sand bass 

Embiotoca jacksoni black surfperch Sphyraena argentea California barracuda 

Hyperprosopon argenteum walleye surfperch Albula vulpes bonefish 

Micrometrus minimus dwarf surfperch Cynoscion parvipinnis shortfin corvine 

Phanerodon furcatus white surfperch Chondrichthyes sharks and rays 

Rhacochilus toxotes rubberlip surfperch Carcharhinus remotus narrowtooth shark 

Engraulis mordax* northern anchovy Galeorhinus zyopterus soupfin shark 

Girella nigricans opaleye Mustelus californicus gray smoothhound 

Mugil cephalus* striped mullet Mustelus henlei brown smoothhound 

Hypsopsetta guttulata diamond turbot Mustelus lunulatus sicklefin smoothhound 

Paralichthys californicus* California halibut Prionace glauca blue shark 

Platichthys stellatus starry flounder Triakis semifasciata leopard shark 

Parophrys vetulus* English sole Sphyma zygaena smooth hammerhead shark 

Pleuronichthys coenosus CO turbot Squalus acanthias spiny dogfish 

Note: Asterisks indicate species of commercial importance in southern California waters

3.8.1.5 Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan 

The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) manages 89 species over a large and 

ecologically diverse area (Pacific Fisheries Management Council [PFMC] 2004). These species occupy 

diverse habitats at all stages of their life histories—such as rockfish that have pelagic (open water) eggs 

and larvae. In contrast, some species may have a discrete or narrow Essential Fish Habitat (EFH, Section 

3.7.1.3.4), such as adult rockfish showing strong affinities for specific locations/habitats. In addition, the 

FMP identifies seven composite EFHs including estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, canyon, 

continental slope/basin, neritic zone, and oceanic zone. The FMP also identifies both fishing-related and 

non-fishing-related activities that may cause adverse impacts to EFH. For example, non-fishing-related 

activities that potentially affect groundfish EFH include dredging, fill, excavation, mining, impoundment, 

discharge, water diversions, thermal actions, activities that contribute to non-point source pollution and 

sedimentation, and the introduction of potentially hazardous material (PFMC 2004). 

Detailed life history information about federally protected fish in the groundfish management plan is 

available as an appendix to Amendment 19 of the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP (PFMC 2005). These 

data are culled from fishing records where available, and from scientific literature about the species’ 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-14

preferences for certain latitudes, substrates, and depths. Based on this information, species for which the 

habitat in the ROI is at least 40 percent suitable for at least one life stage of the fish are listed in Table 

3.8-8. Fish are also listed if previously identified in San Diego Bay (Merkel & Associates 2000; Allen 

1999; Hoffman 1995). These fish are expected to occur in the ROI because of the highly suitable nature 

of the habitat for one or more stages of their life cycle. Habitat Suitability Probabilities for all fish in the 

Groundfish FMP are available in Appendix B to Amendment 19 of the FMP. 

As well as designating EFH, the PFMC designates Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC). These 

are ecologically important, rare, or sensitive habitats that should be given special attention when 

evaluating the effects of non-fishing impacts. San Diego Bay meets two criteria for an HAPC: as an 

estuary and as an eelgrass habitat (3.7.1.3.4 Marine Plants and Invertebrate Community Overview). 

The FMP for Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) includes five species—four finfish and one invertebrate—

including northern anchovy, jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), Pacific sardine, Pacific (chub) 

mackerel (Scomber japonicus), and market squid (Loligo opalescens) (PFMC 1998). All but the market 

squid could be expected in the ROI. The remaining species have wide distributions throughout California, 

as well as in international waters outside of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, and are taken directly or 

indirectly with a variety of fishing gear. Gear used to commercially harvest CPS by directed fishing 

methods include round-haul nets such as purse seines, drum seines, lampara nets, and dip nets (PFMC 

1998). CPS can also be taken incidentally in midwater trawls, pelagic trawls, gill nets, trammel nets, 

trolls, pots, and hook-and-line techniques. Non-fishing-related activities that have the potential to harm 

groundfish species could also have the same effect on these pelagic species. 

3.8.1.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 

No federally threatened or endangered fish are documented to utilize the waters of the ROI during any 

portion of their life cycle. 

3.8.1.7 Current Management through Monitoring and Enhancement 

All species groups are monitored through the San Diego Bay INRMP, including baseline inventory and 

regular monitoring. A portion of the fish species are also intermittently evaluated through the project site 

approval process. The most recent comprehensive San Diego Bay survey effort was in April and July 

2005 (Pondella et al. 2006). Surveys identify and quantify San Diego Bay’s utilization of fishery 

populations, identify habitats that support juvenile fish, and determine areas of San Diego Bay that 

support important populations of forage fish species. The INRMP and surveys are funded jointly by the 

U.S. Navy and the Port of San Diego. 

The Navy is also in the process studying EFH throughout the San Diego Bay. As discussed in Section 

3.7.1.3.2, this study will facilitate the valuation of EHF habitats with special focus on the habitat types 

most likely to be impacted by Navy activities or be used to mitigate for potential Navy project impacts. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-15

Table 3.8-8: Fish that Are Included in the Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management Plan that Could 

Be Expected to Appear in the Region of Interest 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Triakis semifasciata leopard shark 

Raja binoculata big skate 

Raja inornata California skate 

Raja rhina longnose skate 

Ophiodon elongates lingcod 

Sebastes chrysomelas black and yellow rockfish 

Sebastes mystinus blue rockfish 

Sebastes paucispinis bocaccio 

Sebastes dallii calico rockfish 

Sebastes goodei chilipepper 

Sebastes carnatus gopher rockfish 

Sebastes rastrelliger grass rockfish 

Sebastes chlorostictus greenspotted rockfish 

Sebastes umbrosus honeycomb rockfish 

Sebastes atrovirens kelp rockfish 

Sebastes diploproa splitnose rockfish

Sebastes saxicola stripetail rockfish

Sebastes serriceps treefish

Pleuronichthys decurrens curlfin sole

Citharichthys sordidus Pacific sanddab

Scorpaena guttata California scorpionfish 

Parophrys vetulus English sole 

3.8.1.8 Current Mitigation Measures 

No current mitigation measures are in place that address fish species specifically. Habitat mitigation for 

intertidal and subtidal areas (Section 3.7.1.5), including eelgrass, provide a degree of mitigation for fish 

species documented to reside within those habitats. 

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences 

This section presents the analysis of potential impacts to fish as a result of implementation of the project 

alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The analysis of effects on fish concerns direct physical 

injury—the potential for death, injury, or reduced productivity due to disturbance. Two EFHs are located 

within the ROI: (1) Eelgrass EFH, and (2) Groundfish EFH. Groundfish EFH encompasses estuarine, 

rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, canyon, and oceanic zone within the ROI. Alternatives 1 and 2,increase 

training tempo from baseline conditions, introduce new platforms and equipment into training, and 

decrease access restrictions and encumbrances on training. Implementation of any alternative other than 

the No Action Alternative will result in an increase in the number of training activities that are conducted 

in the ROI. Alternative 2 is identical to Alternative 1, except that the Navy would utilize all 7,000 yards 

of ocean beaches along SSTC-N and SSTC-S, and all bayside training beaches—except the Delta North 

and South California least tern nesting habitat (i.e., Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Echo, Foxtrot, Golf, and 

Hotel) for continuous, year-round training.Activities analyzed in this section for all alternatives are 1-14, 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-16

16, 18, 20-30, 32-35, 37-42, 44-46, 49-53, 57, 66, 73, 77, and 78 and N1-N9 and N11 (Table 2-1 and 2-

2). Marine vessel traffic in the SSTC—mainly support vessels for training activities—is analyzed for 

effect. Training activities in which interactions between personnel/craft and fish are anticipated to be 

rare—swimming, diving, or activities that utilize only non-motorized combat raiding rubber crafts 

(CRRCs) (Activities 54, 55, 56, 60, 64, 67, 69-71, and 73, Table 2-1)—are excluded from individual 

analysis as potential impacts from interactions would be minimal to non-existent. Training activities that 

occur exclusively on the land portion of SSTC are excluded from this analysis as they are not expected to 

impact fish that may be present adjacent to the SSTC beach or bayside training areas. (Activities 15, 17, 

19, 31, 36, 43, 47, 48, 58, 59, 61-63, 65, 68, 72, and 74-76; and N10, Table 2-1 and 2-2). Analyses of 

potential impacts to EFHs are addressed in 3.7.1.4 as well as a separate EFH Assessment document to be 

used in consultation with NMFS. 

3.8.2.1 Approach to Analysis 

To assess the impact of training activities on fishery resources in the ROI, training activities were divided 

into constituent activities that have potential to impact the environment. These activities occur in a 

defined manner and space; therefore their effect on the environment can be assessed. A literature review 

on potential effects common to most activities is presented and includes shock waves, acoustic effects 

(noise), disturbance, and habitat modification. 

Effects on fish, and the distances at which behavioral effects can occur, depend on the nature of the 

disturbance, the sensitivity of the fish, and species-specific behavioral responses. Changes in fish 

behavior can reduce their catch ability. The following methods were used to assess potential effects on 

fish: Received stimuli that correspond to the various types of effects on fish; and effects to fish including 

physical damage to fish, short-term behavioral reactions, long-term behavioral reactions, and changes in 

distribution. 

The relative abundance of fish species present within the effect area was estimated. Whether there was an 

effect within each effect area was then determined. If there was an effect, it was described in terms of 

relative numbers affected versus total relative population on the range. The no effect determination 

included cases where there were no effects on fish; or there were inconsequential changes in their 

behavior. 

Whereas baseline conditions describe the relative abundance of fish as estimated from density or fisheries 

data, estimates of the absolute abundance of fish for the nearshore coastal areas of interest are not 

available. There are few available estimates of abundance for the shallow areas of SSTC-N and SSTC-S. 

Thus, effects on fish in the nearshore coastal area are expressed in relative terms. 

There are two types of sound sources that are of concern to fish and fisheries. 1) Strong underwater shock 

pulses that can cause physical damage to fish. 2) Underwater sounds that could cause disturbance to fish 

and affect their biology or catch ability by fishermen. Both types of sound can cause changes in fish 

distribution and/or behavior. This assessment focuses on these potential effects on fish. 

Disturbance of fish and/or modification of fish habitat from activities are evaluated based on the area the 

individual action encompasses, and the value and type of habitat known to occur within the specific area. 

The activity descriptions provided below (Sections 3.8.2.2 and 3.8.2.3) define the general location and 

manner in which the activity occurs, which can then determine how resources are affected that are not 

evenly distributed across the environment. 

The data obtained on effects of sound and shock waves on fish are very limited—in terms of number of 

well-controlled studies and in number of species tested. There are limits in the range of data available for 

any particular type of sound source. Additionally, available data focused on fish habitat modification or 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-17

disturbances related to behavioral changes in fish movement or activity from aircraft and marine vessels 

are limited or absent. Considering the sources of shockwaves, sound, and habitat modification associated 

with the activities described in Chapter 2, effects pertaining to fish are grouped by action in the following 

alternatives analysis. 

3.8.2.1.1 Effects of Shock Waves 

A number of studies have examined the effects of explosives on fish. These are reviewed in detail in 

Hastings and Popper (2005). A problem with these studies is that they are variable and extrapolate from 

one study to another. While many of these studies show that fish die if they are near the source—there are 

some suggestions there is a correlation between size of the fish and death (Yelverton et al. 1975)—little is 

known about important issues of non-mortality damage in the short and long term; and very little is 

known about effects of shock waves on fish behavior. 

Several factors determine a fish’s susceptibility to injury and death from shock wave effects. Most blast 

injuries in fish and marine animals involve damage to air- or gas-containing organs (Yelverton 1981). 

Many species of fish have a swim bladder, which is a gas-filled organ used to control buoyancy. Fish with 

swim bladders are vulnerable to effects of underwater explosions; whereas most species of invertebrates 

without swim bladders are much more resistant (Yelverton 1981; Young 1991). During exposure to shock 

waves, the differential speed of the waves through the body of the fish versus the gas-filled space of the 

swim bladder causes the bladder to oscillate. If the swim bladder ruptures, it can cause hemorrhages in 

nearby organs. In the extreme case, the oscillating swim bladder may rupture the body wall of the fish 

(Yelverton 1981). There is no difference in susceptibility between fish with a swim bladder that is ducted 

to the intestinal tract and those fish that do not (Yelverton et al. 1973; Yelverton 1981). After a nearby 

underwater blast, most mortality in fish occurs within 1 to 4 hours. 

The rapid rise time of shock waves resulting from detonation of high-explosives underwater is the cause 

of most of the organ and tissue damage in fish (Yelverton 1981, Goertner et al. 1994). Explosive blast 

pressure waves consist of an extremely high peak pressure (called overpressure) with very rapid rise times 

(< 1 millisecond). Mortality of fish correlates better with impulse, measured in units of pressure time 

pascals per second (Pa·s) or pounds per square inch per second (psi·s), than with other blast parameters 

(Yelverton 1981). The received impulse depends on the depth at which the fish is swimming, the depth of 

the charge, the mass of the charge, and the distance from charge to fish. Fish near the water’s bottom or 

near a bank will receive a larger impulse. A fish on the bottom over a hard surface would receive a greater 

impulse than it would in open water (Yelverton et al. 1973; Yelverton 1981). Bottom reflection can also 

be enhanced if it is focused by bottom terrain. 

Concern about potential fish mortality associated with the use of underwater explosives led military 

researchers to develop mathematical and computer models that predict safe ranges for fish and other 

animals from explosions of various sizes (e.g. Yelverton et al. 1973; Goertner et al. 1994). Previous 

experiments focused on fish with swim bladders and explosions taking place in deep water. In contrast, 

underwater detonations within the ROI occur in shallow water (< 100 feet) and the shock waves 

propagate over a variable substrate. The impulse levels that kill or damage fish with swim bladders have 

been determined empirically to be as follows (from Yelverton 1981): 

• 50 percent Mortality: ln(I)=3.6136 + 0.3201 ln(M) 

• 1 percent Mortality: ln(I)= 3.0158 + 0.3201 ln(M) 

• No Injuries: ln(I)= 2.0042 + 0.3201 ln(M) 

Where I = impulse (in Pa·s) and M = body mass of a fish with a swim bladder. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-18

Ideally, it is sound intensity levels that studies would like to measure. Yelverton (1981) used a time 

component of seconds to examine effects of large blasts on fish a considerable distance away from the 

source while underwater detonation studies measured only the peak pressure (pounds per square inch 

[psi]) or energy in decibels referenced to 1 micropascal (dB re 1 μPa) for smaller explosions to examine 

the propagation of pressure through the water column. In an attempt to integrate studies to examine 

effects from one time detonations measuring pressure (psi) versus prolonged effects from impulses 

(Pascal seconds [Pa·s]), the possibility of removing the time component of Yelverton’s (1981) studies was 

examined. While the pressure (psi) thresholds from underwater detonation tests could be converted to 

Pascals (Pa), the time component reported in Yelverton’s (1981) mortality levels could not be discounted. 

Differences in study methods and measurements between important investigations examining pressure 

effects on fish and the pressure at defined distances from detonations of known magnitude must make 

some generalizations and assumptions about fish assemblages to make effects determinations in terms of 

distance of effect. Thus, effects on fish are based on the Yelverton (1981) impulse thresholds calculated 

empirically for various fish common in the ROI shown in Table 3.8-9. 

Table 3.8-9: Impulses that Would Cause No Injury, 1 Percent Mortality, or 50 Percent Mortality to 

Common Species of Fish that Occur in the Study Area and That Have Swim Bladders 

Underwater explosive testing was performed near SSTC-N at Naval Amphibious Base (NAB) in very 

shallow water (VSW) (15 feet) for similar conditions to the ROI (Naval Surface Warfare Center 

[NSWC]/Anteon Corp., Inc. 2005) to investigate the potential effect to marine mammals and turtles 

(discussed in Section 3.9.2.4.3). Pressure waves were measured at various radii for 2- and 15-pound 

explosions located on the bottom, mid-water, and on the surface. At NAB peak pressure (psi), values 

recorded for off-bottom charges were approximately 50 percent greater at both the mid and far range 

sensors than for the same sized charges placed on the bottom. For most of the test shots reported in the 

NSWC/Anteon Corp., Inc. (2005) testing the deepest gages showed the least pressure. This is contrary to 

typical detonations in the middle and upper part of the deeper water column that usually produce an 

increase in pressure and energy near the bottom at distance—because of combinations of direct and 

bottom-reflected pressure waves and refraction. In the very shallow water environment, the bottom slopes 

away moving into deeper water. Bottom or near bottom detonations may create a shadow zone along the 

bottom at distance—because of the general linear property of ray-paths. Given the non-linear degradation 

of impulse waves through sea water and the variability of bottom substrate and depth of the explosions, it 

is difficult to estimate the distance of no effect for all the possible ranges of detonations. 

Species 

Body Mass 

Swim 

Bladder 

Habitat Impulse Levels 

(Pascal·seconds) 

lb kg Inshore Offshore Water 

Column 

No 

Injury 

1% 

Mortality 

50% 

Mortality

Pacific mackerel 2 0.9 Y X X Pelagic 66 181 328 

Pacific sardine 0.5 0.2 Y X X Pelagic 42 116 211 

Flatfish 1.5 0.7 N X X Bottom N/A N/A N/A 

Rockfish 1 0.5 Y X Bottom/Pelagic 53 145 271 

Goby 0.1 0.05 Y X Bottom 25 69 126 

Señorita 1 0.5 Y X Water Column 53 145 263 

Kelp bass 9 4.1 Y X Water Column 106 292 532 

California 

sheephead 15 6.8 Y X Bottom 125 344 626 

Results derived from applying Yelverton’s (1981) equations to typical fish weights.lb – pounds kg - kilograms 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-19

An effects distance can be determined for fish of similar size to species known to occur within the ROI by 

integrating impulse and peak pressure results from the underwater explosive testing performed by 

NSWC/Anteon Corp., Inc. (2005)—with effects criteria derived from Yelverton’s (1981) empirical 

equation (Table 3.8-9). Goertner (1994) performed tests on fish with and without swim bladders: 

hogchokers (Trinectes maculatus) and summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus). In the fish without swim 

bladders, the report shows that hogchokers, exposed to 10-pound underwater detonations at 30 feet, all 

sustained critical injury—severe hemorrhaging throughout body cavity, and/or gross kidney damage—or 

death. If it is assumed that the type of underwater detonation utilized in the Goertner study was similar to 

those tested in the NSWC/Anteon Corp., Inc. (2005) investigation, a peak pressure of approximately 

1,000 psi can be estimated at the 30 feet distance for a 10-pound underwater detonation. With the severity 

of the injuries to fish exposed to 1,000 psi peak pressure without swim bladders, it can be assumed that at 

least 50 percent mortality would result. Summer flounder,—fish without swim bladders—were also tested 

in the Goertner study; they sustained no injuries from the same 10-pound underwater detonations at 

distances as close as 6 feet. In contrast, Goertner (1994) reported results from a similar study performed 

on fish with swim bladders and determined that fish with swim bladders were susceptible to impulse 

effects 100 times greater than fish without swim bladders. Effects to fish from underwater detonations are 

dependent on species, weight, and impulse level. 

3.8.2.1.2 Acoustic Effects of Underwater Sounds to Fish 

Sensitivity of Fish to Acoustic Energy 

Fish have a variety of different sensory systems that enable them to gather information from the world 

around them (volumes by Atema et al. 1988 and by Collin and Marshall 2003 for thorough reviews of fish 

sensory systems). While each of the sensory systems may have some overlap in providing a fish with 

information about a particular stimulus, such as when an animal might see and hear a predator, different 

sensory systems may be most appropriate to serve an animal in a particular situation. Thus, vision is often 

most useful when a fish is close to the source of the signal in daylight, and when the water is clear. 

However, vision does not work well at night, or in deep waters. Fish can use chemical signals to indicate 

danger. However, chemical signals travel slowly in water: diffusion of the chemicals depends upon 

currents; further, chemical signals are not directional and may diffuse quickly to a non-detectable level. 

As a consequence, chemical signals may not be effective over long distances. 

In contrast, an acoustic signal in water travels very rapidly, it travels great distances without substantially 

attenuating (declining in level) in open water, and its travel is highly directional. Thus, acoustic signals 

provide the potential for two distant animals to communicate quickly (reviewed in Zelick et al. 1999; 

Popper et al. 2003). 

Since sound is a good way to gather information and communicate, fish have evolved two sensory 

systems to detect acoustic signals (Zelick et al. 1999 for review). The two systems are the ear, for 

detection of sound above 20 hertz (Hz) to 1 kilohertz (kHz) or more, and the lateral line for detection of 

hydrodynamic signals (water motion) from less than 1 Hz to 100 or 200 Hz. The inner ear in fish 

functions very much like the ear found in all other vertebrates, including mammals. The lateral line, in 

contrast, is only found in fish and a few amphibian (frogs) species. It consists of a series of receptors 

along the body of the fish. Together, the ear and lateral line are often referred to as the octavolateralis 

system. 

Sound in Water 

The physical principles of sound in water are the same as sound in air (see Rogers and Cox 1988; Kalmijn 

1988, Kalmijn1989). Any sound source produces both pressure waves and actual motion of the medium 

particles. However, whereas in air the actual particle motion attenuates very rapidly and is often 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-20

inconsequential even a few centimeters from a sound source, particle motion travels (propagates) much 

further in water due to the greater density of water than air. In the literature on fish hearing, the terms 

“acoustic near field” and the “acoustic far field” can be found, with the former referring to the particle 

motion component of the sound and the latter the pressure. There is often the misconception that the near 

field component is only present close to the source. However, all propagating sound in water has both 

pressure and particle motion components; but after some distance, often defined as the point at a distance 

of wavelength of the sound divided by 2 pi (λ/2π), the pressure component of the signal dominates, 

though particle motion is still present and potentially important for fish (e.g., Rogers and Cox 1988, 

Kalmijn 1988, Kalmijn 1989). For a 500 Hz signal, this point is about 0.5 m from the source. 

The critical point to note is that fish detect both pressure and particle motion, whereas terrestrial 

vertebrates only detect pressure. Fish directly detect particle motion using the inner ear. However, 

pressure signals are initially detected by the gas-filled swim bladder or other bubble of air in the body. 

The air bubble then vibrates and serves as a small sound source which reradiates or resends the signal to 

the inner ear as a near field particle motion. The ear can only detect particle motion directly, and it needs 

the air bubble to produce particle motion from the pressure component of the signal. 

If a fish is able to only detect particle motion, it is most sensitive to sounds when the source is nearby, due 

to the substantial attenuation of the particle motion signal as it propagates away from the sound source. 

As the signal level gets lower and further from the source, the signal ultimately goes below the minimum 

level detectable by the ear, the threshold. Fish that detect both particle motion and pressure are more 

sensitive to sound than are fish that only detect particle motion: the pressure component of the signal 

attenuates much less over distance than does the particle motion; although, both particle motion and 

pressure are always present in the signal as it propagates from the source. 

One critical difference between particle motion and pressure is that fish pressure signals are not 

directional. Thus, for fish pressure does not appear to come from any direction (Popper et al. 2003, Fay 

2005). In contrast, particle motion is highly directional and is detectable by the ear. Accordingly, fish 

appear to use the particle motion component of a sound field to gather information about sound source 

direction. This makes particle motion an extremely important signal to fish. 

As both pressure and particle motion are important to fish, it becomes critical that in design of 

experiments to test the effects of sound on fish and fish hearing, the signal must be understood not only in 

pressure levels, but also in its particle motion component. This has not been done in most experiments on 

effects of human-generated sound to date, with the exception of one study on effects of seismic airguns on 

fish (Popper et al. 2005). 

What do Fish Hear? 

Based on current knowledge, all fish are able to perceive lower frequency sounds, from below 50 Hz to 

1,500 Hz, whereas some fish have developed accessory hearing structures enabling them to detect higher 

frequencies over 3,000 Hz (Fay 1988; Ramcharitar and Popper 2004). A select few are able to detect 

sounds over 120 kHz (Mann et al. 2001). Broadly, fish can be categorized as hearing specialists or 

hearing generalists (Scholik and Yan 2002). 

Fish in the hearing specialist category, such as carp, catfish, and mormyrids, have a broad hearing 

frequency range with a low auditory threshold due to a mechanical connection between an air-filled 

cavity, such as a swim bladder, and the inner ear. Specialists detect both the particle motion and pressure 

components of sound and can hear at levels well above 1,000 Hz, whereas generalists are limited to 

detection of the particle motion component of low-frequency sounds at high sound intensities (Amoser 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-21

and Ladich 2005). The best hearing sensitivity of many hearing generalists is at or around 300 Hz (Popper 

2003). 

Hearing specializations are most often found in freshwater species, while in marine species 

specializations are quite rare (Amoser and Ladich 2005). It can be argued that the evolution of hearing 

specializations was facilitated by low ambient noise levels found in lakes, slowly flowing waters, and the 

deep sea (Amoser and Ladich 2005; Ladich and Bass 2003; Popper 1980). This evolution most likely 

came about due to the essential need to detect abiotic noise, avoid approaching predators and detect prey, 

and to a much lesser degree, communicate acoustically (Amoser and Ladich 2005; Fay and Popper 2000). 

If the sound is loud enough and within the range of frequencies a fish can hear, a sound will be detected 

by a fish at some distance from the source. Because of the variable hearing thresholds summarized above, 

this distance varies among species. Theoretically, a yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacores) would need to be 

much closer than an Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) to hear a low-frequency sound at a given energy level. 

Studies in reference to effects on hearing have been of two types. In one set of studies, the investigators 

exposed fish to long-term increases in background noise to determine if there are changes in hearing, 

growth, or survival of the fish (Wysocki and Ladich 2005). While data are limited to a few freshwater 

species, it appears that some increase in ambient noise level, even to above 170 dB re 1 μPa does not 

permanently alter the hearing ability of the hearing generalist species studied, even if the increase in 

sound level is for an extended period of time. However, this may not be the case for all hearing 

generalists, though it is likely that any temporary hearing loss in such species would be considerably less 

than for specialists receiving the same noise exposure. 

There is a small group of studies that discusses effects of high intensity sound on fish, where fish were 

exposed to short duration but high intensity signals, such as might be found near underwater detonations, 

pile driving, or seismic air gun surveys. The investigators in such studies were examining whether there 

was not only hearing loss and other long-term effects, but also short-term effects that could result in death 

to the exposed fish. However, as discussed in Hastings and Popper (2005), much of this literature has not 

been peer reviewed, and there are substantial issues with regard to the actual effects of high intensity 

sounds on fish. Popper et al. (2005) examined the effects of exposure to a seismic air gun array on three 

species of fish found in the Mackenzie River Delta near Inuvik, Northwest Territories, Canada. The 

species included a hearing specialist, the lake chub (Couesius plumbeus), and two hearing generalists, the 

northern pike (Esox lucius), and the broad whitefish (Coregonus nasus) (a salmonid). In this study, fish in 

cages were exposed to 5 or 20 shots from a 730 cubic inch calibrated air gun array. Received Exposure 

Levels (RL) were determined for root-mean-square (RMS) sound pressure level, peak sound levels and 

SELs (e.g., average mean peak SPL 207 dB re 1 μPa RL; mean RMS sound level 197 dB re 1 μPa RL; 

mean SEL 177 dB re 1 μPa2

s). 

The results showed a temporary hearing loss for both lake chub and northern pike, but not for the broad 

whitefish, to both 5 and 20 air gun shots. Hearing loss was on the order of 20 to 25 dB at some 

frequencies for both the northern pike and lake chub, and full recovery of hearing took place within 18 

hours after sound exposure. While a full pathological study was not conducted, fish of all three species 

survived the sound exposure and were alive more than 24 hours after exposure. Those fish of all three 

species had intact swim bladders and there was no apparent external or internal damage to other body 

tissues (e.g., no bleeding or grossly damaged tissues), although it is important to note that the observer in 

this case was not a trained pathologist. Recent examination of the ear tissues by an expert pathologist 

showed no damage to sensory hair cells in any of the fish exposed to sound (Song et al. submitted). 

A critical result of this study was that it demonstrated differences in the effects of air guns on the hearing 

thresholds of different species. In effect, these results substantiate the argument made by Hastings et al. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-22

(1996) and McCauley et al. (2003) that it is difficult to extrapolate between species with regard to the 

effects of intense sounds. 

There have been a number of studies that suggest that the sounds from pile driving, and particularly from 

driving of larger piles, kill fish that are very close to the source. The source levels in such cases often 

exceed 230 dB re 1 μPa (peak) and there is some evidence of tissue damage accompanying exposure (e.g., 

Caltrans 2001, 2004; reviewed in Hastings and Popper 2005). However, there is reason for concern in 

analysis of such data since in many cases the only dead fish observed were those that came to the surface. 

It is not clear whether fish that did not come to the surface survived the exposure to the sounds, or died 

and were carried away by currents. 

In summary, the lethal and sublethal effects of noise on fish is variable among species and the source of 

noise, and considering the limited availability of pertinent literature and the absence of specific 

investigations on species known to occur within the ROI, use of sound levels (dB re 1 μPa RL) should be 

carefully utilized when accessing potential effects. 

3.8.2.1.3 Disturbance- Behavioral Responses to Acoustic Energy 

Underwater sounds have been used by fishermen to guide herring and other schooling fish to their nets 

(Yelverton 1981), or to exclude fish from water intakes (Haymes and Patrick 1986). The noises made by 

fishing boats can scare some target fish. Sudden changes in noise level can cause fish to dive or to avoid 

the sound by changing direction. Time of year, whether the fish have eaten, and the nature of the sound 

signal may all influence how fish will respond to it. 

Short, sharp sounds can startle herring. In one study, the fish changed direction and moved away from the 

80–92 Hz source, but schooling behavior was not affected (Blaxter et al. 1981). Schwarz and Greer 

(1984) studied the responses of penned herring to sounds. The experimental pen was 3.3 meters long on 

each side. The following responses were noted (Schwarz and Greer 1984): 

• Avoidance - fish moved slowly away from the sound source. 

• Alarm - the school packed, fled at high speed, dove repeatedly, and quickly changed 

directions. 

• Startle - fish flexed their bodies powerfully and then swam at high speed without changing 

direction, or shuddered with each blast (the last noted by Pearson et al. 1992). 

The low-frequency (<2 kHz) sounds of large vessels or accelerating small vessels usually caused an initial 

avoidance response among herring. The startle response was observed occasionally. Avoidance ended 

within 10 seconds of the “departure” of the vessel. After the initial response, 25 percent of the fish groups 

habituated to the sound of the large vessel and 75 percent of the responsive fish groups habituated to the 

sound of the small boat. Chapman and Hawkins (1969) also noted that fish adjust rapidly to high 

underwater sound levels. 

Pearson et al. (1992) conducted a controlled experiment to determine effects of low-frequency (mostly 

<500 Hz), strong noise pulses on several species of rockfish off the California coast. They used an air gun 

with a source level of 223 dB re 1 μPa. They noted: 

• Startle responses at received levels 200 to 205 dB re 1 μPa and above for two sensitive fish 

species (olive and black rockfish), but not for two other species exposed to levels up to 207 

dB. 

• Alarm responses at 177 to 180 dB for the two sensitive species, and at 186–199 dB for other 

species. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-23

• An overall threshold for the above behavioral response at ~180 dB. 

• An extrapolated threshold of approximately 161 dB for subtle changes in the behavior of 

rockfish that included reduced catch ability in a hook and line fishery (Skalski et al. 1992). 

• A return to pre-exposure behavior types within the 20 to 60 minute exposure period. 

Popper et al. (2005) exposed three freshwater fish species (northern pike, broad whitefish, and lake chub) 

to 20 air gun shots over 15 minutes at peak received levels >205 dB re 1 μPa. There were no apparent 

physical effects, and a temporary shift in hearing sensitivity (Temporary Threshold Shift, TTS) was found 

in only two of the species, with recovery within 24 hours of exposure. 

Experiments conducted by Skalski et al. (1992), Dalen and Raknes (1985), Dalen and Knutsen (1986), 

and Engas et al. (1996) demonstrated that some fish were forced to the bottom and others driven from the 

area in response to low-frequency air gun noise. The authors speculated that catch per unit effort would 

return to normal quickly in their experimental area because behavior of the fish returned to normal 

minutes after the sounds ceased. 

Aircraft overflights occur within the ROI on a daily basis and helicopter activities below 1,000 feet above 

ground level. Sound does not transmit well from air to water. The sound levels resulting from an HH-60 

helicopter flying at 1,000 feet flying at 100 feet, and hovering at 10 feet were 110, 129, and 143 dB re 1 

μPa, respectively, directly under the helicopter at a depth of 1 foot (USAF 1999). Sound levels decline at 

increasing lateral distances from the aircraft’s track or location and with increasing depth in the water. 

The underwater sounds originating from the aircraft decline rapidly after the aircraft has passed. It is 

unlikely that these sound levels cause physical damage or even behavioral effects in fish, based on the 

sound levels that have been found to cause such effects. Effects of underwater noise attributed to aircraft 

overflights on fish would be minimal. 

In summary, fish often react to sounds, especially continuous strong and/or intermittent sounds of low 

frequency (<1 kHz) at received levels of 160 dB re 1 μPa and higher. Low-frequency pulses at levels of 

180 dB may cause noticeable changes in behavior, such as an alarm response and lowered catch ability 

(Chapman and Hawkins 1969; Pearson et al. 1992; Skalski et al. 1992). These sounds are 80 to 100 dB 

over and above the fish’s hearing threshold. It appears that fish often habituate to repeated strong sounds 

rather rapidly, on time scales of minutes to an hour or so. However, the habituation does not endure, and 

resumption of the disturbing activity may again elicit disturbance responses from the same fish. However, 

while behavior modification of fish from mechanically propelled vessels may occur, the level of 

disturbance is primarily categorized as avoidance (Schwarz and Greer 1984). 

The Glacier Bay Underwater Noise – Interim Report investigated sources of underwater noise and sound 

levels of all types of ships and/or small craft transiting Glacier Bay, Alaska. The types of vessels 

categorized in the NSWC study were similar to those utilized for SSTC actions within the ROI. The study 

reported that only about one percent of noise samples collected contained marine vessel noise levels 

exceeding 120 dB and no vessel noise levels exceeded 130 dB at the hydrophone (NSWF, 2002). 

Expected noise levels of vessels used in the ROI would be less than those shown to provoke strong 

behavioral responses. Sound events resulting in avoidance behavior are not expected to have a long-term 

adverse impact on health or survival or a lasting disruption of behavioral patterns (such breeding, feeding, 

or sheltering) from such temporary and transitory sound events. 

3.8.2.1.4 Habitat Modification 

Natural disturbances are important agents of change in ecosystems. Various characteristics, such as 

spatial scale and time of disturbance, result in differential abilities of species (and ecosystems) to respond 

(Allen et al. 2006). In the context of activities taking place within the ROI and their potential to physically 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-24

modify fish habitat both short and long term, the area of disturbance (i.e. habitat) is critical when 

evaluating effect. The partitioning and terminology used to define waters within the ROI are important in 

order to describe the region as well as the areas of potential effect within both the bayside and oceanside 

training areas. The oceanographic term nearshore describes a regional area from the land/sea interface to 

deeper waters over the continental shelf out to approximately 1,000 feet in depth. While the ROI 

encompasses both San Diego Bay and nearshore ocean waters the majority of potential effects from 

activities are focused on shallow areas described as intertidal areas, mudflats, or surf zone. In order to 

discuss interactions between these areas and activities the term surf zone will refer to the land/sea 

interface within the ocean training areas out to approximately -10 feet MLLW and mudflats, intertidal 

areas, or eelgrass will refer to areas within San Diego Bay from -10 feet MLLW to the high tide mark. 

Surf zone habitat is constantly changing to some degree based on longshore sand transport and wave 

action; the fish species residing there have adapted to habitat modification and take advantage of 

opportunities. In contrast, mudflats and eelgrass habitat within the San Diego Bay is in a somewhat steady 

state in comparison to the surf zone; several fish species occupy small home ranges and depend on the 

persistence of eelgrass to maintain their existence. Specific studies investigating bottom disturbance from 

watercraft operating near or landing on sandy beaches, intertidal areas, mudflats, or eelgrass are not 

available; thus, affects analyses can only be estimated in relative terms based on the size of the marine 

vessels accessing these areas and the duration of the activity. 

Fish habitat in the near coastal marine environment is segregated based on depth, type, and complexity of 

the substrate fish associate with. Fish species associated with hard bottom/rocky reef areas have smaller 

home ranges and defined habitat criteria than species associated with soft bottom areas. Effects on fish 

with regard to habitat modification within soft bottom (sand) areas of southern California are not 

comprehensive and studies have primarily focused on habitat modification within kelp forests or rock reef 

areas. The majority of studies evaluated changes in macroalgae cover or density and the relationship to 

effects on fish densities and species diversity. Studies investigating habitat modification with regard to 

vessel anchoring or mooring have focused on coral reef environments. Thus, potential effects from SSTC 

activities within the nearshore coastal marine environment related to fish habitat modification will be 

centered on the type of interaction the activity has with the bottom substrate and the type and complexity 

of that substrate. Potential effects to fish assemblages will be based on the fish species common to that 

substrate and densities or relative abundances documented for that area. 

3.8.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would maintain the current level and types of training that occur in the ROI. 

Current mitigation measures would remain unchanged. This section focuses on only groups of activities 

that have the potential to result in an impact to specified fish species (As discussed previously, similar 

types of activities are grouped together to facilitate effects analysis). Types of activities that could affect 

fish include aircraft activities (related to sound propagation into the water column), marine vessel 

activities, underwater detonations, and amphibious activities. In addition, beach and inland activities have 

minimal or no potential for impact to fish in areas within the SSTC study area, as these areas are removed 

from aquatic habitats. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-25

3.8.2.2.1 Air Activities 

Air activities consist of Unmanned Aircraft System training, as well as, helicopter take offs, landings, and 

activity practice. Under the No Action Alternative, there are 10 activities that involve aircraft training. 

Many of the training activities utilize helicopters to transport and deploy equipment and individuals into 

the water, where personnel either swim to shore or perform activities in the water. While the majority of 

helicopter activities occur at distances too far above the water to influence fish communities, a proportion 

of activities occur in close proximity (less than 300 feet above ground level.) to the water’s surface. 

Helicopters deploy personnel and equipment in oceanside training lanes (Activities 4, 6, 7, 12, 16, 25, 26, 

28, 29, 30, 35, 37, 64, Table 2-1). Helicopter activities would have the greatest impact when flying low 

and hovering at altitudes down to 100 feet. Noise modeling indicates that the predicted SEL at a depth of 

1 foot resulting from the overflight of an HH-60 helicopter at 100 feet would be approximately 100 to 118 

dB re 1 μPa (frequencies of 20 Hz and 5 kHz) with peak sound levels potentially reaching 129 dB re 1 

μPa (USAF, 1999). Low elevation hovering during these activities would not have physical effects on fish 

under the surface of the water based on these sound levels and effects criteria. Effects criteria developed 

in the previous section 3.8.2.1.2 suggest that some behavior modifications related to noise may occur but 

are unlikely, as underwater hearing ability of fish is not considered sensitive enough to detect the noise 

associated with helicopter overflights and hovering and behavioral studies have indicated that response 

thresholds are extremely high, greater than 180 dBA. 

Any physical or behavioral effect, however infrequent, would be temporary and infrequent based on the 

variability of fish residing near the water’s surface in SSTC-N and SSTC-S and the number of activities 

performed per year. Aircraft landings on shore within bayside training areas would have localized 

disturbance and habitat modification potentially affecting fish foraging within eelgrass habitat. Effects 

from San Diego Bay landings would be temporary and localized considering the dynamic nature of the 

intertidal habitat, the short duration the action takes place within the habitat, and the probability that fish 

would be present at the time of the action. Disturbance of fish from the noise, physical presence, or sea 

surface disturbance from aircraft within the ROI would be limited to fish utilizing the area immediately 

adjacent to the action and likely only within the uppermost section of the water column. Reduced foraging 

success or behavior modification attributed to air actions is not likely to occur according to findings 

previously presented. Any temporary effect to fish near the surface remains a low probability considering 

the temporal variability of both training actions and the potential for fish to be present near the sea surface 

within a specific training area. 

3.8.2.2.2 Marine Vessels Activities 

Marine vessel use in the ROI consists of non-mechanically propelled boats, propeller surface craft, and 

water jet driven craft. Non-mechanically propelled craft are used by trainees to navigate in San Diego Bay 

and ocean waters, as well as, for transportation to shore for training activities. Interactions between 

personnel/craft and fish, which are anticipated to be rare and innocuous, such as swimming or activities 

that utilize only non-motorized CRRCs, are excluded from individual activity analysis as potential 

impacts from interactions would be minimal to non-existent. Under the No Action Alternative, marine 

vessels both mechanically driven and self-propelled are utilized in 41 of the 78 training activities 

(Activities 1- 3, 5 -14, 16, 18, 20 - 28, 32 - 35, 37 - 41, 44 - 46, 49, 51 - 53, 57, 77, 78, Table 2-1). 

Propeller surface craft are used for a variety of purposes in the ROI. Propeller surface craft are used in 

entirely water-based activities, where trainees practice navigation, mock boat attacks, and boarding drills. 

These craft are also used to transport people or equipment to shore for raids or activities, as safety support 

for swimmers during physical fitness training, and to transport marine mammals for training. Under the 

No Action Alternative, training activities involve propeller- and jet-driven surface craft of various size 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-26

and speed. Activities occur in both San Diego Bay and oceanside training lanes and to varying degrees 

involve landing on beaches in both areas. 

Effects on fish from marine vessels either mechanically driven or self-propelled operating within the ROI 

include physical impacts, sound, visual disturbance, and habitat modification. Because of the variable 

hearing thresholds among fish species the distance at which they are affected can vary. Sudden changes in 

noise level can cause fish to dive or to avoid the sound by changing direction. The density of the water 

column (water, temperature, turbidity), time of year, whether the fish have eaten, and the nature of the 

sound signal may all influence how fish respond to sound or movement (Schwarz and Green 1984). 

Marine vessels utilized during various training activities land on beaches and San Diego Bay shorelines 

that support fish assemblages. The modification of intertidal habitat depends on the size of the marine 

vessel, the frequency of the landings within the area, and whether the propulsion system creates scouring 

during the landing activity. 

Effects on fish species from noise, physical interaction, or habitat modification attributed to small marine 

vessels (<40 feet) operating within the ROI would be minimal. Small mechanically driven vessels do not 

emit noise levels documented to cause substantive behavioral or physiological effects nor does the water 

intake associated with the engine utilize sufficient water to entrain adult fish or detrimental quantities of 

fish larvae or eggs. Behavior modification of fish species interacting with small marine vessels both 

mechanically driven and self-propelled would be minimal considering the low population densities of 

fish within the training areas, 0.81 individuals/m2

 for the South-Central portion of San Diego Bay (Allen 

1999), compared to the regional setting (1.75 individuals/m2

 for all regions of San Diego Bay) and the 

temporal and spatial variability of fish species and individual activities. Reduced foraging success, 

disturbance from behavior modification, or habitat modification attributed to self-propelled or small 

mechanically driven vessel activities are not likely to occur, based on the effects criteria presented in 

Section 3.8.2.1 (Approach to Analysis) and the short duration and spatial extent of activities within 

sensitive intertidal habitat. Activities involving small marine vessel used in support of diving, swimming 

or training which do not come in contact with marine substrates (Activities 2, 3, 5 - 12, 14, 18, 21, 23, 26, 

28, 34, 35, 57, 77, or 78, Table 2-1) are anticipated to have little to no effect on fish species present based 

on effects criteria discussed in Section 3.8.2.1 regarding noise effects, behavioral modifications, or 

physical injuries. 

Effects on fish species from noise, physical interaction, or habitat modification attributed to large 

mechanically driven vessels operating over open water within the ROI would be minimal based on effects 

criteria in the approach to analysis. However, large mechanically driven craft operating under power 

during landing activities may have effects on fish when landing activities occur within the San Diego Bay 

over eelgrass beds. For instance, a Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) is a large craft powered by four 

gas turbine engines that uses fans to hover above the water. Its footprint includes its physical structure 

plus the area surrounding it, which is affected by the strong wind it produces. An LCAC approaches the 

beach and comes ashore up near the crest of the beach. Hovercraft were recorded in the frequency ranges 

of 80 to 630 Hz with source level of up to approximately 110 dB re 1 μPa and 50 to 2,000 Hz with a 

source level up to 121 re 1 μPa (Richardson et al. 1995). Recordings of a Griffon 2000TD hovercraft 

passing a hydrophone at full power in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska indicated broadband (10-10,000 Hz) levels 

reaching 133 dB re 1 μPa (Blackwell and Greene 2005), with most spectral energy centered around 87 

Hz. The noise associated with LCAC activities is below those associated with behavioral disturbance 

thresholds in fish, but still possesses the potential for localized disturbance effects to fish. 

Other direct effects to fish species from LCACs are similar to other marine surface vessels, as described 

below, but are reduced due to the relative infrequency of the activity (four per year). Designed to land on 

beaches, LCAC training activities are concentrated at oceanside training areas of SSTC. Previous 

bathymetric and biological surveys performed within the nearshore waters off Imperial Beach describe a 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-27

physically disturbed area that oscillates between ephemeral kelp bed and sand/cobble bottom. The habitat 

contained within the offshore training lanes where LCAC activities take place is dominated by 

sand/cobble bottom. LCACs hover above the water and produce a large surface disturbance. However, 

LCACs likely only have a direct effect on fish immediately below the LCAC or in extremely shallow 

water. LCAC activities have minimal effect to fish and their associated subtidal habitat. 

Jets and propellers for other marine vessels operating continuously over a sustained time period may 

excavate fish burrows and alter foraging and behavior of resident fish species. Large boat landings, 

primarily Landing Craft, Utility and Landing Craft, Mechanized are constrained to landing (beaching) to 

SSTC-N and SSTC-S boat and beach lanes and Bravo within the bay training areas. Effects from crushing 

during large vessel landings may have localized effects, although it’s probable that both excavation and 

crushing effects from large vessel landings would be localized and overall species assemblages unaffected 

considering the spatial extent of adjacent habitat and infrequent (less than 200 activity days/year within 

all defined landing areas) nature of the activities. Behavior modifications of fish species interacting with 

large mechanically driven vessels would be minimal considering the habits and movement patterns of the 

most abundant fish within the training areas (northern anchovies, slough anchovies and top smelt) 

compared to the regional setting and the temporal and spatial variability of the individual large ship 

activities. Reduced foraging success or behavior modification attributed to large mechanically driven 

vessel activities is not likely to occur based the lack of disturbance effects and the short duration and 

spatial extent of activities within the intertidal habitat. Marine vessel activities in the SSTC ROI do not 

physically disrupt behavior or migration patterns of fish species. 

3.8.2.2.3 Underwater Detonations 

Underwater detonations taking place under the No Action Alternative are detailed below (Table 3.8-10). 

Training activities involving their use are described in Chapter 2 (Activities 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, Table 2-1). 

Under the No Action Alternative, all detonations occur in the oceanside training lanes within designated 

boat lanes 1-14. Detonations occur in water depths ranging from 0 to 72 feet depending on the activity. 

The effect to fish species within a ZOI from detonations can only be evaluated in general terms due to the 

diversity of species that may occur within lethal impulse distances and the unknown density and 

probability of each species occurring within the ROI. While fish assemblages, occurances, and density is 

documented for the San Diego Bay (Allen 1999, Allen et al. 2006 and Pondella et al. 2006), and likely 

fish assumblages identified for the coastal surf and pelagic zones adgjacent to sSTC (Allen et al. 2006), 

the exact densitiews of fish within the water column in the ROI is less well documented. Most fish are 

relatively mobile in their distribution over short time and space scales. Fish movement and occurrence is 

affected by a number of factors including, but not limited to, tidal conditions, long and short-term 

oceanographic variations, seasonal variations, species specific life history variations, etc. 

The threshold for 1% mortality from an underwater detonation varies by fish species (Table 3.8-9). It is 

estimated to be at the point where impulse waves measure below 69 Pa·s (10 psi-ms) for gobies and 116 

Pa·s (16.8 psi-ms) for Pacific sardines, the most impulse sensitive fish species within the ROI. Other 

species have impulse thresholds greater than 145 Pa-s (21.0 psi-ms). 

Modeling was conducted to determine potential effects of underwater detonations on marine mammals 

(Section 3.9.2.3.2 for a detailed discussion of the modeling effort). The modeling calculated the zone of 

influence (ZOI) from each SSTC underwater detonation to the onset of severe lung injury in marine 

mammals, which is a received pressure of 13.0 psi-ms (Table 3.9-5). The maximum ZOI to the 13.0 psims threshold for the largest charge (20 lbs mine countermeasure charge) is 360 yards. Combining the 

static nature of underwater detonations and the high mobility and variability of fish species within the 

nearshore coastal area of the ROI, the magnitude of the detonation would be the greatest factor affecting 

the area of potential effect. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-28

For purposes of this analysis, fish density within the nearshore ocean coastal areas of SSTC was estimated 

as similar to be similar to the lowest density ecoregion of San Diego Bay (0.08 /square feet) (Allen 1999, 

Allen et al. 2006). Based on this assumption, a total of 80 fish could reside within 1,000 square feet of 

near-coastal habitat. The degree of impact for each fish species can be estimated to some extent using 

reasonable assumptions of the blast effects radius for various detonation sizes, and the number and type of 

fish likely to be present within defined habitat types. In summary, small fish with swim bladders (< 0.5 

pounds) in close proximity to underwater detonations would sustain lethal impact 1 percent of the time 

(LD 1) when exposed to greater than 116 Pa·s (16.8 psi-ms) impulse according to Yelverton (1981). 

The variable impact to fish is species dependent (swim bladder versus no swim bladder), and it is 

conservative to assume that small fish (i.e. Pacific sardines < 0.5 pounds) within 360 yards (1080 feet) of 

the largest underwater detonation would suffer 1 percent mortality, according to effects criteria defined in 

Table 3.8-10 and in Section 3.8.2.1.1. Realistically it can be assumed that nearly half the fish in the area 

surrounding an underwater detonation do not have swim bladders and would not likely be affected outside 

of immediate area of the blast (30 ft), based on Goertner (1994) and a substantial portion of the fish would 

be greater than 0.5 pounds and would be effected to a much lesser degree. 

Table 3.8-10: Underwater Explosive Activities Conducted during the No Action Alternative 

Underwater 

Detonation 

NEW1

(lb) 

Number of 

Detonations 

Water 

Depth

Charge 

Depth Tempo Location 

MCM2 10 to 20 1/ op ≤ 72 Mid 16 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

MCM 10 to 20 1/op ≤ 72 Bottom 16 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

Floating Mine ≤ 5 1/op ≤ 72 Surface 

(< 5 feet) 25 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

UUV3 Ops 10 to 15 1/op 10 ≤ 72 Bottom to 

10 feet 4 ops/yr Boat Lanes 1 - 14 

MMS4 Ops 13 2/op 10 ≤ 72 Bottom 8 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

MMS Ops 13 1/op 24 ≤ 72 Bottom to 

20 feet 8 ops/yr Boat Lanes 1 - 14 

SDV/ASDS < 10 1/op ≤ 24 BottomMid 14 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

Dive Platoon* 3.5 8/op 10 – 72 Mid to 

Bottom

8 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

Mine 

Neutral* 3.5 8/op 30 – 72 Bottom 4 ops/yr Boat Lanes 1 - 14 

Charges and are presented in terms of NEW in pounds. 

1

NEW: Net Explosive Weight; 2MCM: Mine Counter Measures; 3 UUV: Unmanned Underwater Vehicle; 4

 MMS: Marine Mammal Systems; 

* Note - Unless otherwise specified, all sequential charges are conducted either less than 10-seconds apart 

or greater than 30-minute apart.

Fishes known to reside and transit the nearshore ocean portion of the ROI utilized for underwater 

detonations (waters contained within boat lanes less than 72 feet MLLW) are variable in both time and 

space. Fish most susceptible to impulse injuries from SSTC underwater detonations (pacific sardines, 

northern anchovies, and top smelt) are extremely abundant (Allen 1999 estimated that 42 million northern 

anchovy reside in San Diego Bay) vary seasonally and inhabit a large geographic area that extends from 

Canada to Mexico. Resident and diurnal transients such as California halibut, croakers, bass, and various 

elasmobranches (sharks and rays) are not documented to be present in high densities within the ocean 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-29

portions of the ROI and due to their size would be less susceptible to injury. For example, a 9 pound kelp 

bass would have an LD 1 of approximately one third the distance from the center of the same detonation 

as a Pacific sardine, resulting in an effect area of only one tenth that of smaller fish. 

Overall impacts to specific fish species and assemblages under the No Action Alternative would remain 

temporary and localized considering the expansive nature of the adjacent habitat, the population size and 

dispersed nature of potentially effected fish populations, and the frequency of the largest underwater 

detonation activities (less than 32 20 lb detonations per year). In addition, underwater detonation activities 

in the SSTC ROI would not measurably disrupt behavior or migration patterns of fish species so as to 

impact populations of fish species. 

3.8.2.2.4 Amphibious and Beach Activities 

Training activities encompassed in this section included amphibious vehicles, Elevated Causeway System 

(ELCAS), and fluid transfer systems. Training activities include the use of training areas within both San 

Diego Bay and the nearshore environment. Potential effects from these activities include vehicle transit 

within ROI waters, noise, and habitat modification similar to those described in Section 3.8.2.2.2, Marine 

Vessel Activities. 

Amphibious Activities 

Amphibious vehicles utilized during various training activities (Amphibious Assault Vehicle [AAV] and 

others) land on beaches and San Diego Bay shorelines that support fish assemblages. The modification of 

that shoreline depends on the size of the amphibious vehicle, the frequency of the landings within the 

area, and whether the propulsion system creates scouring during the landing activity. Amphibious 

activities analyzed in this section focus on the interaction the vehicle or training activity has within the 

landing area and, to a lesser extent, the waters adjacent to the landing areas. 

Amphibious Vehicles 

Amphibious vehicles, specifically AAV’s, are involved in activities that perform landings in beach side 

training lanes in SSTC-N and SSTC-S. The surf zone habitat within the beach side training lanes is 

comprised of primarily coarse sand and supports transient fish. Amphibious vehicle landings interface 

with the bottom substrate at various levels depending on the tide but would not be expected to adversely 

impact fish habitat or fish. The surf zone habitat of the beach side training lanes is exposed to the 

predominant wind and wave direction and sediment in continually redistributed on both a daily and 

seasonal bases. Considering the limit draft (< 5 feet) of the AAV and small size (< 30 foot length) of the 

vehicles in conjunction with the steep slope of the beach throughout the SSTC-N and SSTC-S, bottom 

disturbance would be limited and not expected to adversely impact fish habitat. Fish utilizing the landing 

areas would not be expected to encounter adverse effects attributed to disturbance and would more likely 

take advantage of the sediment displaced or suspended by the vehicles for opportunistic feeding of 

liberated invertebrates. 

Elevated Causeway System 

During ELCAS training (Activity 42, Table 2-1) a temporary pier is erected using floating causeway 

sections and a pile driver that drives 24-inch hollow steel piles into the surf zone to secure the piles in 

place Causeway activities occur primarily on SSTC-N oceanside boat training areas 1-10, but also 

periodically in the bayside training area Bravo. This activity occurs during two separate training events 

per year annually, up to 14 days per event under the No Action Alternative. Activities involve accessing 

beach areas through the surf zone using floating and land-based heavy equipment. The ELCAS pier is 

typically 1,200 feet in length at SSTC due to bathymetry and depth requirement of ships docking 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-30

alongside the pier. ELCAS pier piles are driven every 40 feet with the exception of the first and last 

causeway sections where four piles are utilized rather than two piles. 

Shock pulses from pile driving have the potential to affect fish in the immediate area and could have 

lethal effects if fish venture in close proximity. Depending on the level of the sound and shock waves 

produced by piling driving activities and the distance individual fish species are in proximity to the pile, 

various lethal and sublethal effects may occur. Previous studies discussed earlier in this section place 

lethal levels at above 230 dB and other deep water studies identify 180 dB as the disturbance effects level 

for rockfish. Considering the complexity and magnitude of associated logistical aspects of ELCAS, the 

majority of fish species within the activity area are likely to be displaced prior to pile driving activity. In 

some cases, specific opportunistic surf zone fish species (e.g., perch, topsmelt) may be attracted to the 

suspension of particulate matter and entrained food items liberated by the large vessels and heavy 

equipment used during ELCAS activities and would likely be susceptible to a greater degree of effect 

from the pile driving. 

Sound impulses generated by pile driving attenuate at various rates depending on the depth, type of 

substrate, and size of the piling being driven. Hastings and Popper (2005) provide a brief summary of 

numerous measurements in the San Francisco Bay Area. Large diameter cast-in-steel-shell (CISS) piles 

driven with impact hydraulic hammers result in the greatest sound exposure. Timber piles that are driven 

with small hammers produce low amplitude sound pressure levels of less than 180 dB re 1 μPa (peak) at 

33 feet from the pile. Twenty-four-inch concrete piles produced peak sound pressures of about 188 dB re 

1 μPa, also at 33 feet from the pile. The larger CISS piles (i.e., 30-inch diameter or greater) produce much 

greater sound pressures. For instance, 30-inch diameter CISS piles driven with a diesel impact hammer 

produce 208 dB re 1 μPa (peak) at 33 feet from the pile and very large (96-inch diameter) CISS piles 

produce levels in excess of 220 dB re 1 μPa (peak) within 33 feet of the pile. Close to CISS piles, the 

RMS (impulse) is about 10 to 15 dB lower than the peak and the SEL is about 24 to 28 dB lower than the 

peak. Assuming the use of a 24-inch steel pile, shockwaves and peak pressures generated from ELCAS 

pile driving activities could be expected to be between 180 and 200 dB re 1 μPa2

-s within 30 ft of pile 

driving, the upper limits of which reach behavioral disturbance threshold levels and mortality for some 

small fish possessing swim bladders (Goertner 1994, Yelverton 1981). 

ELCAS activities within San Diego Bay at Bravo beach have a greater potential for effect to fish species 

because eelgrass habitat is known to occur within and adjacent to the activity area. Fish identified to 

inhabit eelgrass habitat vary widely but several species (gobies, pipefish) inhabit burrows or maintain 

defined home ranges within specific areas. Effects from ELCAS activities including sound, shock waves, 

habitat modification, and increased turbidity would have lethal and sub lethal effects to some fish species 

in the eelgrass areas. Suspended material from pile driving within the oceanside training areas would not 

substantially modify the surf zone or nearshore clarity to a degree expected to affect fish behavior or 

foraging. In contrast, increased turbidity and the potential redistribution of sediment from pile driving 

may have adverse effects to eelgrass habitat from smothering within Bravo bayside training lane. 

Considering the infrequency of these activities and the duration between driving piles within a highenergy surf zone, effects to fish within the offshore boat lanes would be temporary and localized. Effects 

to fish species within Bravo can be more precisely defined based on fish densities known to occur within 

that ecoregion as well as eelgrass habitat. Using the density of 0.08 fish per square foot published by 

Allen (1999) and assuming that each pile being driven affects a 30 ft radius around each pile, based on a 

24” steel pile and 180 dB re 1 μPa2

-s, a total of 2,826 fish could be temporarily displaced or affected 

during each pile driven. Approximately 100 piles are driven for a 1200 ft ELCAS pier. Considering the 

overall length of the ELCAS pier only a small percentage of all piles driven would occur within the 

narrow band of eelgrass habitat in Bravo (Figure 3.7-3). Fish documented to frequent deep and 

moderately deep habitat are comprised of fish known to inhabit large areas and make behavior 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-31

modifications to avoid disturbance, concentrating effects to fish to primarily within eelgrass habitat. 

Caution should be used in extrapolating the total number of fish potentially affected from an ELCAS 

event since effects determinations were calculated for the most impulse susceptible fish (small fish < 0.5 

lbs with swim bladders). 

Small fish with swim bladders are numerically dominant in Allen (1999) density calculations for the 

South Central San Diego bay because they represent multiple sampling methodologies. The fish likely to 

be present with the effects area are represented by primarily schooling fish (northern anchovies, slough 

anchovies, and top smelt) that can easily avoid detrimental impulse and the remaining fish (predominantly 

gobies and pipefish) do not have swim bladders and are substantially (100 times less according to 

Goertner 1994) less susceptible to the same impulse levels. In summary, ELCAS activities are performed 

infrequently (twice per year) and, in most cases, within an already physically challenging surf zone 

habitat. Effects to fish species would be concentrated within close proximity to pile driving activities and 

most notably within eelgrass habitat. Considering the extent of adjacent habitat and the quantities of fish 

known to exist within that habitat, effects to fish populations from ELCAS activities would be temporary 

and localized. Lethal and sublethal effects to fish species would be localized to the immediate pile driving 

area and intertidal area containing eelgrass for the bayside training events. Effects to individual fish 

species would be minimal and no adverse effects would be anticipated for overall fish assemblages or 

populations. 

The initiation of the ELCAS activity (movement of boats and barges, positioning of pile before driving, 

etc.) likely displaces many of the resident fish reducing the potential for lethal effect. Similar habitat is 

extensive to the north and south of the training areas, which provides adequate habitat for fish to relocate 

due to disturbance. Depending on the time of year, several other species may be locally displaced; 

however, no long-term effect to individual populations is anticipated. Any effects to fish species would be 

considered below measurable thresholds, outside of eelgrass habitat. 

Beach Activities 

Beach activities covered in this section involve activities that transfer fuel (simulated) or water from 

vessels on the water to beaches within training areas (Activities 38, 39, 50, Table 2-1). The focus of the 

analysis for the applicable activities is concentrated on the type of medium being transferred and the 

nearshore waters or intertidal areas that may be effected by equipment movement or positioning. Effects 

from marine vessel movements or landings are address in Section 3.8.2.2.2. Fluid transfer training events 

involve two activities; (1) the simulation of fueling transfers from ship-to-ship and shore-to-ship utilizing 

seawater and (2) the intake of seawater for desalination and the discharge of hypersaline brine back into 

San Diego Bay. Fluid transfer activities consist of transferring salt water to simulate fuel transfer 

(Activity 38, Offshore Petroleum Discharge System [OPDS]) and Activity 39 Amphibious Bulk Liquid 

Transfer System [ABLTS], and bringing saltwater ashore for desalinization (Activity 50, Reverse 

Osmosis Water Purification Unit [ROWPU]). 

During an OPDS activity, a fuel transport conduit is towed ashore and anchored in between. During 

ABLTS training, the conduit floats on the water surface. Water is pumped to a unit on shore to simulate 

fueling and returned to the ocean with a hose. OPDS and ABLTS training occurs six and four times 

annually under the No Action Alternative, respectively. During the construction and installation of 

conduit needed for OPDS activity conduit is placed along the intertidal substrate where it has the potential 

to adversely effect eelgrass and other intertidal habitat by crushing or scouring during placement. Within 

the oceanside training lanes of SSTC-N and SSTC-S activities are performed infrequently, in most cases, 

within an already physically challenging surf zone habitat. The OPDS conduit is 8 inches in diameter and 

is anchored to the bottom with the remaining portion of the conduit resting in the intertidal habitat. 

Scouring from vessels performing conduit installation is addressed in Section 3.8.2.2.2 Marine Vessel 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-32

Activities and would be limited to eelgrass habitat with Bravo. Effects to fish species would be 

concentrated within close proximity to conduit activities and most notably within eelgrass habitat and be 

limited to temporary displacement..Considering the extent of adjacent habitat and the quantities of fish 

known to exist within that habitat, effects to fish assembleges from OPDS activities would be temporary 

and localized. Sublethal effects to fish species would be limited to burrowing species in the immediate 

conduit area containing eelgrass for the bayside training events and recolinization would likely occur 

rapidly from adjacent fish populations. Effects to individual fish species would be minimal and no 

adverse effects would be anticipated for overall fish assemblages or populations. 

Simulated fueling transfer poses minimal risk to fish species due to its localized nature and infrequent 

use. The intake of sea water from the ocean has a potential to remove larval fish and YOY that are in the 

close proximity ocean water intake. Depending on the time of year, depth, and velocity of the intake pipe, 

certain species are more susceptible than others. Impingement on the end of the pipe could affect larger 

fish but considering the activity only occurs 10 times per year minimal effect to fish populations are 

anticipated. 

During ROWPU training, salt water is brought ashore and desalinized. Hypersaline water is then stored in 

a bladder and transported offsite for sewerage or mixed with potable water and discharged back into the 

sea at nearly the same salinity as the source ocean water and quantities are not likely to affect fish, 

considering the dissolution factor and physical mixing that occurs within the surf zone and nearshore 

waters where activities occur. Any physical effects to fish would be temporary and localized as training 

activities occur infrequently (4 times per year). For the limited instances that these transfer activities take 

place within Bravo the greatest potential for effect to fish species is from the interface of the conduit 

and/or equipment lying within intertidal habitat possesses the greatest potential for effect to fish species. 

Fish identified to inhabit intertidal mudflats and eelgrass habitat vary widely but several species (gobies, 

pipefish) either build burrows or maintain defined home ranges within specific areas. Effects from fluid 

transfer activities including sound, shock waves, habitat modification, and effects to turbidity would have 

lethal and sublethal effects to fish species in those areas. Water intake during activities in Bravo likely to 

occur in deep or moderately deep water could entrain adult and juvenile fish as well as eggs and larvae to 

some extent, but since the intake water is returned to San Diego Bay lethal effects would be limited if 

any. In summary, no long-term adverse effects would occur from fluid transfer activities and any effect to 

individual fish species would be localized and temporary. Amphibious and Beach activities in the SSTC 

ROI do not physically disrupt behavior or migration patterns of fish species. 

3.8.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative 1 increases the current level and types of training that occur in the ROI. Current mitigation 

measures would remain unchanged (Section 3.8.1.7). This section focuses on only groups of activities 

that have the potential to result in an impact to specified fish species. As discussed previously, similar 

types of activities are grouped together to facilitate effects analysis. 

3.8.2.3.1 Air Activities 

The types of air activities proposed for Alternative 1 are consistent with those described under the No 

Action Alternative, although the frequency would increase and five new activities would be conducted 

(Activities N4–N8, Table 2-2). As presented in Chapter 2 (Table 2-1 and 2-2), helicopter activities over 

San Diego Bay and ocean waters within the ROI would more than double under Alternative 1 in 

comparison to the No Action Alternative, as detailed in Appendix B. As described in Section 3.8.2.2.1, air 

activities are expected to have a minimal effect on fish, and the change in the numbers of activities would 

not change those predictions. 

The use of helicopters within the ROI will be consistent with previously described activities and effects 

attributed to this activity would be of the same type and magnitude. Disturbance of fish from the noise, 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-33

physical presence, or sea surface disturbance from aircraft within the ROI would be limited to fish 

utilizing the area immediately adjacent to the action and likely only within the uppermost section of the 

water column. Reduced foraging success or behavior modification attributed to air actions is not likely to 

occur according to findings previously presented. Any temporary effect to fish near the surface remains a 

low probability considering the temporal variability of both training actions and the potential for fish to be 

present near the sea surface within a specific training area 

Increases to air activities under Alternative 1 would not measurably change the effect to fish species from 

the No Action Alternative. Considering effects to fish species from air activities are isolated to noise and 

movement disturbance, the increase would not measurably change the potential effect to fish species or 

their populations. 

3.8.2.3.2 Marine Vessel Activities 

Marine vessels, self propelled, propeller and water-jet driven, or towed, would increase in use and scope 

under Alternative 1 compared to the No Action Alternative. The greatest increases to marine vessel 

activities would be attributed to new activities; Surf Zone Test Detachment, and Shock Wave Action 

Generator (SWAG) as well as increases to existing activities. Increases to on-water activity by marine 

vessels in both oceanside and the San Diego Bay training areas would increase the possibility of effect to 

fish species from noise and disturbance, most notably from large marine vessels, but would not 

measurably reduce fish species’ capacity to persist unaffected. As the types of small marine vessels are 

expected to remain the same, even large increases of the use of small marine vessels will have little to no 

effect on fish species present. As such, activities involving small marine vessels used in support of diving, 

swimming or training which do not come in contact with marine substrates (Activities 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 23, 26, 28, 34, 35, 57, 77, 78, N4, N6, N7, Table 2-1 and 2-2) are anticipated to 

have little to no effect on fish species present based on effects criteria discussed in Section 3.8.2.1 

regarding noise effects, behavioral modifications, or physical injuries. Vessels remain on the surface and 

only occasionally land on beaches and mudflats where burrowing fish may be affected from crushing. 

Continued use of delineated training areas and avoidance of eelgrass beds and mudflats would reduce 

potential harmful effects to sensitive habitat. 

New activities under Alternative 1 that will take place within all boat training lanes and bayside training 

areas (Activities N1, N2, N4, N6-N9, N11,Table 2-2) involve the use of both large and small 

mechanically driven vessels that are used to support training activities within boat lanes and San Diego 

Bay training locations. Sound levels from transiting vessels and would not have physical effects on fish 

based on documented sound levels and effects criteria. The use of both large and small mechanically 

driven vehicles in the ROI will be consistent with previously described activities and effects attributed to 

this activity would be of the same type and magnitude. 

3.8.2.3.3 Underwater Detonations 

Underwater detonations occur in shallow water (less than 72 feet) within oceanside training lanes and the 

shock waves propagate over a mostly homogeneous sand substrate. As presented below (Table 3.8-11), 

underwater detonations would increase measurably from 103 activities under the No Action Alternative to 

311 activities under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, five additional activities would be conducted: 

SWAG and UUV Neutralization, Airborne Mine Neutralization System, Demolition Requalification and 

Training/Underwater Detonations, and NSW Underwater Demolition Training (N1, N3, N7, N9, and N11, 

respectively, Table 2-2) and the footprint of activities would be expanded to include SWAG detonations 

of up to 15 grams NEW within San Diego Bay. 

As described in Section 3.8.2.2.3 the impulse generated from underwater detonations and the size and 

species of fish present with the effect area directly correlates to the area of effect. The threshold for 1% 

mortality from an underwater detonation is estimated to be at the point where impulse waves measure 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-34

below 69 Pa·s (10 psi-ms) for gobies and 116 Pa·s (16.8 psi-ms) for Pacific sardines, the most impulse 

sensitive fish species within the ROI. Other species have impulse thresholds greater than 145 Pa-s (21.0 

psi-ms). 

Utilizing the modeled distance to a received pressure of 13.0 psi·ms as a conservative estimate instead of 

the 16.82 psi·ms value, NUWC modeled ZOIs can be used. The ZOIs for the 13.0 psi-ms impulse 

threshold for Alternative 1 are shown in Table 3.9-7. For a 29 lb charge used during marine mammals 

systems training, the ZOI to the 13.0 psi-ms threshold is 360 yards (Section 3.10 for a detailed 

explanation of acoustic modeling) The variable impact to fish is species and size dependent (swim 

bladder versus no swim bladder), and it is conservative to assume that small fish (i.e. Pacific sardines < 

0.5 pounds) within 360 yards (1080 feet) of the largest underwater detonation would suffer 1 percent 

mortality, according to effects criteria defined in Table 3.8-9 and in Section 3.8.2.1.1 as defined by 

Goertner (1994). Considering the common fish species documented to inhabit surf zone of Southern 

California, primarily large transient predators(sharks, rays, halibut, etc), roving substratum feeders (perch, 

corbina, croakers, etc) or schooling baitfish (top smelt, anchovy, etc). (Allen et al. 2006) it can be 

assumed that significant portion of the fish in the area surrounding an underwater detonation are either 

large in size (> 3 lbs) or do not have swim bladders. These factors greatly reduce the probability that 

specific fish species or assemblages would be adversely affected outside of the immediate area of the 

blast (30 ft)., based on Goertner (1994) effects criteria. Overall impacts to specific fish species and 

assemblages would remain temporary and localized considering the expansive nature of the adjacent 

habitat, the population size and dispersed nature of potentially effected fish populations, and the 

frequency of the largest underwater detonation activities (less than sixteen 29 lb detonations per year). 

Effects to fish from underwater detonations within waters of the ROI are based on modeling and tests 

performed by various institutions. The radius of lethal and sublethal effect to fish is solely based on 

interpolation of those modeling and test results and the maximum size of the detonation known to take 

place for each activity. Considering that nearly all SSTC underwater detonations occur in nearshore boat 

lanes 1-14 over mostly sand bottom, documented to harbor low fish densities compared to nearby 

rocky/kelp forest habitat, effects to fish assemblages would be localized and temporary. In summary, fish 

known to reside and transit the nearshore ocean portion of the ROI utilized for underwater detonations 

(waters contained within boat lanes less than 72 ft MLLW) are variable in both time and space. 

Fish most susceptible to impulse injuries from SSTC underwater detonations (pacific sardines, northern 

anchovies, and top smelt) are extremely abundant (Allen 1999 estimated that 42 million northern anchovy 

reside in San Diego Bay) vary seasonally and inhabit a large geographic area that extends from Canada to 

Mexico. Resident and diurnal transients such as California halibut, croakers, bass, and various 

elasmobranches (sharks and rays) are not documented to be present in high densities within the ocean 

portions of the ROI and due to their size would be less susceptible to injury. For example, a 9 pound kelp 

bass would have an LD 1 of approximately one third the distance from the center of the same detonation 

as a Pacific sardine, resulting in an effect area of only one tenth that of smaller fish. Overall impacts to 

specific fish species and assemblages would remain temporary and localized considering the expansive 

nature of the adjacent habitat, the population size and dispersed nature of potentially effected fish 

populations, and the frequency of the largest underwater detonation activities. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-35

Table 3.8.11: Underwater Explosive Activities Conducted during Alternatives 1 and 2 

Underwater 

Detonation 

Operation 

NEW1

(pounds) 

Number of 

Detonations 

Water 

Depth

(feet) 

Charge 

Depth Tempo Location 

MCM2 10 to 20 1/operation 

(op) ≤ 72 Mid 29 ops/yr Boat Lanes 1 - 14 

MCM 10 to 20 1/op ≤ 72 Bottom 29 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

Floating Mine ≤ 5 1/op ≤ 72 Surface 

(< 5 feet) 53 ops/yr Boat Lanes 1 - 14 

SWAG 15 grams 1/op 10 – 20 Mid 74 ops/yr Echo 

SWAG 15 grams 1/op 10 – 20 Mid 16 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

UUV3 Ops 10 to 15 1/op 10 ≤ 72 

Bottom to 

10 feet from 

surface 

4 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

MMS4 Ops 13 & 29 2/op 10 ≤ 72 Bottom 8 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

MMS Ops 13 & 29 1/op 24 ≤ 72 

Bottom to 

20 feet from 

surface 

8 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

Dive Platoon* 3.5 8/op 30 – 72 Bottom 8 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

Qual/Cert5 12.5 – 

13.75 2/op 10 – 72 Bottom 8 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

Qual/Cert 25.5 1/op 40 – 72 

Bottom to 

20 feet from 

surface 

4 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

NSW 

Demolition 

Training 

≤ 10 1/op ≤ 24 Bottom 4 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

NSW 

Demolition 

Training 

≤ 5 1/op ≤ 24 Surface 8 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

SDV/ASDS ≤ 10 1/op ≤ 24 BottomMid 40 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

Mine Neutral* 3.5 8/op 30 – 72 Bottom 4 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

UUV Neutral 3.3 & 

3.57 2/op 10 – 72 

Bottom to 

10 feet from 

surface 

4 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

AMNS 3.53 1/op 40 – 72 Mid – 

Bottom 10 ops/yr Boat Lanes 

1 - 14 

Note - Unless otherwise specified, all sequential charges would include a 30 minute or greater delay 

between charges and are presented in terms of NEW in pounds. 1

NEW: Net Explosive Weight. 2 MCM: Mine Counter Measures, 3 UUV: Unmanned Underwater Vehicle, 4 MMS: 

Marine Mammal Systems, 5

 Qual/Cert: Qualification or Certification trials, 

* Sequential charges are either conducted with a 10 sec delay between detonations or 30 minute delay 

between detonations.
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-36

3.8.2.3.4 Amphibious and Beach Activities 

Amphibious Activities 

Amphibious vehicles, specifically AAVs and Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (EFVs), would be involved 

in activities that perform landings in beach side training lanes in SSTC-N and SSTC-S and increase in 

activity frequency from 3 to 18 times per year. Amphibious vehicle landings interface with the bottom 

substrate at various levels depending on the tide but would not be expected to adversely impact fish 

habitat or fish. The surf zone habitat of the beach side training lanes is exposed to the predominant wind 

and wave direction and sediment in continually redistributed on both a daily and seasonal bases. 

Considering the limit draft (< 5 feet) of the AAV and EFV and small size (< 30 feet length) of the 

vehicles in conjunction with the steep slope of the beach throughout the SSTC-N and SSTC-S, bottom 

disturbance would be limited and not expected to adversely impact fish habitat. Fish utilizing the landing 

areas would not be expected to suffer from adverse effects attributed to disturbance and would more 

likely take advantage of the sediment displaced or suspended by the vehicles for opportunistic feeding of 

liberated invertebrates. 

ELCAS training activities would increase from three to four activities under Alternative 1 compared to 

the No Action Alternative and would remain within the same training area as the No Action Alternative. 

As described in Section 3.8.2.2.4, ELCAS activities are expected to have lethal and sublethal effects to 

fish species within areas sustaining greater than 180 dB re 1μPa depending on the type of fish within the 

effects radius at the time of the activity. Increases in the frequency of the shock waves attributed to pile 

driving will subsequently increase the frequency of the lethal and sublethal effects to fish species within 

the defined effects radius. However, the overall effects to individual fish species and assemblages are 

expected to be temporary and localized considering the expansive nature of the adjacent habitat, 

population of the potentially effected species, and the frequency of piling driving activities. Effects to 

individual fish species would range from lethal to no effect; however, no adverse effects would be 

anticipated for overall fish assemblages or populations. 

Beach Activities 

Increases in beach activities not discharging byproducts or interfacing with the nearshore or San Diego 

Bay waters have no potential to affect fish species or assemblages and thus are not analyzed in this 

section as stated previously in Section 3.8.2, Environmental Consequences. The total number of activities 

with the potential to affect fish species increases from four to five from the No Action Alternative to 

Alternative 1, and is limited to Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS) activities. 

ABLTS is expected to have a minimal effect on fish, and incremental change in the numbers of activities 

would not change those predictions. Surface coverage by conduit is not sufficient to affect behavior of 

fish species, and bottom substrate disturbance or modification within the surf zone or intertidal areas 

attributed to equipment or sand movement occurs within an already physically disturbed zone in the case 

of beach areas and could only be quantified within San Diego Bay by the loss of eelgrass habitat. Any 

effect to fish within the boat lanes would be below measurable thresholds and would be only anticipated 

to occur within San Diego Bay if eelgrass habitat was modified or destroyed (Section 3.7.3.3). 

The expected increased risk of habitat modification and invasive species introduction with increased 

waste associated with new activities or increases in activities in Alternative 1 would not constitute a 

measurable difference between Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative; there is no documented 

correlation between any activity and trash or solid waste. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-37

3.8.2.4 Alternative 2 

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the total operational training tempo to the same levels as 

presented for Alternative 1 (Table 2-1 and 2-2). Implementation of Alternative 2 would also include the 

introduction of new types of training; conducting existing routine training at additional locations within 

SSTC established training areas, like Alternative 1. The only difference between Alternative 1 and 2 is 

that all SSTC-N oceanside beach training areas would be available for use, regardless of time of year. 

Since the differences between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are strictly terrestrial, the impacts 

associated with Alternative 2 are expected to be the same as those described above for Alternative 1.

3.8.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Since most of the local marine environment consists of soft-bottom habitat with few rocky habitats and 

the local fish populations are not robust, most Navy activities will not affect fish populations within the 

ROI. The largest expected impact to fish species and assemblages comes from underwater detonations 

and the modification or destruction of eelgrass habitat within Bravo training area. The mitigation for 1.13 

acres of lost eelgrass habitat discussed in Section 3.7 would provide additional habitat for fish species 

potentially lost or displaced from eelgrass by activities described in this section, thus partially mitigating 

effects to fish. Additionally, restriction of the public from accessing some sections of the training areas 

during some training for public safety and security reasons affords fish resources within those areas a 

certain level of refuge from recreational fishing pressure and disturbance. Furthermore the set aside of 

undeveloped shoreline for training offsets effects from training activities and assures that high value 

eelgrass and salt marsh habitat remains available to fish for foraging and reproduction. 

3.8.4 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 

There are no unavoidable adverse effects to fish as a result of implementation of any alternatives. 

3.8.5 Summary of Effects 

Fish species and assemblages within estuaries and the nearshore ocean environments of the ROI are well 

adapted to physical changes in the environment and modify their activities based on stimuli within their 

immediate area. Most fish species potentially affected by activities of both the No Action Alternative and 

Alternatives 1 and 2 would likely actively move away from potentially harmful training activities, but 

some individual fish species will suffer lethal and sublethal effects do to their proximity to underwater 

detonations or pile driving activities Table 3.8-12 presents a summary of effects and mitigation measures 

for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010

FISH 3.8-38

Table 3.8-12: Summary of Effects 

Alternative Effects 

No Action Alternative

• Small numbers of fish would be killed by shock waves from underwater 

detonations associated with the SSTC. However, underwater detonations 

would occur primarily in low-use habitats. 

• Noise associated with marine vessels is unlikely to affect fish as source levels 

from these sources are below those known to cause injury. Noise associated 

with pile driving would have some lethal and sublethal effects to fish but 

impacts would be localized due to the nature of the activity. 

• Groundfish are unlikely to be affected by activities in shallow waters. 

Alternative 1 • Increases in pile driving and underwater detonation activities would increase 

the lethal and sublethal effect to fish species but fish assemblages would not 

be expected to be affected. 

Alternative 2 • Increases in pile driving and underwater detonation activities would increase 

the lethal and sublethal effect to fish species but fish assemblages would not 

be expected to be affected. 

Mitigation 

• Habitat mitigation for intertidal and subtidal areas (Section 3.7), including 

eelgrass, provide a degree of mitigation for fish species documented to reside 

within those habitats. 

• The mitigation for 1.13 acres of lost eelgrass habitat discussed in Section 3.7 

would provide alternative habitat for fish species potentially lost or displaced 

from eelgrass by activities described in this section, thus mitigating effects to 

fish. 
3.9 Marine Mammals 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-1

3.9 MARINE MAMMALS

3.9.1 Affected Environment 

3.9.1.1 Definition of Resource 

This section describes the marine mammal species expected to be present in the Silver Strand Training 

Complex (SSTC) area that potentially could be affected by the Proposed Action. The potential effects are 

analyzed, and a discussion is presented concerning current management and mitigation practices. 

3.9.1.2 Regional Setting 

Outside of the coastal zone of SSTC is part of the Pacific Ocean region referred to as the southern 

California Bight (SCB). The colder, more northerly California Current and the southern, warm-water 

California countercurrent (known as the Davidson Current, Figure 3.5-1) influences the ocean within the 

SCB. These two currents mix in the Santa Barbara Channel. The water within the southern portion of the 

SCB is warmer and more saline than the water within the northern area (Hickey 1993). These differing 

conditions, as well as upwelling of cooler, nutrient-rich waters, influence the diverse marine biota within 

and adjacent to the SCB region (Murray and Littler 1981). San Diego Bay is a naturally-formed, crescentshaped embayment that is located along the southern end of the SCB (Largier 1995, DoN 2000); the San 

Diego Bay provides habitat for a number of oceanic and estuarine species as the ebb and flood of tides 

within the San Diego Bay circulate and mix ocean and bay waters, creating for distinct circulation zones 

within San Diego Bay (Largier et al. 1996, DoN 2000) (Section 3.5 Water Resources). 

3.9.1.3 Region of Influence 

The marine Region of Influence (ROI) can be partitioned into three zones: 

• Bayside training zones within the San Diego Bay (sandy beaches, mudflats, and the nearshore 

environment); 

• Ocean area training zones from intertidal to nearshore (<0.5 nautical miles [nm]) south of Naval 

Air Station North Island (NASNI); and 

• Ocean area training zones from intertidal to nearshore (<3 nm) encompassing the training lanes at 

SSTC-North (SSTC-N), SSTC-South (SSTC-S), and ocean anchorages. 

Marine mammals reasonably expected to use the ocean area <3 nm of SSTC for any portion of their life 

cycle are discussed in this section. Through both anecdotal observations and several recent Navy funded 

surveys, there are limited to no marine mammal species present within the back portions of San Diego 

Bay south of the Coronado Bay Bridge (Merkel Inc 2008). 

3.9.1.4 Marine Mammals that May Inhabit or Regularly Transit the SSTC 

Marine mammals addressed in this EIS include members of two orders: 

1. Order Cetacea, which includes whales, dolphins, and porpoises 

2. Order Carnivora, which includes true seals, sea lions, and fur seals 

Cetaceans spend their lives entirely at sea. Carnivora, or pinnipeds, hunt and feed exclusively in the 

ocean, with certain species in southern California coming ashore to rest, molt, breed, and bear young. 

Extensive natural history information for marine mammal species occurring within southern California 

waters has been summarized in previous works (Leatherwood et al. 1982, 1988, Reeves et al. 2002, DoN 

2005c, Carretta et al. 2007, Department of the Navy [DoN] 2008). Approximately 41 marine mammal 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-2

species or stocks are known to occur within southern California waters based on National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) Stock Assessment Reports (Carretta et al. 2007, DoN 2008). Of these, only 

three year-round species and one migratory species are expected to be found within the SSTC marine 

ROI. These include the California sea lion, Pacific harbor seal, bottlenose dolphin, and gray whale. Table 

3.9-1 summarizes the population status and abundance of each of these species. 

Table 3.9-1: Summary of Cetacean and Pinniped Species That May Inhabit, Regularly Transit, Or 

Seasonally Migrate Past the SSTC 

Common Name 

Species Name 

Stock 

Stock 

Abundance 1

(Coefficient of 

Variation) 

Annual 

Population 

Trend 

Occurrence 

Warm Season 

(May-Oct) 

Presence and 

Density2

(individuals/km2) 

Cold Season 

(Nov-Apr) 

Presence and 

Density 

(individuals/km2) 

Mysticetes 

Gray whale 

Eschrichtius robustus 

Eastern North Pacific 

stock 

18,813 

(0.069) 

Migratory 3

Increasing 

>2.5% 

Transient, 

seasonal 

migrations 

NO 

0 

YES 

0.014 

Odontocetes 

Bottlenose dolphin 

Tursiops truncates 

California coastal 

stock 

323 

(012) Stable 

Limited, small 

population 

within one km 

of shore 

YES 

0.202 

YES 

0.202 

Pinnipeds 

Harbor seal 

Phoca vitulina 

richardii 

California stock 

All California 

34,233 

SOCAL 4 

estimated 

abundance 

5,271 

Slight 

growth; 

Stabilizing 

Common; 

Channel Islands 

haul-outs 

including SCI; 

mainland 

California haulouts north of Pt 

Mugu 

YES 

0.06 

YES 

0.19 

California sea lion 

Zalophus 

californianus 

U.S. stock 

238,000 5

Increasing 

6.1%; 

possibly 

stabilizing 

Most common 

pinniped, 

Channel Islands 

breeding sites in 

the summer 

YES 

0.01 

YES 

0.02 

1

All abundance estimates from NMFS Stock Assessment Reports (Carretta et al. 2007; Carretta et al. 2008; Angliss and Outlaw 

2008) and reflect estimation of abundance for entire stock. 2

Densities from southern California (SOCAL) Range Complex Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement with then exception of bottlenose dolphin which was from NCCOS (2005). While the density estimated for gray 

whales more than likely over-estimates potential density off SSTC, NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center recommends 

using this density because it the best currently available information. 3

 Gray whales migrate through SOCAL twice a year. Individual marine mammals only present on the order of hours in transit 

past SSTC (3 nm/hr travel rate). 

4

 Derived from the aerial counts of all age classes within southern California only. 5

 All pupping occurs in southern California.

The United States stock of California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) and the California stock of Pacific 

harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii) can be commonly found at haul-out sites on the mainland, on buoys 

and docks within California harbors including northern San Diego Bay, and the Channel Islands. 

Breeding sites for these two species are exclusively on islands off the coast of California. For both 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-3

California sea lions and harbor seals, there are no haul-out sites, or rookeries within or adjacent to the 

SSTC. The California Coastal stock of the Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) is a toothed 

whale that regularly inhabits the nearshore waters of southern California. This species regularly moves 

along the California coast and may transit the SSTC area since they remain close to shore (within 0.5 nm). 

This particular stock has limited site fidelity and can be distributed anywhere between Monterey to 

northern Baja Mexico depending on localized prey abundance. The Eastern Pacific stock of gray whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus) occurs off southern California during their annual migration between summer 

feeding areas in the Bering and southern Chukchi seas and winter calving areas in Baja California and 

mainland Mexico. While gray whales may occasionally be found within a one nm (1.8 kilometer [km]) of 

shore during their migration periods, they are found further offshore than the nearshore waters at SSTC 

(NMFS, J. Barlow). As such, gray whales would be infrequent transients through or seaward of the outer 

section of the SSTC. 

None of the four marine mammal species that inhabit or regularly transit the SSTC are listed as threatened 

or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). All marine mammals are protected under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972, amended in 1994. The MMPA is administered by the 

NMFS. The MMPA prohibits any person subject to the Act from taking a marine mammal within U.S. 

waters or on the high seas, without authorization from NMFS. 

For three species (bottlenose dolphins, California sea lion, and harbor seals), the marine waters within the 

SSTC only constitute a small portion of their total range. California sea lions and harbor seal 

abundance—as reflected by number of pinnipeds seen hauled out on northern San Diego Bay docks and 

buoys (Merkel Inc. 2008)—may be seasonally higher at certain times of the year due to local movement 

between offshore rookeries and the mainland. The gray whale only transits the nearshore waters west of 

SSTC during annual migrations between northern feeding grounds and breeding lagoons in Mexico. 

There are no pinniped haul-out sites within the SSTC; therefore, dependent pups would not be expected in 

the ROI. The nearest documented harbor seal beach haul-out site is located at the Children’s Pool in La 

Jolla, California—14 miles northwest of the SSTC area (Lowry and Carretta 2003). Harbor seals can be 

seen hauled out on buoys within San Diego Bay. California sea lions enter San Diego Bay to forage on 

scraps near commercial bait barges and may briefly haul-out on jetties or buoys, but no regular haul-out 

sites are located near the ROI. Sick or injured marine mammals can strand on California beaches, with 

pinnipeds being the most common marine mammal to strand on California beaches (NMFS 2000). 

Strandings of marine mammals usually consist of a single animal but occasionally groups of several of 

odontocetes, or toothed whales, will strand. The causes of strandings include starvation particularly in 

young animals), seizures due to natural (e.g., domoic acid) or anthropogenic toxins, diseases (e.g., 

morbillivirus, leptospirosis) and predation. Within California, domoic acid toxicity is a significant source 

of mortality and strandings for pinnipeds and dolphins (Lefebvre et al. 1999, Scholin et al. 1999, 

Zagzebski et al. 2002, Goldstein et al. 2008, Bejarano et al. 2008, Goldstein et al. 2009). 

Five species are considered rare or infrequent visitors within the SSTC ROI (Dailey et al. 1993, DoN 

2005c, Barlow and Forney 2007, Carretta et al. 2007). Guadalupe fur seals (Arctocephalus townsendi) 

breed on Guadalupe Island in Baja California, Mexico and migrate north to forage. Northern elephant 

seals (Mirounga angustirostris) breed on islands in Baja California, Mexico and the SCB including San 

Clemente Island off the coast of San Diego (Lowry 2002) and migrate north to forage (Le Boeuf et al. 

1993). Northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) breed on San Miguel Island which is the southern extent 

of their range (Carretta et al. 2007). Pacific white-sided dolphins (Lagenorynchus obliquidens) and 

common dolphins (Delphinus spp.) have occasionally been seen during marine mammal surveys west of 

Point Loma (Merkel Inc. 2008). Though these animals have been noted in the waters outside of the 

coastal zone and outside of the SSTC ROI, their occurrence is considered rare and these species are not 

addressed further in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-4

More detailed information on the four marine mammal species expected to occur within the ROI (gray 

whale, bottlenose dolphin, harbor seal, and California sea lion) is provided in Sections 3.9.1.5 and 3.9.1.6. 

3.9.1.5 Cetaceans 

3.9.1.5.1 Mysticetes (Baleen whales) 

Gray Whale 

Stock—Eastern North Pacific 

Population Status – In 1994, due to steady increases in population abundance, the Eastern North Pacific 

stock of gray whales was removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants, as it was no longer considered endangered or threatened under the ESA (Angliss and Outlaw 

2008). The Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whale is not considered a strategic stock under the 

MMPA. 

Even though the stock is within Optimal Sustainable Population (OSP), which is the population size 

which falls within a range from the population level of a given species or stock which is the largest 

supportable within the ecosystem to the population level that results in maximum net productivity, 

abundance will rise and fall as the population adjusts to natural and man-caused factors affecting the 

carrying capacity of the environment (Rugh et al. 2005). In fact, it is expected that a population close to or 

at the carrying capacity of the environment will be more susceptible to fluctuations in the environment 

(Moore et al. 2001). Systematic counts of gray whales migrating south along the central California coast 

have been conducted by shore-based observers at Granite Canyon most years since 1967. The population 

size of the Eastern North Pacific gray whale stock has been increasing over the past several decades at a 

rate approximately between 2.5 to 3.3 percent per year since 1967. NMFS’ population estimate is 18,813 

individuals as reported in Angliss and Outlaw (2008), and the minimum population estimate as 17,752. 

Distribution – The Eastern North Pacific population is found from the upper Gulf of California (Tershy 

and Breese 1991), south to the tip of Baja California, and up the Pacific coast of North America to the 

Chukchi and Beaufort seas. There is a pronounced seasonal north-south migration. The eastern North 

Pacific population summers in the shallow waters of the northern Bering Sea, the Chukchi Sea, and the 

western Beaufort Sea (Rice and Wolman 1971). The northern Gulf of Alaska (near Kodiak Island) is also 

considered a feeding area; some gray whales occur there year-round (Moore et al. 2007). Some 

individuals spend the summer feeding along the Pacific coast from southeastern Alaska to central 

California (Sumich 1984, Calambokidis et al. 1987, 2002). Photo-identification studies indicate that gray 

whales move widely along the Pacific coast and are often not sighted in the same area each year 

(Calambokidis et al. 2002). In October and November, the whales begin to migrate southeast through 

Unimak Pass and follow the shoreline south to breeding grounds on the west coast of Baja California and 

the southeastern Gulf of California (Braham 1984, Rugh 1984). The average gray whale migrates 4,050 to 

5,000 nm (7,500 to 10,000 km) at a rate of 80 nm (147 km) per day (Rugh et al. 2001, Jones and Swartz 

2002). Although some calves are born along the coast of California (Shelden et al. 2004), most are born in 

the shallow, protected waters on the Pacific coast of Baja California from Morro de Santo Domingo 

(28°N) south to Isla Creciente (24°N) (Urbán-Ramirez et al. 2003). The main calving sites are Laguna 

Guerrero Negro, Laguna Ojo de Liebre, Laguna San Ignacio, and Estero Soledad (Rice et al. 1981). 

A group of gray whales known as the Pacific Coast Feeding Aggregation feeds along the Pacific coast 

between southeastern Alaska and northern to central California throughout the summer and fall (NMFS 

2001, Calambokidis et al. 2002, Calambokidis et al. 2004b). The gray whales in this feeding aggregation 

are a small proportion (a few hundred individuals) of the overall eastern North Pacific population and 

arrive and depart from these feeding grounds concurrently with the migration to and from the wintering 

grounds (Calambokidis et al. 2002, Angliss and Outlaw 2008). Although some site fidelity is known to 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-5

occur, there is considerable interannual variation since many individuals do not return to the same feeding 

site in successive years (Calambokidis et al. 2000, Calambokidis et al. 2004). 

The Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whale transits through southern California during its northward 

and southward migrations between approximately December and June. Gray whales follow three routes 

from within approximately 5 to 100 nm (9 to 185 km) from shore (Bonnell and Dailey 1993). The 

nearshore route follows the shoreline between Point Conception and Point Vicente but includes a more 

direct line from Santa Barbara to Ventura and across Santa Monica Bay. Around Point Vicente or Point 

Fermin, some whales veer south towards Santa Catalina Island and return to the nearshore route near 

Newport Beach. Others join the inshore route that includes the northern chain of the Channel Islands 

along Santa Cruz Island and Anacapa Island and east along the Santa Cruz Basin to Santa Barbara Island 

and the Osborn Bank. From here, gray whales migrate east directly to Santa Catalina Island and then to 

Point Loma or Punta Descanso or southeast to San Clemente Island (SCI) and on to the area near Punta 

Banda. A significant portion of the Eastern North Pacific stock passes by SCI and its associated offshore 

waters (Carretta et al. 2000). The offshore route follows the undersea ridge from Santa Rosa Island to the 

mainland shore of Baja California and includes San Nicolas Island and Tanner and Cortes banks (Bonnell 

and Dailey 1993). 

Peak abundance of gray whales off the coast of San Diego is January during the southward migration, and 

in March during the migration north; although females with calves, which depart Mexico later than males 

or females without calves, can be sighted from March through May or June (Leatherwood 1974; Poole 

1984; Rugh et al. 2001; Stevick et al. 2002; Angliss and Outlaw 2008). Gray whales are infrequent 

migratory transients through the oceanside portions of SSTC only during cold-water months (Carretta et 

al. 2000). Migrating gray whales that might infrequently transit through SSTC would not be expected to 

forage, and would likely be present for minutes to less than one or two hours at typical travel speeds of 3 

knots (approximately 3.5 miles per hour) (Perryman et al. 1999, Mate and Urbán-Ramirez 2003). 

A mean group size of 2.9 gray whales was reported for both coastal (16 groups) and non-coastal (15 

groups) areas around SCI (Carretta et al. 2000). The largest group reported was nine animals. The largest 

group reported by U.S. Navy (1998) was 27 animals. Gray whales are not expected in the SSTC from July 

through November (Rice et al. 1981), and are excluded from warm season analysis. Even though gray 

whale transitory occurrence is infrequent along SSTC, a cold season density is estimated at 0.014 animals 

per km2

 for purposes of conservative analysis (Table 3.9-1). 

Reproduction/Breeding – Although some calves are born along the coast of southern California, most are 

born in the shallow, protected waters on the Pacific coast of Baja California (Urbán-Ramirez et al. 2003). 

Diving Behavior – Gray whales dive to 160 to 200 feet for 5 to 8 minutes when foraging. In the breeding 

lagoons, dives are usually less than 6 minutes (Jones and Swartz, 2002), although dives as long as 26 

minutes have been recorded (Harvey and Mate 1984). Gray whales may remain submerged near the 

surface for 7 to 10 minutes and travel 1600 feet or more before resurfacing to breathe when migrating. 

The maximum known dive depth is 560 feet (Jones and Swartz 2002). Migrating gray whales sometimes 

exhibit a unique snorkeling behavior—they surface cautiously, exposing only the area around the blow 

hole, exhale quietly without a visible blow, and sink silently beneath the surface (Jones and Swartz 2002). 

Mate and Urbán-Ramirez (2003) noted that 30 of 36 locations for a migratory gray whale with a satellite 

tag were in water <330 feet deep, with the deeper water locations all in the SCB within the Channel 

Islands. Whales in that study maintained consistent speed indicating directed movement. There has been 

only one study yielding a gray whale dive profile, and all information was collected from a single animal 

that was foraging off the west coast of Vancouver Island (Malcolm and Duffus 2000; Malcolm et al. 

1996). They noted that the majority of time was spent near the surface on interventilation dives (<10 feet 

depth) and near the bottom (extremely nearshore in a protected bay with mean dive depth of 60 feet, 

range 46-72 feet depth). There was very little time spent in the water column between surface and bottom. 

Foraging depth on summer feeding grounds is between 160-200 feet (50-60 meters [m]) (Jones and 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-6

Swartz 2002). Based on this very limited information, the following is a rough estimate of depth 

distribution for gray whales: 50 percent at <13 feet (surface and interventilation dives) and 50 at 13-59 

feet. However, most gray whales would be expected at shallower depths during transit through southern 

California where foraging does not occur due to migration and limited suitable bottom prey habitat. 

Acoustics – Au (2000) reviewed the characteristics of gray whale vocalizations. Gray whales produce 

broadband signals ranging from 100 hertz (Hz) to 4 kilohertz (kHz) (and up to 12 kHz) (Dahlheim et al. 

1984, Jones and Swartz 2002). The most common sounds on the breeding and feeding grounds are knocks 

(Jones and Swartz 2002), which are broadband pulses from about 100 Hz to 2 kHz and most energy at 

327 to 825 Hz. The source level for knocks is approximately 142 decibels referenced to 1 micropascal at 

1 meter (dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) (Cummings et al. 1968). During migration, individuals most often produce 

low-frequency moans (Crane and Lashkari 1996). The structure of the gray whale ear is evolved for lowfrequency hearing (Ketten 1992). The ability of gray whales to hear frequencies below 2 kHz has been 

demonstrated in playback studies (Cummings and Thompson 1971; Dahlheim and Ljungblad 1990; 

Moore and Clarke 2002) and in their responsiveness to underwater noise associated with broadband oil 

and gas activities (Malme et al. 1986; Moore and Clarke 2002). Gray whale responses to noise include 

changes in swimming speed and direction to move away from the sound source; abrupt behavioral 

changes from feeding to avoidance, with a resumption of feeding after exposure; changes in calling rates 

and call structure; and changes in surface behavior, usually from traveling to milling (e.g., Moore and 

Clarke 2002). Gailey et al. (2007) reported no apparent behavioral disturbance for Western Pacific gray 

whales in response to low-frequency seismic survey. 

3.9.1.5.2 Odontocetes (Toothed whales) 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

Stock—California Coastal 

Population Status – There are two distinct populations of bottlenose dolphins within southern California, 

a coastal population found within 0.5 nm of shore and a larger offshore population (Hansen 1990, Bearzi 

et al. 2009). The California Coastal stock is the only one of these two stocks likely to regularly occur 

within the SSTC. The California Coastal stock of bottlenose dolphins is not listed under the ESA, and is 

not considered a strategic stock under the MMPA. 

Based on photographic mark-recapture surveys conducted along the San Diego coast in 2004 and 2005, 

population size for the California Coastal stock of the bottlenose dolphin is estimated to be 323 

individuals (CV = 0.13, 95 percent CI 259-430; Dudzik et al. 2006, Carretta et al. 2007). This estimate 

does not reflect that approximately 35 percent of dolphins encountered lack identifiable dorsal fin marks 

(Defran and Weller 1999). If 35 percent of all animals lack distinguishing marks, then the true population 

size would be closer to 450-500 animals (Carretta et al. 2007). 

Distribution – The bottlenose dolphin California Coastal stock occurs at least from Point Conception 

south into Mexican waters, at least as far south as San Quintin, Mexico. In southern California, animals 

are found within 500 m of the shoreline 99 percent of the time and within 250 m 90 percent of the time 

(Hanson and Defran 1993). Occasionally, during warm-water incursions such as during the 1982–1983 El 

Niño event, their range extends as far north as Monterey Bay (Wells et al. 1990). Bottlenose dolphins in 

the SCB appear to be highly mobile within a narrow coastal zone (Defran et al. 1999), and exhibit little 

seasonal site fidelity to the SCB region (Defran and Weller 1999) and along the California coast; over 80 

percent of the dolphins identified in Santa Barbara, Monterey, and Ensenada have also been identified off 

San Diego (Maldini-Feinholz 1996, Defran et al. 1999, Defran, unpublished data, Carretta et al. 2007, 

Bearzi 2009). Bottlenose dolphins could occur in the SSTC at variable frequencies and periods 

throughout the year based on localized prey availability (Defran et al. 1999). The coastal stock utilizes a 

limited number of fish prey species with up to 74 percent being various species of surfperch or croakers, a 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-7

group of non-migratory year-round coastal inhabitants (Defran et al. 1999, Allen et al. 2006). For 

southern California, common croaker prey species include spotfin croaker, yellowfin croaker, and 

California corbina, while common surfperch species include barred surfperch and walleye surfperch 

(Allen et al. 2006). The corbina and barred surfperch are the most common surf zone fish where 

bottlenose dolphins have been observed foraging (Allen et al. 2006). Defran et al. (1999) postulated that 

the coastal stock of bottlenose dolphins showed significant movement within their home range (Central 

California to Mexico) in search of preferred but patchy concentrations of near shore prey (i.e., croakers 

and surfperch). Bearzi et al (2009), in an analysis of coastal bottlenose dolphins in the vicinity of Santa 

Monica, also concluded that low individual re-sighting rates indicates a large coastal bottlenose dolphin 

distribution influenced by prey distribution. After finding concentrations of prey, animals may then forage 

within a more limited spatial extent to take advantage of this local accumulation until such time that prey 

abundance is reduced; the dolphins then shift location once again to be over larger distances (Defran et al. 

1999, Bearzi 2009). An at-sea density estimate of 0.202 animals/km2

 was used for acoustic impact 

modeling for both the warm and cold seasons (Table 3.9-1). 

Reproduction/Breeding – Newborn calves are seen throughout the year and reproduction may be 

influenced by productivity and food abundance (Urian et al. 1996). 

Diving Behavior – California coastal stock bottlenose dolphins feed primarily on surf perches (Family 

Embiotocidae) and croakers (Family Sciaendae) (Norris and Prescott 1961; Walker 1981; Schwartz et al. 

1992; Hanson and Defran 1993), and also consume squid (Loligo opalescens) (Schwartz et al. 1992). 

Navy bottlenose dolphins have been trained to reach maximum diving depths of about 984 feet (Ridgway 

et al. 1969). Reeves et al. (2002) noted that the presence of deep-sea fish in the stomachs of some offshore 

individual bottlenose dolphins suggests that they dive to depths of more than 1,638 feet. Dive durations 

up to 15 minutes have been recorded for trained individuals (Ridgway et al. 1969). Typical dives expected 

for the California Coastal Stock are more shallow and of a much shorter duration. However, bottlenose 

dolphins utilize the entire water column by feeding on prey that concentrate near the surface, midwater 

areas and benthic areas (Hastie et al. 2005). 

Acoustics – Sounds emitted by bottlenose dolphins have been classified into two broad categories: pulsed 

sounds (including clicks and burst-pulses) and narrow-band continuous sounds (whistles), which usually 

are frequency modulated (FM). Whistles range in frequency from 0.8 to 24 kHz but can also go much 

higher. Clicks and whistles have a dominant frequency range of 110 to 130 kHz and a source level of 218 

to 228 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m (peak to peak levels; Au 1993) and 3.5 to 14.5 kHz with a source level of 125 

to 173 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m, respectively (Ketten 1998). The bottlenose dolphin has a functional highfrequency hearing limit of 160 kHz (Au 1993) and can hear sounds at frequencies as low as 40 to 125 Hz 

(Turl 1993). Inner ear anatomy of this species has been described (Ketten 1992). Electrophysiological 

experiments suggest that the bottlenose dolphin brain has a dual analysis system: one specialized for 

ultrasonic clicks and the other for lower-frequency sounds, such as whistles (Ridgway 2000). The 

audiogram of the bottlenose dolphin shows that the lowest thresholds occurred near 50 kHz at a level 

around 45 dB re 1 μPa (Nachtigall et al. 2000, Finneran and Houser 2006, Finneran and Houser 2007). 

Below the maximum sensitivity, thresholds increased continuously up to a level of 137 dB re 1 μPa at 75 

Hz. Above 50 kHz, thresholds increased slowly up to a level of 55 dB re 1 μPa at 100 kHz, then increased 

rapidly above this to about 135 dB re 1 μPa at 150 kHz. Scientists have reported a range of best 

sensitivity between 25 and 70 kHz, with peaks in sensitivity occurring at 25 and 50 kHz at levels of 47 

and 46 dB re 1 μPa (Nachtigall et al. 2000). Temporary threshold shifts (TTS) in hearing have been 

experimentally induced and behavioral responses observed in captive bottlenose dolphins (Ridgway et al. 

1997, Schlundt et al. 2000, 2006, Nachtigall et al. 2003, Finneran et al. 2002, 2005, 2007b). Ridgway et 

al. (1997) observed changes in behavior at the following minimum levels for 1 second tones: 186 dB re 1 

μPa at 3 kHz, 181 dB re 1 μPa at 20 kHz, and 178 dB re 1 μPa at 75 kHz. TTS levels were 194 to 201 dB 

re 1 μPa at 3 kHz, 193 to 196 dB re 1 μPa at 20 kHz, and 192 to 194 dB re 1 μPa at 75 kHz. Schlundt et 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-8

al. (2000) exposed bottlenose dolphins to intense tones (0.4, 3, 10, 20, and 75 kHz); the animals 

demonstrated altered behavior at source levels of 178 to 193 dB re 1 μPa, with TTS after exposures 

between 192 and 201 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m (though one dolphin exhibited TTS after exposure at 182 dB re 1 

μPa). Nachtigall et al. (2003) determined threshold for a 7.5 kHz pure tone stimulus. No shifts were 

observed at 165 or 171 dB re 1 μPa, but when the sound level reached 179 dB re 1 μPa, the animal 

showed the first sign of TTS. Recovery apparently occurred rapidly, with full recovery apparently within 

45 minutes following sound exposure. TTS measured between 8 and 16 kHz (negligible or absent at 

higher frequencies) after 30 minutes of sound exposure (4 to 11 kHz) at 160 dB re 1 μPa (Nachtigall et al. 

2004). 

3.9.1.6 Non-Threatened and Non-Endangered Pinnipeds 

3.9.1.6.1 Phocids (True seals) 

Pacific Harbor Seal 

Stock—California 

Population Status – The harbor seal is not listed under the ESA, and the California stock, some of which 

occurs in the SSTC, is not considered a strategic stock under the MMPA. The California stock has 

increased from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, although the rate of increase may have slowed during the 

1990s as the population has reached and may be stabilizing at carrying capacity (Hanan 1996; Carretta et 

al. 2008). 

A complete count of all harbor seals in California is impossible because some are always away from the 

haulout sites. A complete pup count (as is done for other pinnipeds in California) is also not possible 

because harbor seals are precocious, with pups entering the water almost immediately after birth (Carretta 

et al. 2008). Population size is estimated by counting the number of seals ashore during the peak haul-out 

period (May to July) and by multiplying this count by the inverse of the estimated fraction of seals on 

land. 

Based on the most recent harbor seal counts (26,333 in May-July 2004, Lowry et al. 2005) and Hanan’s 

revised correction factor, the harbor seal population in California is estimated by NMFS to number 

34,233 (Carretta et al. 2008).Of the estimated California population (34,233), less than 30 percent are 

thought to reside within southern California due to lack of suitable haul-our sited because of significant 

beach urbanization (Lowry et al. 2008). 

Distribution – Harbor seals are considered abundant throughout most of their range from Baja California 

to the eastern Aleutian Islands. An unknown number of harbor seals also occur along the west coast of 

Baja California, at least as far south as Isla Asuncion, which is about 100 miles south of Punta Eugenia. 

Peak numbers of harbor seals haul-out on land during late May to early June, which coincides with the 

peak of their molt. They favor sandy, cobble, and gravel beaches (Stewart and Yochem 1994), with 

multiple haul-outs identified along the California mainland and Channel Islands (Carretta et al. 2007). 

There are limited at-sea density estimates for pinnipeds within southern California. Harbor seals do not 

make extensive pelagic migrations, but do travel 300 to 500 km on occasion to find food or suitable 

breeding areas (Carretta et al. 2008). Based on likely foraging strategies, Grigg et al. (2009) reported 

seasonal shifts in harbor seal movements based on prey availability. When at sea, they remain in the 

vicinity of haul-out sites and forage close to shore in shallow waters. In relationship to the entire 

California stock, harbor seals do not have a significant mainland California distribution south of Pt Mugu 

due to beach urbanization and potential disturbance impacts. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-9

While harbor seals could potentially be found in the SSTC throughout the year, their abundance is not 

expected to be large. However, as a conservative overestimate of likely occurrence in the SSTC, local 

densities for purposes of impact analysis are estimated at 0.010 animals/km2

 during the warm season 

(May to September) and 0.020 animals/km2

 during the cold season (November to April) (Table 3.9-1). 

Reproduction/Breeding – Nursing of pups begins in late February, and pups start to become weaned in 

May. Breeding occurs between late March and early May on the offshore southern and northern Channel 

Islands. 

Diving Behavior – While feeding, harbor seals dive to depths of 33 to 130 feet in the case of females with 

nursing pups, and 260 to 390 feet in the case of other seals and dives as deep as 1,463 feet have been 

recorded (Eguchi and Harvey 2005). 

Acoustics – Harbor seals produce a variety of airborne vocalizations including snorts, snarls, and belching 

sounds (Bigg 1981). Adult males produce low frequency vocalizations underwater during the breeding 

season (Hanggi and Schusterman 1994; Van Parijs et al. 2003, Bjørgesæter et al. 2004, Bodson et al. 

2006). Male harbor seals produce communication sounds in the frequency range of 100 to 1,000 Hz 

(Bodson et al. 2006). The harbor seal hears almost equally well in air and underwater (Kastak and 

Schusterman 1998). Seals in general have an extremely broad range of best hearing sensitivity 

underwater, with flat audiograms between 1 and 50 kHz and good sensitivity to sounds between 100 Hz 

and 1 kHz (Kastelein et al. 2009). The high-frequency portion of their audiograms shows a functional 

upper frequency cutoff around 60 kHz. Peak hearing sensitivity for harbor seals is around 32 kHz in water 

and 12 kHz in air (Terhune and Turnball 1995, Kastak and Schusterman 1998, Wolski et al. 2003, 

Kastelein et al. 2009). 

3.9.1.6.2 Otariids (Sea lions and fur seals) 

California Sea Lion 

Stock—United States 

Population Status – The California sea lion is not listed under the ESA, and the U.S. stock, some of which 

occurs in the SSTC, is not considered a strategic stock under the MMPA. The entire stock cannot be 

counted because all age and sex classes are never ashore at the same time. In lieu of counting all sea lions, 

pups are counted during the breeding season (because this is the only age class that is ashore in its 

entirety), and the number of births is estimated from the pup count after accounting for pup mortality 

(Carretta et al. 2007). The size of the population is then estimated from the number of births and the 

proportion of pups in the population. Censuses are conducted in July after all pups have been born. Based 

on these censuses, the U.S. Stock has increased from the early 1900s to the present with the exception of 

four major declines in the number of pups counted which occurred during El Niño events in 1983-1984, 

1992-1993, 1998, and 2003 (Carretta et al. 2008). 

The NMFS population estimate of the U.S. stock of California sea lions is 238,000 (Carretta et al. 2008), 

with a minimum estimate based on a 2005 shore-based survey of all age and sex classes of 141,842 

(NMFS, unpubl. data, Carretta et al. 2008). Based on data from NMFS and presented in Carretta et al. 

2007, there is indication that the California sea lion may have reached the environmental Carrying 

Capacity. It is unclear, but possible, that the OSP level for sea lions as defined by the MMPA may have 

been reached but more data is needed to ensure the leveling in growth persists (Carretta et al. 2008). 

Distribution –Nearly all of the U.S. Stock (more than 95 percent) breeds and gives birth to pups on San 

Miguel, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara islands. Some movement has been documented between the U.S. 

Stock and Western Baja Mexico Stock, but rookeries in the United States are widely separated from the 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-10

major rookeries of western Baja California. Smaller numbers of pups are born on San Clemente Island, 

the Farallon Islands, and Año Nuevo Island (Lowry et al. 1992). The California sea lion is by far the most 

commonly-sighted pinniped species at sea or on land in the vicinity of the SSTC. In California waters, sea 

lions represented 97 percent (381 of 393) of identified pinniped sightings at sea during the 1998–1999 

NMFS surveys (Carretta et al. 2000). They were sighted during all seasons and in all areas with survey 

coverage from nearshore to offshore areas (Carretta et al. 2000). However, within context of the SSTC 

sea lions while potentially present at-sea, are not frequently sighted within the ocean waters of SSTC, but 

rather more commonly seen hauled-out on piers and buoys within and leading into San Diego Bay, north 

of the SSTC (Merkel inc. 2008). In a study of California sea lion reaction to human activity, Holcomb et 

al. (2009) showed that in general sea lions are rather resilient to human disturbance. 

The distribution and habitat use of California sea lions varies with the sex of the animals and their 

reproductive phase. Adult males haul-out on land to defend territories and breed from mid-to-late May 

until late July. Individual males remain on territories for 27 to 45 days without going to sea to feed. 

During August and September, after the mating season, the adult males migrate northward to feeding 

areas as far away as Washington (Puget Sound) and British Columbia (Lowry et al. 1992). They remain 

there until spring (March through May), when they migrate back to the breeding colonies. Thus, adult 

males are present in offshore areas of the SSTC only briefly as they move to and from rookeries. 

Distribution of immature California sea lions is less well known, but some make northward migrations 

that are shorter in length than the migrations of adult males (Huber 1991). However, most immature sea 

lions are presumed to remain near the rookeries, and remain near SSTC for most of the year. Adult 

females remain near the rookeries throughout the year. Most births occur from mid-June to mid-July 

(peak in late June). 

Survey data from 1975 to 1978 were analyzed to describe the seasonal shifts in the offshore distribution 

of California sea lions near the Channel Islands (Bonnell and Ford 1987). The seasonal changes in the 

center of distribution were attributed to changes in the distribution of the prey species. If California sea 

lion distribution is determined primarily by prey abundance as influenced by variations in local, seasonal, 

and interannual oceanographic variation, these same areas might not be the center of sea lion distribution 

every year. Melin et al. (2008) showed that foraging female sea lions showed significant variability in 

individual foraging behavior, and foraged further offshore and at deeper depths during El Niño years as 

compared to non-El Niño years. 

There are limited published at-sea density estimates for pinnipeds within southern California. The density 

of California sea lions is higher during cold-water months (0.190/km2

) versus the warmer months 

(0.060/km2

) (Table 3.9-1). At-sea densities likely decrease during warm-water months because females 

spend more time ashore to give birth and attend their pups. Radio-tagged female California sea lions at 

San Miguel Island spent approximately 70 percent of their time at sea during the nonbreeding season 

(cold-water months) and pups spent an average of 67 percent of their time ashore during their mother’s 

absence (Melin et al. 2000). Different age classes of California sea lions are found in the SSTC 

throughout the year (Lowry et al. 1992). Although adult male California sea lions feed in areas north of 

the SSTC, animals of all other ages and sexes spend most, but not all, of their time feeding at sea during 

winter; thus, winter estimates likely are somewhat low. During warm-water months, a high proportion of 

the adult males and females are hauled out at terrestrial sites during much of the period, so the summer 

estimates are low to a greater degree. 

Reproduction/Breeding – The pupping and mating season for sea lions begins in late May and continues 

through July (Heath 2002). 

Diving Behavior – Over one third of the foraging dives by breeding females are one to two minutes in 

duration; 75 percent of dives are less than three minutes, and the longest recorded dive was 9.9 minutes 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-11

(Feldkamp et al. 1989). Approximately 45 percent of dives were to depths of 66 – 160 feet (Feldkamp et 

al. 1989). Costa et al. (2007) reported both shallow and deep dives greater than 328 feet by both male and 

female sea lions. Melin et al. (2008) documented mean dives depths of 62 to 915 feet but that most 

individuals could make dives to 1,312 feet. Much of the variation in duration and depth of dives appears 

to be related to sea lions foraging on vertically-migrating prey. Longer dives to greater depths occur 

during the day, and shorter dives to shallower depths occur at night, when prey migrate toward the surface 

(Feldkamp et al. 1989, Costa et al. 2007, Melin et al. 2008). 

Acoustics – California sea lions produce two types of underwater sounds: clicks (or short-duration sound 

pulses) and barks (Schusterman et al. 1966, 1967, Schusterman and Baillet 1969). All underwater sounds 

have most of their energy below 4 kHz (Schusterman et al. 1967). The range of overall hearing sensitivity 

underwater is between 0.25 and 64 kHz (Schusterman et al. 1972, Kastak and Schusterman 1998, 

Finneran et al 2003, Southall et al 2005). The range of maximal sensitivity presented in this study was 

between one and 28 kHz with best sensitivity at 16 kHz. Between 28 and 36 kHz there is a loss in 

sensitivity of 60 dB/octave. However, sea lions can hear frequencies at least as high as 64 kHz, given 

intense acoustic signals. The California sea lion shows poor hearing at frequencies below 1,000 Hz 

(Kastak and Schusterman 1998). The best range of sound detection is from 2.0 to 16 kHz (Schusterman, 

1974). Kastak and Schusterman (2002) determined that hearing sensitivity worsens with depth—hearing 

thresholds were lower in shallow water, except at the highest frequency tested (35 kHz), where this trend 

was reversed. 

In-air, California sea lions make incessant, raucous barking sounds; these have most of their energy at less 

than 2 kHz (Schusterman et al. 1967). Males vary both the number and rhythm of their barks depending 

on the social context; the barks appear to control the movements and other behavior patterns of nearby sea 

lions (Schusterman 1977). Females produce barks, squeals, belches, and growls in the frequency range of 

0.25 to 5.0 kHz, while pups make bleating sounds at 0.25 to 6.0 kHz. Peak sensitivities in air are shifted 

towards lower frequencies; the effective upper hearing limit is approximately 36 kHz (Schusterman 

1974). 

3.9.1.7 Current Mitigation Measures 

The physical topography (Sections 3.2 and 3.5), lack of significant marine mammal occurrence within the 

SSTC, and the type of proposed Navy training events at SSTC allow for effective mitigation procedures. 

Gray whales are seldom present in the shallow offshore waters of the SSTC, or if migrating near the outer 

edge of the boat lanes rarely present for longer than the one the two hours it would take to transit past 

SSTC. If large marine mammals such as gray whales were to approach a training area—even far beyond 

the mitigation zone—they would be immediately obvious to the shore or safety-boat observers. As 

described in Section 3.9.1.4, the SSTC is not known to be a preferred feeding site for small marine 

mammals such as bottlenose dolphins and pinnipeds, although their presence can not be ruled out. 

Therefore, the principal concern for mitigation is the protection of dolphins and pinnipeds that 

occasionally transit through the site. 

Based on NMFS promulgated criteria and in-water propagation of sound and underwater detonations 

described in Section 3.9.2, the mitigation zones described below are derived from by modeled estimates 

of propagated peak-pressure and energy in the 1/3-octave-band of highest energy above 100 Hz (i.e., 

within the range of hearing of marine mammal species). 

The following mitigation measures, which are situation/location dependent for underwater detonations 

and Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) training, incorporate existing range procedures at SSTC and are 

consistent with existing training objectives and activities, as well as established human safety procedures. 

In case of unanticipated conflict, human safety considerations will take precedence and such conflicts are 

always used to make incremental improvements in the procedures used in subsequent activities. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-12

Mitigation measures for underwater detonations on SSTC oceanside: 

1. A safety buffer zone will be established around each detonation point. For detonations occurring 

in zero to 24 feet of water depth (Very Shallow Water [VSW]), the safety buffer shall be a 1,300-

foot radius around the detonation point. For detonations occurring in 24 to 72 feet of water depth, 

the safety buffer shall be 1,410 feet. 

2. Two Navy observers (one on the beach and one in a small craft for detonations in zero to 24 feet 

and two in small craft for 24 to 72 feet of water depth) with binoculars will survey detonation 

area and the safety buffer zone for marine mammals from at least 30 minutes prior to 

commencement of the scheduled explosive event until at least 30 minutes after detonation. Navy 

observers will pay extra attention within the buffer zone to large amounts of floating kelp strands 

and other marine debris (if any), since these may provide shelter and food for marine mammal 

prey. 

3. Navy divers placing charges on mines and dive support vessels will check the area immediately 

around the mine location for marine mammals. 

4. If a vessel not associated with the event is sighted in the buffer zone or headed towards it, 

suspend activities and ensure the area is clear prior to detonation. 

5. If a marine mammal is sighted within the buffer zone or moving towards it, exercises will be 

suspended until the animal has voluntarily left the area and the area is clear of marine mammals 

for at least 30 minutes for detonations in 24 to 72 feet and 10 minutes for zero to 24 feet of water 

depth. 

6. Any animals appearing following the detontion will be observed for signs of injury. Injured 

marine mammals will be reported to the Commander Navy Region Southwest (CNRSW) 

Environmental Director, the Pacific Fleet (PACFLT) Environmental Office, and NMFS. 

7. Sequential detonations will be conducted either less than 10 seconds apart or greater than 30 

minutes apart. 

Mitigation for ELCAS/Pile Driving Activities on SSTC oceanside: 

1. Navy will monitor a 105 foot safety zone (for detail see Section 3.9.2.6) surrounding temporary 

pile removal activities for the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after pile removal 

activities. If marine mammals are found in the area, pile removal activities will be halted until the 

marine mammals have voluntarily left the safety zone. 

2. Monitoring for marine mammals will take place concurrent with pile removal activities and 30 

minutes prior to pile removal commencement. A trained observer will be placed on shore, on the 

ELCAS, or in a boat at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and 

will implement shut–down/delay procedures when applicable by calling for shut–down to the 

hammer operator. 

3.9.1.7.1 Mitigation Effectiveness 

Mitigation of potential impacts depends on observers and environmental conditions during the training 

event, among other things. For underwater detonations and ELCAS training, observers watch a safety 

buffer zone for the presence of marine mammals. These zones make best use of the available platforms 

and assets. The efficacy of visual detection depends on several factors related to the observers, 

environment, and monitoring platforms. 

Training activities involving underwater detonation occur during daylight hours with Beaufort sea-states 

of three or less at SSTC. Training activities involving ELCAS occur 24-hours per day, but involve the use 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-13

of floodlights at night to ensure the visibility of operations. Mitigation zones are clearly visible from the 

shore where the beach slopes up to provide an elevated position for a stable observation deck, on the 

ELCAS itself, and/or in boats for complete binocular-aided observation of the mitigation area. More 

importantly, physical characteristics of the environment and local circumstances substantially increase the 

probability of animals being on the surface. That is, conditions are substantially better for visual 

mitigation at SSTC than those encountered during offshore activities when mitigation is used and deepdiving mammals can be encountered. More specifically, negative biases (availability and observer) are 

much reduced at SSTC compared to deeper water locations where water depth exceeds the diving abilities 

of sea lions, harbor seals, bottlenose dolphins, and gray whales. 

Given these near-shore characteristics, the percent detection or detection effectiveness for various species 

that are usually associated with deeper at-sea zones and other methods of observation, do not apply nor do 

the detection probabilities associated with assessment surveys in deep water from ships or planes (Barlow 

1995, Barlow 1999, Barlow et al. 2001, Buckland et al. 1993). While survey detection probabilities may 

not apply, environmental variables (sea state, relative visibility, glare, swell height) and observer training 

and locations at SSTC favor very good detection rates. No long- or deep-diving mammals are present, 

therefore, the 30-minute period of observation allows for improved probability of animals surfacing to be 

seen by either the dive team and associated support craft or the dedicated craft. 

Because of the coastal nature of SSTC and near-shoreline volumes, marine animals will be at the surface 

much more frequently and not diving deeply or for extended periods of time as is assumed in deeper 

water. Though they will be easily sighted, numbers of marine mammals in the vicinity of activities are 

expected to be quite low, as there are no seal or sea lion haul-outs nor are there intensively used dolphin 

feeding grounds within the SSTC. 

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences 

Potential effects on marine mammals from SSTC activities can be separated into two broad categories: 

acoustic and nonacoustic impacts, both of which are addressed in this EIS. The possibility that humangenerated sound could harm marine mammals or significantly interfere with their “normal” activities is an 

issue of increasing concern (NRC 2005). Evaluating potential acoustic effects requires an understanding 

of the technical issues inherent to sound and its propagation in the ocean environment. In addition, it is 

important to understand potential impacts in the context of the regulatory framework. The following 

subsections of this EIS provide information on the analytical framework used to assess potential acoustic 

impacts, including a description of both regulatory and conceptual issues. The criteria used to model and 

assess marine mammal responses to sound are then summarized. A description of current mitigation 

measures and their effectiveness is also provided. Finally, the remaining subsections evaluate the 

potential for the specific Navy SSTC activities to result in impacts to marine mammals. 

3.9.2.1 General Approach to Analysis 

Each alternative analyzed in this Draft EIS includes multiple types of training activities (for example, 

Mine Countermeasures, Amphibious Operations, Naval Special Warfare). Likewise, many activities (for 

example, vessel movements, aircraft overflights, and underwater detonations) are common to many 

training scenarios. Accordingly, the analysis of the consequences to marine mammals is organized by 

specific activity and/or stressors associated with that activity. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-14

The following general steps were used to analyze the potential environmental consequences of the 

alternatives to marine mammals: 

• Identify those aspects of the Proposed Action that are likely to act as stressors to marine 

mammals by having a direct or indirect effect on the physical, chemical, and biotic 

environment. As part of this step, the spatial extent of these stressors, including changes in 

that spatial extent over time, were identified. The results of this step identified those aspects 

of the Proposed Action that required detailed analysis in this Draft EIS. 

• Identify marine mammal resources that may occur in the action area. 

• Identify the marine mammal resources that are likely to co-occur with the stressors in space 

and time, and the nature of that co-occurrence (exposure analysis). 

• Determine whether and how marine mammals are likely to respond given their exposure to 

the proposed activities based on available scientific knowledge of their probable responses. 

• Consider the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures in avoiding, offsetting, and 

reducing the intensity of any potential adverse impacts to marine mammals. 

• Determine implications of the estimated risks under the MMPA. 

Following this general approach, the types of activities that could affect marine mammals include 

underwater detonations, aircraft activities (related to sound propagation into the water column), marine 

vessel activities (small boats, service craft, etc.), and amphibious and beach activities. Types of activities 

determined not to have potential to affect marine mammals include swimming and nonmotorized CRRC 

(Activities 15, 18, 24, 28, 26, 57, 60, 67, 69-71, and 73, Table 2-1). Training activities that occur 

exclusively on the land portion of SSTC (Activities 17, 19, 31, 36, 48, 50, 54, 55, 58, 59, 61-66, 68, 72, 

74-76, and N10, Table 2-1 and Table 2-2) are not anticipated to cause localized increases in turbidity that 

are in excess of nearshore processes or discharge of pollutants into the water column offshore; therefore, 

they are also excluded from this analysis. Beach and inland activities have a low potential for impact on 

marine mammals because there are no breeding or haul-out areas within the SSTC ROI. 

Through both anecdotal observations and through several recent Navy funded surveys, there is limited to 

no marine mammal species present within the back portions of San Diego Bay south of the Coronado Bay 

Bridge (Merkel Inc 2008). Therefore, limited of in-water training impacts to marine mammals was 

conducted for SSTC Bayside training events. 

3.9.2.2 Regulatory and Biological Framework 

The following discussion outlines the biological framework within which potential impacts can be 

categorized. This discussion includes an explanation of potential indicators of physiological and 

behavioral effects, MMPA Level A and Level B harassment criteria, harassment zones, temporary 

threshold shift (TTS), and auditory masking. The biological framework can then be combined with the 

existing regulatory framework of injury (MMPA Level A harassment) and behavioral disruption (MMPA 

Level B harassment) to establish appropriate levels of impact. The Navy has submitted an application for 

an Incidental Harassment Authorization to NMFS per the requirements of MMPA for proposed training 

activities that have the potential to incidentally take marine mammals. 

As summarized by the National Academies of Science, the possibility that human-generated sound could 

harm marine mammals or significantly interfere with their “normal” activities has been an issue of 

concern (National Research Council [NRC] 2005). Assessing whether a sound may disturb or injure a 

marine mammal involves understanding the characteristics of the acoustic sources, the marine mammals 

that may be present in the vicinity of the sound, and the effects that sound may have on the physiology 

and behavior of those marine mammals. Although it is known that sound is important for marine mammal 

communication, navigation, and foraging (NRC 2003, NRC 2005), there are many unknowns in assessing 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-15

the effects and significance of marine mammal responses to sound exposures related to the context for the 

exposure and the disposition of the marine mammal (Southall et al. 2007). For this reason, the Navy 

enlisted the expertise of NMFS as a cooperating agency. Their input assisted the Navy in developing a 

conceptual analytical framework for evaluating what sound levels marine mammals might receive as a 

result of Navy training actions, whether marine mammals might respond to these exposures, and whether 

that response might have a mode of action on the biology or ecology of marine mammals such that the 

response should be considered a potential harassment. From this framework of evaluating the potential for 

harassment incidents to occur, an assessment of whether acoustic sources might impact populations, 

stocks or species of marine mammals can be conducted 

Starting with a sound source, the attenuation of an emitted sound due to propagation loss is determined. 

Uniform animal distribution is overlaid onto the calculated sound fields to assess if animals are physically 

present at sufficient received sound levels to be considered “exposed” to the sound. If the animal is 

determined to be exposed, two possible scenarios must be considered with respect to the animal’s 

physiology – effects on the auditory system and effects on nonauditory system tissues. These are not 

independent pathways and both must be considered since the same sound could affect both auditory and 

nonauditory tissues. Note that the model does not account for any animal response; rather the animals are 

considered stationary, accumulating energy until the threshold is tripped. Potential impacts to the auditory 

system are assessed by considering the characteristics of the received sound (e.g., amplitude, frequency, 

duration) and the sensitivity of the exposed animals. Some of these assessments can be numerically based 

(e.g., TTS, Permanent Threshold Shift [PTS], perception). Others will be necessarily qualitative, due to 

lack of information, or will need to be extrapolated from other species for which information exists. 

Potential physiological responses to the sound exposure are ranked in descending order, with the most 

severe impact (auditory trauma) occurring at the top and the least severe impact occurring at the bottom 

(the sound is not perceived). 

1. Auditory trauma represents direct mechanical injury to hearing related structures, including 

tympanic membrane rupture, disarticulation of the middle ear ossicles, and trauma to the inner ear 

structures such as the organ of Corti and the associated hair cells. Auditory trauma is always 

injurious but could be temporary and not result in PTS. Auditory trauma is always assumed to 

result in a stress response. 

2. Auditory fatigue refers to a loss of hearing sensitivity after sound stimulation. The loss of 

sensitivity persists after, sometimes long after, the cessation of the sound. The mechanisms 

responsible for auditory fatigue differ from auditory trauma and would primarily consist of 

metabolic exhaustion of the hair cells and cochlear tissues. The features of the exposure (e.g., 

amplitude, frequency, duration, temporal pattern) and the individual animal’s susceptibility would 

determine the severity of fatigue and whether the effects were temporary (TTS) or permanent 

(PTS). Auditory fatigue (PTS or TTS) is always assumed to result in a stress response. 

3. Sounds with sufficient amplitude and duration to be detected among the background ambient 

noise are considered to be perceived. This category includes sounds from the threshold of 

audibility through the normal dynamic range of hearing (i.e., not capable of producing fatigue). 

To determine whether an animal perceives the sound, the received level, frequency, and duration 

of the sound are compared to what is known of the species’ hearing sensitivity. 

Since audible sounds may interfere with an animal’s ability to detect other sounds at the same time, 

perceived sounds have the potential to result in auditory masking. Unlike auditory fatigue, which always 

results in a stress response because the sensory tissues are being stimulated beyond their normal 

physiological range, masking may or may not result in a stress response, depending on the degree and 

duration of the masking effect. Masking may also result in a unique circumstance where an animal’s 

ability to detect other sounds is compromised without the animal’s knowledge. This could conceivably 

result in sensory impairment and subsequent behavior change; in this case, the change in behavior is the 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-16

lack of a response that would normally be made if sensory impairment did not occur. For this reason, 

masking also may lead directly to behavior change without first causing a stress response. The features of 

perceived sound (e.g., amplitude, duration, temporal pattern) are also used to judge whether the sound 

exposure is capable of producing a stress response. Factors to consider in this decision include the 

probability of the animal being naïve or experienced with the sound (i.e., what are the known/unknown 

consequences of the exposure). 

By extension, this does not result in a stress response (not perceived). Potential impacts to tissues other 

than those related to the auditory system are assessed by considering the characteristics of the sound (e.g., 

amplitude, frequency, duration) and the known or estimated response characteristics of nonauditory 

tissues. Some of these assessments can be numerically based (e.g., exposure required for rectified 

diffusion). Others will be necessarily qualitative, due to lack of information. Each of the potential 

responses may or may not result in a stress response. 

1. Direct tissue effects – Direct tissue responses to sound stimulation may range from tissue 

shearing (injury) to mechanical vibration with no resulting injury. Any tissue injury would 

produce a stress response, whereas noninjurious stimulation may or may not. 

2. Indirect tissue effects – Based on the amplitude, frequency, and duration of the sound, it must be 

assessed whether exposure is sufficient to indirectly affect tissues. For example, the hypothesis 

that rectified diffusion occurs is based on the idea that bubbles that naturally exist in biological 

tissues can be stimulated to grow by an acoustic field. Under this hypothesis, one of three things 

could happen: (1) bubbles grow to the extent that tissue hemorrhage occurs (injury); (2) bubbles 

develop to the extent that a complement immune response is triggered or nervous tissue is 

subjected to enough localized pressure that pain or dysfunction occurs (a stress response without 

injury); or (3) the bubbles are cleared by the lung without negative consequence to the animal. 

The probability of rectified diffusion, or any other indirect tissue effect, will necessarily be based 

on what is known about the specific process involved. Given the single point source underwater 

explosives and broadband impulsive sounds from pile driving, the two main underwater activities 

with potential to affect marine mammals at SSTC, indirect tissue effects are not a factor. While 

presented here in context of the framework discussion, indirect tissue effects are not considered in 

the impact analysis discussed later. 

3. No tissue effects – The received sound is insufficient to cause either direct mechanical) or 

indirect effects to tissues. No stress response occurs. 

3.9.2.2.1 Stress Response 

The acoustic source is considered a potential stressor if, by its action on the animal, via auditory or 

nonauditory means, it may produce a stress response in the animal. The term “stress” has taken on an 

ambiguous meaning in the scientific literature, but with respect to the discussions of allostasis and 

allostatic loading, the stress response will refer to an increase in energetic expenditure that results from 

exposure to the stressor and which is predominantly characterized by either the stimulation of the 

sympathetic nervous system or the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (Reeder and Kramer 2005). The 

presence and magnitude of a stress response in an animal depends on a number of factors. These include 

the animal’s life history stage (e.g., neonate, juvenile, adult), the environmental conditions, reproductive 

or developmental state, and experience with the stressor. Not only will these factors be subject to 

individual variation, but they will also vary within an individual over time. Prior experience with a 

stressor may be of particular importance as repeated experience with a stressor may dull the stress 

response via acclimation (St. Aubin and Dierauf 2001). In considering potential stress responses of 

marine mammals to acoustic stressors, each of these should be considered. For example, is the acoustic 

stressor in an area where animals engage in breeding activity? Are animals in the region resident and 

likely to have experience with the stressor (i.e., repeated exposures)? Is the region a foraging ground or 

are the animals passing through as transients? What is the ratio of young (naïve) to old (experienced) 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-17

animals in the population? It is unlikely that all such questions can be answered from empirical data; 

however, they should be addressed in any qualitative assessment of a potential stress response as based on 

the available literature. 

Marine mammals naturally experience stressors within their environment and as part of their life histories. 

Changing weather and ocean conditions, exposure to diseases and naturally occurring toxins, lack of prey 

availability, social interactions with conspecifics, and interactions with predators all contribute to the 

stress a marine mammal experiences. In some cases, naturally occurring stressors can have profound 

impacts on marine mammals; for example, chronic stress, as observed in stranded animals with long-term 

debilitating conditions (e.g., disease), has been demonstrated to result in an increased size of the adrenal 

glands and an increase in the number of epinephrine-producing cells (Clark et al. 2006). Anthropogenic 

activities have the potential to provide additional stressors above and beyond those that occur naturally. 

Potential stressors resulting from anthropogenic activities must be considered not only as to their direct 

impact on the animal but also as to their cumulative impact with environmental stressors already 

experienced by the animal. 

Studies on the stress response of odontocete cetaceans to acute acoustic stimuli were previously discussed 

Thomas et al., 1990, Miksis et al., 2001, Romano et al. 2004). Other types of stressors include the 

presence of vessels, fishery interactions, acts of pursuit and capture, the act of stranding, and pollution. In 

contrast to the limited amount of work performed on stress responses resulting from sound exposure, a 

considerably larger body of work exists on stress responses associated with pursuit, capture, handling and 

stranding. Pursuit, capture and short-term holding of belugas has been observed to result in a decrease in 

thyroid hormones (St. Aubin and Geraci 1988) and increases in epinephrine (St. Aubin and Dierauf 2001). 

In dolphins, the trend is more complicated with the duration of the handling time potentially contributing 

to the magnitude of the stress response (St. Aubin et al. 1996, Ortiz and Worthy 2000, St. Aubin 2002). 

Elephant seals demonstrate an acute cortisol response to handling, but do not demonstrate a chronic 

response; on the contrary, adult females demonstrate a reduction in the adrenocortical response following 

repetitive chemical immobilization (Engelhard et al. 2002). With respect to anthropogenic sound as a 

stressor, the current limited body of knowledge will require extrapolation from species for which 

information exists to those for which no information exists. 

The stress response may or may not result in a behavioral change, depending on the characteristics of the 

exposed animal. However, provided a stress response occurs, we assume that some contribution is made 

to the animal’s allostatic load. Allostasis is the ability of an animal to maintain stability through change 

by adjusting its physiology in response to both predictable and unpredictable events (McEwen and 

Wingfield 2003). The same hormones associated with the stress response vary naturally throughout an 

animal’s life, providing support for particular life history events (e.g., pregnancy) and predictable 

environmental conditions (e.g., seasonal changes). The allostatic load is the cumulative cost of allostasis 

incurred by an animal and is characterized with respect to an animal’s energetic expenditure. 

Perturbations to an animal that may occur with the presence of a stressor, either biological (e.g., predator) 

or anthropogenic (e.g., construction), can contribute to the allostatic load (McEwen and Wingfield 2003). 

Additional costs are cumulative and additions to the allostatic load over time may contribute to reductions 

in the probability of achieving ultimate life history functions (e.g., survival, maturation, reproductive 

effort and success) by producing pathophysiological states. The contribution to the allostatic load from a 

stressor requires estimating the magnitude and duration of the stress response, as well as any secondary 

contributions that might result from a change in behavior. 

If the acoustic source does not produce tissue effects, is not perceived by the animal, or does not produce 

a stress response by any other means, it is assumed that the exposure does not contribute to the allostatic 

load. Additionally, without a stress response or auditory masking, it is assumed that there can be no 

behavioral change. Conversely, any immediate effect of exposure that produces an injury is assumed to 

also produce a stress response and contribute to the allostatic load. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-18

3.9.2.2.2 Behavior 

Acute stress responses may or may not cause a behavioral reaction. However, all changes in behavior are 

expected to result from an acute stress response. This expectation is based on the idea that some sort of 

physiological trigger must exist to change any behavior that is already being performed. The exception to 

this rule is the case of masking. The presence of a masking sound may not produce a stress response, but 

may interfere with the animal’s ability to detect and discriminate biologically relevant signals. The 

inability to detect and discriminate biologically relevant signals hinders the potential for normal 

behavioral responses to auditory cues and is considered a behavioral change. Numerous behavioral 

changes can occur as a result of stress response, and Figure 3.8-3 lists only those that might be considered 

the most common types of response for a marine animal. For each potential behavioral change, the 

magnitude in the change and the severity of the response needs to be estimated. Certain conditions, such 

as stampeding (i.e., flight response) or a response to a predator, might have a probability of resulting in 

injury. For example, a flight response, if significant enough, could produce a stranding event. Under the 

MMPA, such an event would be considered a MMPA Level A harassment. Each altered behavior may 

also have the potential to disrupt biologically significant events (e.g., breeding or nursing) and may need 

to be qualified as MMPA Level B harassment. Exposures to sonar resulting in non-TTS behavioral 

disturbance and exposure to at-sea explosions resulting in sub-TTS behavioral disturbance are quantified 

as MMPA Level B harassment. All behavioral disruptions have the potential to contribute to the allostatic 

load. This secondary potential is signified by the feedback from the collective behaviors to allostatic 

loading (physiology block). The response of a marine mammal to an anthropogenic sound source will 

depend on the frequency content, duration, temporal pattern and amplitude of the sound as well as the 

animal’s prior experience with the sound and the context in which the sound is encountered (i.e., what the 

animal is doing at the time of the exposure). The direction of the responses can vary, with some changes 

resulting in either increases or decreases from baseline (e.g., decreased dive times and increased 

respiration rate). Responses can also overlap; for example, an increased respiration rate is likely to be 

coupled to a flight response. Differential responses between and within species are expected since hearing 

ranges vary across species and the behavioral ecology of individual species is unlikely to completely 

overlap. A review of marine mammal responses to anthropogenic sound was first conducted by 

Richardson and others in 1995. A more recent review (Nowacek et al. 2007) addresses studies conducted 

since 1995 and focuses on observations where the received sound level of the exposed marine mammal(s) 

was known or could be estimated. The following sections provide a very brief overview of the state of 

knowledge of behavioral responses. The overviews focus on studies conducted since 2000 but are not 

meant to be comprehensive; rather, they provide an idea of the variability in behavioral responses that 

would be expected given the differential sensitivities of marine mammal species to sound and the wide 

range of potential acoustic sources to which a marine mammal may be exposed. Estimates of the types of 

behavioral responses that could occur for a given sound exposure should be determined from the literature 

that is available for each species, or extrapolated from closely related species when no information exists. 

Flight Response 

A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from 

the perceived location of a sound source. Little information on flight responses of marine mammals to 

anthropogenic signals exists, although observations of flight responses to the presence of predators have 

occurred (Connor and Heithaus 1996). Flight responses have been speculated as being a component of 

marine mammal strandings associated with sonar activities (Evans and England 2001). 

Response to Predators 

Evidence suggests that at least some marine mammals have the ability to acoustically identify potential 

predators. For example, harbor seals that reside in the coastal waters off British Columbia are frequently 

targeted by certain groups of killer whales, but not others. The seals discriminate between the calls of 

threatening and non-threatening killer whales (Deecke et al. 2002), a capability that should increase 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-19

survivorship while reducing the energy required for attending to and responding to all killer whale calls. 

The occurrence of masking or hearing impairment provides a means by which marine mammals may be 

prevented from responding to the acoustic cues produced by their predators. Whether or not this is a 

possibility depends on the duration of the masking/hearing impairment and the likelihood of encountering 

a predator during the time that predator cues are impeded. 

Diving 

Changes in dive behavior can vary widely. They may consist of increased or decreased dive times and 

surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive. Variations in dive 

behavior may reflect interruptions in biologically significant activities (e.g., foraging) or they may be of 

little biological significance. Variations in dive behavior may also expose an animal to potentially 

harmful conditions (e.g., increasing the chance of ship-strike) or may serve as an avoidance response that 

enhances survivorship. The impact of a variation in diving resulting from an acoustic exposure depends 

on what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the type and magnitude of the response. 

Nowacek et al. (2004) reported disruptions of dive behaviors in foraging North Atlantic right whales 

when exposed to an alerting stimulus, an action, they noted, that could lead to an increased likelihood of 

ship strike. However, the whales did not respond to playbacks of either right whale social sounds or 

vessel noise, highlighting the importance of the sound characteristics in producing a behavioral reaction. 

Conversely, Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins have been observed to dive for longer periods of time in 

areas where vessels were present and/or approaching (Ng and Leung 2003). In both of these studies, the 

influence of the sound exposure cannot be decoupled from the physical presence of a surface vessel; thus, 

complicating interpretations of the relative contribution of each stimulus to the response. Indeed, the 

presence of surface vessels, their approach and speed of approach, seemed to be significant factors in the 

response of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Ng and Leung 2003). Low frequency signals of the 

Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) sound source were not found to affect dive times of 

humpback whales in Hawaiian waters (Frankel and Clark 2000) or to overtly affect elephant seal dives 

(Costa et al. 2003). However, they did produce subtle effects that varied in direction and degree among 

the individual seals, illustrating the equivocal nature of behavioral effects and consequent difficulty in 

defining and predicting them. Due to past incidents of beaked whale strandings associated with sonar 

operations, feedback paths are provided between avoidance and diving and indirect tissue effects. This 

feedback accounts for the hypothesis that variations in diving behavior and/or avoidance responses can 

possibly result in nitrogen tissue supersaturation and nitrogen off-gassing, possibly to the point of 

deleterious vascular bubble formation (Jepson et al. 2003). Although hypothetical, the potential process is 

being debated within the scientific community. 

Foraging 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is 

usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary 

indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive behavior. Noise from seismic 

surveys was not found to impact the feeding behavior in western gray whales off the coast of Russia 

(Yazvenko et al. 2007) and sperm whales engaged in foraging dives did not abandon dives when exposed 

to distant signatures of seismic airguns (Madsen et al. 2006). Balaenopterid whales exposed to moderate 

low-frequency signals similar to the ATOC sound source demonstrated no variation in foraging activity. 

Vocalizations 

Vocal changes in response to anthropogenic noise can occur across the repertoire of sound production 

modes used by marine mammals, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. 

Changes may result in response to a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect 

an increased vigilance or startle response. For example, in the presence of low-frequency active sonar, 

humpback whales have been observed to increase the length of their ”songs” (Miller et al. 2000, Fristrup 

et al. 2003), possibly due to the overlap in frequencies between the whale song and the low-frequency 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-20

active sonar. A similar compensatory effect for the presence of low frequency vessel noise has been 

suggested for right whales; right whales have been observed to shift the frequency content of their calls 

upward while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic noise (Parks et al. 2007). 

Killer whales off the northwestern coast of the United States have been observed to increase the duration 

of primary calls once a threshold in observing vessel density (e.g., whale watching) was reached, which 

has been suggested as a response to increased masking noise produced by the vessels (Foote et al. 2004). 

In contrast, both sperm and pilot whales potentially ceased sound production during the Heard Island 

feasibility test (Bowles et al. 1994), although it cannot be absolutely determined whether the inability to 

acoustically detect the animals was due to the cessation of sound production or the displacement of 

animals from the area. 

Avoidance 

Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area as a result of the presence of a sound. It is 

qualitatively different from the flight response in its magnitude (i.e., directed movement, rate of travel, 

(Croll et al. 2001), whereas five out of six North Atlantic right whales exposed to an acoustic alarm 

interrupted their foraging dives (Nowacek et al. 2004). Although the received sound pressure level at the 

animals was similar in the latter two studies, the frequency, duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation were different. These factors, as well as differences in species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to the differential response. A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur 

fitness consequences will require information on or estimates of the energetic requirements of the 

individuals and the relationship between prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history 

stage of the animal. 

Breathing 

Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors and variations in respiration rate as a 

function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight 

response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative 

of annoyance or an acute stress response. Mean exhalation rates of gray whales at rest and while diving 

were found to be unaffected by seismic surveys conducted adjacent to the whale feeding grounds (Gailey 

et al., 2007). Studies with captive harbor porpoises showed increased respiration rates upon introduction 

of acoustic alarms (Kastelein et al. 2000, Kastelein et al. 2006a) and emissions for underwater data 

transmission (Kastelein et al. 2005). However, exposure of the same acoustic alarm to a striped dolphin 

under the same conditions did not elicit a response (Kastelein et al. 2006a), again highlighting the 

importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining 

the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure. 

Social relationships 

Social interactions between mammals can be affected by noise via the disruption of communication 

signals or by the displacement of individuals. Disruption of social relationships depends on the disruption 

of other behaviors (e.g., caused avoidance, masking, etc.) and no specific overview is provided here. 

However, social disruptions must be considered in context of the relationships that are affected. etc.). 

Oftentimes avoidance is temporary, and animals return to the area once the noise has ceased. However, 

longer term displacement is possible, which can lead to changes in abundance or distribution patterns of 

the species in the affected region if they do not become acclimated to the presence of the sound 

(Blackwell et al. 2004, Bejder et al. 2006, Teilmann et al. 2006). Acute avoidance responses have been 

observed in captive porpoises and pinnipeds exposed to a number of different sound sources (Kastelein et 

al. 2000, Finneran et al. 2003, Kastelein et al. 2006a, Kastelein et al. 2006b). Short term avoidance of 

seismic surveys, low frequency emissions, and acoustic deterrents has also been noted in wild populations 

of odontocetes (Bowles et al. 1994, Goold 1996, 1998, Stone et al. 2000, Morton and Symonds 2002) and 

to some extent in mysticetes (Gailey et al. 2007), while longer term or repetitive/chronic displacement for 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-21

some dolphin groups and for manatees has been suggested to be due to the presence of chronic vessel 

noise (Haviland-Howell et al. 2007, Miksis-Olds et al. 2007). 

Orientation 

A shift in an animal’s resting state or an intentional change via an orienting response represent behaviors 

that would be considered mild disruptions if occurring alone, and are placed at the bottom of the 

framework behavior list. As previously mentioned, the responses may co-occur with other behaviors; for 

instance, an animal may initially orient toward a sound source, and then move away from it. Thus, any 

orienting response should be considered in context of other reactions that may occur. 

Proximate Life Functions 

Proximate life history functions are the functions that the animal is engaged in at the time of acoustic 

exposure. The disruption of these functions, and the magnitude of the disruption, is something that must 

be considered in determining how the ultimate life history functions are affected. Consideration of the 

magnitude of the effect to each of the proximate life history functions is dependent upon the life stage of 

the animal. For example, an animal on a breeding ground which is sexually immature will suffer little 

consequence to disruption of breeding behavior when compared to an actively displaying adult of prime 

reproductive age. 

Ultimate Life Functions 

The ultimate life functions are those that enable an animal to contribute to the population (or stock, or 

species, etc.). The impact to ultimate life functions will depend on the nature and magnitude of the 

perturbation to proximate life history functions. Depending on the severity of the response to the stressor, 

acute perturbations may have nominal to profound impacts on ultimate life functions. For example, 

underwater detonations in an area that is utilized for foraging, but not for breeding, may disrupt feeding 

by exposed animals for a brief period of time. Because of the brevity of the perturbation, the impact to 

ultimate life functions may be negligible. By contrast, weekly training over a period of years may have a 

more substantial impact because the stressor is chronic. Assessment of the magnitude of the stress 

response from the chronic perturbation would require an understanding of how and whether animals 

acclimate to a specific, repeated stressor and whether chronic elevations in the stress response (e.g., 

cortisol levels) produce fitness deficits. The proximate life functions are loosely ordered in decreasing 

severity of impact. Mortality (survival) has an immediate effect, in that no future reproductive success is 

feasible and there is no further addition to the population resulting from reproduction. Severe injuries may 

also lead to reduced survivorship (longevity) and prolonged alterations in behavior. The latter may further 

affect an animal’s overall reproductive success and reproductive effort. Disruptions of breeding have an 

immediate impact on reproductive effort and may impact reproductive success. The magnitude of the 

effect will depend on the duration of the disruption and the type of behavior change that was provoked. 

Disruptions to feeding and migration can affect all of the ultimate life functions; however, the impacts to 

reproductive effort and success are not likely to be as severe or immediate as those incurred by mortality 

and breeding disruptions. Taking into account these considerations, it was determined if there were 

population and species effects. 

3.9.2.2.3 Integration of Physiological and Behavioral Effects 

This section presents a biological framework within which potential effects can be categorized and then 

related to the existing regulatory framework of injury (MMPA Level A harassment) and behavioral 

disruption (MMPA Level B harassment). The information presented in the previous sections is used to 

develop specific numerical exposure thresholds and risk function exposure estimations. Exposure 

thresholds are combined with underwater detonation and sound propagation models and species 

distribution data to estimate the potential exposures. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-22

Sound exposure may affect multiple biological traits of a marine animal; however, existing protective 

regulations (i.e., MMPA) provide guidance as to which traits should be used when determining impacts. 

Specifically, impacts that qualify as Level A harassment should address injury and impacts that qualify as 

Level B harassment should address behavioral disruption. This guidance reduces the number of traits that 

must be considered in establishing a biological framework of impact assessment. 

The biological framework discussed in the SSTC EIS is structured according to physiological and 

behavioral effects resulting from exposure to acoustics and pressure. The range of effects may then be 

assessed to determine which qualify as harassment under MMPA regulations. Physiology and behavior 

are chosen over other biological traits for several reasons, including the fact that: (1) they are consistent 

with regulatory statements defining harassment; (2) they are components of other biological traits that 

may be relevant; and (3) they are a more sensitive and immediate indicator of effect. For example, 

ecology is not used as the basis of the framework because the ecology of an animal is dependent upon the 

interaction of an animal with the environment. The animal’s interaction with the environment is driven 

both by its physiological function and its behavior, and an ecological impact may not be observable over 

short periods of observation. Anatomy is not used because disruption of an animal’s anatomy would 

necessarily result in a change in physiological function. 

A “physiological effect” is defined within the context of this EIS as one in which the normal 

physiological function of the animal is altered in response to sound or underwater detonation exposure. 

Physiological function is any of a collection of processes ranging from biochemical reactions to 

mechanical interaction and operation of organs and tissues within an animal. A physiological effect may 

range from the most significant of impacts (e.g., mortality, serious injury) to lesser impacts that would 

define the lower end of the physiological impact range (e.g., non-injurious distortion of auditory tissues). 

This latter physiological effect is important to the integration of the biological and regulatory frameworks 

and is described in later sections. 

A “behavioral effect” is one in which the normal behavior of an animal, or patterns of behavior, are 

overtly disrupted in response to an exposure. Examples of behaviors of concern can be derived from the 

harassment definitions of the MMPA. 

In this EIS, the term “normal” is used to qualify distinctions between physiological and behavioral 

effects. Its use follows the convention of normal daily variation in physiological and behavioral function 

without the influence of anthropogenic acoustic sources. As a result, this EIS uses the following 

definitions: 

• A physiological effect is a variation in an animal’s physiology that results from an 

anthropogenic sound exposure and exceeds the normal daily variation in physiological 

function. 

• A behavioral effect is a variation in an animal’s behavior or behavior patterns that results 

from an anthropogenic sound exposure and exceeds the normal daily variation in behavior, 

but which arises through normal physiological process (it occurs without an accompanying 

physiological effect). 

The definitions of “physiological effect” and “behavioral effect” used here are specific to this EIS and 

should not be confused with more global definitions applied to the field of biology. 

It is reasonable to expect some physiological effects to result in subsequent behavioral effects. For 

example, a marine mammal that suffers a severe injury may be expected to alter diving or foraging such 

that variation in these behaviors is outside that which is considered normal for the species. If a 

physiological effect is accompanied by a behavioral effect, the overall effect is characterized as a 

physiological effect; physiological effects take precedence over behavioral effects with regard to their 

ordering. This approach provides the most conservative evaluation of effects with respect to severity, 

provides a rational approach to dealing with the overlap of the definitions, and avoids circular arguments. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-23

The severity of physiological effects decreases with decreasing exposure (acoustic or blast-wave) and/or 

increasing distance from the sound source. The same generalization does not consistently hold for 

behavioral effects because they do not depend solely on received sound levels. Behavioral responses also 

depend on an animal’s learned responses, innate response tendencies, motivational state, the pattern of the 

sound exposure, and the context in which sounds are presented. However, to provide a tractable approach 

to predicting acoustic impacts that is relevant to the terms of behavioral disruption described in the 

MMPA; it is assumed herein that the severity of behavioral effects also decreases with decreasing sound 

exposure and/or increasing distance from the sound source. Figure 3.9-1 shows the relationships between 

severity of effects, source distance, and sound exposure as defined in this EIS. 

Figure 3.9-1: Relationship between severity of Effects, Source Distance, and Exposure Level 

3.9.2.2.4 Level A and Level B Harassment 

Categorizing potential effects as either physiological or behavioral effects allows them to be related to the 

harassment definitions. For military readiness activities, MMPA Level A harassment includes any act that 

injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild. 

Injury, as defined in this LOA request and previous rulings (NOAA 2001, 2002a, 2008b, 2008c), is the 

destruction or loss of biological tissue from a species. The destruction or loss of biological tissue will 

result in an alteration of physiological function that exceeds the normal daily physiological variation of 

the intact tissue. For example, increased localized histamine production, edema, production of scar tissue, 

activation of clotting factors, white blood cell response, etc., may be expected following injury. 

Therefore, this EIS assumes that all injury is qualified as a physiological effect and, to be consistent with 

prior actions and rulings (NOAA 2001, 2008b, 2008c), all injuries (slight to severe) are considered 

MMPA Level A harassment. Public Law 108-136 (2004) amended the MMPA definitions of Level B 

harassment for military readiness activities, which applies to this action. For military readiness activities, 

MMPA Level B harassment is defined as “any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns including, but not limited to, 

migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering to a point where such behaviors are 

abandoned or significantly altered.” Unlike MMPA Level A harassment, which is solely associated with 

physiological effects, both physiological and behavioral effects may cause MMPA Level B harassment. 

For example, some physiological effects (such as TTS) can occur that are non-injurious but that can 

potentially disrupt the behavior of a marine mammal. These include temporary distortions in sensory 

tissue that alter physiological function, but that are fully recoverable without the requirement for tissue 

replacement or regeneration. For example, an animal that experiences a temporary reduction in hearing 

High 

Low 

Severity

Of 

Impact 

Near Far Distance From 

Explosive/Acoustic Source 

Large Small
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-24

sensitivity suffers no injury to its auditory system, but may not perceive some sounds due to the reduction 

in sensitivity. As a result, the animal may not respond to sounds that would normally produce a 

behavioral reaction. This lack of response qualifies as a temporary disruption of normal behavioral 

patterns—the animal is impeded from responding in a normal manner to an acoustic stimulus. The 

harassment status of slight behavior disruption has been addressed in workshops, previous actions, and 

rulings (NOAA 2001, 2008b, 2008c; DoN 2001a). The conclusion is that a momentary behavioral 

reaction of an animal to a brief, time-isolated acoustic event does not qualify as MMPA Level B 

harassment. A more general conclusion, that MMPA Level B harassment occurs only when there is “a 

potential for a significant behavioral change or response in a biologically important behavior or activity,” 

is found in recent rulings (NOAA 2002a, 2008b, 2008c). Public Law 108-136 (2004) amended the 

definition of MMPA Level B harassment for military readiness activities, which applies to this action. For 

military readiness activities, MMPA Level B harassment is defined as “any act that disturbs or is likely to 

disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock by causing disruption of natural behavioral 

patterns...to a point where such behaviors are abandoned or significantly altered.” 

Although the temporary lack of response discussed above may not result in abandonment or significant 

alteration of natural behavioral patterns, the acoustic effect inputs used in the acoustic model assume that 

temporary hearing impairment (slight to severe) is considered MMPA Level B harassment. Although 

modes of action are appropriately considered, the conservative assumption used here is to consider all 

hearing impairment as harassment from TTS. As a result, the actual incidental harassment of marine 

mammals associated with this action may be less than predicted via the analytical framework. 

To assess the potential for harassment, two quantities are of interest: 

• The number of animals with probability of being present in the zone of influence (ZOI) for injury 

but not detected. 

• The expected number of marine mammals within various radii of the detonation point (i.e., ZOI 

ranges for mortality, injury, and behavioral disruption) is included in the considerations. This 

quantity is ordinarily referred to as “incidental take.” 

For this EIS, estimates of the numbers of species within the harassment zones and exposed to the various 

sound sources were calculated assuming that none of the current mitigation measures routinely used for 

SSTC activities were implemented. Harassment that may result from Navy activities described in this EIS 

is unintentional and incidental to those activities. 

3.9.2.2.5 Harassment Zones 

The volumes of ocean in which Level A and B harassment are predicted to occur are described as 

harassment zones. All animals predicted to be in a zone are considered “exposed” within the applicable 

harassment category. 

The Level A harassment zone extends from the source out to the distance and exposure where slight 

injury is predicted to occur. The acoustic exposure that produces slight injury is the threshold value 

defining the outermost limit of the Level A harassment zone. A dual criterion approach promulgated by 

NMFS rulemaking was used to determine potential impact ranges for Level A (Table 3.9-2). Criterion 

included 100 percent mortality, which could occur from either maximum shock wave pressure or bulk 

cavitation, and slight injury. Slight injury included onset gastro-intestinal tract injury, which could occur 

from maximum shock wave pressure, and onset permanent threshold shift (PTS) which could occur from 

either maximum shock wave pressure or weighted energy flux density. Use of the threshold associated 

with the onset of slight injury (onset PTS) as the most distant point and least injurious exposures account 

of all more serious injuries by inclusion within the Level A harassment zone. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-25

The Level B harassment zone begins just beyond the point of slightest injury and extends outward from 

that point. It includes all animals that may potentially experience Level B harassment. Physiological 

effects extend beyond the range of slightest injury to a point where slight temporary distortion of the most 

sensitive tissue occurs, but without destruction or loss of that tissue. The animals predicted to be in this 

zone experience Level B harassment by virtue of temporary impairment of sensory function (i.e., altered 

physiological function) that can disrupt behavior. Beyond that distance, the Level B harassment zone 

continues to the point at which no biologically significant behavioral disruption is expected to occur. 

Onset of temporary impact criterion included onset TTS which could occur from either maximum shock 

wave pressure or weighted energy flux density. 

3.9.2.2.6 Auditory Tissues as Indicators of Physiological Effects 

The mammalian auditory system consists of the outer ear, middle ear, inner ear, and central nervous 

system. Sound waves are transmitted through the outer and middle ears to fluids within the inner ear. The 

inner ear contains delicate electromechanical hair cells that convert the fluid motions into neural impulses 

that are sent to the brain. The hair cells within the inner ear are the most vulnerable to overstimulation by 

noise exposure (Yost 1994). Very high sound levels may rupture the eardrum or damage the small bones 

in the middle ear (Yost 1994). Lower level exposures may cause permanent or temporary hearing loss—

called a noise-induced threshold shift or simply threshold shift (TS) (Miller 1974; Ward 1997). A TS may 

be permanent, called a permanent threshold shift (PTS), or temporary, called a TTS. Still lower exposures 

may result in auditory masking interfering with an animal’s ability to hear other concurrent sounds. 

A TTS is a result of auditory system fatigue following stimulation. The fatigue is believed to be caused by 

temporary changes in neural function, hair-cell function, and reductions in oxygen availability within the 

inner ear fluids. Collectively, these qualify as physiological changes that would exceed the normal daily 

variation in physiological function specific to those components of the auditory system. A PTS results 

from injury, which may occur at multiple levels of the auditory system. Tissue destruction can produce 

both localized and distributed variations in physiology depending on the type, location, and magnitude of 

the injury. With respect to auditory tissues, destruction of tissues associated with PTS would, at a 

minimum, result in localized changes in the physiology of the tissue that exceeds its normal daily 

variation in physiological function. Therefore, both TTS and PTS are physiological effects. 

The amount of TS depends on the amplitude, duration, frequency, and temporal pattern of the sound 

exposure. Threshold shifts increase with the amplitude and duration of sound exposure. For continuous 

sounds, exposures of equal energy would lead to approximately equal effects (Ward 1997). For 

intermittent sounds, less TS occurs from continuous exposure with the same energy; further, some 

recovery occurs between exposures (Kryter et al. 1966, Ward 1997). The relationships between sound 

exposure parameters and resulting TS are not well understood for impulsive sounds. The TSs from 

impulsive sounds are more difficult to characterize than TSs from continuous-type sounds, in part because 

of the wide variety of impulsive sound waveforms that may be encountered (Hamernik et al. 1991). 

The magnitude of TS normally decreases with the amount of time post-exposure (Miller, 1974). The 

amount of TS just after exposure is called the initial TS. If the TS eventually returns to zero (i.e., the 

threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), the TS is a TTS. Because the amount of TTS depends on the 

time post-exposure, it is common to use a subscript to indicate the time in minutes after exposure 

(Quaranta et al. 1998). For example, TTS2 means a TTS measured two minutes after exposure. If the TS 

does not return to zero but leaves some finite amount of TS, that remaining TS is a PTS. The distinction 

between PTS and TTS is based on whether there is a complete recovery of TS following a sound 

exposure. 

3.9.2.2.7 Mortality and the Level A Harassment Zone 

Within the Level A harassment zone is a sub-region in which animals exposed to the blast are not 

expected to survive. Marine mammals can be killed by underwater explosions due to the response of air 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-26

cavities, such as the lungs and bubbles in the intestines, to the shock wave (Elsayed 1997, Elsayed and 

Gorbunov 2007). The criterion for mortality used in this EIS is the onset of extensive lung hemorrhage. 

Extensive lung hemorrhage is considered debilitating and potentially fatal as a result of air embolism or 

suffocation. In this EIS, all marine mammals within the calculated radius for onset of extensive lung 

injury (i.e., onset of mortality) are counted as lethal exposures. The range at which onset of extensive lung 

hemorrhage is expected to occur is greater than the ranges at which 50 to 100 percent lethality would 

occur from closest proximity to the charge or from presence within the bulk cavitation region. (The region 

of bulk cavitation is an area near the surface above the detonation point in which the reflected shock wave 

creates a region of cavitation within which smaller animals would not be expected to survive.) Because 

the range for onset of extensive lung hemorrhage for smaller animals exceeds the range for bulk 

cavitation and all more serious injuries, all smaller animals within the region of cavitation and all animals 

(regardless of body mass) with more serious injuries than onset of extensive lung hemorrhage are 

accounted for in the lethal exposures estimate. The calculated maximum ranges for onset of extensive 

lung hemorrhage depend upon animal body mass, with smaller animals having the greatest potential for 

impact, as well as water column temperature and density. 

3.9.2.2.8 Injury and the Level A Harassment Zone 

The remainder of the Level A harassment zone, which extends beyond the sub-region defining lethal 

exposures, encompasses all remaining non-lethal injuries that could potentially occur to marine mammals 

as a result of blast exposure. The criteria used to define the outer edge of the Level A harassment zone is 

the range at which PTS begins to occur (onset PTS). The auditory system consists of delicate tissues (e.g., 

hair cells) that are sensitive to pressure changes and responsive to sound exposures that are well below 

levels likely to cause trauma to non-auditory, air containing structures. PTS is non-recoverable and must 

result from the destruction of tissues within the auditory system (e.g., tympanic membrane rupture, 

disarticulation of the middle ear ossicles, and hair-cell damage). 

Therefore, PTS qualifies as an injury and is classified as Level A harassment under the wording of the 

MMPA. 

Onset PTS is indicative of the minimum level of injury that can occur due to sound exposure. All other 

forms of trauma would occur closer to the sound source than the range at which onset PTS occurs. 

3.9.2.2.9 TTS and the Level B Harassment Zone 

The Level A harassment zone extends from the detonation point outward to that point where the slightest 

injury may occur. Therefore, the Level B harassment zone begins just beyond the point at which the 

slightest amount of injury occurs and extends outward to the distance and exposure where the onset of 

TTS is expected to occur. Consistent with previous NMFS rulings, single, time-isolated impulsive events 

such as that described in this EIS are considered incapable of causing significant behavioral disruption at 

levels below those causing TTS. Because of the transient nature of the sources used in this action, the 

limited number of detonations, and temporal spacing of detonations, no significant behavioral effects that 

qualify as Level B harassment would occur in this action (NMFS 2009a, 2009b). As a result, only 

physiological effects need be considered in the development of harassment criteria. The Level B 

harassment zone only includes the region in which TTS is predicted to occur. TTS is recoverable and, as 

in recent rules (NMFS 2009a, 2009b), is considered to result from the temporary, non-injurious distortion 

of hearing-related tissues. In this EIS, the smallest measurable amount of TTS (onset TTS) is taken as the 

best indicator for slight temporary sensory impairment. The acoustic exposure associated with onset TTS 

is used to define the outer limit of the portion of the Level B harassment zone attributable to physiological 

effects. This follows from the concept that hearing loss potentially affects a marine mammal’s ability to 

react normally to the sounds around it; it potentially disrupts normal behavior by preventing it from 

occurring. Therefore, the potential for TTS qualifies as a Level B harassment that is mediated by 

physiological effects upon the auditory system. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-27

3.9.2.2.10 Level B Behavioral Effects 

This EIS defines behavioral effects as variations in an animal’s behavior that exceed the normal daily 

variation in behavior, do not meet the definition of a physiological effect, and which follow an 

anthropogenic sound exposure. Level B harassment includes only those acts which disturb or are likely to 

disturb by causing disruption of behavioral patterns to the point where those patterns are abandoned or 

significantly altered. Previous actions and rules (NMFS 2009a, 2009b, DoN 2008a, DoN 2008b) have 

concluded that a momentary behavioral reaction of an animal to a brief, time-isolated acoustic event does 

not qualify as Level B harassment. That Level B harassment occurs only when there is “a potential for a 

significant behavioral change or response in a biologically important behavior or activity” (NMFS, 2002). 

This conclusion is further supported by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (Public Law [PL] 

108-136) for actions involving military readiness, as defined in Section 11. 

The short-duration events proposed for this action are brief and time-isolated. In this EIS and consistent 

with prior rules (e.g., NMFS 2009a, 2009b), they are considered incapable of causing behavioral effects 

beyond slight, momentary disruption and are unlikely to have any significant biological impact upon 

exposed animals. Furthermore, the transient nature of impulsive sources proposed for this action, the 

limited number of detonations required for the completion of the action, the temporal spacing of 

detonations (on the order of days), and the dynamic and patchy nature of offshore animal distributions 

makes it unlikely that any animal would be exposed to more than one acoustic event. These conclusions 

are considered as limiting factors in the development of harassment zones for this proposed action. 

3.9.2.2.11 Auditory Masking 

Natural and artificial sounds can disrupt behavior by masking, or interfering with an animal’s ability to 

hear other sounds. Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident 

sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher levels. If the second sound were man-made, it could 

be potentially harassing—according to the MMPA—if it disrupted hearing-related behavior such as 

communications or echolocation. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the 

sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without a 

resulting TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological 

effect in this EIS, but rather a potential behavioral effect. 

The most intense underwater sounds in the proposed action are those produced by detonations and pile 

driving. Given that the energy distribution of detonations and pile driving cover a broad frequency 

spectrum, sound from these sources would likely be within the audible range of most marine mammals. 

However, the time scale of the shots is very limited; the pulse lengths are short, the repetitions of the 

shots are few, and the total time per year during which detonations occur is small. The probability for any 

detonation or pile driving resulting from this proposed action masking acoustic signals important to the 

behavior and survival of marine mammal species is negligible. Additionally, for reasons outlined above, 

any masking event that did occur would be considered transient and insignificant and would not qualify as 

Level B harassment. Masking effects are not considered as contributing to exposure estimates in this EIS. 

3.9.2.3 Criteria for Assessing Marine Mammal Response to Underwater Detonations 

The effects of an at-sea explosion on a marine mammal depends on many factors, including the size, type, 

and depth of both the animal and the explosive charge; the depth of the water column; the standoff 

distance between the charge and the animal; and the sound propagation properties of the environment. 

Potential impacts can range from brief acoustic effects (such as behavioral disturbance), tactile 

perception, physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs and the auditory system, to death of 

the animal (Yelverton et al. 1973, O’Keeffe and Young 1984, DoN 2001). Non-lethal injury includes 

slight injury to internal organs and the auditory system; however, delayed lethality can be a result of 

individual or cumulative sublethal injuries (DoN 2001a). Short-term or immediate lethal injury would 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-28

result from massive combined trauma to internal organs as a direct result of proximity to the point of 

detonation (DoN 2001a). 

In this EIS, several standard acoustic metrics (Urick 1983) are used to describe the thresholds for 

predicting potential physical impacts from underwater pressure waves: 

• Total energy flux density or Sound Exposure Level (SEL). For plane waves (as assumed 

here), SEL is the time integral of the instantaneous intensity, where the instantaneous 

intensity is defined as the squared pressure divided by the impedance of sea water. Thus, 

SEL is the instantaneous pressure amplitude squared, summed over the duration of the 

signal and has dB units referenced to 1 micropascal squared second (μPa2

-s). 

• 1/3-octave SEL. This is the SEL in a 1/3-octave frequency band. A 1/3-octave band has 

upper and lower frequency limits with a ratio of 21:3, creating bandwidth limits of about 23 

percent of center frequency. 

• Positive impulse. This is the time integral of the initial positive pressure pulse of an 

explosion or explosive-like wave form. Standard units are Pascal seconds (Pa-sec), but 

pounds per square inch milliseconds (psi-ms) also are used. 

• Peak pressure. This is the maximum positive amplitude of a pressure wave, dependent on 

charge mass and range. Units used here are psi, but other units of pressure, such as μPa and 

Bar, also are used. 

This section summarizes the marine mammal impact criteria used for the subsequent modeled 

calculations. The following terminology is used in this section: 

• Criterion, Specific impact that could be used to represent a broad type of impacts 

(mortality, injury, harassment). For example, onset of severe lung injury (extensive lung 

hemorrhage) is used in this EIS as a criterion for the onset of mortality. 

• Threshold. The specific level of sound pressure, impulse, or energy needed to cause the 

specific impact stated in a criterion. 

• Range. The maximum horizontal distance from the detonation point where the threshold 

level is predicted to occur. 

To assess the effects of underwater explosions at SSTC, two types of criteria are necessary, those for 

mortality injury (i.e. Level A harassment) and those for non-injurious physiological and/or behavioral 

disruption (i.e. Level B harassment). The SSTC criteria are based on those numeric criteria as specified 

by NMFS in recent NMFS rule making (NMFS 2009a, 2009b), which involved a single, underwater 

detonations isolated in time. These criteria are presented in Table 3.9-2. 

3.9.2.3.1 Harassment Threshold for Sequential Detonations 

There may be rare occasions when sequential underwater detonations are part of a static location event. 

For sequential detonations, accumulated energy over the entire training time is the natural extension for 

energy thresholds since energy accumulates with each subsequent shot. 

For sequential detonations, the acoustic criterion for behavioral harassment is used to account for 

behavioral effects significant enough to be judged as harassment, but occurring at lower sound energy 

levels than those that may cause TTS. The behavioral harassment threshold is based on recent rulemaking 

from NMFS (NMFS 2009a, 2009b) for the energy-based TTS threshold. 

The research on pure tone exposures reported in Schlundt et al. (2000) and Finneran and Schlundt (2004) 

provided the pure-tone threshold of 192 dB as the lowest TTS value. This value is modified for 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-29

explosives by (a) interpreting it as an energy metric, (b) reducing it by 10 dB to account for the time 

constant of the mammal ear, and (c) measuring the energy in 1/3 octave bands, the natural filter band of 

the ear. The resulting TTS threshold for explosives is 182 dB re 1 mPa2

-s in any 1/3 octave band. As 

reported by Schlundt et al. (2000) and Finneran and Schlundt (2004), instances of altered behavior in the 

pure tone research began 5 dB lower than those causing TTS. The behavioral harassment threshold is 

derived by subtracting 5 dB from the 182 dB re 1 mPa2

-s in any 1/3 octave band threshold, resulting in a 

177 dB re 1 μPa2

-s behavioral disturbance harassment threshold for multiple successive explosives. 

Table 3.9-2: Marine Mammal Effects Criteria For Underwater Detonations From Explosives 

< 2,000 lbs Net Explosive Weight 

Criterion Criterion Definition Threshold Comments 

Mortality 

Mortality 

Onset of extensive lung 

injury 

Shock Wave 

Goertner’s modified positive 

impulse, indexed to the 

surface 

I = 42.9 (M/34)1/3 psi-msec 

calculated to be 

30.5 psi-msec 

For all size classes of 

marine mammals 

Level A 

Harassment 

Slight Injury 

Onset of slight lung injury 

Shock Wave 

Goertner’s modified positive 

impulse, indexed to the 

surface 

I = 19.7 (M/42)1/3 psi-msec 

calculated to be 

13 psi-msec 

For all size classes of 

marine mammals 

Slight Injury 

50% tympanic membrane 

rupture 

Shock Wave 

Total SEL, for any single 

exposure 

205 dB re:1μPa2

-sec All marine mammals 

Level B Harassment 

Physiological Disruption 

TTS 

Sound Exposure 

Greatest SEL in any 

1/3-octave band, over all 

exposures 

182 dB re1μPa2

-sec 

Greatest SEL for 

frequencies ≥ 100 Hz 

for odontocetes and 

≥ 10 Hz for mysticetes 

Physiological Disruption 

TTS 

Sound Exposure 

Peak pressure, for any single 

exposure 

23 psi All marine mammals 

Behavioral Disruption 

Non-TTS 

Sound Exposure 

Greatest SEL in any 

1/3-octave band, over all 

exposures 

177 dB re:1μPa2

-sec 

Greatest SEL for 

frequencies ≥ 100 Hz 

for odontocetes and 

≥ 10 Hz for mysticetes 

3.9.2.4 Acoustic Modeling of the Marine Environment 

In context of ocean sounds within and adjacent to the SSTC, anticipated ocean noise can be characterized 

as either: 

1) Ambient noise as a combination of natural noise from breaking waves, spray, bubble formation and 

collapse, molecular thermal agitation, rainfall, and biologics (fish sounds, snapping shrimp sounds, 

marine mammal vocalizations, etc.), and often indistinct anthropogenic (human made) noise from passing 

vessels, small powered boats, aircraft overflights, etc. 

2) Point source anthropogenic noise produced by a single, identifiable source usually close to the point of 

reference (e.g., an underwater explosion at SSTC, temporary pile driving). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-30

3.9.2.4.1 Multiple Indistinguishable Sources: Ambient Noise 

More detailed discussions on ambient ocean noise are provided in Richardson et al. 1995, Deane 1997, 

2000, NRC 2003, Hildebrand 2005 , Hildebrand 2009, which list specific case studies highlighting the 

sources and frequency content of natural and anthropogenic ocean noise sources. With the exception of 

sonar, many of these sources are applicable and contribute to ambient noise within the SSTC. Surf noise, 

biological noise, large vessel and small boat traffic, and aircraft overflights are likely to be the most 

dominant ambient noise sources within SSTC (Richardson et al. 1995, Deane 1997, Deane 2000, 

Hildebrand 2009). 

Wenz (1962) provided a generalized portrait of ocean noise used to predict, model, and understand the 

noise level from unidentifiable sources. These curves provide a noise spectrum level (units are dB re 

1μPa2

/Hz) that an idealized receiver with omni-directional reception capabilities may experience at a 

particular moment depending on location. Although ambient noise is always present, the individual 

sources that contribute to it do not necessarily create sound continuously. For example, rain is periodic, 

and wind speeds change with weather patterns. Seasonal trends are likely related to changes in average 

wind speeds with season (McDonald et al. 2006). Given the near shore distribution of the training areas 

within the SSTC, surf zone noise (breaking waves, etc.) is likely to be a constant ambient noise source. In 

the northern hemisphere, ambient noise in deep water can be dominated by shipping, particularly at 

frequencies between 5 and 500 Hz (Richardson et al. 1995, NRC 2003, Hildebrand 2009). By most 

estimates, there has been an increase of underwater noise associated with increased commercial shipping 

traffic, especially in areas near major ports. Several studies have documented an approximate equivalent 3 

dB per decade increase in ocean noise attributed to commercial shipping (Hildebrand 2005, McDonald et 

al. 2006, Hildebrand 2009). In terms of logarithmic scaling used in sound measurements, this 3 dB 

increase is equivalent to a doubling of noise energy levels every 10 years over the last few decades. 

Distant and localized shipping traffic approaching San Diego Bay can contribute to the general acoustic 

environment over a wide frequency range and large geographic area. However, it should be noted that 

shallow water noise levels from shipping traffic are highly variable primarily because of differences in 

local acoustic propagation and seafloor absorption characteristics in shallow water vice deep water 

(MacDonald et al. 2009). While the distribution and timing of shipping traffic is not uniform, this type of 

ambient ocean noise is prevalent in and around major ports including San Diego (Heitmeyer et al. 2004). 

3.9.2.4.2 Single Discrete Sources: Underwater Explosions 

Chemical explosives create a bubble of expanding gases as the material burns. The bubble can oscillate 

underwater or, depending on charge-size and depth, be vented to the surface in which case there is no 

bubble-oscillation with its associated low-frequency energy. Explosions produce very brief broadband 

pulses with rapid rise-time, high zero-to-peak pressures, and intense noise for an “instant” of time, 

sometimes described as impulse. To evaluate the nature of possible exposure-response relationships, 

criteria were developed by the U.S. Navy specifically for underwater explosions. 

The impacts of an underwater explosion to a marine mammal are dependent upon multiple factors 

including the size, type, and depth of both the animal and the explosive. Depth of the water column and 

the distance from the charge to the animal also are determining factors as are boundary conditions that 

influence reflections and refraction of energy radiated from the source. Potential impacts can range from 

brief acoustic effects, tactile perception, and physical discomfort to both lethal and non-lethal injuries. 

Disturbance of ongoing behaviors could occur as a result of noninjurious physiological responses to both 

the acoustic signature and shock wave from the underwater explosion. Nonlethal injury includes slight 

injury to internal organs and auditory system. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-31

The severity of physiological effects decreases with decreasing sound exposure and/or increasing distance 

from the sound source. Injuries to internal organs and the auditory system from shock waves and intense 

impulsive noise associated with explosions can be exacerbated by strong bottom-reflected pressure pulses 

in reverberant environments (Gaspin 1983, Ahroon et al. 1996). The same generalization applies to 

behavioral effects, but is complicated by the fact that behavioral responses also depend on an animal’s 

learned responses, innate response tendencies, motivational state, pattern of the sound exposure, and the 

context in which the sound is presented. The relationship between severity of effects, source distance, and 

exposure level, as defined in this evaluation, was depicted previously in Figure 3-10.1. 

Behavioral responses to exposure from at-sea explosions can range from no observable response to panic, 

flight and possibly more significant responses as discussed previously (Southall et al. 2007, NOAA 

2009). It has been long recognized that the intensity of the behavioral responses exhibited by marine 

mammals depends on a number of conditions including the age, reproductive condition, experience, 

behavior (foraging or reproductive), species, received sound level, type of sound (impulse or continuous) 

and duration of sound (Reviews by Richardson et al. 1995, Wartzok et al. 2003, Cox et al. 2006, Nowacek 

et al. 2007, Southall et al. 2007). Many behavioral responses may be short term (seconds to minutes) and 

of little immediate consequence for the animal such as simply orienting to the sound source. 

Alternatively, there may be a longer term response over several hours such as moving away from the 

sound source. In addition, some responses have the potential life function consequences such as leading to 

a stranding or a mother-offspring separation (Baraff and Weinrich 1994, Gabriele et al. 2001). The louder 

the sound source the more intense the response although duration, context, and disposition of the animal 

are also very important (Southall et al. 2007). According to the severity scale response spectrum proposed 

by Southall et al. (2007), responses classified as from 0-3 are brief and minor, those from 4-6 have a 

higher potential to affect foraging, reproduction, or survival and those from 7-9 are likely to affect 

foraging, reproduction and survival. Sonar and explosive mitigation measures (sonar power-down or shutdown zones and explosive exclusion zones) would likely prevent animals from being exposed to the 

loudest sonar sounds or explosive effects that could potentially result in TTS or PTS and more intense 

behavioral reactions on the response spectrum. 

While there are little data on the consequences of sound exposure from underwater detonations on vital 

rates of marine mammals, exposure to sounds resulting from Navy underwater explosive training would 

be brief as each event is discrete and separate in time and space from other similar events. In addition, the 

overall size of the explosives used at the SSTC is much smaller that those used during larger Fleet ship 

and aircraft training events. 

Predictive software incorporates specific bathymetric and oceanographic data to create accurate sound 

field models for each source type. Oceanographic data such as the sound velocity profiles, bathymetry, 

and seafloor properties directly affect the outcome of an ocean acoustic propagation model. Depending on 

location, seasonal variations, and the oceanic current flow, dynamic oceanographic attributes such as the 

sound velocity profile (SVP), i.e., the differences in sound velocity at different depths, can change 

dramatically. 

For predicting sound and pressure fields at SSTC, underwater explosions were simulated using the 

Reflection and Refraction in Multilayered Ocean/Ocean Bottoms with Shear Wave Effects (REFMS) 

model. Spreading (losses) of the SEL, 1/3-octave bands of SEL, maximum positive impulse, and peak 

pressures for each device and Alternative were modeled. The prediction of sound and pressure fields at 

SSTC for underwater explosions in VSW is addressed in Section 3.9.2.3.3 

The training at SSTC takes place in a shallow-water environment where propagation of shock waves and 

sound energy are constrained by boundary conditions at the surface and sea floor (Figure 3-10.2). A 

hypothetical source is shown below the sea surface and above the seabed, indicating how energy from the 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-32

explosion reaches a sub-surface receiver via multiple paths. An iso-speed water column was used for 

illustrative purposes, indicating no refraction of paths from changes in sound speed. 

Figure 3.9-2: Generalized Pathways of Shock Waves and Sound Energy 

(Adapted from Siderius and Porter 2006). 

Determining the ZOI for the thresholds in terms of total SEL, impulse, peak pressure and 1/3-octave 

bands SEL must treat the sequential explosions differently than the single detonations. Two factors are 

involved for the sequential explosives that deal with the spatial and temporal distribution of the 

detonations as well as the effective accumulation of the resultant acoustics. In view of the ZOI 

determinations, the sequential detonations are modeled as a single point event with only the SEL summed 

coherently. These accumulations are coherent because no time or space changes occur between successive 

explosions as well as no mammal movement. More specifically, the ZOIs of peak pressure and impulse 

for the Marine Mammal Systems, Dive Platoon, Qual/Cert, Mine Neutral and unmanned underwater 

vehicles (UUV) Neutral activities were all evaluated as single events whereas the SELs were summed 

coherently as 10*log10(n2

p2) where n is the number of equal sequential charges and p is the sound 

pressure per charge. Note that each value of the resultant sound exposure level is scaled by the reference 

units 1μPa2

-s. 

SVP of all twelve months were acquired from the Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO) web site 

for the SSTC site. Unfortunately, these profiles do not lie within the SSTC ROI. The closest SVP point 

record is approximately five miles west (seaside) of area SSTC-N, which has a much deeper water 

column and different sound velocities. However, local and much shallower measurements of the sound 

velocity (SV) were acquired from the underwater explosive tests conducted near the Naval Amphibious 

Base. Although these SV measurements are even shallower than those required for the SSTC water 

depths, the most significant observation is the overall lower SV levels compared to those from the 

NAVOCEANO website. The latter levels were approximately and nearly uniformly 100 feet per second 

higher (approximately two percent) than the former measurements. 

To reconcile this discrepancy, several sensitively tests were performed to quantify the relative influence 

of the SV levels on the final ZOI determinations as well as the mammal exposures via the same governing 

predicted acoustic characteristics. Essentially, a two percent increase in SV gave statistically the same 

change (two percent) in ZOI, which was not threshold independent due to the differences in SV from 

month to month. Given this low percentage, the REFMS model was modified to allow uniform 

adjustments in the SVP and density of the water column. This adjustment was applied to all 

NAVOCEANO profiles (one for each month). 

Air
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-33

After adjusting each SVP, the corresponding ZOIs were computed by the modified REFMS model and 

tabulated for each given threshold. To report representative values for both the warm and cold seasons, 

mean and standard deviation statistics were calculated using the tabulated May-October and NovemberApril results, respectively. 

For the present determination of ZOIs for each threshold, improvements were made to the REFMS tool to 

allow multiple two-dimensional (depth/range) computational points concurrently. In the simulations that 

involved deep waters concurrent with deep charge depths, the lung injury is treated differently when 

choosing these discrete points. This treatment is necessary to concentrate points near the surface when 

applying Goertner’s (1982) model for lung injury. But for the SSTC site where the water depths are 72 

feet or less, the selected discrete computational points of depth and range were consistent for all 

thresholds (Table 3.9-3). 

Table 3.9-3: Selected Discrete Computational Points of Depth and Range 

Depth (feet) Range (nm) 

1.64 

3.28 

6.56 

9.84 

16.4 

24.3 

30.0 

40.0 

56.0 

72.0 

0.0043 

0.0087 

0.0148 

0.027 

0.0415 

0.688 

0.1 

0.2 

0.3 

0.4 

where depth points greater than 24 feet were adjusted to accommodate the particular water depth. This 

two-dimensional (range and depth) distribution gave more than 60 discrete points of REFMS results for 

evaluating the ZOIs of each threshold based on peak positive impulse (psi-ms), peak pressure (psi) and 

SEL in 1/3-octave bands (dB re: 1 μPa2

-s) and total SEL (dB re: 1 μPa2-s). 

3.9.2.4.3 Very Shallow Water Underwater Detonations 

Measurements of pressure-wave propagation are available for detonations in deep and shallow water, but 

only fragmentary data exist for propagation in VSW near shorelines between the shoreline and 24 foot 

depth. The lack of data is due to the complicated nature of the VSW environment as well as to substantial 

differences between different VSW sites. In VSW, surface- and bottom-boundary effects have more 

influence on propagation than in deeper water. At the point of detonation, the geometry of the short water 

column dictates that a charge must be close to one or both of these boundaries. More likely surface 

blowout can dissipate energy and diminish bubble formation with its attendant oscillation effects while 

detonations closer to the bottom may have considerable energy absorbed by the bottom as well. Further, 

as pressure waves propagate laterally through the VSW column, they reflect off surface and bottom 

boundaries more often over a given distance than in deeper waters and VSW boundaries exert their 

influence more frequently over that distance. Refraction of the pressure waves, determined by the SVP, 

acts as it does in deeper water, but thermal layering and mixing of layers that determine the SVP may be 

more complicated and dynamic in VSW. In summary, reliable prediction of pressure wave propagation in 

all situations requires knowledge of the charge size, type, and position as well as boundary and water 

column conditions, but in VSW, the relative contributions of these variables may differ considerably from 

those in deeper waters. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-34

The best mathematical models of underwater explosive-pressure propagation take into account the 

variables just described. However, the lack of empirical validation data for VSW has resulted in the use of 

less complete models with untested assumptions as well as more complete models with untested 

assumptions and extreme values of those variables. Occasionally, these practices produced extreme overand underestimation of propagation and consequent effects on marine mammals, neither of which 

facilitate realistic, practical regulatory compliance policy. To address the variables of concern and garner 

an understanding of the effects of underwater detonations, the Navy collected and analyzed empirical data 

from underwater detonations conducted during training events. Because bottom conditions factor heavily 

into the amount of energy propagating through the water column, explosive tests were conducted at actual 

ordnance training sites so that, in addition to providing basic data to test theoretical issues, the tests would 

also provide applied knowledge about the acoustic properties of specific beach approaches in which 

explosive training and tests are conducted. 

Measurements of the propagated pressures in live-fire tests during single-charge exercises at SSTC were 

conducted in 2002 and 2003 as part of a study to evaluate underwater explosive propagation models in 

VSW (NSWC/Anteon Corp., Inc. 2005). Relevant results and conclusions are described in this EIS and 

details of the procedures, results, and conclusions may be found in the NSWC report. The measurements 

made in those tests provided an in-place characterization of pressure propagation for the training exercises 

as they are actually conducted at the SSTC. As the empirical measurements closely matched conservative 

model predictions, those model predictions were used to establish mitigation ranges for explosive 

exercises in VSW of 25 feet depth or less at the SSTC. 

During the tests, 2 and 15 pound charges of C4 explosives were detonated in 15 feet of water with charges 

laying on the bottom or two feet off the bottom at SSTC. Peak-pressures (unfiltered) and energies – 

between 100 Hz and 41 kHz - in 1/3-octave bands of highest energies from each detonation were 

measured in three locations relative to the charges: 1) within feet of the charge to measure the actual 

output of each blast and bottom reflection, 2) 250 feet seaward, and 3) at about 1000 feet seaward. The 

small 2 pound charges at SSTC were measured only within feet of the charge or at a range of 525 feet 

from the charge. 

In the tests, the position of single charges - on and 2 feet off the bottom – affected the propagated peakpressures. Off-bottom charges produced consistently greater peak-pressures than on-bottom charges as 

measured at about 200, 500, and 1000 ft distances. Off-bottom 15 pound charges in 15 feet of water 

produced between 43 – 67 percent greater peak-pressures than on-bottom charges (NSWC/Anteon Corp. 

Inc. 2005). The exercises in the Proposed Action for SSTC use on-bottom placement for charges up to 29 

pounds of C4, while off-bottom charges are limited to 3.6 pounds or less of C4 or equivalent. 

Additionally, the data from VSW at the SSTC sites are suggestive of a trend that is not seen in explosions 

occurring in deeper water where charges are located in the upper portion of the water column. For most of 

the single charge detonations, measuring gages located at greater distance and depth in the water column 

showed lower peak-pressures and energies whereas, , the highest pressures and energies are measured at 

the deepest depths due to reflection and refraction of pressure waves. While suggestive, the findings are 

not conclusive in that the deepest gages did not extend all the way down to the bottom and no general 

conclusion could be drawn (NSWC/Anteon Corp. Inc. 2005). 

Measurements during single-charge exercises produced empirical data that were predicted by the 

propagation models. At about 1000 feet seaward, peak-pressure varied from 11-17 pounds per square inch 

(psi) at different depths, and energies between 100 Hz and 41 kHz in the 1/3-octave bands of highest 

energies varied from about 175-186 dB re 1 μPa2

 ·sec at different depths. From the measurements, it was 

determined that the range at which the dual criteria for onset-TTS would be expected to occur in small 

odontocetes matched the range predicted by a conservative model of propagation that assumed a 

boundary-less medium and equal sound velocity at all depths in the range – i. e., an “iso-velocity” model. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-35

Based on the empirical propagation data and iso-velocity model predictions, the mitigation range for 

physiological disruption (TTS) for exercises with charge-weights of 20 pounds or less of C4 on the 

bottom and for charge-weights of 3.6 pounds or less off the bottom at SSTC is determined to be a 1,300 ft 

radius out from the site of the detonation with the shoreward half of the implied circle being truncated by 

the shoreline and extremely shallow water immediately off shore. 

Predictions made by the REFMS model were found to be unstable across the distances considered under 

the conditions of VSW with bottom or near bottom charge placement, reflective bottom, and a nonrefractive water column – i. e., equal sound velocity at all depths (NSWC/Anteon Corp. Inc., 2005). The 

source of instability in the REFMS predictions is most likely due to the nature of VSW wherein the ratio 

of depth to range is very small – a known problem for the REFMS predictive ray-tracing. Reflective and 

placement conditions within the model may contribute as well. REFMS was developed for large 

explosives in deep water and has been validated there, but overestimates sound propagation in VSW, and 

overestimates exposures to marine mammals that might occur in VSW. As mentioned, the peak-pressures 

and 1/3-octave band energies for the VSW bottom at SSTC were just as well predicted by the simpler isovelocity model. In iso-velocity conditions, peak pressure follows a power law over distance as do the 

dominant frequency and energy at that frequency. Predictions of the iso-velocity model for detonations in 

an unbounded (equivalent to off-bottom), homogeneous medium (a free acoustic field) appear in Figure 

3.9-3. 

Figure 3.9-3: Iso-velocity Predictions of Peak Pressure and Energy in the 1/3-Octave-band of 

Highest Energy Above 100Hz as a Function of Range for 15- and 20-pound 

Charges of C4 Explosive 

3.9.2.5 Estimating Marine Mammal Exposures to Underwater Detonations 

The methodology for analyzing potential impacts from explosives is presented in Section 3.9.2.3, which 

explains the model process, describes how the impact threshold resulting from Navy-NMFS consultations 

are derived, and discusses relative potential impact based on species biology. 

The Navy acoustic exposure model process uses REFMS to assess potential exposure of marine mammals 

to explosions. Results are based upon extensive precomputations over the range of acoustic environments 

that might be encountered in the operating area. REFMS was used to estimate marine mammal exposures 

in both shallow water (24 to 72 feet) and VSW (zero to 24 feet). While REFMS may not be as precise as 

the iso-velocity model in VSW, it overestimates the exposures that might occur and provides a 

conservative estimate of exposures. 

The acoustic model includes four steps used to calculate potential exposures: 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-36

1. Identify unique acoustic environments that encompass the operating area. Parameters include 

depth and seafloor geography, bottom characteristics and sediment type, wind and surface 

roughness, sound velocity profile, surface duct, sound channel, and convergence zones. 

2. Compute transmission loss (TL) data appropriate for each sensor type in each of these acoustic 

environments. Propagation can be complex, depending on a number of environmental parameters 

listed in step one, as well the amount of explosive material detonated. 

3. Use that TL to estimate the total sound energy received at each point in the acoustic environment. 

4. Apply this energy to predicted animal density for that area to estimate potential acoustic exposure. 

The exposures predicted from modeling rely on many factors but are influenced greatly by assumptions, 

methods, and criteria used. The following list is not exhaustive but reveals several features of the 

technical approach that influence exposure prediction. Assumptions, caveats, and limitations are grouped 

below by topic. However, to put these exposures in context, the following caveats are listed below: 

1. Significant scientific uncertainties are implied and carried forward in any analysis using marine 

mammal density data as a predictor for animal occurrence within a given geographic are. 

2. There are limitations to the actual model process based on information available (animal densities, 

animal depth distributions, animal motion data, impact thresholds, and supporting statistical 

models). 

3.9.2.5.1 Model Assumptions 

• The tempo of training activities was divided evenly throughout the year with two 

oceanographic season, defined as warm and cold at this location, each having 1⁄2 total events 

for simulated purposes. 

• No two training activities occur the same day. 

• Each training activity was treated as an isolated event. 

• The minimum time separation was used when time between blasts were controlled; however, 

actual temporal relationships between explosions can be longer depending on conditions (setup, weather, etc.). 

• The numbers of individual training activities shown in Tables 3.7-9 and 3.7-10 represent 

range schedule maximums with range operation time fully booked. 

3.9.2.5.2 Biological Data Assumptions 

Marine mammal occurrence within any geographic area including southern California is highly variable, 

and many cetacean species respond to oceanographic variability by changing their distribution rather than 

exhibiting changes in survival and reproductive success (Forney 2000, Ferguson and Barlow 2001, 

Benson et al. 2002, Tynan 2005, Redfern 2006). For some species, distribution may be highly influenced 

by small scale features over both short and long-term time scales (Ballance et al. 2006, Etnoyer et al. 

2006, Ferguson et al. 2006, Skov et al. 2007). Unfortunately, the understanding of the ecological 

processes determining marine mammal distributions at some large scale and most small scale processes is 

incomplete. 

Given the uncertainties in marine mammal density estimation and localized distributions, the U.S. Navy’s 

acoustic impact models cannot currently be used to predict the occurrence of marine mammals within 

specific regions of southern California. To resolve this issue and allow modeling to proceed, animals are 

assumed to be uniformly distributed within the SSTC. This process does not account for animals that 

move into or out of the region based on foraging and migratory patterns, and adds a significant amount of 

variability to the model predictions. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-37

• Mean animal densities were used during exposure calculations and took into account the 

worst-case water depth, animal depth, and sound speed profile. 

• Density estimates were derived from marine mammal survey data gathered elsewhere in the 

southern California in water depths of less than 1000 meters, which may over-estimate actual 

localized densities within the shallow waters of SSTC. 

• Animal travel (i.e. movement) taken into account for activities with multiple or sequential 

explosions (requiring the summation of received energy). 

• Animal movement within the virtual SSTC environment was two-dimensional (2D) in nature 

and did not take into account depth as a dimension; therefore, animals were assumed to be in 

the water column where the effect of the explosions was greatest. 

3.9.2.5.3 Criteria Assumptions 

The quantitative exposure modeling methodology produces numbers of individuals exposed to the effects 

of underwater explosions exceeding the thresholds used. All estimated exposures are seasonal averages 

(mean) plus one standard deviation (σ) using one-half of the yearly training tempo. This provides a 

conservative approach to estimating exposures typical of training during a single year. Mitigation 

methods were not quantified and implementation is not reflected in exposure estimates. Results from 

acoustic impact exposure models should be regarded as exceedingly conservative estimates that are 

strongly influenced by limited biological data. While the numbers generated from these models provide 

predictions of marine mammal exposures for consultation with NMFS, the short duration and limited 

geographic extent of explosive events does not necessarily mean that these exposures will ever be 

realized. 

3.9.2.5.4 Model Results Explanation 

Acoustic exposures are evaluated based on their potential direct effects on marine mammals, and these 

effects are then assessed in the context of the species biology and ecology to determine if there is a mode 

of action that may result in the acoustic exposure warranting consideration as a harassment level effect. 

A large body of research on terrestrial animal and human response to airborne sound exists, but results 

from those studies are not readily extendible to the development of behavioral criteria and thresholds for 

marine mammals. For example, “annoyance” is one of several criteria used to define impact to humans 

from exposure to industrial sound sources. Comparable criteria cannot be developed for marine mammals 

because there is no scientifically acceptable method for determining whether a nonverbal animal is 

annoyed (NRC 2003). Further, differences in hearing thresholds, dynamic range of the ear, and the typical 

exposure patterns of interest (e.g., human data tend to focus on eight hour-long exposures) make 

extrapolation of human sound exposure standards inappropriate. At the present time there is no general 

scientifically accepted consensus on how to account for behavioral effects on marine mammals exposed 

to anthropogenic sounds including explosions (NRC 2003, NRC 2005). NRC (2005) acknowledges “there 

is not one case in which data can be integrated into models to demonstrate that noise is causing adverse 

affects on a marine mammal population.” 

3.9.2.6 Estimating Marine Mammal Exposures from Pile Driving Activites 

Noise associated with ELCAS installation activities includes a loud impulsive sound derived from driving 

piles into the soft sandy substrate of the SSTC waters to temporarily support a causeway of linked 

pontoons. Two hammer-based methods will be used to install/remove ELCAS piles: impact pile driving 

for installation and vibratory driving for removal. The impact hammer is a large metal ram attached to a 

crane. A vertical support holds the pile in place and the ram is dropped or forced downward. The energy 

is then transferred to the pile which is driven into the seabed. The ram is lifted by a diesel power source. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-38

At the end of the training, a vibratory hammer attached to the pile head will be used to remove piles by 

applying a rapidly alternating force to the pile by rotating eccentric weights about shafts, resulting in an 

upward vibratory force on the pile. The vertical vibration in the pile disturbs or “liquefies” the sediment 

next to the pile causing the sediment particles to lose their frictional grip on the pile. 

Since 1997, NMFS has been using generic sound exposure thresholds to determine when an activity in the 

ocean that produces impact sound (i.e., pile driving) result in potential take of marine mammals by 

harassment (70 CFR 1871). NMFS is developing new science-based thresholds to improve and replace 

the current generic exposure level thresholds, but the criteria have not been finalized (Southall et al. 

2007). Current NMFS criteria (70 FR 1871) regarding exposure of marine mammals to underwater 

impulsive sounds (e.g., impact pile driving) is that cetaceans exposed to sound levels of 180 dB root mean 

squared (RMS in units of dB re 1 μPa) or higher and pinnipeds exposed to 190 dB RMS or higher are 

considered to have been taken by Level A (i.e., injurious) harassment. Marine mammals (cetaceans and 

pinnipeds) exposed to impulse sounds of 160 dB RMS but below injurious thresholds (i.e, 180 or 190 dB) 

are considered to have been taken by Level B behavioral harassment. Marine mammals (cetaceans and 

pinnipeds) exposed to continuous noise of 120 dB RMS (e.g., vibratory pile driving) or above are 

considered to have been taken by Level B behavioral harrassment. 

The methodology for analyzing potential impacts from ELCAS activities is similar to that of analyzing 

explosives, which is presented in Section 3.9.2.5. The ELCAS analysis includes two steps used to 

calculate potential exposures: 

1. Estimate the zone of influence for Level A injurious and Level B behavioral exposures for 

both impact pile driving and vibratory pile removal using the practical spreading loss model. 

2. Estimate the number of species exposed using species density estimates (Table 3.9-1) and 

estimated zones of influence. 

The practical spreading loss model is used to estimate the attenuation of underwater sound over distance. 

NOAA and USFWS have accepted the use of the practical spreading loss model to estimate transmission 

loss of sound through water for past pile driving calculations (California Department of Transportation 

[CADOT] 2009). The formula for this propagation loss can be expressed as: 

TL = F * log (D1/D2) 

Where: 

TL = transmission loss (the sound pressure level at D1 minus the sound pressure level at D2, in 

 RMS, dB re 1μPa) 

F = attenuation constant 

D1 = distance at which the targeted transmission loss occurs 

D2 = distance from which the transmission loss is calculated 

The attenuation constant (F) is site-specific factor based on several conditions, including water depth, pile 

type, pile length, substrate type, and other factors. Measurements conducted by the CADOT and other 

consultants (Greeneridge Science) indicate that the attenuation constant (F) can vary from 5 to 30. For 

pile driving sounds that are higher frequency (e.g., smaller-diameter steel piles), the transmission loss can 

be higher than losses associated with piles that predominantly produce lower frequencies (e.g., larger 

diameter piles). Small-diameter steel H-type piles have been found to have high F values in the range of 

20 to 30 near the pile (i.e., between 10 and 20 meters) (CADOT 2009). In the absence of empirically 

measured values at SSTC, the F value for SSTC is assumed to be on the low (conservative) end of the 

small-diameter steel piles (F=20). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-39

The exposures predicted from ELCAS assessment rely on many factors but are influenced greatly by 

assumptions, methods, and criteria used. The following list of assumptions, caveats, and limitations is not 

exhaustive but reveals several features of the technical approach that influence exposure prediction: 

1. Significant scientific uncertainties are implied and carried forward in any analysis using 

marine mammal density data as a predictor for animal occurrence within a given geographic 

area. 

2. The assessment conservatively assumed that all ELCAS training would occur along the 

oceanside of SSTC. In actuality, they are also conducted in the Bravo Beach training area on 

the Bayside of SSTC-N. Marine mammals are rarely encountered within this southern 

portion of San Diego Bay, and given this lack of occurrence, exposures to marine mammals 

during ELCAS training in the Bay is not expected. By assuming that all ELCAS training 

would occur on the oceanside of SSTC-N, exposure estimates may overrepresent actual 

potential exposures. For example, the estimates may be double of what they might actually 

be if half of the ELCAS training was to occur on the Bayside. 

3. Marine mammal are assumed to be uniformly distributed within the ocean waters adjacent 

SSTC. 

4. The tempo of training activities was divided evenly throughout the year with two 

oceanographic seasons, defined as warm and cold at this location, each having 1⁄2 total events 

for simulated purposes. 

5. There are data limitations. Some of the data supporting the analysis was derived from other 

projects with different environmental and project conditions (animal densities, pile driving 

source levels, and transmission loss parameters). 

The ELCAS exposure assessment methodology is an estimate of the numbers of individuals exposed to 

the effects of ELCAS activities exceeding NMFS established thresholds. Of significant note in these 

exposure estimates, mitigation methods were not quantified within the assessment and successful 

implementation of mitigation is not reflected in exposure estimates. Results from acoustic impact 

exposure assessments should be regarded as conservative estimates that are strongly influenced by limited 

biological data. While the numbers generated from the ELCAS exposure calculations provide 

conservative overestimates of marine mammal exposures for consultation with NMFS, the short duration 

and limited geographic extent of ELCAS training would further limit actual exposures. 

3.9.2.7 Other Effects Considered 

There is the potential for non-auditory impacts on marine mammals from direct physical injury from 

underwater detonations or collisions with vessels. The use of currently implemented monitoring and 

marine mammal safety zones (as defined in the next section) during mine detonation activities can 

prevent such impacts on marine mammals. Vessel operators avoid surface obstructions during transit and 

combined with low transit speeds, minimize the potential of collision with a marine mammal. 

3.9.2.8 No Action Alternative 

3.9.2.8.1 Underwater Detonations 

Small explosives, up to 20 pounds, will be used as part of exercises to neutralize simulated mines as well 

as qualification/certification training. Under the No Action Alternative and presented in Section 3.8.2.2.3 

(Table 3.8-11), the exercises are conducted up to 103 times a year in the offshore boat lanes at SSTC. As 

indicated in Section 3.4, Hazardous Materials and Waste (Table 3.4-3), the major byproducts of these 

detonations are nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water, and carbon monoxide. Only trace amounts of organic 

compounds would be left following an underwater detonation of explosives. At such concentrations, these 

substances would not affect water quality and would have no direct effect on marine mammals. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-40

Severity of an effect often is related to the distance between the sound source and a marine mammal and 

is influenced by source characteristics (Richardson and Malme 1995). For SSTC, zones of exposure were 

estimated for the different charge weights, charge depths, water depths, and seasons. These ZOI 

calculated ranges are shown in Table 3.9-4. For single detonations, the ZOI were calculated using the 

range associated with onset TTS while for those events with multiple charges the calculation was based 

on the non-TTS behavior disruption. Calculating the zones of influence in terms of total SEL, 1/3-octave 

bands SEL, impulse, and peak pressure for sequential (10 sec timed) and sequential detonations (> 30 

minutes) were slightly different than the single detonations. For the sequential explosives, ZOI 

calculations considered spatial and temporal distribution of the detonations, as well as the effective 

accumulation of the resultant acoustic energy. To calculate the ZOI, sequential detonations were modeled 

such that explosion SEL were summed incoherently to predict zones while peak pressure was not. 

Based on the modeling approach applied, as discussed in Section 3.9.2.4, and without consideration of 

current mitigation measures, activities under the No Action Alternative injury (Level A harassment) to 

marine mammals is not anticipated. However, underwater detonation activities could result in 

non-injurious (Level B) harassment to cetaceans and pinnipeds. For evaluation of TTS, a dual criteria is 

used, allowing one value to be presented as a TTS exposure level. This TTS dual criterion reduces the 

TTS to a single exposure level where the maximum truncated value is picked under the SEL (182 dB) or 

peak pressure (23 psi) column. Specifically, 78 annual exposures to pressure from underwater detonations 

could result in TTS (Level B harassment, Table 3.9-5). Of these 78 annual exposures, 52 exposures could 

result in TTS for bottlenose dolphins and 26 exposures could result in TTS for California sea lions due to 

pressures from underwater detonations. Exposures for harbor seals and gray whales are not anticipated 

due to low species density and the limited zone of influence of the underwater detonations. As mentioned 

previously, these exposure modeling results are estimates of marine mammal underwater detonation 

sound exposures without consideration of standard mitigation and monitoring procedures. Table 3.9-5 

summarizes the species exposure levels for all detonations over an entire year in the SSTC ROI. 

In addition to possible exposures that could result in TTS, modeling indicates that the No Action 

Alternative could also result in the potential for 68 non-physiological behavioral exposures. While 

physiological impacts were predicted for all activities, non-physiological behavioral impacts were 

predicted only for those exercises which involved multiple detonations during a training scenario. Coastal 

bottlenose dolphins were predicted to have a similar number of non-physiological behavioral exposures in 

both the warm (16) and cold (24) seasons, while California sea lions were predicted to have a higher 

number of non-physiological behavioral exposures during the cold season (24) than in the warm season 

(4). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-41

Table 3.9-4: Maximum Underwater Detonation Zones of Influence for “No Action” Alternative 

Underwater 

Detonation 

Operation 

Charge 

Weight 

Used1 

Season 

Level B 

Harrassment Level A Harrassment Mortality 

Onset of 

TTS2 / NonTTS3

 

(yards) 

Onset of 

slight lung 

injury (13.0 

psi-msec) 

(yards) 

50% TM 

rupture 

(205 dB re 

1μPa2-sec) 

(yards) 

Onset of 

extensive 

lung injury 

(30.5 psimsec) 

(yards) 

Mine 

Countermeasures 20 

Warm 470 360 80 80 

Cold 450 160 80 80 

Floating Mine ≤ 5 

Warm 240 20 80 20 

Cold 260 20 80 20 

Unmanned 

Underwater 

Vehicle Activities 

20 

Warm 440 360 80 80 

Cold 400 150 80 80 

Marine Mammal 

Systems Activities

(sequential) 

13 

Warm 330/380 130 70 80 

Cold 410/430 140 70 80 

Marine Mammal 

Systems Activities 

(individual) 

13 

Warm 320 130 60 80 

Cold 350 140 70 80 

Dive Platoon4 

(mid-depth) 3.5 

Warm 330/430 70 130 40 

Cold 410/610 70 130 40 

Dive Platoon4 

(bottom) 3.5 

Warm 330/470 80 90 50 

Cold 370/560 90 90 50 

Mine 

Neutralization 4 3.5 

Warm 330/470 80 90 50 

Cold 370/560 90 90 50 

1 Charge weights are listed in pounds 

2 Maximum ZOE based on greatest range from dual criteria (182 dB re 1μPa2

-sec or 23 psi) 3 Behavioral Disruption Non-TTS (listed only for (sequential detonations) 4

 Sequential Detonations 

To reduce the potential for behavioral or physiological damage such as TTS, or tissue injury, a safety 

zone would be established each detonation area. As discussed in Section 3.9.1.7, operations would not be 

conducted if marine mammals are present in the safety zone. The safety zone for VSW underwater 

detonations (in zero to 24 feet of water), would be the largest zone of influence as discussed in Section 

3.9.2.4.3 (1,300 feet). The safety zone for shallow water underwater detonation activities (in 24 to 72 feet 

of water depth) would be based on the largest zone of influence shown in Table 3.9-4: 1,410 feet (470 

yards). This type of mitigation would likely prevent animals from being exposed to the loudest explosive 

effects that could potentially result in behavioral, TTS or PTS and more intense behavioral reactions. The 

implementation of the current mitigation and monitoring procedures in the SSTC, as described in Section 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-42

3.9.2.7, will minimize the potential for impacts to individual marine mammals or marine mammal stocks 

from underwater detonations. 

Table 3.9-5: Modeled Estimates of Exposed Species from Underwater Detonations Without 

Implementation of Mitigation Measures: No Action Alternative 

Species 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE: Season Average Mammals Exposure 

(All Sources) 

Level B 

Behavior 

(MSE only) 

Level B 

TTS 

Level A 

Injury 

Level A 

Mortality 

177 dB 182 dB 

/ 23 psi 

205 dB 

/ 13.0 psi-ms 30.5 psi-ms 

Cetaceans 

Gray 

Whale 

Warm - - - - 

Cold 0 0 0 0 

Coastal 

Bottlenose 

Dolphin 

Warm 16 26 0 0 

Cold 24 26 0 0 

Pinnipeds 

California 

Sea Lion 

Warm 4 0 0 0 

Cold 24 26 0 0 

Harbor 

Seal 

Warm 0 0 0 0 

Cold 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures 68 78 0 0 

 

3.9.2.8.2 Aircraft Activities 

Various types of helicopters are regularly used in training exercises throughout the ROI. These aircraft 

overflights produce airborne noise and some of this energy is transmitted into the water. Marine mammals 

could be exposed to noise associated with aircraft overflights while at the surface or while submerged. In 

addition to sound, marine mammals could react to the shadow of a low-flying aircraft and/or, in the case 

of helicopters, surface disturbance from the downdraft. 

Transmission of sound from a moving airborne source to a receptor underwater is influenced by 

numerous factors and has been addressed by Urick (1972), Young (1973), Eller and Cavanagh (2000), 

Laney and Cavanagh (2000), and others. Sound is transmitted from an airborne source to a receptor 

underwater by four principal means: 

1. Direct path, refracted upon passing through the air-water interface. 

2. Direct-refracted paths reflected from the bottom in shallow water. 

3. Lateral (evanescent) transmission through the interface from the airborne sound field directly 

above. 

4. Scattering from interface roughness due to wave motion. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-43

Aircraft sound is refracted upon transmission into water because sound waves move faster through water 

than through air (a ratio of about 0.23:1). Based on this difference, the direct sound path is totally 

reflected if the sound reaches the surface at an angle more than 13 degrees from vertical. As a result, most 

of the acoustic energy transmitted into the water from an aircraft arrives through a narrow cone with a 26-

degree apex angle extending vertically downward from the aircraft (Figure 3.9-4). The intersection of this 

cone with the surface traces a “footprint” directly beneath the flight path, with the width of the footprint 

being a function of aircraft altitude. 

Figure 3.9-4: Characteristics of Sound Transmission through Air-Water Interface 

Helicopter overflights can occur throughout SSTC for a variety of training exercises, such as mine 

countermeasure activities (Activities 4, 6, 7, and 12, Table 2-1), amphibious activities (Activities 16, 25, 

26, Table 2-1), and Naval Special Warfare (NSW) activities (Activities 29 and 30, Table 2-1). Unlike 

fixed-wing aircraft, helicopter training activities can occur at low altitudes (approximately 100 feet) over 

the water, which increases the likelihood that marine mammals would respond. 

Very little data are available regarding reactions of cetaceans to helicopters. One study observed that 

sperm whales showed no reaction to a helicopter until the whales encountered the downdrafts from the 

propellers (Clarke 1956). Other species such as bowhead whales and beluga whales show a range of 

reactions to helicopter overflights, including diving, breaching, change in direction or behavior, and 

alteration of breathing patterns, with belugas exhibiting behavioral reactions more frequently than 

bowheads (38 and 14 percent of the time, respectively) (Patenaude et al. 2002). These reactions were less 

frequent as the altitude of the helicopter increased to 150 m or higher. 

Helicopter activities would have the greatest impact when flying low and hovering at altitudes down to 

100 feet. Noise modeling indicates that the predicted sound level at a depth of 1 foot resulting from the 

overflight of an SH-60 helicopter at 100 feet would be approximately 100 to 118 dB re 1 μPa (frequencies 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-44

of 20 Hz and 5 kHz). This could cause some marine mammals to dive and move away from the aircraft. 

For example, gray whales will react 10 percent of the time to helicopter sounds transmitted underwater in 

excess of 115 dB re 1 μPa and react 50 percent of the time to sounds in excess of 120 dB re 1 μPa (Moore 

and Clarke 2002). Given the variable and sparse seasonal density of gray whales (Table 3.9-1), the 

probability of a helicopter overflight occurring over a migrating whale is low. Aircraft overflights over a 

cetacean in the water may elicit short-term reactions such as a dive, but they are highly unlikely to disrupt 

overall behavioral patterns such as migrating, nor would they be likely to result in serious injury. 

One seal species (harbor) and one sea lion species (California) occur regularly within the ROI. 

Helicopters are used in studies of several species of seals hauled out and is considered an effective means 

of observation (Gjertz and Børset 1992; Bester et al. 2002; Bowen et al. 2006), although they have been 

known to elicit behavioral reactions such as fleeing (Hoover 1988). Jehl and Cooper (1980) indicated that 

low-flying helicopters, humans on foot, sonic booms, and loud boat noises were the most disturbing 

influences to pinnipeds. In other studies, harbor and other species of seals and sea lions showed no 

reaction to helicopter overflights (Gjertz and Børset 1992). However, there are no known haul-out 

locations for these two species within the SSTC. Additionally, the typical flight path of aircraft used in 

training activities does not overlap any known haul-out locations for harbor seals or sea lions. Thus, the 

likelihood of a harbor seal or California sea lion being hauled out and underneath the flight path of an 

aircraft is extremely low. It is possible that an animal could be temporarily hauled out on a buoy or dock 

and aircraft overflights may elicit short-term reactions such as flushing into the water, but they are highly 

unlikely to disrupt overall behavioral patterns such as foraging or breeding as the disturbance is transient 

and short-term in nature, allowig the animal to return to it’s previous behavioral state. Similarly, aircraft 

overflights of pinnipeds in the water may elicit short-term reactions such as startle or alert reactions. 

However, they are highly unlikely to disrupt overall behavior patterns such as migrating, breeding, 

feeding and sheltering, nor would they be likely to result in serious injury. 

Marine mammals exposed to low-altitude helicopter overflights under the No Action Alternative could 

exhibit short-term behavioral responses, but not to the extent where natural behavioral patterns would be 

abandoned or considerably altered. Helicopter overflights are not expected to result in chronic stress 

because it is extremely unlikely that individual animals would be repeatedly exposed. As such, helicopter 

overflights are not expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment as defined by the MMPA and 

helicopter overflights over territorial waters would have no notable effect on marine mammals. 

3.9.2.8.3 Marine Vessels 

Overview 

A variety of vessels including standard and amphibious ships, small boats, and hovercraft (collectively 

referred to as vessels) will be used for SSTC activities. Vessel movements have the potential to affect 

marine mammals by directly striking or disturbing individual animals. The probability of vessel and 

marine mammal interactions occurring in the ROI is dependant upon several factors including numbers, 

types, and speeds of vessels; the regularity, duration, and spatial extent of activities; the presence/absence 

and density of marine mammals; and protective measures implemented by the Navy. Activities involving 

vessel movements occur intermittently and are variable in duration, ranging from a few hours up to two 

weeks. Under the No Action Alternative, marine vessels both mechanically driven and self-propelled are 

utilized in 41 of the 78 training activities (Activities 1- 3, 5 -14, 16, 18, 20 - 28, 32 - 35, 37 - 41, 44 - 46, 

49, 51 - 53, 57, 77, 78, Table 2-1). The vast majority of these exercises use less than five marine vessels, 

both mechanically driven and self-propelled (Appendix C). These activities are widely dispersed 

throughout the marine areas of SSTC, which encompasses approximately 15 nm2

. Consequently, as these 

operations are spread throughout the year, as well as on any particular day of training activities, the 

density of ships within the ROI at any given time is extremely low. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-45

Disturbance Associated with Vessel Movements 

Marine mammals are frequently exposed to vessels due to research, ecotourism, commercial and private 

fishing traffic, and government activities. The presence of vessels has the potential to alter the behavior 

patterns of marine mammals. It is difficult to differentiate between responses to vessel sound and visual 

cues associated with the presence of a vessel; thus, it is assumed that both play a role in prompting 

reactions from animals. Anthropogenic sound has increased in the marine environment over the past 50 

years (Richardson et al. 1995; NRC, 2003) and can be attributed to vessel traffic, marine dredging and 

construction, oil and gas drilling, geophysical surveys, sonar, and underwater explosions. 

Marine mammals react to vessels in a variety of ways. Some respond negatively by retreating or engaging 

in antagonistic responses (breaching, fluke-slapping, etc.) while other animals ignore the stimulus 

altogether (Watkins, 1986; Terhune and Verboom, 1999). The predominant reaction is either neutral or 

avoidance behavior, rather than attraction behavior. For example, species of delphinids can vary widely in 

their reaction to vessels. Many exhibit mostly neutral behavior, but there are frequent instances of 

observed avoidance behaviors (Hewitt 1985; Würsig et al. 1998). In addition, approaches by vessels can 

elicit changes in behavior, including a decrease in resting behavior or change in travel direction (Bejder et 

al. 2006). Alternately, some of the delphinid species exhibit behavior indicating attraction to vessels. This 

can include solely approaching a vessel (David, 2002), and species such as common, rough-toothed and 

bottlenose dolphins are frequently observed bow riding or jumping in the wake of a vessel (Norris and 

Prescott, 1961; Shane et al. 1986; Würsig et al. 1998; Ritter 2002). These behavioral alterations are shortterm and would not result in any lasting effects. 

Gray whale responses to noise include changes in swimming speed and direction to move away from the 

sound source; abrupt behavioral changes from feeding to avoidance, with a resumption of feeding after 

exposure; changes in calling rates and call structure; and changes in surface behavior, usually from 

traveling to milling (e.g., Moore and Clarke 2002). Gailey et al. (2007) reported no apparent behavioral 

disturbances for gray whales in response to low-frequency seismic survey. 

Marine vessels are one of the most frequent sources of sound in the marine environment within SSTC. 

Vessel noise is caused by both engine noise transmission through the hull and cavitations from propellers 

producing both narrow and broadband sounds. Hovercraft were recorded in the frequency ranges of 50 to 

2000 Hz with a source level up to 121 dB re 1 μPa (Richardson et al. 1995). Recordings of a Griffon 

2000TD hovercraft passing a hydrophone at full power in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska indicated broadband (10 

to 10,000 Hz) levels reaching 133 dB re 1 μPa (Blackwell and Greene 2005), with most spectral energy 

centered around 87 Hz. 

The probability of Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) and marine mammal interactions occurring in the 

ROI is dependant upon several factors including the regularity, duration, and spatial extent of activities; 

the presence/absence and density of marine mammals; and protective measures implemented by the Navy. 

Activities involving LCAC occur four times a year, involve small numbers of vessels, and occur along the 

boat and beach lanes of SSTC-N and SSTC-S. Consequently, the density of ships within the ROI during 

LCAC activities is extremely low, which when combined with the low densities of marine mammals, 

minimizes disturbance effects on marine mammals in the area; therefore, any effects would be extremely 

localized. 

Sound produced may also be produced by vessels involved in the ELCAS training. Vessel noise is a 

combination of narrowband, tonal sounds at specific frequencies with broadband sounds with energy 

spread as a continuum across a wide range of frequencies up to 100 kHz (Greene and Moore, 1995). 

Source levels of boats used during SSTC ELCAS are expected to be low with small boats using outboards 

(120-150 dB) to tugboats working with barges (140 – 160 dB). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-46

Marine vessel traffic related to the SSTC activities would pass near marine mammals only on an 

incidental basis. Most of the studies mentioned previously examine the reaction of animals to vessels that 

approach and intend to follow or observe an animal (i.e., whale watching vessels, research vessels, etc.). 

Reactions to vessels not pursuing the animals, such as those transiting through an area or engaged in 

training exercises, may be similar but would likely result in less stress to the animal because they would 

not intentionally approach animals. Cetacean species pay little attention to transiting vessel traffic as it 

approaches, although they may engage in last minute avoidance maneuvers (Laist et al. 2001). As 

previously noted, quick avoidance maneuvers are short-term alterations and are not expected to 

permanently impact a marine mammal. 

Vessel movements under the No Action Alternative are not expected to result in chronic stress because, as 

discussed above, Navy vessel density in the ROI would remain low and the Navy implements mitigation 

measures to avoid marine mammals. General disturbance associated with vessel movements is not 

expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment as defined by the MMPA and vessel disturbances are 

highly unlikely to disrupt overall behavior patterns such as migrating, breeding, feeding and sheltering, of 

marine mammals in the ROI. 

Vessel Collisions with Marine Mammals 

Ship strikes are known to affect large whales in southern California waters. The most vulnerable marine 

mammals are those that spend extended periods of time at the surface in order to restore oxygen levels 

within their tissues after deep dives. These species are primarily large, slow moving whales. Smaller 

marine mammals (for example, bottlenose dolphins) move quickly throughout the water column and are 

often seen riding the bow wave of large ships. 

After reviewing historical records and computerized stranding databases for evidence of ship strikes 

involving baleen and sperm whales, Laist et al. (2001) found that accounts of large whale ship strikes 

involving motorized boats date back to at least the late 1800s. Ship collisions remained infrequent until 

the 1950s, after which point they increased. Laist et al. (2001) concluded that most strikes occur over or 

near the continental shelf, that ship strikes likely have a negligible effect on the population status of most 

whale populations, but that for small populations or segments of populations the impact of ship strikes 

may be significant. However, in the near-shore waters of the ROI, any large whale appearing in the 

shallow water boat lanes would be readily apparent. Between 1975 and 2002, only two ship strikes of 

gray whales have been reported in the waters offshore of Point Loma, only one of which was attributed to 

naval activities. 

Small numbers of California sea lions, harbor seals, or bottlenose dolphin may encounter Navy vessels in 

the SSTC. Given the low density of Navy ships in the ROI, the likelihood that a vessel collision would 

occur under the No Action Alternative is very low. Vessel collisions in territorial waters are highly 

unlikely and do not represent a notable source of effect on marine mammals. 

3.9.2.8.4 Amphibious and Beach Activities 

This section deals primarily with amphibious and beach activities that may have a potential to impact 

marine mammals. Beach and inland activities have a low potential for impact on marine mammals 

because there are no breeding or haul-out areas within the SSTC ROI. The following sections address 

those Amphibious and Beach activities that may affect the marine mammals expected to occur at SSTC. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-47

ELCAS/Pile Driving 

Pile driving will be conducted during installation of the ELCAS which is constructed to provide a quick 

and temporary pier structure for offloading Navy vessels. Under the No Action Alternative, ELCAS 

activities occur twice a year and occur either bayside at Bravo Beach, or oceanside at SSTC-North. Pile 

installation occurs over a period of approximately 10 days. Approximately 101 piles are driven in a 

typical ELCAS training event, with around 250 to 300 impacts per pile, and each pile taking on average 

10 minutes to install. At the end of the training, a vibratory hammer attached to the pile head will be used 

to remove piles. Removal takes approximately 15 minutes per pile over a period of around 3 days. 

The methodology for assessing impacts of pile installation and removal during ELCAS training on marine 

mammals is discussed in Section 3.9.2.6. It describes NMFS established Level A and B harassment 

thresholds, the practical spreading loss model, and the methodology for estimating ZOIs and marine 

mammal exposures for ELCAS pile driving and removal. 

Actual noise levels of ELCAS pile driving at SSTC depend on the type of hammer used, the size and 

material of the pile, and the substrate the piles are being driven into. Using known equipment, installation 

procedures, and applying certain constants derived from other west coast measured pile driving, predicted 

underwater sound levels from ELCAS pile driving can be calculated. The ELCAS uses 24-inch diameter 

hollow steel piles, installed using a diesel impact hammer to drive the piles into the sandy on-shore and 

near-shore substrate at SSTC. For a dock repair project in Rodeo, California in San Francisco Bay, RMS 

underwater sound level for a 24 inch steel pipe pile driven with a diesel impact hammer in less than 4.6 m 

(15 ft) of water depth was measured at 189 dB re 1uPa from approximately 10 m (33 ft) away. RMS 

sound level for the same type and size pile also driven with a diesel impact hammer, but in greater than 

11.0 m (36 ft) of water depth, was measured to be 190 to 194 dB RMS during the Amoco Wharf repair 

project in Carquinez Straits, Martinez, California (CADOT 2009). The areas where these projects were 

conducted have a silty sand bottom with an underlying hard clay layer, which because of the extra effort 

required to drive into clay, would make these measured pile driving sound levels louder (more 

conservative) than they would if driving into SSTC’s sandy substrate. Given the local bathymetry and 

smooth sloping sandy bottom at SSTC, ELCAS piles will be driven in water depths of 11 m (36 ft) or 

less. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, both the Rodeo repair project (189 RMS) and the low 

end of the measured values of the Amoco Wharf repair projects (190 RMS) are considered to be 

reasonably representative of sound levels that would be expected during ELCAS pile driving at SSTC. 

Using an this estimated RMS measurement of 190 dB re 1uPa at 10 m (33 ft), the circular zone of 

influence (ZOI) surrounding a 24-inch steel diesel-driven pile can be estimated to have a radius of 1,040 

feet for the Level B behavioral harassment threshold (160 RMS) and 105 feet for Level A injurious 

harassment for cetaceans (180 dB RMS) and 33 feet for Level A injurious harrassment for pinnipeds (190 

dB RMS) (Table 3.9-3). It should be noted that ELCAS pier construction starts with piles being driven 

near the shore and extends offshore. Near the shore, the area of influence would be a semi-circle and 

towards the end of the ELCAS (approximately 1,200 feet from the shore) would be a full circle. The 

above calculated area of influence conservatively assumes that all ELCAS piles driven are all driven 

offshore at SSTC, producing a circular zone of influence. 

Noise levels derived from piles removed via vibratory extractor are different than those driven with an 

impact hammer. Steel pilings and a vibratory driver were used for pile driving at the Port of Oakland 

(CADOT 2009). Underwater sound levels during this project for a 24-inch steel pile in 11 m (36 ft) of 

water depth was field measured to be 160 dB RMS. The area where this projects was conducted has a 

harder substrate, which because of the extra effort required to drive the pile, would make these measured 

pile driving sound levels louder (more conservative) than they would if driving into SSTC’s sandy 

substrate. Conservatively using this RMS measurement for SSTC, the zone of influence (ZOI) for a 24-

inch steel pile removed via a vibratory extractor out to the 120 dB RMS Level B behavioral harassment 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-48

threshold can be estimated to be 3,280 feet (Table 3.9-3). Additionally, the distances to the 180 dB RMS 

Level A harassment threshold for cetaceans and the 190 dB RMS Level A harassment threshold for 

pinnipeds can be estimated as 3 and 1 feet, respectively. As discussed above, the above calculated area of 

influence conservatively assumes that all ELCAS piles driven are all driven offshore at SSTC, producing 

a circular zone of influence. 

Table 3.9-3: Maximum Zones of Influence for ELCAS Activities 

Level B 

(Continuous noise) 

Level B 

(Impulse) 

Level A 

(Cetaceans) 

Level A 

(Pinnipeds) 

120 dB RMS 160 dB RMS 180 dB RMS 190 dB RMS 

Installation 

(Pile Driving) N/A 1,040 ft 105 ft 33 ft 

Removal 

(Vibratory) 3,280 ft N/A 3 ft 1 ft 

Based on the assesments conducted, using the methodology discussed in Section 3.9.2.5, and without 

consideration of current mitigation measures, activities under the No Action Alternative are not 

anticipated to expose marine mammals to injury (Level A harassment). However, ELCAS activities could 

result in limited non-injurious (Level B) harassment to cetaceans and pinnipeds during pile removals. 

Specifically, no annual exposures are predicted from pile installation activities, but nine annual exposures 

(6 bottlenose dolphins, 3 harbor seals) from pile removal activities could result in Level B harassment 

(Table 3.9-6). Exposures are not expected for California sea lions or gray whales. As mentioned 

previously, these exposure modeling results are estimates of marine mammal ELCAS sound exposures 

without consideration of standard mitigation and monitoring procedures. 

Table 3.9-6: Estimates of Exposed Species to ELCAS Activities Without Implementation of 

Mitigation Measures: No Action Alternative 

Species 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE: Annual Estimated Mammals 

Exposure 

Level B 

(Continuous) 

Level B 

(Impulse) 

Level A 

(Cetaceans) 

Level A 

(Pinnipeds) 

120 dB RMS 160 dB RMS 180 dB RMS 190 dB RMS 

Cetaceans 

Gray 

Whale 

Installation N/A 0 0 0 

Removal 0 N/A 0 0 

Coastal 

Bottlenose 

Dolphin 

Installation N/A 0 0 0 

Removal 6 N/A 0 0 

Pinnipeds 

California 

Sea Lion 

Installation N/A 0 0 0 

Removal 0 N/A 0 0 

Harbor 

Seal 

Installation N/A 0 0 0 

Removal 3 N/A 0 0 

Total Exposures 9 0 0 0 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-49

As presented for underwater detonations, behavioral responses from exposure to ELCAS pile driving can 

range from no observable response to other behavioral responses discussed previously (Southall 2007, 

NOAA 2009). According to the severity scale response spectrum proposed by Southall et al. (2007), 

responses classified as from 0-3 are brief and minor, those from 4-6 have a higher potential to affect 

foraging, reproduction, or survival and those from 7-9 are likely to affect foraging, reproduction and 

survival. While there is little data on the consequences of sound exposure on vital rates of marine 

mammals, given the limited duration of ELCAS training (<10 days), and the implementation of the 

current mitigation and monitoring procedures in the SSTC, as described in Section 3.9.2.7, potential for 

impacts to individual marine mammals or marine mammal stocks from ELCAS activities will be minimal. 

3.9.2.8.5 Other Acoustic Sources 

Mine Location—Acoustic Pingers 

To facilitate inert mine recovery, high-frequency (35 to 43 kHz) pingers are occasionally attached to 

mines. The source level of the acoustic pinger is 70 - 75 dB re 1 μPa-m and these high frequency sounds 

attenuate rapidly in seawater, so any behavioral effects on marine mammals would be localized if they 

occurred at all. These emissions were not included in the modeling so potential marine mammals 

exposures from these sources were not estimated. However, it is unlikely that effects to marine mammals 

from these sources would be significant because of the limited emission times, rapid attenuation rate of 

high-frequency sound, and the limited area affected by these sources. Location pingers for inert mines do 

not constitute an adverse effect on the physiology and behavior of marine mammals and are not carried 

forward in this EIS. 

Diver Recall Devices 

Underwater exercises involving Navy divers include an underwater notification system alerting divers to 

return to boats or shore to conclude exercises. The noise associated with the Audible Recall Device 

(ARD) is broadband, though most energy is concentrated between 200 and 300 Hz. The duration of a 

diver recall device is one second or less and propagation models indicate that levels drop to below 2 

psi·sec within 23 feet of the source. The ARD is only used at periodic intervals when needed to alert or 

recall underwater divers and do not represent a continuous acoustic source. Disturbance effects on the 

behavior of marine mammals, if any, would be extremely localized and short-term on the order of seconds 

to minutes. Potential avoidance behavior constitutes a minor and temporary change in behavior, with no 

adverse affect to overall behavior patterns. Therefore, recall devices are not carried forward in this EIS 

analysis. 

3.9.2.9 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

Under Alternative 1, the Navy would increase the tempo of training, introduce new types of training 

activities, conduct existing routine training at additional locations within SSTC training areas, establish 

shallow water minefield, introduce new platforms and equipment, and increase access and availability to 

SSTC training areas. These components are discussed in detail in the following subsections. 

3.9.2.9.1 Underwater Detonations 

Underwater detonations occur in shallow water (less than 72 feet) within oceanside training lanes and the 

shock waves propagate over a mostly homogeneous sand substrate. As presented in Section 3.8.2.3.3 of 

(Table 3.8-12), underwater detonations would increase measurably from 103 activities under the No 

Action Alternative to 311 activities under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, five additional activities 

would be conducted: Shock Wave Generator (SWAG) (N1) and Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV) 

Neutralization (N3), Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS) (N7), Demolition Requalification 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-50

and Training/Underwater Detonations (N9), and NSW Underwater Demolition Training (N11) and the 

footprint of activities would be expanded to include SWAG detonations of up to 15 grams Net Explosive 

Weight (NEW) within San Diego Bay (Table 2-2). Zones of exposure were estimated for the different 

charge weights, charge depths, water depths, and seasons. These ZOI calculated ranges are shown in 

Table 3.9-7. 

Shock Wave Generator (N1, Table 2-2) is a new activity under Alternative 1 that will take place within all 

boat training lanes and the San Diego Bay training areas. SWAG is a tool used to disarm enemy limpet 

mines, which have been attached to the hull of a ship. Under Alternative 1, SWAG is expected to occur 

up to 90 times a year in the San Diego Bay and nearshore waters of SSTC boat lanes. 

UUV Neutralization (N3) is a new activity under Alternative 1 that would be conducted within SSTC 

Boat Lanes 1-14. Training consists of placing sequential charges consisting of a Seafox (3.3 pounds) or 

Archerfish (3.57 pounds) charge placed from depths of 10 feet to the bottom in water depths less than 72 

feet. 

AMNS (N7) is a new activity under Alternative 1 that would be conducted within SSTC Boat Lanes 1-14 

(Table 2-2). Training consists of deployment of AMNS underwater vehicle that searches for, locates, and 

destroys mines. The vehicle is self-propelled and unmanned. Ten of the 48 annual activities culminate in 

the AMNS being remotely detonated when it encounters a simulated (inert) mine shape. The 3.3 pound 

NEW charge (PBXN110) would be manually detonated. 

Demolition Requalification and Training/Underwater Detonations (N9) is a new activity under 

Alternative 1 that would be conducted within all boat training lanes. Training consists of requalifying or 

training teams in underwater detonations by conducting detonations on metal plates near the shore. 

Additionally, at depths of 10 to 72 feet, two sequential 12.5 to 13.75-pound charges are placed on the 

bottom or a single 25.5-pound charge is placed from a depth of 20 feet to the bottom. 

NSW Underwater Demolition Training (N11) is a new activity under Alternative 1 would be conducted 

within all training lanes. Up to 40 persons participate in the activity, which involves small groups 

swimming to shore from four inflatable boats located approximately 1,000 yards offshore; boats may be 

beached on shore. A single charge of less than 10 pounds of C-4 explosives (if detonated on the bottom) 

or less than five pounds (if within five feet of the surface) is command detonated near the shoreline in 

water less than 24 feet deep. 

Based on the modeling approach applied, as discussed in Section 3.9.2.4 and without consideration for 

mitigation measures, underwater detonations under Alternative 1 would result in the potential for 

noninjurious (Level B) harassment to cetaceans and pinnipeds, but there would be no potential for 

injurious (Level A) harassment or mortality. The modeled explosive exposure numbers by species are 

presented in Table 3.9-78. Specifically, 153 annual exposures to pressure from underwater detonations 

would result in TTS (Level B harassment). Of these 153 exposures, 98 annual exposures would result in 

TTS for bottlenose dolphins. Exposures of California sea lions comprise the remaining 55 annual 

exposures that would result in TTS. Exposures to grey whales and harbor seals are not anticipated due to 

low species density and the limited zone of influence of the proposed underwater detonations. These 

exposure modeling results are estimates of marine mammal underwater detonation sound exposures 

without consideration of standard mitigation and monitoring procedures. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-51

Table 3.9-7: Maximum Zone of Influence for Underwater Detonation Activities Under Alternative 1. 

Underwater 

Detonation 

Operation 

Charge 

Weight 

Used1 

Season 

Level B 

Harrassment Level A Harrassment Mortality 

Onset of 

TTS2 / NonTTS3

 

(yards) 

Onset of 

slight lung 

injury (13.0 

psi-msec) 

(yards) 

50% TM 

rupture 

(205 dB re 

1μPa2-sec) 

(yards) 

Onset of 

extensive 

lung injury 

(30.5 psimsec) 

(yards) 

Mine 

Countermeasures 20 

Warm 470 360 80 80 

Cold 450 160 80 80 

Floating Mine 5 

Warm 240 20 80 20 

Cold 260 20 80 20 

SWAG 0.033 

Warm 60 0 0 0 

Cold 40 0 0 0 

Unmanned 

Underwater 

Vehicle Activities 

15 

Warm 440 360 80 80 

Cold 400 150 80 80 

Marine Mammal 

Systems Activities 

(sequential) 

29 

Warm 420/740 360 140 90 

Cold 470/650 170 140 90 

Marine Mammal 

Systems Activities 

(individual) 

29 

Warm 400 360 100 90 

Cold 490 170 100 90 

Dive Platoon 

(sequential) 3.5 

Warm 330/470 80 90 50 

Cold 370/560 90 90 50 

Qual/Cert 

(sequential) 13.75 

Warm 330/470 140 100 80 

Cold 370/530 140 100 80 

Qual/Cert 

(individual) 25.5 

Warm 420 300 90 90 

Cold 470 170 90 90 

Mine Neutral 

(sequential) 3.5 

Warm 330/470 80 90 50 

Cold 370/560 90 90 50 

UUV Neutral 

(sequential) 3.57 

Warm 220/260 80 60 50 

Cold 230/280 90 60 50 

AMNS 3.5 

Warm 220 80 40 40 

Cold 230 80 40 40 

1 Charge weights are listed in pounds 

2 Maximum ZOE based on greatest range from dual criteria (182 dB re 1μPa2

-sec or 23 psi) 3 Behavioral Disruption Non-TTS (listed only for (sequential detonations) 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-52

In addition to possible exposures that could result in TTS, the modeling without consideration of 

mitigation measures indicates that detonations under Alternative 1 also would result in the potential for 

114 nonphysiological behavioral exposures. While physiological impacts were calculated for all 

activities, non-physiological behavioral impacts were calculated only for those exercises which involved 

multiple detonations during a training scenario. Coastal bottlenose dolphins were predicted to have a 

similar number of non-physiological behavioral exposures in both the warm (30) and cold (40) seasons, 

while California sea lions were predicted to have a higher number of non-physiological behavioral 

exposures during the cold season (40) than in the warm season (4). Modeling estimates indicate that no 

exposures of either coastal bottlenose dolphins or California sea lions exceeded injury criteria suggesting 

that risk of injury was low during a year of training at SSTC. 

Table 3.9-8: Modeled Estimates of Species Exposed to Underwater Detonations Without 

Implementation of Mitigation Measures under Alternative 1 

Species 

ALTERNATIVE 1: Season Average Mammals Exposure 

(All Sources) 

Level B 

Behavior 

(MSE only) 

Level B 

TTS 

Level A 

Injury 

Level A 

Mortality 

177 dB 182 dB 

/ 23 psi 

205 dB 

/ 13.0 psi-ms 30.5 psi-ms 

Cetaceans 

Gray 

Whale 

Warm - - - - 

Cold 0 0 0 0 

Coastal 

Bottlenose 

Dolphin 

Warm 30 43 0 0 

Cold 40 55 0 0 

Pinnipeds 

California 

Sea Lion 

Warm 4 4 0 0 

Cold 40 51 0 0 

Harbor 

Seal 

Warm 0 0 0 0 

Cold 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures 114 153 0 0 

To reduce the potential for behavioral or physiological damage such as TTS or injury, a safety zone 

would be established around each detonation area. As discussed in Section 3.9.3, the current safety zone 

for 24 to 72 feet of water depth would be increased to 2,220 feet to accommodate the largest Level B 

behavioral harassment ZOI under Alternative 1 (MMS sequential detonations). The safety zone for VSW 

underwater detonations (in zero to 24 feet of water), would remain the same. Operations would not be 

conducted if marine mammals are sited in the safety zone. This type of mitigation would likely prevent 

animals from being exposed to the loudest explosive effects that could potentially result in behavioral, 

TTS or PTS and more intense behavioral reactions. Implementation of current mitigation and monitoring 

procedures in the SSTC, as described in Section 3.9.1.7, would minimize the potential for marine 

mammal exposures to underwater detonations. With implementation of mitigation measures, it is 

anticipated that exposures will be primarily behavioral, and are highly unlikely to disrupt overall behavior 

patterns such as migrating, breeding, feeding and sheltering, of marine mammals in the ROI. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-53

3.9.2.9.2 Aircraft Activities 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in similar effects to marine mammals as previously 

described under the No Action Alternative. The types of air activities proposed for Alternative 1 are 

consistent with those described under the No Action Alternative, although the frequency would increase 

and five new activities would be conducted (N4-N8, Table 2-2). As presented in Chapter 2 (Table 2-2 and 

2-3) and detailed in Appendix C, helicopter activities over San Diego Bay and ocean waters within the 

ROI would more than double under Alternative 1 as compared to the No Action Alternative. Helicopter 

activities would have the greatest impact because of the low flying and hovering at altitudes down to 100 

feet. Disturbance of marine mammals from the noise, physical presence, or sea surface disturbance from 

aircraft within the ROI would be limited to animals utilizing the area immediately adjacent to the activity 

and likely only within upper-most section of the water column. Any temporary effect to marine mammals 

near the surface remains a low probability considering the temporal variability of both training actions 

and the potential for marine mammals to be present near the sea surface within a specific training area. It 

is likely that few animals would be in the area and those approaching the area would avoid it if aircraft 

activities are being conducted. Therefore, there would be minimal effects to marine mammals from 

aircraft activities as a result of implementation of Alternative 1 and these effects are highly unlikely to 

disrupt overall behavior patterns such as migrating, breeding, feeding and sheltering, of marine mammals 

in the ROI. 

In addition, one new air activity utilizing helicopters with a mounted Light Detection and Ranging 

(LIDAR) blue-green laser used to detect, classify, and localized floating and near-surface mines in 

shallow water (N5) would be added under Alternative 1 (Table 2-2). Zorn et al. (1998) collected 

information about current laser safety standards and investigated retinal damage mechanisms for humans, 

and research on eye anatomy for humans, cetaceans, and pinnipeds in an attempt to determine laser safety 

thresholds for cetaceans and pinnipeds. Zorn et al. developed a sensitivity ratio to compare the human eye 

sensitivity to that of marine mammals and concluded that the human eye is more sensitive to laser 

radiation than either the cetacean eye or the pinniped eye. 

Cetaceans and pinnipeds have adapted to living in bright sunlight and dark ocean waters. In bright light, a 

highly constricted pupil keeps the received energy levels down, while in darker conditions, a pupil can be 

fully opened to admit as much light as possible. It is unlikely an animal would have fully dilated pupils at 

the surface, especially during daylight hours. If marine mammals were directly illuminated by a LIDAR 

source, this highly constricted pupil would further reduce the received energy, as Airborne Laser Mine 

Detection System activities are restricted to daylight hours. Although the likelihood that an oceanographic 

LIDAR’s laser beam would directly contact a cetacean or pinniped eye is unknown, both cetaceans and 

pinnipeds spend a significant amount of time underwater and are widely scattered at sea. Large groupings 

at sea are easy to spot and would be avoided by helicopter operators. Combining this information with the 

low number of annual activities, temporal variability of training actions, lower sensitivity to laser 

radiation, low potential for marine mammals to be present near or at the sea surface within a specific 

training area, and the low probability of direct eye contact of a moving LIDAR laser, the use of LIDAR 

poses a minimal risk to marine mammals. 

3.9.2.9.3 Marine Vessels 

Marine vessels increase in use and scope under Alternative 1 compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Increases to on water activity by marine vessels in both ocean and San Diego Bay training areas would 

increase the probability of effect on marine mammals from disturbance and physical injury, though the 

anticipated level of impact from these activities is expected to remain low. The greatest increases to 

marine vessel activities would be attributed to new activities; SWAG (N1) and Surf Zone Test 

Detachment (N2) as well as increases to existing activities, SDV/ASDS Cert training and Barge 

Ferry/Causeway Coxswain training (Table 2-2). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-54

3.9.2.9.4 Amphibious and Beach Activities 

ELCAS / Pile Driving 

Under Alternative 1, the number of ELCAS events will increase from two to four activities annually. The 

training locations, pile driver, and pile type and size would remain the same as in the No Action 

Alternative. As such, the ZOIs shown in Table 3.9-3 for pile driving would also be the same as in the No 

Action Alternative. 

Based on assessments conducted (discussed in Section 3.9.2.5), and without consideration of current 

mitigation measures, activities under Alternative 1 are not expected to cause injury (Level A harassment) 

to marine mammals. However, ELCAS pile removal activities could result in behavioral (Level B) 

harassment to 18 cetaceans and pinnipeds (Table 3.9-9). As mentioned previously, these exposure 

modeling results are estimates of marine mammal ELCAS sound exposures without consideration of 

standard mitigation and monitoring procedures. 

Table 3.9-9: Estimates of Exposed Species to ELCAS Activities Without Implementation of 

Mitigation Measures under Alternative 1 

Species 

Annual Estimated Mammals Exposure 

Level B 

(Continuous) 

Level B 

(Impulse) 

Level A 

(Cetaceans) 

Level A 

(Pinnipeds) 

120 dB RMS 160 dB RMS 180 dB RMS 190 dB RMS 

Cetaceans 

Gray 

Whale 

Installation N/A 0 0 0 

Removal 0 N/A 0 0 

Coastal 

Bottlenose 

Dolphin 

Installation N/A 0 0 0 

Removal 12 N/A 0 0 

Pinnipeds 

California 

Sea Lion 

Installation N/A 0 0 0 

Removal 0 N/A 0 0 

Harbor 

Seal 

Installation N/A 0 0 0 

Removal 6 N/A 0 0 

Total Exposures 18 0 0 0 

The available scientific literature suggest that introduction of pile driving into the marine environment 

could result in short term behavioral and/or physiological marine mammal impacts such as: altered 

headings; increased swimming rates; changes in dive, surfacing, respiration, feeding, and vocalization 

patterns; masking, and hormonal stress production (Southall et al., 2007); however, some field studies 

also suggest marine mammals do not observably respond to construction type sounds such as drilling 

(e.g., Richardson et al., 1990, 1991; Moulton et al., 2005). Individual animal responses are likely to be 

highly variable depending on situational state, and prior experience or habituation. Southall et al. 2007 

point out that careful distinction must be made of brief minor, biologically unimportant reactions as 

compared to profound, sustained or biologically meaningful responses related to growth, survival, and 

reproduction. Populations of bottlenose dolphins, California sea lions, and harbor seals in and adjacent to 

San Diego Bay and SSTC have likely been historically exposed and potentially habituated to multiple 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-55

regional anthropogenic underwater noise sources (i.e., commercial shipping, recreational boating, inwater construction, aircraft overflights, etc.) 

The implementation of the current mitigation and monitoring procedures in the SSTC, as described in 

Section 3.9.2.7, will minimize the potential for impacts to individual marine mammals or marine mammal 

stocks from ELCAS activities. 

Other Acoustic Sources 

Two activities are proposed under Alternative 1 that introduce an additional source of high-frequency 

noise into the marine environment. UUV Neutralization and AN/AQS-20 Mine Hunting (N3 and N4) 

introduce high-frequency sidescan sonars, which are operated at frequencies greater than 200 kHz. It is 

important to note that, as a group, marine mammals have functional hearing ranging from 10 Hertz (Hz) 

to 180 kHz; however, their best hearing sensitivities are well below that level. Since sonar sources 

operating at 180 kHz or higher attenuate rapidly and are at or outside the upper frequency limit of even 

the ultrasonic species of marine mammals, further consideration and modeling of these higher frequency 

acoustic sources are not warranted. 

3.9.2.10 Alternative 2 

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the total operational training tempo to the same levels as 

presented for Alternative 1 (Table 2-2 and 2-3). Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would include the 

introduction of new types of training; conducting existing routine training at additional locations within 

SSTC established training areas, and increasing access to and availability of existing beach and inland 

training areas. The only difference between Alternative 1 and 2 is that all SSTC-N oceanside beach 

training areas would be available for use, regardless of time of year. Since the differences between 

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are terrestrial, the impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be the 

same as those described above for Alternative 1. 

3.9.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Given implementation of the current mitigation measures for SSTC activities (described in detail in 

Section 3.9.1.7), there would be minimal impacts to marine mammals under any of the alternative actions 

considered in this EIS. 

Mitigation measures for oceanside underwater detonations would remain the same as described in Section 

3.9.1.7; however, the safety buffer for shallow water detonations (in 24 to 72 feet of water) would be 

increased to 2,220 feet. The safety buffer increase would accommodate the largest Level B behavioral 

harassment ZOI shown in Table 3.9-7 under Alternatives 1 and 2 (MMS sequential detonations). 

In addition, the Navy would implement mitigation measures for underwater detonations involving 

SWAG, which are proposed in Alternative 1 and 2, but are not currently conducted. Mitigation measures 

for SWAG detonation training are described below. Similar to existing mitigation measures, the physical 

topography, the lack of protected species on the range, and the type of Navy training routines allow for 

exceptionally reliable and effective mitigation procedures. Marine mammal species can be detected 

within a radius that extends out to the distance at which only the lowest degree of TTS would be expected 

to occur. That is, the procedures described in this section mitigate the potential for Level A harassment by 

injury and Level B harassment associated with TTS since explosives are not detonated when protected 

species are in the area associated with those effects. Mysticetes and large odontocetes are rarely, if ever, 

present in the shallow offshore waters of the SSTC. Were large marine mammals to approach the area—

even far beyond the mitigation zone—they would be immediately obvious to the shore or safety-boat 

observers. The SSTC ROI is not known to be a preferred feeding site for small marine mammals. Thus, 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-56

the principal concern is for protection of small odontocetes (dolphins and small whales) and carnivora 

(sea lions) that only occasionally transit though the site. It follows that the mitigation zones, to be 

described below, are determined by estimates of the propagated peak-pressure and energy in the 1/3 

octave-band of highest energy above 100 Hz—i.e., in the range of hearing of small odontocetes. 

The following mitigation measures are consistent with existing training objectives and activities as well as 

established human safety procedures. In case of unanticipated conflict, human safety considerations will 

take precedence and such conflicts are always used to make incremental improvements in the procedures 

used in subsequent activities. 

For SWAG charges laid bayside on SSTC at the locations described: 

1. A safety buffer zone of 180 feet will be established around each SWAG detonation point. 

2. Observer(s) with binoculars and small craft will survey the detonation area and the safety buffer 

zone for marine mammals from at least 10 minutes prior to commencement of the scheduled 

explosive event until at least 10 minutes after detonation. Observers will pay extra attention 

within the buffer zone to large amounts of floating kelp strands and other marine debris (if any), 

since these may provide shelter and food for marine mammal prey. 

3. Divers placing charges on mines and dive support vessels will check the area immediately around 

the mine location for marine mammals. 

4. If a marine mammal is sighted within the buffer zone or moving towards it, exercises will be 

suspended until the animal has voluntarily left the area and the area is clear of sea turtles and 

marine mammals for at least 10 minutes. 

5. Immediately following the detonation, visual monitoring for marine mammals within the buffer 

zone will continue for 10 minutes. Any animals appearing will be observed for signs of injury. 

Injured marine mammals will be reported to the CNRSW Environmental Director, the PACFLT 

Environmental Office, and NMFS. 

3.9.4 Impacts to Marine Mammal Species or Stocks 

Overall, the conclusions in this analysis find that impacts to marine mammal species and stocks would be 

negligible for the following reasons: 

• Acoustic harassments are within the non-injurious temporary threshold shift (TTS) or behavioral 

effects zones (Level B harassment). There are no exposures to sound levels or pressure that could 

cause permanent threshold shift (PTS)/injury (Level A harassment) resulting from the summation 

of the modeling. 

• Although the numbers presented for the No Action Alternative (Table 3.9-5 and 3.9-6), 

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (Table 3.9-8 and 3.9-9) represent estimated harassment under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as described above, they are likely overestimates of 

harassment, primarily by behavioral disturbance. In addition, the model calculates harassment 

without taking into consideration standard mitigation measures, and is not indicative of a 

likelihood of either injury or harm. 

• Additionally, the mitigation measures described in Section 3.9.1.7 and Section 3.9.3 are designed 

to reduce sound exposure of marine mammals to levels below those that may cause “behavioral 

disruptions” and to achieve the least practicable adverse effect on marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Consideration of negligible impact is required for NMFS to authorize incidental take of marine mammals. 

By definition, an activity has a “negligible impact” on a species or stock when it is determined that the 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-57

total taking is not likely to reduce annual rates of adult survival or recruitment (i.e., offspring survival, 

birth rates). Using each species’ life history information, the expected behavioral patterns in the SSTC 

training and exercise locations, and an analysis of the behavioral disturbance levels in comparison to the 

overall population presented for each species, these species-specific analyses support the conclusion that 

proposed SSTC training events would have a negligible impact on marine mammal populations. 

3.9.5 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 

There are no unavoidable adverse environmental effects on marine mammals. Implementation of 

protective measures minimizes any impacts associated with SSTC training activities. 

3.9.6 Summary of Effects 

Modeling estimates for the No Action Alternative indicate that no exposures would result in slight injury, 

severe injury, or mortality of any marine mammal. Without implementation of current mitigation 

measures, 78 annual exposures to pressure from underwater detonations could result in TTS and 68 

annual exposures could result in nonphysiological behavioral exposures (Level B harassments). In 

addition, nine annual exposures (6 bottlenose dolphins, 3 harbor seals) from pile removal activities could 

result in Level B harassment. However, implementation of the current mitigation measures will minimize 

the potential impacts to marine mammal species in the SSTC and the remaining potential impacts are 

highly unlikely to disrupt overall behavior patterns such as migrating, breeding, feeding and sheltering, of 

marine mammals in the ROI. 

Modeling estimates for Alternatives 1 and 2 indicate that without implementation of current mitigation 

measures, 153 annual exposures to pressure from underwater detonations could result in TTS and 114 

annual exposures could result in nonphysiological behavioral exposures (Level B harassments). In 

addition, 18 annual exposures (12 bottlenose dolphins, 6 harbor seals) from pile removal activities could 

result in Level B harassment.No exposures would result in slight injury, severe injury, or mortality. 

However, implementation of the current mitigation measures will minimize the potential impacts to 

marine mammal species in the SSTC. 

Based on the above analysis, the Navy has submitted an application for an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization to NMFS per the requirements of MMPA for proposed training activities that have the 

potential to incidentally take marine mammals. 

Table 3.9-10 presents a summary of effects and mitigation measures for the No Action Alternative, 

Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MARINE MAMMALS 3.9-58

Table 3.9-10: Summary of Effects 

Alternative Effects 

No Action Alternative

• Modeling estimates for the No Action Alternative indicate that exposures are 

not expected to result in slight injury, severe injury, or mortality of marine 

mammals. Without implementation of current mitigation measures, 

underwater detonations and pile driving could result in behavioral and TTS 

(Level B) harassment exposures. However, implementation of current 

mitigation measures minimizes potential impacts to marine mammal species 

in the SSTC ROI. 

• The implementation of current mitigation and monitoring procedures in the 

SSTC will minimize the potential for marine mammal exposures to piledriving noise associated with ELCAS activities. 

• Ship collisions are unlikely due to the low density of marine mammals in the 

area. 

Alternative 1 

• Modeling estimates for Alternative 1 indicate that without implementation of 

current mitigation measures, an increased tempo of underwater detonations 

and pile driving could result in an increase of behavioral and TTS (Level B) 

harassment. No exposures are expected to result in slight injury, severe 

injury, or mortality. Implementation of current mitigation measures would 

minimize potential impacts to marine mammal species in the SSTC ROI. 

• Ship collisions are unlikely due to the low density of marine mammals in the 

area. 

• Effects from other activities are the same as described under the No Action 

Alternative. 

Alternative 2 • With implementation of current mitigation measures, effects are the same as 

described under Alternative 1. 

Mitigation 

• Mitigation measures for underwater detonations and ELCAS activities 

include monitoring of safety buffer zones and restriction of activities to when 

marine mammals are outside prescribed buffer zones. 
3.10 Sea Turtles 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-1

3.10 SEA TURTLES

3.10.1 Affected Environment 

3.10.1.1 Introduction 

3.10.1.1.1 Definition of Resource 

Sea turtles are long-lived reptiles that can be found throughout the world’s tropical, subtropical, and 

temperate seas (Caribbean Conservation Corporation and Sea Turtle Survival League 2003). There are 

seven living species of sea turtles from two distinct families: the Cheloniidae (hardshelled sea turtles; six 

species), and the Dermochelyidae (leatherback turtle; one species). These two families can be 

distinguished from one another on the basis of their carapace (upper shell) and other morphological 

features. 

Over the last few centuries, sea turtle populations have declined dramatically due to anthropogenic 

(human-related) activities such as coastal development, oil exploration, commercial fishing, marine-based 

recreation, pollution, and overharvesting (Eckert 1995). As a result, all six species of sea turtles found in 

United States (U.S.) waters are listed as either threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA). 

Sea turtles are highly adapted for life in the marine environment. Sea turtles possess powerful, modified 

forelimbs (or flippers) that enable them to swim continuously for extended periods of time (Wyneken 

1997), unlike terrestrial and freshwater turtles. They also have compact and streamlined bodies that help 

to reduce drag. Additionally, sea turtles are among the longest and deepest diving of the air-breathing 

vertebrates, spending as little as 3 to 6 percent of their time at the water’s surface (Lutcavage and Lutz 

1997). Sea turtles often travel thousands of miles between their nesting beaches and feeding grounds, 

which makes their adaptations very important (Ernst et al. 1994; Meylan 1995). 

Although they are specialized for life at sea, sea turtles begin their lives on land. Aside from this brief 

terrestrial period, which lasts approximately 8 to 10 weeks as eggs and an additional few minutes to a few 

hours as hatchlings scrambling to the surf, sea turtles are rarely encountered out of the water. Sexually 

mature females return to land in order to nest, while certain species in the Hawaiian Islands, Australia, 

and the Galapagos Islands haul-out on land in order to bask (Carr 1995; Spotila et al. 1997). Sea turtles 

bask to thermoregulate, elude predators, avoid mating; and possibly to accelerate the development of their 

eggs, accelerate their metabolism, and destroy aquatic algae growth on their carapaces (Whittow and 

Balazs 1982; Spotila et al. 1997). 

Female sea turtles nest in tropical, subtropical, and warm-temperate latitudes, often in the same region or 

on the same beach where they hatched (Miller 1997). Upon selecting a suitable nesting beach, most sea 

turtles renest in proximity during subsequent nesting attempts. The leatherback turtle diverges from this 

pattern. This species nests primarily on beaches with little reef or rock offshore, where erosion reduces 

the probability of nest survival. To compensate, leatherbacks scatter their nests over larger geographic 

areas and lay, on average, two times as many clutches as other species (Eckert 1987). 

Four species of sea turtles have been reported in the Southern California Bight (SCB) (National Marine 

Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) [NMFS and USFWS] 1998a, 1998d, 1998e, 1998f). 

The east Pacific green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), and the 

olive ridley sea turtle (Lepodochelys olivacea) are members of the family Cheloniidae; the leatherback sea 

turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is the sole living species of the Dermochelidae family. None of the four 

species is known to nest on Southern California beaches. Nesting by olive ridley turtles occurs along the 

Pacific coast of Baja California Sur, which is the northernmost known nesting site in the eastern north 

Pacific (Fritts et al. 1982; Sarti-M. et al. 1996; NMFS 1998f, López-Castro et al. 2000). Due to the 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-2

oceanic distributions of the leatherback, loggerhead, and olive ridley turtles off Southern California, the 

coastal waters of the Pacific Ocean are designated as an area of primary occurrence for all sea turtle 

species (NMFS 1998a, 1998d, 1998e, 1998f); although their presence within Southern California is 

considered rare, with the exception of South San Diego Bay. 

The leatherback turtles found off the U.S. west coast migrate from the western north Pacific (Indochina 

and Papua NewGuinea) or from eastern north Pacific nesting beaches (Central America and Mexico) and 

are predominantly a pelagic species that forages in productive coastal waters north of Point Conception, 

California or off the coast of Peru and Chile. Stinson (1984) has provided evidence that most of the 

leatherbacks in northern California and Oregon enter the coastal zone in July from offshore in association 

with the 13o to 15oC isotherms. The arrival of these turtles is associated with the arrival and occurrence of 

the 18o to 20oC isotherms not characteristic of the coastal regions near Silver Strand Training Complex 

(SSTC) during late spring and early summer when loggerhead turtles are found off the U.S. west coast 

migrating from nesting beaches in Japan. 

This section discusses the east Pacific green, loggerhead, leatherback and olive ridley sea turtles for the 

purpose of comparing environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

3.10.1.1.2 Regional Setting 

The offshore project area is part of the Pacific Ocean region referred to as the SCB. The colder, more 

northerly California Current and the southern, warm-water, California Counter Current influence the 

water of SCB. These two currents mix in the Santa Barbara Channel. The waters of the southern SCB are 

higher in temperature and salinity than those of the northern portion (Hickey 1993). These differing 

conditions, as well as upwelling of cooler, nutrient-rich waters, influence the unusually diverse marine 

biota within the SCB region (Murray and Littler 1981). 

San Diego Bay is a naturally formed, crescent-shaped embayment. It is separated from the Pacific Ocean 

by the Silver Strand peninsula, a long, narrow sand spit, which extends from the City of Imperial Beach to 

North Island. From the mouth of Otay River to the tip of Point Loma, San Diego Bay is about 15 miles 

long. 

3.10.1.1.3 Region of Influence 

The only turtle found in San Diego Bay waters is the east Pacific green sea turtle (Macdonald et al. 1990). 

This species is found in warm waters throughout the world, where the turtles follow the 18°C isotherm 

temperatures in the ocean (Eckert 2002); San Diego Bay represents the one turtles’ northernmost dwelling 

habitat. None of the four species of sea turtles reported along the west coast of the United States nest 

there. Nesting grounds are in Mexico, Central America, and various Pacific islands. Neither the 

loggerhead nor olive ridley sea turtle are expected to be present in San Diego Bay; but potentially, either 

species could occur offshore in extremely low numbers. 

The marine region of Influence (ROI) can be partitioned into three zones: the bayside training zones 

within the San Diego Bay (sandy beaches, mudflats, and the nearshore environment); portions of the 

intertidal to nearshore (<0.5 nautical miles [nm]) ocean area off the southern beaches of Naval Air 

Station, North Island (NASNI); and the intertidal to nearshore (<3 nm) ocean area encompassing the 

training lanes at SSTC-N and SSTC-S, and ocean anchorages. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-3

3.10.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species 

3.10.1.2.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle 

The loggerhead sea turtle is listed as threatened under the ESA, and the population appears to be 

declining. Loggerheads occur worldwide in tropical to temperate waters. Although they are rare in this 

area, they have been reported from Alaska to Chile, with thousands being seen off Baja California 

(Pitman 1990); they do not appear to nest in the eastern or central Pacific. Most loggerhead sightings were 

reported off Baja California, with the largest concentrations sited off the coast of Bahia Magdalena. 

Strandings and sightings along the west coast have been in southern California; although, a few sightings 

were reported off Washington (Hodge 1982). Due to their presence around the SCB, loggerheads could be 

expected to appear in the ROI. 

Juvenile loggerheads have been reported year-round off southern California (Guess 1981a, b; Stinson 

1984). These may represent the northern range limits of a much larger population of juveniles present off 

the west coast of Baja California (Pitman 1990). Both adults and juveniles are most often seen from July 

through September (Stinson 1984), although sightings are not common; in fact, adults are rarely seen. 

Sightings are more frequent during El Niño events, reflecting the preference that cheloniids have for 

warmer waters. During the period 1988 through 2008, six strandings of loggerhead turtles were reported 

in San Diego County, two were determined to be entrainment related, two marine debirs related, and the 

remaining two were undetermined (NMFS 2009). 

Loggerheads prey on benthic invertebrates; but fish and plants are also eaten. Juveniles off Baja 

California eat pelagic red crabs (Pleuroncodes planipes) (NMFS 1998e). 

3.10.1.2.2 Olive Ridley Sea Turtle 

The olive ridley sea turtle are globally listed as threatened under the ESA except for the Pacific coast of 

Mexico’s breeding population, which is listed as endangered. The stock is declining, even though the 

olive ridley sea turtle is considered the most abundant sea turtle in the world. Clifton et al. (1982) 

estimated that the olive ridley Mexican breeding population off the Pacific coast of Mexico numbered 

over 10,000,000. Though the practice has been discontinued, in 1968 alone, over 1,000,000 olive ridleys 

were harvested in Mexico (Carr 1972). 

The olive ridley sea turtle is found around the world in tropical to temperate waters. The usual range of 

the eastern Pacific olive ridley is from Baja California to Peru, within 1,200 nm of shore (NMFS 1998). 

Stinson (1984) reported only ten sightings of this species north of Baja California (29o 45’ N) and 

considered it rare off southern California. Juveniles have been reported offshore, while most sightings of 

adults and subadults are in water less than 165 feet deep off the coast. During the period 1988 through 

2008, six strandings were reported in San Diego County, three were determined to be illness-related and 

the remainining three were undetermined (NMFS 2009). It would be rare, but possible to encounter olive 

ridley sea turtles in the ROI, and only in the warmest months. 

Olive ridleys prey on benthic fish, mollusks, crustaceans, tunicates, and algae. Pelagic prey includes 

jellyfish, salps, and pelagic red crabs (NMFS 1998). 

3.10.1.2.3 Leatherback Turtle 

The leatherback turtle was listed as endangered throughout its range in June 1970 (Federal Register Vol. 

35 No. 106 pp 8491-8498). The leatherback is associated with continental shelf habitats and pelagic 

environments. It is uncommon in the insular Pacific, but individuals are sometimes encountered in deep 

water, near prominent archipelagoes (NMFS 1998d). To a large extent, the oceanic distribution of 

leatherbacks may reflect the distribution and abundance of macroplanktonic prey. (NMFS 1998d, 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-4

NMFS2007b). In response to a September 2007 petition to designated leatherback critical habitat off 

California and Oregon, NMFS determined the information presented in the petition warranted 

consideration of designation and will soon publish its proposed determination in the Federal Register. 

The world leatherback turtle population is estimated at 35,860 females (Spotila 2004). Leatherbacks are 

seriously declining at all major Pacific basin rookeries. Nesting along the Pacific coast of Mexico 

declined at an annual rate of 22 percent over the last 12 years, and the Malaysian population represents 

one percent of the levels recorded in the 1950s (NMFS 2006). 

The leatherback is the most widely distributed sea turtle, ranging far from its tropical and subtropical 

breeding grounds. It has the most extensive range of any adult, being found from 71oN to 47oS (Eckert, 

1995). Leatherbacks are highly pelagic and approach coastal waters only during the reproductive season 

(EuroTurtle 2001). Postnesting adult leatherbacks appear to migrate along bathymetric contours from 650 

to 11,500 ft (200 to 3,500 m) (Morreale et al. 1994), and most of the eastern Pacific nesting stocks 

migrate south (NMFS 2002a). 

The leatherback turtle is rare in the waters of Southern California and sightings are infrequent within San 

Diego County or adjacent nearshore waters.. During the period 1988 through 2008, nine strandings were 

reported in San Diego County, two were determined to be entrainment related, one fishery related and the 

remaining six were undetermined (NMFS 2009).It would be unlikely to encounter leatherback turtles, 

except in the offshore waters due to its preference for the pelagic habitat; and even then and encounter 

would likely only occur in July to September. 

3.10.1.2.4 Pacific Green Sea Turtle 

The green sea turtle is globally listed as threatened under the ESA, except for Florida’s and the Pacific 

coast of Mexico’s breeding population, which is listed as endangered. The worldwide population is 

estimated at 88,520 nesting females (Spotila 2004). Population estimates for the eastern Pacific region 

that includes the ROI are approximated because juvenile and male sea turtles do not come ashore, and are 

difficult to count. Population data are usually based on the numbers of adult females coming ashore to 

nest, but these numbers can be ambiguous: Some females nest every two to three years; some may nest 

more than once on the same beach in a season; and some visit more than one nesting beach in a season. 

Researchers rely on the changing numbers of nesting females from year-to-year to determine population 

trends. Because broad year-to-year fluctuations in numbers of nesting females make short-term data 

misleading, surveys of a decade or less may be insufficient to determine a population trend (NMFS 2008). 

Currently between 200 and 1,000 green sea turtles nest on beaches in the continental United States; no 

green sea turtles have been documented to nest on the west coast. Green sea turtles are capable of 

transoceanic migrations, but use coastal and open ocean waters within several hundred to one thousand 

kilometers of nesting grounds. In the eastern North Pacific, green turtles have been sighted from Baja 

California to southern Alaska, but most commonly occur from San Diego south (NMFS 2008). 

Stinson (1984) reviewed sea turtle sighting records from northern Baja California to Alaska, and 

determined that the east Pacific green turtle was the most commonly observed hard-shelled sea turtle on 

the Pacific coast. Most of the sightings (62.0 percent) were reported from northern Baja California and 

southern California. The northernmost reported resident population occurs in San Diego Bay (Stinson 

1984; Dutton and McDonald 1990a; 1990b; 1992; Dutton et al. 1994). Although green turtles are sighted 

throughout the year in the waters of southern California, the highest frequency of sightings occurred 

during the warm summer months of July through October (Stinson 1984). In waters south of Point 

Conception, Stinson (1984) found this seasonal sighting pattern to be independent of inter-year 

temperature fluctuations. North of Point Conception, more sightings occurred during warmer years. Green 

turtles appear to prefer waters that usually remain around 20°C in the coldest month. During warm spells, 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-5

such as El Niño, green turtles may be found considerably north of their normal distribution. Stinson 

(1984) found green turtles to appear most frequently in U.S. coastal waters with temperatures exceeding 

18°C. An east Pacific green turtle equipped with a satellite transmitter was tracked along the California 

coast and showed a distinct preference for waters with temperatures above 20°C (Eckert, unpublished 

data). The Green sea turtle is the most common sea turtle observed in the waters of Southern California 

but sightings remain rare within San DiegoCounty or adjacent nearshore waters. During the period 1988 

through 2008, 55 strandings were reported in San Diego County of which nine were determined to be 

related to boat collisions (NMFS 2009) 

The two closest breeding populations to the ROI are located in Mexico: Isla Revillagigedos and 

Michoacan. Estimates from index calculations project there are 900 and 1400 individuals in each 

respective population. Green sea turtles are well documented at year-around feeding areas, such as those 

located on the west coast of Baja California, in the Gulf of California (Sea of Cortez), and along the coast 

of Oaxaca (NMFS 1998b). Green turtles primarily use three types of habitat: oceanic beaches (for 

nesting), convergence zones in the open-ocean, and benthic feeding grounds in coastal areas. Adult 

females migrate from foraging areas to mainland or island nesting beaches and may travel hundreds or 

thousands of kilometers each way. After emerging from the nest, hatchlings swim to offshore areas, 

where they live for several years, feeding close to the surface on a variety of pelagic plants and animals. 

Once the juveniles reach a certain age/size range, they leave the pelagic habitat and travel to nearshore 

foraging grounds. Once they move to these nearshore benthic habitats, adult green turtles are almost 

exclusively herbivores, feeding on sea grasses and algae (accessed online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ turtles/green.htm#habitat). The temperate waters off the Pacific 

coast of Mexico and California provide a wide variety of potential food sources, including several sea 

grasses and algae. Bahía de Los Angeles in the Gulf of California is an important foraging area for green 

turtles (Seminoff et al. 2003). 

Green turtles dive shallower than 100 feet (Hochscheid et al. 1999; Hays et al. 2000); however, they have 

been observed at depths of 220 to 350 feet in the eastern Pacific Ocean (Berkson 1967). The maximum 

dive time recorded for a juvenile green turtle around the Hawaiian Islands is 66 minutes, with routine 

dives ranging from 9 to 23 minutes (Brill et al. 1995). 

San Diego Bay 

The only turtle found in ROI waters is the east Pacific green sea turtle (Macdonald et al. 1990), which is 

listed under ESA as endangered. This species is the same as the Atlantic green sea turtle; however, the 

Pacific stock has distinctive color morphology (Eckert 2002). Many scientists previously believed the 

green sea turtle was not a historical resident of San Diego Bay; now they have concluded that it may have 

naturally sought out San Diego Bay at least during the summer months (Macdonald et al. 1990; Eckert 

2002 and Dutton 1998). In 1857, commercial activities brought sea turtles from Mexico and temporarily 

kept them in pens within San Diego Bay before being shipped north for sale in San Francisco (Stinson 

1984). This practice continued for many decades; a photograph dated 1910 can be seen at the San Diego 

Maritime Museum showing stacks of sea turtles awaiting shipment piled up on a San Diego Bay wharf. 

Some of these turtles escaped and may have become inhabitants of San Diego Bay. 

In the 1920s, San Diego Gas and Electric built a power plant on Broadway in downtown San Diego; and 

then added its Silvergate plant on the eastern shore of San Diego Bay in 1941 (Smith and Graham 1976). 

In 1951, as a product of the power plants’ water cooling systems, discharged effluents were recorded up 

to 8°C warmer than the intake temperature (Terzich 1965). In 1960, San Diego Gas and Electric began 

operating a new, larger power plant in South San Diego Bay, expanding into additional units over the next 

several years. The addition of these plants, and the accompanying warm water discharges, unintentionally 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-6

altered the San Diego Bay abiotic conditions to provide attractive year-around habitat for the warm waterseeking sea turtle. 

The first report of sea turtles in this power plant’s warm water discharge channel was made in 1968 as 

part of a study of the ecological effects of the discharge (Ford 1968). Water temperatures at the surface 

ranged from 35°C at the outfall to 28°C at the end of the 6,000 foot channel, compared to 28°C in central 

San Diego Bay (Ford et al. 1970). 

Green turtles foraging in San Diego Bay and along the Pacific coast of Baja California originate primarily 

from rookeries of the Islas Revillagigedos (Dutton 2003). Both adults and juveniles have been sighted, 

with individuals seen throughout the summer and winter at the San Diego Gas and Electric channel, South 

San Diego Bay, and around Coronado Bridge, near a thick stand of eelgrass (Ford and Chambers 1973; 

Stinson 1984; Macdonald et al. 1990; McDonald and Dutton 1992). Even in temperatures as cold as 14°C, 

turtles are actively swimming in San Diego Bay. They do not breed or nest in San Diego Bay, as they 

need undisturbed beaches for nesting (Macdonald et al. 1990)—those found along the coast of Mexico. 

Tagged individuals are known to return to San Diego Bay in subsequent years for unknown reasons 

(Stinson 1984). Residency time in San Diego Bay is unknown; turtles within the local population were 

satellite tagged and tracked back to Mexico breeding beaches; significant immigration and emigration is 

thought to occur. Based on the number of juveniles recently observed, there is some recruitment into the 

population (McDonald and Dutton 1992), and according to Dutton (2003) the recruitment source is Isla 

Revillagigedos. Warm water El Niño events could stimulate an increase in migrations. 

The resident population of east Pacific green sea turtles in San Diego Bay is approximately 30 to 60 

individuals, increasing to nearly 100 during peak migratory time periods (DoN 2008); however, there is 

limited information about their movements or behavior. It is unknown how often they leave San Diego 

Bay or where they reside when they are outside the South San Diego Bay Power Plant channel. Female 

east Pacific green sea turtles are believed to migrate from San Diego Bay to nesting grounds in Mexico 

prior to nesting season; the remaining male adults and subadults continue to be present within San Diego 

Bay. Eelgrass beds, as well as associated algae and invertebrates known to be food for turtles, are 

extensive in the South and South Central San Diego Bay. Recent information on turtle foraging (Seminoff 

2006) has broadened the general understanding of targeted food items as well as expanded the idea that 

adult green sea turtles are more omnivorous than previously thought. Resident turtles within the ROI may 

be utilizing invertebrates within deeper areas of San Diego Bay, in conjunction with eelgrass and algae as 

food sources. 

Potential habitat for Pacific green sea turtles within San Diego Bay, and adjacent sandy beaches near 

Silver Strand and Imperial Beach—including the ROI—may be utilized during foraging, but are not 

considered suitable for nesting. Foraging by Pacific green sea turtles is concentrated to eelgrass beds and 

to lesser extent invertebrate communities in South and South Central bay, considering the concentration 

of the majority of habitat within those areas (see Figure 3.7-2). Potential foraging areas outside the bay 

associated with kelp beds or eelgrass are primarily located adjacent to the mouth of San Diego Bay 

(Zuniga Jetty) and north towards Point Loma. Silver Strand and Imperial Beach to the south contain 

ephemeral low density macroalgae communities, but are exposed to the dominant western wave action 

and long shore sand transport. Because very little is known about foraging patterns of resident Pacific 

green sea turtles within San Diego Bay, and the majority of sightings have been concentrated in the South 

Bay power plant channel, inferences about movement patterns remain conjecture. 

An ongoing Navy/Port/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-NMFS tracking 

effort is underway to determine the level of movement of the east Pacific green sea turtle within San 

Diego Bay. Approximately 18 turtles in San Diego Bay are tagged with devices that can be read by 

listening stations (hydrophones) in the water. The hydrophones are located in a two-stranded arc 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-7

stretching from the southeast corner of SSTC-N to the north side of Delta South, surrounding the 

Enhancement Island. This double line functions as a gate. If a tagged turtle enters this area, a signature 

will be left on the hydrophones it passes—documenting where it entered the area and where it exited. This 

presence/absence determination will help guide planning for Navy actions and construction, as well as 

guide remediation studies. NOAA’s objectives in the effort are to determine spatial and temporal 

population distributions, preferred habitat, and ingress and egress into San Diego Bay. 

Ecological Role 

Sea turtles are primarily herbivore grazers of marine algae and grasses. Previous studies concluded that 

during the day, San Diego Bay turtles reside in the deeper portion of the South San Diego Bay Power 

Plant warm water discharge channel, and at night feed on eelgrass beds in South San Diego Bay, such as 

Coronado Cays (Stinson 1984). Stomach content analysis revealed that the turtles eat red alga, eelgrass, 

and sea lettuce (Ulva sp.) within South San Diego Bay (McDonald and Dutton 1992). Recent studies 

investigating daily movements and activity ranges of green turtles at Bahia de Los Angeles, a neritic 

foraging area, documented dispersal of turtles while resident at coastal foraging areas (Seminoff and 

Jones 2006). Data suggested that green turtles traversed large distances over limited temporal durations 

visiting multiple habitats. Contrary to previously perceived movement patterns, Seminoff and Jones 

(2006) found that in general, green turtles at Bahia de los Angeles moved throughout the diel cycle with 

greater distances covered during diurnal versus nocturnal periods. 

While young turtles are carnivorous from hatchling until juvenile size and gradually becoming 

herbivorous, they have also been described as opportunistic feeders, eating jellyfish, ctenophores, 

bivalves, or gastropods if readily available (Eckert 2002). The warmer environment of the discharge 

channel appears to have stimulated growth rates in the turtles that are twice that of non-San Diego Bay 

turtles, possibly by increasing their digestive efficiency (McDonald and Dutton 1992). San Diego Bay is 

unique in the eastern Pacific as having the only thermal gradient where turtles can select their optimum 

space (Eckert 2002). The main, warm water effluent of the power plant has allowed the green sea turtle to 

remain in San Diego Bay during the normally cooler winter months. When temperatures rise in the 

channel, turtles disperse throughout San Diego Bay. When temperatures exceeded 29 to 32°C, which is 

approaching their lethal limit (McDonald and Dutton 1992, 1993), no turtles were observed in the 

channel. Their crucial habitat zones in other parts of San Diego Bay in the warmer months are not known. 

Recent sightings in Seal Beach during winter in an embayed settling pond raised the question of the green 

turtles foraging and resident extent with respect to southern California (Robert Schallmann, pers comm.). 

In review, very little information is available on green sea turtles residing in San Diego Bay and to what 

extent they forage or transit within San Diego Bay. 

The turtle has no natural predators in San Diego Bay. Mortalities tend to be caused by various natural and 

human induced causes including collisions with boats or ships (NMFS 2009). Unlike the Hawaiian stock, 

where tumors on green turtles are now epidemic in polluted waters, the San Diego Bay population has 

shown only a few individuals to have fibropapilloma tumors, which usually begin in the eye area 

(McDonald and Dutton 1990; Dutton 1998). 

3.10.1.3 Regulatory Framework 

Sea turtles present at SSTC are listed under ESA. Under ESA, Federal agencies are required to consult 

with NMFS on proposed Federal actions that “may affect” listed species or critical habitat. If a proposed 

Federal action may affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, formal consultation is required 

except when the Services concur that the proposed action “is not likely to adversely affect” listed species 

or designated critical habitat. [50 CFR 402.02, 50 CFR 402.13]. The Navy, based on the assessment 

provided below, believes that the proposed action on SSTC may affect but is not likely to adversely affect 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-8

the listed turtle species found within SSTC. The Navy plans to consult with NMFS on the nature of the 

impacts associated with the proposed action to listed sea turtle species. 

3.10.1.4 Current Mitigation Measures 

Current procedures for monitoring sea turtles before and after underwater detonations are designed to 

prevent harm to these animals. 

1. A safety buffer zone will be established around each detonation point. For detonations occurring 

in zero to 24 feet of water depth (Very Shallow Water, VSW), the safety buffer shall be a 1,300-

foot radius around the detonation point. For detonations occurring in 24 to 72 feet of water depth, 

which is the deepest extent of SSTC, the safety buffer shall be 1,410 feet. These safety buffer 

zones are based off of zones of influence (ZOIs) calculated for marine mammals and are larger 

than those required for sea turtles. 

2. Two observers (one on the beach and one in a small craft for detonations in zero to 24 feet and 

two in small craft for 24 to 72 feet of water depth) with binoculars will survey detonation area 

and the safety buffer zone for sea turtles from at least 30 minutes prior to commencement of the 

scheduled explosive event until at least 30 minutes after detonation. Observers will pay extra 

attention within the buffer zone to large amounts of floating kelp strands and other marine 

flotsam (if any), since these may provide shelter and prey used by sea turtles. 

3. Divers placing charges on mines and dive support vessels will check the area immediately around 

the mine location for sea turtles. 

4. If a vessel not associated with the event is sighted in the buffer zone or headed towards it, 

suspend activities and ensure the area is clear prior to detonation. 

5. If a sea turtle is sighted within the buffer zone or moving towards it, exercises will be suspended 

until the animal has voluntarily left the area and the area is clear of sea turtles for at least 30 

minutes for detonations in 24 to 72 feet and 10 minutes for zero to 24 feet of water depth. 

6. Any animals appearing following the detonation will be observed for signs of injury. Injured sea 

turtles will be reported to the Commander Navy Region Southwest (CNRSW) Environmental 

Director, the Pacific Fleet (PACFLT) Environmental Office, and NMFS Southwest Regional 

Office. 

7. Sequential detonations will be conducted either less than 10 seconds apart or greater than 30 

minutes apart to minimize the potential for harm to animals that may arrive to feed on potential 

fish kill. 

The following mitigation measures for the Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) and pile driving 

activities incorporated the existing range procedures at SSTC and were consistent with existing training 

objectives and activities as well as established human safety procedures. In case of unanticipated conflict, 

human safety considerations take precedence and such conflicts are always used to make incremental 

improvements in the procedures used in subsequent activities. For the ELCAS activities at the locations 

described: 

1. Navy will monitor a 105 foot safety buffer zone (for detail see Section 3.9.2.6) surrounding 

temporary pile removal activities for the presence of sea turtles before, during, and after pile 

removal activities. If sea turtles are found in the area, pile removal activities will be halted until 

the sea turtles have voluntarily left the ZOI. The safety buffer zone is based off of ZOIs 

calculated for marine mammals and is expected to be larger than that required for sea turtles. 

2. Monitoring for sea turtles will take place concurrent with pile removal activities and 30 minutes 

prior to pile removal commencement. A trained observer will be placed on shore, on the ELCAS, 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-9

or in a boat at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for sea turtles and will implement 

shut–down/delay procedures when applicable by calling for shut–down to the hammer operator. 

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences 

This section presents the analysis of potential impacts to sea turtles as a result of implementation of the 

project alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The analysis of effects on turtles concerns direct 

physical injury—the potential for death, injury, and disturbance. Potential effects to sea turtles from 

training events are consistent for all sea turtle species. However, of the four species of sea turtle that could 

potentially be located within the ROI, only the green sea turtle is documented to be present in the ROI. As 

training activities are of short duration and dispersed throughout the ROI, the probability of encounter 

with sea turtle species that are considered rare in the ROI would be extremely low. Therefore, the green 

sea turtle is the only species addressed in this analysis. 

Activities analyzed in this section for all alternatives are (Activities 1-30, 32-35, 37-42, 44-46, 49-53, 57, 

and 77-78, N1-N9, Tables 2-1 and 2-2). Marine vessels provide support to a host of activities and are 

subsequently analyzed for effect; however, portions of training activities in which interactions between 

personnel/craft and turtles are anticipated to be rare, such as swimming, Self-Contained Underwater 

breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) diving, or activities that utilize only non-motorized Combat Raiding 

Rubber Craft (CRRCs) (Activities 54, 55, 56, 60, 64, 67, 69, 70, 71, and 73, Table 2-1), are excluded 

from individual activity analysis as potential impacts from interactions would be minimal to non-existent. 

Training activities that occur exclusively on the land portion of SSTC (Activities 17, 19, 31, 36, 43, 47, 

48, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 66, 65, 68, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, and N10, Tables 2-1 and 2-2) that are not anticipated 

to interact with the marine environment are excluded from this analysis as they are not expected to impact 

turtles that may be present adjacent to the SSTC beach or bayside training areas. 

3.10.2.1 Approach to Analysis 

In order to assess the overall impact of training events on turtle resources in the ROI, the training 

activities were divided into constituent actions that have the potential to impact the environment. Training 

activities were grouped into categories to assess potential effects for similar activities, including, Aircraft 

Activities, Marine Vessel Activities, Underwater Detonations, and Amphibious and Beach Activities. 

These activities occur in a defined manner and space; therefore the effect of these activities on the 

environment can be assessed. For this analysis, activities are described in the following sections to define 

the potential effects the activities may have on turtles within the ROI. Information about the location and 

footprint of these activities was obtained through interviews with Navy training professionals. 

Activities may negatively impact sea turtles through generation of noise and/or pressure waves and by 

causing habitat degradation or loss. Effects on sea turtles vary based on the type, magnitude, duration, and 

distance from the disturbance, as well as the natural history and unique behavior of each species of turtle. 

The following human actions have been documented to affect sea turtles, and may occur in the ROI 

(NMFS 1998): ship or boat strikes, artificial lighting, beach cleaning, beach erosion, beach replenishment, 

coastal construction, and increased human presence. Of these, boat propellers and collisions are 

documented to have killed or harmed turtles in both San Diego and Mission Bay (McDonald and Dutton 

1992). Primarily, many of these human actions are adverse only at nesting beaches, which are not present 

in the ROI thus, most of the actions in the ROI do not directly kill or harm turtles, but instead degrade 

habitat or alter behavior. Foraging behavior within the ROI consists of bottom feeding of eelgrass, algae, 

and attached invertebrates. There is a low probability of turtle’s ingesting byproducts from human actions, 

as most such occurrences are related to sea turtles ingesting plastic bags that are mistaken for jellyfish: 

jellyfish are most abundant in pelagic waters and would not be expected to be present or targeted by 

turtles within the ROI. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-10

A general understanding of sea turtle hearing and possible effects to sea turtles is presented below in 

Sections 3.10.2.1.1 through 3.10.2.1.5 as a basis for which to apply the affects of Navy training activities; 

however, the data obtained on effects of sound and shock waves on turtles is limited, and most 

information regarding effects is based on marine mammal studies. A determination of possible harmful 

effects to sea turtles are significantly limited to the range of data available for any particular type of sound 

source. Additionally, available data focused on turtle disturbances related to effects on behavioral changes 

or foraging patterns from marine vessels, aircraft, or underwater detonations are limited or absent. Given 

the sources of shock waves, sound, and disturbance associated with the activities contained in Chapter 2, 

effects to turtles are grouped by activity. 

3.10.2.1.1 Sea Turtle Hearing 

Sea turtles do not have an auditory meatus or pinna that channels sound to the middle ear; nor do they 

have a specialized tympanum (eardrum), like mammals do. Instead, they have a cutaneous layer and 

underlying subcutaneous fatty layer that function as a tympanic membrane. The subcutaneous fatty layer 

receives and transmits sound to the extracolumella—a cartilaginous disk—located at the entrance to the 

columella, a long, thin, bone that extends from the middle ear cavity to the entrance of the inner ear or 

otic cavity (Ridgway et al. 1969). Sound arriving at the inner ear via the columella is transduced by the 

bones of the middle ear. Sound also arrives by bone conduction through the skull. Sea turtle auditory 

sensitivity is not well studied; though, a few preliminary investigations suggest that it is limited to low 

frequency bandwidths, such as the sound of waves breaking on a beach. 

The role of underwater low frequency hearing in sea turtles is unclear. Sea turtles may use acoustic 

signals from their environment as guideposts during migration, and as a cue to identify their natal beaches 

(Lenhardt et al. 1983). The range of maximum sensitivity for sea turtles is 100 to 800 hertz (Hz), with an 

upper limit of about 2,000 Hz (Lenhardt 1994). The effective range of hearing for green and loggerhead 

sea turtles is 100 to 500 Hz (Ridgway et al. 1969; Moein et al 1994; Bartol and Ketten 2006). Below 80 

Hz sea turtle hearing is less sensitive, but still potentially usable to the animal (Lenhardt 1994). Ridgway 

et al. (1969) used aerial and mechanical stimulation to measure the cochlea in three specimens of green 

turtle; he concluded that they have a useful hearing span of perhaps 60 to 1,000 Hz, but hear best from 

about 200 up to 700 Hz—with their sensitivity falling off considerably below 200 Hz. The maximum 

sensitivity for one animal was at 300 Hz, and for another was at 400 Hz. At the 400 Hz frequency, the 

turtle's hearing threshold was about 64 decibels (dB) in air (approximately 126 dB in water). At 70 Hz, it 

was about 70 dB in air (approximately 132 dB in water). Bartol et al. (1999) reported juvenile loggerhead 

sea turtles could hear sounds between 250 and 1,000 Hz. Lenhardt et al. (1983) applied audio frequency 

vibrations at 250 and 500 Hz to the heads of loggerheads and ridleys submerged in salt water to observe 

their behavior, measure the attenuation of the vibrations, and assess any neural-evoked response. These 

stimuli were chosen as representative of the lowest sensitivity area of marine turtle hearing (Wever 1978). 

At the maximum upper limit of the vibratory delivery system, the turtles exhibited abrupt movements, 

slight retraction of the head, and extension of the limbs in the process of swimming. Lenhardt et al. 

(1983) concluded that bone-conducted hearing appears to be a reception mechanism for at least some of 

the sea turtle species, with the skull and shell acting as receiving surfaces. Finally, sensitivity within the 

optimal hearing range is apparently low—as threshold detection levels in water are high at 160 to 200 dB 

referenced to 1 micropascal meter (dB re 1 μPa-m) (Lenhardt 1994). 

3.10.2.1.2 Effects of Shock Waves 

Several factors determine a turtle’s susceptibility to injury and death from shock wave effects. Most blast 

injuries in turtles and other marine animals involve damage to air- or gas containing organs or damage to 

the membranes associated with auditory acquisition. Specific studies investigating potential effects to 

turtles from shock waves are limited and, in most cases, estimated based on marine mammal criteria and 

relative differences in hearing thresholds between the two groups. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-11

Viada et al. (2008) presented a summary of the limited field observations and experiments of explosive 

impacts on sea turtles. In several instances, turtle injuries and mortalities—and in some cases, 

strandings—have been noted following underwater detonations. In one case where turtles were recovered 

after an openwater detonation, both charge weight (1,200 pound) and the approximate distances (500 to 

2,000 feet) of the turtles from the detonation were known (O'Keeffe and Young, 1984). Only one field 

experiment has been conducted in which sea turtles were exposed at known distances from a structure 

removal detonation; however, that study did not include concurrent pressure measurements to estimate the 

magnitude and duration of the shock wave received by caged turtles (Klima et al., 1988). In this study, 

four Kemp's ridley and four loggerhead turtles were placed in cages at four distances (750 feet, 1,200 feet, 

1,800 feet and 3,000 feet) from an offshore platform scheduled for removal using explosive charges. 

Cages were suspended at a depth of 15 feet over a seafloor of 30 feet depth prior to the simultaneous

detonation of four, 50.75-pound charges of nitromethane, placed inside the platform's support pilings at a 

depth of 16 feet below the seafloor surface. Sea turtles exposed at 750 and 1,200 feet as well as one 

loggerhead exposed at 3,000 feet, were rendered unconscious. The Kemp's ridley turtle exposed at 750 

feet also sustained slight physical injury, showing an eversion of cloacal lining through its vent. 

Remaining Kemp's ridley turtles at more distant ranges were apparently unharmed. Unfortunately, this 

study did not include concurrent pressure measurements to estimate the magnitude and duration of the 

shock wave received by the caged turtles. 

Two immature green turtles were killed when 20 pounds of plastic explosives (C-4) were detonated in 

open water in the eastern Gulf of Mexico—at distances of 100 to 150 feet from the charge—by a U.S. 

Navy Ordnance Disposal Team. Overall water depth, charge depth, and turtles’ depth were not reported. 

Turtles’ body masses were not provided; however, it is assumed they were small, considering the turtles 

were reported as immature. In an open water environment, 20 pounds of C-4 explosive would be expected 

to generate nominal peak pressures of 347 and 244 pounds per square inch (psi) at ranges of 100 and 150 

feet, respectively. Current SSTC mitigation measures require a 1,410 foot radius area surrounding 

detonation locations that are in 0 to 24 feet of water and a 2,220-foot radius area surrounding detonation 

locations that are in 24 to 72 feet of water; at these distances from a 20-pound explosive source, the 

estimated received levels at these ranges would be approximately 13 and 8 psi, respectively. 

While there have been several reports of turtle impacts and injury following structure removal 

detonations, there has been no mechanistic model developed to estimate impacts on sea turtles. Rather, it 

is assumed that models developed for other vertebrates are reasonable approximations. O'Keeffe and 

Young (1984) developed an equation for a turtle safety range—the distance beyond which turtles would 

not likely be killed or seriously injured—based on field observations of three turtles following an openwater detonation. The equation is based on cube-root scaling of the charge weight and the distance at 

which one turtle was not affected. Young (1991) provided a more conservative version of the same 

equation but states that it is based on the criteria for platform removal established by the NMFS (i.e. it 

was not independently derived from observations or experimental data). The Navy (2001) also modeled 

effect ranges using the turtle death/injury observations from O'Keeffe and Young (1984), and a lung 

injury model developed by Goertner (1982) for small mammals. Results suggest that lung injury 

predictions for sea turtles are not inconsistent with predictions for small mammals. 

To assess the effects of underwater explosions at SSTC, separate criteria are used for mortality and 

injurious physiological effects. SSTC criteria are based on the numeric criteria specified by NMFS in 

recent NMFS rule making (NMFS 2009a, 2009b, see detail in Section 3.9.2.3), which involved a single, 

underwater detonation isolated in time.The criteria and thresholds for injury and harassment are 

summarized in Table 3.10-1. 

NMFS promulgated a dual criteria for sublethal injurious effects for sea turtles. The first criterion for 

tympanic membrane (TM) rupture corresponding to 50 percent rate of rupture is 205 dB re 1 squared 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-12

micropascal-second (μPa2·s) maximum sound exposure level (SEL) level in any 1/3-octave band at 

frequencies >100 Hz. The second criterion is for onset of slight lung injury and is based on a Goertner 

modified positive impulse index of 13 psi-millisecond. Mortality from the onset of severe lung injury is 

based on a Goertner modified positive impulse index of 30.5 psi-ms Goertner 1982. 

Table 3.10-1: Summary of Criteria and Acoustic Thresholds for Underwater Detonation Impacts to 

Sea Turtles 

Criterion Criterion Definition Threshold

Mortality

Mortality

Onset of extensive lung 

injury

Shock Wave

Goertner’s modified 

positive impulse, indexed 

to the surface

I = 42.9 (M/34)1/3 psi-msec

calculated to be

30.5 psi-msec

Level A 

Harassment

Slight Injury

Onset of slight lung 

injury

Shock Wave

Goertner’s modified 

positive impulse, indexed 

to the surface

I = 19.7 (M/42)1/3 psi-msec

calculated to be

13 psi-msec

Slight Injury

50% tympanic 

membrane rupture

Shock Wave

Total SEL, for any single 

exposure

205 dB re:1μPa2-sec

Level B 

Harassment

Physiological 

Disruption

TTS

Sound Exposure

Greatest SEL in any 

1/3-octave band, over all 

exposures

182 dB re1μPa2-sec

Physiological 

Disruption

TTS

Sound Exposure

Peak pressure, for any 

single exposure

23 psi

Impulse levels generated from training activities that could potentially adversely affect sea turtles are 

either confined to waters less than 72 ft depth within ocean training lanes (detonations) or occur 

infrequently (pile driving, 6 times/yr), and in conjunction with established mitigation measured are 

unlikely to injure sea turtles. Impulse levels from underwater detonations and pile driving activities 

would likely reach levels sufficient to modify turtle behavior within the immediate area and would qualify 

as Level B harassment. Given the nonlinear degradation of impulse waves through seawater and the 

variability of bottom substrate and depth at different detonation sites, it is difficult to estimate the distance 

of no effect for all the possible ranges of detonations. 

3.10.2.1.3 Acoustic Effects of Underwater Sound 

Little is documented or understood about the hearing ability of any sea turtle species or their dependency 

on sound, passive or active, for survival cues. A complication is that sea turtles occupy a wide range of 

habitats, and each life stage of sea turtles has exceptional differences in gross morphometry of auditory 

structures and in the physical parameters of their habitat (Ketten et al. 2003). Recent hearing studies 

investigating auditory brainstem responses, in conjunction with analyzing variation in auditory anatomy, 

reported smaller juvenile green sea turtles responded to sounds between 100 to 800 Hz (most sensitive 

hearing range from 600 to 700 Hz); the larger sub-adult green sea turtles had a more constricted range of 

hearing, from 100 to 500 Hz—similar to the larger loggerhead sea turtles.
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-13

There are two types of sound sources that are of major concern to turtles with respect to activities 

conducted under the Proposed Action: (1) strong underwater shock pulses that can cause physical damage 

to auditory structures; and, (2) underwater sounds that could cause disturbance or injury. Both types of 

sound can cause injury or result in distribution and/or behavioral changes. Sound attributed to aircraft 

over-flight does not propagate sufficient underwater shock waves (associated with explosions) to elicit 

lethal or sublethal effects to turtles. Predicted sound levels resulting from HC-130 aircraft flying at 1,000 

feet and 250 feet were 110 and 121 dB re 1 μPa, respectively, directly under the flight path at a depth of 

one foot (maximum 1/3-octave level frequencies 20 Hz to 5 kilohertz [kHz]) (US Air Force 1999). 

Additional noise modeling indicates that the predicted sound level at a depth of one foot resulting from 

the overflight of an HH-60 helicopter at 100 feet would be approximately 100 to 118 dB re 1 μPa 

(frequencies of 20 Hz and 5 kHz). At these lower frequencies, it is anticipated that the threshold of sea 

turtle hearing is in excess of 126 dB re 1 μPa. As this hearing threshold is above the anticipated sound 

produced by aircraft overflights, this EIS will not address the acoustic effects of aircraft on sea turtles. 

A hovercraft, or Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) unit, is a large craft that uses fans to hover above the 

water. Its footprint includes its physical structure plus 50 feet surrounding it, because of the strong wind 

produced by the fans. An LCAC approaches the beach and comes ashore up near the crest of the beach. 

Hovercraft were recorded in the frequency ranges of 80 to 630 Hz with source level of up to 

approximately 110 dB re 1 μPa and 50-2000 Hz with a source level up to 121 re 1 μPa (Richardson et al. 

1995). Recordings of a Griffon 2000TD hovercraft passing a hydrophone at full power in Prudhoe Bay, 

Alaska indicated broadband (10 to 10,000 Hz) levels reaching 133 dB re 1 μPa (Blackwell and Greene 

2005), with most spectral energy centered around 87 Hz. Therefore, turtles can likely sense hovercraft at 

the low end of their hearing range and may modify their movements or behavior according to the 

perceived sound. 

A study analyzing small boat noise levels at a reference distance of one meter from the sound source 

indicated that boat noise at high engine speeds is wide-band and of high intensity. The same study using 

an underwater hydrophone array in Puget Sound, Washington, found that source-level noise produced by 

small boats varies from 141 dB to 161 dB re 1 μPa and the broadest frequency range observed was 

between 0.86 kHz to 8.0 kHz (Galli et al. 2008). Whether turtles modify their behavior or habituate to 

disturbance associated with vessel noise is unknown. It is likely that turtles are affected to some extent by 

vessel noise, given the frequency bandwidths presented by Galli et al (2008) that overlap the auditory 

detection capabilities of sea turtles. 

3.10.2.1.4 Disturbance – Behavioral Responses to Acoustic Energy 

Given the sound levels and frequency bandwidths that are capable of being detected by green sea turtles, 

it is likely turtles make behavioral adjustments to differing noise levels and frequencies. Research 

regarding behavioral modification due to sound is limited and the majority of investigations regarding 

hearing in sea turtles have been focused on the frequency hearing range of individual species. The 

opportunity for an animal to respond appropriately to an approaching source of danger is constrained by 

how soon the animal can detect the danger. Contemporary knowledge of the sensory biology of marine 

turtles (Moein Bartol & Musick 2003) indicates that sound and light offer potential cues for detecting an 

approaching vessel. The ability of marine turtles to hear underwater sound has been confirmed by 

measuring their auditory brainstem responses (Ketten & Bartol 2006) and by observations of their 

behavioral responses to sound (Moein et al. 1993, Lenhardt 1994). The low frequency range of turtle 

hearing (Ridgeway et al. 1969, O’Hara & Wilcox 1990, Lenhardt 1994, and Ketten & Bartol 2006) lies 

well within the broad frequency spectrum of noise produced by vessels (Richardson et al. 1995). Yet 

despite turtles’ known auditory capacity, several factors mitigate against their reliance on sound cues. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-14

The direction of an underwater sound source is difficult to identify because of complex propagation 

characteristics of sound underwater (Richardson et al. 1995). In addition, marine areas heavily used by 

humans, such as San Diego Bay, are subject to noise from numerous vessels, as well as other 

anthropogenic sources above and below the surface, which would tend to mask individual sounds. Hazel 

(2007) inferred that sound would have minimal utility for submerged turtles in identifying a mobile 

threat; the study suspected that turtles would tend to habituate to vessel sounds as background noise. 

However, if turtles relied primarily on sound cues, higher response rates would be predicted for faster 

approaches—louder engine noise at higher speed—the converse of Hazel (2007) results. 

Turtle sightings within San Diego Bay are extremely rare and are most common within the south San 

Diego Bay, where they have been documented to reside and forage, according to McDonald and Dutton 

(1992). Tagging studies by NMFS documented that turtles within San Diego Bay move within a much 

larger area than previously thought, including transiting high vessel traffic areas such as the turning basin 

within north central San Diego Bay. With the increased vessel traffic within San Diego Bay over the last 

30 years, and the consistent population of turtles known to reside in San Diego Bay, the frequency of 

vessel strikes would be higher; however, turtles actively avoid vessels or noise attributed to such vessels 

by swimming towards the surface—their standard fleeing response. 

Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including, subtle changes in behavior, more conspicuous 

changes in activities, and displacement. Lenhardt (1994) and Hazel (2007) stated that marine turtles 

resting on the bottom swim to the surface as the standard responses noise from vessels and sound impulse 

within their hearing range. Based on NMFS (2001, p. 9293) and National Research Council (NRC 2005) 

studies, the assumption is that simple exposure to sound, or brief reactions that do not disrupt behavioral 

patterns in a potentially adverse manner—a manner that might have deleterious effects to the well-being 

of individual turtles or their populations—do not constitute adverse effect. 

Reactions to sound, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive 

state, time of day, and many other factors. If a turtle does react briefly to a sound by changing its behavior 

or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be adverse to the individual, let 

alone the stock or the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces turtles from an important 

feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on the animals could be sufficient to warrant 

effect. 

To what extent turtles utilize hearing to locate prey, navigate, or avoid interactions is subjective; however, 

with consideration of the infrequency in which turtles are sighted within San Diego Bay, and the location 

they choose to reside, it seems turtles actively avoid disturbances related to human activities or have 

habituated to existing noise conditions to a degree that they remain resting below the sea surface; thus, 

reducing their potential interaction with surface activities. As turtles are not documented to use hearing to 

locate prey or navigate, it is unlikely that masking from background noise attributed to urbanization or 

vessel traffic has adverse effects on turtle behavior or foraging. 

Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of noise on turtles, it is 

common practice to estimate how many turtles are present within a particular distance of training 

activities, or exposed to a particular level of sound. The green sea turtle population in San Diego Bay is 

estimated at between 30 and 100 individuals depending on the time of year. Green turtles would be 

expected to interface with training activities infrequently, taking into account the resident turtles’ affinity 

for warm water concentrated in south San Diego Bay during the winter months (Macdonald et al. 1990; 

Eckert 2002 and Dutton 1998) and assuming a direct migration path from offshore areas to south central 

San Diego Bay during summer months. Large motorized vessels transiting primarily offshore areas or 

navigational channels within San Diego Bay are unlikely to collide with turtles, since vessel movements 

are at moderate speed and maintain a consistent heading. Small motorized vessels have a greater potential 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-15

for interacting with turtles due to their speed and erratic navigation patterns. Effects from vessel 

movements are difficult to quantify, given the variation in reported strandings/deaths attributed to vessel 

strikes (McDonald and Dutton 1992, NMFS 2009). Based on the total area of San Diego Bay (15,694 

acres) and the limited amount of area the oceanside training areas encompass (6,492 acres), relative to the 

adjacent nearshore environment, the possibility of training activities effecting green sea turtles is low. 

Bayside training areas account for a total of 1,883.5 acres or 12 percent of the total area available for 

turtles in San Diego Bay. Assuming that resident turtles remain in south San Diego Bay when resting and 

are randomly distributed throughout San Diego Bay when foraging 12 percent of the population, between 

3.6 and 12.0 turtles, could be present within all bayside training areas during foraging times.. 

Given that the majority of green sea turtles forage within shallow, subtidal areas where their primary food 

sources occur; and given that a routine dive ranges from 9 to 23 minutes (Brill et al. 1995), turtles spend a 

very small time (approximately 6 minutes of every hour based on minimum dive times) at the surface—

where they are most likely to be effected by motorized vessels. Furthermore, given the fact that turtle 

foraging has been shown to be biased toward evening hours, an even smaller percentage of turtles have 

potential to interact with daytime vessel activities. Marine vessel activities are concentrated outside 

primary turtle foraging habitat (shallow water less than 12 feet below Mean Lower Low Water [MLLW]), 

based the proportion of habitat (< -12 feet MLLW) within each bayside training area (see Figure 3.7-3). 

Marine vessel activities originate from established berthing locations and transit areas of moderately deep 

and deep subtidal < -12 feet MLLW) to prescribed locations. Therefore, it is unlikely that Navy vessel 

traffic alone would cause disturbance (e.g., strikes, noise, etc) sufficient to determine a measurable effect 

to green sea turtles. 

3.10.2.1.5 Habitat Modification 

Pacific green sea turtles are not documented to require any defined habitat within San Diego Bay or the 

ROI to maintain their existence or residency. Recent studies investigating movement and foraging 

patterns indicate that a much greater portion of San Diego Bay may be used by resident turtles than 

previously thought. The turtle’s current and historic use of south San Diego Bay channels is correlated to 

temperature, considering the shallow depths, solar heating, and lack of circulation that occurs within that 

area. Effects to San Diego Bay substrate or eelgrass (to what extent turtles within San Diego Bay utilize 

eelgrass as a primary source of food is subject to debate) from training activities have a low probability of 

adversely impacting turtles within the ROI. 

3.10.2.2 No Action Alternative 

This section focuses on groups of activities that have potential to result in an impact to turtles. The No 

Action Alternative would maintain the current level and types of training that occur in the ROI. Current 

mitigation measures would remain unchanged (Section 3.10.1.4). Similar types of activities are grouped 

together to facilitate effects analysis. Types of activities that could affect turtles include marine vessel 

activities, underwater detonations, and amphibious activities. In addition, beach and inland activities have 

been determined to have no effect on turtles in areas within the SSTC study area, as turtles are not 

documented to haul or nest within the ROI beaches or upland areas. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-16

3.10.2.2.1 Marine Vessel Activities 

Marine vessel use in the ROI consists of self-propelled boats, propeller surface craft, and water-jet driven 

craft. Self-propelled craft are used for trainees to navigate in San Diego Bay and ocean water, as well as 

transportation to shore for raids. Under the No Action Alternative, marine vessels both mechanically 

driven and self-propelled are used in 41 of the 78 training activities listed in Table 2-1 and detailed in 

Appendix B. 

Propeller surface craft are used in the ROI for a variety of purposes. These craft can be used in entirely 

water based activities where trainees practice navigation, mock boat attacks, and boarding drills; also, 

they can be used for transportation of people or equipment to shore for raids, to ensure safety of 

swimmers during physical fitness training, and to transport marine mammals for training. Under the No 

Action Alternative, training activities involve propeller and jet-driven surface craft of various size and 

speed. Activities occur in both San Diego Bay and oceanside training lanes, and to varying degrees craft 

land on beaches in both areas. 

Impacts to turtles from marine vessels, both propeller-driven and jet-driven operating within the ROI 

include physical injury, sound, and disturbance. Since Ford (1968) documented the presence of turtles 

within San Diego Bay, little mortality has been attributed to vessel strikes (McDonald and Dutton 1992). 

Consistent reporting of vessel strikes on turtles within San Diego Bay is lacking and vessel strike data 

within San Diego County indicates that nine vessel strikes have occurred between 1986 and 2008 (NMFS 

2009). A portion of the most recently documented mortalities associated with vessel strikes may have 

occurred outside San Diego County since dominant winds tend to focus drifting debris towards San Diego 

Bay and the ROI. Marine vessel traffic within the ROI is concentrated near navigational channels and 

berthing areas, primarily occurring during daylight hours. The location and movement patterns of resident 

San Diego Bay green sea turtles are not well understood, which makes impacts related to marine vessel 

strikes difficult to quantify. The majority of marine activities occur in the offshore training lanes, and 

small boat training events within the ROI are a small proportion of the total activities within SSTC. 

Vessels taking part in activities within San Diego Bay transit through a small portion of documented 

turtle resting and foraging locations in the South and South Central portions of San Diego Bay. Any 

affects to turtles within the ROI from marine vessels remains a low probability; considering the temporal 

variability of both training events and turtles residing or feeding within training activity areas. 

Marine vessel training activities include minimal anchoring or landing, except in defined locations or 

emergency situations. Eelgrass habitats are located throughout San Diego Bay, but are most heavily 

concentrated within the south and south central portions of San Diego Bay (Figure 3.7-4) Vessel training 

events are primarily within channel areas, or at slow speeds near bayside training beaches. Training 

events avoid eelgrass habitats because these areas can fowl running gear (propellers and jets) and affect 

maneuvering. Any damage to eelgrass habitats from small mechanically driven vessel activities would be 

temporal and localized, and would not affect entire eelgrass beds or regions. Thus, turtle habitat loss or 

degradation attributed to marine vessel activities would not be expected. 

Impacts on turtles from noise, physical interaction, disturbance, or habitat modification, attributed to 

marine vessels operating within the ROI, is not anticipated to be adverse with respect to activities that 

involve the use of self-propelled or small, mechanically driven craft (Activities 1, 5 - 16, 18, 20 - 26, 28, 

32 - 35, 37 - 39, 57, 77, 78, Table 2-1). Small, mechanically driven vessels do not emit noise levels 

documented to reach impacts criteria. Behavior modifications of turtles interacting with small marine 

vessels, both mechanically driven and self-propelled, would be infrequent considering the low population 

density of turtles, the documented movements within the training areas compared to the regional setting, 

and the temporal and spatial variability of both turtles and the individual activities. Impacts to turtles 

related to reduced foraging success, disturbance, or habitat modification attributed to self-propelled or 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-17

small mechanically driven vessel activities, are not likely to occur based on the impacts criteria previously 

presented, and the short duration and spatial extent of activities within habitat documented to support 

turtles. Landings of small craft and personnel within bayside training areas containing eelgrass habitats 

may have localized and temporary impacts to resident turtles, as a result of disturbance and habitat 

modification. Impacts to turtles from vessel strikes, both lethal and sublethal, could potentially occur; 

however, impacts remain a low probability, considering previous strike data and the concentrated location 

of both turtles and training activities in separate areas. 

Impacts on turtles from noise, physical interaction, disturbance, or habitat modification attributed to 

activities involving large mechanically driven vessels operating within the ROI is not anticipated to be 

adverse (Activities 1, 13, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, Table 2-1). 

Behavior modifications of turtles interacting with large mechanically driven vessels would be infrequent 

considering the low population density of turtles, the slow and deliberate nature of the vessels, and an 

absence of documented vessel strikes during the past decade. Reduced foraging success or behavior 

modification attributed to large, mechanically driven vessel activities is only likely to occur for migrating 

or actively moving turtles; and they would not adversely affect turtles based on the findings previously 

presented. Landings of large vessels within bayside training areas containing eelgrass habitat may have 

localized and temporary impacts to resident turtles from disturbance and habitat modification because of 

propeller or jet scouring. The short duration and spatial extent of activities in conjunction with the small 

resident population of turtles greatly reduces the probability of large mechanically driven vessels 

interfacing with turtles. Based on the low density and high mobility of turtles, the probability of lethal and 

sub-lethal impacts attributed to turtle/vessel collisions is low. Given the noise and movements created 

from marine vessel activities, behavioral modifications sufficient to illicit measurable affect are unlikely. 

In accordance with ESA, marine vessel activities under the No Action Alternative may affect ESA-listed 

turtles. 

3.10.2.2.2 Underwater Detonations 

Underwater detonations that take place under the No Action Alternative are detailed in Section 3.8.2.2.3 

(Table 3.8-11). All detonations take place in the oceanside training lanes, designated Boat Lanes 1-14 in 

the table, from 0 to 72 feet of water depth depending on the activity. 

Biological information describing the threshold and degree of impact to sea turtles from pressure waves 

and sound are not available. As such, NMFS uses marine mammal criteria. Detailed information on the 

thresholds for lethal and sub-lethal affect from pressure waves and sound generated from underwater 

detonations are described in depth in Section 3.9.2.3 and are applied to the impact analysis presented in 

this section. The thresholds are used to establish ZOI for injury and mortality for underwater detonations 

at SSTC. Table 3.10.2 provides a summary of ZOI distances for sea turtles based for each underwater 

detonation activity. 

The frequency of turtles transiting the ROI within the nearshore coastal habitat used for underwater 

detonations is not currently known. Information on the number of turtles that annually migrate into San 

Diego Bay, the path they transit, or the frequencies at which they use nearshore waters of the ROI, are 

unknown, but expected to be low. Multiple scenarios can be inferred; however, without site-specific data 

on turtle spatial and temporal movement, probability estimates of turtles transiting the ocean portions of 

the ROI remains debatable. 

Empirical testing performed by the NSWC/Anteon Corp., Inc. (2005) reported that underwater 

detonations at SSTC-N oceanside boat lanes would propagate sound, pressure, and energies differently in 

very shallow water (zero to 24 feet of water depth) than shallow water (24 to 72 feet of water depth). 

Details about this empirical testing and its results can be found in Section 3.9.2.4.2. The testing found that 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-18

ZOIs for underwater detonations conducted in VSW for physiological disruption [temporary threshold 

shift (TTS)] for exercises with charge-weights of 20 pounds or less of C4 on the bottom is 1,300 ft. 

Impacts to turtle behavior or foraging habitat from underwater detonations are not expected. There is a 

lack of suitable foraging habitat within SSTC-N and SSTC-S boat lanes, and a low probability of turtles 

transiting or residing within the activity area. Further, the Navy will implement mitigation measures 

(described in section 3.10.2.2.3), which include the use of two trained observers with binoculars and small 

craft surveying detonation areas and the safety buffer zone for at least 30 minutes prior to and after 

detonations. These mitigation measures would further reduce the probability of turtle impacts. 

3.10.2.2.3 Amphibious and Beach Activities 

Training activities in this section include amphibious vehicles, ELCAS, and fluid transfer systems. 

Training activities include the use of training areas within both San Diego Bay and the nearshore 

environment. Potential impacts from included activities range from vehicle transit within ROI waters, 

noise, and habitat modification, are similar to those described in Section 3.10.2.2.1, Marine Vessel 

Activities. 

Amphibious Activities 

Amphibious vehicles and vessels are used during various training activities land on beaches and San 

Diego Bay shorelines that turtles may utilize during foraging. The modification of that shoreline depends 

on the size of the amphibious vehicle, the frequency of the landings within the area, and whether the 

propulsion system creates scouring during the landing activity. Amphibious activities analyzed in this 

section focuses on the interaction the vehicle has with the landing area and to a lesser extent the waters 

adjacent to the landing areas such as Craft Landing Zone (CLZ), Lighter, Amphibious, Resupply, Cargo-5 

ton (LARC V), and Barge Ferry Causeway/ Coxswain Training (Activities 27 and 53, Table 2-1) as well 

as more intense activities associated with construction of an ELCAS. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-19

Table 3.10-2: Maximum Zones of Influence for No Action Alternative 

Underwater 

Detonation 

Operation 

Charge 

Weight 

Used1 

Season 

Injury Mortality 

Onset of 

slight lung 

injury (13.0 

psi-msec)3 

50% TM 

rupture 

(205 dB re 

1μPa2-sec) 3 

Onset of extensive 

lung injury (30.5 

psi-msec) 3 

Mine 

Countermeasures 20 

Warm 360 80 80 

Cold 160 80 80 

Floating Mine ≤ 5 

Warm 20 80 20 

Cold 20 80 20 

Unmanned 

Underwater 

Vehicle Activities 

20 

Warm 360 80 80 

Cold 150 80 80 

Marine Mammal 

Systems 

Activities2

 

13 

Warm 130 70 80 

Cold 140 70 80 

Marine Mammal 

Systems Activities 13 

Warm 130 60 80 

Cold 140 70 80 

Dive Platoon2 

(mid-depth) 3.5 

Warm 70 130 40 

Cold 70 130 40 

Dive Platoon2 

(bottom) 3.5 

Warm 80 90 50 

Cold 90 90 50 

Mine 

Neutralization 2 3.5 

Warm 80 90 50 

Cold 90 90 50 

1 Charge weights are listed in pounds 

2

 Sequential Detonations 

3 Distances are listed in feet 

CLZ teams surveys and marks beaches for a LCAC ingress/egress. This activity allows personnel to 

safely guide LCACs to designated shore landing areas. Increased turbidity and scouring from landing 

activities within SSTC Boat Lanes 1-14 would not likely be sufficient to result in adverse impacts to 

turtles. Any impact to turtle behavior or foraging would be temporary and localized, considering the 

energetics of the surf zone, the extent of similar adjacent habitat, and low frequency (once per year over a 

6 day period) of the activity. In San Diego Bay, increased turbidity and scouring from landing or 

anchoring activities such as Barge Ferry Causeway/ Coxswain Training may have localized impacts to 

eelgrass habitats, but would not likely be sufficient to result in adverse impacts to turtles. Any impact to 

turtle behavior or foraging would be temporary and localized, given the extent of similar adjacent habitat 

and low frequency (four per year for one day) of the activity. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-20

ELCAS and Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction activities involve the insertion of a causeway onto 

the beach. Causeways either remain floating offshore or are elevated onto pilings driven into the 

sediment. Causeway activities occur primarily on SSTC-N oceanside boat training areas 1-10, but also 

periodically in the bayside Bravo training area. Under the No Action Alternative, these activities occur 

three and nine times respectively and are separate training events. 

Pile driving will be conducted during installation of the ELCAS, which is constructed to provide a quick 

and temporary pier structure for offloading Navy vessels. Under the No Action Alternative, ELCAS 

activities occur twice a year and occur either bayside at Bravo Beach, or oceanside at SSTC-North. Pile 

installation occurs over a period of 10 days. Approximately 101 piles are driven in a typical ELCAS 

training event, with around 250 to 300 impacts per pile, and each pile taking on average 10 minutes to 

install. Pile driving is done 24 hours-per-day; and floodlights are used at night, which would illuminate 

the surrounding area. At the end of the training, a vibratory extractor attached to the pile head will be used 

to remove piles. Removal takes approximately 15 minutes per pile over a period of around 3 days. As 

discussed in Section 3.9.2.6, pile driving includes a semi-soft start. The pile driver increases impact 

strength as resistance goes up. At first, the pile driver piston drops a few inches. As resistance goes up, 

the pile driver piston will drop from a higher distance providing more impact due to gravity. 

Shock pulses from pile driving have the potential to affect turtles—if they are in the immediate area. 

Depending on the level of the sound and shockwaves produced by pile driving activities and the 

proximity turtles transit to the activities, various lethal and sublethal impacts may occur. Shockwaves and 

peak pressures generated from ELCAS pile driving activities could reach between 188 and 208 dB re 1 

μPa2

-s. There is no established criterion for injury or mortality from pile driving activities associated with 

sea turtles; however, marine mammal criteria may conservatively address sea turtles like they do for 

underwater detonation activities. Section 3.9.2.3 details the safety buffer zones used to mitigate the 

impacts of ELCAS pile driving activities on sea turtles. 

Given the complexity and magnitude of associated logistical aspects of ELCAS and the soft start of the 

pile driving activities, if turtles are present within the activity area, they will likely leave prior to fullimpact pile driving activity. Additionally, mitigation measures in place (Section 3.10.1.4) would allow for 

the detection of sea turtles in the immediate vicinity prior to initiating pile driving activities; and it would 

offset potential exposure to turtles within the activity footprint. 

Given the infrequency of these activities, and the duration between driving piles within a high-energy surf 

zone, impacts to turtles within the offshore boat lanes are expected to be temporary and localized. Impacts 

to turtles, with regard to habitat modification within Bravo, can be more precisely defined based on loss 

or modification of eelgrass habitat described in Section 3.7. Only a small percentage of all piles being 

driven would occur within eelgrass habitat and eelgrass. Bravo lane represents only 11.48 acres, or less 

than 5 percent of the total eelgrass in San Diego Bay (using 2004 coverage’s listed in Table 3.7-4). 

Furthermore, ELCAS training activities take place within a defined training lane within Bravo, 1.13 acres, 

and potential loss of eelgrass habitats will be mitigated for as discussed in Section 3.7. In summary, 

ELCAS activities are performed infrequently, and in most cases within an already physically challenging 

surf zone habitat, or designated location within the Bravo training lane. Impacts to turtles would be 

concentrated in proximity to pile driving activities and most notably within eelgrass habitat. Given the 

extent of adjacent habitat and population of turtles known to exist in adjacent habitat, affects to turtles 

from ELCAS activities are expected to be temporary and localized. Based on the limited occurrence and 

constrained nature of amphibious activities within turtle foraging areas, and the low density of turtles, the 

probability of impacts to turtles is low. In accordance with the ESA, amphibious activities in the No 

Action Alternative may affect ESA-listed turtles. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-21

Beach Activities 

Beach activities covered in this section involve activities that transfer fuel (simulated) or water from 

vessels on the water to beaches within training areas. The focus of the analysis for the applicable activities 

is concentrated on the type of medium being transferred and the nearshore waters or intertidal areas that 

may be effected by equipment movement or positioning. Impacts from marine vessel movements or 

landings are address in Section 3.10.2.2.2. Fluid transfer training events involve two activities (1) the 

simulation of fueling transfers utilizing seawater and (2) the intake of seawater for desalination and the 

discharge of hypersaline brine back into San Diego Bay. 

Fluid transfer activities consist of transferring salt water to simulate fuel transfer, under the activities 

Offshore Petroleum Discharge System (OPDS) and Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS), 

and bringing saltwater ashore for desalinization, under the activity ROWPU. For both activities, water is 

pumped to a beach interface unit and returned to the ocean with a hose. Simulated fueling transfer during 

OPDS poses minimal risk to turtles due to its localized nature and infrequent use. During ROWPU 

training, salt water is brought ashore and desalinized. Hypersaline water is then stored in a bladder and 

transported offsite for sewerage or mixed with potable water and discharged back into the sea at nearly 

the same salinity as the source ocean water. Discharge of treated water are not likely to affect turtles, 

considering the diluted nature of the discharge, the dissolution from the receiving water, and physical 

mixing that occurs within the surf zone and nearshore waters where activities occur. Any physical impacts 

to turtles would be temporary and localized as training activities occur infrequently. Impacts from fluid 

transfer activities including, habitat modification, and entrainment in the OPDS/ABLTS systems, and 

effects to turbidity would not be expected to have lethal or sublethal impacts to turtles due to small area 

impacted and the low likelihood of sea turtle presence. In summary, no long term adverse impacts would 

occur from fluid transfer activities and any impact to turtles would be unlikely. 

3.10.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative 1 increases the current level and types of training that occur in the ROI. Current mitigation 

measures would remain unchanged (Section 3.10.1.4). This section focuses on groups of activities that 

have potential to result in an impact to specified turtle species. As discussed previously, similar types of 

activities are grouped together to facilitate impacts analysis. 

3.10.2.3.1 Air Activities 

As presented in Chapter 2 (see Tables 2-1 and 2-2) and detailed in Appendix B, helicopter activities over 

San Diego Bay and ocean waters within the ROI would more than double under Alternative 1 in 

comparison to the No Action Alternative. Given that impact to turtle species from air activities are not 

expected from noise and sea surface disturbance, the increase in Air Activities would not measurably 

change the potential impact to green sea turtles or their populations. 

One new air activity utilizing helicopters would use a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) blue-green 

laser to detect, classify, and localized floating and near-surface mines in shallow water (Activity N5, see 

Table 2-2) would be added under Alternative 1. Brudenall (2008) reports that the leatherback sea turtle 

shows ocular features that are characteristic of Chelonians with similarities to aquatic mammals. The 

calculated optical sensitivity suggests that compared to pelagic fish, for instance, the leatherback sea turtle 

eye is not particularly well adapted for vision in dim light even though this species is known to venture 

into deep, dark waters, and might feed at night. Further, Zorn et al. (1998) concluded oceanographic 

LIDARs that meet current human laser safety standards will have no harmful impacts on the eyes of 

cetaceans or pinnipeds, and sea turtles, because the human eye is more sensitive to laser radiation than 

either the cetacean eye or the pinniped eye. As LIDAR activities are dispersed across the oceanside boat 

lanes of the ROI, where the expected density of green sea turtles is extremely low, the use of LIDAR 

would pose a minimal risk to sea turtles. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-22

3.10.2.3.2 Marine Vessel Activities 

Marine vessels, propeller and water-jet driven, would increase in use and scope under Alternative 1 

compared to the No Action Alternative as presented in Chapter 2 (Tables 2-1 and 2-2) and detailed in 

Appendix B. Any increases in marine vessel use in both oceanside and bayside training areas would result 

in a commensurate increase the probability of impact on turtles from disturbance and physical injury, 

though the anticipated level of impact from these activities is expected to remain low. The greatest 

increases to marine vessel activities would be attributed to new activities; Shock Wave Action Generator 

(SWAG, N1), Surf Zone Test Detachment (N2) as well as increases to existing activities, Seal Delivery 

System / Advanced SEAL Delivery System (SDV/ASDS) Cert training and Barge Ferry/Causeway 

Coxswain training. 

New activities under Alternative 1 will take place within all boat training lanes and bayside training areas. 

Large and small mechanically driven vessels are used to support diving activities within boat lanes and 

bayside training locations. Sound levels from transiting vessels may illicit behavior modification of turtles 

based on documented sound levels and developed impact criteria (see table 3.10-1). Vessel strikes and 

behavior modifications related to vessel movement or towed systems may occur; however, impacts would 

be more likely to occur in San Diego Bay training areas than ocean boat lanes, though vessel training 

events in San Diego Bay are primarily within channel areas or at slow speeds near bayside training 

beaches. This is based on the proximity of bayside training areas to known turtle resting and foraging 

areas and the low probability of activities in ocean boat lanes interacting with migrating turtles. Impacts 

would be infrequent based on the current documented vessel strike frequency data as well as the 

concentration of marine vessel and towed systems in oceanside beach lanes where sea turtle occurrence is 

low. As such, impacts to sea turtles would be similar to those presented under the No Action Alternative. 

Based on the low density and high mobility of turtles relative to the increase in marine vessel activities 

proposed in Alternative 1, the probability of lethal and sub lethal impacts attributed to turtle/vessel 

collisions is low. Given the increased noise and movements created from marine vessel activities 

proposed in Alternative 1, behavioral modifications sufficient to illicit measurable affect are unlikely. 

3.10.2.3.3 Underwater Detonations 

Underwater detonations under Alternative 1 would occur in shallow water (less than 72 feet) within 

oceanside training lanes and the shock waves propagate over a mostly homogeneous sand substrate. As 

presented and described in Section 3.8.2.2.3 (Table 3.8-12). Underwater detonations would increase 

measurably in frequency from 103 activities under the No Action Alternative to 311 activities under 

Alternative 1 and in magnitude from 20 pounds for the No Action Alternative to 29 pounds for 

Alternative 1 and 2. The increase in the weight of the underwater detonation charges to 29 pounds NEW 

would not increase the potential area of effect (harassment or injury) from beyond 360 yards (1,080 ft) 

from a single detonation based on Goertner’s modified impulse pressure at the surface of 13 psi-ms for 

slight lung injury SLI(Table 3.10-3).. Because the distance of potential impact was unchanged and the 

number of activities increases under Alternatives 1 and 2, underwater detonations would not be expected 

to result in lethal or sublethal effects to green sea turtles based on current impacts criteria previously 

outlined in Section 3.10.2.2.2 and the use of existing mitigation measures (Section 3.10.1.4). Increases to 

the size and frequency of detonations may have adverse impacts on turtles. 

Under Alternative 1, five additional activities would be conducted: SWAG and Unmanned Underwater 

Vehicle (UUV) Neutralization, Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS), Demolition 

Requalification and Training/Underwater Detonations, and Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Underwater 

Demolition Training (Activities N1, N3, N7, N9, and N11, respectively, Table 2-2) and the footprint of 

activities would be expanded to include SWAG detonations of up to 15 grams NEW within San Diego 

Bay. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-23

SWAG (Activity N1, Table 2-2) is a new activity under Alternative 1 that would take place within all 

boat training lanes and Echo bayside training area. SWAG is a tool used to disarm enemy limpet mines, 

which have been attached to the hull of a ship. The SWAG is composed of a cylindrical steel tube, three 

inches long and one inch wide, containing approximately 15 grams NEW of explosives which has a 

minimal zone of explosion (ZOE) (Table 3.10-3). For SWAG training, a metal sheet containing an inert 

limpet mine is lowered from the side of a small vessel. Divers go below and place a single SWAG on the 

mine mid-water column at water depths of 10 to 20 feet. The presence of SCUBA divers elicits a fleeing 

response in sea turtles (Bowen 2007). Given the size of the charge utilized in this activity, current and 

proposed mitigation measures, and the substantial time required to setup the activity, adverse impacts to 

turtles from the SWAG activity are unlikely. 

UUV Neutralization (Activity N3, Table 2-2) is a new activity under Alternative 1 that would take place 

within SSTC Boat Lanes 1-14. Training activities consist of placing sequential charges, consisting of a 

Seafox (3.3 pounds) or Archerfish (3.57 pounds) charge placed from depths of ten feet to the bottom in 

water depths less than 72 feet. Given the size of the charge utilized in this activity, current mitigation 

measures, and the substantial time required to setup the activity, impacts to turtles would be similar to 

those described in 3.10.2.2.2 and are unlikely. 

AMNS (Activity N7, Table 2-2) is a new activity under Alternative 1 that would take place within SSTC 

Boat Lanes 1-14. Training consists of deployment of AMNS underwater vehicle that searches for, locates, 

and destroys mines. The vehicle is self-propelled and unmanned. Ten of the 48 annual activities culminate 

in the AMNS being remotely detonated when it encounters a simulated (inert) mine shape. The charge 

contained within the AMNS underwater vehicle is 3.52 pounds NEW. Helicopter crews continuously scan 

the water surface of the activity area for obstructions that could affect towing activities. As such, this 

continuous scan serves as an effective pre-detonation monitoring for any sea turtle that may be near the 

activity area. Given this operating procedure, the size of the charge utilized in this activity, the location of 

the activity in where sea turtle density is anticipated to be extremely low, and the substantial time required 

to setup the activity, impacts to turtles would be similar to those described in 3.10.2.2.2 and are unlikely. 

Demolition Requalification and Training/Underwater Detonations (Activity N9, Table 2-2) is a new 

activity under Alternative 1 that would take place within all boat training lanes. Training consists of 

requalifying or training teams in underwater detonations by conducting detonations on metal plates near 

the shore. Additionally, at depths of 10 to 72 feet, two sequential 12.5 to 13.75-pound charges are placed 

on the bottom or a single 25.5-pound charge is place from a depth of 20 feet to the bottom. Given the size 

of the charge, the location of the activity, current mitigation measures, and the substantial time required to 

setup the activity, impacts to turtles would be similar to those described in 3.10.2.2.2 and are unlikely. 

NSW Underwater Demolition Training (Activity N11, Table 2-2) is a new activity under Alternative 1 

would be conducted within all training lanes. Up to 40 persons participate in the activity, which involves 

small groups swimming to shore from four inflatable boats located approximately 1,000 yards offshore; 

boats may be beached on shore. A single charge of less than 10 pounds of C-4 explosives—if detonated 

on the bottom—or less than five pounds—if within five feet of the surface—is command detonated near 

the shoreline in water less than 24 feet deep. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-24

Table 3.10-3: Maximum Zone of Influence Under Alternative 1. 

Underwater 

Detonation 

Operation 

Charge 

Weight 

Used1 

Season 

Injury Mortality 

Onset of 

slight lung 

injury (13.0 

psi-msec)2

50% TM 

rupture 

(205 dB re 

1μPa2-sec) 2

Onset of 

extensive 

lung injury 

(30.5 psimsec) 2

Mine 

Countermeasures 20 

Warm 360 80 80 

Cold 160 80 80 

Floating Mine 5 

Warm 20 80 20 

Cold 20 80 20 

SWAG 0.033 

Warm 0 0 0 

Cold 0 0 0 

Unmanned 

Underwater 

Vehicle Activities 

15 

Warm 360 80 80 

Cold 150 80 80 

Marine Mammal 

Systems Activities 

(sequential) 

29 

Warm 360 140 90 

Cold 170 140 90 

Marine Mammal 

Systems Activities 29 

Warm 360 100 90 

Cold 170 100 90 

Dive Platoon 

(sequential) 3.5 

Warm 80 90 50 

Cold 90 90 50 

Qual/Cert 

(sequential) 13.75 

Warm 140 100 80 

Cold 140 100 80 

Qual/Cert 25.5 

Warm 300 90 90 

Cold 170 90 90 

Mine Neutral 

(sequential) 3.5 

Warm 80 90 50 

Cold 90 90 50 

UUV Neutral 

(sequential) 3.57 

Warm 80 60 50 

Cold 90 60 50 

AMNS 3.5 

Warm 80 40 40 

Cold 80 40 40 

1 Charge weights are listed in pounds 

2 Maximum ZOEs are listed in feet 

Impacts to turtles from underwater detonations within waters of the ROI are based on modeling and tests 

(DoN 2001a: Goertner, 1982). The radius of lethal and sublethal effect to turtles from impulse waves is 

solely based on peak pressure presented in Table 3.10-1 and the maximum size of the detonation known 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-25

to take place for each activity. Given that nearly all SSTC underwater detonations occur in nearshore Boat 

Lanes 1-14, over mostly sand bottom not documented to support foraging or transient turtles, that the 

density of sea turtles in the training area is low, and use of mitigation measures to minimize the potential 

for impacts to turtles (Section 3.10.3), the probability of impacts to sea turtles is low. If impacts to turtles 

do occur, they would likely be behavioral and considered localized and temporary. 

3.10.2.3.4 Amphibious and Beach Activities 

Amphibious Activities 

As described in Section 3.10.2.2.3, ELCAS activities are not expected to have adverse impacts to turtles, 

given the complexity and magnitude of associated logistical aspects of ELCAS. The majority of turtles 

within the activity area are likely to be displaced prior to pile driving activity due to setup activities, or 

displaced during the soft start process of pile driving. Shock waves and peak pressures generated from 

ELCAS pile driving activities would be expected to produce shock waves sufficient to reach impacts 

criteria for the onset of slight lung injury; however, the small ZOI combined with existing mitigation 

measures for turtles (Section 3.10.1.4) are likely to reduce the potential for impact. Impacts from ELCAS 

activities including sound, shock waves, habitat modification, and increased turbidity could have impacts 

to turtles foraging in adjacent eelgrass areas, though these impacts would be temporary and localized. 

Suspended material from pile driving within the oceanside training areas would not substantially modify 

the surf zone or nearshore clarity to a degree expected to affect turtles behavior or foraging. In contrast, 

increased turbidity and the potential redistribution of sediment from pile driving may have adverse 

impacts to eelgrass habitat from smothering that could have secondary effects to turtle foraging. Based on 

the limited occurrence and constrained nature of amphibious activities within turtle foraging areas and the 

low density of turtles, the probability of impacts to turtles is low. In accordance with the ESA, 

amphibious activities in Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed turtles. 

Beach Activities 

Increases in beach activities not discharging by-products or interfacing with the nearshore or San Diego 

Bay waters have no potential to affect turtles and are not analyzed in this section. Beach activities that 

may affect the nearshore environment are discussed in this section. Fluid transfer training events involve 

two activities (1) the simulation of fueling transfers utilizing seawater and (2) the intake of seawater for 

desalination and the discharge of hypersaline brine back into San Diego Bay. Fluid transfer activities 

consist of transferring salt water to simulate fuel transfer, under the activity OPDS, ABLTS, and bringing 

saltwater ashore for desalinization, under the activity ROWPU. Under Alternative 1 the total number of 

annual activities would increase from four to five. 

As described in Section 3.10.2.2.3, fluid transfer training events are expected to have a minimal effect on 

turtles, and the incremental change in the number of activities would not change those predictions. 

Surface coverage by conduit is not sufficient to affect behavior of turtles. Bottom substrate disturbance or 

modification within the surf zone, or intertidal areas attributed to equipment or sand movement would 

occur within an already physically disturbed zone. Modification of habitat within the San Diego Bay 

would be proportional to the amount of lost eelgrass habitats. Any impact to turtles within the boat lanes 

would be below measurable thresholds, and would only be expected in the San Diego Bay if eelgrass 

habitats were modified or destroyed to a sufficient level to reduce foraging success. 

3.10.2.4 Alternative 2 

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the overall training to the same level as Alternative 1. 

Implementation of Alternative 2 would also include the introduction of new types of training; conducting 

existing routine training at additional locations within SSTC established training areas, and increasing 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-26

access to, and availability of, existing beach and inland training areas. The only difference between 

Alternative 1 and 2 is that all SSTC-N beach training areas would be available for use, regardless of time 

of year. Therefore, impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be the same as those described above for 

Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, the proposed change to access and availability to existing beach and 

inland training areas, would not result in a change in impacts to sea turtles over Alternative 1. Under 

Alternative 2, training activities would result in similar effects to sea turtles as previously described under 

Alternative 1. 

3.10.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Given implementation of the current mitigation measures for SSTC activities (described in detail in 

Section 3.10.1.4), there would be minimal impacts to sea turtles under any of the alternative activities 

considered in this EIS. 

Mitigation procedures for oceanside underwater detonations would remain the same as described in 

Section 3.10.1.4; however, the safety buffer for shallow water detonations (in 24 to 72 feet of water) 

would be increased to 2,220 feet. This increased safety buffer zone is based off of ZOIs calculated for 

marine mammals and is larger than that required for sea turtles. 

In addition, the Navy would implement mitigation measures for underwater detonations involving 

SWAG, which are proposed in Alternative 1 and 2, but are not currently conducted. For SWAG charges 

laid bayside on SSTC: 

1. A safety buffer zone of 180 feet will be established around each SWAG detonation point. 

2. Observer(s) with binoculars and small craft will survey the detonation area and the safety buffer 

zone for sea turtles from at least 10 minutes prior to commencement of the scheduled explosive 

event until at least 10 minutes after detonation. Observers will pay extra attention within the 

buffer zone to large amounts of floating kelp strands and other marine debris (if any), since these 

may provide shelter and food for sea turtles. 

3. Divers placing charges on mines and dive support vessels will check the area immediately around 

the mine location for sea turtles. 

4. If a sea turtle is sighted within the buffer zone or moving towards it, exercises will be suspended 

until the animal has voluntarily left the area and the area is clear of sea turtles for at least 10 

minutes. 

5. Immediately following the detonation, visual monitoring for sea turtles within the buffer zone 

will continue for 10 minutes. Any animals appearing will be observed for signs of injury. Injured 

sea turtles will be reported to the CNRSW Environmental Director, the PACFLT Environmental 

Office and the NMFS Southwest Regional Office. 

Current mitigation measures implemented during ELCAS pile driving are described in Section described 

in detail in Section 3.10.1.4 and would continue. 

3.10.4 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 

There are no unavoidable adverse environmental effects to sea turtles as a result of implementation of any 

alternatives. 

3.10.5 Summary of Effects 

The summary of effects (Table 3.10-4) is the same as that described above for unavoidable effects, since 

no new mitigation measures are proposed. All alternatives avoid effects on turtles and their preferred 

habitats. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-27

Table 3.10-4: Summary of Effects 

Alternative Effects 

No Action Alternative 

• Underwater detonations, vessel strikes,and noise associated with marine 

vessels and pile driving are unlikely to adversely impact sea turtles due to 

their rarity in the SSTC, the concentration of activities in ocean boat lanes, 

and implementation of mitigation measures. 

Alternative 1 • Training tempo would increase; however, impacts are expected to be 

substantially the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative 2 • Training tempo would increase; however, impacts are expected to be 

substantially the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures 

• Current mitigation measures for pre- and post- underwater detonation and 

ELCAS monitoring including restriction of activities when sea turtles are 

within a safety buffer zone will continue to be implemented. Similar 

mitigation measures for underwater detonations would be implemented for 

SWAG and ELCAS under Alternatives 1 and 2.
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SEA TURTLES 3.10-28

This page intentionally left blank 
3.11 Terrestrial Biological Resources 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-1

3.11 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.11.1 Affected Environment 

3.11.1.1 Introduction 

The terrestrial biological resources in the Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC) are described here for 

the purpose of comparing the environmental consequences of the alternatives. Terrestrial communities are 

discussed, as well as the wildlife and plants that are found within them; birds are discussed in Section 

3.12. Federally protected and other special status species are discussed individually. Current management 

and mitigation practices for terrestrial biological resources in the Region of Influence (ROI) are described 

in Section 3.11.1.6. 

3.11.1.1.1 Regulatory Framework 

A number of laws, Executive Orders, and regulations may apply to terrestrial biological resources; and 

since these pertain to other natural resources as well, an overview is presented elsewhere in this 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). However, the primary drivers of past management and mitigation 

practices for terrestrial biological resources have been the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as it pertains to United States (U.S.) 

jurisdictional waters (which include freshwater wetlands, some vernal pools, salt marsh, and portions of 

the beach) requires mitigation for projects that cause discharge of dredge or fill, and such projects must be 

permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines 

under the CWA for jurisdictional waters, in addition to the broader guidelines, apply a burden of proof 

requirement to demonstrate that no practicable alternatives exist that will meet a project’s purpose. 

Following national policy established by the White House beginning in 1989 for implementing Section 

404 of the CWA—and adopted through memoranda by the USEPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—

the Navy’s policy (Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction [OPNAVINST] 5090.1C) is that 

there shall be “no net loss” of the acreage and ecological function of wetland habitat. Jurisdictional waters 

of the U.S. and wetlands require permits for activities that disturb the ground, and for possible mitigation. 

The Endangered Species Act also pertains to terrestrial biological resources. The provisions of the ESA 

are that, once a species becomes listed as endangered or threatened, regulations to protect the species 

from illegal “take” become applicable to any project that may affect an individually listed animal or its 

habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) oversees the ESA implementation for all federally 

listed species. Since the San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) presently occupies 

portions of SSTC-S, the USFWS becomes involved in all projects potentially affecting this species. 

Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal project proponents must consult with USFWS if one or more listed 

species may be affected by an action. Consultation with USFWS may range from informal discussions to 

formal consultation requiring a biological assessment by the project proponent. With the issuance of a 

Biological Opinion (BO) by the USFWS, “terms and conditions” are stated, which are measures to avoid 

or minimize the take of any listed species. When an “incidental take statement” is issued with the 

Biological Opinion, the federal project proponent may be excused from accidentally taking a listed 

species as part of the agency’s otherwise lawful activity as long as the specified taking conditions are met. 

Examples of Executive Orders (EOs) that drive management practice include Executive Order 13112 

“Invasive Species”, and Executive Order 11990 “Protection of Wetlands.” 

3.11.1.1.2 Definition of Resource 

For the purposes of this EIS, terrestrial biological resources are defined as the plants, non-avian wildlife, 

and the land, soil, and water resources utilized by these plants and animals that occupy the beaches and 

upland portions of the SSTC. This area is between the linear strip of organic debris left by the high tide 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-2

called the wrack line on the oceanside beaches of SSTC-North (SSTC-N), SSTC-South (SSTC-S), and 

portions of Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI), and all uplands and developed areas between it and 

the bayside water line. NASNI is included where military activities are proposed or where natural 

resources are managed jointly with those in the project footprint from Breakers Beach to Zuniga Jetty. 

Submerged vegetation and marine jurisdictional wetlands and waters are discussed in Section 3.7, Marine 

Biological Resources. 

3.11.1.1.3 Regional Setting 

The San Diego region has a semiarid Mediterranean climate, characterized by winter and spring 

precipitation, summer fog, and summer drought. Evaporation exceeds rainfall throughout most of the 

year, and this moisture deficit is fundamental to defining the type of terrestrial vegetation and wildlife that 

characterize and inhabit the landscape. The species biodiversity of this region reflects both this climate 

and the area’s inherent landscape diversity. From the Pacific Ocean moving east, the coastal plain rises to 

gently sloping inland mesas dissected by stream systems, then to mountains rising up to 6,000 feet in 

elevation which then drop dramatically to desert elevations below sea level. Inland topography and 

weather extremes contrast with the more equable climate of the coast where the action area for this EIS is 

located. 

Represented on the various land parcels are several of southern California’s natural communities that 

have declined in area due to losses related to the urbanization of southern California: Diegan coastal sage 

scrub, southern maritime chaparral, and dunes. These communities are considered sensitive by 

conservation organizations and are, in some cases, protected through federal, state, or local laws and 

regulations. 

The training at SSTC that constitutes the alternatives is conducted in an urban context. Open spaces and 

natural habitats abut immediately adjacent to hardscaped roads, buildings, highways, and residences. 

They interface onto lands and waters that also support urban commerce, industry, tourism, recreation, a 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), and residential communities. 

3.11.1.1.4 Region of Influence 

The ROI includes all of SSTC-N, SSTC-S, and Breakers Beach to Zuniga Jetty on NASNI. While not 

harboring terrestrial biological resources, the ROI also includes the oceanside and bayside training lanes 

as well the ocean anchorages located offshore of SSTC-N, for consistency with the other resource 

sections in this EIS. 

3.11.1.2 Terrestrial Communities and Cover Types 

This section describes the plant communities of the project area, in order from those highest in elevation 

(coastal sage scrub) to those lowest (beaches). Marine tidal and subtidal communities are described in 

Section 3.7. 

The ROI is considered to be in the south coast subdivision of the California Floristic Province, and the 

species naming and floristic conventions used here are consistent with Hickman (1996). Native plant 

communities were mapped using the Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf vegetation classification system (Sawyer 

and Keeler-Wolf 1995, Keeler-Wolf and Evens 2005) for recent mapping work at NASNI and SSTC-S. 

Older mapping units (Naval Amphibious Base [NAB] Coronado) are labeled and described in a manner 

consistent with the Holland vegetation classification system (Holland 1986), as modified by Oberbauer 

(1996). Natural resources surveys were conducted on NASNI and SSTC-S from October 2004 through 

October 2005 by RECON Environmental Consultants (RECON 2004, 2005). Vegetation surveys were 

conducted on NAB Coronado in December 1981, January 1982 (Department of the Navy [DoN] 1982), 

and April 1996 (DoN 1998). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-3

The principal plant species list for SSTC-S was first developed based on a 1981-1982 survey by Brand et 

al. (1982). Field surveys were later completed in the spring of 1987 to verify this list and to locate any 

species not noted earlier (Wagoner and Grizzle 1989), then again by RECON in 1996 (DoN-Southwest 

Division 1998b). Vegetation of the SSTC-S inland area and NASNI was most recently mapped in 2001 

and 2004 (RECON 2004, 2006). Plant surveys were conducted on NAB Coronado on SSTC-S in 

December 1981 and January 1982 (DoN-Western Division 1982). In April 1996, vegetation units were 

mapped based on field walks and aerial photography (DoN 1998). Table 3.11-1 gives the acreage of 

terrestrial plant community and land cover types within the project area. The distribution of these 

communities is shown in Figures 3.11-1 through 3.11-3. Following these are brief descriptions of the 

mapping units listed. 

Table 3.11-1: Terrestrial Plant Communities and Cover Types within the ROI based on the most 

current vegetation map for each area, and including the Delta Beaches 

Plant Community 

NASNI SSTC-N * SSTC-S TOTALS 

Acres Ha Acres Ha Acres Ha Acres Ha 

Developed, Fill, or OtherO 5.6 2.3 404.8 163.9 283.3 114.7 693.7 280.9 

Ruderal habitat including fillO 5.0 2.0 34.8 14.1 42.7 17.3 82.5 33.4 

IceplantS 0 0 0 0 165.1 66.8 165.1 66.8 

Urban/developed landsO 0.4 0.2 370.0 149.8 75.5 30.6 445.9 180.6 

RiprapO 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 

California Annual Grassland S 0 0 0 0 125.5 50.8 125.5 50.8 

Diegan Coastal Sage ScrubH 0 0 0 0 15.1 6.1 15.1 6.1 

California buckwheat seriesS 0 0 0 0 2.7 1.1 2.7 1.1 

California sagebrush seriesS 0 0 0 0 7.7 3.1 7.7 3.1 

Coyote brush seriesS 0 0 0 0 4.7 1.9 4.7 1.9 

Maritime Succulent ScrubH 0 0 0 0 7.3 3.0 7.3 3.0

Vernal PoolsO 0 0 0 0 3.2 1.3 3.2 1.3

San Diego Mesa vernal poolsH 0 0 0 0 3.2 1.3 3.2 1.3

Upland Transition 0 0 90.0 36.4 0 0 90.0 36.4 

Southern Foredune/BeachO 63.8 25.8 277.5 112.3 77.9 31.5 419.2 169.6 

BeachO 59.7 24.2 232.5 94.1 43.5 17.6 335.7 135.9 

Sand verbena-Beach bursage seriesS 3.8 1.5 0 0 34.4 13.9 38.2 15.4 

Disturbed coastal duneO 0 0 45.0 18.2 0 0 45.0 18.2 

Dune restoration areaO 0.3 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.1 

Freshwater MarshH 0 0 0 0 3.3 1.3 3.3 1.3 

Bulrush-Cattail seriesS 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.3 

Spikerush seriesS 0 0 0 0 2.4 1.0 2.4 1.0 

Coastal Salt MarshH 0.2 0.1 13.8 5.6 56.7 22.9 70.7 28.6 

Pickleweed seriesS 0 0 0 0 55.4 22.4 55.4 22.4 

Salt grass seriesS 0.03 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.01 

Pickleweed-saltgrass seriesS 0 0 0 0 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 

WaterO 0.7 0.3 20.8 8.4 9.0 3.6 30.5 12.3 

Unvegetated channelO 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.1 

Freshwater pondO 0 0 0 0 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.3 

Open water 0.5 0.2 20.8 8.4 8.2 3.3 29.5 11.9 

Totals 70.3 28.5 806.9 326.6 581.3 235.2 1458.5 590.3 

Vegetation Classification Systems: H Holland, S Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, O Other types not classified by either system. 

These are mostly bay fill land cover types or developed areas. * Acreages for Delta Beaches North and South are included 

Sources: RECON 2004, 2005 and DoN 1982, 1998 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Figure 3.11-1: Plant Communities of NASNI Based on Most Recent Vegetation Map 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-5

Figure 3.11-2: Plant Communities of SSTC-N (NAB Coronado) Based on Most Recent Mapping
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-6

Figure 3.11-3: Plant Communities of SSTC-S (NRRF) Based on Most Recent Vegetation Map 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-7

Developed, Ruderal, Fill, and Other Uplands 

Developed areas such as NAB Coronado and NASNI complexes do not usually support native vegetation 

and contain man-made structures such as buildings or paved roads. Ruderal areas, where the natural 

vegetation has been disturbed by man, are dominated by non-native weeds. Non-native annual grasses 

occur in low abundance. Many of the broad-leaved weeds characteristic of ruderal areas are also common 

species of non-native grasslands. However, Nuttall’s lotus does grow within some developed areas, such 

as in cracks in the pavement in the inland area of SSTC-S. Areas of fill that remain undeveloped, such as 

Delta Beach North and Delta Beach South, while weedy similar to areas classified as ruderal, frequently 

contain special status species that are naturally adapted to disturbed areas, such as Nuttall’s lotus (Lotus 

nutallianus) and coast woolly-heads (Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata). Landscaped areas support 

some native wildlife. Many ornamental trees in landscaped areas are used for nesting by herons or raptors 

near the action area. Iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis, among other species) has historically been used as 

erosion and fire control and was often planted on the sides of freeways. A large portion of SSTC-S was 

planted with iceplant in the 1950s to control erosion. Since that time, it has spread over the building 

foundations at inland SSTC-S (streets and concrete foundations of a planned community abandoned in the 

1880s), and now covers approximately 164 acres as a monoculture, displacing native habitat. It is also 

found on SSTC-N in sporadic locations on the dunes west of State Route 75 (SR-75). No special status 

species have been associated with this cover type in the project area. Artificial structures of the shoreline, 

such as the riprap at Zuniga Jetty and Coronado, also provide a certain amount of habitat for wildlife, 

especially for birds (discussed in Section 3.12), but also pests such as rats and opossums.

California Annual Grassland 

Non-native grasslands are usually dominated by several species of non-native grasses; however, at inland 

SSTC-S and NASNI native saltgrass is a common, sometimes dominant grassland element. Other 

dominant grass species in the annual grassland at inland SSTC-S include foxtail chess (Bromus 

madritensis ssp. rubens), soft chess (B. hordeaceus), ripgut (B. diandrus), and wild oat (Avena fatua). 

Common forbs include iceplant, Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), white-stemmed filaree 

(Erodium cicutarium), and the native coast locoweed (Astragalus trichopodus ssp. lonchus). Areas of 

increased soil salinity support alkali weed, increased saltgrass, and pickleweed. 

Non-native grasslands can be used by many wildlife species, especially birds, for nesting and foraging 

purposes. Breeding birds using this habitat include the horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), western 

meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), and the grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). 

Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 

Diegan coastal sage scrub is a type of upland community with several vegetative phases based on 

dominant species. This vegetative community is comprised of low, soft-woody subshrubs to about three 

feet high, is found mainly on south facing slopes below 1,500 feet in elevation, and is one of the major 

shrub-dominated (scrub) communities within California. This community occurs on xeric (dry) sites with 

shallow soils, such as steep, south-facing slopes or clay-rich soils that are slow to release stored water. 

Sage scrub species are drought-resistant deciduous plants with shallow root systems. Both of these 

adaptations allow for the occurrence of sage scrub species on these xeric sites. Within the project area, 

three coastal sage scrub phases have been mapped based on dominant species: California sagebrush 

(Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and coyote brush (Baccharis 

pilularis).

Diegan coastal sage scrub was listed as the third most extensive vegetation community in San Diego 

County over 35 years ago (California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] 1965); however, the 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-8

reduction of this once common habitat is evident in the number of declining plant species as well as 

animal species dependent upon it, including the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher 

(Polioptila californica californica) and many additional sensitive wildlife and plant species. On NASNI 

and on the 40-acre lease to the State of California on SSTC-N, the occurrence of Brand’s phacelia is in a 

coastal sage scrub setting. 

Of the vegetation types that are potentially supported by undisturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub, only a 

subset of these are supported by disturbed Diegan coastal sage, which also supports exotic species. It is 

heavily invaded by iceplant and also contains pineapple weed (Amblyopappus pusillus), tread-lightly 

(Cardionema ramosissima), and Bishop’s lotus (Lotus strigosus). Coyote brush series is also found on 

disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub areas in inland SSTC-S. 

Maritime Succulent Scrub 

Maritime succulent scrub reaches its northern distribution limits in San Diego County on the mainland 

and offshore on the California Channel Islands. It is confined to thin, rocky or sandy soils on dry, southfacing slopes along the coastal areas, from Torrey Pines State Park south to El Rosario in northern Baja 

California. Maritime succulent scrub is a low, open vegetation with a poorly developed understory 

(Holland 1986). This community occurs on SSTC-S in close association with coastal sage scrub. 

The dominant shrub species overlap somewhat with those of the coastal sage scrub and salt marsh, but 

with the addition of cacti and other succulents. Characteristic species include California boxthorn (Lycium 

californicum), variegated dudleya (Dudleya variegata), San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens), 

and cholla (Opuntia prolifera). Pickleweed (Salicornia subterminalis) is a common associate due to the 

proximity of nearby salt marsh. 

San Diego Mesa Vernal Pools and Other Ephemeral Ponds 

San Diego mesa vernal pools are a type of landform characterized by a low, amphibious, herbaceous plant 

community dominated by annual herbs and grasses located in small depressions in flat-topped marine 

terraces (Holland 1986). A hardpan prevents the downward drainage of water; plants germinate and grow 

when the depressions fill during winter rains. As water evaporates in the spring, colorful bands of 

vegetation appear, and tiny shrimp and other animals inhabiting the pools hatch and complete their life 

cycles. Vernal pools as a habitat have been severely depleted in acreage in San Diego County and 

elsewhere in California except on military lands, since they occur on flat mesas that are suitable for 

building homes and other development. For this reason, some of the plants and invertebrates that 

specialize in vernal pools have become rare. 

Vernal pools at inland SSTC-S do not support a plant community typical of well-developed pools 

elsewhere in San Diego County, but they contain recognized indicator plants such as dwarf woolly-heads 

(Psilocarphus tenellus ssp. tenellus) and water star-wort (Callitriche marginata). Also present are grass 

poly (Lythrum hyssopifolia), alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis), and alkali-mallow (Malvella leprosa), 

along with other nonnative species. Multiple small pools border the maritime succulent scrub community, 

and several larger pools occur along internal drainages. Note that this mapping unit is a vegetation 

classification only, and not a jurisdictional determination under Section 404 of the CWA, nor a 

delineation of potential habitat for the federally endangered San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta 

sandiegonensis), which can occur in ephemeral pools or even road ruts that contain no vernal pool 

indicator plants. Fairy shrimp will be discussed in Section 3.11.1.4.2. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-9

Upland Transition 

This plant community delineation is in the transition between coastal salt marsh and the scrub 

communities, and often includes plant species that are tolerant to desiccation or salt stress. On SSTC-N, 

the occurrence of Brand’s phacelia (Phacelia stellaris) is in an area that could be classified as Upland 

Transition. 

Southern Foredunes 

Southern foredunes arise along the coast where sandy beaches occur and where coastal headlands are 

absent. Dune size and shape vary and are dependent on wind speed and direction. For southern foredunes, 

wind speed is low enough to allow for plant development, which is dense to scattered because of the dry, 

warm summer days, and well-drained dune soils. Foredune plant species that occur along the shore are 

well adapted to open, sandy, often windy conditions. Plants found here are prostrate and have long 

taproots, with many succulents. Some foredune plant species are more tolerant of salty conditions; 

therefore, these species are more apt to be found closer to the seashore. Sand verbena-beach series, 

analogous to the southern foredune community of Holland (1986), occurs on sandy sites adjacent to the 

high surf line from NASNI to SSTC-S. Along the dunes on the beach side of SSTC-S, a degraded form of 

this community includes dominants of red sand verbena (Abronia maritima), beach sand verbena (A. 

umbellata), beach-bur (Ambrosia chamissonis), and beach evening primrose (Camissonia cheiranthifolia 

ssp. cheiranthifolia). Other species present include sea rocket (Cakile maritima), California suncup 

(Camissonia bistorta), beach morning glory (Calystegia soldanella), and false-mustard (Camissonia 

californica). A Navy dune restoration site comprises a portion of the mapped dune community, consisting 

of a single row of low foredunes, covering 1.2 acres along the central portion of the NASNI ocean front.

Sandy Beaches 

The ecology of sandy beaches in California has been found to hinge on the line of organic and other 

debris left by the high tide, called the wrack line (Dugan et al. 2003, Hubbard and Dugan 2003, Dugan et 

al. 2000). The kelp, seagrasses, and other debris thrown ashore are rich in invertebrates that consume the 

kelp at night. These function as a forage base for many wintering shorebirds, including the western snowy 

plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). The birds feed on invertebrates and the kelp itself. Also, the 

wrack debris allows fine sand to be captured rather than be washed or blown away, allowing the 

development of beach hummocks, and eventually dunes. Mammals and birds from inland are also 

attracted to the wrack line, including the large-billed savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis 

rostratus), Belding’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi), and flycatchers. When 

beach wrack is left intact after slight disturbance, animal recolonization can occur within hours (Dugan et 

al. 2003). 

Birds that nest in this habitat include the western snowy plover, California least tern (Sterna antillarum 

browni), and horned lark. Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola), 

least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla), American pipit (Anthus rubescens), house finch (Carpodacus 

mexicanus), other shorebirds, gulls, and terns loaf and forage here (Unitt 2004). Dunes and the adjacent 

beaches support specialized invertebrate fauna, such as tiger beetles and the globose dune beetle (Coelus 

globosus), sand spiders, robber flies, kelp flies, and ants. 

Freshwater Marsh 

Freshwater marshes are nontidal and are contiguous with the upland boundaries of salt marsh habitats. In 

shallow standing water or on perennially saturated ground, the dominant plants of this community are 

southern cattails (Typha domingensis), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), prairie bulrush (Scirpus robustus), 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-10

and spikerush (Eleocharis spp.). The spikerush series of freshwater marsh at SSTC-S is characterized by 

perennial, emergent monocots in permanently flooded areas. Pale spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya) 

and curly dock (Rumex crispus) dominate the area. Common birds of the freshwater marsh include the 

least bittern, ruddy duck, cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera), Virginia rail (Rallus limicola limicola), 

moorhen (Gallinula chloropus), American coot (Fulica americana), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), 

marsh wren (Cistothorus platensis), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), song sparrow (Melospiza 

melodia), and red-winged (Agelaius phoeniceus) and tri-colored blackbirds (A. tricolor) (Unitt 2004). 

Coastal Salt Marsh 

The tidal cycle is a key controlling characteristic of the salt marsh. The salinity of the tide defines the 

plants and animals that can survive in the marsh area. The vertical range of the tide determines flooding 

depths and the height of the vegetation, and the tidal cycle controls how often and how long vegetation is 

submerged. Two areas are delineated by the tide: the low marsh and the high marsh. The low marsh 

floods and drains twice daily with the rise and fall of the tide; the high marsh, which is at a slightly higher 

elevation, floods less frequently. They are formed where salinity is high, ranging from 20 to 30 parts per 

thousand. In the upper estuary, where river input dominates, the water has only a trace of salt. This 

varying salinity produces changes in the marsh—in the kinds of species and also in their number. 

3.11.1.3 Terrestrial Wildlife 

The wildlife discussion presented here was compiled from various surveys as summarized in the 

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) for Naval Base Coronado (NBC) (DoN 2002). 

Natural resources surveys were conducted on NASNI and SSTC-S from October 2004 through October 

2005 by RECON Environmental Consultants (2004 for SSTC-S, 2006 for NASNI). For the NAB portion 

of SSTC-N, the most recent baseline wildlife surveys were conducted in 1996 by RECON in support of 

the Navy’s INRMP (U.S. Navy 1998). This included small mammal trapping on the 40-acre parcel leased 

to the California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) (Cameron and Arnold 1996 as cited in U.S. 

Navy 1998). At SSTC-S, RECON had also conducted surveys in 1995-1996 for the INRMP at that time; 

the more recent surveys built on those efforts. These earlier surveys involved pit-fall trapping, aerial 

netting, and directed searches for special status invertebrates (tiger beetles, and sifting sand samples for 

globose dune beetles). 

In the following descriptions, the nomenclature used for wildlife species may not be consistent with the 

sources identified, due to the need for consistency with resource agency nomenclature. 

3.11.1.3.1 Invertebrates 

Surveys on some terrestrial portions of the project area in 2004 and 2005 (RECON 2005, 2006) detected 

common invertebrates such as various kelp flies (Families Coelopidae and Anthomyidae), dune silverfish 

(Family Lepismatidae), leaf beetles (Family Chrysomelidae), and snout beetles (Family Curculionidae). 

The spider fauna of the dunes was found to be diverse and includes at least one endemic species (RECON 

2006). Funnel web weavers (Family Agelenidae), wolf spiders (Family Lycosidae), trapdoor spiders 

(Family Ctenizidae), and the endemic sand spiders of the genus Lutica (Family Zodariidae) were found. 

The nocturnal sand spiders are restricted to southern California coastal dunes and are adapted for 

burrowing in fine sand. Tarantula hawks (Pepsis sp.) can be seen flying around the dunes hunting for 

spiders. A few special status species have been recorded including the globose dune beetle, sandy beach 

tiger beetle (Cicindella hirticollis gravida), mudflat tiger beetle (C. trifasciata sigmoidea), a third tiger 

beetle (C. latesignata spp. latesignata), and wandering skipper (Panoquina errans), as well as the 

federally endangered San Diego fairy shrimp. Invertebrates are the primary prey item for many types of 

wildlife and are important as pollinators for many plant species. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-11

3.11.1.3.2 Reptiles and Amphibians 

Amphibian and reptile nomenclature is from the San Diego Natural History Museum Field Guide and 

based on Crother (2000). 

Terrestrial reptiles and amphibians have shown well documented declines in recent decades. Some lizards 

such as the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata webbi), 

and side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) are frequently observed around buildings. Snakes include the 

San Diego gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucuspumilis), which has been observed at SSTC-S (DoN 

1998, RECON 2006). The California Species of Concern silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra)

has been reported on both SSTC-N and SSTC-S Wagoner and Grizzle (1989), but was not recorded in 

recent surveys. 

3.11.1.3.3 Mammals 

Mammal nomenclature is based on the Smithsonian Institution’s Mammal Species of the World (Wilson 

and Reeder [eds.] 1993). 

Mammals are found year-round on all properties of the SSTC. The native habitats as well as developed 

areas harbor populations of small mammals that are an important food source for raptors and other large 

carnivores. The only sensitive mammal confirmed in the area is the San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit 

(Lepus californicus bennettii), which is a federal species of concern and a CDFG species of special 

concern. It is common at SSTC beaches, grasslands, open scrub, and ruderal areas. Mammal burrows are 

used by the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea), and these burrow complexes are 

considered sensitive. California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) are common. Feral cats (Felis 

cattus), are controlled because they represent a threat to federally listed nesting birds. The gray fox 

(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and striped skunk (Mephitis 

mephitis) also occur (Stewart 2004). 

Consistent with BOs at NASNI and throughout the SSTC, certain mammals are managed by the Navy and 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service as predators of the 

federally listed least tern and western snowy plover. These include opossum, striped skunk, and other 

mammals that consume eggs or young. Ground squirrels are managed to benefit burrowing owls, since 

burrowing owls use burrows created by ground squirrels. Ground squirrel control is done in areas where 

the ground squirrels pose a threat to federally listed species and/or contribute to increase the bird-aircraft 

strike hazard (BASH) risk (by providing additional burrowing owl burrows) or negatively affect other 

essential operations. To sustain ground squirrel populations, no rodent control is conducted unless 

mandated by an outbreak of disease or the rodents are negatively impacting a listed species. Squirrel 

burrows are never filled, buried, or gassed without consulting the NBC Wildlife Biologist. 

3.11.1.4 Federally Listed Species 

The Navy has developed a Biological Assessment that evaluates the effects of SSTC training on federally 

listed species and is undergoing formal Section 7 consultation with the USFWS on these effects under the 

ESA. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-12

3.11.1.4.1 Federally Endangered Plants 

Salt marsh bird’s beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus) is a federally endangered plant that 

occurs at YMCA Camp Surf outside the area that will be subject to impacts associated with the Proposed 

Action. Since this species will not be impacted, it will not be addressed further in this document except 

with regard to general management measures that incidentally pertain to it.Coastal dune milk vetch 

(Astragalus tener var. titi) is a federal and state endangered annual of the family Fabaceae that was 

historically found on the beaches of SSTC-N, but is believed to be extirpated. It will not be discussed 

further in this document. 

3.11.1.4.2 San Diego Fairy Shrimp 

The San Diego fairy shrimp is listed as federally endangered (62 FR 4925 3 February 1997). USFWS 

protocol fairy shrimp surveys were conducted at SSTC-S from January to May of 2001 and between 

February and May of 2003. San Diego fairy shrimp were found in 11 of 25 vernal pools and salt marshes 

surveyed (Cobb and O’Connor 2003). The San Francisco brine shrimp (Artemia fransiscana), not a listed 

species, was present in 4 of the 25 ephemeral pools surveyed. One pool contained on the order of 

hundreds of San Diego fairy shrimp when observed, while the remaining 10 pools contained on the order 

of tens of the federally endangered fairy shrimp. Figure 3.11-4 identifies the pools determined to be 

occupied in 2001 and 2003. 

This small crustacean is found in vernal pools and other seasonally filled soil depressions in coastal 

southern California, from Santa Barbara County to northern Baja California, Mexico. Vernal pools form 

in depressions that occur in an impervious soil layer, such as a claypan. The impervious layer can also 

form as a result of soil compaction that impedes the drainage of water following winter rains, such as in 

road ditches and ruts. As water evaporates from these pools during early spring and summer, various 

endemic, short-lived plant and animal species adapted to these ephemeral conditions complete their life 

cycles. The San Diego fairy shrimp is a habitat specialist for this kind of environment. Similar to other 

pool complexes, the pools at the SSTC-S are a mosaic of large and small interconnected pools. 

Adult San Diego fairy shrimp are observed from January to March; however, in years with early or late 

rainfall, the hatching period may be extended. Shrimp appear when late fall, winter, or spring rains 

sufficiently fill their small, shallow pools with enough water to remain inundated for up to several months 

at a time (USFWS 2006a). They are filter feeders that digest microscopic particles of plant and animal 

detritus. Birds and other invertebrates prey upon the fairy shrimp that develop in these. One unique 

feature of fairy shrimp biology is their ability to remain in the soil, as egg-like cysts, for many years 

without hatching. Under appropriate, hydrated conditions, the shrimp can then hatch and reproduce 

(USFWS 2006a). The presence of these shrimp is sensitive to water temperature and chemistry. San 

Diego fairy shrimp appear to be sensitive to high water temperatures, and they cannot tolerate extremes in 

sodium or bicarbonate concentrations (Branchiopod Research Group 1996). 

Regionally, habitat loss and degradation are reportedly the greatest ongoing threat to this species 

(USFWS 1997, 2007). At the time of listing, the USFWS determined that the continued survival of the 

species was threatened by habitat destruction from agricultural and urban development, alteration of 

wetland hydrology by draining, off-road vehicle activity, and replacement by other fairy shrimp species 

that are habitat generalists. Vehicle use, extremely limited available habitat (less than 81 hectares [200 

acres] of vernal pools), and changes in hydrologic patterns in areas where they occur also continue to 

threaten this species. All of the known populations of the San Diego fairy shrimp were described as 

imperiled. The animal has a USFWS recovery priority of 2C, indicating that it is a species facing a high 

degree of threat but having a high potential for recovery. The “C” indicates that the species may be in 

conflict with construction or development projects (USFWS 1997). In 2008, the USFWS released a fiveyear review in which there was no change to the status of San Diego fairy shrimp. Recommendations for 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-13

Figure 3.11-4: Location of San Diego Fairy Shrimp Occupied Pools at SSTC-S 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-14

the next five years include the continued support of management, study, and conservation of fairy shrimp 

habitat. 

Habitat loss occurs from destruction and modification of vernal pools due to filling, grading, disking, 

leveling, and other activities, as well as the modification of surrounding uplands that alters vernal pool 

watersheds, such as those that alter water runoff patterns (amounts and seasonal distribution) or reduce 

the size of the watershed. Besides the loss and fragmentation of habitat, the species is potentially 

threatened by pesticides, other pollutants, and drought (USFWS 2008). Drought is likely to decrease or 

terminate reproductive output as continuing drought situations may deplete cyst banks in affected pools. 

Indirect threats to the San Diego fairy shrimp occur because of alteration of supporting watersheds 

adjacent to vernal pools that change drainage patterns in the occupied pools (USFWS 2007). An increase 

in road runoff leads to ponding, making the pools vulnerable to invasion by marsh plant species that 

outcompete vernal pool plants and animals. At the other extreme, pools that are drained or blocked from 

their source of water are invaded by upland plants. Any change in the maximum and minimum water 

temperatures can affect the San Diego fairy shrimp. 

The USFWS (1997) also reports indirect impacts associated with disposal of waste materials into habitat 

for the San Diego fairy shrimp. Disposal of concrete, tires, refrigerators, sofas, and other trash adversely 

affects these animals by eliminating habitat, disrupting pool hydrology or, in some cases, releasing toxic 

substances (Bauder 1986, 1987). Malathion, herbicides, laundry detergent, household plant fertilizer, and 

motor oil have been documented to be fatal to the San Diego fairy shrimp through poisoning of the 

animals or by the formation of a barrier to gas exchange on the surface of the water, which can result in 

asphyxiation (Branchiopod Research Group 1996). 

Bullfrogs can also indirectly impact the San Diego fairy shrimp as they are a recognized predator (Morey 

1996; Simovich et al. 1996) of vernal pool species and the USFWS recommends that eradication of 

larvae, post-metamorphic, and adult bullfrogs should be a task item in vernal pool management plans 

(USFWS 1998). 

The criteria identified for protecting the San Diego fairy shrimp is that the pools and their associated 

watersheds “be secured from further loss and degradation in a configuration that maintains habitat 

functions and species viability” (USFWS 1998). The Plan recommends that secured vernal pools be 

enhanced or restored such that population levels of existing species are stabilized or increase for a 

minimum of 10 years before down- or delisting the species. 

3.11.1.5 Other Special Status Species 

A list of other, non-federally listed, special status species documented in the ROI is provided in Table 

3.11-2 and known locations are shown in Figures 3.11-5 through 3.11-7. This list is derived based on 

species lists for Federal Candidate, Federal Species of Concern, State of California Endangered, 

California Special Concern species, CDFG fully protected, and plants considered sensitive by the 

California Native Plant Society. Special status birds are discussed in Section 3.12 and listed in Table 

3.12-3. Species that reside strictly in the salt marsh or mudflat are considered unimpacted by activities. 

The silvery legless lizard was historically documented in the ROI, most recently in 1973 at Silver Strand 

State Beach based on a San Diego Natural History Museum record, but recent focused surveys did not 

detect this secretive lizard, which is usually buried. Focused surveys by RECON in 1998 did not detect it 

at SSTC-S, nor did general surveys in 2001-2002. It was also not detected on SSTC-N in 2005 with 

focused survey. It is considered unimpacted by the activities analyzed for the alternatives. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-15

For those species of plants that are rare or endangered in California Native Plants Society (CNPS) 1B, and 

for wildlife classified as a federal or state species of concern, a brief natural history is presented in the 

following sections. 

Table 3.11-2: Other (Non-Federally Listed) Special Status Non-avian Species Documented in the 

Project Area 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) Status 

Habitat Preferences or 

Known Occurrence 

Plants 

Southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus var. 

leopoldii) 

CNPS 4 Salt marsh at SSTC-S and NASNI 

Estuary suaeda (Suaeda esteroa) CNPS 1B Salt marsh at SSTC-S 

Wooly seablite (Suaeda taxifolia) CNPS 4 Salt marsh at SSTC-S 

San Diego County viguiera (Viguiera laciniata) CNPS 4 Coastal sage scrub at SSTC-S 

San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) CNPS 2 Maritime succulent scrub at SSTC-S 

Variegated dudleya (Dudleya variegata) CNPS 1B Coastal sage scrub in rocky or clay soils; 

occasionally on margins of vernal pools 

(SSTC-S) 

Nuttall’s lotus (Lotus nuttallianus) CNPS 1B Beach, coastal sage scrub (entire SSTC and 

NASNI) 

Palmer’s frankenia (Frankenia palmeri) CNPS 2 SSTC-S 

Coast woolly-heads (Nemacaulis denudata var. 

denudata) 

CNPS 1B Dunes (entire SSTC and NASNI) 

Red sand-verbena (Abronia maritima) CNPS 4 Dunes (SSTC-S and NASNI) 

Brand’s phacelia (Phacelia stellaris) FC, CNPS 

1B 

Coastal sage scrub (NASNI), upper beach areas 

of NBC Bravo and Charlie Training Areas 

Non-avian Wildlife 

Globose dune beetle (Coelus globosus) FSC Dunes at SSTC-S where sparsely vegetated 

Sandy beach tiger beetle (Cicendela hirticolis ssp. 

gravida)

FSC Throughout beaches on ocean side, except not 

documented on NASNI 

Tiger beetle (Cicindela latesignata ssp. latesignata) FSC Sandy beach on west shore SSTC-S 

Mudflat tiger beetle (Cicendela trifusciata 

sigmoidea) 

CSC Documented at NASNI (RECON 2004) 

Wandering skipper (Panoquina errans) FSC Pickleweed series with salt grass (its food plant) 

Silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra) CSC Loose or sandy soils for burrowing (SSTC-N/S) 

San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit 

(Lepus californicus bennettii)

CSC In coastal scrub, grassland, and ruderal areas 

(Delta North and South, SSTC-S, and NASNI) 

Status derived from the CDFG Special Animals Lists, July 2003, and the CNPS’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of 

California, 2001. 

FC=Federal Candidate Species 

FSC=Federal Species of Concern 

CSC=California Special Concern Species 

CDFG fully protected=Species may not be taken without permit from Fish and Game Commission 

CNPS 1B=Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere 

CNPS 2=Rare or endangered in California, more common elsewhere 

CNPS 4= Limited distribution (Watch List)
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Figure 3.11-5: Special Status Species and Habitats of NASNI 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-17

Figure 3.11-6: Special Status Species and Habitats of SSTC-N (NAB Coronado) 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-18

Figure 3.11-7: Sensitive Species and Habitats of SSTC-S (NRRF)
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-19

3.11.1.5.1 Rare Plants with a CNPS 1B Status or Higher 

Brand’s phacelia 

Brand’s phacelia (Phacelia stellaris) is a Federal Candidate Species for listing on the Endangered Species 

Act, as well as having a CNPS 1B status. This small annual forb has symmetric purple flowers and has 

been observed in Riverside, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties. It can be found at 

NASNI north of the northern border of the ROI and, recently discovered, at Charlie and Bravo training 

areas (Figure 3.11-8). Brand’s phacelia also occurs on the 40-acre leased area to the State of California 

(California Natural Diversity Data Base 2009) just south of the mapped locations in Charlie and Bravo 

training areas. It is known from openings in coastal sage scrub where the preferred sandy soils can be 

found, and from coastal dunes. About 5,000 Brand’s phacelia were estimated on NASNI in 2004 

(RECON 2005). The recent finds in Bravo and Charlie training areas total over 2,000 individuals in 2009, 

although locations are spread out and range from single individuals to one aggregate of 57 individuals, 

and the primary aggregation of over 2000 individuals. Two additional locations near the SSTC are at 

Mission Bay (CNDDB 2009). 

Estuary seablite 

Estuary seablite (Suaeda esteroa) is a perennial subshrub is part of the Chenopodiaceae family, and 

flowers in late summer to fall. The distribution is rather widespread from Santa Barbara County into 

northwestern Mexico. This plant can be found within the salt marsh at the South Bay Marine Biological 

Study Area and inhabits coastal salt marshes, tidal banks, swamps, and channel margins; its typical 

elevation is under 10 feet. It is present within the salt marsh at SSTC-S. Estuary seablite is listed by 

CNPS at a 1B status, most likely due to its recent decline and diminishing habitat. The Jepson 

Interchange website (University of California Berkeley) has recorded observations of this species at 

multiple locations within San Diego County, including some near Chula Vista and Imperial Beach and a 

few at Silver Strand and Coronado. 

The main threat that this species faces is habitat reduction. Whether it is from development, recreation, or 

exotic species encroachment, the favored habitats of estuary suaeda are often modified. This leads to very 

few untouched natural areas of coastal wetlands, and this species’ scarcity. Minimizing the destructive 

effects of activities whenever possible as well as establishing certain restrictions where populations 

currently exist are actions that protect the species. 

This plant, while existing within the ROI is not included in the effects analysis in this document because 

it is located completely in the South Bay Marine Biological Study Area salt marsh, an area where training 

activities are not proposed. 

Variegated dudleya 

Variegated dudleya is a species of perennial forb (an herb other than grass) that inhabits a variety of 

community types including: chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools. It 

can be found adjacent to vernal pools within SSTC-S. The yellow flowers are striking during the 

blooming period from April to June throughout San Diego County at elevations under 750 feet. Even 

though there is variability among possible habitats, variegated dudleya is only found in San Diego County 

and is listed by CNPS at a 1B status. This plant has been reported at many locations, ranging from SSTC 

north to Lake Hodges to the north and as far inland as Jamul. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-20

Figure 3.11-5: Locations of Brand’s Phacelia 2009.
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-21

This species is threatened by disturbance that is destructive to the vegetation structure. It often lives 

between rocks in crevices along washes and ephemeral pools. Some of these areas are prone to erosion 

and major events can wash away a seed stock as well as injure adult plants. The communities in which 

this plant occurs can change dramatically often with only a small amount of disturbance. This species is 

placed at risk by altered water flow and soil structure, and by invasive infestations. 

Nuttall’s lotus 

Nuttall’s lotus (Lotus nuttallianus) is a vibrant member of the pea family is an herb that can be either 

annual or perennial. The species is primarily found within San Diego County. Historical collections have 

been reported in Orange and Ventura counties, but these populations have likely diminished due to 

development. This plant can be found at many northern locations at NASNI (Figure 3-11.4), bordering the 

ROI. It has also been observed on dunes on the oceanside of SSTC-N, and throughout SSTC-S inland 

area (Figure 3-11.6). Nuttall’s lotus flowers from March to June, displaying bright red buds that unfold 

into bilaterally symmetric yellow flowers. This species favors coastal communities such as dunes, 

beaches, and coastal sage scrub; thus it can exist anywhere at SSTC. It is a CNPS 1B status and is in 

serious decline. According to a study on NASNI it is known from fewer than 10 locations within the state 

(RECON 2006); that being said, it was reported as prevalent on NASNI. 

The threats to Nuttall’s lotus are similar to those of most rare coastal species, diminishing natural habitat. 

While this lotus species often thrives once established, establishment and advancement is strictly limited. 

Reduction of habitat and pristine ecosystems threaten this plant’s ability to rebound. Exotics that often 

occur in these communities make expansion difficult by overcrowding and creating light limiting 

environments that inhibit seedling development. 

Coast woolly-heads 

Coast woolly-heads (Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata) is an annual herb found in Los Angeles, 

Riverside, Orange and San Diego counties, and is listed by CNPS at a 1B status. It is found at NASNI 

near the northern border of the ROI, in addition to Delta Beach North and South. It is found on coastal 

sand dunes and beaches from April to September. Coast wooly-heads sprawls aggressively along the sand 

and is usually fairly abundant where it occurs. Favoring dunes and sandy soils, it can occur anywhere on 

SSTC. It was not documented during the most recent surveys at SSTC-S (RECON 2006) due to a drought 

year during surveys. 

The main threats to this species are development and disturbance. While many beaches are not fully 

developed, conversion into a public beach, access area, or otherwise utilized region still results in 

disturbance at some level. This species can probably survive moderate levels of disturbance; however 

concentrated and frequent disturbance would diminish populations. Activities such as grading dunes and 

beaches could be severe to this species recovery, because such actions may disperse exotics and destroy 

healthy seed-producing coast woolly-heads. 

3.11.1.5.2 Invertebrates 

Globose dune beetle 

The globose dune beetle is a Federal Species of Concern that inhabits coastal sand dunes and sand 

hummocks in scattered localities from Bodega Head, Sonoma County to Ensenada, Baja California, as 

well as the Channel Islands (except San Clemente Island) (Nagano 1982a; Snover 1992). It is a small 

(approximately one centimeter), brown, oval-shaped beetle of the family Tenebrionidae. Throughout 

much of its range it co-occurs with the closely related ciliated dune beetle (Coelus ciliatus). Its population 

status has declined in recent years due to development of coastal areas and recreational use of remaining 

coastal dune habitats. Many of southern California’s coastal dunes have also seen significant invasions by 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-22

non-native plant species, which tend to be detrimental to native fauna, especially arthropods. The globose 

dune beetle spends the days burrowed into the sand beneath dune vegetation, and comes to the surface at 

night, leaving distinctive furrows in the sand around the perimeter of the vegetation. It feeds upon the 

leaves, twigs, seeds, and detritus of dune vegetation, both on the sand surface and below. It will also 

climb up into the plant canopies to feed. Overall it shows a marked preference for native plant species 

over invasive non-natives. One exception is the sea rocket, which is actually preferred by adults over the 

native dune ragweed (beach bur). However, in coastal areas sea rocket is an annual plant that dies off at 

the time of year when globose dune beetle larvae are approaching the end of their development period. 

Particularly detrimental is the iceplant (Carpobrotus spp.), which provides little or no food for dune 

beetles and most other dune arthropods. There are very few beetles and other dune arthropods found in 

the sands beneath iceplant stands (Nagano 1982a; Snover 1992 and unpublished data). 

The globose dune beetle was proposed for listing as threatened in 1979, and was also a Category 2 

species. In the San Diego Bay area, it has been found on the dunes at Silver Strand, as well as the coastal 

dune habitats near the SSTC-S where native plant species have not been crowded out by iceplant. 

Iceplant does occur in both areas and poses a direct threat to the continued persistence of the species. 

Sandy beach tiger beetle 

The sandy beach tiger beetle (Cinindela hirticollis gravid) is a Federal Species of Concern usually found 

on sandy areas subject to tidal flow. Adult tiger beetles are 0.4 to 0.8 inches in length. They are active 

terrestrial predators morphologically adapted to stalk and hunt small arthropods; they are quick runners 

and agile fliers (Nagano 1980). This tiger beetle ranges from the San Francisco Bay area southward into 

Mexico and inhabits clean, dry, light-colored sand in the upper beach zone. The larvae that burrow in the 

sand are predaceous like the adults. According to Nagano (1980) and the Natural Diversity Database 

(NDDB) this subspecies is extant (exists) at only four localities in California. Nagano (1980) mentions 

the possibility of this beetle occurring on the Silver Strand. The beetle apparently is very sensitive to 

human contact. Threats to the species include offshore oil spills, improper use of insecticides, degradation 

of habitat, recreational activities, and reduction of prey species when kelp piles are removed from beaches 

(Nagano 1980). 

Along the beach, tiger beetles are found at or just above the tide line where they feed on kelp flies. The 

larvae of kelp flies develop in and around the piles of rotting kelp deposited on the beach. Thousands of 

the flies may be found on the beaches under appropriate conditions and they are often fed upon by shore 

birds. At most beaches in southern California the kelp piles are removed to prevent the buildup of large 

numbers of flies or rotting debris, which reduces the available food source for tiger beetle species. 

The 2001-2002 SSTC-S surveys and prior surveys have confirmed the presence of sandy beach tiger 

beetles at SSTC (RECON 2004). Tiger beetles were found on the sandy beaches on the western side of 

NRRF. Historically it has been found in several locations adjacent to San Diego Bay, including Silver 

Strand and NAB Coronado (Nagano 1982a). It may still occur on the Silver Strand near NAB Coronado, 

but more field work is required to determine this. 

Tiger beetle 

Tiger beetles (Cincindela latesignata spp. latesignata) are active terrestrial predators morphologically 

adapted to stalk and hunt small arthropods; they are quick runners and agile fliers (Nagano 1980). This 

tiger beetle inhabits the marine littoral zone on mudflats and sandy beaches in southern California and 

northwestern Baja California, Mexico. Tiger beetles will eat any arthropod they can overpower, such as 

isopods, moths, ants, and flies, including kelp flies (Nagano 1980). Tiger beetles are most active during 

periods of warm sunshine in the spring, summer, and fall (Nagano 1980). This species is listed as a 

Federal Species of Concern and the NDDB records for this species are considered sensitive by the CDFG 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-23

and are not released to the public. In 1980, only two populations were known to be extant in California, at 

Chula Vista and Border Field State Park (Nagano 1980). 

This survey and prior surveys after 1980 have confirmed the presence of a third population of this species 

on the Silver Strand (DoN 1998b). Tiger beetles have been found on the sandy beaches on the western 

side of SSTC-S. 

Wandering skipper 

The wandering skipper (Panoquina errans) is considered sensitive by conservation agencies and local 

specialists and is listed as a Federal Species of Concern. This species is found in coastal salt marshes near 

its host plant, saltgrass, and ranges from Santa Barbara, California to the tip of Baja California, Mexico. 

The wandering skipper is a yellow-brown skipper with cream-colored spots on the hindwing and pale 

yellow veins on its wings. There are populations in all of the marshes within San Diego County; the 

populations north of Peñasquitos Slough appear to be stable (Faulkner and Klein 2001). Adults fly from 

July to September. The primary threats to this species include habitat destruction and fragmentation. 

The wandering skipper has been observed in the pickleweed series at Camp Surf; it is expected to occur in 

all areas of suitable habitat in the ROI (RECON 2004). 

3.11.1.5.3 Amphibians and Reptiles 

No sensitive amphibians or reptiles have been recently documented in the ROI. The only special status 

species with a potential to occur is the silvery legless lizard, which has a number of historical records 

indicating presence in the Silver Strand. Sandy habitat of coastal dunes that support this species occurs 

throughout the ROI. However, it was not found during the 2001-2002 surveys or during focused surveys 

for it in 1998 (DoN 1998b). 

3.11.1.5.4 Mammals 

No focused surveys for bats have been conducted within the ROI, but a few special status bats have a 

moderate to high potential to occur. The western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) a CDFG Species of 

Special Concern, could occur in ornamental trees in landscaped areas of the ROI. The greater western 

mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), a CDFG Species of Special Concern, may forage in the ROI. 

The pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosacca), a CDFG Species of Special Concern, may also 

forage in the ROI. 

San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit 

Occurring in semi-open coastal scrub, grassland, and ruderal areas on Delta North and South, SSTC-N 

ocean beaches, SSTC-S, and NASNI, the large (18 to 25 inches tall) San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit is 

characterized by large, long black-tipped ears, a black striped tail, and buffy brown coloration. It ranges 

from near Mt. Pinos (at the Kern-Ventura County line) southward and west of the southern California 

mountains into Baja California, Mexico (Hall 1981). This coastal form of the more widespread blacktailed jackrabbit is strictly herbivorous, preferring habitat with ample forage such as grasses and forbs. 

Forested and thick chaparral regions are not suitable (Bond 1977). 

The San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit breeds throughout the year, with the greatest number of births 

occurring from April to May. This jackrabbit is commonly observed on NASNI, primarily in the ruderal 

habitats on the south side of NASNI. They are occasionally observed on the beach and in the sand 

verbena-beach bursage habitat as well. This species is also observed at SSTC-N, being managed on Delta 

North and South and sometimes occurring on the oceanside of SSTC-N. Although this animal is listed as 

a California Special Concern Species, this species is successfully breeding on NASNI and the population 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-24

appears to be unique as it occurs in high densities within a low plant diversity habitat. This seeming 

contradiction may be due to a lack of large mammal predators. 

The San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit has also been observed on numerous occasions within the coyote 

brush scrub, interior pickleweed, and coast prickly-pear habitat in the center of SSTC-S. It is assumed to 

be breeding successfully in the area, as both juveniles and adults have been observed. These local 

populations are important as the military land along the Silver Strand contains some of the last available 

habitat in the immediate region. The hare is nearly or completely extirpated from coastal lowlands of the 

region other than these locations. 

3.11.1.6 Current Management and Mitigation Measures 

Regulatory and management areas that are discussed in this section and earlier in this Chapter are 

depicted on Figures 3.11-7 and 3.11-8. The following sections identify general and specific management 

and mitigation measures that take place for terrestrial resources. However, the largest benefit to natural 

resources has arisen from Navy control of the SSTC; this control precludes the development of these 

lands in a manner similar to adjacent properties. The Navy needs these lands for the open space for 

training; by restricting development and acting as a steward for the resources, the needs of sensitive 

habitats and special status species can be better met. The Navy’s extensive and long-term engagement 

with its partner agencies in managing these resources has led to these natural resources thriving on Navy 

lands. 

3.11.1.6.1 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 

Navy natural resources are managed through INRMPs, which are intended to take an ecosystem approach 

to natural resources planning. These are long-term, collaborative strategies for managing natural resources 

as required by the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (SAIA). For the U.S Department of Defense 

(DoD), it is the primary means by which natural resources compliance and stewardship priorities are set 

and funding requirements are determined. A commitment to implement priority projects, as funding 

permits, comes with the signatures in the front of the plan. An INRMP’s scope is largely defined by the 

SAIA, and the Navy’s Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual (OPNAVINST 5090.1C 

October 2007). 

INRMPs, as defined under the SAIA are developed jointly by the Navy and fish and wildlife agencies 

such as the CDFG, USFWS, and other resource agencies as appropriate. Mutual agreement from these 

agencies is sought for the fish and wildlife component of natural resources management identified in the 

INRMP, and an annual review with the agencies discussing Navy-wide natural resources is mandatory. 

For this reason, there is a long history of collaboration between the Navy and its agency partners in 

managing resources of the SSTC. As a result of this and the implementation of INRMP strategies by 

Navy natural resources professionals, the Navy management program is successful and occurs in a 

multiple-use environment. Terrestrial and marine aspects of natural resources management are addressed 

in the NBC INRMP. Marine aspects are also addressed in the San Diego Bay INRMP. The NBC INRMP 

was completed in 2002 and is in the process of being revised; natural resources staff also provides day-today management based on current circumstances. The San Diego Bay INRMP is also in the process of 

being revised. 

Terrestrial Habitat and Vegetation Management 

Terrestrial habitats and vegetation have benefited from implementation of INRMP-funded projects such 

as invasive species control and habitat enhancement, but also as a collateral benefit of the long-term 

collaborative approach undertaken by the Navy and its partner agencies to protect nesting, federally listed 

birds (Section 3.12). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-25

The protected status of certain aquatic habitats under Section 404 of the CWA, as well as occupation of 

certain of these habitats by federally listed species (San Diego fairy shrimp and the clapper rail), have also 

framed the management of these areas. The jurisdictional status of wetlands and waters under Section 404 

of the CWA drives certain management actions. Jurisdictional status was evaluated on SSTC-S in 2002 

(RECON 2004) NAB, and NASNI in 2004 (RECON 2006) (Figures 3.11-9 through 3.11-11). A total of 

0.2 acres of wetlands and 64.3 acres of non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were delineated at 

NASNI. At SSTC-S, a total of 59.6 acres of wetlands and 11.3 acres of non-wetland jurisdictional waters 

of the U.S. were delineated. The 1998 wetland delineation had identified 62.8 acres of jurisdictional 

wetlands and 13.3 acres of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The difference in acreage mapped in 2002 can 

be attributed to a lack of ponding water when compared to results from data taken in wet years such as 

1998 and 2001 (DoN 1998b; Cobb and O’Connor 2003). At NAB, jurisdictional wetland boundaries are 

approximated based on the map of vegetation communities and cover types, which is considered the 

approximate acreage mapped for a salt marsh (Figure 3.11-10). 

The Navy has an established management program for vegetation and soils. Revegetation and habitat 

enhancement are important elements of the Navy program, such as on the dunes and for vernal pools 

Vegetation management includes the survey and monitoring of federally listed and other special status 

species. It also includes a prioritization program for invasive species control. Invasive plant issues related 

to the implementation of specific projects or activities are minimized through pre-project planning. Highpriority invasive plants are targeted for control. The landscaping guidelines for the Navy prohibit the 

planting of species listed on the California Invasive Plant Council Invasive Plant Inventory, all non-native 

grasses (except those used for turf/lawns), and other non-native species observed or expected to have the 

potential to become invasive at the installation. Current management also includes delineation and 

monitoring of wetlands, and implementing avoidance and minimization measures as necessary to ensure 

no net loss of these areas under the CWA. Other management is accomplished through habitat protection 

as described above, and through public access limits to natural resource areas. 

The elements of the California least tern and western snowy plover management program and the 

requirements of related BOs dominate the Navy’s natural resources strategy in the ROI, and therefore 

influence the habitat condition of vegetation, and the status of plant and other wildlife species. For 

instance, as stated below, vegetation and the soil substrate are prepared and managed to attract the least 

tern in designated nesting areas at Delta Beach North and South, while marking for avoidance special 

status plant species. In active training lanes where conflict may occur with operations, historic site 

preparation may include means to discourage nesting before the terns arrive in the spring, such as the 

creation of sand hummocks. In some cases, as at SSTC-S, vegetation such as iceplant is not cleared in 

case such clearing may attract terns to establish nests, and create a conflict with operations. At NASNI, 

vegetation is mowed consistent with BASH hazard reduction while accommodating special status plants 

such as Brand’s phacelia. 

Delta Beach North and South 

Delta Beach North and Delta Beach South are managed as a preserve for the California least tern, 

although military training is not restricted outside of the nesting season. Past management measures of 

these lands that were partly created by fill have included grading, disking, fencing, signage, and herbicide 

application, Prior to disturbances such as grading or herbicide treatment, the locations of two sensitive 

plants, Nuttall’s lotus and coast woolly-heads, are marked to minimize the impacts to these species. While 

the primary vegetation condition is sparse, low cover on the Delta beaches, tidal mudflats and salt marsh 

rim the shoreward edge of both properties. The marsh between Delta Beach North and South is about 12 

acres in area. Approximately 9.8 acres of coastal dunes are graded annually at North Delta Beach. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-26

Figure 3.11-6: Regulatory Management Areas and Real Estate Summary for NASNI and SSTC-N
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-27

Figure 3.11-7: Regulatory Management Areas and Real Estate Summaries for SSTC-S (NRRF) 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-28

Dune Management 

A dune management area along the ocean side of NASNI provides broad-based ecological benefits as a 

habitat restoration project. 

A second dune restoration site (1.2 acres) is bayside at NASNI and is intended to restore sand verbenabeach bursage habitat and Nuttall’s lotus individuals affected by the remediation of smelter slag wastes 

disposed at the site from 1943 to 1967 (AMEC 2003). Qualitative and quantitative monitoring is 

conducted. Maintenance and monitoring includes regularly maintaining the native dune habitat landscape 

and the evapotranspiration cover plant species in the Waste Consolidation Area. 

Invasive species removal is a regular activity on all dune areas. 

Habitat Areas that are Leased or Licensed 

In the project area entire habitats are protected through special-purpose leases or licenses to the CDPR, 

the City of Coronado for a South Bay Marine Biological Study Area, the City of Coronado for a dog 

walking beach, and the YMCA for a youth surf camp. 

South Bay Marine Biological Study Area 

The South Bay Marine Biological Study is a 27-acre site in the northeast corner of SSTC-S that has been 

leased to San Diego County since May 1972, but this lease is currently being transferred to the City of 

Coronado. As of 1974, the Navy has issued five-year licenses to San Diego County for “the establishment 

of an Educational Ecological Preserve which is open to the public,” with use limited to the study of 

marine biology and open to the students of the Unified School Districts of San Diego County. As 

conditions of the lease, the Navy requires a parking limit of 50 cars, and compliance with the CWA’s 

Section 404 conditions for wetlands. The site contains 26.35 acres of “federally protected wetlands” and 

the county cannot conduct any manipulation projects, including restoration, without a “Modification of 

License” from the U.S. Navy to ensure Section 404 permit compliance. The County Parks and Recreation 

Department manages the South Bay Marine Biological Study Area. 

YMCA Camp Surf 

YMCA Camp Surf operates on the southwestern 45 acres of SSTC-S on land leased from the U.S. Navy 

in a long-term agreement that expires in 2048. The YMCA pays for their current lease by maintaining and 

enhancing the natural resources of the leased property which includes maintenance of fences, invasive 

weed control, and signage. 

Lease to California Department of Parks and Recreation 

The 40-acre NAB Coronado parcel leased to CDPR supports the wandering skipper, a Federal Species of 

Concern, and Brand’s phacelia, which is a Federal Candidate Species for listing under the ESA. The San 

Diego Coastal State Park System General Plan (1984) guides the management of the 40-acre parcel leased 

to CDPR. The purpose is to preserve and protect opportunities for the public to enjoy quality beaches and 

to provide recreational opportunities in the ocean and nearshore environments. 

Salt Pond Connection to South San Diego Bay NWR 

A portion of SSTC-S that includes a salt pond and associated levee (“Pond 11” in the NWR 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan [CCP]; USFWS 2006) is part of the NWR’s Approved Acquisition 

Area. The USFWS may seek a lease agreement with the Navy in this area; at a minimum, the CCP states 

that the NWR may seek approval to alter the current conditions in the northwestern corner of Pond 11 

(USFWS 2006). The Navy also owns and manages 35 acres of open water and associated intertidal 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-29

habitat within the NWR’s approved acquisition boundary. According to the CCP, no management actions 

are proposed for the NWR on submerged lands north of and adjacent to Emory Cove that would restrict 

Navy access to SSTC-S (USFWS 2006). However, the Navy provided comments on the NWR CCP 

regarding NWR plans in the vicinity of the Emory Cove as well as other areas that could result in habitat 

changes that affect Navy activities or that convert habitat for least terns and snowy plovers at the NWR

(16 November 2001 Ser N45RN.tc/353; 23 August 2004 5216 Ser NOOC/43619; September 2005 Ser 

N45JNW.tc/0313). The Navy requested that the USFWS plans avoid reducing or modifying the amount 

of habitat available for the California least tern or western snowy plover such that Navy lands would have 

a higher proportion of available habitat for these species; that proposed NWR activities adjacent to and 

north of Emory Cove be modified; that all land and water owned by the Navy at SSTC-S be removed 

from the CCP; and that management recommendations that increase the presence of gull-billed terns be 

changed. 

3.11.1.6.2 Species-Specific Management and Mitigation Measures 

In addition to the current management elements of the Natural Resources Program (Section 3.11.1.6), 

impacts are avoided or minimized through pre-project site approval and planning process. All species 

groups are managed through implementing habitat and species conservation guidelines and projects 

identified in the INRMPs. At a minimum an extensive invasive plant control program is implemented 

annually in the ROI. Natural resources staff adapts strategies based on the INRMP, personal observation, 

or new information such as resource inventories, weather, operational requirements, etc. 

A Metro Area Instruction and Family Housing Occupant Handbook has been developed to advise 

personnel of what to do if they come in contact with sick, dead or injured wildlife. There is a DoD 

Instruction, Chief of Naval Operations Letter (5090 Ser N456M/1U595820 of 10 Jan 2002), and NBC 

Instruction regarding pet management. Except for dogs restrained by fences in family housing areas, 

animals (including cats and birds) are not permitted to run loose on Navy property. Possession or feeding 

of wild animals (including feral animals), regardless of docility or tameness, is prohibited. All dogs must 

be licensed, registered with security, and confined to a leash. Stray/loose animals should be reported to 

San Diego County Animal Control or Station Police for violations of policy. The Family Housing 

Occupant Handbook contains guidelines for properly disposing of trash so as not to attract feral animals. 

NBC has a domestic cat management policy associated with the housing area. Cats are not allowed to be 

loose outdoors, nor may pet food be left outdoors. 

A Metro Area Pest Management Plan (per OPNAVINST 6250.4B ) is currently being drafted that directs 

how the Navy uses pesticides and herbicides in the ROI, including means to protect non-target plants and 

wildlife. DoD and Navy policies require that use of pesticides is minimized on their property 

(OPNAVINST 5090.1C [30 October 2007]). The pest management plan incorporates new direction for 

management of invasives on DoD installations (EO 13112 of February 3, 1999 and July 14, 2000 DoD 

implementing direction). Chapter 17 of OPNAVINST 5090.1C requires that the use of pesticides comply 

with applicable regulations to prevent pollution. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Figure 3.11-8: Aquatic Habitats of NASNI and Their Jurisdictional Status
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-31

Figure 3.11-9: Aquatic Habitats of SSTC-N and Their Jurisdictional Status
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-32

Figure 3.11-10: Aquatic Habitats of SSTC-S (NRRF) and Their Jurisdictional Status 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-33

Management of Special Status Plants 

Three rare plants exist within the area of influence of the SSTC: Brand’s phacelia, coast wooly-heads and 

Nuttall’s lotus. All are considered rare by the California Native Plant Society, while Brand’s phacelia is a 

Federal Candidate species under the ESA. These special status plants are managed through habitat 

protection, described above, but most occur in areas that receive some degree of use. As part of the 

project siting process, avoidance measures are undertaken, where practicable, to protect these special 

status plants. Known locations are mapped, and site-specific surveys are conducted to confirm the 

locations of sensitive plants. Invasive plant control and some habitat enhancement are periodically 

undertaken by the Navy as part of INRMP project planning. 

Specific mitigation measures from past projects are sometimes undertaken. When 14 acres of upland were 

excavated for the first nuclear carrier berthing project in 1995, the Navy agreed to establish a seed bank 

for Nuttall’s lotus. To minimize impacts to these species, locations of special status species are marked 

prior to routine grading on Delta Beach North and Delta Beach South. When herbicide is used, it is 

applied to target species only; weed crews are able to distinguish between target and non-target species. 

Brand’s phacelia is an extremely rare species managed through habitat protection, inventory, and 

monitoring. It was recently listed as a Candidate species by the USFWS. When Brand’s phacelia was 

mapped on NASNI, the population number was estimated at approximately 5,000 individuals occurring in 

an area south of the airfield. This may be the largest known population within its range in the United 

States. The current mowing of the habitat around the airfield does not appear to negatively affect this 

species and may, in fact, reduce competition with non-native grasses. The Navy has been removing 

iceplant from this area for the past several years through a combination of herbicide application and handpulling. The newly discovered populations in Bravo and Charlie training areas receive similar 

management treatment through INRMP-funded inventory, monitoring, and invasive species control. The 

population that exists on the 40-acre lease is adjacent to Alpha training area, but is not part of the 

Proposed Action for this EIS. 

Management of San Diego Fairy Shrimp 

Current management of vernal pools restricts all activities from the pools at all times. Vehicle traffic in 

the inland area of SSTC-S is always limited to roads. Vehicle traffic adjacent to vernal pools is limited to 

paved roads, except by emergency vehicles (e.g. security, fire, medical support) in emergency situations 

only. 

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences 

The types of training activities that could affect terrestrial biological resources are those that take place on 

land in the ROI. These activities were divided into actions that occur in a defined manner and space, and 

which can be assessed for their impact on the environment. Each of these actions may be found in 

common among multiple training activities; and the increase in training tempo between the No Action 

Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 were assessed for associated increase to the actions contained within. 

These events are amphibious and beach actions, including, vehicle use, fluid transfer actions, foot traffic, 

manual excavations, and inland activities at SSTC-S. Information about the location where the activities 

take place, as well as their footprint, was obtained through interviews with Navy training professionals. 

Several activities do not have the potential to impact non-avian terrestrial biological resources and have 

been excluded from this analysis. These activities are detailed below along with a brief description of the 

reason they were discounted. Included in these are activities such as aircraft activities, pyrotechnics 

including simunitions and blanks, boat maneuvers below the high tide line, and underwater detonations. 

Activities that consist entirely of these types of actions are not carried forward in this EIS. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-34

Activities which contain air actions that are excluded from this analysis are numbered 4, 6, 7, 16, 25, 26, 

29, 30, 35, and 66 (Table 2-1) and proposed activities N4, N5, N6, N7 (Table 2-2). Air activities consist 

of helicopter or fixed-wing flight take offs, landings, and operation practice. Many of the training 

activities that utilize helicopters do so over the nearshore ocean environment; the helicopters are used for 

transport and dropping individuals off into the water where they will either swim to shore or perform 

exercises in the water. While the majority of helicopter activities occur at distances too great to influence 

terrestrial communities, a small proportion of activities (Activity 25, 25, and 64, Table 2-1) occur at 

SSTC-S where they may land or hover over the inland areas to drop off or pick up personnel. Landings 

take place on a designated landing pad inland at SSTC-S or in primarily iceplant vegetation of SSTC-S. 

During this activity, plants and animals are temporarily displaced due to rotor-wash, blowing sand, and 

other blowing debris. However, the number of potential helicopter activities that occur along SSTC-S is 

low and does not occur in the same location each time. Given the minimal area directly affected by 

helicopter activities and the low number of activities occurring in this area, the anticipated potential 

effects on terrestrial resources are localized and temporary. Considering that these activities take place at 

various locations, the effect may be even more ephemeral on terrestrial vegetation or soils. In the inland 

area of SSTC-S, mammals such as the San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit could startle or exhibit defensive 

behaviors. However, this effect is considered short-term and related to individuals only, and without 

lasting impact to a population (Bowles 1995). 

The use of pyrotechnics, including simunitions and blanks, are not carried forward for analysis for 

terrestrial biological resources. The use of pyrotechnics (smoke grenades and flares as well as blasting 

caps), small arms, and blanks takes place in designated areas. Blasting caps, not counting those used 

offshore, are used during approximately 189 training events under the No Action Alternative, and smoke 

grenades and flares are used during approximately 760 training exercises (Appendix C). Under 

Alternative 1 the use of smoke grenades and flares would increase; they would be used during 

approximately 1,165 training activities. The use of blasting caps would increase to 279 training exercises 

during Alternative 1. 

Simunitions and blanks are used in approximately 360 training activities under the No Action Alternative 

and the use would increase by approximately 30 percent (from 290,000 to 375,000 units) under 

Alternative 1 (Appendix C). The effects of this activity are the same or less than that associated with 

firing of pyrotechnics, covered above. A blank produces a noise with a Sound Exposure Level (SEL) of 

about 89 decibels A-weighted (dBA), at a distance of 750 feet. Small arms firing can produce peak noise 

levels of 90 to 100 decibels (dB) at 500 feet and 80 to 90 dB at 1,000 feet for the most common types of 

small arms. Most blank ammunition for small arms has a smaller propellant charge than that used for live 

ammunition. As a result, noise from small arms blank ammunition generates levels about four decibels 

below those of live ammunition. 

These activities generate noise (flares and smoke grenades are expected to have a SEL range of 60 to 65 

dB at 50 feet [U.S. Army 2003]), and sometimes illumination and smoke. Such activities that may 

generate a startle response for the black-tailed jackrabbit or other wildlife are discounted from analysis for 

non-avian terrestrial wildlife because this effect is not quantifiable compared to background noise, and 

not separable from a startle response due to human or vehicle movement in the area (analyzed separately 

under foot traffic and vehicle use). Larkin (2004) found that impacts on wildlife as a result of increased 

sound levels were difficult to quantify because the evaluation of sound in the environment is linked to 

human reaction (annoyance level), and the literature base for evaluating how sound may affect wildlife is 

limited. Animals have different hearing thresholds, and even within the same species may perceive 

sounds differently based on their life history; for instance, some are more tenacious while nesting than 

other life stages, and do not flush as easily. Despite the high frequency of noise-generating activities, they 

are dispersed through a large area compared to the area of potential noise impact from weapons or 

pyrotechnics, and the potential for direct interface with the black-tailed jackrabbit and other terrestrial 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-35

wildlife is low. Any effect is considered short-term, related to individuals only, and without lasting 

impact to a population (Bowles 1995). 

Animals also habituate to noise, and perceive sound differently based on background noise in the 

environment. What may be considered an adverse effect on one particular species, or individual, may not 

translate into the same type of effect on another species or individual. No multispecies study has found all 

species to be sensitive (Kaseloo 2005). Wildlife in the action area are likely to be habituated to noise 

sources due to their local frequency, intensity, and duration. Besides the ocean surf, traffic along SR 75 

also generates background noise and ground vibrations that is perceivable to some terrestrial wildlife. 

Human noise from people at local schools and residences adjacent to habitat may also be audible to 

wildlife. The current instrument approach used by fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft to Runway 29, 

NASNI, is from south to north and follows the centerline of San Diego Bay at an altitude of between 

1,600 and 2,300 feet, adjacent to and partly overlapping the ROI. Within this “San Diego Bay approach” 

corridor, military aircraft operate at altitudes of between 500 and 800 feet. Similarly, departures from 

Runway 36, NASNI, travel from north to south, down the middle of San Diego Bay at an altitude of about 

500 feet. These flights leave the airspace above San Diego Bay either to the southeast at about the 

location of the South Bay Power Plant or to the southwest over SSTC-S. A helicopter visual flight route 

also extends northwest to southeast over Sweetwater Marsh, entering the airspace above San Diego Bay 

just south of the National City Marine Terminal (Rollins 1998). As these flights occur fairly frequently 

and cross directly over SSTC at low altitudes, this provides animals the opportunity to become habituated 

to noise caused by aircraft in the ROI. 

The effect of illumination and smoke are similarly difficult to quantify; however the possibility of these 

having a detrimental impact is even less than that of noise because of the use of pyrotechnics being 

concentrated on beaches or designated areas where terrestrial wildlife do not frequent, and because the 

area of effect is very small in relation to available habitat. 

The differences between effects resulting from the No Action Alternative versus Alternative 1 are 

considered undetectable because of the difficulty in determining the sensitivity of wildlife to the noise, 

illumination, or smoke; because the activity will continue to take place in similar designated locations as 

under the No Action Alternative; and because much of the use is on beaches where there is little 

opportunity to interface with terrestrial wildlife. Finally, the majority of use is associated with a few 

activities such as Hell Week. 

The increase in training under Alternative 1 that generates noise and that could interface with terrestrial 

wildlife would carry over under Alternative 2. While seemingly substantial from the numbers above, the 

activity carries a small footprint compared to available habitat, and occurs mostly in areas where 

terrestrial wildlife do not frequent. A portion of the activities could disperse to dune and beach areas 

under training lane management at SSTC-N if nesting thresholds are met for avian species, but this 

increase is considered negligible due to the low probability of affecting wildlife and for similar reasons 

described above for the difference between the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. 

Activities that contain boat or other aquatic maneuvers entirely offshore or below the high tide line are 

excluded from analysis of effects on terrestrial biological resources (Activities 1 - 3, 6 - 14, 20 - 23, 34, 

40, 44, 49, 52, 54, 55, 57, 78, N1-N7, and N9, Tables 2-1 and 2-2); activities that include underwater 

detonation activities which lack an onshore component are included in these. The activities in which the 

training takes place entirely offshore sometimes still have onshore safety vehicles which observe from the 

beach. These safety vehicles are analyzed for their effect on terrestrial biological resources under Sections 

3.11.2.2.1 and 3.11.2.3.1, Amphibious and Beach Actions. Some activities are almost exclusively indoors 

or in developed areas, such as Activity 31 (Table 2-1), Breacher Training which takes place at Bunker 98 

in the interior of SSTC-S; Rappel and Fast Rope Training (Activity 36, Table 2-1) which takes place at 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-36

the rappel tower north of the obstacle course on lane Yellow 1; and Communications (Activity 65, Table 

2-1) which is classroom instruction. These activities take place in the vicinity of terrestrial biological 

resources but use already developed space, limiting their impact on resources in the area. 

Solid waste, floating debris, and trash sometimes associated with human outdoor activities as well as that 

which washes or blows in from elsewhere, can modify conditions or increase the risk of ecosystem level 

changes associated with invasive species (National Invasive Species Council 2001). It is for this reason 

that Navy personnel training on SSTC work to clean solid waste from the beach after each activity, 

ensuring that this is not an issue to affecting natural resources in the ROI. 

3.11.2.1 Approach to Analysis 

The actions pertinent to terrestrial resources are described in the following sections. The descriptions 

provide general information about how large a footprint on the beach or inland area each action normally 

requires. Also noted is the general location on the land where the activity takes place, which can 

determine how it could affect resources that are not evenly dispersed across the landscape. 

The types of training activities that could affect terrestrial biological resources include those on the upper 

beach above the wrack line, the dunes, and vegetated and unvegetated inland areas. Disturbance of plants 

and wildlife or modification of their habitat from actions is evaluated based on the area the individual 

action encompasses and the value and type of habitat known to occur within the specific footprint. An 

effect is considered substantially adverse if the area of impact is substantial compared to habitat 

availability or scarcity, and whether the impacted resource has a special sensitivity status as recognized by 

resource agencies. An effect is also considered substantially adverse if the intensity, duration, or 

frequency of the action is such that the area cannot recolonize to former species abundance levels; the loss 

of habitat or habitat value (based on organism density or relative abundance) is considered permanent 

compared to baseline variation in these conditions. 

Impacts to a federally listed species such as the San Diego fairy shrimp are analyzed in a Biological 

Assessment which has been submitted to the USFWS to initiate formal consultation under Section 7 of 

the ESA. Impacts to plants on the CNPS 1B list are analyzed at the end of each activity subsection if their 

location overlaps with that of the activity. 

3.11.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative maintains the current level and types of training that currently occurs. 

Environmental management measures would remain unchanged. Current management practices for the 

beach lanes at SSTC-N and SSTC-S for the protection of the California least tern and western snowy 

plover results in ancillary benefits to other dune and beach dwelling species. 

This section focuses on only groups of activities that have the potential to result in an impact to terrestrial 

biological resources. As discussed previously, similar types of actions are grouped together to facilitate 

analysis. These actions are marine vessels, amphibious and beach actions including vehicle use, fluid 

transfer actions, foot traffic, manual grading, and inland activities at SSTC-S. 

3.11.2.2.1 Marine Vessel Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, only one training activity (27, Craft Landing Zone, Table 2-1) includes 

Landing Craft Air Cushion ( LCAC) vehicle use. Four Craft Landing Zone training events are conducted 

per year and occur on oceanside beach training areas within the SSTC-N and SSTC-S boat lanes and the 

Breakers Beach area of NASNI. An LCAC is a large, propeller-driven craft that uses fans to hover above 

land and water. Its footprint includes its physical structure plus the area surrounding it, which is affected 

by the strong winds it produces. An LCAC lands on the beach, approaching the sandy beach and 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-37

dispersing sand in its path through wind and direct impact. Although sand can be blown for 10-20 yards at 

high velocity from around the bottom of the air cushion skirt, the safety zone for humans around an 

LCAC is a 50-yard radius. 

The primary effects from LCACs are sand blowing and animals flushing from the area for a distance of 

about 20 yards from the LCAC landing. There is a possibility that beach and dune-dwelling terrestrial 

species could be directly crushed or blown by the LCAC; however, mobile animals can move out of the 

way and densities of buried organisms are low in the beach environment. The area of effect is low in 

relation to available habitat for the low abundance of mobile, terrestrial animals that could be on the 

beach. Severity of effects would depend on intervals between landings and whether they take place in the 

same location or are dispersed to different lanes, but these landings are dispersed in location and 

infrequent. Beach and dune LCAC training activities occur at a number of different sites within SSTC 

training areas, all on the SSTC-N ocean side, and only four training events are conducted annually, so 

effects would be short-term and dispersed over a large area. Nuttall’s lotus and coast woolly heads, (both 

CNPS 1B), are present in the dune areas at SSTC-N and SSTC-S and may experience wind from an 

LCAC; although these plants are not likely to sustain a direct impact or be buried from the LCAC activity 

because they grow in dunes or Upland Transition areas beyond the area of normal landing activity. 

Brand’s phacelia (Federal Candidate) is not known from the ocean side of SSTC-N. 

Other beaching activities with vessels, such as Landing Craft, Utility (LCU)/Landing Craft Mechanized 

(LCU), could have similar effects to beach and dune-dwelling species as described for the LCAC. These 

vehicles would also be used throughout the SSTC training areas; however, they have a smaller footprint 

than LCAC activities, as they do not use fans to hover above the land and water. Therefore, effects are 

short-term and considered temporary and localized. 

3.11.2.2.2 Amphibious and Beach Activities 

Amphibious activities include Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) and Causeway Pier Insertion and 

Retraction. Beach actions include fluid transfer, vehicle use, foot traffic pyrotechnics and blanks, and 

manual excavations. 

Amphibious Activities 

ELCAS and Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction only take place during NTA 4.5.6 “Over the Shore 

Logistics.” They involve the insertion of a floating causeway section onto the beach. Most of the sections 

remain floating offshore. During ELCAS, pilings are driven into the sediment and the causeway is 

elevated and secured onto them. The onshore area of these activities includes the footprint of the front end 

of the landing unit as well as additional areas that may be mechanically excavated for landing the 

causeway sections or to remove it off of the beach at the conclusion of the activity. ELCAS activities 

require grading of the beach area, whereas floating causeway pier insertion requires excavation of the 

landing area. Construction of elevated causeways requires an initial grading of sand and then pile driving 

and anchoring. Noise from the pile driving can be disruptive to nearby residential and training sites, and 

typically 10 days per training event. Causeway activities occur primarily on SSTC-N oceanside boat and 

beach lanes, but also periodically in the Bravo bayside training area. Causeway activities occur during 

three separate training activities: Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction, Elevated Causeway System, 

and Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS) Offload (Activities 41, 42, and 49, respectively, Table 2-1) 

annually under the No Action Alternative for a total of 12 training events. 

Causeway activities, such as the MPS Offload, sometimes involve excavation on the beach in a footprint 

about as wide as the causeway. The footprint of beach wrack that could be affected is on the order of 20 

to 50 feet, mostly a result of support vehicle use associated with the excavation. Dragging of boats, such 

as during Combat Rubber Raiding Craft actions (unrelated to causeway activities), may also disturb beach 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-38

wrack, as well as the landing of LCU/LCUs at high tide. The environment of the upper beach is already 

disturbed and naturally low in species number due to the coarse-grained, desiccated substrate. Since 

vegetation abundance is low (including a lack of sensitive plants), the likelihood of foraging animals, 

including endemic spiders and beetles, is also low. Mammals in this area could be disturbed by the 

presence of vehicles, personnel, and equipment. Pile driving noise is unlikely to affect terrestrial wildlife 

due to the distance from areas of wildlife concentrations and habituation of wildlife to the baseline noise 

environment. Most of the effect, if any, would be to isolated patches of beach wrack or vegetation. 

Therefore, effects are considered to be short-term and minor, with most wrack replaced by the next high 

tide. 

For ELCAS and floating causeway insertion activities that could reach the upper beach, beach vegetation 

and invertebrates may be crushed or the substrate compacted. In the Bravo Beach areas where ELCAS 

actions and beach grading is infrequent but recurring (about twice per year), compaction caused by 

amphibious vehicles that could reach the upland transition area above the high tide line could result in 

habitat alteration such that special status plants such as Brand’s phacelia and coast woolly heads could not 

repopulate the area in a single season. This sand-dominated beach provides little opportunity for 

organisms to become established permanently because the substrate is naturally unstable and the beach 

environment stressful to both plants and burrowing animals due to extreme desiccation and salinity 

gradients. However, the habitat at the upland portions of the training lanes could be impacted if heavy 

equipment, repeated vehicle use, or excavation occurs there. 

Beach Activities 

The following analyzes potential effects associated with training activities that have a beach training 

component as part of the overall training activity. Activities analyzed below take place entirely out of the 

water on the training beaches, on the hard pack sand between the high and low tide line if the tide is out. 

Potential effects related associated with marine plants and invertebrates are analyzed in Section 3.7, 

Marine Biological Resources. 

Fluid Transfer 

Fluid transfer training events are conducted as part of Offshore Petroleum Discharge System, Amphibious 

Bulk Liquid Transfer System and Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit (Activities 38, 39, and 50, 

respectively, Table 2-1) training. A detailed description of these activities is provided in Section 2. 

Components of these activities are addressed as they relate to potential impacts out of the water and on 

the beach. Equipment associated with fluid transfer do not typically extend into the vegetated dune area, 

and even if they did, special status species would not be substantially affected because they are resistant 

to limited trampling. Plants, such as Nuttall’s lotus are locally common, having a nearby source 

population should a limited area get damaged. These activities are conducted in concentrated areas near 

the shoreline; therefore, effects to beach and dune dwelling special status plants and wildlife would be 

short term due to the amount of dune area available for recolonization and the localized nature of these 

activities. 

Vehicle Use 

Vehicle use under the No Action Alternative consists of safety and logistical vehicles, bulldozers, fourwheel-drive vehicle training, vehicles and equipment supporting beach party operations, equipment 

offload and staging vehicles, and amphibious vehicles on the shore (Activities 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 17, 

18, 19-23, 25-31, 35-43, 45-52, 54-77, Table 2-1). Bulldozers are used to grade the beach, excavate sand, 

recreate hummocks, and push beached vessels that are stuck back into the water. They are used in 12 

training activities in the ROI (Activities 25, 38, 39, 41-43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, Table 2-1). Between one 

and two bulldozers are used for each activity for a total of 198 training events under the No Action 

Alternative. Cranes are used to move equipment and boxes around. During equipment offloading, all 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-39

types of equipment including Lighter, Amphibious, Resupply, Cargo-5 ton (LARC-V) can be offloaded, 

set up, and operated on the beach. Beach party operations may use vehicles to patrol, deliver equipment, 

and dig ravines or trenches using backhoes or bulldozers. Vehicle use is common to most of the exercises 

that occur on SSTC; even activities that do not otherwise access the shore require monitoring by on-shore 

vehicles for safety and logistical reasons. 

On the beach, vehicles typically travel at low speeds or are stationary. Bulldozer, vehicle use, and other 

activities in the dunes could impact dune dwelling special status species such as Nuttall’s lotus and coast 

woolly-heads. The proportion of time these vehicles and equipment are in the dunes versus on the lower 

dry sand is low, but not quantifiable. Effects could include habitat alteration associated with compaction 

of vegetated habitat and repeat crushing of plants or burrows. Vehicle patrol activities can have 

substantial impacts to the dune area but are limited to Yellow and Green training lanes under the No 

Action Alternative, leaving adjacent occupied suitable habitat free from impact. In the Bravo training 

areas on the bay shore, heavy equipment use that reaches the upland transition areas could impact the 

Federal Candidate species, Brand’s phacelia. It would mostly likely be individuals that were impacted in 

years when the plant is present, since the most substantial populations are adjacent to housing areas where 

training activity is not expected to be intense. Current protective measures for invasive plant removal may 

partially mitigate for habitat loss and crushing of individual plants in the dunes and upland transition 

areas, because such measures can enhance habitat conditions for these species. 

Foot Traffic 

Foot traffic is associated with Mine Countermeasures beaching operations, beach camps, patrolling in 

small groups, beach crossing, observation posts, parachutists, and visual observation activities. SSTC 

training activities could generate an estimated 1,390,000 person-hours of foot travel on SSTC training 

lands. Most of this activity would occur on SSTC-S Inland. Of the activities listed above, only Hell Week 

activities could occur on Breakers Beach at NASNI. Foot traffic associated with training activities 

(Activities 4, 5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22-53, 56-69, and 71-77, Table 2-1) could result in crushing of 

vegetation and plants or animals, soil erosion or sedimentation, and degrading habitat values by 

introducing invasive species. While foot traffic under the No Action Alternative is very frequent, most is 

widely dispersed and in small groups; therefore, effects are negligible to minor and localized. 

Concentrated foot traffic, such as that associated with beach camps, running and marching, especially 

within the dunes, may impact special status plants and animals such as Nuttall’s lotus and coast woollyheads. Parachutists that land in or near the Kaufman Drop Zone are unlikely to impact vernal pools due to 

their high skill level. Given that the No Action Alternative restricts training access to SSTC-N beaches 

Blue 2 through Orange 2 during the least tern and snowy plover nesting season, effects to beach and dune 

dwelling special status species are avoided during this time of year in those areas. In general, training 

personnel on foot tend to avoid areas of dense vegetation because of the difficulty in negotiating around 

those areas; therefore, effects from foot traffic are negligible to minor, depending on how proximity or 

entry in vernal pools and the amount of trailing that develops, and short term (recoverable). 

While training on beaches at SSTC-S during physical training runs (Activity 68, Table 2-1), trainees may 

have a military working dog participating in the physical conditioning. Dogs are trained along SSTC-N as 

well as SSTC-S. While they are typically on the hard packed sand (SSTC-S) or sand road (SSTC-N), 

they can also be on the soft packed sand in both areas. The dogs are trained to not relieve themselves 

while training, but the excrement would be picked up after training if it were to occur. 

The overall effect of foot and dog traffic under the No Action Alternative on non-avian biological 

resources is expected to be short-term and minor due to avoidance of certain sensitive areas for several 

months of the year, due to the naturally disturbed beach environment where the most concentrated foot 

traffic occurs and where terrestrial resources are sparse, and due to the dispersed nature of most of the on-
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-40

foot activity, and the location of special status and other native plants in naturally disturbed habitats 

(locations in Figures 3.11- 6 through 3.11-8). Effects on non-avian terrestrial wildlife would include 

harassment such as accidental flushing of small mammals even though the dogs are trained not to pursue 

wildlife. Exposure to harassment is partly avoided due to the availability of escape cover such as 

vegetation or burrows. Long-term impacts are avoided because the majority of foot traffic is not repeated 

in the same location and soil compaction is unlikely, allowing individual species to recover in a season or 

less. Dune plants such as lotus and coast woolly-heads are accustomed to the frequently disturbed dune 

environment and, as long as soil compaction is not an issue, can withstand the level of foot traffic 

anticipated under the No Action Alternative. Foot traffic could impact Brand’s phacelia in the Bravo 

training areas. This effect is considered minor and short term. 

Manual Excavations 

Manual excavations are conducted in about 18 events under the No Action Alternative. Most of the time 

these activities could be conducted on the SSTC-N oceanside beaches, but they could also be conducted 

at other areas in the training complex. Excavations consist of individuals digging trenches, burying and 

excavating items from the ground, and concealing beached boats. During training activities, individuals 

will bury items near the high tide line of the beach. The approximate area disturbed is about 10 x 10 

yards. While vernal pool areas are avoided in the inland areas of SSTC-S, some manual excavations could 

take place roadside in that area. 

These effects are considered negligible on the beaches and potentially minor at SSTC-S, and temporary 

because of the size of the area being disturbed in relation to adjacent habitat, and because these activities 

occur in a naturally disturbed environment (consistent wave action and below the high tide line). Manual 

excavations on the beach are usually conducted away from vegetated beach wrack, near the high tide line 

where the natural beach slope makes excavation easier. A different footprint for manual excavation could 

be used each time. This area is low in numbers of terrestrial plants or animals. Roadside areas of SSTC-S 

contain individuals of Nuttall’s lotus, and these plants could be killed by digging or burial. Due to soil 

disturbance, this activity could displace this native special status plant in a localized area, but available 

habitat is large compared to the area of the manual excavations, even when they are not repeated in the 

same location, comprising less than one percent of the beach or roadside area. 

3.11.2.2.3 Inland Activities 

Inland activities are those that occur on the interior portion of SSTC-S (Activities 4, 16, 25, 26, 28-31, 35, 

58-66, 69, 71-74, Table 2-1). This includes foot and vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved roads, manual 

excavations, and parachutists using the Kaufman Drop Zone. Manual excavations on SSTC-S inland areas 

are conducted roadside, but outside the area with vernal pools. Restrictions on manual excavations are in 

place at the archeological site on the eastern boundary of SSTC-S inland (discussed further in Section 

3.13, Cultural Resources). Individuals on foot may utilize the semi-developed areas or buildings in the 

inland area or traverse off-road for stalking or other on-foot activities. Under the No Action Alternative, 

training is not permitted in vernal pools. 

This restriction also applies to parachutists using the SSTC-S Kaufman Drop Zone. This drop zone is 

located in the same area as vernal pools which were not occupied by the San Diego fairy shrimp during 

past surveys, but overlaps Pool 10 which is occupied, and Pool 8 which did not pond the years surveys 

were conducted, so occupation by San Diego fairy shrimp is unknown (Figure 3.11-8). Landing targets 

for the parachutists will be placed away from the vernal pools, and foot traffic associated with personnel 

egress would not be permitted in the vernal pools. 

Military dog training also takes place in the inland area of SSTC-S during Close Quarters Combat / Close 

Quarters Defense (Activity 64, Table 2-1). These dogs are in the final stages of their training and are 

practicing the location of people hiding, such as in buildings or bunkers. As this is primarily training for 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-41

an urban environment it takes place mostly inside the disturbed northern area of SSTC-S. The dogs (one 

dog trains at a time) are off-leash during the exercise but under strict verbal and visual control. They are 

trained not to pursue wildlife and to only bark when they have located their target object. They are also 

trained not to relieve themselves while training, but would be picked up after were this to occur. Exercise 

of the dogs, separate from training, can also take place on the beaches of SSTC-N and S. 

Foot traffic at SSTC-S could result in effects to soils, vegetation, and special status species by trampling, 

trailing, introducing invasive species, and degrading habitat of sensitive species. The effect could be 

short-term or long-term depending on how foot traffic is dispersed and if it is repeated in the same 

location. The federally endangered San Diego fairy shrimp could be impacted both directly and indirectly 

by foot traffic in the pools. The mechanisms include translocation of cysts to unsuitable locations and 

potential changes in vernal pool topography, hydrology and water quality (associated with soil 

compaction, infestation by invasive exotic plant species, or reduction in vegetation cover) that could 

affect the ability of pools to support San Diego fairy shrimp. While the latter is reduced through proposed 

management/conservation measures, the potential effect remains. 

Although vehicle use of unpaved roads in vernal pool areas is limited to emergency vehicles in 

emergency situations, which are likely to be quite rare, impacts of such use on the San Diego fairy shrimp 

could occur through similar mechanisms as described for foot traffic above. The cysts may occupy road 

pools and be translocated by wheeled vehicles. Vehicles can introduce invasive weeds, and alter pool 

hydrology through compaction and recontouring of the road surface, or change water quality through 

sedimentation, especially when roads are wet. 

Variegated dudleya is a CNPS list 1B species occurring in the upland areas around vernal pools in the 

inland area of SSTC-S. This plant can be sensitive to soil compaction that results from trampling if 

trampling occurs continually in the same location, forming trails. Since operators are restricted from 

vernal pool areas under the No Action Alternative their impact to dudleya will be somewhat avoided. 

Individual plants may at times be crushed, but the health of the population is not expected to decline. As 

the military dogs training at SSTC-S are in their final stages of training and may not pursue or harass 

wildlife in the inland area, they still may accidentally flush or disturb wildlife, which could be detrimental 

to their reproductive potential through energy expenditure. The effect is considered short-term and minor 

is not expected to have an intense, sustained, or permanent impact. 

Nuttall’s lotus, also a CNPS list 1B species, is more widespread in the ROI. It is also less sensitive to 

disturbance than the variegated dudleya. Because this plant is more widespread and less sensitive to 

disturbance it is not anticipated that effects from training will result in a decline of this rare, but locally 

common plant. In summary, even though individual plants may be crushed and killed it is not anticipated 

that this impact will result in a permanent decline in general abundance levels of these species from the 

ROI.

3.11.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

Under Alternative 1, the baseline level of training would increase. In addition, current management of 

terrestrial biological resources would change to allow foot traffic associated with training activities in 

vernal pools when conditions are dry and provide for additional monitoring of San Diego fairy shrimp. In 

addition, Alternative 1 would include changes in lane access restrictions to allow training in lanes 

currently restricted during the western snowy plover and California least tern nesting season. The result 

would be increased dispersal of training activities with respect to terrestrial biological resources such as in 

the upper beach, dune, and inland areas. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-42

This section focuses on groups of activities that have the potential to result in an impact to terrestrial 

biological resources. As discussed previously, similar types of actions are grouped together to facilitate 

the analysis. 

3.11.2.3.1 Marine Vessel Activities 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in similar effects to terrestrial biological resources from 

LCAC landings as previously described under the No Action Alternative since no additional landings are 

proposed. 

3.11.2.3.2 Amphibious and Beach Actions 

Amphibious and Beach actions increase by varying degrees under Alternative 1; these differences are 

detailed below. 

Amphibious Actions 

Under Alternative 1, ELCAS and causeway insertion and retraction activities would increase from 12 to 

16 training events. However, effects to terrestrial biological resources would be similar to those described 

under the No Action Alternative because these activities take place mostly in the SSTC-N Boat and Beach 

Lanes 1-10, in areas largely devoid of terrestrial flora and fauna. The events that take place in the Bravo 

Beach training lane on the bay side have the potential to affect special status plants of the upland 

transition area, but these more inland portions of the lanes are largely not used by this activity, but could 

be affected by ancillary support vehicles or foot traffic. The additional events are inconsequential over the 

No Action Alternative. 

Beach Actions 

Fluid Transfer 

Fluid transfer activities (Activities 38, 39, and 50, Table 2-1) would increase by one event annually to 15 

events per year under Alternative 1. Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in similar effects to 

terrestrial biological resources as previously described under the No Action Alternative. 

Vehicle Use 

As presented in Chapter 2 (Table 2-1 and 2-2) and detailed in Appendix C, in addition to an increase in 

safety and logistical vehicle use, vehicle patrolling would be increased under Alternative 1. These 

activities would involve personnel driving vehicles along the hard pack and soft pack sand, maneuvering 

on the beach in directions determined by the trainees so that they can learn to drive and operate the 

vehicles in varying terrain. Activities would be limited to SSTC-N beach lanes Yellow 1 and 2 and Green 

1 and 2 because of the large potential impact to sensitive resources over the course of multiple patrolling 

exercises. These activities are conservatively estimated to impact about half of the available beach lanes 

over the course of a year. Due to the restriction of these activities to Yellow and Green lanes, effects 

would be the same as those described under the No Action Alternative. 

Operation of vehicles could potentially include driving over vegetation in the dunes or beach lanes, 

including special status species or their burrows. Since Nuttall’s lotus and coast woolly-heads are annuals, 

some crushing would be avoided during the dry season, or over the course of an entire year in a drought 

year. Repeated driving over similar areas could compact the substrate and result in permanent habitat 

alteration such that the site would not recolonize, however driving activities typically occur in nonvegetated or minimally-vegetated areas. The tiger beetle and globose dune beetle could be affected in the 

dunes at SSTC-S, since some of the vehicle patrolling and testing is expected to take place at SSTC-S and 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-43

SSTC-S inland area. The area affected is not known because the proportion of time spent in the dunes 

versus upper beach is not known, and vehicle use is dispersed across beach training lanes. 

Effects from vehicle use such as equipment offloading and bulldozer activities would increase; however, 

effects would be the same as those described under the No Action Alternative. Equipment offloading and 

bulldozer use in vegetated areas could crush individuals or habitats of sensitive species 

Foot Traffic 

Under Alternative 1, foot traffic would increase as a result in an overall increase in training activities; 

however, effects would be the same as those described under the No Action Alternative. The overall 

effect of foot traffic under Alternative 1 on non-avian biological resources is expected to be short-term 

and of moderate intensity due to the potential overlap of concentrated activities in the dunes and upper 

beach areas, and foot traffic at SSTC-S in the vicinity of vernal pools when they are determined to be dry. 

However, such concentrated activities are avoided as activities are not repeated in the same location and 

soil compaction is unlikely. This allows for recovery of individual species in a season or less. Parachutists 

that land in or near the Kaufman Drop Zone may accidentally impact nearby vernal pools, but this is 

unlikely since parachutists are trained and pretty accurate.

Manual Excavations 

Under Alternative 1, manual excavations would increase from 18 to about 52 events. If all excavations 

were 10 x 10 yards and there was no overlap in location, about 80 square yards of material would be 

excavated and replaced over the course of a year. Greater effects on inhabitants of the beach-dune 

complex of SSTC-N could take place with the increase in manual excavation combined with the 

possibility of increased access to beach training areas during the breeding season. While the footprint is 

small, localized, and in a naturally disturbed environment, the presence of personnel and excavations 

could result in disturbances to mammals on the beach, and in the dunes where special status plants and 

wildlife live. Excavation activities could result in habitat modification for dune and upper beach 

dwellers, and similarly for areas along roads (outside of the vernal pool area) in inland SSTC-S. 

3.11.2.3.3 Inland Activities 

Under Alternative 1, changes to training area access restrictions would allow foot traffic in the vernal 

pools when conditions are dry. Most of the training operators at SSTC-S do not have a requirement to 

enter into areas with vernal pools. However, a few activities, particularly those that require open 

maneuver space, consider these areas important and valuable for training. In addition, these areas may be 

needed if other areas are scheduled and no other training areas are available or different areas are needed 

for training diversity. While there are numerous training activities that have the potential for foot traffic in 

the inland area, there are eleven activities that may schedule foot traffic into vernal pools when conditions 

are dry. The vernal pools are anticipated to be dry 50 to 95 percent of the year. Additionally, prior to use 

of the vernal pool area the area would be deemed dry by a qualified person overseen by the NBC Botanist 

or Wildlife Biologist. This person establishes when pools are dry, which could be at intermittent times 

throughout the rainy season rather than during a defined dry period. As such, it is conservatively 

anticipated that training activities in the vernal pool area would be conducted about five percent of the 

time. This estimate is due to the pools’ location away from the road network and buildings and bunkers. 

If an activity such as stalking or reconnaissance foot traffic requires access to the vernal pool areas, it is 

conservatively estimated that 10 percent of the people conducting the training activity would enter into 

the vernal pools as each training activity is dispersed across the vernal pool area. This translates into 

approximately 12 to 207 people potentially entering into the vernal pools each year, of which almost all 

would be on foot. This includes parachutists who may traverse the vernal pool area on foot after landing 

nearby. Parachuting involves about 216 events under the No Action Alternative, and only slightly more 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-44

(up to 228) under Alternatives 1 and 2, most of which occur over water rather than the Kauffman Drop 

Zone. Parachutists would not enter the vernal pool area unless they are dry. It is estimated that less than 

two percent of the people would be on their bellies stalking. The intensity and duration of the actual 

traffic depends on the dispersion of the action across the training area, and how much is repeated in the 

same location, such as in activities when one person follows another in a group. 

Since off-road vehicle traffic, manual excavations, and similar actions are prohibited in vernal pools 

under the proposed management, these actions would not have an effect on the fairy shrimp. Under 

Alternative 1, the vernal pools are avoided when conditions are wet. Foot training is scheduled in vernal 

pools only during dry conditions. This is the time when the shrimp are least vulnerable because they are 

encased in hard cysts at or near the soil surface (dry season sampling protocol entails collection of the top 

3 cm of soil) awaiting the return of wet conditions. Also, the soils in the vernal pool and pool watershed 

that support pool hydrology are less easily disturbed when dry (they are less compactable and less 

displaceable). Also, in order to ensure that vernal pool management is based on current species presence 

or absence, regular surveys will be conducted at least once every five years to determine the status of San 

Diego fairy shrimp in the SSTC-S inland. These surveys will examine shrimp presence, especially in 

regard to periodic flooding in El Niño years, and the resulting possible changes in pool condition and 

species distribution. Finally, effects are minimized through the Navy’s invasive plant species control 

program. 

While the management measures described will help alleviate the potential impacts to pools, effects 

remain to soils, vegetation, and special status species by trampling, trailing, introducing invasive species, 

and degrading habitat. The effect could be short-term or long-term depending on how foot traffic is 

dispersed and if it is repeated in the same location. The federally endangered San Diego fairy shrimp 

could be impacted both directly and indirectly by foot traffic in the pools. The mechanisms include 

translocation of cysts to unsuitable locations and potential changes in vernal pool topography, hydrology 

and water quality (associated with soil compaction, infestation by invasive exotic plant species, or 

reduction in vegetation cover) that could affect the ability of pools to support San Diego fairy shrimp. 

Although vehicle use of unpaved roads in vernal pool areas is limited to emergency vehicles in 

emergency situations, which are likely to be quite rare, impacts of such use on the San Diego fairy shrimp 

could occur through similar mechanisms as described for foot traffic above. The cysts may occupy road 

pools and be translocated by wheeled vehicles. Vehicles can introduce invasive weeds, and alter pool 

hydrology through compaction and recontouring of the road surface, or change water quality through 

sedimentation, especially when roads are wet. 

Foot traffic experienced in the vernal pools would likely be similar to that experienced by Nuttall’s lotus 

and variegated dudleya since these plants grow in the upland area adjacent to the pools. This level of 

traffic would likely be greater than that experienced under the No Action Alternative, resulting in the 

potential crushing of individual plants. Since the foot traffic consists primarily of small groups, trail 

forming and soil compaction is unlikely, resulting in no impact to population viability. 

As presented in Section 3.6.3.3, breacher training activities at the breacher façade would produce noise 

levels that could temporarily affect animal hearing. Expected received peak impulse levels may be 

sufficient to alter mammal behavior, as it is a stimulus of fast onset and short duration. Although 

sustained exposure to continuous noise at the high levels produced by these activities could be damaging, 

the noise from detonations is momentary; this exposure would not be expected to cause any physiological 

damage or hearing loss to mammals. In between impacts, noise levels would resume to typical 

background levels (the high ambient surf noise levels are estimated to be 63 to 69 dBA Leq). Therefore, 

no long-term habitat degradation in the area is anticipated. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-45

Although sustained exposure to continuous noise at or exceeding levels produced by these activities could 

be damaging, the noise from these training activities is momentary; this exposure would not be expected 

to cause any physiological damage or hearing loss to mammals. This is , in part, because native animals, 

including special status wildlife, are not abundant in the area where this activity takes place, which is 

dominated by iceplant. 

3.11.2.4 Alternative 2 

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the training tempo to the same levels as those proposed 

for Alternative 1. The only difference between Alternative 1 and 2 is that, under Alternative 2, all SSTCN oceanside beach training areas would be available for Navy training, regardless of time of year. 

Therefore, the impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be the same as those described above for 

Alternative 1, though dispersed across a larger area due to reduced training area restrictions. CNPS 

special status plants growing on the ROIs sandy beaches, Nuttall’s lotus, coast woolly-heads, and Brand’s 

phacelia could experience impacts across a wider segment of their population in the ROI, but less intense 

impacts than under Alternative 1. 

3.11.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Current mitigation measures will be continued. Proposed mitigation measures for terrestrial biological 

resources under the Alternatives are summarized below. 

Current natural resource protection measures would continue, such as those derived through Navy 

Instructions, ecosystem-based planning in the INRMPs, and the employment of best management 

practices and standard operating procedures to avoid and minimize environmental impacts. Existing 

measures include invasive species control, erosion control, inventory, monitoring, and habitat 

enhancement. 

For the San Diego fairy shrimp, under the Proposed Action training would not be allowed in vernal pools 

when conditions are wet. Foot traffic would be permitted in the pools when conditions are dry. Dry 

conditions would be determined by a qualified person overseen by a NBC Botanist or Wildlife Biologist. 

In order to ensure that vernal pool management is based on current species presence or absence, regular 

surveys would be conducted at least once every five years to determine the status of San Diego fairy 

shrimp in the SSTC-South inland. These surveys would examine shrimp presence, especially in regard to 

periodic flooding in El Niño years, and the resulting possible changes in pool condition and species 

distribution. 

Under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, Vehicle Patrolling and LARC V Operator Training 

are limited to training lanes Yellow 1 and 2 and Green 1 and 2, and will not occur in Red, Blue, or Orange 

Beach Lanes. Training activity restrictions serve to minimize effects to terrestrial biological resources in 

these lanes. This mitigation measure only occurs under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. 

Coincidental benefit to special status plants would occur through measures that are designed that may be 

implemented to support nesting by the California least tern and western snowy plover. For instance, the 

Long-term Site Enhancement Plan for the tern would benefit terrestrial plants and wildlife. In this 

scenario, the dunes on the windward (west) edges of Delta North and South would be enhanced for 

plovers, the least tern nesting area would be enhanced with sand, which also benefits special status plants. 

3.11.4 Unavoidable Environmental Effects 

It is expected that increases in foot traffic at SSTC-S could result in effects to the San Diego fairy shrimp, 

even with implementation of mitigation measures. An estimate of the increase in foot traffic could be in 

the range of 12 to 207 people entering into the vernal pools each year. There could also be impacts to 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-46

individual CNPS special status plants under all of the alternatives. For example, variegated dudleya is 

more sensitive to trampling and compaction than other CNPS plants; and it may suffer increased impacts 

over species like Nuttall’s lotus and coast woolly-heads, which thrive in disturbance prone dune-like 

environments. Diffuse off road foot traffic in SSTC-S interior areas may result in a decreased number of 

dudleya plants, but not in extirpation of the plant from the area. Coast woolly-heads and Nuttall’s lotus 

are more widespread in the ROI and are quite common to the local area; the plants are also less sensitive 

to disturbance; though, Nuttall’s lotus can be sensitive to compaction. Because these plants are more 

widespread and less sensitive to disturbance, it is not anticipated that effects from training will result in a 

decline of these rare, but common plants. In summary, even though individual plants may be crushed and 

killed, it is not anticipated that this impact will result in extirpation of any of these species from the ROI. 

Various training activities could affect Brand’s phacelia in the Bravo training area. Effects are minimized 

by the ephemeral nature of this plant, and its tolerance of disturbed conditions. However, the possibility 

remains of crushing and soil compaction by vehicles, equipment, and foot traffic that alter the site’s 

ability to support this plant. 

No other unavoidable environmental effects have been identified. 

3.11.5 Summary of Effects 

There is a possibility of effects on the San Diego fairy shrimp, a federally endangered species, due to the 

expected increase in foot traffic at SSTC-S. Foot traffic in vernal pool areas would only occur when the 

vernal pools are dry, which is during the dormant cyst stage of the fairy shrimp and a period least likely to 

impact the species. There is also an expected increase in effects to vegetation and species of the beachdune complex, including beetles and special status spiders, because of increased training tempo and 

access to training lanes during times of the year when these areas were formerly restricted. The primary 

activities that increase in this environment are vehicle and foot traffic. Effects on Brand’s phacelia due to 

various training activities are also a possibility. 

At SSTC-S, there is an expected effect on scrub and dune vegetation, special status plants, and mammals 

that reside in the area due to an increase in foot traffic of about 40 percent over current levels, possible 

manual excavations along roads, and other activities including helicopter insertions and extractions. 

Increased human presence degrades habitat values in this manner. Foot traffic can also create impacts 

through direct trampling, trailing, and sedimentation. A summary of effects by alternative is presented in 

Table 3.11-3. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-47

Table 3.11-3: Summary of Effects 

Alternative Effects 

No Action Alternative 

• Effects to San Diego Fairy Shrimp would be negligible. 

• Potential impacts to federal and state protected plants and invertebrates and 

CNPS special status plants from air and marine vessel activities are expected 

to be minimal, as activities occur in the air and below the high tide line. Foot 

and vehicle traffic may have the greatest effect on terrestrial biological 

resources; though effects are expected to be temporary and cease at the 

termination of an activity. 

• Effects on wildlife would be limited to temporary disturbance under this 

alternative. 

Alternative 1 

• Foot traffic in vernal pool areas could adversely impact individual fairy 

shrimp. However, impacts would be minimized, due to the low levels of foot 

traffic that would occur in the pools, and the limitation of those activities to 

when the vernal pools are dry. Potential impacts to the San Diego fairy 

shrimp are also associated with emergency vehicle use of unpaved roads in 

the vernal pool area. 

• Potential increased training on SSTC-N beach lanes Blue 2, Orange 1 and 

Orange 2 could increase impacts to special status plants and invertebrates in 

these areas while decreasing impacts at other locations. Some trampling of 

vegetation at these locations is expected, though the overall effect on nonavian biological resources is expected to be short term and of moderate 

intensity due to the potential overlap of concentrated activities in the dunes 

and upper beach areas. These activities do not pose long-term impacts, effects 

are expected to be temporary and cease at the termination of an activity. 

• Increased foot traffic could cause behavioral impacts to surrounding wildlife, 

though this effect is expected to be temporary. 

• Various activities have the potential to impact Brand’s phacelia within the 

Bravo training area. 

Alternative 2 

• Effects of Alternative 2 would be different from those under Alternative 1 

because of the increased access to SSTC-N oceanside training lanes. Activity 

levels would not increase, so effects from those activities which access the 

SSTC-N lanes would be spread more widely across the ROI. Plants and 

animals in the unrestricted training lanes could be more affected due to the 

increase in frequency of use, whereas plants and animals in other lanes could 

be less affected due to reduced usage. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-48

Table 3.11-4: Summary of Effects (Continued) 

Alternative Effects 

Mitigation Measures 

• Under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, Vehicle Patrolling and 

LARC V Operator Training are limited to training lanes Yellow 1 and 2 and 

Green 1 and 2, and will not occur in Red, Blue, or Orange Beach Lanes. 

• Under Alternative 1 and 2, training would not be allowed in vernal pools, 

including those containing San Diego fairy shrimp, when conditions are wet. 

Foot traffic would be permitted in the pools only when conditions are dry. In 

order to ensure that vernal pool management is based on current species 

presence or absence, regular surveys would be conducted at least once every 

five years to determine the status of San Diego fairy shrimp in the SSTCSouth inland. These surveys would examine shrimp presence, especially in 

regard to periodic flooding in El Niño years, and the resulting possible 

changes in pool condition and species distribution. 

• Current natural resource protection measures would continue, such as those 

derived through Navy Instructions, ecosystem-based planning in the 

INRMPs, and the employment of best management practices and standard 

operating procedures to avoid and minimize environmental impacts. Existing 

measures include invasive species control, erosion control, inventory, 

monitoring, and habitat enhancement. 

• For the San Diego fairy shrimp, under the Proposed Action training would not 

be allowed in vernal pools when conditions are wet. Foot traffic would be 

permitted in the pools when conditions are dry. Dry conditions would be 

determined by a qualified person overseen by a NBC Botanist or Wildlife 

Biologist. 
3.12 Birds 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-1

3.12 BIRDS

3.12.1 Affected Environment 

3.12.1.1 Introduction 

This section discusses avian resources for the purpose of comparing the environmental consequences of 

the Proposed Action and alternatives. The habitats used by birds traverse the terrestrial-marine line, and 

were described in Section 3.7, Marine Biological Resources, and Section 3.11, Terrestrial Biological 

Resources. Those sections are referenced in the descriptions of bird groups below. As much as possible, 

the abundance and diversity of these species groups are quantified to provide a full picture of the 

functions provided by the affected environment for birds. The current management of these resources in 

the Region of Influence (ROI) is also described, as appropriate. 

All birds within the ROI are analyzed. This section examines and determines adverse effects to birds at 

the population level for Birds of Conservation Concern (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

[USFWS] 2008). These are listed for the ROI in Section 3.12.1.4, Special Status Birds. 

This section also details the more than 30-year history of Navy consultation with the USFWS and 

management relating to federally protected birds in the ROI. Since 1977, the Navy has expended 

extensive funds and resources to adapt to the growing California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) 

nesting population and evolving Navy training needs at Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC). The 

latest mitigation measures, listed in Section 3.12.1.6, detail the current status of the Navy’s stewardship of 

least terns and snowy plovers in San Diego Bay. This management, as outlined in this document as well 

as in the history of Biological Opinions (BOs) on this issue, has been in anticipation of this EIS and 

associated Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation. This EIS endeavors to establish a durable 

solution to bird management, one that allows for increased military training necessary to meet readiness 

needs. 

3.12.1.1.1 Regulatory Framework 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 is the primary legislation in the United States 

established to conserve migratory birds. It implements the United States’ commitment to four bilateral 

treaties, or conventions, for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource between the United States 

and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union. The MBTA prohibits the taking, killing, or 

possessing of migratory birds unless permitted by regulation. The species of birds protected by the 

MBTA appears in 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10.13. The MBTA was amended in 2004 to 

exclude non-native migratory bird species that have been introduced by humans (intentionally or 

unintentionally) into the U.S. or its territories. The USFWS has published the final list of non-native bird 

species that are not protected under the MBTA (70 Federal Register 49 [15 March 2005], pp. 28907-

28908). 

The 2003 National Defense Authorization Act provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall exercise 

his/her authority under the MBTA to prescribe regulations to exempt the Armed Forces from the 

incidental taking of migratory birds during military readiness activities authorized by the Secretary of 

Defense. 

Congress defined military readiness activities as all training and operations of the Armed Forces that 

relate to combat and the adequate and realistic testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and 

sensors for proper operation and suitability for combat use. Congress further provided that military 

readiness activities do not include: 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-2

1. The routine operation of installation operating support functions, such as administrative offices, 

military exchanges, commissaries, water treatment facilities, storage facilities, schools, housing, 

motor pools, laundries, morale, welfare, recreation activities, shops, and mess halls; 

2. The operation of industrial activities; or 

3. The construction or demolition of facilities used for a purpose described in 1. or 2. above. 

The final rule authorizing the DoD to take migratory birds during military readiness activities was 

published in the Federal Register on February 28, 2007. The regulation can be found at 50 CFR Part 21. 

The regulation provides that the Armed Forces must confer and cooperate with the USFWS on the 

development and implementation of conservation measures to minimize or mitigate adverse effects of a 

military readiness activity if it determines that such activity may have a significant adverse effect on a 

population of a migratory bird species. 

The requirement to confer with the USFWS is triggered by a determination that the military readiness 

activity in question will have a significant adverse effect on a population of migratory bird species. An 

activity has a significant adverse effect if, over a reasonable period of time, it diminishes the capacity of a 

population of a migratory bird species to maintain genetic diversity, to reproduce, and to function 

effectively in its native ecosystem. A population is defined as “a group of distinct, coexisting, same 

species, whose breeding site fidelity, migration routes, and wintering areas are temporally and spatially 

stable, sufficiently distinct geographically (at some point of the year), and adequately described so that 

the population can be effectively monitored to discern changes in its status.” Assessment of impacts 

should take into account yearly variations and migratory movements of the impacted species. 

The actions analyzed in this Section fall under this military readiness provision, as described in Section 

3.12.2.1 Approach to Analysis and the sections that follow it. 

Migratory bird conservation relative to non-military readiness activities is addressed separately in a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) developed in accordance with Executive Order 13186, signed 

January 10, 2001, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.” The Memorandum 

of Understanding between Department of Defense (DoD) and the USFWS was signed on July 31, 2006. 

DoD responsibilities discussed in the Memorandum of Understanding include, but are not limited to: 

1. Obtaining permits for import and export, banding, scientific collection, taxidermy, special 

purposes, falconry, raptor propagation, and depredation activities. 

2. Encouraging incorporation of comprehensive migratory bird management objectives in the 

planning of DoD planning documents. 

3. Incorporating conservation measures addressed in Regional or State Bird Conservation Plans in 

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP). 

4. Managing military lands and activities other than military readiness in a manner that supports 

migratory bird conservation. 

5. Avoiding or minimizing impacts to migratory birds, including incidental take and the pollution or 

detrimental alteration of the environments used by migratory birds. 

6. Developing, striving to implement, and periodically evaluating conservation measures for 

management actions to avoid or minimize incidental take of migratory birds, and, if necessary, 

conferring with the USFWS on revisions to these conservation measures. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-3

Endangered Species Act 

The ESA also pertains to birds. The provisions of the ESA are that, once a species becomes listed as 

endangered or threatened, regulations to protect the species from illegal “take” become applicable to any 

project that may affect an individually listed animal or its habitat. The USFWS oversees the ESA 

implementation for all federally listed birds. Since San Diego Bay presently supports four federally listed 

birds, the USFWS becomes involved in all projects potentially affecting any of these species. 

Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal project proponents must consult with USFWS if one or more listed 

birds may be affected by an action. Consultation with USFWS may range from informal discussions to 

formal consultation requiring a biological assessment by the project proponent. Other federal agencies 

may appropriately be named the action agency that must conduct the consultation. With the issuance of a 

BO, “terms and conditions” are stated, which are measures to avoid or minimize the incidental take of any 

listed species. When an “incidental take statement” is issued with the biological opinion, the federal 

project proponent may be excused from accidentally taking a listed species as part of the agency’s 

otherwise lawful activity as long as the specified taking conditions are met. The federal ESA requires that 

USFWS, in cooperation with state agencies, implement a monitoring program for not less than five years 

following a delisting. This pertains to the American peregrine falcon and to the California brown pelican 

for the SSTC ROI. A monitoring plan was developed in cooperation with state resource agencies, 

representatives from each USFWS Region, and the Divisions of Migratory Birds, Endangered Species, 

and other cooperators. Should monitoring reveal that the American peregrine falcon is likely to become 

endangered, the species could be listed again under the ESA. The monitoring plan designates six 

geographical survey regions in 40 states where American peregrine falcons breed, and it calls for nests to 

be monitored five times at three-year intervals. Monitoring began in 2003 and will end in 2015. The plan 

calls for counting the number of American peregrine falcons returning to nesting sites, determining 

whether they nest successfully, and counting the number of young produced. 

3.12.1.1.2 Definition of Resource 

This section addresses Navy management of all species of birds that utilize the Silver Strand Training 

Complex and the southern portions of Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI), whether migratory or 

resident. The Silver Strand Training Complex and southern portions of NASNI are utilized by many bird 

species. All of these are addressed here. All but a handful of species (certain birds considered non-native, 

game, or pests) are protected by the MBTA (see above). 

All nomenclature is based on the American Ornithologists Union (AOU) Checklist of North American 

Birds, except that bird names are not capitalized. 

3.12.1.1.3 Regional Setting 

The SSTC is a part of the Pacific Flyway used by millions of birds migrating between northern breeding 

grounds and southern wintering sites. It is one of a number of stopover sites used by migrants to replenish 

their energy during their long journey. San Diego Bay and nearshore Pacific Ocean waters support large 

populations of migratory birds that depend on local resources for food, shelter, resting, and staging before 

and during migration. Resident species that nest locally are in the salt marsh and upland habitats. Seabirds 

come northward from Mexico and Central America to nest on beaches and levees of the salt ponds. 

Depending on the needs of the bird, they can utilize ocean beaches, salt marshes, and nearshore waters for 

roosting and foraging. Sandy beaches provide nesting habitat for locally nesting shorebirds, and also act 

as roosting places for shorebirds and gulls. The intertidal zone provides foraging habitat for multiple 

shorebird species as many shorebirds forage on invertebrates buried in the lower tidal zones. Seabirds will 

forage in the nearshore waters and nest in salt marshes, beaches, and salt pond levees. The nearshore 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-4

ocean accommodates birds such as gulls, pelicans, terns, and cormorants, which prey upon the schooling 

fish and other marine organisms below. 

San Diego Bay is part of a network of Southern California bays that provide haven for a large diversity of 

birds due to their sheltered and nutrient-rich waters. The shallow water and shoreline provide roosting, 

foraging, and nesting areas for ducks, terns, shorebirds, pelicans, cormorants, gulls, herons, raptors (such 

as ospreys [Pandion haliaetus] and northern harriers [Circus cyaneus]), and various passerines in the 

surrounding vegetation. 

Threatened and endangered bird species with known or expected occurrence in the project area include 

the California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), California least tern, western snowy 

plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), and light footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes). 

Many migratory birds are in decline regionally and globally. About one-third of bird species dependent on 

local bays and estuaries have been identified as sensitive or declining by the federal or state governments, 

or by the Audubon Society. The most common reasons attributed to bird population declines are habitat 

loss and habitat fragmentation (Groom et al. 2009, Brown et al. 2001, Shuford and Gardali 2008). 

Shrinking habitat locally, regionally, and along the entire Pacific Flyway is probably the most important 

and well recognized issue affecting survival of many birds dependent on San Diego Bay through 

overcrowding, stress, competition, poor nutrition, and increased mortality (Brown et al. 2001, Shuford 

and Gardali 2008). While San Diego Bay’s habitat losses are similar to those of other bays, this 

complicates an assessment of declines due to local causes versus regional or more distant causes Birds 

that are increasing in number include the more generalist species and those tolerant of human disturbance 

such as the western gull (Larus occidentalis), common raven (Corvus corax clarionensis), and American 

crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos hesperis). 

3.12.1.1.4 Region of Influence 

The ROI for avian resources includes all of SSTC-North (SSTC-N) and SSTC-South (SSTC-S), as well 

as the southern sandy beaches, Zuniga Jetty, and other riprap jetties of NASNI. Also included are the 

oceanside and bayside training lanes as well the ocean anchorages located offshore of SSTC-N. 

3.12.1.2 Bird Groups 

More than 300 bird species, representing 30 families, have been documented to use San Diego Bay for 

either foraging, roosting or nesting. The majority of birds using San Diego Bay are migratory and may 

only use the bay as a stopover site to rest and eat before continuing their migration. Other bird species, 

termed summer or winter visitors, use the bay part of the year for either breeding or wintering. Species 

that migrate to San Diego Bay to nest are predominantly seabirds. South San Diego Bay is home to a 

large multi-species seabird colony annually from April through May. Other birds, residents, remain in the 

area year-round and use San Diego Bay for both breeding and wintering. Occasionally, migrating birds 

not normally observed will become disoriented due to migration or weather events and are termed 

vagrants or transient migrants. Although these birds are not dependent on San Diego Bay for more than 

temporary shelter or food, a considerable number of them pass through the area annually. 

San Diego Bay contributes more protected, shallow habitat to the Pacific Flyway waterbird populations 

that any other bay or estuary situated along the 180-mile coastal region of Southern California (Baird 

1993). When compared to midwinter populations of the Southern California Bight (SCB) as a whole, San 

Diego Bay supports more than half of the entire midwinter duck population. The majority of the regional 

surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata) and brant (Branta bernicla) populations use central and south San 

Diego Bay (USFWS 1995). Close to half of the region’s bufflehead population uses central and south San 

Diego Bay, as does a similar percentage of scaup (USFWS 1995; Tierra Data Inc. 2008). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-5

San Diego Bay provides breeding, wintering, and/or stopover habitat for most of the shorebirds identified 

in the U.S. Shorebird Plan as having primary importance within the region. Of the 10 species for which 

coastal habitats in the Southern Pacific Region are especially important, the black-bellied plover 

(Pluvialis squatarola), western snowy plover, semipalmated plover (Charadrius semipalmatus), willet 

(Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa), black turnstone (Arenaria 

melanocephala), short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus), and red-necked phalarope (Phalaropus 

lobatus) are supported locally. 

Three separate surveys of avifauna of San Diego Bay in 1993-1994 resulted in an estimate of over seven 

million bird-use days per year, with substantial peaks and lows through the year, based on the average 

number of sightings during survey days (USFWS 1995, 1994; Ogden 1995). All surveys reported an 

abundance peak about December (November through February for the central Bay by Ogden [1995]), but 

in the salt ponds of south bay there is another peak in the fall due to the arrival of many red-necked 

phalaropes (Ogden 2005, Tierra Data Inc. 2008). Western sandpiper (Calidris mauri) was the most 

abundant species in 2006-2007 surveys covering the entire bay, with its highest count in September 

(Tierra Data Inc. 2008). The American wigeon (Anas americana) and dowitchers (Limnodromus spp.)

contribute substantially to the abundance peak n December. The American wigeon is a common winter 

visitor seen where other ducks are seldom found due to grazing of aquatic vegetation, eelgrass its favorite 

food in San Diego Bay (Unitt 2004). Most of the American wigeons surveyed were in the south bay and 

salt ponds. All surveyors found a survey abundance low point around June. 

The most recent survey sponsored jointly by the Navy and Port of San Diego in 2006-2007 (Tierra Data 

Inc. 2008) added 509,562 bird observations. For the first time, both waterfowl and shorebirds were 

targeted during the same survey period to get the most comprehensive look at avian species use to date, 

with shoreline and water observation hours of effort totaling over 700 hours. Figures 3.12-1 through 

Figure 3.12-3 depict the abundance and diversity of avian species observations based on a San Diego Bay 

habitat grid. Shorebird surveys took place monthly (excluding May and July) between March 2006 and 

February 2007; conducted in the four hours before low tide. These falling tide surveys were designed to 

capture bird use of foraging habitats as mudflats and other substrates became exposed by the receding 

water. Quarterly peaking tide surveys were also conducted, over the crest of the tide, four times during the 

year. These surveys were designed to observe high tide refugia, or areas that contained high bird use 

which would be missed during falling tide surveys. The bay and ocean shoreline were surveyed on foot or 

by boat, depending upon the most advantageous view and access. Surveys to detect the presence of 

waterbirds took place once monthly between November 2006 and February 2007, when maximum 

migratory waterbird presence was expected. 

About 195 species of birds use coastal or offshore aquatic habitats in the SCB (Baird 1993). In the SCB 

as a whole, bird numbers and biomass are highest in the winter, when high-latitude nesters stop in the 

area. A very different assemblage of bird species occurs in San Diego Bay in spring and summer than in 

the winter when northern migrants dominate. 

3.12.1.2.1 Waterfowl 

From late fall through the winter (November through February), the greatest numbers of waterfowl are 

present in the ROI to rest and forage including ducks, geese, coots, and grebes. The majority migrate 

north to breed during the late spring and summer months. During 2006-2007 bay surveys (Tierra Data 

Inc. 2008), the number of waterbirds observed per month was greatest in January and lowest in November 

(Table 3.12-1). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-6

Figure 3.12-1: Relative abundance of waterbirds in San Diego Bay. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-7

Figure 3.12-2: Abundance of Birds in San Diego Bay and Nearshore Ocean 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-8

Figure 3.12-3: Species Richness of Birds in San Diego Bay and Nearshore Ocean 

Surf scoters were found to be the most abundant birds on San Diego Bay. They were the predominant 

species in both the central and south San Diego Bay. They appear from the surveys to be more widely 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-9

distributed and make greater use of deep water than other waterfowl. They seem to prefer nearshore areas 

along the shoreline of NASNI, of north San Diego Bay, and around Naval Base Point Loma. 

Diving ducks feed by diving from the surface and swimming underwater. Those dependent on San Diego 

Bay include the greater scaup (Aythya marila) and, most abundantly, the lesser scaup (A.affinis), which 

primarily feeds on clams and snails, but also eat aquatic insects, crustaceans, and plants. Scaup also were 

relatively more abundant in central and south San Diego Bay. Scaup are more heavily dependent on south 

San Diego Bay than scoters and more restricted to the west side of central San Diego Bay. Scaup are 

absent from April to mid-November. The bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) feeds especially on the brine 

shrimp and brine fly larvae of salt ponds. 

Most dabblers, defined as such since they eat the vegetation at the surface or just below the water level. 

These birds which include the northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), American wigeon (A. Americana), 

gadwall (A. strepera), northern pintail (A. acuta), green-winged teal (A. crecca), cinnamon teal (A. 

cyanoptera), and mallard (A. platyrhinchos) are at or above North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan population goals. These birds are not obligate saltwater species and can use freshwater sources 

which allows them more flexibility in habitat use. 

Waterfowl movement areas, such as crossover points between San Diego Bay and the ocean at Emory 

Cove and Delta Beach, have been identified (E. Copper pers. comm.). The USFWS (J. Manning, USFWS, 

personal communication) observed that brant geese established a movement corridor between beds of 

eelgrass in south San Diego Bay between the east and west shores. 

Table 3.12-1: Number of birds observed per 

month during San Diego Bay waterbird surveys. 

Month Number of Birds Observed 2006-2007 

November 4,207 

December 8,777 

January 11,663 

February 7,165 

During the course of the 2006-2007 Port-Navy surveys, 31,812 birds of 47 different species were 

observed during waterbird focused surveys. Results of shoreline focused surveys also infer that the west 

shore ocean beaches are used for roosting by waterfowl. Common in these nearshore coastal waters are 

the eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis) and horned grebe (P. auritus). 

3.12.1.2.2 Shorebirds 

Shorebirds typically use the interface between terrestrial and marine resources. However, shorebirds are 

highly migratory, and many shorebirds with long migrations use habitats that are widely dispersed across 

the landscape. Each species has different geographic breeding and non-breeding distributions, population 

size, and dispersion patterns. Some species breed or winter in the U.S., while others do neither but depend 

upon key habitats in the U.S. for completing their migrations (Brown et al. 2001). 

In addition to the energetic cost of transport, shorebirds must find periodic stopovers to rest and refuel. 

While at these stopover places, birds must deal with the local climate and environmental conditions which 

includes predation pressure and uncertainty of resources (Moore et al. 1995, 2005). These challenges 

combined with changes in habitats and landscapes along historical migratory pathways create hardships in 

terms of reproductive success and survival for these birds (Skagen 2006). Studies completed by Baker et 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-10

al. (2004) and Morrison (2006) demonstrate that red knots who failed to gain enough weight during 

migration to the breeding grounds suffered reduced survival. 

During migration shorebirds use an opportunistic foraging strategy in which they will consume whatever 

is present and palatable; but if food resources in the area are lacking, they will move on to other areas that 

have food resources adequate to their needs (Colwell and Landrum 1993). As foraging sites are limited in 

southern California, shorebirds have compensated by grouping in high densities which will deplete food 

sources and force the birds to move to another site to forage (Duffy et al. 1981).. Instead, the birds may 

decide to leave the area entirely to find better foraging grounds along the migration pathway. This forced 

move may have consequences on the fitness of the bird for survival and breeding (Baker et al. 2004, 

Morrison 2006). The period of greatest competition among shorebirds is midwinter (Quammen 1981, 

1982, cited in Baird 1993). Reasons for this include lowered prey biomass and patchier prey density. 

Greater minus tides in the winter partially offset this by exposing more mudflats and a greater feeding 

opportunity for shorebirds. Choice of shorebird feeding location is influenced by individual foraging 

preference, prey abundance and density, water level, and available foraging habitat (Colwell and Landrum 

1993; Collazo et al. 2002; Finn et al. 2008). 

Sandpiper species and their allies are seen primarily at the south end of San Diego Bay. Peak abundance, 

in south San Diego Bay and Salt Works, is in August during the fall migration (USFWS 1994). 

Abundance data from the most recent San Diego Bay-wide bird surveys, which did not extensively 

sample the Salt Works and were not conducted in either May or July, are displayed in Figures 3.12-4 

through 3.12-6. Shorebirds can be hard to identify in the field, and often are either misindentified or 

missed in censuses due to their size and cryptic coloration. Most are migratory and they are highly 

mobile, adding to the surveying difficulty. Some areas around San Diego Bay are predictable for seeing 

shorebirds at low tide, but high-tide refugia are as hard to predict as feeding areas. Shorebird abundances 

have been impacted by the loss of intertidal flats for foraging, as well as upland transitional areas for 

roosting and nesting. Shoreline stabilization and bulkheads can preclude intertidal habitats, from which 

shorebirds get most of their nutrition. Bird use at the Chula Vista Bayfront, examined over 1.5 years 

(Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1988), was found to be highest where mudflat was the dominant 

habitat. 

For shorebird species that can take advantage of different soil substrates and food sources, agricultural 

fields can provide an alternative foraging ground (Taft and Haig 2005; Ogden et al. 2008). There is 

substantial movement between the Tijuana Estuary and San Diego Bay and the agricultural fields of the 

Tijuana River Valley and San Diego Bay. 

On the ocean beaches, shorebirds will forage upon invertebrates in the damp, sandy middle and lower 

tidal zones as well as use the beach for roosting (resting). Kelp and surfgrass that have washed ashore are 

good foraging areas for gulls, shorebirds, and even some passerines, as they harbor and are fed upon by 

invertebrates. Other areas of rocky/reef substrates, such as the jetties, provide encrusting and other marine 

animals for foraging gulls and shorebirds. 

A total of 429,003 birds were observed during the course of the 2006-2007 Navy-Port surveys, including 

210 distinct species. Almost 400,000 of the observations were when the focus was on the shoreline as 

opposed to open water. During the shorebird surveys, birds were generally denser along extensive mudflat 

areas in south San Diego Bay as well as around the commercial bait fish storage barge in north San Diego 

Bay. Even though complete salt pond data are only available for March and April, this area has a very 

high density of shorebirds. The number of shorebirds observed per month varied considerably during 

2006-2007 shoreline surveys during a falling tide, with a low of 15,014 in June and high of 58,087 in 

December (Table 3.12-2: 3.2-12). The falling tide generally corresponds to periods when shorebirds are 

feeding. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-11

Figures 3.12-4: United States Shorebird Conservation Plan Species Observed during the Most 

Recent San Diego Bay Bird Surveys. Surveys were not conducted during May and July 2006. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-12

Figures 3.12-5: United States Shorebird Conservation Plan Species Observed during the Most 

Recent San Diego Bay Bird Surveys. Surveys were not conducted during May and July 2006. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-13

Table 3.12-2: Number of shorebirds observed 

each month during the falling tide 

shoreline survey. 

Month Number of Birds 

Observed 

2006 

March 44,340 

April 16,904 

June 15,014 

August 28,560 

September 55,143 

October 42,761 

November 42,093 

December 58,087 

2007 

January 48,651 

February 36,202 

Figure 3.12-6: Number of shorebirds observed during the 2006-2007 

San Diego Bay Avian Surveys. 

3.12.1.2.3 Seabirds 

Seabirds are almost as diverse a group of birds as are shorebirds. A seabird is defined as such because it 

spends the majority of its life at sea only coming to land to breed at colonies along the coast. Foraging 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-14

strategies are species specific such as plunge-diving or pursuit diving. Plunge-diving, as utilized by terns 

and pelicans, is a foraging strategy in which the bird hovers over the water and dives into the water to 

pursue fish. Pursuit divers, a common foraging strategy of cormorants, grebes, and auklets, usually float 

on the water and dive under to pursue fish and other prey. They most commonly eat fish, squid, and 

crustaceans (Baird 1993). 

As with shorebirds, prey density is very patchy and dependent upon primary productivity. Diving species 

of seabirds predominate in areas where certain processes maintain standing stocks of phytoplankton, 

making the water turbid (Briggs and Chu 1987). The northern anchovy is one of the most common prey 

items for sea birds of the SCB. Abundance of northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) larvae is tied to these 

areas of concentrated phytoplankton off the coast. Large numbers of dinoflagellates, a component of the 

phytoplankton, serve as food for anchovy larvae (Pondella 2006). Depending upon the seabird species 

using San Diego Bay, they most are often foraging for schooling fish such as anchovies and topsmelt. 

Within the SCB and in the ROI, the most abundant seabirds in coastal beach and nearshore ocean areas 

are the surf scoter, pacific loon (Gavia pacifica), black storm-petrel (Oceanodroma melania), brown 

pelican, elegant tern tern (Sterna elegans), Brandt’s cormorants (Phalacrocorax penicillatus), phalaropes, 

and various gulls. The most common gulls are Heerman’s gull (Larus heermanni), ring-billed gull (L. 

delawarensis), California gull (L. californicus), Herring gull (L. argentatus), and western gull. Several 

tern species besides the California least tern use the nearshore areas and San Diego Bay for foraging. 

These include elegant tern, Forster’s tern (Sterna forsteri), Caspian tern (S. caspia), and black skimmer 

(Rynchops niger). 

Over 70 species of birds are known or expected to occur in the nearshore ocean area, including the 

California brown pelican and California least tern.. The upper tidal beaches are utilized by gulls as roosts 

(resting-places). 

3.12.1.2.4 Marsh and Wading Birds 

Marsh birds are species that utilize the marsh as foraging and breeding grounds such as soras, Virginia 

rails, and clapper rails. Populations of many marsh birds have declined in North America (Ribic et al. 

1999), and destruction of marshes has reduced numbers in coastal southern California (Garrett and Dunn 

1981). Feeding habits are not well known, and are based on general accounts from California. Small 

crustaceans, small mollusks, aquatic insects, beetles, snails, and spiders have been observed a part of the 

rail diet. Marsh birds that are reportedly declining in numbers in the SCB include the light-footed clapper 

rail and the Virginia rail (Rallus limicola limicola). The California black rail’s (Laterallus jamaicensis 

coturniculus) range historically extended along the southern California coast into Baja California, but is 

now believed extirpated from San Diego Bay (Evens 1991). 

Other birds that utilize the marsh and estuarine habitat are wading birds such as egrets and herons. These 

birds feed on a variable mix of fish, crayfish, amphibians, snakes, terrestrial rodents, lizards, and insects. 

The black-crowned night heron feeds mostly at night, feeding on young shrimp and fish, but adults have a 

broader diet of terrestrial rodents, amphibians, aquatic insects, and crustaceans. Wading birds often fly a 

short distance inland to roost and nest in groves of trees, but return to the marsh daily to feed. 

3.12.1.3 Threatened or Endangered Species 

Federally listed birds observed at SSTC include the California least tern, western snowy plover, and lightfooted clapper rail. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-15

3.12.1.3.1 California Least Tern 

The California least tern is listed by both the USFWS (35 FR 16047 October 13, 1970) and under the 

California Endangered Species Act as endangered. Historically, the least tern’s range extended from San 

Francisco Bay south to San Jose del Cabo, Baja California Sur, Mexico (Cogswell 1977, Massey 1977). 

Wintering areas are in Mexico and Central America. Little information regarding the status of the least 

tern is available for the portion of the species' range that extends into Mexico. Recent work by Palacios 

and Mellink (2003) observed 45 least tern colonies on the Baja Peninsula ranging in size from 

approximately one pair (Isla Piedra) to 68 pairs (Bahia San Quintin). Of the 30 colonies that had been 

previously observed, 24 exhibited apparent population declines or were absent in 2003. Human 

disturbance at former coastal nesting areas has reduced the breeding population in California (Garrett and 

Dunn 1981), and was noted as early as the mid-1920s (Schneider 1926). Such disturbance along 

California beaches for recreational, residential, and industrial development severely diminished the 

availability of suitable least tern nesting habitat. In San Diego County, it is a fairly common summer 

resident from mid-April to September (Unitt 2004, 1984). 

During the breeding season which ranges from April through August, the majority of the least tern 

population is concentrated in southern California within the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, and San 

Diego. Over half (60.4 percent in 2008, 4240 pairs) of the U.S. least tern breeding population is located 

within in San Diego County, a large portion of which nests at Camp Pendleton (Marschalek 2009; Figure 

3.12-7). 

Figure 3.12-7: Regional Productivity of California Least Tern, 2008 Breeding Pairs 

This small migratory tern historically nested colonially on beaches that were undisturbed, sparsely 

vegetated, and flat with loose, sandy or gravelly substrate and water nearby for foraging (Swickard 1972, 

1971; Rigney and Emery 1980). Few undisturbed beach nesting areas remain and least terns are now 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-16

found in varied habitats ranging from mudflats to airports. Loss of nesting habitat in conjunction with 

increased loss of foraging areas, human disturbance, and predation at remaining breeding colonies 

resulted in a federal designation of endangered status in 1970 (35 FR 1604). 

California least terns forage in nearshore ocean waters and in shallow estuaries or lagoons in areas with 

water less than 60 feet deep (Atwood 1986; Massey 1987). A study at Huntington Beach revealed that 

adults also forage close to shore in ocean waters, mostly within 3.2 km of the breeding area (Collins et al. 

1979; USFWS 2006c). Long-term data indicates that forage species for the tern occur broadly within the 

San Diego Bay (Allen 1999) and that the birds feed opportunistically (Department of the Navy [DoN] 

2006). Terns are known to capture more than 50 species of fish and feed exclusively on small fish that 

frequent shallow, nearshore waters (Atwood and Kelly 1984; Atwood and Minsky 1983; Bailey 1984; 

Collins et al. 1979; Massey 1974; Minsky 1984; Thelander 1994). Prey include such schooling fish as 

northern anchovy, topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), killifish (Fundulus parvipinnis), mosquitofish 

(Gambusia affinis), and shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster aggregata; USFWS 2006b). After their eggs 

hatch, breeding adults catch and deliver small fish to the flightless young. The young begin to fly at about 

20 days of age but continue to be fed and are taught how to feed by their parents for some time after 

fledging. Reproductive success is, therefore, closely related to the availability of undisturbed nest sites 

and nearby waters with adequate supplies of appropriately sized fish. 

Some nonbeach, and even nonsandy, surfaces have been successfully used by least terns for nesting 

(Massey and Atwood 1979-1985). Least tern nests use small depressions, or scrapes, in the substrate, 

usually sand, that may or may not be lined with shell debris or pebbles. Nesting is characterized by two 

waves. Most of the initial nesting attempts are made by experienced breeders and are completed by midJune. A second wave usually occurs from mid-June to early August, which is comprises re-nests after 

initial failures and second year birds nesting for the first time (Massey and Atwood 1981). Least terns lay 

from one to four eggs (two, on average) which are incubated for 20 to 28 days by both adults. Young 

fledge 20 to 28 days after hatching, with a mean time of about 21 days, and are fed by adults for an 

additional two to three weeks. The terns abandon the nesting colonies by mid-August and generally 

migrate south by mid-September. Banding returns indicate that least terns exhibit a tendency to return to 

the site where they first bred successfully and they exhibit a high degree of nest site fidelity from year to 

year (Atwood and Massey 1988). The factors which can affect colony site fidelity include reproductive 

failure and the physical attributes of the nest site such as the amount of encroachment by vegetation. 

Episodic reproductive failure or reduction in population size has been attributed to cold, wet weather, 

extreme heat, dehydration, starvation, unusually high surf or tides, and human disturbance (USFWS 

2006c). Additionally, the El Niño warm sea current phenomenon can have deleterious long-term effects 

on the entire least tern population. During the El Niño event of 1982-1983, diminished fish populations 

throughout the SCB caused a drastic reduction in least tern breeding success resulting in the lowest annual 

production of fledged young on record (Massey 1988, Massey et at. 1992). Subsequently, it took five 

years for the population to recover from this event. El Niño conditions were also evident during the 1992 

breeding season which resulted in a reduced statewide production of fledglings (Caffrey 1993); similar 

effects were seen during the 1997 El Niño event. 

Nesting density ranges from one to three per acre, but may be much greater; such as 145 nests on about 

1.9 acres at Camp Pendleton (Swickard 1972, 1971). Conflicting uses of southern California beaches 

during the least tern nesting season have precluded the use of most natural nesting sites. Because of the 

lack of availability of large expanses of beach, many colony sites have been restricted to small discrete 

areas often protected by fencing. Although this species is loosely colonial in nature, least terns have been 

artificially concentrated within these fenced areas, often adjacent to heavily used public beaches or on 

tiny man-made islands, since beach front property is at such a premium for human activities (Marschalek 

2006; USFWS 1985a). The adults, eggs, and young are thus confined, rendering them susceptible to 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-17

major problems such as predation and disturbance with limited options to relocate. Hence, predator 

control is considered by many species experts to be one of the most crucial management strategies for 

reproductive success (Foster 2006; USFWS 2006c). 

In addition to nesting areas, secure roosting areas are essential to the recovery of the species. Two kinds 

of roosting areas exist: preseason nocturnal roosts and postseason dispersal sites where adults and 

fledglings congregate. The best documented night roost is in Long Beach, California; however, no recent 

surveys have been conducted to verify its continued use (Atwood 1986). 

Predators of least tern adults, young, or eggs include rats (Rattus spp.), domestic cats (Felis cattus), 

domestic dogs (Canis familiaris), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), northern 

harrier, gopher snakes (Pituophis melanoleucus), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), 

American kestrel (Falco sparverius), American crow, burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), loggerhead 

shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), common raven, coyote (Canis latrans), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), opossum 

(Didelphis virginiana) and gull-billed terns (Sterna nilotica vanrossemi) (USFWS 1990). The sensitive 

status of some predatory species requires special consideration and may reduce the predator management 

options available. For example the gull-billed tern, a California Bird Species of Special Concern, has 

recently been posed as a localized problem for least terns nesting on beaches around San Diego Bay. The 

USFWS, Migratory Bird Office has not issued depredation permits for the removal of gull-billed terns or 

gull-billed tern eggs due to the sensitive status of this species. This situation also exists for the peregrine 

falcon. 

There is concern that predation by gull-billed terns may affect the long-term potential for least tern 

colonies in this area. This issue is of particular concern for terns nesting on Navy installations adjacent to 

San Diego Bay, because reproductive success (number of fledglings/pair) has declined in recent years, 

and is in part attributable to predation of California least tern chicks at the Naval Amphibious Base 

(NAB) beaches. Reproductive success in the San Diego Bay area has been extremely low since 1999. For 

example, the number of fledglings per pair produced at the SSTC was 0.17 in 2006 was less than half of 

the statewide average. In comparison, at the NASNI Maintenance and Training (MAT) site, the number of 

fledglings per pair produced was 0.21 (Marschalek 2007). Reproductive success for SSTC was about 0.19 

in 2007, and 0.097 in 2008. The reason for the lower number of fledglings produced by each pair is not 

known. On the Delta Beaches and the NAB oceanside beach, lower reproductive success is thought to be 

due, in part, to increasing foraging intensity by gull-bill terns during the hatching phase of least tern 

reproduction based on monitoring data collected and certain confirmed cases of gull-billed predation 

(Avian Research Associates 2007, 2008) Many factors, however, can contribute to low reproductive 

success. 

During 2006, the number of fledglings per pair produced at NAB was 0.17, less than half of the statewide 

average. At the NASNI MAT site, the number of fledglings per pair produced was 0.21 (Marschalek 

2007). Low fledge rates in recent years on Silver Strand beaches, especially those outside of NASNI, are 

due in large part to the presence of gull-billed terns (Copper 2007). While NASNI is in the same 

geographic area as NAB, it has not been subjected to observed depredation by foraging gull-billed terns. 

Gull-billed terns continue to forage and roost on nesting sites during the breeding season. Pending the 

continued approval of the USFWS Migratory Bird Office for predator control personnel from U.S 

Department of Agriculture to employ pole traps, the Navy plans to remove avian predators such as the 

American kestrel from nesting colonies (USFWS 2007b). The Navy modified chick shelters in 2006 to be 

more accommodating to least tern chicks. 

Concurrent with fluctuations in the overall numbers of breeding pairs in San Diego Bay are fluctuations in 

the number of occupied sites and the number of pairs using each site. Declines at one nesting site 

sometimes are balanced by increases at another nearby site and are most likely a result of inter-colony 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-18

movement. These shifts appear to be related to heavy predation or human disturbance event(s) which can 

result in poor reproductive success. The number of sites available is important to the tern population in 

allowing inter-colony movement in response to failure at a particular site. Of concern is the apparent trend 

towards fewer, larger colonies that concentrate the species into fewer areas, which may facilitate 

vulnerability to predation. Management actions that provide for a greater number of dispersed colonies 

could be beneficial to the long-term recovery of the species (USFWS 1985). 

Upon its designation as endangered, California statewide efforts to implement protection for least tern 

nesting and foraging areas contributed to a breeding population increase from 623 pairs in 1969 to an 

estimated 7,006 pairs in 2006. Generally, growth has been positive except for 2002 with a one-year loss 

of over 1,100 breeding pairs, and 2004, with a one-year loss of over 500 pairs (Keane 1998, 1999, 2000, 

and 2001 as cited in USFWS 2006c). The statewide population size has grown substantially since 1973 

(Figure 3.12-8). Fledgling production has fluctuated more widely with unknown consequences for overall 

population numbers (Marschalek 2009). 

Efforts to model least tern population viability have been frustrated by incomplete information about the 

species’ demography, effects from environmental stochasticity, and wintering habitat location. Age at 

first breeding is estimated to be approximately 3 years (Akçakaya et al. 2003 ), with a breeding life span 

estimated at approximately 10 years (Massey et al. 1992). Records of a California least tern 15 years old 

are available (Kennard 1975), while other least tern subspecies have been documented to survive to 24 

years (Klimkiewicz and Futcher 1989). 

Figure 3.12-8: Historical Statewide California Least Tern Breeding Data, Marschalek 2009. 

The number of least terns in the San Diego Bay area has increased in conjunction with the statewide 

increase (Table 3.12-3). After a period of apparent instability during the 1980s, the population has been 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-19

increasing since 1992. The San Diego Bay-wide breeding numbers experienced a substantial increase 

from 141 pairs in 1991 to 1,813-2,038 pairs in 2008. San Diego Bay least terns also increased in relative 

range wide importance. In 1996, the breeding number of least terns in San Diego Bay was estimated at 

436 pairs or 13 percent of the range-wide population. In 2001, the breeding number of terns in San Diego 

Bay was estimated at 871-873 pairs or approximately 18-19 percent of the statewide population and in 

2006 it was estimated at 1,611-1,638 pairs, or approximately 22-23 percent of the statewide population. 

Recently, least terns have nested at seven to nine locations around San Diego Bay. As listed in USFWS 

(2006a), these are North Delta Beach, South Delta Beach, 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). 

Table 3.12-3: San Diego Bay and Naval Base Coronado (NBC) California Least Tern Pair and 

Occupied Site Information 

San Diego Bay California least 

tern pairs 

NBC California least tern pairs 

Year 

Minimum 

(percent of 

statewide) 

Maximum 

(percent of 

statewide) 

San Diego Bay 

Occupied 

SitesΔ

Minimum 

(percent of 

statewide) 

Maximum 

(percent of 

statewide) 

2000 757 (17) 765 (16) 7 

(a,c,d,e,f,g,i) 669 (15) 669 (14) 

2001 871 (19) 873 (18) 8 

(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,i) 769 (16) 769 (16) 

2002 705 (20) 712 (20) 8 

(a,c,d,e,f,g,h,i) 605 (17) 605 (17) 

2003 1308 (20) 1331 (19) 8 

(a,c,d,e,f,g,h,i) 1119 (17) 1119 (17) 

2004 1245 (20) 1294 (19) 9 

(a,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j) 1041 (16) 1041 (15) 

2005 1375 (20) 1440 (20) 8 

(a,c,d,e,f,g,h,i) 1135 (17) 1135 (15) 

2006 1611 (23) 1638 (22) 8 

(a,c,d,e,f,g,h,i) 1356 (19) 1356 (19) 

2007 1452 (22) 1503 (22) 8 

(a,c,d,e,f,g,h,i) 1149 (17) 1149 (16) 

2008 1813 (26) 2038 (26) 8 

(a,c,d,e,f,g,h,i) 1573 (22) 1795 (23) 

* Totals do not include nesting from the Tijuana Estuary National Estuarine Research Reserve site. Statewide and 

some NBC data from least tern annual reports. NBC data also included from Navy/Copper unpublished data. Δ

 Occupied Sites (data from California least tern Annual Reports): 

a Lindbergh Field b Former Naval Training Center c NASNI 

d Delta Beach North e Delta Beach South f NAB Ocean 

g

D Street Fill/Sweetwater 

Marsh National Wildlife 

Refuge 

h Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve i 

South San Diego Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge – 

Saltworks 

j Silver Strand State Beach 

Nesting colonies have spread to almost all oceanside beaches along NAB where nest numbers have 

increased over the past decade in the same fashion as the number of tern pairs described above. The 

number of California least tern nests on Naval Base Coronado (NBC) lands has increased overall from 

187 nests in 1993 to 1,810 nests in 2008 (Figure 3.12-9). Nesting data records for each location on Navy 

managed beaches is used to estimate incidental take as well as to gauge the success of various 

management strategies. The number of mated pairs on NAB from 1990 to 2008 showed an overall 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-20

increasing trend. Over the same period of time the number of fledglings produced by these nests varied 

considerably, as it has statewide. 

Figure 3.12-9: California Least Tern Nest Numbers from Naval Base Coronado Nesting Sites 

The Recovery Plan (USFWS Revised 27 Sept 1985) identified the population size, distribution, secure 

nesting site numbers, and reproductive rates necessary for recovery of the California least tern. The 

Recovery Plan states that for delisting, the terns must have an annual rangewide breeding population of at 

least 1,200 pairs. This goal has been far surpassed; breeding pairs throughout the range are currently 

estimated at over 7,000. I In 2008, the following were statewide statistics: fledglings 2,254- 2,573; 

fledgling/pair 0.29-0.37; 8223-8226 nests, 6998-7698 pairs; 31 data sites at 56 locations. In 2006, the 

USFSW initiated a five year review which has resulted in a recommendation to delist the species to 

Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Without continued intensive management of least tern 

sites, the USFWS anticipates that the threats of habitat loss and predation would reverse the population 

recovery that has been seen since the species was listed. Current recommendations for future actions 

include revisiting and revising management goals and recovery criteria. The USFWS recognizes that the 

management goals and recovery criteria identified in the 1985 Recovery Plan are outdated and that the 

plan needs to be revised (USFWS 2006). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-21

Population Viability Analyses and Metapopulation Dynamics of the California Least Tern 

Population modeling conducted in support of the current revision of the Recovery Plan indicates that the 

recovery objectives set in 1985 are insufficient to assure a viable population for 50 years (described in 

Appendix to USFWS 2005 Biological Opinion 3452.3), and based on intensive data sets from Venice 

Beach and Santa Margarita cited by the USFWS in that Opinion. The number of breeding pairs is 

predicted to decline with mild supplemental disturbance and normal El Nino/Southern Oscillation 

(ENSO) frequency unless the starting number of pairs is at least 3,000. When starting with the number of 

breeding pairs at 7,000 (close to the current level), over 25 percent losses coupled with overly-frequent 

ENSO events were the only circumstance that resulted in a decline in numbers after 50 years. Once the 

population drops to 1,000 pairs state-wide (close to the Recovery Plan goal), recovery is slow and 

uncertain. 

The model simulated seriously poor performance in an ENSO year that occurred at Venice Beach in 

1982-1983. This “bad year” could represent attenuated survival and productivity or poor performance 

years for other reasons, such as predation. The probability of an exceptionally poor year was varied from 

between one in 12 years to one in five years. At the same time, supplemental disturbance was forced to 

vary in three categories: None (maintaining current conditions), Moderate Losses (10 percent), and 

Substantial Disruption (25 percent). The authors believed the central parameters to be the more realistic 

(exceptionally poor year about once in seven years, and moderate supplemental disturbance level). 

At high levels of disturbance, there was poor performance across the board at high ENSO levels or low 

starting populations. With moderate disturbance and ENSO levels, populations of 4,000 or more pairs 

state-wide appear to have at least 87 percent chance of growth over a 50-year period. 

The authors concluded that 4,000 pairs is a safe population based on the model, and an additional 1,000 

pairs would provide a margin to account for the unknown. Thus, the number of 5,000 pairs is considered 

sufficiently protective to account for substantial losses from extreme events, plus the added buffer for 

gaps in understanding or model accuracy, or sources of unknown disruption. 

Akcakaya et al. (2003) modeled metapopulation dynamics of the California least tern. The model uses 

survival rates, fledgling productivity, and inter-colony movement to derive a variety of simulated 

frequencies of exceptionally unproductive years and levels of disruptive disturbance. Within each 

population (cluster of nearby sites), the model includes age structure, annual changes in survival and 

fecundity, regional catastrophes such as strong ENSOs, and local catastrophes (reproductive failure due to 

predation). The modelers, using state-wide data 1980-1998 assumed a bimodal distribution of fledglings 

per pair, with a very high rate of zero fecundity years. These were modeled as random local catastrophes. 

The survival rate from hatchling to fledgling was based on Venice Beach data from1981 to 1984 (Massey 

et al. 1992) and an interior site (Smith and Renken 1993). The resulting productivity was 0.6237 for 

normal years and 0.27 for ENSO years. The modelers used a wide range of vital rates because of the high 

uncertainty, using maximum and minimum plausible values. They modeled density dependence and a 

ceiling carrying capacity of a site assuming a range of between 1.5 and 2.5 times the maximum number of 

individuals, respectively. 

The model predicted a continuing population increase with a low risk of substantial decline over the next 

50 years. Pessimistically, the model was sensitive to assumptions about fecundity and survival and 

resulted in predictions of a high rate of decline but a low probability of extinction. The number and 

location of sites selected for focused management influenced how effective predator management 

outcomes were. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-22

The authors provide reasons why their matrices may underestimate growth rates. First, the data sets used 

included a very strong ENSO year 1982-1983. Second, the observed growth rate in the last decade or so 

was much higher than the predicted. Third, fledgling production numbers from the field, even from 

experienced observers, are likely underestimates (Massey 1988; Thompson and Slack 1984). These 

models employ data up until about 1998. There are approximately ten more years of data currently 

available. 

3.12.1.3.2 Western Snowy Plover 

The western snowy plover is listed by the USFWS as threatened and by the California Department of Fish 

and game (CDFG) as a species of special concern (USFWS Recovery Documents: Final Recovery Plan 

August 13, 2007 and Five-Year Review May 31, 2006). The western snowy plover is a subspecies of 

snowy plover that breeds and winters on coastal beaches along the Pacific coastline from southern 

Washington State south to Magdalena Bay, Baja Sur, Mexico. Populations consist of both migrants and 

year-round residents depending on locality. Snowy plovers breeding in Oregon have been observed 

wintering in California as far south as Monterey, while snowy plovers breeding in central California have 

been observed south as far as Guerro Negro, Baja Mexico (Warriner et al. 1986). Larger concentrations of 

breeding birds occur in the south rather than the north, suggesting that the center of the plover’s coastal 

distribution lies closer to the southern boundary of California (Page and Stenzel 1981). Prior to 1970, 

snowy plovers bred at 53 locations along coastal California (Page and Stenzel 1981). Presently, breeding 

occurs at only 20 locations representing a 62 percent decline in breeding sites. The greatest losses of 

habitat have occurred in southern California, in some of Orange County and all of Los Angeles County. 

In all of these areas, the plovers' absence can be correlated with industrial or residential development 

and/or heavy recreational use of former beach nesting areas (Page and Stenzel 1981). The plover is a 

common winter migrant, winter visitor, and a declining, local resident in San Diego County (Unitt 2004, 

1984). 

The average life span of western snowy plovers is estimated at 2.7 years, although a bird of 15 was 

observed by Warriner et al. (1986). Minimum survival rates of adults have been inferred by individual 

plover resightings by several projects (Warriner et al. 1986, Page et al. 1983, Patton 1994b). 

Collated information concerning the rangewide status of the snowy plover is incomplete, due to the fact 

that the species does not nest in discrete, intensively managed colonies. Definitive information concerning 

nest numbers and breeding success is unavailable for many sites. The predominant method available to 

assess the U.S. range-wide status of this species is the "window survey" technique, which is conducted in 

both summer and winter months. The window survey, while uninformative in terms of breeding success 

and precise numbers, gives an overview of how the species is faring on a rangewide basis. Figure 3.12-10 

displays state of California breeding season window survey results only for years when coast-wide 

surveys were performed (USFWS 2007b) and are not connected in nonsequential years due to lack of 

plover information. 

The western snowy plover nests on undisturbed, flat areas with loose substrate, such as sandy beaches and 

dried mudflats along the California coast. Sand spits, dune backed beaches, sparsely to unvegetated beach 

strands, open areas around estuaries, and beaches at river mouths are the preferred coastal nesting areas of 

the snowy plover (Page and Stenzel 1981; Powell et al. 1997; Wilson 1980). Other areas used by nesting 

snowy plovers include dredge spoil fill, dry salt evaporation ponds, airfield ovals, and salt pond levees 

(Page and Stenzel 1981; US Navy 2004; Widrig 1980; Wilson 1980). These cited studies observed snowy 

plovers moving between salt pans, tidal flats, and beaches indicating these areas function together in 

providing habitat for the species. 

Nesting generally occurs between March 1 and September 15 of each year, though egg laying in southern 

California has been documented as early as mid-February, and continues through late July. Two to six 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-23

eggs, usually three, are laid in a shallow depression scraped into the sand, or other saline substrates. 

Incubation does not begin until the full clutch is laid and continues for 24 to 33 days with an average of 

27 days before eggs are hatched (Warriner et al. 1986). The incubation is performed mostly by the male, 

although both sexes incubate the eggs, with multiple clutches per season possible (Ehrlich et al. 1988). 

The scrape usually has small pieces of shell, vegetation or driftwood associated with it. Young fledge and 

are independent within 29 to 47 days (Ehrlich et al. 1988). 

Figure 3.12-10: Total Adult Western Snowy Plovers Recorded for the California Coast during 

Breeding Season Window Surveys 

Snowy plovers breed in loose colonies with the number of adults at coastal breeding areas ranging from 2 

to over 300 (Page and Stenzel 1981). Nesting density is apparently dependent on predatory pressure. Page 

and others (1995) documented nesting density to be one nest per 15 acres at Mono Lake where predatory 

pressure is high, while 20 nests per 15 acres were recorded at Monterey Bay where predatory pressure is 

low. Nest success ranges from 0 to 80 percent for coastal snowy plovers (Widrig 1980; Wilson 1980; Saul 

1982; Wilson-Jacobs and Dorsey 1985; Warriner et al. 1986). Instances of low nest success have been 

attributed to predation, human disturbance, and inclement weather conditions. Although the majority of 

snowy plovers are site faithful, returning to the same breeding location in subsequent breeding seasons, 

some dispersal occurs (Stenzel et al. 1994; Warriner et al. 1986). Snowy plovers are sometimes found 

nesting in similar habitats as the least tern, such as occurs at Batiquitos Lagoon (Welchell and Keane 

1998), Camp Pendleton (Powell et al. 1996), and the SSTC. Of these sites mentioned, only the SSTC is a 

Navy site. 

Chicks are precocial and broods rarely remain within the nesting territory after hatching (Warriner et al. 

1986). Birds are able to fly within approximately 31 days of hatching. Snowy plovers will re-nest after 

loss of a clutch or brood (Wilson 1980, Warriner et al. 1986). Double brooding and polygamy have been 

observed in snowy plovers along coastal California (Warriner et at. 1986). Snowy plover females may 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-24

abandon chicks as young as 6 days old to find another mate leaving the male as the only adult to care for 

the brood (Warriner et al. 1986). Re-nesting may occur in the same scrape, in close proximity to the initial 

nest, or in a new location distant from the first attempt (Powell and Collier 1994; Powell et al. 1997; 

Warriner et al. 1986). Females may re-nest 2 to 14 days after nest failure (Warriner et al. 1986). Males 

attend their young for 29 to 47 days (Warriner et al. 1986). 

Snowy plovers forage primarily on the wet sand at the beach-surf interface, where they feed on small 

crustaceans, marine worms, insects, and amphipods. Both snowy plover adults and young forage on these 

invertebrates along intertidal areas, beaches in wet sand and surf cast kelp, in foredune areas of dry sand 

above the high tide, on salt pans, and along the edges of salt marshes and salt ponds. 

Locally, the species is declining because of increased human disturbance, loss of feeding and nesting 

areas, and increased predation by birds and mammals. The western snowy plover has been described as 

one of the “scarcest and most threatened breeding birds in San Diego County” (Unitt 2004). Window 

surveys of this species between 1995 and 1998 put San Diego County’s breeding population between 240 

and 325 individuals that are concentrated in Camp Pendleton and the Silver Strand (Powell et al. 2002). In 

2006, 32 western snowy plovers were discovered injured, sick, or dead in San Diego County; at least 6 

were later released. Due to this unknown cause of mortality in adult snowy plovers in and around San 

Diego Bay, the Navy supports any studies and efforts by the USFWS to determine the cause of the 

mortality. Based on breeding season window survey data collected between 1977 and 1989, the breeding 

population of snowy plovers in California, Oregon, and Washington experienced a 17 percent decline 

(Page et al. 1991). Using the same techniques, the breeding population in California declined from an 

estimated 1,565 adults in 1980 (Page and Stenzel 1981) to 1,386 adults in 1989, with a 55 percent decline 

occurring in north San Diego County and a 41 percent decline at San Diego Bay (Page et al. 1991). 

Between 1991 and 2004, however, the snowy plover population increased rangewide. Most areas suffered 

a decline between 2006 and 2007, including San Diego County, but numbers were higher in 2008 

statewide, in San Diego County, and on SSTC properties.An unknown cause of mortality in adult snowy 

plovers took place in and around San Diego Bay that began in 2005. In 2006, 11 adult snowy plovers 

were found sick and 21 dead from unknown causes in the County of San Diego, including 16 from the 

oceanside beaches of NAB Coronado. There were 4 snowy plovers found dead at NBC in 2007, 3 adults 

and 1 fledgling. There was only 1 snowy plover found dead on NBC in 2008, an adult. The data are 

compiled by various biologists in San Diego County with assistance from the Navy and provided through 

snowyplover@yahoogroups.com and http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/snowyplover/. 

Human disturbances include unintentional disturbance and destruction of eggs and chicks, off-road 

vehicle use, horseback riding, and beach raking. Intensive beach use by humans has resulted in 

abandonment of nesting sites, and reductions in nesting density and nesting success. When coupled with 

positive management, some colonies have increased in size despite concurrent human use of nesting 

beaches (USFWS 2003 BO 1-03-F-3452.1). Few undisturbed beaches remain in San Diego County. In the 

few instances where human activity in snowy plover nesting areas has been precluded either through area 

closures or by natural events, nesting success has improved. 

Areas which receive significant off-road vehicle activity support lower densities of plover nests (Page and 

Stenzel 1981). Powell and Collier (1994) reported a shift in beach usage by snowy plovers from areas of 

heavy vehicular traffic to more protected sites. Direct mortality to snowy plovers as a result of vehicular 

activity on beaches has been documented (Copper 1997b; Persons 1994). Research has shown a decrease 

in piping plover chick survivorship with as little as 10 vehicular passes per day (Melvin et al. 1994). The 

snowy plover’s flightless young are particularly vulnerable to being run over or trampled since crouching 

in depressions, such as footprints and tire tracks, appears to be a behavioral characteristic when the young 

feel threatened (James et al. 1992). Vehicle closure on a portion of Pismo Beach, California, led to an 

eight-fold increase in the nesting plover population (Radasky et al. 2003). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-25

Human disturbance can also interfere with normal snowy plover behavior. Disturbances to incubating 

adults can leave nests exposed to extreme temperatures resulting in inviable eggs or blowing sand that 

buries the eggs. Snowy plover chicks that are separated from their attending adult as a result of human 

disturbance or predators may become more susceptible to hypothermia since young chicks are unable to 

thermoregulate. It has been shown that increased human disturbance forces piping plover chicks 

(Charadrius melodies), an east coast species with habitat requirements very similar to the snowy plover, 

to expend more energy avoiding disturbances and less time foraging (Flemming et al. 1987). Frequently 

disturbed piping plover chicks fed less often and at a reduced rate resulted in fewer chicks surviving to 17 

days in areas heavily disturbed by humans (Flemming et al. 1987). However, there are levels of 

disturbance that have been documented to occur within the NAB training areas that appear not to have 

significantly affected snowy plover nesting efforts. In 2001, five snowy plover nests were established in 

beach area Red 1. The nests were established on, or about, May 6, 18, and 23, June 12, and July 3, 2001. 

In spite of training occurring almost daily in beach lane Red 1 throughout the nesting season, all five nests 

successfully hatched three eggs each (Copper 2002, pers. comm.). The fate of the fledglings was not 

determined, but the numbers on NBC beaches increased in 2002, 2003, and 2004 despite training 

activities concurrent with nesting efforts. Increases in snowy plover numbers on co-used beaches are 

largely due to management efforts to reduce impacts to nest sites. For example, the Navy marks a 

boundary around nest sites to preclude trampling or vehicular disturbance to nests. This conservation 

measure has resulted in successful hatching of nests in areas where training occurs. 

The Navy began managing the western snowy plover at its properties in San Diego Bay in 1992, prior to 

the listing of the species as federally threatened in 1993. Nest numbers on NBC lands for the plover have 

shown an overall increase from 11 in 1992 to 42 in 2007, then 91 in 2008 (Copper 2008; Figure 3.12-11). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-26

Source: Copper 2007

Figure 3.12-11: Distribution of Western Snowy Plover Nests by Location from 1992 to 2008. 

In recent years the snowy plover nested in three main areas: NASNI, the oceanside training lanes of NAB, 

and the beaches of SSTC-S. The snowy plover's nesting colonies are less dense than those of the 

California least tern and are more sporadically distributed. There were 80 snowy plover nests documented 

in 2005 on NBC, representing a decrease of 32 percent from the 116 snowy plover nests present in 2004. 

Nesting in 2005 remained more or less steady in 2006 when there were 73 nests documented on NBC, 

and when mortality of many adults was documented due to unknown causes. Comparing Navy nesting 

plover numbers to regional data is difficult because the Navy records nests while much of the available 

state- and countywide data are available only for adults detected via breeding-season window surveys. 

These window survey data indicate that in San Diego County the Navy is second only to the Marine 

Corps at Camp Pendleton in plover numbers. Between 2005 and 2008 the Navy’s San Diego Bay 

properties held between 14 and 28 percent of the plovers surveyed in San Diego County. Restriction of 

the beaches to primarily training use (rather than recreational access), predator control efforts, as well as 

nest buffers and training lane restrictions help to maintain these numbers. 

Since the western snowy plover often re-nests multiple times in a season, the number of maximum active 

nests at one time can give a better picture of the actual number of plovers supported at a site. Table 3.12-4 

displays maximum active nest numbers for Navy-controlled nesting sites in San Diego Bay. The “Total 

NBC” column does not add up across sites because re-nesting by the same plovers occurred at separate 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-27

sites. This total maximum active nest number gives a conservative approximation for the number of 

snowy plovers supported on NBC beaches. 

Table 3-12.1: Summary of Snowy Plover Simultaneous Active Nest Numbers, NBC 1999-2007 

Year North 

Island 

Delta Beach 

North 

Delta Beach 

South 

NAB 

Ocean SSTC-S Total NBC 

1999 0 2 2 11 0 12 

2000 2 2 3 13 1 17 

2001 5 0 0 13 2 16 

2002 12 1 2 20 5 33 

2003 13 0 1 20 5 33 

2004 12 0 1 20 5 32 

2005 7 0 0 15 3 21 

2006 7 1 0 19 3 27 

2007 3 0 0 9 3 13 

2008 26 0 0 41 12 91 

Source: Copper 2007, unpublished data

The Recovery Plan criteria set a target of 95 breeding adults for Silver Strand sites (NASNI, NAB and 

Naval Radio Receiving Facility [NRRF]) plus Silver Strand State Beach and portions of Coronado. The 

current method used by the Navy for determining breeding pairs is maximum nests at one time. This 

method is used because it is an objective count that does not require that an observer track whether a 

breeding pair has established more than one nest in a season. If one assumes that 95 breeding adults 

correlate to roughly 48 pairs necessary for the Silver Strand beaches, this implies that the count of 

maximum nests at one time will be at least 48 nests; on average over the years, across all the Silver Strand 

to meet recovery goals. This goal has not been met based on Navy site reports. It is unknown whether 

other parcels contribute sufficiently to achieving the target because the number of breeding adults is not 

counted elsewhere. As an index, San Diego Bay Navy total adults observed during the rangewide window 

surveys have varied: 25 (2005); 66 (2006); 20 (2007); and 56 (2008) (see 

http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/WSP/documents/2006-07WinterWindowSurveyfinalrange-wide.pdf). 

3.12.1.3.3 Light-Footed Clapper Rail 

The light-footed clapper rail is listed by both the USFWS (35 FR 16047 16048 13 October 1970) and the 

CDFG as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. The light-footed clapper rail is 

currently found from Carpenteria in Santa Barbara County to San Quentin, Baja California, Mexico 

(USFWS 1985). Historically it was found further north (AOU 1957) due to a more contiguous system of 

marshes than currently exists.This species lives, nests, and forages entirely within its preferred habitat of 

large estuaries with salt marsh habitat dominated by cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) and pickleweed 

(Salicornia spp.) (Jorgensen 1979). Clapper rails require cordgrass of the lower marsh habitat for nesting, 

and an abundance of intertidal marine invertebrates for their food supply (Massey et al. 1984; Zedler 

1993). Light-footed clapper rails have declined dramatically in recent decades due to destruction of its salt 

marsh habitat (Garrett and Dunn 1981, Macdonald et al. 1990). This destruction and fragmentation of 

their environment by urban development leaves the birds in isolated populations, increasing the chance of 

extirpation of the colony (Hoffman 2005). 

The rail is a brown marsh bird with long legs; short, upturned tail; long bill; and barred flanks. It is not a 

strong flyer and does not seasonally migrate. It will feed on insects, small fish (including larval fish), and 

some plant material. Zembal et al. (1989) showed that this species roosts in dense vegetation during the 

day and are most active at dawn and dusk. This 1989 study also showed that the minimum home range of 

this species was from 0.36 to 1.66 hectare and its maximum movements were restricted to about 1,350 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-28

feet. Adjacent middle and upper marsh and upland transition habitat is important as a safe area during 

very high tides, large storms, or as a temporary refuge if lower marsh habitats become degraded (Zembal 

1993). Light-footed clapper rails tether their nests with cordgrass, so that the nests do not wash away or 

become inundated during high tide (Massey and Zembal 1980). Nests are usually built of cordgrass stems, 

though may also include pickleweed, reed stems, salt grass (Distichlis spicata; Massey et al. 1984). 

Clapper rails have been documented nesting in cattails (Typha latifolia), and cordgrass is also used to 

camouflage the nest (Massey et al.1984; Zedler 1993). They generally lay six eggs between March and 

August (Massey and Zembal 1980), and the chicks hatch from April to June (Unitt 1984) though pairs 

remain on aggressively defended territories throughout the year (Zembal et al. 1989). Both sexes incubate 

and care for the young, which are precocial and nidifugous (leave nest short time after hatching; Meanly 

1985). Once the young leave the nest they immediately follow the adults: parental care lasts for six to 

seven weeks (Adams and Quay 1958; Johnson 1973) and the young can fly by nine or ten weeks 

(Schmidt and McLain 1951, Adams and Quay 1958; Meanley 1985). A pair may mate again after the 

fledging of the first brood (Blandin 1963). Dispersion and movement of juveniles is poorly understood 

due to limited evidence and in 20-plus years of banding studies there has been only two light-footed 

clapper rails ever documented outside the wetland in which it was banded (Zembal et al. 2005; Zembal et 

al. 1985). 

The entire southern California population decreased from 277 pairs in 1984 to 142 pairs in 1985, partly 

due to tidal closure of the Tijuana Estuary (Zedler 1992). Statewide, an estimated 325 light-footed clapper 

rail pairs, nesting in 14 wetlands, were known to exist in 1996 (DoN 2002). Tidal inundation and 

predation by raptors and mammals are the main causes of nest failure (Macdonald et al. 1990). Large 

storm events may destroy nests and make the habitat unsuitable for clapper rail use (Zedler 1993). Lower 

marsh habitats can also be damaged from watershed runoff and made unsuitable for nesting. The lack of 

nesting cover due to habitat loss is a major concern for this species (Massey et al. 1984 and Schmidt and 

McLain 1951). In the absence of habitat degradation and major predation pressures, high tides are the 

main threat to nesting success (Adams and Quay 1958; Meanly 1985; Massey et al. 1984). 

The clapper rail occurs on two NBC installations, Naval Outlying Landing Field (NOLF), Imperial 

Beach, which is outside of the ROI, and NRRF in the marsh on the bay side (South Bay Marine 

Biological Study Area), bounded on the west by State Route 75 and to the south by a salt pond levee. 

NRRF has historically held zero to five pairs of rails since surveying began in 1980, and has held at least 

one rail pair 18 out of 26 survey years (Zembal et al. 2007; Hoffman 2007) at this same location. While 

the NRRF population does not contribute significantly to the overall population, it provides an insurance 

against extirpation and a preservation of genetic diversity (Hoffman 2007; Zembal et al. 2007). The 

population at Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge (TSNWR) doubled between 1980 and 1983 due to 

the restoration, enhancement, and management of the area. Due to sedimentation of the Tijuana Estuary, 

the population crashed in 1985. An ocean inlet was created by the USFWS to keep the lagoon open, but 

sedimentation remains a problem and the inlet must be excavated every year, especially after heavy 

rainfall during winter. The population recovered in 1986. During this recovery period there was an 

increase in noise over the marsh by helicopter overflights. This increased noise may have disrupted 

communication signals of birds as well as how they detect predators: in 1989 an unusually high number 

of unpaired rails were located, indicating loss of one partner of the pairs. With cessation of helicopter 

flights over the marsh, and tighter restrictions on human intrusions through the area, the population 

recovered by 1995. The restoration of the marsh also contributed to the successful population of clapper 

rails (Hoffman 2005). 

Since 1994, a single unpaired clapper rail was detected in 1997 and one pair in 1998. No clapper rails 

were detected between 1999 and 2004. During focused surveys in July 2005, one adult clapper rail with a 

downy chick was detected at the bayside marsh at the South Bay Marine Biological Preserve (about 27 

acres) on the west shore of San Diego Bay at NRRF bounded on the west by State Route 75 (Hoffman 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-29

2007). Another pair was detected in 2006 (Zembal et al. 2007). Hoffman (2005) stated that in 2005 the 

population at the TSNWR was the second largest in California. The first was the population at Upper 

Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. This sporadic appearance and disappearance is common in this species 

life history, and at NRRF may be partially due to the ease in which the rail can be targeted by predators in 

this marginal habitat fragment. The Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve is also now connected to a 

protected upland, which may serve as a buffer to the species. 

3.12.1.4 Other Special Status Birds 

A list of special status birds documented in or near the project area is provided in Table 3.12-5. Location 

records are shown Section 3.11 (Terrestrial Biology) on Figures 3.11-4 through 3.11-6. The list of special 

status avian species includes Federal Species of Concern, State of California Endangered, California 

Special Concern species, and CDFG fully protected species. The list also contains species on the 

Audubon Watch List and Birds Species of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008), as well as those 

covered in the City of San Diego’s Multiple Species Conservation Plan. 

Table 3.12-5: Special Status Avian Species Documented in the ROI 

Common Name (Scientific Name) Status* 

American oystercatcher (Haematopus canadensi) HC 

American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Recovered, BCC, CE, CFP, MSCP 

American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorynchos) CSC 

ashy storm-petrel (Oceanodroma homochroa) CSC, BCC 

bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) FT, CE, CFP, BEPA, MSCP, RSD 

Barrow’s goldeneye (Bucephala islandica) CSC, RSD 

Belding’s savannah sparrow (Ammodramus sandwichensis beldingi) CE, MSCP 

black oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) BCC, HC 

black skimmer (Rynchops niger niger) BCC, CSC 

black storm-petrel (Oceanodroma melania) CSC 

black turnstone (Arenaria melanocephala) BCC, HC 

burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) BCC, CSC, MSCP 

California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) Recovered, CE, CFP, MSCP 

California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) FE, CE, CFP, MSCP 

California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) MSCP 

Canada goose (Branta canadensis) MSCP 

common loon (Gavia immer) CSC 

Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) MSCP 

dunlin (Calidris alpine arcticola/pacifica) HI/HC 

elegant tern (Sterna elegans) BCC, MSCP 

ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) MSCP 

fulvous whistling-duck (Dendrocygna bicolor) CSC, RSD 

golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos canadensis) CFP, BEPA, MSCP 

gull-billed tern (Sterna nilotica vanrossemi) BCC, CSC 

harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) CSC 

large-billed Savannah sparrow (Ammodramus sandwichensis rostratus) CSC, MSCP 

Lawrence’s goldfinch (Carduelis lawrencei) BCC 

least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis hesperis) CSC 

light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) FE, CE, CFP, MSCP, RSD 

loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) CSC, BCC 

long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) BCC, MSCP, HI 

marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa fedoa) BCC, HC 

mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) BCC, CSC, MSCP, RSD 

northern harrier (Circus cyaneus hudsonius) CSC, MSCP 

prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) BCC 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-30

Table 3.12-5: Special Status Avian Species Documented in the ROI (Continued) 

Common Name (Scientific Name) Status* 

purple martin (Progne subis subis) CSC, RSD 

red knot (Calidris canutus roselaari) BCC, HC 

reddish egret (Egretta rufescens dickeyi) MSCP 

ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres) HC 

sanderling (Calidris alba) HC 

short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus) BCC, HC 

short-eared owl (Asio flammeus flammeus) CSC 

surfbird (Aphriza virgata) HC 

Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) CT, BCC, MSCP 

tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) CSC, BCC, MSCP 

Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi vauxi) CSC 

western sandpiper (Calidris mauri) HC 

western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) FT, CSC, MSCP, HI 

whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus hudsonicus) BCC, HI 

white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) MSCP 

white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) CFP 

Wilson’s phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) HC 

wood stork (Mycteria americana) CSC 

Status derived from the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern, 2008; CDFG Special Animals Lists, July 2003; and the 

CNPS’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, 2001: FE=Federal Endangered; FT=Federal 

Threatened; FSC=Federal Species of Concern; C=Candidate (USFWS); BEPA=Bald Eagle Protection Act; CE=State 

Endangered; CT=California Threatened; 

CSC=California Special Concern Species; CFP=CDFG fully protected=Species may not be taken without permit from 

Fish and Game Commission; BCC watch list= Birds of Conservation Concern for California region (USFWS 2002); 

Audubon=National Audubon Society Watch List species; MSCP = Covered under the City of San Diego Multiple 

Species Conservation Plan; RSD = Rare in San Diego County; US Shorebird Conservation Plan (2004) High Priority 

Shorebirds: HC = High Concern, HI = Highly Imperiled 

*Other species with some sensitive status but not considered a management concern in San Diego Bay: black-crowned 

night heron (Audubon Watch List); California black rail (RSD, CT) (currently extirpated). Cooper’s hawk (upland)

The tables that follow present abundance estimates for special status birds from various sources, as close 

as possible to the ROI, as described, listed in Table 3.12-6. Information from maps and text was estimated 

in a consistent manner to fit the particulars of each table when numerical records were not readily 

available. The methodology of the research producing this data varies among studies. In all cases, the 

chosen source was deemed most appropriate for the information it provided. This information is compiled 

so that the effects analysis can include an estimate of the effect to local and total population levels of 

migratory birds. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-31

Table 3.12-6: Habitat Usage and Abundance Estimates for 

Special Status Birds Observed in the ROI. 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Habitat 

Usage/ 

Seasonality1 

Count2 

(Local 

region) 

Total 

Observed 

(San Diego 

Bay)3

Total 

Observed 

(NASNI / 

NRRF)4

Pop. 

Estimate5 

(National) 

American oystercatcher 

(Haematopus palliatus) i b / ‡ < 5 3 - / - 7,500 

American Peregrine Falcon 

(Falco alexandrin anatum)* i b e m < 5 39 1 / - - 

American white pelican 

(Pelecanus erythrorynchos) o i b e / W Max ct. 20-100 93 - / - - 

Ashy Storm-petrel 

(Oceanodroma homochroa)* o i < 10 - - / - - 

Barrow’s Goldeneye 

(Bucephala islandica) o i b / W < 5 3 - / - - 

Belding’s Savannah Sparrow 

(Ammodramus sandwichensis 

beldingi) 

b e m Max ct. 100-

2000 746 - / 65 - 

Black Oystercatcher 

(Haematopus bachmani)* i b / ‡ <10 22 - / - 8,900 

Black Skimmer 

(Rynchops niger niger)* i b e Max ct. 25-200 1,282 2 / 3 - 

Black Storm-Petrel 

(Oceanodroma melania) o i / S < 2000 - - / - - 

Black Turnstone 

(Arenaria melanocephala)* o i b / W Max ct. 50-100 567 44 / 8 80,000 

Burrowing Owl 

(Athene cunicularia hypugaea) c g Max ct. 7 2 8 / - 618,000 

California Brown Pelican 

(Pelecanus occidentalis 

californicus) 

o i b e / B W Max ct. 150-

400 10,319 311 / 41 - 

California Gull 

(Larus californicus californicus) o i b e / W Max ct. 150-400 5608 16 / - - 

California Horned Lark 

(Eremophila alpestris actia) g Max ct. 50-175 1,741 37 / 35 - 

California Least Tern 

(Sternula antillarum browni) i b / B 100-250 pairs 1,108 2 / 3 

California Rufous-crowned 

Sparrow 

(Aimophila ruficeps canescens) 

c g 0.5 birds/hour - - / - - 

Canada Goose 

(Branta canadensis) i b m / W Max ct. 1-25 3 - / - - 

Common Loon 

(Gavia immer) i b e m / W Max ct. 25-75 126 - / - - 

Cooper’s Hawk 

(Accipiter cooperii) b c g 3 birds/hour 15 2 / 2 462,660 

Double-crested Cormorant 

(Phalacrocorax auritus) i b e m / B W Max ct. 100-

500 10,088 54 / 43 750,000/ 

550,000 

Dunlin 

(Calidris alpine 

arcticola/pacifica) 

i b e m / W Max ct. 100-

300 4,900 4 / - - 

Elegant Tern 

(Sterna elegans)* b e m / B 10-3000 pairs 8,740 457 / 3 - 

Ferruginous Hawk 

(Buteo regalis) c g / W Max count 5-10 - - / - 19,750 

Fulvous Whistling-duck 

(Dendrocygna bicolor) e m / S < 5 - - / - - 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-32

Table 3.12-6: Habitat Usage and Abundance Estimates for 

Special Status Birds Observed in the ROI (Continued). 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Habitat 

Usage/ 

Seasonality1 

Count2 

(Local 

region) 

Total 

Observed 

(San Diego 

Bay)3

Total 

Observed 

(NASNI / 

NRRF)4

Pop. 

Estimate5 

(National) 

Golden Eagle 

(Aquila chrysaetos alexandrin) e m s g < 5 - - / - 33,110 

Gull-billed Tern 

(Sterna nilotica vanrossemi)* i b e m / B 20-50 pairs 273 12 / 58 - 

Harlequin Duck 

(Histrionicus histrionicus) i b e / W < 10 - - / - - 

Large-billed Savannah Sparrow 

(Ammodramus sandwichensis 

rostratus) 

e m < 50 57 - / - - 

Laughing Gull 

(Larus atricilla) i b / ‡ < 25 - - / - - 

Lawrence’s Goldfinch 

(Carduelis lawrencei)* c g Max ct. 1-5 - - / - 130,300 

Least Bittern 

(Ixobrychus exilis hesperis) e m / B < 10 - - / - - 

Light-Footed Clapper Rail 

(Rallus longirostris levipes) e m / B 20-75 pairs 1 - / - - 

Loggerhead Shrike 

(Lanius ludovicianus)* c g 2 birds/hour 20 - / 15 3,568,310 

Long-billed Curlew 

(Numenius americanus) b e m / W Max ct. 50-150 709 1 / 4 20,000 

Marbled Godwit 

(Limosa fedoa fedoa) b e m / W Max ct. 200-4000 27,614 295 / 125 168,000 

Merlin 

(Falco columbiarus columbiarus) i b e m / W 0.15 birds/hour 11 - / - - 

Mountain Plover 

(Charadrius montanus) c g / W < 5 - - / - - 

Northern Harrier 

(Circus cyaneus hudsonius) m c g 1.5 birds/hour 55 - / 3 275,850 

Osprey 

(Pandion haliaetus carolinensis) e m / W Max ct. 10-15 309 5 / 2 100,236 

Prairie Falcon 

(Falco mexicanus)* i b e m / W < 5 - - / - 33,950 

Purple Martin 

(Progne subis subis) c g / B < 10 - - / - 9,861,437 

Red Knot 

(Calidris canutus roselaari)* i b e / W Max ct. 100-

300 4,785 1 / - 150,000 

Reddish Egret 

(Egretta rufescens dickeyi) e m / W Max ct. 5 36 - / - - 

Ruddy Turnstone 

(Arenaria interpres) b e m / W Max ct. 25-50 657 2 / 3 20,000 

Sanderling 

(Calidris alba) b e / W Max ct. 200-300 13,821 301 / 245 300,000 

Sharp-shinned Hawk 

(Accipiter striatus velox) c g / W 0.3 birds/hour 1 - / - 293,800 

Short-billed Dowitcher 

(Limnodromus griseus)* e m / W Max ct. 200-500 12,937 - / 22 150,000 

Short-eared Owl 

(Asio flammeus flammeus) e m g / N Max ct. 4 4 - / - 362,700 

Surfbird 

(Aphriza virgata) b e / W Max ct. 15-45 290 4 / - 70,000 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-33

Table 3.12-6: Habitat Usage and Abundance Estimates for 

Special Status Birds Observed in the ROI (Continued). 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Habitat 

Usage/ 

Seasonality1 

Count2 

(Local 

region) 

Total 

Observed 

(San Diego 

Bay)3

Total 

Observed 

(NASNI / 

NRRF)4

Pop. 

Estimate5 

(National) 

Swainson’s Hawk 

(Buteo swainsoni)* m g c / YR < 100 - - / - 341,300 

Tricolored Blackbird 

(Agelaius tricolor)* e m Max ct. 25-100 - - / - - 

Vaux’s Swift 

(Chaetura vauxi vauxi) c / W < 5 28 - / - 411,101 

Western Sandpiper 

(Calidris mauri) b e / W Max ct. 500-

5000 68,205 - / 27 3,500,000 

Western Snowy Plover 

(Charadrius alexandrines 

nivosus) 

b e Max count 25-

75 23 45 / 19 2,000 

Whimbrel 

(Numenius phaeopus 

hudsonicus)* 

b e m / W Max ct. 11-50 277 - / 8 17,000 

White-faced Ibis 

(Plegadis chihi) e m / W < 25 31 - / - - 

White-tailed Kite 

(Elanus leucurus) m g .25 birds/hour 2 - / - 10,770 

Wilson’s Phalarope 

(Phalaropus tricolor) e m / S F < 250 5 - / - 1,500,000 

Wood Stork 

(Mycteria americana) e m / ‡ < 5 - - / - - 

Habitat Usage Categories: o-offshore; i-inshore; b-beaches, shores; e-estuaries, mudflats, brackish waters; m-marshes; ggrasslands; c-coastal scrub. Seasonality: W-winter; S-Spring; F-Fall; YR-Year Round; B-Breeding; ‡-not well understood; *-

BCC 

Sources: 1 Baird 1993 2 San Diego Co. Bird Atlas, Unitt 2004 3 SD Bay Avian Surveys, Tierra Data Inc. 2006-07 4 NASNINRI-2005 (RECON 2006) / Naval Radio Receiving Facility (NRRF)-NRI-2001-02 (RECON 2004) 5

 United States Shorebird 

Conservation Plan-2001, Partners in Flight Land Bird Population Estimates Database 

The following species reports are for selected species due to their sensitivity status and their presence in 

the ROI. 

3.12.1.4.1 Former Federally Listed Species 

American Peregrine Falcon 

The American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) was listed by the federal and state 

governments as an endangered species in 1970. On August 25, 1999, the USFWS removed the American 

peregrine falcon from the Endangered Species List, although it currently remains on the state endangered 

species list, and is considered a federal Bird of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008). Current nesting 

locations include the San Diego metropolitan area and Point Loma. Preferring to hunt along larger 

waterways and coastal areas, particularly where large numbers of shorebirds and waterfowl congregate, 

peregrine falcons utilize the SSTC ROI on an occasional basis. It ranges along the West Coast of the 

United States into Mexico. Peregrine falcons inhabit open coastal areas and mudflats near cliffs. Peregrine 

falcons forage on a variety of birds including pigeons, ducks, grebes, coots, sandpipers, other raptors, and 

songbirds. They will also forage on small mammals, fish, and insects. Nesting sites are typically located 

on high cliffs, in trees, or on man-made structures. The same nest site may be used for many years. The 

decline of the peregrine falcon is attributed to widespread use of the pesticide 

dichlorodiphenyltricholoroethane (DDT), which caused the birds to lay eggs too thin to withstand 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-34

incubation (Zeiner et al. 1990). DDT was banned in the early 1970s, and a recovery program for the 

species began soon after. 

In San Diego County, several pairs are known to nest on the cliffs of Naval Base Point Loma (Unitt 2004) 

and several locations around San Diego Bay. Peregrine falcons are observed frequently at the least tern 

MAT nesting site and occasionally hunt the SSTC nesting sites. During RECON’s 2005 surveys, one 

adult peregrine falcon was observed foraging just off Zuniga Point. 

California Brown Pelican 

The California brown pelican was previously listed by the USFWS as threatened (35 FR 16047 October 

13, 1970) and by the CDFG as endangered under the California ESA. However, The USFWS published 

the final rule to delist the Brown Pelican on Nov 17, 2009. The delisting went into effect on the 17th of 

December, 2009. 

The California brown pelican is found primarily in estuarine, marine subtidal, and marine pelagic waters, 

especially within 12 miles of shore, but regularly to 100 miles. Nesting colonies occur on the Channel 

Islands and on the Coronado Islands (Garrett and Dunn 1981), with the largest breeding colony located on West 

Anacapa Island. The brown pelican is common along the coast throughout the year and, aside from being 

a regular visitor to the Salton Sea, is rare elsewhere away from the coast. 

The brown pelican requires water, rocky cliffs, jetties, sandy beaches or mudflats for roosting, and open 

water for foraging. Its nesting season is January to September. Females do not breed before their third 

year, males even later. Eggs are laid from March to April in clutches that average three eggs and then are 

incubated for four weeks. Young fly from the nest in about nine weeks and beginning in mid-May 

pelicans disperse along the entire California coastline. 

The primary food of the brown pelican in southern California is northern anchovy, although it also feeds 

on mullet (Mugilidae sp.), sardines (Clupeidae sp.), pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), prawns, crustaceans, 

carrion, and other fish (Ehrlich et al. 1988; USFWS 2006b). 

The population declined sharply in the 1960s due to the introduction of pesticides such as DDT into the 

food chain. After the banning of DDT and the pelican gaining federal protective status, nesting pair and 

productivity numbers began to improve, though numbers fluctuated widely by year in response to food 

availability (USFWS 2007a). The most recent estimate of the current population in 2002 is 150,000 birds 

(Gress 2005). Current threats include oil spills, commercial over-fishing of their food, entanglement in fishing 

tackle, disease, and pollution. Even though recovery plan criteria for de-listing have not been met, a FiveYear Review of the status of the California brown pelican recommended de-listing the species. This is 

because of the significant progress made toward its recovery as well as a lack of identified limiting 

threats, such as pesticide pollution, that likely initially caused its decline (USFWS 2007a). The 

productivity goals set in the recovery plan to de-list the species do not appear necessary to meet to 

maintain a stable population as breeding pair criteria have been exceeded in every year since 1985, with 

the exception of 1990 and 1992. The California brown pelican population in the SCB appears to be stable 

and healthy (Gress et. al. 2003). 

California brown pelicans are regularly observed at all coastal or bayside Navy installations in San Diego 

Bay including NAB and NRRF. The California brown pelican is known to fly over, and rest in, San Diego 

Bay in the vicinity of the Delta Beaches as well as on the Navy Enhancement Island and the Fiddler’s 

Cove wave attenuators (RECON 1996). The most recent avian species surveys in San Diego Bay focused 

on the water (November 2006 through February 2007) or on falling-tide shore areas (March 2006 through 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-35

February 2007, excluding May and July), with many pelicans observed (Figure 3.12.-13). The California 

brown pelican does not nest or breed in San Diego Bay. 

Figure 3.12-12: Number of California Brown Pelicans Observed during the Most Recent San Diego 

Bay Bird Surveys 

3.12.1.4.2 Shorebirds 

The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001) provides population estimates based on a 

synthesis of existing information from the Western Hemisphere. These numbers are sure to be revised as 

data become available. Population changes need to exceed 50 percent before they are detectable using 

databases such as the International Shorebird Surveys. Nevertheless, evaluations of existing databases 

indicate declines in many of the species that have been examined, declines that in some cases have been 

large and rapid. A 1995 summary showed that more than half of the shorebird species evaluated were 

declining, while only one species was increasing nationally (Brown et al. 2001). The following species 

descriptions are selected because these species are documented in San Diego Bay or nearshore area, are 

on the Birds of Conservation Concern List (USFWS 2008), are considered Highly Imperiled in the U.S. 

Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001), and are classed as declining in California (Bird Species 

of Special Concern (BSSC) list (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/species/ssc/docs/bird/BSSCFrontMatter.pdf [Shuford et al. 2008]). 

Long-Billed Curlew 

Just over 700 long-billed curlews were seen during the course of the San Diego Bay Avian Species 

Surveys (TDI 2006-2007). The majority of birds were found in the southern portion of San Diego Bay 

near the Saltworks. Several birds were also seen in the north, south-central and salt ponds regions of the 

San Diego Bay. 

Whimbrel 

Whimbrel observations were just short of 300 during the course of the previously mentioned survey. 

These observations were made practically throughout the entire San Diego Bay. The most frequent 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-36

sightings were recorded within the ocean grid and in the north, south-central, and south regions of the San 

Diego Bay. 

Dunlin 

A total of 4899 dunlins were recorded during the course of the San Diego Bay Avian Species Surveys 

with the highest count in March at 1,486, and the lowest in June with a count of only 2 birds. Dunlins 

were mostly seen in the southern salt ponds, and south-central eco-regions of San Diego Bay. However, a 

few were also seen in the oceanside of Silver Strand, as well as in the Harbor Island area. 

3.12.1.4.3 Seabird 

The gull-billed tern is on the BCC List (USFWS 2008), is a California Species of Concern, and is 

classified as declining in California on the BSSC list (Shuford et al. 2008). There were 273 gull-billed 

tern observations made during the course of the Navy-Port 2006-07 bird survey (Tierra Data Inc. 2008). 

This bird was mostly found in the ocean grid and in the south-central, south, and salt pond regions of San 

Diego Bay. They nest on bare ground and surround the perimeter with nearby pebbles and pieces of 

shells. These birds have a very broad diet which often includes insects and even other birds. The broad 

wings and black bill of this tern species along with a breeding season dark hood make it recognizable 

among co-occurring shorebirds. While the gull-billed tern itself is a conservation priority due to low 

population numbers, this bird preys upon and consumes offspring of other vulnerable species throughout 

San Diego Bay, making its management challenging. 

3.12.1.4.4 Marsh Passerine Birds 

The Belding’s savannah sparrow (California endangered species) and the large-billed savannah sparrow 

(California Species of Concern and BSSC) are both passerines that reside in the salt marsh and are 

concerns to the State of California. Recent survey results are described below. 

Belding’s Savannah Sparrow 

Belding’s savannah sparrows nest in the pickleweed salt marsh vegetation that occurs along the outer 

levees of the salt ponds, within the lower reach of the Otay River, and along the edges of the South Bay in 

remnant patches of salt marsh vegetation. The Belding’s savannah sparrow is unique in that it represents 

one of only two wetland dependant avian species that reside year-round in the coastal salt marshes of 

southern California (Powell and Collier 1998). There were 746 Belding’s savannah sparrows observed 

during the course of the 2006-2007 survey. Most of these sightings were in the south part of San Diego 

Bay and salt pond regions. This sparrow subspecies nests in salt marshes with low vegetation. 

Characteristically this bird is found in communities that are dominated by pickleweed, foraging at nearby 

beaches, mudflats, and lagoons. Increased development of coastal regions limits the preferred natural 

habitat that savannah sparrow favors, and thus its population is rather small. The Belding’s savannah 

sparrow population estimate in California has increased over the years: 1,084 pairs in 1973, 1,610 pairs in 

1977, 2,274 pairs in 1986, 1,844 pairs in 1991, 2,350 pairs in 1996, and 2,902 pairs in 2001 (Zembal and 

Hoffman 2002). However, statewide censuses of Belding’s savannah sparrows reveal wide fluctuations in 

local population sizes, with local extirpations occurring in some years. 

Belding’s surveys conducted every five years since 1986 show a regular presence, but fluctuating 

numbers, within San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Habitat fragmentation, 

disturbance/predation, and changing conditions within the marsh are contributors to these fluctuations. 

During the 2001 survey (Zembal and Hoffman 2002) identified 109 territories within the Sweetwater 

Marsh Unit, including 7 in Paradise Marsh, 93 in Sweetwater Marsh, and 9 at the F&G Street Marsh. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-37

Large-billed Savannah Sparrow 

Large-billed savannah sparrows were observed mostly in the south-central San Diego Bay between the 

Sweetwater River channel and Naval Station San Diego. A total of 57 accounts of this sparrow subspecies 

were recorded during the course of the 2007-2006 survey. Large-billed savannahs typically inhabit 

marshes, beaches and tidal flats, however they have been historically noted as city birds. Previously, even 

though this sparrow was a common fall and winter visitor, breeding pairs were not recorded. 

3.12.1.5 Natural Resources Management Program and Current Mitigation Measures 

3.12.1.5.1 Program Overview 

This section provides an overview of the Navy’s long-standing Natural Resources Program that oversees 

the management of migratory birds and their habitat, as well as all other natural resources related to the 

SSTC. The specific measures directly related to protecting birds are part of this broader natural resources 

management program from which avian species also benefit. 

All species groups are managed through INRMPs, including, at a minimum, baseline inventory and 

regular monitoring. The NBC INRMP addresses terrestrial and shoreline resources, while the San Diego 

Bay INRMP covers in-water resources jointly with the Port of San Diego. The latter is considered a baywide plan by local and regional resource agencies, which provided letters of concurrence or signatures. 

These plans are developed collaboratively with the USFWS and CDFG, and are the primary vehicle by 

which natural resource projects are planned and funded. A broad range of goals, objectives, strategies and 

projects are identified and prioritized based on the need for regulatory compliance or stewardship. 

An ecosystem management approach is incorporated into the INRMP to protect the properties and 

functions of natural ecosystems (Chief of Naval Operations Instruction [OPNAVINST] 5090.1 2007 and 

DoD Instruction 4715.3, the Navy’s Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual). Navy 

guidelines require that ecosystem-based management includes: a shift from single species to multiple 

species conservation, best available science, partnerships for ecosystems that cross boundaries, and 

adaptive management. The ecosystem mandate is accomplished by applying principles of sustainable use 

at several scales and long-term monitoring. Adaptive, day-to-day management takes place with emerging 

circumstances and new information by the Navy’s natural resources professionals. 

Under the NBC INRMP, which is currently under revision, baseline biological surveys in all species 

groups were recently completed for Naval Radio Receiving Facility and NASNI (RECON 2004, 2005). 

The San Diego Bay INRMP is also now undergoing a revision, in collaboration with state and federal 

agencies, and representatives from non-governmental organizations. Many stewardship projects and 

studies are proposed, as well as jointly funded, baywide surveys of natural resources such as eelgrass, 

fish, and birds. 

All natural resources are also managed through the project site approval process, through which 

avoidance and minimization measures are considered during project development and implementation, 

and site-specific surveys are initiated as necessary. 

Under the San Diego Bay INRMP, the first all-bay avian species survey was conducted in 2006-2007 of 

shorebirds, water birds, and seabirds, co-funded by the U.S. Navy and the Port of San Diego (Tierra Data 

Inc. 2008). These surveys covered shoreline and water areas only, and also covered all seasons. Results of 

this survey are incorporated into the sections that follow. Previous to this, avian surveys were conducted 

only on land or covered only certain parts of the bay or certain species groups. Though less 

comprehensive, these past surveys still provide value for the species groups and locations for which they 

were designed. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-38

At NASNI, terrestrial avian surveys were most recently completed in 2004-2005 (RECON 2006). Both 

general and focused avian surveys have taken place other than those for federally listed species previous 

to this time. For 12 months, from 1999-2000, surveys were conducted monthly by the National Wildlife 

Research Center (NWRC) to provide information for the Bird/Animal Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) 

program (NWRC and U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] Wildlife Services 2000). At NAB 

Coronado, RECON conducted a general bird survey in 1996 to support a Navy INRMP (U.S. Navy 

1998), building on earlier surveys in 1981 (U.S. Navy 1982). Avian surveys were also conducted at 

NRRF by RECON in 1996 (U.S. Navy 1998). Additional information was added from the 2001-2002 

surveys (RECON 2004). 

Previous to the baywide and terrestrial surveys described above and used as a basis for much of the data 

analysis in this document, several efforts had documented abundances in bay waters that focused on 

particular species groups or locations in San Diego Bay. Those separate surveys of avifauna of San Diego 

Bay in 1993-1994 resulted in an estimate of over seven million bird-use days per year, or an average of 

over 19,000 birds per day (with substantial peaks and lows), based on the average number of sightings 

during survey days (Ogden 1994, 1995; USFWS 1994, 1995). The 2006-2007 surveys, which covered all 

classes of birds on the water and on the shore, doubled this estimate to over 14,000,000 bird-use days per 

year, also with substantial highs and lows (Tierra Data Inc. 2008). The average number of birds observed 

per survey event (a three-day period to cover the entire bay) for the 2006-2007 surveys was almost 

39,000. 

For most routine maintenance or construction projects implemented by NBC, migratory birds are 

typically managed through measures to avoid the breeding season, and routine checking for nests before 

undertaking activities that may affect nesting birds. Trees are typically not removed unless it is 

unavoidable (related to the mission and or safety) if migratory birds are present. 

Migratory birds also benefit incidentally from the threatened and endangered species conservation 

strategies associated with that specific management and monitoring. Surveys for listed species are 

conducted at potential construction sites if there is a possibility of their presence. Results of these surveys 

are reported within the planning documents (e.g. Biological Assessments, Environmental Assessments) 

for the proposed project. 

The Navy pet management policy as well as the requirement to keep dogs on leash on Dog Beach are 

means to protect birds. The U.S. Navy policy regarding control of feral animals can be found in the 

following regulations: SECNAVINST 6401-1A, Veterinary Health Services; AFPMB TIM #37, 

Guidelines for Reducing Feral/Stray Cat Populations on Military Installations in the United States; 

OPNAVINST 6250.4B, dated 27 Aug. 1998, Pest Management Programs; and Family Housing Occupant 

Handbook; A Commander Navy Region Southwest (CNRSW) Metro Area Instruction and Family 

Housing Occupant Handbook have been developed to advise personnel of what to do if they come in 

contact with sick, dead or injured wildlife. Except for dogs restrained by fences in family housing areas, 

animals (including cats and birds) are not permitted to run loose on NBC. Possession or feeding of wild 

animals (including feral animals), regardless of docility or tameness, is prohibited. All dogs must be 

licensed, registered with security, and confined to a leash. Stray/loose animals should be reported to San 

Diego County Animal Control, or Station Police for violations of policy. The Family Housing Occupant 

Handbook contains guidelines for properly disposing of trash so as not to attract feral animals. NBC has a 

domestic cat management policy associated with the Housing Area. Cats are not allowed to be loose 

outdoors, nor may pet food be left outdoors. 

Consistent with several BOs on federally listed species, avian predators of federally listed birds are 

harassed to avoid incidental take of the listed species. For instance, pyrotechnics are used to frighten 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and seagulls from loafing or roosting around the airfield, and a wire grid is placed 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-39

on ponds of the NASNI golf course to discourage the use of these water features by birds that may pose a 

risk to federally listed species. Avian predator management occurs consistent with ESA Section 7 

consultation with the USFWS, as well as with USFWS permitted actions by the Navy’s contractor 

(USDA- Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Service). The Navy continues to cooperate 

with USFWS in removing peregrine falcons in the vicinity of nesting terns and plovers. In addition, as 

described in the BO on the Navy Lodge Expansion and the BO on airfield activities at NASNI, building 

and project design incorporates the use of anti-perching devices and materials in the vicinity of nesting 

western snowy plovers or California least terns. 

3.12.1.5.2 History of Management for Listed Avian Species 

The following describes efforts the Navy has undertaken to protect avian species listed under ESA present 

in military training areas. For over 30 years, the Navy has built a comprehensive program to protect and 

manage resources on SSTC and NASNI. The program has been adaptive in nature, adjusting to changes in 

natural resource conditions and training needs, and adding to and modifying management measures based 

on experience and past effectiveness. The Navy and USFWS have worked extensively together to hone 

these measures over the years. The Navy’s current mitigation measures are discussed in Section 

3.12.1.5.2. Areas mentioned in the following text are indicated on figures in the Terrestrial Section of this 

EIS, Figures 3.11-7 and 3.11-8. 

Origin of the Navy’s Establishment of Protected Nesting Sites for Terns 

The early days of the Navy’s tern management program originated with the construction of a helicopter 

MAT facility, including a Light Airborne Multipurpose System (LAMPS) MK III, that resulted in the loss 

of a nesting area and displacement of what was 13 tern nests in 1977, the year terns were first documented 

as nesting there. By 1979, according to the BO that was signed in 1980 (USFWS BO 1-1-80-F-18 5 

March 1980), about 68 nests were located at the facility. A total of 63.45 acres were affected by the 

project, including 36 acres to resurface the asphalt. 

In order to establish a defined site where the nests could be protected, a 21.55-acre area of the existing 

nesting area called the MAT site was preserved, indefinitely, for nesting terns at NASNI. An additional 

29.2 acres were prepared on an annual basis as alternate nest sites, including predator and vegetation 

control, in the event the MAT site was not successful. 

In addition to the sites at NASNI, the Navy agreed in a 1983 BO (USFWS BO 1-1-82-F-123 2 March 

1983) to “exclude 75 acres of land at Delta Beach from public access by fencing for least terns under the 

terms of a Memorandum of Understanding between the USFWS and NAB Coronado...” The BO required 

that the area be “fenced and officially established as a nesting site.” The designation of the Delta beaches 

as a “least tern preserve” was formalized in a 1984 MOU between the U.S. Navy and USFWS (DoN and 

USFWS 1984) that was drawn up to provide long-term management of the 75 acres identified for least 

tern nesting at the Delta beaches in the 1983 BO 1-F-82-F-123. The MOU did not intend to inhibit the use 

of Delta beaches for military maneuvers, but it attempted to restrict these maneuvers to the north and east 

perimeters during the nesting season. Up until the time of this BO and MOU, Delta Beach North had been 

used both for Navy training and as a public boat launching facility. Installing fencing around the area 

eliminated the site for use as a public boat launch facility. The Navy was required to address the loss of 

public recreational access to the site, and under a California Coastal Commission (CCC) Consistency 

Determination (CD-4-84 22 February 1984), was required to leased 40 acres of land (Alpha Beach) to the 

State of California to develop for park and recreation purposes. The Navy also graded a road to Alpha 

Beach to facilitate public access there. 

The Navy implemented a number of measures to promote nesting at the Delta site. The Navy begain 

controlling vegetation at the site to enhance suitability for terns which do not prefer highly vegetated 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-40

areas for nesting habitat. The Navy also added sand to the site to enhancing the substrate for nesting. The 

Navy employed decoys on the site at the beginning of the nesting season to attract nesting terns to the 

protected site. The Navy also began a program for controlling predators on the site and a program for 

monitoring the site for nesting success. 

Navy Adapts to the Expansion of Least Tern and Snowy Plover Nesting Colonies on 

SSTC 

In 1994, California least terns began nesting on oceanside beaches where military training takes place. 

Protections had to be established to protect the terns, and this began the development and evolution of a 

series of adaptive set of measures, with each year bringing ever-increasing tern numbers and a new sets of 

circumstances. As nesting on oceanside training beaches continued to increase, the Navy adapted and 

improved their approach as a result of information gained from monitoring and experimentation. 

In 1996, the Navy coned off 500 yards of Green 2 Beach from training activity to avoid incidental take of 

nests, and also added decoys to attract birds to a designated nesting area where they could be protected 

and training could continue unimpeded elsewhere (BO 1-6-97-F-37 2 June 1997). Around the same time, 

the Navy enhanced the substrate of Delta Beach South, which expanded that nesting area from 10 to 15 

acres. This resulted in an increase from one nest to 21 nests at Delta Beach South, and the expansion of 

nesting on the oceanside beaches continued, amplifying the challenge of protecting the terns (Copper 

2003). 

In 1997, western snowy plover nests began appearing on the SSTC-N oceanside beaches. The Navy 

began establishing avoidance zones by emplacing stakes less than 30 meters around the nests which were 

avoided during training. 1,200 yards of Green Beach were coned off by the Navy to protect nesting in the 

lanes. Poles for powerlines along the Silver Strand Highway were also removed and the powerlines were 

placed underground to reduce perches for predators. The Navy also purchased receivers to monitor 

peregrine falcons and increased predator control on SSTC-N. Along the eastern boundary of SSTC-N 

Oceanside beaches, the Navy installed no trespassing signs to deter the public from entering or wandering 

into the nesting area. 

The Navy and USFWS continued to collaboratively re-think the strategy to protect terns. In 2000, the 

Navy added beach crossing lanes to allow training groups to move between the sand road near Highway 

75 and the hard-packed area near the water’s edge (BO 1-6-99-F-28 3 May 1999 and extensions in 2000 

and 2001). This was to protect nesting birds from accidental disturbance or mortality due to military 

activities (there had been incidental take (mortality) due to military activities of one western snowy plover 

and several terns in 2000). The coning off of Green Beach was discontinued as attempts to attract the 

birds to this safe area had failed, and by then almost 50 percent of San Diego Bay Navy terns were on the 

oceanside beaches. The bright orange and large cones were abandoned in favor of smaller and more 

portable blue stakes. The blue color was selected as it was believed that the bright orange color of the 

cones might attract avian predators (primarily ravens and crows). Instead of coning off the entire beach, 

individual tern nests were marked with a three-foot stake, but this created confusion for operators as to 

where training was permitted to occur. 

The Navy changed its strategy in 2002 when lanes Green 2 and Blue 1 became the focus of concern about 

nesting in needed training areas (BO 1-6-02-F-2645.1 16 April 2002) . The beaches were raked with an 

instrument dragged behind a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle to deter nesting in those lanes 

and eggs were collected if present during pre-raking surveys. Collected eggs were taken for care to 

Project Wildlife (a wildlife rehabilitation non-governmental organization). Raking continued as often as 

twice per day, with the intent of discouraging tern nesting without affecting plovers. Other measures to 

discourage nesting were also undertaken, such as placing wooden stakes with flagging. Beach raking was 

found to be labor intensive, costly, and generally ineffective since terns continued to attempt to nest 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-41

behind the raking activity. Raking was abandoned after one year (2002) as ineffective. However, the 

Navy continued to collect eggs that were in harm’s way and take them to Sea World to be hatched, where 

it was determined if the chicks could be reared in captivity. The Navy set aside three unraked lanes for 

nesting. Tern nests outside the three lanes were marked with tongue depressors and subject to incidental 

take. Plover nests continued to be afforded protection with marking and buffer distances of less than 30 

meters; military personnel were instructed to avoid the staked areas. At the same time, efforts continued 

to attract the oceanside birds to nest on the Delta beaches. A fence was removed at Delta Beach South and 

grading was expanded to the entire southern site (Copper 2003). At the same time, the Navy also 

implemented efforts to retain washed-up vegetation on the Oceanside beaches to promote foraging of 

western snowy plover where it didn’t interfere with military operations. 

Around 2003, it was determined that annual disking of the Delta sites to improve the substrate for nesting 

habitat was promoting undesirable weeds, so the Navy switched its practice of disking to grading the 

sites. Also, despite efforts to deconflict training activity on the beaches and attract the birds to the Delta 

nesting sites, there were double the birds on the oceanside beaches compared to the previous year. For 

unknown reasons, the training beaches continued to be preferred by the birds despite efforts at preparing 

the Delta beach sites and heavier training activity on the Oceanside training lanes. Despite this, the Navy 

successfully avoided incidental take of the birds, which remained far below the incidental take authorized 

in its biological opinions. 

Pursuant to BO FWS-SDG-3452.1, the Navy continued the seasonal restriction of training in the three 

beach lanes in 2003, with beach crossing lane alignments modified, as needed, to minimize the number of 

nests requiring relocation (15 May 2003). Trying another approach, a lane in front of Green 1, called the 

Alpha lane, was added to allow high tide crossing by training groups. Incidental take was permitted for up 

to 50 eggs to be collected and taken to Sea World for captive rearing. Up until the 2003 breeding season, 

predator management was conducted in all Navy nesting areas; however, in another effort to deter terns 

from nesting on the beach, predator control was discontinued on the NAB ocean beaches in 2003 (only 

conducted in Orange 1 and 2). The effort was undertaken as an experiment, to see if discontinuing 

predator control would deter terns and move to the safer Delta Beach areas to nest, as previous efforts had 

been costly and unsuccessful (Martin Kenney, pers. comm. 2004). A change in nesting pattern was never 

apparent, and predator management on all sites resumed in 2004. Around this time, the Navy also began 

installing mini-exclosures around western snowy plover nests to reduce predation on eggs and fledglings. 

In 2005, the Navy worked to further improve its predator control efforts. NixiliteTM (a deterrent material 

applied to structures to prevent roosting and repel birds) was installed on the fence by Delta South to deter 

predators from perching on the fence and preying on nests on Delta South. The Navy also installed video 

and still cameras to better understand which species are predating on the terns. In a new approach to 

attract terns to where they could be protected, about 3,000 cubic yards of sand were added to Delta Beach 

to benefit the substrate conditions for both least tern and snowy plover nesting there. The Navy graded 

and topographically modified Green 1 and Green 2 with hummocks (small sand hills) to reduce their 

attractiveness for nesting; the hummocks were effective in deterring terns from nesting in that area. The 

Delta beaches, Blue 2, Orange 1, and Orange 2 were treated with herbicides to enhance nesting 

attractiveness. The same management strategies used in 2005 and 2006 were implemented in 2007 with 

an extension of the 2005 BO (FWS-SDG-3452.3 16 July 2007). 

Western Snowy Plover Management Evolves With Measures Adapted for NASNI Airfield 

and Expansion of the Navy Lodge

Two BOs discuss snowy plover management at NASNI and resulted in changes in the action area 

regarding how snowy plovers are managed. The BO on NASNI Ongoing Operations addressed 

Bird/Animal airstrike hazards on the runway, as well as recreational and military training use of the 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-42

southern NASNI beaches) (FWS-SDG-3908.3 2005). One of the historic problems at NASNI has been 

plover nesting on the airfield runway to the north, which may be due to inadequate availability of 

alternative areas for the plovers closer to the shoreline. Also, in some years the southern beaches have 

narrowed and have been temporarily unsuitable for nesting. The Navy Lodge Expansion (BO FWS-SDG3908.5 20 July 2005) addressed the expansion of the Navy Lodge and its potential effect on western 

snowy plovers that nest on adjacent beaches. Among other requirements, the BO required (1) continued 

marking for 30-meter diameter buffers and monitoring; (2) avoidance of staked areas when beach raking; 

(3) setting aside of 14.9 acres of suitable (and historically used) plover habitat as off-limits to foot traffic, 

vehicle traffic, beach raking, and pets during the snowy plover breeding season; (4) implementation of 

predator controls including anti-perch materials on buildings; (5) placement of signage and distribution of 

educational materials to patrons, employees, life guards; (6) training for construction workers; and (7) 

shielding of lighting away from the beach during nesting season. The CCC added a requirement in its 

Consistency Determination (CCC ND-93-05 15 December 2005) as follows: “During the plover nesting 

season (March 1 through August 15), the Navy agrees to monitor the beach for plover nests in front of the 

NASNI Navy Lodge prior to each raking event. However if our [i.e. Navy] natural resources personnel 

determine that our efforts are meeting the objectives set forth in our BOs, specifically that NASNI 

supports 12-13 pairs or a maximum number of 12 nests. The Navy, at its discretion, may refrain from 

monitoring prior to raking.” The stated informal management objective of 12-13 nesting pairs (20 

breeding season adults) for NASNI is carried forward in the Final Recovery Plan for the western snowy 

plover (Unit CA-127 in USFWS 2007b). 

Other Navy Agreements Related to California Least Terns 

The Navy’s management measures for the California least tern and western snowy plover with regard to 

training activities in the SSTC are covered above. In addition to these measures, further avoidance and 

minimization measures are undertaken for past military construction projects, and for routine in-water 

construction and maintenance works. Two important elements of the Navy program are described below. 

In-Water Construction Noise and Turbidity Programmatic Agreement. A programmatic agreement 

between the USFWS and the U.S. Navy establishes standards and conditions for in-water construction 

activities in San Diego Bay to protect the endangered California least tern (DoN and USFWS 1987, 1993, 

1999, 2000, 2004). Originally a five-year MOU, it was most recently renewed for two years in 2004, and 

a letter from USFWS allows for recognition of that MOU until a new one is signed (Letter from Therese 

O’Rourke to Capt. Anthony T. Gaiani FWS-SDG-08B0211-08I0203 December 18, 2007). This MOU 

was developed concurrently with the development and improvement of the management program on 

SSTC, and many of the protective measures described above were formalized in this MOU agreement. 

The MOU provided an additional 10 acres of tern nesting area at South Delta Beach, as well as an 

additional three to five acres of California least tern foraging habitat, the removal of overhead power lines 

at Delta Beach, predator control efforts for tern colonies, studies to determine effects of various in-water 

construction activities, end-of-year reports on tern population monitoring, and a list of proposed U.S. 

Navy projects to be conducted in San Diego Bay. In exchange, ongoing maintenance and new 

construction activities could be conducted by the U.S. Navy in San Diego Bay without the need for 

formal consultation with USFWS on each activity as long as specific, delineated least tern foraging areas 

were not affected. Under the agreement, the U.S. Navy provides an annual funding source of $250,000 for 

management and monitoring of the least tern, as well as a one-time funding source of $500,000 to be used 

to create additional tern foraging or nesting habitat. In addition, the U.S. Navy provides a permanent 

position within the U.S. Navy to oversee the implementation of the MOU. The 1987 MOU was updated 

in 1993 and provided for annual funding by the U.S. Navy to continue least tern management and 

predator control. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-43

The western snowy plover derives coincident benefit from the California least tern protection measures 

afforded through the Navy-USFWS MOU on in-water construction activities, as well as other measures 

that enhance nesting success in the same locations where the plovers nest. 

Fiddler’s Cove Surface Coverage Biological Opinion. A BO addressing marina repairs and 

improvements at Fiddler’s Cove was issued in 2007 regarding least tern foraging concerns (FWS-SDG4032.6). These concerns arose as the result of the development of additional dock structures in Fiddler’s 

Cove Marina that would cover bay waters adjacent to the Delta South least tern colony. The USFWS 

determined that this project would not result in any incidental take of the California least tern, but noted 

that the significance of any future net losses of such habitat on the survival and recovery of the species 

would be magnified, given the importance of protecting or enhancing high quality foraging habitat in San 

Diego Bay in close proximity to nesting colonies. 

3.12.1.5.3 Current Management and Mitigation Measures for Listed Species 

Based on the management experience gained by the Navy and its agency partners over the years, the 

following sections list current management that would be carried forward under the No Action 

Alternative of both the least tern and snowy plover on training beaches. Modifications to this management 

under Alternatives 1 and 2 are discussed in Sections 3.12.2.3 and 3.12.2.4, respectively. Management 

measures have been adaptive in the past and will continue to be in the future as changing circumstances 

dictate a modified approach. 

Beach Lane Seasonal Conservation Areas and Marking/Avoidance Measures 

• Two bayside training areas (Delta North and South) of beachfront Navy-administered lands are 

restricted from military foot and vehicle traffic during the breeding seasons of western snowy 

plover and California least tern except for a Beach Crossing Lane on South Delta. Access to the 

three oceanside lanes (Blue 2, Orange 1, and Orange 2), which under current management 

measures are set aside during the breeding season, will be modified by the two access criteria 

discussed in Section 3.12.2.3 for Alternative 1. When restricted from use, the perimeter of the 

oceanside training lanes is delineated with blue flexi-stakes or cones when terns first arrive. No 

military training is permitted within the protected areas except for designated beach crossing 

lanes. Since plovers nest individually or in loose groups rather than in dense colonies like the 

terns do, plover nest scrapes are marked with approximately 30-meter buffers for avoidance 

beginning approximately March 1. The beach crossing lanes are positioned to avoid the largest 

number of nests that would require relocation. Beach crossing lanes are marked with stakes for 

their entire length. Differences in training lane access do occur between the alternatives in this 

EIS, such that all SSTC-N surfside beach training areas would be available for use under 

Alternative 2, regardless of time of year, whereas usage is dependent on training needs in 

Alternative 1. 

• Beach scheduling procedures bias activities with heavier beach use towards beach lanes with 

fewer nests, when it does not impact the realism of training or training needs. 

• Plover nests are marked except in the training lanes set aside during nesting season. A 

surrounding buffer area of approximately 30 meters, or smaller, is also marked with blue flexistakes which are removed seven days after hatching, or when biologically practical to minimize 

impacts to plovers. No military training is permitted to occur within the delineated buffer or 

protected areas. Under Alternative 1 and 2, the Navy would post stakes around up to 22 western 

snowy plover nests at one time on SSTC oceanside beaches. 

• Also depending on site-specific circumstances, some plover nests are covered with a minienclosures (MEs) to protect from mammalian and avian predators. Once chicks hatch, markers 

and MEs are removed within seven days, or when biologically practical to minimize impacts to 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-44

plovers. The MEs are not installed when the risk of attracting humans that will potential disturb 

the nest appears to outweigh the risk of predation. Also, the MEs can be a foreign object debris 

concern at the airfield if they are blown out of place, so are not used there. 

• Due to the high predation rate from gull-billed terns, “wickets” or domes are used to offset 

predation by this species. Wickets are made of two pieces of small gage wire and formed into a 

one-foot dome. Domes are placed over least tern nests to discourage gull-billed terns from 

preying on eggs or chicks and/or destroying eggs when feeding from flight. A study on the 

effectiveness of domes that documents reproductive success of the terns with domes is being 

funded by the Navy. Due to this study wickets or any other form of exclusion that is developed 

will be used unless they are determined to be ineffective. 

• To reduce harassment of nesting plovers, symbolic fencing with blue stakes (fencing that marks 

the area for people to avoid but does not prevent birds from entering or leaving) is practiced on 

NASNI in front of the golf course, building 710 of the Recreational Beach, and in all western 

snowy plover management areas on NASNI. 

Communication of Training Area Protocols 

• The Navy works to ensure effective communication and coordination among the biological 

monitors, the Natural Resource Office, and the scheduling commands for NASNI, SSTC-N and 

SSTC-S. Beach users are informed: (1) that blue flexi-stakes or cones denote the boundaries of 

nests or protected nesting areas for least terns and snowy plovers; (2) that the presence of tongue 

depressors within beach lanes mark the location of least tern nests; (3) which training areas are 

authorized; and (4) that incidental take of least terns and snowy plovers at SSTC-N and SSTC-S 

shall be avoided to the extent consistent with effective, realistic training. These access restrictions 

will be modified and communicated as necessary as the Navy meets criteria and thresholds for 

opening additional lanes.

Nest Relocation 

• Nests may be moved small distances, as necessary and appropriate, to reduce conflicts with 

training, although such moving is infrequent. Snowy plover and least tern nests located in the 

Beach Crossing Lanes are typically relocated to safe areas as conflict is expected, and nests have 

been relocated due to the threat of flooding. The Navy reports to the USFWS any circumstance 

that necessitates movement of any tern or plover nest. This is done with submittal of the Navy’s 

weekly reports to the USFWS Carlsbad Field Office. If relocation is necessary, nests are moved 

the shortest distance possible into suitable habitat to increase the chance for nest success. 

Predator Management and Control 

• Predator control of mammalian and avian predators of the least tern and snowy plover is 

conducted at all nesting sites. Due to the very rare status of the gull-billed tern, control of this 

known predator has not been approved by the USFWS. To date, the Navy has not been authorized 

to capture, relocate, shoot, or otherwise deter this species although Migratory Bird Depredation 

Permit requests have been submitted since 2005. Isolated attempts by USDA Wildlife Services to 

discourage gull-billed terns from entering least tern nesting colonies were considered ineffective. 

• The Navy has been using pole traps on and off since the inception of the program dependent on 

discussions with the USDA and the USFWS. These pole traps are designed to catch avian 

predators of least tern and plover chicks, such as the American kestrel. 

• Predator control to manage southern fire ants, field ants, Argentine ants, and pyramid ants found 

on North and South Delta Beaches and NASNI is conducted prior to and during the snowy plover 

and least tern nesting season. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-45

• In cooperation with USFWS Refuges, peregrine falcons are removed and relocated if necessary 

from Navy California least tern nesting sites, as described in the 2005 Training BO (FWS-SDG3452.3 10 March 2005), under the USFWS take permit. 

• Cameras are used to monitor least tern colonies on Navy property for predators. Cameras are also 

used as a tool for monitoring, specifically collecting status information. Cameras allow 

documentation of what species is predating least tern chicks. 

Nesting Deterrence through Habitat Modification and Harassment 

• Sand hummocks or other substrate modification may occur in the Green Beach lanes prior to the 

breeding season to discourage nesting there. If necessary, sand hummocks or other substrate 

modification may be considered for other lanes, in a manner that is compatible with military 

training requirements. 

• Although California least tern nests have not been documented on SSTC-S beaches, the Navy is 

authorized to deter least terns from nesting there. If any least tern eggs are found they would be 

collected and taken to Project Wildlife if feasible. Least tern scrapes may be smoothed over to 

deter nesting. 

Continued Site Preparation for Maintaining Nest Site Suitability 

• Site preparation, in accordance with the USFWS’s BO on the MAT Development Program (1980-

BO 1-1-80-F-18; 1983-BO 1-1-82-F-123 Navy’s LAMPS MKIII facilities development program) 

and the California least tern MOUs, is performed on North and South Delta Beach and NASNI. 

Continued maintenance of these sites offsets the effects of previous construction projects and 

associated loss of habitat at NASNI as well as some of the effects of the current Proposed Action. 

Site preparation includes grading or mowing to remove annual plant growth, inspection, 

replacement or reinstallation of the site grid poles and of chick barriers around the site perimeter, 

use of tern decoys, and placement of chick shelters throughout the nesting colony. 

• Sand enhancement of nesting sites occurs as feasible. 

• Although site preparation was discontinued on all NASNI alternate nest sites in the past, it will 

continue at the current alternate nest site north of Weapons as an experiment in the event that the 

MAT site needs to be moved. 

• In order to provide nesting cover for chicks, minimize invasive weeds, and protect rare plants, the 

locations of coastal woolly-heads (Nemacaulis denudata), and Nuttall’s lotus (Lotus nuttallianus), 

are marked for avoidance prior to grading or herbicide use. Coast woolly-heads and Nuttall’s 

lotus are indicators of a healthy, natural habitat that is conducive to nesting by providing a mosaic 

of vegetation for chick shelter and escape cover. 

• No kelp or other natural marine vegetation that collects on beach tidal areas is removed from the 

oceanside beaches of SSTC-N or SSTC-S. Kelp is managed at YMCA Camp Surf by relocating it 

to areas where it does not provide an unsafe environment for children. Marine vegetation at 

YMCA Camp Surf is not buried, but left on the surface for use as forage material by plovers. 

• Mowing is practiced at NASNI airfield to maintain a habitat condition that is not preferred by 

nesting birds, in order to deter bird-related airstrikes. Areas within and adjacent to the airfield are 

mowed when 25 percent of the vegetation reaches eight inches or higher as measured from the 

soil. The mowing schedule is coordinated with the NBC Botanist and Wildlife Biologist. 

• Regular beach cleanup in targeted areas will continue. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-46

Nest Substrate Enhancement 

• In order to provide suitable nesting substrate that does not foster weed invasion that may harm 

nesting or fledging success, the Navy treats invasive exotic plants. Since iceplant can help dune 

stabilization and its removal can be expensive, some iceplant may be left in place. This iceplant 

may be subsequently removed when money is available for natives to be planted at the site. 

• Substrate enhancement of nesting sites occurs as opportunities arise with available sand or dredge 

spoil. 

Signage and Education 

• Signs have been positioned every 500 feet on the hard pack sand road that parallels SR-75. They 

inform the public of the need to avoid marked areas that designate nesting locations of snowy 

plovers or least terns on the beach. 

• Signs are also placed at South Delta such as the large sign informing about least terns. Most 

plover areas also include a sign to explain the blue stakes. 

• Signs are occasionally provided by State Parks to help with managing trespassers at Orange 

Beach and north of SSTC-S. 

• An interpretive sign on least terns and snowy plovers is in development for the bike trail near 

South Delta Beach. 

Recreational Use Restriction 

• The Navy works to eliminate recreational or casual use of the beaches by military personnel and 

their dependents who live in the Naval housing that is across SR-75 from Blue 2, Orange 1, and 

Orange 2. An annual letter is sent out to educate military housing residents about recreational use 

restrictions. In addition, the Navy works to eliminate nonmilitary civilian use of nesting beaches 

through security patrols and guards. Signage, fencing, public awareness campaigns, and/or 

enforcement are all necessary and implemented to achieve successful control. 

Rearing of Collected Eggs, Injured, and Sick Individuals 

• All injured or sick individuals are taken to a wildlife rehabilitation center, such as Project 

Wildlife, for rehabilitation. 

• If needed, least tern eggs that have been collected are provided to Project Wildlife or Sea World, 

as appropriate, for hatching and rearing. Terns were reared in captivity in 2002 and 2003 after the 

eggs were collected to discourage nesting on the operational beaches. The least tern chicks 

proved very difficult to raise, whereas snowy plover chicks, which are precocial, are easier to 

raise. Tern survival after rehabilitation proved to be minimal if at all. All chicks are released in 

areas approved by the Navy with guaranteed predator management. 

• The success of reared western snowy plovers as adults is tracked and evaluated to develop more 

effective rearing methods, with a few releases that were preliminarily successful. 

Western Snowy Plover Health Study 

• Due to an unknown cause of mortality in adult snowy plovers in and around San Diego Bay that 

began in 2005, the Navy supports studies and efforts by the USFWS to determine the cause of the 

mortality. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-47

Monitoring for Effects and Adaptive Management 

• California least terns and western snowy plovers are monitored for incidental take at all San 

Diego Bay NBC training locations. The Navy prepares an end-of-the-year report that documents, 

at a minimum, the location of nests collected, number of nests/eggs collected, the hatch date of 

each egg collected, the unique band combination given each captive-reared chick, the 

approximate fledgling date and the release date/location of each fledgling, and suggestions to 

improve the efficacy of this process if used in future years. This information is necessary to 

assess the amount of incidental take, and the effectiveness of using this approach to minimize 

impacts. 

• Biological monitoring of the least tern and the snowy plover during the breeding season is 

performed by qualified and USFWS-permitted experts at all nesting sites. The general schedule 

for monitoring is provided below but is modified based on findings in the field and/or operational 

requirements. 

o NAB Ocean Beach: Monitoring for least terns and snowy plovers is conducted three to 

four days each week from March 1 to April 15, five to six days per week from April 15 to 

August 1, and three to four days per week from August 1 to August 31. 

o NAB North and South Delta Beach: Monitoring for least terns and snowy plovers is 

conducted three days a week from April 15 to April 30, four to five days a week from 

April 30 to July 31, and three days a week from July 31 to August 31. 

o Monitoring for snowy plover occurs one day per week from September through February. 

o Monitoring at SSTC South for snowy plovers is conducted one to three days a week from 

March 1 to mid-September (and one day per week during the winter). 

• Banding of least tern and snowy plover adults and chicks is done in conjunction with monitoring 

of nests at NASNI, SSTC-N and SSTC-S. Due to the large number of nests that must be 

monitored and the number of quality bands received from the USFWS, not all adults or chicks are 

banded. Any least tern or snowy plover nest relocations are reported to the USFWS Carlsbad 

Field Office. Semi-monthly and annual reports are provided to the USFWS. 

• A California least tern foraging study was begun in 2008 to examine foraging patterns to evaluate 

if certain areas have higher foraging value than others. 

3.12.1.5.3.1 Light-Footed Clapper Rail Management 

Since the light-footed clapper rail is listed as federally endangered, formal consultation with the USFWS 

under Section 7 of the ESA is required prior to any potential impacts to this species. The Navy currently 

does not conduct training activities at the location where this species may breed, which is leased to the 

City of Coronado for the South Bay Marine Biological Study Area. Periodic surveys are conducted to 

determine species presence and breeding status, and natural resources-related activities are possible at this 

location. 

Management of the clapper rail is addressed in the NBC INRMP with a program at NOLF Imperial Beach 

driving the management of this species at SSTC-S. The NOLF Imperial Beach program was established 

in 1992 through an MOU between the U.S. Navy and the USFWS. The focus of management is a little 

over 600 acres of the south and west NOLF Imperial Beach property that is managed as part of the 

Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve and TSNWR. The MOU is reviewed for renewal 

every five years. 

The NBC INRMP identifies three primary approaches for protecting the light-footed clapper rail: 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-48

1. Develop and participate with other agencies in a regional approach and formal agreements for 

conserving salt marsh across the species’ range in the context of local land use requirements; 

2. Protect cordgrass sites from erosion; and 

3. Improve nesting and foraging opportunities when habitat restoration or creation projects are 

undertaken. The Navy has participated as a partner in the light-footed clapper rail captive 

propagation program at the Sweetwater Marsh NWR (USFWS 2006). 

3.12.1.5.4 Management of Birds of Conservation Concern and Heron Nesting Trees 

The following species are special status birds that have received management attention in previous NEPA 

documents because of their occurrence in the action area. 

Heron Management 

The U.S. Navy has been managing herons at nesting sites on NASNI and NAB Coronado. At NASNI, 

colonies of great blue herons (Ardea herodias), black-crowned night herons, little blue herons (Egretta 

caerulea), and snowy egrets (Egretta thula) nest annually at a half dozen locations. Heron surveys of 

Naval Base Coronado, Naval Base Point Loma, and Naval Base San Diego were most recently conducted 

in 2008. . 

As part of the mitigation for the berthing of a Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier, the U.S. Navy committed to 

five-year monitoring of the heron populations on NAS North Island from 1996 to 2001, construction of 

Heron Park as an alternate nesting site to replace the main nesting site lost to construction associated with 

preparations for the carrier, and development of a heron management plan. The management plan is 

currently being developed. The U.S. Navy established "Heron Park" (NASNI) as a dedicated, protected 

safe nesting site. Ten new trees were planted interspersed with existing ones, and four platforms were 

erected as interim nesting structures while the new trees matured. This is a result of an EIS and ROD for 

locating the nuclear carrier (CVN I) in 1995 and addressed the removal of nesting trees (Torrey pines and 

eucalyptus). The attempt to attract herons to Heron Park has not yet been successful. The Navy is 

currently looking at ways to enhance the area through the Metro Heron Management Plan, which is in 

development by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 

California Brown Pelican Management 

No BO currently addresses incidental take of the California brown pelican because no impacts were 

anticipated during previous consultations. However, the California brown pelican benefits from the 

management of construction-related noise and turbidity addressed in the MOU on in-water construction. 

The MOU primarily addresses protection of California least terns, but also benefits the pelican because in 

subtidal habitats, turbidity plumes created during dredging in the upper water layers (to about 18 inches 

deep) are contained by silt curtains or otherwise mitigated. In addition, noise created during construction 

or maintenance activities such as pile driving is managed during periods when these species are foraging 

due to the potential effect of noise on fish forage (US DoN and USFWS 2004). 

In addition to these construction-related measures, the employment of pyrotechnics to frighten birds from 

the NASNI airfield (a BASH concern) are not used at any shoreline being utilized by California brown 

pelicans. A letter from the USFWS to the Navy Natural Resources Office Director (19 October 2001 

FWS-SDG-2321.1) authorizes the use of pyrotechnics at the NASNI airfield to discourage waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and seagulls from loafing or roosting around the airfield and the placement of a wire grid over 

ponded waters at the NASNI golf course. The letter concurred with the Navy’s position that these 

measures are not considered “take” of a federally listed species such as the brown pelican or least tern. 

Pyrotechnics remain prohibited adjacent to the MAT site, the western beach areas south of Zuniga Point, 

or the immediate shoreline areas of NASNI when these areas are used by federally listed species. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-49

Individuals responsible for using pyrotechnics must be able to identify California brown pelicans and 

least terns by sight. 

Burrowing Owl Management 

The western burrowing owl is a federal species of concern, USFWS bird of conservation concern, and 

CDFG species of special concern. Western burrowing owls are commonly observed on NASNI. The 

NASNI owls have been monitored by the Navy for many years (see Figure 3.11-4), and their numbers are 

known to be declining, as they have been in many coastal areas across the state. Surveys have been 

conducted since 1989, with numbers varying from about eight to 30 pairs (Garcia and Conway 2007; 

Table 3.12-7). Map 3.11-4 in the previous chapter indicates burrowing owl locations in 2005-2007 on 

NASNI. 

Table 3.12-7: NASNI Burrowing Owl Data. 

Year NASNI Burrowing Owl Estimate 

pairs nests 

1989 - 14 

1990 14 13 

1991 17 - 

1992 26 - 

1993 27 - 

1994 - - 

1995 - 28-31 

1996 - - 

1997 - - 

1998 - - 

1999 11.5 13 

2000 - - 

2001 - 8 

2002 6 12 

2003 6 8 

2004 4-8 14-16 

2005 4-7 10 

2006 4-7 (7 unpaired) 12 

NOTE: Blank cells indicate lack of available data 

As a result of impacts to burrowing owls during the 1995 construction of berthing for a new nuclear 

carrier (CVN I, MILCON P-700) a number of measures were implemented as documented in the EIS 

ROD and subsequent correspondence between USFWS and the U.S. Navy. Burrowing owls were 

relocated as necessary. All burrows within the eelgrass mitigation site, before it was excavated, west of 

Moffet Road were examined for occupancy by burrowing owls or California ground squirrels 

(Spermophilus beecheyi) prior to mitigation work. Burrowing owls were discouraged from using this area. 

Twenty-five artificial burrows were constructed in the open space south of Taxiway 9 and north of Rogers 

Road to provide an alternate site for owls to occupy. Burrowing owl management areas at NASNI were 

identified north of Rogers Road (Site C in the EIS; Figure 3.12-14). Activities and construction that 

negatively affect burrowing owls are prohibited within these areas. The area is excluded from future 

development and parking, unless discussion with the USFWS is reinitiated. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-50

Figure 3.12-14: Letter Designations for Burrowing Owl Management Areas on NASNI 

Other burrowing owl management areas (including sites E and F in the EIS) are historical nesting 

locations and are identified as set-aside areas where wildlife and their associated habitats are formally 

recognized as a land use priority. Due to potential conflicts with species protected under the ESA at sites 

E and F, no artificial burrows were constructed to assist or encourage owl nesting. Also, owls may be 

moved or discouraged from nesting in certain areas if they are determined to be preying on species 

protected under the ESA. Ground maintenance schedules for some areas may be altered to benefit nesting 

shorebirds and not owls, and ground squirrels may be controlled, if the control of rodents is determined to 

benefit federally listed species. 

In supporting the Coastal Consistency Determination on the Navy Lodge Expansion at NASNI (15 

December 2005), which addresses impacts to the Site C set-aside area from the construction of the 

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation cottages, the Navy committed to providing nest boxes in an area on the 

approach end of Runway 29 between golf course holes 16 and 17. While there has been no documented 

conflict between burrowing owls and the western snowy plover, the owl mitigation area (described above) 

was established where any potential conflict between plovers and terns would be minimized to the 

greatest extent possible. Owls are sometimes excluded from establishing a nest in areas of potential 

conflict. Since burrowing owls utilize burrows created by ground squirrels, these mammals are managed 

to benefit the owl where they are co-located, such as by controlling the use of rodenticides in the vicinity. 

A burrowing owl management plan is in progress by the University of Arizona (in draft as of November 

2009, and owl monitoring (including burrow marking) continues every year based on funding availability. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-51

Mowing in areas of potential burrowing owl habitat continues on a regular basis as occurred in the mid1990s so that vegetation never exceeds four inches. 

The following procedures are common to all burrowing owl management areas: 

• Small signs are placed next to each active burrow to identify the site as a nest and restrict any 

potentially harmful activities. 

• The use of rodenticides, insecticides, and pesticides is forbidden. The use of pesticides that may 

affect ground squirrels in burrowing owl habitat is explicitly restricted in the NBC INRMP. 

• Surveys are conducted during the breeding and nonbreeding seasons. Burrows are examined for 

condition and predation on sensitive species. Adults, and any relocated juveniles, are banded 

during breeding season surveys using USFWS leg bands. Winter surveys are conducted to 

measure productivity of each site. Artificial burrows have been installed in recent years. 

• Burrowing owls and their habitat are managed to encourage successful breeding and 

sustainability with the goal of supporting a minimum number of nesting pairs. 

• All active burrows are marked with standard markers to ensure that burrows are not destroyed by 

maintenance activities (e.g., mowing, pest management, and golf course maintenance). 

• Beneficial mowing continues each year to allow for the success of burrowing owl foraging. 

Mowing contracts include language to avoid burrow markers. 

• Ground squirrels are managed to benefit burrowing owls. Burrowing owls use burrows created by 

ground squirrels. Ground squirrel control is done in areas where the ground squirrels increase the 

BASH risk or negatively affect other essential operations. Golf Course management and 

maintenance personnel avoid using pesticides/herbicides and ground squirrels are not removed in 

areas that support burrowing owls. To sustain ground squirrel populations, no rodent control is 

conducted unless mandated by an outbreak of disease or the rodents are negatively impacting a 

listed species. Squirrel burrows are never filled, buried, or gassed without consulting the NBC 

Wildlife Biologist. 

• Areas that support burrowing owls as well as current nesting areas and/or nesting areas from the 

previous year are considered mitigation sites, excluding areas on the Golf Course north of 

Sherman Road. 

• Burrowing owls that are documented predators of the federally listed California least tern and 

western snowy plover are removed or managed in a manner that eliminates their impact on the 

listed birds (e.g. covered with a flight cage). 

American Peregrine Falcon Management 

Peregrine falcons are known predators of the chicks of California least terns. To date, the Navy has not 

received concurrence to add the peregrine falcon to the Predator Control Take Permit to trap and remove 

from nesting colonies. However, in cooperation with USFWS Refuges, the falcons are removed and 

relocated if necessary from Navy California least tern nesting sites, as described in the 2005 Training BO 

(FWS-SDG-3452.3 10 March 2005), under the USFWS take permit. 

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences 

This section presents the analysis of potential impacts to avian resources as a result of implementation of 

the project alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. There are 78 existing training activities 

included in the alternatives, including 11 that are new to the ROI under the action alternatives. 

Implementation of either of the action alternatives will result in an increase in the number of training 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-52

activities that are conducted. The primary difference between the action alternatives is a change in 

training lane access; such that all SSTC-N surfside beach training beaches would be available for use, 

regardless of time of year under Alternative 2, while available on a contingent basis under Alternative 1. 

Therefore, any impacts associated with Alternative 2, while being similar to those for Alternative 1, 

would be dispersed across a larger area due to reduced training area restrictions. 

The types of training activities that could affect birds include activities on land, water, and in the air. 

Waterbirds and shorebirds that regularly forage offshore or in the San Diego Bay could be affected by 

water activities while birds that primarily use the shoreline environment for nesting, feeding, or roosting 

could be affected by activities on land. Activities in the air could affect all bird species. Because birds are 

so widespread in the ROI, almost every training activity has the potential to affect them. 

Training activities in the alternatives were divided into component activities which occur in a defined 

manner and space and can therefore be assessed for their impact on the environment. Each of these 

activities may be found in common among multiple training activities, and the increase in training activity 

tempo between the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 was assessed for its associated 

increase to the activities contained within. The activities defined for this analysis are: air activities, marine 

vessel activities, underwater detonations, and amphibious and beach activities including: vehicle use, 

fluid transfer activities, foot traffic, pyrotechnics including simunitions and blanks, manual excavations, 

and activities in the inland area of SSTC-S. The activity descriptions below provide general information 

about how large a footprint on the beach or inland areas each activity normally requires. Also noted is the 

general location on the land where the activity takes place, which can determine how it could affect 

resources that are not evenly dispersed across the landscape. 

While the majority of the activities in the ROI have the potential to affect birds, several occur primarily 

indoors, or otherwise do not have much contact with avian species and are not analyzed in this document. 

These activities include Rappel and Fast Rope Training (Activity 35, see Table 2-1) that is conducted 

within the concrete fenced compound of NAB, portions of Breacher Training (Activity 31, see Table 2-1) 

which occur inside Bunker 99 and swimming activities, although any security vehicles that are part of 

swimming activities are still analyzed. 

Additionally, birds are known to sometimes consume plastic and other trash, or become entangled in it. 

The presence of trash is inevitably associated with human presence. Non-military trash and plastics will 

accumulate on training beaches through transport of these wastes by prevailing currents. Due to the 

controlled access of the public within the training areas and policing procedures of training areas, there 

will be less trash on SSTC than on neighboring beaches. While a slight but persistent effect from solid 

waste on birds is present, solid waste from military training activities is limited. Military training will not 

increase trash or plastics on the beach because trainees check the training areas for trash at the conclusion 

of each activity; this effect is not discussed further in this EIS. 

3.12.2.1 Approach to Analysis 

The activities that may affect avian resources are described below. Adverse effects to a federally listed 

species such as the California least tern and western snowy plover are discussed in terms of disturbance 

and potential lethal effects to individuals, and the impact of these effects on the overall population. These 

impacts, for each alternative, are discussed in Section 3.12.3, Federally Listed Species Impacts, at the 

conclusion of the alternatives discussion under Section 3.12.2, Environmental Consequences. 

The consequences of the proposed military readiness activities on non-federally listed migratory birds or 

on modification of their habitat are evaluated based on the criteria described in the final rule authorizing 

the DoD to take migratory birds during military readiness activities (50 CFR Part 21 28 February 2007). 

As mentioned previously (Section 3.12.1.5.1), military readiness activities are exempt from the take 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-53

prohibitions of the MBTA provided they do not result in a significant adverse effect on a population of a 

migratory bird species. An activity has a significant adverse effect if, over a reasonable period of time, it 

diminishes the capacity of a population of migratory bird species to maintain genetic diversity, to 

reproduce, and to function effectively in its native ecosystem. A population is defined as “a group of 

distinct, coexisting, same species, whose breeding site fidelity, migration routes, and wintering areas are 

temporally and spatially stable, sufficiently distinct geographically (at some point of the year), and 

adequately described so that the population can be effectively monitored to discern changes in its status.” 

For the purposes of this effects analysis, species population numbers are considered on the scale of San 

Diego Bay, of the SCB, or rangewide, within the ROI, as data is available (see Tables 3.12-4 and 3.12-5). 

Monitoring occurs at each of these scales (as described in the MBTA above; Section 3.12.1.5.1); 

however, the proportion of each population using the ROI varies widely by species. The criteria are 

considered in the context of whether any consequence of the activities affects sufficient numbers of 

individuals compared to the population as a whole (at all three scales), or sufficient habitat degradation or 

loss occurs, such that the activity “diminishes the capacity of a migratory bird species to maintain genetic 

diversity, to reproduce, and to function effectively in its native ecosystem.” 

A total of 210 distinct species covered by the MBTA are found within the ROI (species were recorded in 

recent Navy-Port bird surveys of San Diego Bay). Some of these species are also federally listed and/or 

state listed as threatened or endangered (see Table 3.12-3). Sixty are assigned a special status by resource 

agencies or organizations that monitor the condition and trend of bird populations (see Table 3.12-3). 

In each case, the area the individual activity encompasses and the value and type of habitat known to 

occur within the specific footprint are considered. Consequences to habitat are considered by whether 

they are substantial compared to habitat availability or scarcity, and whether the impacted bird species has 

a special sensitivity status as recognized by resource agencies. An effect is also evaluated as to the 

intensity, duration, or frequency of the activity such that the species may not return to its former 

abundance levels, or the loss of habitat or habitat value (based on disturbance) is considered permanent 

compared to background variation in these conditions. This is because most birds are very susceptible to 

human disturbance. Lights, noise, boats, the presence of people, free-running pets and feral animals may 

determine levels of bird use more than the biological suitability of the habitat. Abundance data from 

Tables 3.12-4 and 3.12-5 are used to support this assessment. Loss of habitat for those species that have a 

proportionally high dependency on the ROI’s natural resources is also considered adverse, even if the 

species is not assigned a special status. Examples are black brant, bufflehead, surf scoters, scaup, and 

ducks (see Tables 3.12-4 and 3.12-5). Habitat loss could be roosting, foraging, or breeding habitat. 

However, in every case of adverse effect, the criteria are not met unless such adverse consequences 

impact a population rather than individual birds. 

Whereas some baseline data exist for the relative abundance of waterbirds, seabirds, and shorebirds in 

both San Diego Bay and nearshore ocean waters (Tierra Data Inc. 2008), estimates for the absolute 

abundance of birds are few and usually site-specific, as well as insufficient for detecting abundance 

trends. Therefore, effects on birds are expressed in relative terms. 

The single species that is state listed and not federally listed, the Belding’s savannah sparrow, depends in 

large measure on pickleweed salt marsh, and these areas remain protected under all alternatives. 

Therefore, it is not considered further. Also, species that are assigned a special status but for which the 

ROI is of low importance compared to its distribution, range, or habitat preference, are not analyzed 

further. This includes all special status raptors (northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and Cooper’s hawk). 

All alternatives avoid effects in habitat protection areas such as the 40-acre lease to State Parks, the 

Biological Study Area under license to County Parks, and the Delta Beach North and Delta Beach South 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-54

training areas during the least tern and snowy plover nesting season. Also, training activity does not take 

place in mudflats or salt marshes because they are either in out-lease areas or they are not conducive to 

training. 

3.12.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative maintains the baseline level and types of training. Environmental management 

measures are unchanged. It should be noted that while the current management system of beach lanes was 

developed for protecting the California least tern and western snowy plover from training activities during 

the nesting season, it carries ancillary benefit to other bird species. 

3.12.2.2.1 Air Activity 

Air activities consist of helicopter flights as well as Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) takeoffs, landings, 

and activity practice. Under the No Action Alternative, there are 11 activities that involve aircraft training 

(Activities 4, 6, 7, 16, 25, 26, 29, 30, 35, 64 and 66, see Table 2-1). Many of the training activities that 

utilize helicopters do so over the open ocean environment; the helicopters are used for transport and 

dropping individuals off into the water, where they will either swim to shore or perform activities in the 

water. Helicopters may also drop individuals into the bayside drop zone. Helicopter landings are only 

proposed to occur during three types of activities and only at SSTC-S where they may land or hover over 

inland areas of SSTC-S to drop off or pick up personnel. Helicopter hovering over land typically occurs 

over SSTC-S. 

Kushlan (1979) compared short-term responses in wading birds (mainly Ardeids) upon exposure to a 

propeller-driven fixed-wing aircraft and a Bell 47G-2 helicopter. Only two colonies were studied. 

Although the data presented were insufficient to determine the degree to which different species were 

disturbed by the helicopter, the helicopter caused fewer disturbances than the fixed-wing aircraft. In all 

cases, birds that were disturbed and left their nests returned within five minutes. Possible previous 

experience of these birds with helicopters is not mentioned, nor the frequency, altitude, or duration of the 

flights. 

When occurring on the naturally disturbed (due to wave and wind action) beach environment, effects of 

landing and takeoff are temporary, short-duration, and minor. They are limited to sand blow and flushing 

of mobile birds that may be at the landing area. The habitat area available for fleeing, seeking refuge, or 

hiding is generally large in comparison to the footprint of the helicopter activity. SSTC-N is under 

training lane management during the avian breeding season, so lasting impacts to breeding birds are 

minimized. In the inland area of SSTC-S, birds could be startled and run or fly off. As pointed out by 

various researchers (for example, Bowles et al. 1991, U.S. Department of Interior [USDI] 1994), stress is 

not necessarily indicative of negative consequences to individual life histories or to populations. 

Researchers have documented a wide range of physiological and behavioral response with much 

variation, and anecdotal information about one animal’s response is not useful for drawing conclusions 

about that or other species. Overflights can induce physiological response in animals, such as increased 

heart rates, but whether or not such responses cause harm is unknown. Effects may be synergistic, as 

when combined with natural events such as harsh winters or water shortages (USDI 1994). The 

behavioral and physiological response of birds in the vicinity of overflights is also considered short-term 

and without lasting impact; however it is considered a moderate effect due to the fact that special status 

birds may be present during vulnerable life stages. This effect would be strongest for land birds at SSTCS where helicopter activity is more frequent. 

The effect of UAS activities would not be as much of a disturbance as helicopters. Migratory birds, 

including potentially nesting passerines at SSTC-S and the western snowy plover on the SSTC-S beach, 

may be disturbed by the presence of UASs overhead or the presence of a pilot on the ground. To test this, 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-55

UAS activities were observed at SSTC-S on May 5, 2006 by USFWS permitted biologists to record 

western snowy plover response and that of other avian species in the area. One smaller UAS flew over the 

inland area of SSTC-S only, and no reactions from any bird species were observed. A larger UAS flight at 

SSTC-S did circle over a plover nest. The flight continued with the UAS flying back and forth over the 

beach at varying altitudes, frequently flying directly over the plover nest. The plover continued incubating 

throughout the test including when the UAS came in to land back at inland SSTC-S. The plover did not 

appear at any time to respond to the presence of the UAS. Approximately 45 sanderlings were foraging or 

roosting on the beach in front of the plover nest and the beach gate and were visible from our observation 

point, as were 10 willets. These birds all showed no alteration in their behaviors in response to the UAS. 

A C17 crossed over the site and no change in behavior was observed in either the plover or the other 

shorebirds. A Cessna high-wing crossed over the site and the plover crouched slightly in response to this 

plane, apparently reacting to the noise and speed of the plane. Neither the foraging nor roosting 

sanderlings showed any evident response to the UAS. Gull-billed terns were present throughout the 

observation period, foraging along the beach and in the dunes with a minimum of 12 visible at one time. 

They moved constantly back and forth across SSTC-S between the ocean and San Diego Bay. No 

alteration in behavior was observed in the gull-billed terns in response to either UAS. 

Any effect of air activities are considered negligible to moderate, short term, and an effect on individuals 

of each migratory bird species rather than to any population. 

3.12.2.2.2 Marine Vessels 

Marine vessel use in the ROI consists of small craft, power-driven surface craft, and water jet-driven 

craft. Small craft, usually under oar, are used by trainees to navigate in San Diego Bay and ocean waters, 

as well as for transportation to shore for training activities. Interactions between personnel/craft and birds, 

which are anticipated to be rare, such as swimming or activities that utilize only non-motorized Combat 

Raiding Rubber Crafts, are excluded from the action analysis. This is because potential interactions 

would be minimal to nonexistent due to the large area of available habitat, the small footprint of a 

swimmer or CRRC, and opportunity for birds to avoid these marine activities with minimal energy 

expenditure because of their slower speed (swimmers and craft under oar). Under the No Action 

Alternative, marine vessels both power-driven and under oar are utilized in 54 of the 78 training activities 

(Activities 1-6, 8-16, 18, 20-26, 27-35, 37-46, 48, 49, 51-55, 60, 71, 73, 77, and 78, see Table 2-1). The 

effects of Elevated Causeway (ELCAS) activities on the shore environment are covered under 

Amphibious Actions in Section 3.12.2.2.4. The total number of vessels varies per activity, but multiplying 

the number of vessels by the number of events in which they are used, and summing over all the 

activities, results in approximately 11,500 vessel use events per year in the No Action Alternative (see 

Appendix C). Assuming use every day of the year equals 32 vessels using the ROI per day in varying 

activities. Power-driven surface craft are used for a variety of purposes in the ROI. They are used in 

entirely water-based activities, where trainees practice navigation, mock boat attacks, and boarding drills. 

These craft are also used to transport people or equipment to shore for raids or activities, as safety support 

for swimmers during physical fitness training, and to transport marine mammals for training. Under the 

No Action Alternative, training activities involve propeller and jet driven surface craft of various size and 

speeds. Activities occur in both San Diego Bay and oceanside training lanes, including landing on 

beaches to varying degrees. The number and types of boats that beach is discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.1, 

(Marine Vessel Actions). 

An especially large marine vessel, the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC), is used during four training 

events per year (Activity 27, see Table 2-1). They are scheduled to occur on any oceanside beach training 

area including lanes 1-14 and the Breakers Beach area of NASNI. An LCAC is a large, propeller-driven 

craft that uses fans to hover above the water. Its footprint includes its physical structure plus the area 

surrounding it, which is affected by the strong winds it produces. An LCAC beaches up near the crest of 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-56

the beach. It also indirectly affects birds by disturbing foraging resources such as invertebrates in the 

sand or in the wrack line. 

Waterfowl sensitized to boating disturbance will often flush (take flight suddenly) when a boat motor 

approaches within 0.6 mile or more (Kahl 1991). There is evidence that birds using an area for stopover 

resting and replenishment during migration are more vulnerable and susceptible to disturbance effects 

(Figley and Vandruff 1982). Migrating birds do not accustom themselves to boat movements as resident 

birds do (Figley and Vandruff 1982). Effects on foraging birds attempting to build energy reserves before 

continuing their migration can be significant enough at a physiologically vulnerable time to affect their 

productivity. A high level of disturbance can decrease the carrying capacity of an area to these birds 

(Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992). Disturbance by human activity can cause displacement, excess energy 

expenditure, disruption of feeding and nesting or roosting, and exposure of special status bird species to 

predation. 

In the waters of the SSTC and for elsewhere, few data are available to quantify the effect of boat traffic 

on birds. Furthermore, it is rarely possible to separate the relative importance of population fluctuation in 

the ROI due to an array of disturbance factor such as: 

• Loss, fragmentation, and degradation of salt marsh, sandy beaches, mudflats, and upland 

transition habitats. 

• New introductions of native species not previously observed in the ROI due to expanded ranges, 

perhaps due to problems elsewhere. This has occurred with the black skimmer, elegant tern, and 

gull-billed tern. 

• Community level changes, such as the invasion of crows, as a result of continuing urbanization. 

• Loss of breeding grounds outside the ROI. 

• Effects from bioaccumulation. The brown pelican, peregrine falcon, and double-crested 

cormorant are all recovering from past effects of contaminant bioaccumulation, a process by 

which toxins build up in an organism over time because the substances are very slowly 

metabolized or excreted. Bonaparte’s gulls may be susceptible due to their proclivity for sewage 

outfalls. Birds migrating from southern latitudes may be more susceptible to this problem. 

• Over-harvesting of prey. Commercial fishing operations often crop 50 to 70 percent of fish 

production so that little is left for natural predators such as seabirds (Furness and Ainley 1984, 

cited in Baird 1993). While such harvesting does not occur in San Diego Bay itself, fishing 

offshore can affect forage fish abundance for fish that migrate into San Diego Bay or the San 

Diego Bay during their juvenile life stages. 

• Climatic cycles or change. 

Cywinski (2004) summarized the effects of motorized watercraft on waterfowl from the literature. When 

approached by powerboats or jet skis, waterfowl generally take flight, though the distance flushed and the 

amount of time spent in flight varies. Flushing can reduce feeding time, deplete energy resources, cause 

avoidance of prime feeding sites and decrease reproductive success. Boats also enable humans to enter 

remote areas such as small islands and wetlands that are essential foraging and breeding sites for 

waterfowl. Flushing increases the energy expenditure of waterfowl, which can be detrimental for 

migration and reproduction. The energy cost of flight is high, 12 times the basic metabolic rate of 

waterfowl (Ward and Andrews 1993). Therefore, waterfowl must increase their food intake to make up 

for the lost energy, which can be difficult when food supplies are limited (Ward and Andrews 1993). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-57

Cywinski (2004) also compared watercraft types in relation to disturbance of birds. Personal watercraft 

have the ability to operate at high speed in shallow areas, such as wetlands and near shorelines, where 

waterfowl feed and breed. They produce a large vertical and horizontal spray due to their deep-V hull 

(Rodgers and Schwikert 2002). Rodgers and Schwikert (2002) studied 23 species of waterfowl on the east 

and west coasts of Florida and observed that the great blue heron flushed farther when approached by 

personal watercraft than by boat, while little blue heron, willet, and osprey exhibited larger flush distances 

in response to the outboard powered boat (Rodgers and Schwikert 2002). A study by Havera et al. (1992) 

showed waterfowl took flight in response to hunting and fishing craft, while few flushed because of 

barges. Korschgen et al. (1985) found that birds were more sensitive to boats with outboard motors. In a 

study of management options to reduce boat disturbance on the foraging seabird black guillemots 

(Cepphus grylle) in Canada (Ronconi and St. Clair 2002), it was found that smaller boats had more 

tendency to flush than medium ones. The black guillemot is considered particularly sensitive to flushing 

because it forages close to its breeding colony. 

Because of shallow, relatively calm water bayside and the proximity of shoreline habitats, as well as the 

absence of a dredged boat channel, shorebirds and waterbirds are relatively abundant in these training 

areas (see Figures 3.12-1 and 3.12-2). This abundance is concentrated in the period between late fall and 

early spring due to use of these areas by Pacific Flyway migratory birds. Water jet driven craft under the 

No Action Alternative do not precluded use of the area, but are likely to have some non-measurable effect 

on waterbird and shorebird energy expenditure. Because of the size of San Diego Bay compared to boat 

traffic patterns and the adjacency of the South San Diego Bay NWR for birds to take refuge, any 

temporarily displaced birds have ample opportunity to land elsewhere. Overall, the use of small boats is 

lower in the training lanes compared to areas of north San Diego Bay and south San Diego Bay (U.S. 

Navy 2000).. 

Actual vessel use is not evenly distributed in the water nor seasonally through the year; neither is bird use. 

Some of this partitioning results in a reduced potential for impacts on birds. For instance, marine vessels 

tend to avoid mudflats and adjacent marshes because these areas are shallow, liable to entrap their vessels, 

and generally difficult to beach in. These are locations of concentrated bird activity because they are 

food-rich; thus much of the potential for vessel-bird interaction is avoided. In contrast, marinas and docks 

tend to be avoided by birds while vessel activity is concentrated there. Avian survey data show, for 

example, relatively low waterbird and shorebird densities at Coronado Cays and other marinas (see 

Figures 3.12-1 and 3.12-2; Tierra Data Inc. 2008). 

Flushing of birds is expected to be greatest with jet-driven, fast-moving, agile vessels, like jet skis. Most 

of the vessels used during training are large and slow moving. While much of the potential interaction 

between birds and marine vessels is naturally avoided by use preferences as described above, there may 

be an effect during the winter period when avian use of the SSTC waters is concentrated and the migrants 

are more vulnerable because of their need to rest. Due to a large area of available habitat in proportion to 

the area of interface between vessels and birds, this effect is considered short-term. While such flushing 

or other effects of marine vessels on individual birds may occur, none of these temporary effects are 

expected to have an adverse effect on migratory birds at the population level, as the temporarily displaced 

birds have ample space to land elsewhere. 

3.12.2.2.3 Underwater Detonations 

Underwater detonations that take place under the No Action Alternative are detailed in Section 3.7.2.2.2 

of Marine Biological Resource (see Table 3.8-11). All detonations would occur in the oceanside training 

lanes within designated boat lanes 1 to 14. Detonations would occur in water ranging in depth from 6 to 

72 feet, depending on the activity. Concern about potential animal mortality associated with the use of 

underwater explosives led military researchers to develop mathematical and computer models that predict 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-58

safe ranges for birds and other animals from explosions of various sizes (e.g. Yelverton et al. 1973; 

Goertner 1994). A concern in the SSTC ROI is for diving waterbirds, since they can spend several 

minutes under water. Examples are grebes that winter along the coast line and may spend six minutes 

under water, or loons that can dive to depths of 75 meters for periods up to eight minutes at a time to 

forage for fish (Gill 1995). 

Seabirds transiting through the area or performing brief diving behaviors may be affected by a short-term, 

transitory alarm or startle response while in the area. Shorebirds scavenge the shoreline primarily by 

wading, so they would not be directly exposed to the blast unless in flight. 

The rapid rise time of the shock wave resulting from detonation of high explosives causes most of the 

tissue and organ damage in avian species. Mortality correlates better with impulse, measured in units of 

pressure-time, than with other blast parameters (Yelverton 1981). Injury or mortality to waterbirds due to 

underwater detonation occurs in a non-linear fashion with distance from the blast, and is complicated by 

bottom substrate, the position of the animal in relation to the blast, and the weight of the charge. Birds 

diving at depth would receive a larger impulse than at the surface of the water. A bird diving over a hard 

surface would receive a greater impulse than it would in open water (Yelverton et al. 1973, Yelverton 

1981). Bottom reflection can also be enhanced if it is focused by bottom terrain. Yelverton et al. (1973) 

conducted tests to determine the far-field underwater blast effects on birds, using a test pond facility and 

explosive charges weighing up to eight pounds and detonated at ten feet of depth. Ducks were tested on 

the water surface and at two-foot depths. Underwater blast criteria were developed which correspond to 

safe and damaging impulse levels for birds along with curves relating the impulse criteria as a function of 

range and charge weight. 

Table 3.12-8 presents the mortality data for rouen and mallard ducks tested at two-foot depths at ranges 

between 23 and 36 feet. Some survived at 31 and 33 feet. A probit analysis was run on the data relating 

mortality in probit units to the log impulse measured at two-foot depths. The equation below gives the 

probit mortality curve with its 95 percent confidence limits: 

Y = -37.516 / 25.767 log10X 

where Y is the percent mortality in probit units, X is the impulse in psi-ms (pound per square inchesmilliseconds), and –37.516 and 25.767 are the intercept and slope constants, respectively. The impulse 

associated with the 95 percent confidence limits for 1 percent mortality (Lethal Dose [LD]1) was 36.3 

(28.0 to 39.1) psi-ms and the LD50 (50 percent mortality) was 44.7 (42.8 to 47.8) psi-ms. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-59

Table 3.12-2: Explosive Exposures and Mortality of Ducks 

Mortality for Ducks at 2-foot Depths 

Slant Range, feet. 

Peak Pressure, psi 

(Impulse, psi-ms) 

[Cut-Off Time, ms] 

Mortality 

r/na Percent 

23 

558 

(70.9) 

[0.361] 

3/3 100 

27 

455 

(55.3) 

[0.314] 

3/3 100 

28 

441 

(51.7) 

[0.293] 

3/3 100 

31 

402 

(46.1) 

[0.277] 

6/9 67 

31-32 

396 

(43.3) 

[0.261] 

3/12 25 

33 

363 

(39.9) 

[0.252] 

2/12 17 

36 

333 

(35.6) 

[0.236] 

0/0 0 

a r/n = the number killed over the number tested. All charges were 1 pound. 

Source: Yelverton 1981

Table 3.12-9 presents mortality data for ducks exposed at the water surface. Death occurred at slant 

ranges of 13 and 14 feet from the 8-pound charges but not at 15 to 21 feet. The impulses at 13 and 14 feet 

were on the order of 129, 148, and 173 psi-ms. That high impulse levels were necessary to kill ducks on 

the surface probably was due to the fact that the birds were partly out of the water. Since the lungs of the 

birds were located dorsally along the vertebrae, these target organs were mostly above the water line. All 

of the ducks that died from the blast two feet underwater primarily had extensive pulmonary hemorrhage, 

ruptured livers, and ruptured kidneys. The ducks placed on the water surface had similar injuries except 

for the lack of kidney damage. Eardrum rupture was also evident. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-60

Table 3.12-3: Mortality and Injuries for Ducks on the Water Surface 

Charge 

Weight, 

pounds 

Range, feet 

Slant/Horizontal 

Peak 

Pressure, 

psi 

Impulse, 

psi-ms 

CutOff 

Time, 

ms 

Effect Lung 

Hemorrhage 

Air 

Sacs 

Liver 

Rupture

8.0 13.0/8.6 2484 172 0.095 Deatha Extensive Ruptured Extensive 

8.0 14.0/10.0 2007 148 0.093 Deatha Extensive Ruptured Extensive 

8.0 13.0/8.6 2335 148 0.079 Survived Slight Intact Extensive 

8.0 14.0/10.0 2152 129 0.074 Death Extensive Ruptured Extensive 

8.0 15.0/11.4 1995 114 0.069 Survived Extensive Ruptured Extensive 

8.0 15.0/11.4 1753 100 0.073 Surviveda Extensive Ruptured Extensive 

8.0 17.0/14.0 1813 95 0.064 Surviveda Slight Ruptured Slight 

1.0 9.8/1.0 1495 94 0.105 Survived Extensive Ruptured Extensive 

1.0 10.0/2.3 1454 90 0.103 Survived Extensive Intact Extensive 

1.0 11.0/5.1 1309 77 0.094 Survived Extensive Intact Slight 

8.0 19.0/16.3 1383 77 0.067 Surviveda Slight Intact Slight 

1.0 12.0/7.0 1189 67 0.086 Survived Slight Intact Slight 

1.0 14.8/11.2 931 46 0.09 Survived Slight Intact Slight 

8.0 21.0/18.6 1153 42 0.047 Surviveda None Intact Slight 

1.0 17.9/15.0 762 34 0.058 Survived None Intact None a

 Mallard ducks, the others were Rouens. 

Blast parameters measured at 0.25-feet depths. 

Source: Yelverton 1981 

For birds diving under the water, the 1 percent mortality threshold (LD1) was 36 psi-ms (Table 3.12-10). 

Most of the birds that survive this impulse level would appear unhurt, but in fact sustained moderatelysevere internal injuries from which they could recover on their own. At higher impulses, the mortality rate 

climbs sharply as does the severity of injury. At impulses below the LD1 range, the severity and incidence 

of blast injuries is expected to rapidly decrease. At 20 psi-ms, there would be slight lung injury in half the 

cases and about a 50 percent probability of eardrum rupture. An impulse of 10 psi-ms resulted in little or 

no injury, and no eardrum rupture. A no-effect or safe impulse was 6 psi-ms. 

Table 3.12-4: Underwater-Blast Criteria for Birds Diving Beneath the Water Surface 

Impulse 

(psi-ms) Criteria 

45 50 percent mortality. Survivors seriously injured and might not survive on their own. 

36 Mortality threshold (LD1). Most survivors; moderate blast injuries and should survive on their own. 

20 No mortality. Slight blast injuries and a low probability of eardrum rupture. 

10 Low probability of trivial lung injuries and no eardrum rupture. 

5 Safe level. No injuries. 

Source: Yelverton 1981 

Birds on the surface were relatively unaffected by underwater explosions because the location of their 

vulnerable organs puts them at least partially above the water line. Consequently, separate criteria are 

used (Table 3.12-11), considering impulses occurring at a three-inch depth. The mortality threshold was 

on the order of 100 to 120 psi-ms. A safe impulse for birds on the water surface was taken to be 30 psims. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-61

Table 3.12-5: Underwater-Blast Criteria for Birds Diving on the Water Surface 

Impulse, 

(psi-ms) Criteria 

130-150 50 percent mortality. Survivors seriously injured and might not survive on their own. 

100-120 Mortality threshold (LD1). Most survivors; moderate blast injuries and should survive on their own. 

40-60 No mortality. Slight blast injuries. 

30 Safe level. No injuries. 

Source: Yelverton 1981 

According to Yelverton (1973), the safe impulse distance for birds, for all practical purposes, can be the 

same as that for diving mammals. That is, birds must be closer to the blast to sustain injury. Without a 

means to avoid blast impacts to diving birds, there is a potential for mortality due to injuries from these 

detonations. Transiting seabirds or those resting on the water may be startled and also experience 

concussive injury, although they do not spend as much time under water as waterbirds, or species such as 

cormorants. 

The Navy has conducted empirical tests and modeling to determine appropriate safety buffers for 

underwater detonations (Section 3.9.2.4.2). Model results show that 31 psi-ms (which is more 

conservative than the 36 psi-ms underwater bird mortality threshold) translates into a maximum safety 

buffer radius of 240 feet (largest detonation and most extreme environmental conditions) in shallow 

water. With these modeled results, underwater detonation protective measures were developed to 

establish a safety buffer zone around each detonation point (Section 3.9.2.8.1) that is protective of marine 

mammals, sea turtles and birds. The buffer is 1,300 feet for detonations occurring in zero to four fathoms 

of water and 1,410 feet for detonations in four to 12 fathoms of water. Safety buffer zones were 

established based on marine mammal thresholds, but are also protective of birds. Two observers with 

binoculars and small craft survey the detonation area and safety buffer zone for birds. If flocks of birds or 

diving birds are sighted within the buffer zone or moving towards it, activities are suspended until the 

birds voluntarily leave the area. Immediately following the detonation, visual monitoring for birds within 

the buffer zone takes place for 30 minutes. Observations are made for animals with signs of injury; 

injured animals are reported to the NRSW Environmental Director and the Pacific Fleet (PACFLT) 

Environmental Office. The radius of the area searched is guided by that necessary for marine mammals 

and sea turtles; this is sufficient for diving birds. In this way potential effects to birds are minimized. 

With these protective measures and distances, potential injury and mortality to birds due to underwater 

detonations are minimized. There remains the possibility of occasional injury or mortality for individual 

birds or bird flocks that are missed by the observer or enter the area after the time visual scanning is 

complete but before the detonation takes place. If trivial injury were to occur, these adverse effects would 

be to individual birds and not at the level that a population of migratory birds would be affected. 

3.12.2.2.4 Amphibious and Beach Activities 

Training activities encompassed in this section include amphibious beach activities. Amphibious 

activities include the use of amphibious vehicles (Amphibious Assault Vehicle [AAV] / Expeditionary 

Fighting Vehicle [EFVs], and Lighter, Amphibious, Resupply, Cargo 5-ton [LARC Vs]) and 

causeway/ELCAS training. Beach activities included in this analysis are fluid transfer activities, vehicle 

use, foot traffic, pyrotechnics including simunitions and blanks, and manual excavations. Training 

activities include the use of training areas within both San Diego Bay and the nearshore ocean 

environment. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-62

Amphibious Activities 

Amphibious activities include amphibious vehicles such as AAV/EFVs, LCAC, and LARC Vs as well as 

impacts from floating causeway and ELCAS activities. It also includes amphibious offloading of 

equipment (Activity 49, see Table 2-1). Also included is pile driving associated with ELCAS (Activity 

42, see Table 2-1). Finally, these activities sometimes involve the use of bulldozers on the beach for 

floating pier assemblage, excavating for Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction, Landing Craft Utility 

(LCU) / Landing Craft Mechanized (LCM) Beaching, LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed, or for insertion 

of the elevated causeway (Activities 41, 42, 45, and 46, see Table 2-1). 

The LCAC approaches the sandy beach and disperses much in its path through wind and direct impact. 

The safety zone for humans around an LCAC is a 50-yard radius. Sand can be blown 10 to 20 yards at 

high velocity from around the bottom of the air cushion skirt. 

Other amphibious vehicles in the ROI include AAV/EFVs and LARCs and are covered under Beach 

Activities/Vehicle Use below, because their impact is similar to large terrestrial rather than amphibious 

vehicles. ELCAS and Causeway beaching and associated activities involve accessing beach areas through 

the surf zone using floating and land-based heavy equipment. Construction of floating causeways and 

ELCAS requires movement of sand and heavy equipment to level the sand where the causeway is planned 

for construction and prepare it for pile driving and/or anchoring. ELCASs are installed on piles driven 

into the bottom. The floating causeway is inserted into a notch excavated on the beach and offshore 

sections remain floating. ELCAS and Causeway activities occur primarily on SSTC-N oceanside boat and 

beach lanes, and in the bayside Bravo Beach training lane. These training activities could occur on the 

SSTC-N oceanside training lanes as well as in the designated training lane within Bravo Beach during 

three separate training activities (41, 42 and 49, see Table 2-1) annually under the No Action Alternative, 

for a total of 12 training events. 

Potential effects on birds due to amphibious activities include flushing on the water and on the beach of 

individuals or flocks of birds, and short-term and temporary disruption of foraging or roosting activity. 

Habitat for foraging or roosting may be temporarily unavailable due to occupation of the amphibious 

landing area and associated activities on the nearby beach. The footprint are typically small (the vehicle 

itself plus a small buffer) or but on some infrequent activities could occupy a large portion of one or two 

trainings. Many of the amphibious activities do not impact nesting birds, since nesting birds are typically 

well above the high tide line (covered below under Beach Activities) and many amphibious activities stay 

below the high tide line. 

Birds are less common in the surf of the oceanside beaches, whereas shorebirds may roost and forage in 

the tidal zone or in the beach wrack. Because of shallow, relatively calm water bayside and the proximity 

of shoreline habitats, as well as the absence of a dredged boat channel, shorebirds and waterbirds are 

relatively abundant on the bay shores (see Figures 3.12-1 and 3.12-2). Their abundance is concentrated in 

the period between late fall and early spring due to use of these areas by Pacific Flyway migratory birds, 

and in shallow waters near mudflats or marshes, or over eelgrass. Since amphibious activity is 

concentrated on the sandy beach, this partitioning along reduces the potential for impacts to birds. 

The amphibious activities may have some non-measurable effect on waterbird and shorebird energy 

expenditure. Some birds may flush and thus avoid direct contact with the amphibious operations, since 

there is abundant habitat adjacent to where the activity takes place. Because of the size of San Diego Bay 

and the oceanside amphibious zone compared to amphibious traffic patterns and the adjacency of nearby 

habitat for birds to escape to, any temporarily displaced birds have ample opportunity to settle elsewhere. 

Flushing of birds is expected to be greatest with fast-moving amphibious landings, which are rare in 

SSTC training. While much of the potential interaction between birds and marine vessels is naturally 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-63

avoided by use preferences as described above, there remains an effect that is likely concentrated during 

the winter period when avian use of the SSTC waters is concentrated and the migrants are more 

vulnerable because of their need to rest and replenish their food energy supply. Due to a large area of 

available habitat in proportion to the area of interface between vessels and birds, this effect is considered 

short-term. While such flushing or other effects of amphibious activity on individual birds may occur, 

none of these effects are long-lasting, and none are expected to have an adverse effect on migratory birds 

at the population level. 

Beach Activities 

Beach activities take place on the training beaches above the low tide. They may take place on both the 

soft and hard pack sand. As discussed below, different activities could have different levels of impact on 

the beach areas utilized by birds. Due to the limited locations where personnel and vehicles can enter onto 

the beach and extra time required to transit along the beach, training with heavy foot traffic and/or vehicle 

usage is often selectively scheduled on certain beach lanes, which also traditionally have low nesting 

densities. 

Fluid Transfer 

Fluid transfer training events involve two activities (1) the simulation of fueling transfers utilizing 

seawater and (2) the intake of seawater for desalination and the discharge of hypersaline brine back into 

San Diego Bay. Fluid transfer activities consist of transferring salt water to simulate fuel transfer, under 

the activity Offshore Petroleum Discharge System, Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System, and 

bringing saltwater ashore for desalinization, under the activity reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 

(Activities 38, 39, and 50, see Table 2-1) and are described in detail in Section 3.7.2.2.3 of Marine 

Biological Resources. Components of these activities that may be located above the high tide line include 

Beach Party Teams and Safety and Logistical Vehicles. These activities are analyzed in Section 

3.12.2.2.4. The in-water portion of fluid transfer includes the hose and associated vessels. These activities 

could impact a few foraging individual migratory birds or flocks by the presence of equipment and human 

activity that disrupts their foraging or roosting behavior. Birds could flush and move to adjacent habitat, 

with the area of activity becoming temporarily unavailable as for their use. However, this effect would be 

at the individual level and not the overall population level. 

Vehicle Use 

Vehicle use on the beach during amphibious activities under the No Action Alternative consists of safety 

and logistical vehicles, bulldozers, four-wheel drive vehicle training, and amphibious vehicles on the 

shore, including AAV/EFVs and LARCs. Bulldozers are used to grade the beach, excavate sand, recreate 

hummocks, and push beached vessels that are stuck back into the water. Cranes are used to move 

equipment and boxes around. During equipment offloading, all types of equipment including LARCs can 

be offloaded, set up and operated on the beach. Beach party activities use vehicles for beach preparation, 

vessel rescue if one becomes breached, to deliver equipment, and to dig ravines or trenches using 

backhoes or bulldozers. Vehicle use is common to most of the activities that occur on SSTC; even 

activities that do not otherwise access the shore require on-shore vehicles monitoring for safety and 

logistical reasons. 

As detailed in Appendix C, safety and logistical vehicles are utilized in the vast majority of training 

activities under the No Action Alternative. This activity consists of vehicles driving or sitting stationary 

on the beach from the best vantage point for the activity, and out of the way of other beach activities. If 

they are observing or supporting offshore activities they typically transit near the high tide line or on the 

hard pack sand between the crest and high tide line. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-64

Equipment offloading occurs during two training activities, Maritime Prepositioning Ship Offload and 

Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility (Activities 49 and 51, see Table 2-1). While only occurring two times 

per year under the No Action Alternative, this activity could take up a large area on the beach. Materials, 

equipment, and vehicles are unloaded from barge ferry sections onto the beach, and this activity always 

takes place on the SSTC-N beach lanes. The activity footprint includes the area used to store items on the 

beach. Depending on the amount of equipment to be offloaded, this staging and maneuvering area has the 

potential to impact an entire beach lane. 

Bulldozers are also used on the beach to grade the beach, excavate sand, recreate hummocks, and push 

beached vessels that are stuck back into the water. They are used in 12 training activities in the ROI 

(Activities 25, 38, 39, 41-43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, and 52, see Table 2-1). Between one and two bulldozers 

are used typically for each activity that requires bulldozers for a total of 198 training events under the No 

Action Alternative. 

Vehicle patrolling occurs approximately six times per year under the No Action Alternative for LARC V 

Operator Training (Activity 53, see Table 2-1). In this activity, operators learn to drive this amphibious 

vehicle on and offshore. 

Potential effects on birds due to vehicle and heavy equipment use include short-term and temporary 

disruption of foraging, roosting, or nesting for both common and special status species. Habitat for 

foraging, roosting, or nesting may be temporarily unavailable due to occupation of the amphibious 

landing area and associated activities on the beach that could occupy a large footprint. Vehicle and 

heavy equipment use on the beach may result in substrate compaction and topographic modification of 

the beach surface. Much of this activity occurs below the high tide line and topography changes are 

typically reversed after the tide comes in. Continued use of the beach is likely to control vegetation, 

which may benefit some special status species, such as western snowy plover and California least terns. 

Vehicle noise can interfere with animal communication essential for reproduction. However, this noise is 

not likely to be much louder than the continuous noise of the surf, and people on foot may cause stronger 

behavioral reactions than people in vehicles (Larkin 1996). 

Birds are less common on the sandy beaches compared to muddy or vegetated shores. Since amphibious 

activity is concentrated on the sandy beach, this partitioning along reduces the potential for impacts to 

birds. Nesting activity is also concentrated in the spring and summer, so this temporal separation also 

allows for some impact avoidance. 

While much of vehicle and equipment use associated with amphibious landings occurs below the high 

tide line or on the sand road, and therefore away from nesting birds, activities that expand above the high 

tide line, especially those not on the hard pack sand road, could impact nesting, special status species 

including federally listed least terns and snowy plovers. Current training lane management practices 

minimize most adverse impacts, as evidenced by the very low incidental take history of the past 15 years 

of Navy management of these training areas to protect nesting least terns and snowy plovers. Other 

nesting species have benefited collaterally from these management measures. 

Some vehicle effects are minimized, especially for safety and logistics vehicles, due to the routine use of 

a sand road that runs parallel to SR-75 and which is used by vehicles traveling to and from beach lanes. 

This reduces the amount of driving in nesting areas, and therefore reduces the impacts of vehicle usage on 

nesting birds. The majority of vehicle use is on established dirt or paved roads. While on the beach, 

vehicles often travel at relatively low speeds or are stationary. They could flush bird congregations, or 

crush a nest, but because of the small potential footprint of the vehicles, approximately 10 percent of the 

lane, the potential for damage is considered small. It is believed that birds habituate to the presence of 

vehicles to a certain extent, especially considering the local proximity of SR-75 and other vehicle activity. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-65

Flushing of birds from roosting, foraging, or nesting is expected to be greatest with fast-moving vehicles. 

Due to a large area of available habitat in proportion to the area of interface between vehicles and birds, 

this effect is considered short-term. 

The vehicle use associated with amphibious activities is likely to have some non-measurable effect on 

waterbird, shorebird, and seabird energy expenditure. Some birds may flush and thus avoid direct contact 

with the amphibious operations, since there is abundant habitat adjacent to where the activity takes place. 

Because of the size of San Diego Bay and the oceanside beach area compared to amphibious traffic 

patterns and the adjacency of nearby habitat for birds to escape to, any temporarily displaced birds have 

ample opportunity to settle elsewhere. 

The likely effects on avian nesting and habitat modification of the beach are more long-term, and are 

considered moderate due to their frequency and footprint. While to some degree these effects are 

relatively permanent, nesting use of these same beaches continues in abundance by federally listed and 

other special status species. 

While effects of vehicle use on individual birds may occur, none of these temporary effects are expected 

to have an adverse effect on migratory birds at the population level. 

Foot Traffic 

Impacts from on foot training in the ROI are analyzed in several different ways. Depending on the type of 

activity involved, each activity may have a distinct footprint. Foot traffic is divided into Mine 

Countermeasures (MCM) beaching activities, beach camps, foot patrols, observation posts, visual 

observation, running and marching, reconnaissance, and raids, which are discussed in the following 

paragraphs. 

MCM beaching activities occur during Mine Countermeasures (Activity 5, see Table 2-1), approximately 

32 times per year under the No Action Alternative. They occur occasionally on SSTC-N, primarily at 

SSTC-S. This portion of the MCM activity occurs after the mine shape has been neutralized offshore and 

involves towing the mine to shore for follow-on procedures. Vessels and the mine itself remain on the 

hard pack sand. Personnel dragging the mine onto shore with a rope may walk up onto the crest.

Beach camps (Activity 48, see Table 2-1) are a fairly infrequent activity at SSTC but have a large 

potential footprint and impact. They occur only on the oceanside beach lanes and can take place at both 

SSTC-N and SSTC-S, occupying the entire beach of each lane they are assigned to. One 14-day training 

event takes place each year. The number of beach lanes requested varies, depending on the number of 

personnel that will take part in the particular camp. The content of this activity includes setting up a selfsustaining field camp. Mock aggressions may also be included. 

Foot patrolling involves groups of individuals walking in single file line formation on the beach. 

Individuals typically patrol walking north and/or south (along the long axis of the beach). Patrols 

sometime include ambushes, which often include pop-ups or individuals that hide in designated places. 

When ambushed, patrolling individuals retreat and retain formation where possible. Foot patrolling and 

ambushes take place under six training activities annually during approximately 273 training events. 

These activities could occur on the SSTC-N oceanside beach lanes, with the rest distributed between 

SSTC-N bayside lanes, SSTC-S and the designated NASNI training area. 

Beach crossing is fairly common and involves small groups on foot transiting across the beach. The 

groups typically transit in a line formation (may include multiple lines of personnel), and individuals may 

be carrying inflatable boats. This activity is analyzed separately from foot patrolling, ambush, and 

stalking because individuals are moving across the beach along a different axis (along the short axis). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-66

This results in a different footprint and potential impact. This activity could take place during five training 

activities under the No Action Alternative, during about 432 events per year, on the SSTC-N beaches and 

otherwise distributed across SSTC-S, bayside beaches, as well as the designated NASNI training area. 

Observation posts involve individuals setting up two to three observation posts on the beach, 

approximately 10 x 10 square yards in dimension. Equipment and vehicles typically remain on the sand 

road or along the hard pack sand. Personnel will station the observation posts, and communicate and 

sneak between posts. The activity often includes coordinated attacks from the observation posts on a 

target, which is evaluated under the patrolling and ambush activity. Observation posts could take place 50 

times per year under the No Action Alternative, 100 percent of the time on the SSTC-N beaches, and 

under one activity (32). 

Visual observation could occur at SSTC-N, SSTC-S and NASNI. Individuals stand on the crest of the 

beach where they have a good view of the waves, offshore, and beach activities to observe and record 

their observations. Trainees are fairly stationary and therefore the activity does not cast a large footprint. 

Running/marching takes place under six activities under the No Action Alternative (Activities 17, 68, 69, 

71, 72, and 73, see Table 2-1) and consists of individuals or groups using the beach’s varied sand 

conditions for physical conditioning. It typically takes place along the long axis of the beach in varied 

sand types depending on the type of conditioning desired. Individuals will run on the hard pack sand, 

along the crest where the sand is soft and challenging, and along the sand road at the back of the beach, 

which provides a medium level of difficulty. Under the No Action Alternative, physical fitness activities 

occur approximately 972 times per year, mostly at SSTC-N and otherwise at the SSTC-S and NASNI 

beaches. While training on beaches at SSTC-S during physical training runs (Activity 68, see Table 2-1), 

trainees may have a military working dog participating in the physical conditioning. The dogs are 

exercised on SSTC-N and SSTC-S beaches, and on tether while running. While they are typically on the 

hard pack sand below the high tide line (SSTC-S) or sand road (SSTC-N), they can also be on the soft 

pack sand. The dogs are trained to ignore wildlife, and to not relieve themselves while training, but this 

would be picked up afterwards if it were to occur. 

Reconnaissance takes place approximately 187 times per year under the No Action Alternative, typically 

on the SSTC-N beaches. It consists of individuals possibly entering the beach area from the water, and 

reconnoitering the beach for potential aggressors as well noting characteristics about the beach to aid 

follow-on activities. It is generally conducted by two or three persons who will circuit the beach on foot 

to check for enemy aggressors prior to a larger group landing on shore. 

Raids consist of groups of people entering the beach from the water, spreading out, hiding, and moving 

across the beach. This activity normally takes place in an east to west orientation (along the short axis of 

the beach) with troops moving inland from the water. Under the No Action Alternative, this activity 

occurs approximately 204 times per year, on SSTC-N ocean-side training lanes, SSTC-S and in the 

designated NASNI training area. 

While often casting a nearly inconsequential footprint as individual activities, the volume of repeated 

activities adds up to the potential for effect when foot traffic becomes concentrated or repeated multiple 

times in the same location. There are four activities subsumed in the descriptions above that have heavy 

foot traffic: Amphibious Raid, Direct Action, Beach Camp, and Seahawk. The first two (Amphibious 

Raid and Direct Action) tend toward the beach. The latter three (Direct Action, Beach Camp and 

Seahawk) occupy the northern area of SSTC-S, with limited usage of other areas throughout SSTC if 

needed. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-67

Personnel on foot in small groups can alter bird behavior, cause birds to avoid otherwise suitable habitat, 

or become stressed or expend energy in flushing that can ultimately affect reproductive success. Breeding 

season restrictions are in place under the No Action Alternative when foraging and nesting shorebirds and 

seabirds are present. Mostly upland or marsh species inhabit SSTC-S, and foot traffic could potentially 

become stressful to nesting species or waterfowl or shorebirds replenishing their energy reserves while on 

migration. Repeated disturbance by human presence or vegetation trampling could ultimately affect nest 

success. This effect is considered small because of the large inland area of SSTC-S allows for dispersal of 

the activities, the large proportion of the area that is vegetated with iceplant or grassland, and the 

concentration of foot traffic near roads and away from wetlands. Given the overall benefit of restricted 

public access, SSTC-S is expected to remain relatively quiet compared to neighboring properties. While 

effects of repeated disturbance by human presence or vegetation trampling on individual birds may occur, 

none of these temporary effects are expected to have an adverse effect on migratory birds at the 

population level. 

The military dogs undergoing physical conditioning on beaches are in their final stages of training and are 

under visual, verbal, and tether control while typically running on the hard pack sand or elsewhere on the 

beach. As the military dogs are in their final stages of training and may not pursue or harass birds, they 

still may accidentally flush or disturb nesting birds, which could be detrimental to bird reproductive 

potential through energy expenditure and diversion from nesting duties. It is recognized in scientific 

literature that the mere presence of dogs can have a greater effect on nesting shorebirds than the presence 

of humans (Lord et al. 2001). For example, dogs off leash were a disproportionate source of disturbance 

to western snowy plovers compared to humans (Lafferty 2001; Lafferty et al. 2006). Similar observations 

have been made for nesting golden plovers, who increased their energy expenditure, decreased nest 

incubation time, and flushed more often due to the presence of dogs than of human recreationists (Yalden 

and Yalden 1990). In conservation areas of Australia, dog walking led to a decline in the number of birds 

and species diversity (Banks and Bryant 2007). Despite this recognized sensitivity to the presence of 

dogs, since the number of dogs and training events in avian nesting areas are few, and dogs are with a 

handler, the additional effect of the presence of dogs is considered minor and short-term. 

Manual Excavations 

Manual excavations take place during 18 training events under the No Action Alternative, about 90 

percent of the time on the SSTC-N oceanside beaches and otherwise at other areas in the training 

complex. Excavations consist of individuals digging trenches, latrines (which are not utilized by 

personnel), excavating, and concealing beached boats. Individuals will often excavate near the high tide 

line where the slope face makes the concealment easier. It is localized with a typically small (e.g., 10 x 10 

yard) footprint on the beach. The effect to birds, if any, is expected to be minimal. 

The effect of manual excavations on the beach is small scale and temporary because it has a small 

footprint (less than a fraction of one percent of the beach area), occurs in a naturally disturbed 

environment, and training land management reduces the exposure of nesting seabirds and shorebirds to 

the activity. The effect is also lessened because some of the excavations take place below the high tide 

line where there will be no effects to nesting birds, as they nest well above the high tide line. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-68

Pyrotechnics Including Simunitions and Blanks 

Pyrotechnics include smoke grenades and flares as well as blasting caps. Blasting caps are used to ignite 

detonator cord during underwater detonation. Blasting caps and diver recall devices are used during 

approximately 180 training activities under the No Action Alternative; the available information does not 

allow for separation between these two devices (Appendix C). Smoke grenades and flares are used during 

approximately 760 training activities. The effect of pyrotechnics is considered minor because it is a shortterm response that can only affect individual birds rather than a population (Bowles et al. 1995). It would 

have more effect on species from populations that are unstable and low in number compared to those that 

are relatively abundant. Long-lasting and repeated exposure could cause a bird to retreat from otherwise 

suitable habitat. 

The effects of military noise on wildlife were reviewed by Larkin (1996). Noise affects wildlife 

differently from humans and the effects of noise on wildlife vary from serious to nonexistent in different 

species and situations. Pyrotechnics are known to result in bird dispersal because they are used as a tool in 

managing airport runways for bird-aircraft strike hazard (Blokpoel 1976). In many cases, such acoustic 

stimuli lose their effect as birds habituate to them (Larkin 1976). Flares and smoke are expected to have a 

SEL range of 60 to 65 dB at 50 feet (U.S. Army 2003). A greater effect is observed in species from 

populations that are unstable and low in number compared to those that are relatively abundant. Longlasting and repeated exposure could cause a bird to retreat from otherwise suitable habitat. 

Simunitions or blanks are used during many training activities on the SSTC. The use of live fire is not 

permitted, instead blanks and simunitions such as paint pellets (or paint balls) are used. Paintballs are 

similar to large round vitamin capsules or bath oil beads. The fill inside paintballs is nontoxic, noncaustic, 

water-soluble, and biodegradable, and is made of naturally occurring elements. It rinses out of clothing 

and off skin with mild soap and water. The skin of a paintball is most often gelatin, such as that used in 

making vitamins and many food products. There are some paintballs with a starch-like skin. Under the No 

Action Alternative simunitions or blanks would be used during 173 training activities in the ROI. 

Since this activity mostly takes place inside of bunkers, the noise is considered less of an effect than the 

presence of human activity itself, and is considered negligible. 

3.12.2.2.5 Inland Activities 

Inland activities are those that occur on the inland portion of SSTC-S. This includes individuals on foot 

and vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved roads, as well as manual excavations. Manual excavations on 

SSTC-S inland areas are typically done roadside. Restrictions on manual excavations are in place at the 

archeological site on the eastern boundary of SSTC-S inland (Section 3.13.1.5; Cultural Resources; 

Current Mitigation Measures). There are also restrictions barring excavations on the vernal pools. 

Individuals on foot may utilize the semi-developed area or buildings of the inland area or traverse off road 

for stalking or other on-foot activities. Off-road foot traffic in this inland area could potentially take place 

during 690 training events under the No Action Alternative. Activities that request the inland area as a 

training location could also potentially train at other SSTC locations. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-69

Military dog training also takes place in the inland area of SSTC-S during Close Quarters Combat / Close 

Quarters Defense (Activity 64, see Table 2-1). These dogs are in the final stages of their training and are 

practicing the location of people hiding in bushes, buildings, or bunkers. As this is primarily training for 

an urban environment it takes place mostly inside the disturbed northern area of SSTC-S. The dogs (one 

dog trains at a time) are off-leash during the exercise but under strict verbal and visual control. They are 

trained not to pursue wildlife and to only bark when they have located their target object. The dogs are 

trained to leave wildlife alone, and to not relieve themselves while training, but this would be picked up 

afterwards if it were to occur. 

The northern, disturbed area of SSTC-S contains foundations of a formerly-planned housing area, and is 

covered in iceplant and ruderal species. Other areas are grassland containing a high proportion of saltgrass 

typical of a marsh-upland transition environment, mixed with non-native annual grasses. Both of these 

environments are tolerant of disturbance. The semi-developed area with iceplant supports little bird use 

and few birds are observed here. The grassland supports grassland birds, such as foraging raptors and 

other coastal species adapted to this low-growing, open environment. Inland activities which are observed 

as small groups acting covertly are concentrated in the northern developed/disturbed area presently 

dominated by iceplant and have an existing road network, buildings, and bunkers. However, even if the 

small group activity disperses throughout close to 600 acres of inland area available, the activity is 

expected to have low impact on birds. A portion of the activities occur in wetland or semi-wetland areas 

or in low scrub where birds may be nesting and tend to be naturally more secretive in behavior. As the 

military dogs training at SSTC-S are in their final stages of training and will not pursue or harass birds in 

the inland area, they are not expected to have an impact greater than those trainees already present in the 

area. No activities are allowed in or near vernal pools under the No Action Alternative. The overall 

impact on birds is short-term and minor, and is at the individual and not population level. 

3.12.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative 1 increases the baseline level of training, conducts existing routine training in additional 

locations within SSTC established training areas, and incorporates improved, but conditional, access to 

SSTC-N oceanside boat lanes and inland areas for training. Access to SSTC-N oceanside boat lanes 

(specifically Blue 2, Orange 1, and Orange 2) are provided under two separate criterion. 

The first criteria is designed to allow usage of Blue 2, Orange 1, and/or Orange 2 in situations where a 

training lane(s) is needed and other similar training lanes are already occupied and unavailable for use. 

Under this criterion, SSTC-N beach training lanes Blue 2, Orange 1, and/or Orange 2 could be used 

during the California least tern nesting season if Beach Lanes Red 1 and 2, Green 1 and 2, and Blue 1 are 

being utilized and additional training lane(s) are needed for training. Lanes would be opened one at a 

time, based on need, with Blue 2 opened first, Orange 1 second, and Orange 2 last. Training will be 

preferentially scheduled for lanes with fewer nests, where appropriate. This means that activities 

occurring at the same time would be compared and, where appropriate, those that require use of larger 

beach areas would be preferentially scheduled on lanes that contain fewer nests. 

The second criterion is designed to allow usage of Blue 2, Orange 1 and/or Orange 2 for training if 

attributes of Blue 2, Orange 1, and/or Orange 2 make those lanes more suitable for meeting training needs 

than other available training lanes Examples of lane attributes which may allow usage of Blue 2, Orange 

1 and/or Orange 2 include but would not necessarily be limited to: nearshore in-water conditions such as 

the presence of sand bars or holes, beach conditions such as slope and depth of the beach, distance from 

other training activities occurring on the SSTC-N Oceanside beach and boat lanes, and a need for 

diversity in training locations. 

Modeling conducted to predict lane usage under Alternative 1 predicted that in an average year, an 

anticipated 24 training activities that require use of the beach above the high tide line would be scheduled 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-70

in Lanes 8 to 10 during the least tern and snowy plover nesting season. See the analysis presented in 

Section 3.12.3.1 for the California least tern for further information on this estimation. 

The Navy is also proposing a limit to the number of western snowy plover nests that will be marked with 

stakes for avoidance on SSTC-N and SSTC-S oceanside beaches. The Navy is proposing to stake up to 22 

nests at one time for avoidance on its oceanside beach lanes, which generally translates into two nests on 

each lane except for Yellow 1, Green 1 and Green 2 which have not historically contained plover nests. 

Two nests in each of the remaining 11 lanes, while still encumbering the training area, allow the lanes to 

be used for training, and continue to provide protection for the western snowy plover. Staking would 

continue to be a 30-meter or less diameter buffer around the plover nests. If more than 22 western snowy 

plover nests are established in the oceanside SSTC training lanes at one time, those in excess of 22 at one 

time would not be buffered. This does not mean that mortality to the nonbuffered nests would necessarily 

occur, just that they would not be staked for avoidance. 

This change in management of the SSTC-N Beach Lanes Blue 2 through Orange 2 would affect the beach 

and dune complex of species by allowing increased potential for foot and vehicle traffic both outside and 

inside the avian breeding season. Beach lanes Blue 2 through Orange 2 would be opened for training as 

necessary under Alternative 1. In addition, the general increase in training tempo could affect shorebirds, 

waterfowl, seabirds, and neotropical migrants and residents of SSTC-S and the beach and dune complex. 

The Navy is in the process of consulting formally on these proposals with the USFWS under Section 7 of 

ESA. Results of the consultation will be memorialized in a subsequent BO and INRMP updates. 

3.12.2.3.1 Air Activities 

The types of air activities proposed for Alternative 1 are consistent with those described under the No 

Action Alternative, although the frequency would increase and five new activities would be conducted 

(Activities N4 – N8, see Table 2-2). Though helicopter activities over San Diego Bay and ocean waters 

within the ROI would increase from 724 activities under the No Action Alternative, to 1,262 annual 

activities under Alternative 1 (Appendix C), the majority of activities occur offshore and would have 

minimal effects on resident or migratory birds. Helicopter landings would increase from occurring 4 to 40 

activities under Alternative 1. 

A 10-fold increase in helicopter landings and take-off would not result in a measurable increase in soil 

compaction, vegetation crushing, or flushing of birds because the activity occurs at multiple locations and 

only occasionally does a helicopter landing, and then using specially-designated offshore and inland drop 

zones. Grasslands and iceplant vegetation of the SSTC-S inland are tolerant and recover readily from 

trampling. A small area of crushed vegetation could result from take-off and landing activities, but coastal 

sage scrub, which would be the most sensitive to crushing, is not likely to be a choice for helicopter 

takeoffs and landings because it is usually located on a slope and contains plants unfavorable to a troops 

landing, such as cactus and thick brush. The temporary and short-duration effects of landing and takeoff 

would be limited to sand blow and flushing of mobile birds that may be at the landing area. 

In the inland area of SSTC-S, both resident breeding and migrant birds may startle and run or fly off, 

expending energy that would affect reproductive success in the long term. Considering that SSTC lies 

beneath a helicopter flight line and that the activity already takes place under the No Action Alternative, 

resident birds may have habituated to helicopter noise. There are numerous intermittent acoustic sources 

that the animals encounter, such as ocean swell noise, weather/thunder, or vehicular noise from SR-75; 

and the propensity to habituate may be increased with exposure to other intermittent noise sources. 

Effects to federally listed nesting species are avoided because resource management practices would 

continue to be implemented under Alternative 1 and include training restrictions in the nesting area. The 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-71

effect of air activities is considered negligible and no long term impacts would occur as a result of 

implementation of Alternative 1. 

3.12.2.3.2 Marine Vessels 

Marine vessels, self propelled and power-driven, would increase in use and scope under Alternative 1 

compared to the No Action Alternative. Seven new activities involving marine vessels would be added 

under Alternative 1 (N1, N2, N3, N4, N6, N7 and N9, see Table 2-2). The total number of vessels varies 

per activity (see Appendix C), but multiplying the number of vessels by the number of events in which 

they are used, and summing over all the activities, results in an approximate number of 12,304 vessels 

used per year. Assuming training occurs only on weekdays, the average number of marine vessels 

utilizing the ROI per weekday would be 34 vessels performing varying activities. The greatest increases 

to marine vessel activities would be attributed to new activities (see Table 2-2): SWAG (Activity N1), 

Surf Zone Test Detachment (Activity N2), and towed Organic Airborne Mine Countermeasures systems 

(Activities N4, N6, N7), as well as increases to existing activities (SEAL Delivery Vehicles [SDV]/ 

Advanced SEAL Delivery System Certification training and Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain training 

[Activities 37 and 40, respectively, see Table 2-1]). Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in 

similar effects to avian resources from LCAC landings as previously described under the No Action 

Alternative as no additional landings are proposed under Alternative 1.The increase in use of small 

vessels, especially jet-driven craft, in nearshore areas would increase the propensity for bird flushing and 

may affect reproductive capability of affected species, especially waterbirds. However, this effect is small 

and not quantifiable, with an increase of approximately eight vessels per weekday. 

3.12.2.3.3 Underwater Detonation 

Underwater detonations occur in shallow water (less than 72 feet) within oceanside training lanes and the 

shock waves propagate over a mostly homogeneous sand substrate. As presented in Section 3.7.2.3.2 of 

Marine Biological Resources (see Table 3.8-12), underwater detonations would increase measurably from 

103 activities under the No Action Alternative to 311 activities under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, 

five additional activities would be conducted: Shock Wave Action Generator (SWAG), Unmanned 

Underwater Vehicle Neutralization, Airborne Mine Neutralization System, Demolition Requalification 

and Training/Underwater Detonations, and Naval Special Warfare Underwater Demolition Training 

(Activities N1, N3, N7, N9, and N11, respectively, see Table 2-2) and the footprint of activities would be 

expanded to include SWAG detonations of up to 15 grams NEW within San Diego Bay. 

Current mitigation measures associated with underwater detonation (Section 3.12.1.6.3) would be 

continued under Alternative 1, including additions to mitigate for the effects of the new activity, SWAG. 

A safety buffer zone of 180 feet will be established around each SWAG detonation point. Lookout(s) with 

binoculars and small craft will survey the detonation area and the safety buffer zone for birds from at least 

10 minutes prior to commencement of the scheduled explosive event until at least 10 minutes after 

detonation. If a bird is sighted within the buffer zone or moving towards it, activities will be suspended 

until the animal has voluntarily left the area and the area is clear of birds for at least 10 minutes. 

Immediately following the detonation, visual monitoring for birds within the buffer zone will continue for 

10 minutes. Any animals appearing will be observed for signs of injury. Injured animals will be reported 

to the CNRSW Environmental Director and the PACFLT Environmental Office. 

While the observation distances utilized during monitoring are designed for marine mammals, these 

mammals require a greater distance than birds to be protected from injury (Yelverton 1973). The 

underwater detonation proposed for bayside areas are small, directed, and confined, and are unlikely to 

result in impacts to birds. Considering the relatively small and directed size of the proposed bayside 

detonations, it is likely that fish forage may be temporarily displaced but however not killed by this 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-72

expanded footprint. Eelgrass will not be impacted by the expanded bayside underwater detonations 

because the detonation takes place midwater and not in the eelgrass beds. 

3.12.2.3.4 Amphibious and Beach Activities 

Amphibious and Beach activities increase by varying degrees under Alternative 1; these differences are 

detailed below. 

Amphibious Activities 

ELCAS and causeway beaching activities would increase from 12 to 16 training activities under 

Alternative 1, but remain in the same locations. Due to mitigation of eelgrass impacts (discussed in 

Section 3.7) and other Navy management measures, effects to birds are avoided or minimized. The 

addition of three causeway-related activities would be considered minimal due to mitigation measures 

already in place. Eelgrass impacts and Navy mitigation for these impacts are described in Section 

3.7.1.4.3 in the chapter on Marine Resources in this document. 

Beach Activities

Fluid Transfer 

Fluid transfer activities increase by one event annually to 15 events per year under Alternative 1. This 

increase does not represent a quantifiable increase in effect on migratory birds in the ROI; the increase is 

considered negligible. 

Vehicle Use 

In addition to an increase in safety and logistical vehicle use of approximately 29 percent from 3,034 to 

3,921 times of use per year, vehicle patrolling would increase as well, from 6 to 56 events per year under 

Alternative 1. Equipment offloading would double from two occurrences per year to four of these fiveday activities under Alternative 1. Bulldozer use would increase by 22 percent during 226 training events 

versus 202 under the No Action Alternative. 

The increase in vehicle use between the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 would impact migratory 

birds through the same mechanisms as described under the No Action Alternative, but to a somewhat 

greater degree. There is increased possibility of a general degradation of habitat value due to the increased 

interface of birds and humans with vehicles and equipment, which may cause birds to abandon certain 

otherwise adequate habitats for less disturbed areas. Additional flushing, noise, and sometimes nest 

impacts associated with vehicles and equipment may be tolerated due to the abundance of habitat 

available. There may be increased substrate compaction and topographic modification of the beach 

surface. However, like in the No Action Alternative, much of this activity occurs below the high tide line 

and topography changes are typically reversed after the tide comes in. Continued use of the beach is 

likely to control vegetation, which may benefit some special status species, such as western snowy plover 

and California least terns. Vehicle noise can interfere with animal communication essential for 

reproduction. However, this noise is not likely to be much louder than the continuous noise of the surf, 

and people on foot may cause stronger behavioral reactions than people in vehicles (Larkin 1996). 

Impacts are also minimized by the natural partitioning of migratory birds in favor of mudflats over sand, 

seasonal preferences, as well as operator preference for the western third of oceanside training areas 

nearest to the shore. The likely effect would be most notable for nesting species that use the sand and 

dunes in spring and summer. 

Vehicle patrolling and operator training could have a large footprint on the beach. Degradation of habitat 

value is possible for nesting, loafing, and foraging special status migratory birds that these and other 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-73

beach, dune, and beach wrack areas. However, this impact is mitigated through concentrating the most 

intense vehicle use, Vehicle Patrolling and Testing, to beach training lanes Yellow and Green that have 

historically had minimal nesting due to beach depth and beach modifications. 

All of the effects described are to individual birds or bird groups. None are expected to occur at the 

population level to migratory birds. 

Foot Traffic 

As describes in Chapter 2 (see Table 2-1), MCM beaching activities would increase to 58 events per year 

under the No Action Alternative. Beach camps would double to two events per year and foot patrolling 

would increase to 472 events per year. Over the beach crossings would increase to 480 events per year. 

Observation posts would increase 68 percent to 84 events per year. Visual observation activities stay 

almost the same, increasing from 156 to 160 events per year. Running and marching would increase by 

four events annually under Alternative 1, to 976 events. Reconnaissance activities would increase to 396 

events per year. The number of raids and ambush activities would remain the same under Alternative 1 as 

under the No Action Alternative. 

While seeming to cast a nearly inconsequential footprint as individual activities, the volume of repeated 

activities could add up to effects on nesting species when foot traffic becomes concentrated, repeated 

multiple times in the same location, or if it results in nest abandonment of ground-nesting birds or inland 

birds in the dunes or shrublands. There are four activities subsumed in the descriptions above that have 

heavy foot traffic: Amphibious Raid, Direct Action, Beach Camp, and Seahawk. The first two 

(Amphibious Raid and Direct Action) occur mostly on the beach. The latter three (Direct Action, Beach 

Camp and Seahawk) occupy the northern area of SSTC-S, with limited usage of other areas throughout 

SSTC if needed. 

The increase in foot traffic at SSTC-S will likely result in an increase in disturbance to birds. Foot traffic 

may be more disturbing to birds than vehicles because birds can habituate to vehicles more easily (Larkin 

1996). In addition, the proposed tempo increase at SSTC-N combined with improved access to training 

beaches would be expected to have a small net increase in disturbance of birds. The effect is considered 

moderate due to the presence of many special status birds during vulnerable parts of their life cycle, but of 

short duration and temporary. 

Pyrotechnics Including Simunitions and Blanks 

Under Alternative 1 the use of smoke grenades and flares would be used during approximately 858 

training activities. The use of blasting caps and diver recall devices would be used during 1,293 training 

activities during Alternative 1. The use of simunitions and blanks would increase to approximately 251 

activities of training per year. The effects of simunitions would be the same or less than that associated 

with firing of pyrotechnics. The noise level between pyrotechnics and blanks is expected to be similar, 

while quieter for simunitions. Noise is considered less of an effect than the presence of human activity 

itself, and the increase in activities with Alternative 1 is negligible, considering that effects to nesting 

birds are avoided by training lane management at SSTC-N. 

Manual Excavations 

Under Alternative 1, manual excavations would increase to 52 total activities conducted per year. The 

effect of manual excavations on the beach would be minor and temporary because they occur in a 

naturally disturbed environment, and training land management reduces the exposure of nesting seabirds 

and shorebirds to the activity until nesting thresholds are reached. The effect would be lessened as much 

of the excavation takes place near the high tide line where there will be minor effects to nesting birds, as 

they nest away from the high tide line. It is also above the beach wrack line and the wet sand, so will not 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-74

affect foraging resources. The beach slope itself may also act as a visual or physical barrier between the 

nesting birds above the crest. The potential remains for occasional disruption. However, any effect to 

migratory birds would be at the individual rather than the population level. 

3.12.2.3.5 Inland Activities 

Inland activities are those that occur on the inland portion of SSTC-S. This includes individuals on foot 

and vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved roads, as well as manual excavations. Manual excavations on 

SSTC-S inland areas are typically done roadside. Restrictions on manual excavations are in place at the 

archeological site on the eastern boundary of SSTC-S inland (Section 3.13.1.5; Cultural Resources; 

Current Mitigation Measures). There are also restrictions barring excavations on the vernal pools. 

Individuals on foot may utilize the semi-developed area or buildings of the inland area or traverse off road 

for stalking or other on-foot activities. Off-road foot traffic in this inland area could potentially take place 

during training events under Alternative 1. 

A portion of these activities take place in a semi-developed area of SSTC-S consisting of foundations of a 

formerly-planned housing area covered in iceplant and ruderal species. Other areas are grassland 

containing a high proportion of saltgrass typical of a marsh-upland transition environment, mixed with 

non-native annual grasses. Both of these environments are tolerant of disturbance. The semi-developed 

area with iceplant supports little bird use and few birds are observed here. The grassland supports 

grassland birds, such as foraging raptors and other coastal species adapted to this low-growing, open 

environment. Inland activities are expected to have low impact on birds because small groups act covertly 

and disperse throughout the large inland area of the ROI. A portion of this activity occurs in wetland or 

semiwetland areas or in low scrub where birds may be nesting and tend to be naturally more secretive in 

behavior. The overall impact on birds is short-term and minor, and is at the individual species level and 

not at the overall population level. 

Natural resource agencies such as the USFWS have been concerned for many years with construction and 

operation noise impacts to birds, especially to species listed under the ESA. The 60 dB (A-weighted) Leq 

(1 hour) criterion is usually applied as a threshold to assess impacts (James 2006); however, the criterion 

was based on incidental observations of least Bell’s vireo nests along SR-75 and not a directed study 

(Barrett 1997). There are no specific noise standards set by the USFWS for the California least tern or the 

western snowy plover, or other special status species in the ROI. However, the noise standard set for 

nesting sites of other southern California threatened or endangered species (i.e. California gnatcatcher, 

least Bell’s vireo) is the 1 hour Leq of 60 dBA (County of San Diego 1980). The generally accepted 

definition of excessive noise is an increase of 10 dBA or greater. 

Noise pollution can interfere with the auditory signals birds rely on by making those signals inaudible, 

changing their perceived location, or reducing the distance over which the signal can be heard or 

interpreted. Birds depend on these signals for a variety of activities: contacting mates, warning of danger, 

monitoring their young, and detecting predators. The background noise produced by traffic, with its effect 

on birds' communication abilities, can render an otherwise suitable nesting area unsuitable. Under the 

ESA, this qualifies as degradation of habitat. 

Sometimes animals become habituated to increased noise levels and apparently resume normal activity; 

however, birds and other wildlife that communicate by auditory signals may be at a disadvantage near 

roads, such as SR-75. Such highway noise can also disrupt territory establishment and defense and 

communication, with Endangered Species Act implications in a few cases. The greatest effects of 

transportation on wildlife have been documented from off-road vehicles (Bondello 1976, Bondello and 

Brattstrom 1979; Bunnell et al. 1981) and overhead flights. (Bunnell et al. 1981; Fletcher 1980). The 

effects of highway noise on bird populations have been studied in the U.S., particularly in California, and 

with regard to multiple species’ breeding success in the Netherlands (Reijnen et al. 1997). Changes in 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-75

breeding patterns and densities for 43 species of birds were examined in that study. Researchers examined 

pairs of nesting sites, with one near a busy road and one distant from it. Sixty percent of the species 

analyzed showed evidence of reduced densities close to the roads. The distance over which the effect was 

observed depended how busy the roads were: 10,000 cars a day affected birds up to 1.5 km from the 

roads; 60,000 cars a day affected birds up to 2.9 km from the road. For a zone of 250 m from the road the 

reduction of the density varied from 20 to 98 percent. 

In a Marine Corps-sponsored study, the Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute (2006) studied the effect of 

helicopter noise on the coastal California gnatcatcher at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar. 

MCAS Miramar initiated a four year study to study the effects of helicopter noise and a one-year followup study to monitor reproductive success. 

In order to separate natural from anthropogenic effects on nesting success of the gnatcatcher for this 

study, in addition to a suite of noise metrics a variety of factors were quantified including vegetation 

structure and composition, disturbance rates, predator density, distance to roads, geographic indices and 

climate. Data collected were used to test the null hypothesis of no adverse effect to nesting success rates, 

fledgling production rates and nest site selection patterns due to changes in helicopter noise levels. 

Coastal California gnatcatcher nests were monitored for nesting productivity. Nests were monitored in 

1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 resulting in 421 nests available for analysis. Data was available from previous 

coastal California gnatcatcher studies and the metrics were consistent, so analysis was conducted on 760 

nests monitored from 1995 through 2001. A nest was considered successful if it fledged one young. 

Model results for predicted probability of nest success, predicted probability of nest site selection and 

predicted number of fledges per pair show that the coastal California gnatcatcher will find and inhabit 

suitable nesting habitat, in spite of the noise environment recorded at MCAS Miramar. Nest success was 

equally likely in quiet and noisy areas within the MCAS Miramar. After adjusting for spatial variation 

with habitat, nest site selection patterns were not associated with noise levels. 

It is difficult to translate the gnatcatcher data results with regard to helicopters to all classes of birds 

including shorebirds and seabirds to the noise of training such as aircraft overflights, weapons, pile 

driving, and vehicles and equipment on the beach due to the variability of responses of differing species 

to a variety of stimuli. The effect of noise from such training activities could be most pronounced on birds 

that breed locally, which includes marsh birds, resident songbirds, foraging seabirds including the 

California least tern and other terns, and certain shorebirds including the western snowy plover. Although 

sustained exposure to continuous noise at or exceeding this level could be damaging, the noise expected is 

momentary; this exposure would not be expected to cause physiological damage or hearing loss to birds. 

At the moment of impact, most other sounds, such as bird songs, including contact calls from conspecifics 

or mates, and songs that attract mates, would be momentarily masked. In between impacts, noise levels 

would resume typical background levels (the high ambient surf noise levels are estimated to be 63 to 69 

dBA Leq). Therefore, while some effect is likely, no long-term habitat degradation for the listed species 

and migratory birds nesting or foraging effects would be anticipated. 

3.12.2.4 Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 increases the level and types of training within the ROI to the exact same degree as under 

Alternative 1. Differences in training lane access do occur between the alternatives, such that all SSTC-N 

surfside beach training areas would be available for use under Alternative 2, regardless of time of year, 

and not dependent on criteria as in Alternative 1. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-76

3.12.2.4.1 Air Activities 

The change in lane access restrictions under Alternative 2 would affect the placement of air activities such 

that they would be allowed to access Beach Lanes Blue 2 through Orange 2 throughout the year, creating 

more of an impact in these lanes but less of an impact in other oceanside training lanes. It is expected that 

the effect on avian resources in the ROI from Alternative 2 would not be different from those described 

under Alternative 1. 

3.12.2.4.2 Marine Vessels 

The modification of beach lane management would only change the potential impacts of this activity as it 

concerns boat beaching, because it would be allowed year-round on all the SSTC-N beach lanes. As such, 

the effects of marine vessel beaching may be more diffuse under Alternative 2 as opposed to Alternative 

1. Effects from water-only marine vessel activities would remain the same under this alternative because 

all SSTC-N boat lanes are available for use year-round under all alternatives. 

3.12.2.4.3 Underwater Detonation 

The modification of beach lane management would not change the potential impacts of this activity, as 

increased beach access would not change the areas in which underwater detonations could occur. As such, 

the effects of underwater detonations are the same as discussed under Alternative 1. 

3.12.2.4.4 Amphibious and Beach Activities 

Amphibious Activities 

There could be a potential difference in the on-shore effects of amphibious activities between Alternative 

1 and 2 in that additional SSTC-N beach lanes would be open for access year-round. Since the number 

and types of training would remain the same under Alternative 2, avian resources in the additionally 

opened lanes would be impacted more while resources in other oceanside training lanes would experience 

less training pressure. 

Beach Activities 

All beach activities would have a similar change in impact in Alternative 2 as opposed to Alternative 1. 

There could be a potential increase in activities in lanes Blue 2 through Orange 2, which would be opened 

for year round training under Alternative 2. Any increase in impact in these lanes would be accompanied 

by a decrease in training pressure in other SSTC-N training lanes. 

3.12.2.4.5 Inland Activities 

There is no difference in effect to avian resources from inland activities at SSTC-S between Alternatives 

1 and 2. Levels of on foot training remain the same as under Alternative 1, thereby having the same effect 

on resources in the inland area. 

3.12.3 Federally Listed Species Impacts 

Effects to listed species as a result of each alternative are discussed below. 

3.12.3.1 California Least Tern 

Due to the high density and differential nesting of California least tern nesting activity on the SSTC-N 

oceanside beaches (Beach Lanes 1-10), and the complicated nature of military training schedules on the 

beaches, models were developed to project the direct impact of training on California least tern nests on 

these beaches. Three separate models were developed. The first model simulation generated daily 

schedules of activities based on types of training and training tempos. These daily schedules were then 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-77

inputted into a second model that assigned training activities to specific SSTC-N oceanside training lanes. 

Finally, a third model was developed and used to calculate the amount of beach area impacted by training 

in each of the lanes and the estimated loss of California least tern nests on these lanes. These model steps 

are described in the following paragraphs. 

1. Generating Daily Schedules for Future Planned Training 

As previously discussed, the first model was developed and run to generate projected training schedules. 

Data was collected from activities that were conducted during the nesting season (April 1 through 

September 15) in 2006. The activities were grouped in four broad categories that drive how they are 

scheduled into training lanes. The data was then used to calculate means and standard deviations for 

training activity start time and duration for each category. This statistical information was then applied to 

the training types and tempos proposed under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, 

and input into a MATLAB model to generate simulated activities and future schedules. 

2. Assigning Activities to Training Lanes 

The second model was developed and run to assign simulated training events to specific training lanes on 

SSTC-N. The model functioned by receiving a request for a certain number of lanes for a training event 

and slotting that training into available lane(s). Rules for scheduling each of these activities were defined 

based on the specific training needs particular to the training activity. These scheduling rules are and 

would continue to be influenced by factors such as available beach access points, beach and very shallow 

water topography, safety of the students involved in the training, distance from public areas, and isolation 

from other training occurring at the same time. 

Rules that allow some activities to use training lanes at the same time were also integrated into the model. 

Overlap of activities depends on a variety of factors, including safety of personnel and equipment, the 

need for isolated areas during training to simulate realistic environments and training, and the specific 

portion of the beach lane required for training. 

There was some inherent conservative bias in the model. For instance, the model did not fully account for 

the likelihood that organizations share command resources and would in some situations purposely 

schedule their activities back-to-back, which reduces the potential for scheduling conflict. It also does not 

fully account for the fact that a single group cannot schedule two activities using the same students at the 

same time. These and similar scheduling phenomena have the effect of reducing the number of lanes used 

in any given day, concentrating lane usage to lanes that typically have the least number of nests. It also 

reduces the likelihood that Lanes 8, 9, and 10 (Blue 2 through Orange 2) would need to be used in 

Alternatives 1 and 2. 

The models were run 1,000 times for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 

scenarios. Standard deviations were evaluated to ensure that variation in the results between model runs 

would not under or over represent impact results. 

3. Incidental Take Analysis Considering Specific Activities and Tern Location in SSTC-N 

Oceanside Lanes 

A third model was developed to calculate the direct impacts of training on California least tern nests 

within the SSTC-N oceanside training lanes. Estimated impacts were calculated first by determining the 

footprint of each training activity that would enter into areas where California least terns nest. About 20 

feet inland of the high tide line is a beach feature called the crest. This feature is where the beach 

noticeably changes slope and becomes more horizontal. Least terns nest from this crest inland towards the 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-78

SR-75, approximately 175 yards. Tern nesting is somewhat biased towards the crest than the highway, 

and this was considered in the impact analysis. 

Neither least terns nor training activities are evenly spread between the SSTC-N oceanside beaches. The 

analysis of effect accounted for this differential nesting of terns on each of the oceanside beaches of 

SSTC-N. Training was assigned to lanes based on training needs, as discussed above. Training activities 

were then evaluated to determine whether they would occur in the nesting area or outside the nesting area 

(e.g. they may occur below the high tide line outside of the nesting area when the tide is out), and how 

often they would occur in the nesting area. 

Once the location of the training and footprint were established, impacts to beach areas were multiplied 

by the number of training event that occur when nests are present on the SSTC-N oceanside beaches. The 

likelihood of overlapping use of beach areas during training was considered in the model. The total 

footprint of training on each beach was then overlaid on the potential nesting area (from the crest to 175 

yards inland) to estimate the potential for direct impact to California least tern nests. 

Several conservative assumptions were made throughout this modeling procedure, including the usage of 

the highest historical number of nests on the beaches (years 2006 and 2007) to calculate potential impacts 

of training. The model also assumes no avoidance of trainees by birds. This and other conservative 

assumptions bias the results higher than may be seen in reality. 

3.12.3.1.1 No Action Alternative 

Modeling for the No Action Alternative considered that training activities would not be scheduled in Blue 

2, Orange 1, or Orange 2 training lanes during the nesting season. It also considered that training activities 

with the largest footprint on the beach would be preferentially scheduled for the lanes with the fewest 

nests. 

Modeling of the No Action Alternative conservatively estimated that 88 California least tern nests would 

be directly impacted annually due to military training on SSTC-N Beach Lanes 1-7. All birds present 

would be potentially subject to disturbance. 

As discussed in Section 3.12.1.3.1, the most recent population viability analyses have determined that 

5,000 breeding pairs would sustain a safe rangewide population of California least terns (USFWS 2005). 

Converting these pairs into nests using 2006 Navy nest per pair data (1.1443 nests per pair in Naval Base 

Coronado) translates 5,000 breeding pairs into 5,722 nests. Loss of 88 nests would not decrease existing 

nesting levels (8,173 nests in 2006) below this 5,722 nest level. Further, the Navy’s conservation 

measures would maintain a healthy local population of terns while other nesting locations should provide 

the diversity of secure nesting sites required for species recovery. Table 3.12-12 indicates the level of 

authorized and actual take of least terns since 1999. Modeled loss of 88 nests falls well within the 

USFWS 2007 take allowance of 455 nests. Actual incidental take in 2006 and 2007 was 23 and 42 nests 

respectively, which demonstrates the conservative nature of the modeling done for this document and the 

BO incidental take allowance. The BO states that the take exemption is not likely to actually occur, as it 

has not in the history of Navy management of the SSTC beaches. 

Table 3.12-6: Incidental Take Allowance and Actual Take for California Least Tern on Navy 

Beaches in the ROI. 

Year Incidental Take Allowance Actual Take 

(eggs and chicks) 

1999 20 eggs/chicks 1 

2000 20 eggs/chicks 3 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-79

2001 20 eggs/chicks 6 

2002 75 eggs to rear in captivity, 30 eggs to relocate 58* 

2003 68 nests or 135 eggs/chicks 72* 

2004 129 nests or 387 eggs/chicks 16 

2005 263 nests 38 

2006 263 nests 23 

2007 455 nests 42 

*This includes 50 eggs in 2002 and 51 eggs in 2003 removed from training areas and taken to 

Project Wildlife or SeaWorld for captive rearing. 

3.12.3.1.2 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

Modeling for Alternative 1 allowed training to be conditionally scheduled in Blue 2, Orange 1, and 

Orange 2, if and only if training was conducted in Red 1 through Blue 1, and these lanes were unavailable 

for additional training use. It also preferentially scheduled training activities with the largest footprint in 

training lanes with the fewest nests. 

The model results determined that Lanes 8, 9, and 10 (Blue 2 through Orange 2) would need to be utilized 

for limited training during the nesting season, and estimated that on an average year, 24 training events 

would occurring above the high tide line. The training that would occur in these lanes would take up 

approximately one-third of the lane on the western edge of where terns nest. Twenty two of the 24 

activities are anticipated to need use of the beach for logistical/safety vehicles or personnel maneuvers, 

which typically requires limited use of the soft pack sand along the western edge of where the least tern 

and snowy plover nest. Two of the 24 activities are anticipated to require a beach party team, which 

typically requires slightly larger use of the soft pack sand along the western edge of where least terns nest. 

A yearly mortality of 105 California least tern nests was conservatively estimated for the SSTC-N 

oceanside training lanes. The model predicted that there would be an incidental take of 97 nests in Lanes 

1-7 (Yellow 1 through Blue 1), 8 of the nests would be incidentally lost in Lanes 8 (Blue 2), through 

Lanes 9 and 10 (Orange 1 and 2). The loss in Lane 8 (Blue 2) would likely be due to beach party teams, 

logistical vehicles, running, and MCM activities. The loss in Lanes 9 and 10 (Orange 1 and 2) would 

likely be due to safety/logistical vehicles and running. All birds present would be subject to potential 

disturbance. This includes harassment in lanes Blue 2 through Orange 2 since they will receive some use. 

The projected effect is expected to be a conservative scenario, with model assumptions including a 

continuation of the present configuration of tern nesting on the Navy training beaches as well as assuming 

an immediate 30 percent increase in training, which will in fact increase gradually over time. In reality, 

least tern nesting is likely to shift away somewhat from more heavily used training areas towards less 

utilized training areas. This would make actual nest lost dramatically less than modeled nest loss. As 

previously discussed in Section 3.12.3.1.1, actual take in 2006 and 2007 was 23 and 42 nests respectively, 

which demonstrates the conservative nature of the modeling done for this document and the BO 

incidental take allowance. Loss of 105 nests would not decrease existing nesting (8,173 nests in 2006) 

below the 5,722 nests discussed above that would sustain a safe rangewide population, based on 

population viability analysis discussed in Section 3.12.1.3.1 (Akçakaya et al. 2003; USFWS 2005). This 

level of nest loss is also smaller than the incidental take permit given in the 2007 BO of 455 nests. The 

Navy’s conservation measures would also maintain a healthy local population of terns while other nesting 

locations should provide the diversity of secure nesting sites required for species recovery. 

As discussed earlier, the Navy has submitted a biological assessment for the Proposed Action, specifically 

its preferred alternative, and is in the process of consulting with the USFWS under Section 7 of ESA. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-80

3.12.3.1.3 Alternative 2 

Modeling for Alternative 2 allowed training activities to be scheduled in Blue 2, Orange 1, and Orange 2 

without condition. Trainers’ natural inclination towards particular beach lanes was considered in the 

modeling. 

Modeling conservatively estimated that 156 nests would be lost annually under Alternative 2 due to 

military training in the ROI. The model predicted that 97 of these nests would be lost in lanes 1-7, 59 

would be lost in lanes 8-10, which would be opened for year-round training under Alternative 2. This loss 

would not decrease the nesting total below the 5,722 nests that would maintain a stable rangewide 

population in accordance with the population viability analysis discussed in Section 3.12.1.3.1 (Akçakaya 

et al. 2003; USFWS 2005). Loss of 156 nests is below the incidental take allowance in 2007 (455 nests). 

As discussed in Section 3.12.3.1.1, modeled take estimates are considered to be conservative, as can be 

seen when compared against by the historical low level of take in the ROI (see Table 3.12-12). All birds 

present would potentially be disturbed from training activities. 

3.12.3.2 Western Snowy Plover 

3.12.3.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative all western snowy plover nests would be buffered, and those in Lanes 

Blue 2 through Orange 2 would be avoided because of nesting season lane access restrictions. Since all 

plover nests would be avoided, it is anticipated that this would lead to incidental loss similar to what is 

currently experienced from Navy training activities. This level of loss as well as the annual take 

exemption given by the USFWS is given in Table 3.12-13. 

Table 3.12-7: Western Snowy Plover Historical Incidental Take Allowance and Level of Take in the 

ROI 

Year Take Allowance Actual Take 

(eggs and chicks) 

1999 3 eggs/chicks 0 

2000 1 nest or 3 eggs 2 

2001 3 eggs/chicks 0 

2002 3 eggs to training, 2 chicks to beach raking 3 

2003 5 nests or 15 eggs/chicks 3* 

2004 5 nests or 15 eggs/chicks 1 

2005 7 nests or 21 eggs/chicks 0 

2006 7 nests or 21 eggs/chicks 0 

2007 3 nests or 9 eggs/chicks 0 

*These eggs were collected from training areas. 

3.12.3.2.2 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

Under Alternative 1, the Navy would buffer a maximum of 22 nests at one time on SSTC-N and SSTC–S. 

In order to derive an estimate for incidental take for this Preferred Alternative, historical losses at SSTC 

were considered. Documented historical losses of western snowy plover eggs, chicks, fledglings, and 

adults are available since 1999. Causes for the losses are not known in all cases, and some may not be 

associated with military training activities. As a conservative approach, the losses with unknown causes 

were assumed to be associated with military training. The one fledgling known to be lost in 2004 due to 

environmental monitoring, was also considered in the analysis. In reality, there are other potential, and 

likely, causes unrelated to military training. Using this approach, the historical annual loss ranged from 0 

to 3 eggs and 0 to 3 chicks/fledges. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-81

Under Alternative 1, the Navy would be using the training beaches more than in the past. Western snowy 

plover eggs, chicks, and fledges would be buffered and avoided by trainees, but increased usage of the 

beach could increase the potential for take. A similar analysis as applied to California least terns was 

applied, but the least tern analysis cannot be directly applied to western snowy plovers, because western 

snowy plover nests (up to 22) are buffered and avoided by trainees and the analysis developed for 

California least tern effects assumes no nests are avoided. However, the modeling methodology can be 

and was used to estimate the potential percentage increase in impacts to nesting birds from baseline 

conditions (No Action) to the Preferred Alternative. This percentage increase was estimated to be 150%. 

A similar increase in losses on the beach can be applied to western snowy plovers nests, fledges, and 

chicks on the beach, given their similar presence on the beach. The estimated take result for western 

snowy plovers under the Preferred Alternative would be 0 to 5 eggs and 0 to 5 chicks/fledges. As 

discussed above, this incidental take estimate is considered to be conservative, and is not anticipated to 

routinely occur. In the more recent years of 2005 through 2007, there was no loss of eggs, chicks, or 

fledges recorded for SSTC or NASNI associated with military training. However, on the other hand, it is 

possible that if the plover population increases on SSTC, increased take of eggs, chicks, and fledges may 

proportionally occur. Similarly, if more than 22 nests are on the SSTC beaches at one time, then 

additional nests/eggs that are not buffered could be potentially lost, but would not necessarily be lost. 

SSTC oceanside lanes have not been documented to have more than 22 nests more than one time in the 

past (maximum was 20 nests in 2003 and 2004). However, the Navy is requesting additional loss of 

nests/eggs if maximum-at-one-time nesting on SSTC oceanside lanes increases above 22 nests in the 

future. 

In addition, 0 to 3 eggs have been historically collected or moved out of training areas to protected areas. 

Factoring in the same potential increase in impacts, an estimated 0 to 5 eggs may need to be collected or 

moved out of the training areas under the Preferred Alternative. . 

Also, it is possible that any western snowy plovers adults on training beaches could be harassed at some 

point during the breeding season. The Navy has historically had 22 concurrent nests or less at on time on 

SSTC beaches, except for in 2004 when there were 24 concurrent nests on SSTC beaches. Maximum 

number of nests at one time is typically reflective of the number of pairs at a site. 

The recovery plan target for western snowy plover on the all Silver Strand beaches including non-Navy 

managed beaches (NASNI, SSTC-N, SSTC-S, Silver Strand State Beach, and the Coronado Beaches) is 

95 breeding adults. The current preferred method for determining breeding pairs is maximum nests at one 

time. If one assumes that 95 breeding adults correlate to 48 pairs necessary for the Silver Strand beaches, 

this roughly correlates to 48 required active nests at one time to meet recovery goals. 

The maximum number of active nests recorded on NBC property was 33 in 2002 and 2003. During these 

years there were 20 maximum active nests on the SSTC-N and 5 on SSTC-S. The Preferred Alternative 

would allow for 22 of these nests to be buffered and protected. During these same years there were 12 

(2002) and 13 (2003) maximum active nests on NASNI as well as 3 (2002) and 1 (2003) on Delta Beach 

North and South combined. These numbers do not sum to 33 because 33 is the total maximum nesting for 

all NBC Silver Strand property; plovers may shift locations within the season and the maximum active 

nests at each site do not necessarily overlap. It is therefore difficult to determine exactly the effect of 

buffering a maximum of 22 nests on SSTC-N and –S because of what may occur simultaneously or at 

different times in the season on other NBC beaches. If 22 active nests are buffered on the SSTC oceanside 

beaches and 14 to 15 nests occur on other San Diego Bay NBC properties, as was the case in 2002 and 

2003, there is a potential for the Navy to meet a substantial portion of the recovery goal on its beaches 

alone. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-82

As the Navy will continue to avoid up to 22 plover nests during training activities and continue 

monitoring and predator control efforts as well as potential substrate enhancement at Delta Beach North 

and South, Navy training in the action area is not expected to impact the western snowy plover at a 

population level. It is expected that effects due to predation, specifically the gull-billed tern, and from yet 

unknown causes will continue to have a larger effect on the success of the species than Navy training. 

3.12.3.2.3 Alternative 2 

Western snowy plover management under Alternative 2 carries the management measure of buffering a 

maximum of 22 nests at one time. Since the only difference in training under Alternative 2 would be 

limited dispersal of training across additional SSTC-N lanes, the effect would likely be similar to that 

under Alternative 1. 

3.12.3.3 California Brown Pelican 

Based on the limited potential contact as well as the status of the pelican stated in the five-year review, it 

is anticipated that none of the alternatives would adversely affect the population of California brown 

pelican. There are no known significant pelican roost sites on Navy training beaches in the SSTC. 

Pelicans do roost on Homeport Island which is located in the in-water bayside training area Delta III as 

well as along the wave attenuator at Fiddler’s Cove Marina, which is between Navy in-water bayside 

training areas Delta I and Charlie. The numbers of pelicans that use San Diego Bay and Silver Strand 

ocean beaches were counted over a year long 2006-07 Port-Navy bird survey effort. Brown pelicans 

counted in grid cells overlapping the ROI totaled 4,845 for the entire year, compared to 10,164 observed 

in the entire survey area. Birds in or adjacent to the ROI were most numerous along Zuniga Jetty, around 

Fiddler’s Cove Marina, and around Homeport Island. Maximum counts at these sites include 175 along 

Zuniga Jetty in September, 75 at Fiddler’s Cove Marina in November, and 104 at Homeport Island in 

September. 

These roost areas are likely to receive disturbance from transiting Navy craft or trainees on Zuniga Jetty 

but as the craft and trainees will only be transiting the area the disturbance is expected to be transient and 

not different from background levels of activity in San Diego Bay. 

Underwater detonations also have the potential to directly harm pelicans. The mitigation measures for 

underwater detonations would require that the detonation area be monitored for 30 minutes prior to and 

30 minutes after a detonation and that successive detonations be more than 30 minutes or less than 10 

seconds apart. When monitoring the area, personnel watch for marine mammals, sea turtles, and diving 

birds. Presence of these animals would cause the detonation to halt. 

According to Yelverton et al. (1973), the safe impulse distance for birds, for all practical purposes, can be 

the same as that for diving mammals. That is, birds must be closer to the blast to sustain injury, so the 

marine mammal distance would be adequate. The suggested criteria should apply to birds of a wide range 

of sizes, with a lethal dose being approximately the same for larger birds as smaller (Yelverton et al. 

1973). 

Without a means to avoid blast impacts to diving birds, there would be mortality due to injuries from 

these detonations; the probability would increase due to fish kill that would attract foraging birds in 

sequential blasts. The protective measure of scheduling sequential underwater detonations more than 30 

minutes or less than 10 seconds apart limits the potential for effect on birds that would come to forage on 

any potential fish kill. Transiting pelicans or those resting on the water may be startled and also 

experience concussive injury if diving, although they are not deep divers and therefore do not spend as 

much time under water as other birds such as cormorants. Because the underwater detonation protective 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-83

measures include watching for rafting or circling birds (like pelicans preparing to dive) immediately 

before a detonation, potential effects are minimized to the extent possible. 

In-water pile driving activities that have the potential to cloud the water and impede foraging are 

governed by a programmatic MOU between the USFWS and the Navy. The MOU primarily addresses the 

California least tern but also benefits the pelican through requiring silt curtains on dredging activities. In 

addition, noise created during construction or maintenance activities such as pile driving is managed 

during periods when these species are foraging due to the potentially significant effect of noise on fish 

forage (DoN and USFWS 2004). This MOU is currently under revision. 

3.12.3.4 Light-Footed Clapper Rail 

While clapper rail habitat (salt marsh and adjacent mudflat) occurs in the ROI, no activities are planned in 

salt marsh where the rail nests and finds shelter, or in the mudflats where it forages. There are a few 

training activities that access the southwest corner of San Diego Bay in the vicinity where the clapper rail 

has been sighted. These activities cross the Silver Strand from the ocean to the San Diego Bay at Emory 

Cove, possibly beaching on the oceanside or carrying non-motorized boats, and subsequently, swimming 

or paddling towards the power plant or Naval Base San Diego. Trainees may also approach from the 

bayside, through Emory Cove, in small motorized boats. Trainees beach their boats, cross SR-75, and 

mock-attack a target in the SSTC-S inland area, returning to their boats when finished. These types of 

activities may occur in up to 28 distinct training events per year. The individuals do not maneuver on the 

bayside outside of the dredged out Emory Cove channel, and would not come into contact with salt marsh 

or adjacent mudflat where clapper rails may occur. No additional activities in the area are anticipated. 

Based on this lack of training contact with clapper rail habitat and the very low and sporadic population of 

clapper rails in the SSTC-S salt marsh, none of the alternatives would have an effect on the light-footed 

clapper rail. 

3.12.4 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

All listed species management measures currently employed under No Action alternative will continue, 

with the exception of lane management of SSTC-N training lanes Blue 2 through Orange 2 as previously 

described in 3.12.1.6. In addition, the following mitigation measures are proposed. 

3.12.4.1 California Least Tern and Western Snowy Plover Measures 

Due to anticipated impacts to California least tern and western snowy plover from the action alternatives, 

the following measure is proposed to minimize and manage these impacts. 

• Long-term Site Enhancement Plan. Develop a site enhancement plan that includes establishing 

dunes on the windward (west) edges of Delta North and South that would enhance this area for 

plovers, create a source of sand for the least tern nesting area, and establish a better visual barrier 

between SR-75 and the nesting colony. This plan could be developed as a part of the NBC 

INRMP revision. 

3.12.4.2 Training Activity Restrictions 

Vehicle Patrolling and LARC V Operator Training. Vehicle patrolling and LARC V Operator training 

will not occur in Red, Blue, or Orange Beach Lanes.

3.12.5 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 

Unavoidable environmental impacts to federally listed bird species are discussed in Section 3.12.3 

Federally Listed Species Impacts. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-84

As mentioned in Section 3.12.1.5.1, military readiness activities are exempt from the take prohibitions of 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act provided they do not result in a significant adverse effect on a population 

of a migratory bird species. A number of migratory bird species covered under the MBTA are listed as 

endangered or threatened, and are discussed in detail in Section 3.12.3. Other species that occur at SSTC 

are also covered under the MBTA, but are not federally or state-listed as endangered or threatened; these 

species are not limited to, but include the special status birds listed in Table 3.12-3. 

Unavoidable environmental effects are described below. 

• Effects on nesting least terns and snowy plovers will likely result from increased access to 

training areas during the breeding season of these birds. This may include some mortality and loss 

of productivity (see Section 3.12.3). 

• General disturbance of migratory birds, will likely result from the increased interaction between 

humans on foot in small and large groups, vehicles, equipment, weapons firing, pyrotechnics, 

dogs, marine vessels, etc. The effects are both behavioral and physiological, and could result in 

short-term and temporary disruption of foraging, roosting, or nesting for both common and 

special status species. Noise can also interfere with animal communication. An unquantifiable 

effect of an increasingly noisy environment may affect avian use of the SSTC. 

• General habitat degradation is likely due to the increased presence of humans, noise, vehicles, 

helicopters, and heavy equipment. On the other hand, these activities may also control vegetation 

on the site which helps to preserve habitat on the site. Habitat for foraging, roosting, or nesting 

may be temporarily unavailable due to occupation of the amphibious landing area and associated 

activities on the beach that could occupy a large footprint. 

• Both action alternatives could expose diving birds to concussive injury from underwater 

detonation. However the procedure proposed for pre-detonation monitoring minimizes the risk of 

such injury (Section 3.10.2.7; Marine Mammals; Current Mitigation Measures). 

With implementation of mitigation measures and management practices, no other unavoidable, adverse 

environmental effects have been identified for bird species at the population level as a result of 

implementation of any of the alternatives. 

3.12.6 Summary of Effects 

The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) would result in adverse effects on individual birds; none of these 

temporary effects are expected to have an adverse effect on nesting shorebirds and seabirds at the 

population level, such as to the California least tern and western snowy plover. Effects would be 

minimized due to the proposed mitigation measures; effects would also be minimized by de-conflicting 

access to training beaches due to the presence of nesting birds. Impacts to the California least tern and 

western snowy plover are described in detail in a separate Biological Assessment, prepared for 

consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA. This BA was submitted to the USFWS by the 

Navy, initiating consultation on these species.

3.12.6.1 No Action Alternative 

 The potential impacts to birds of the No Action Alternative would be limited, short-term, and 

direct/indirect to individuals rather than a population of migratory birds. No unavoidable adverse effects 

are expected on migratory bird populations as a result of implementing the common elements of the No 

Action Alternative. Activities are covered under existing Navy/USFWS Biological Opinions and permits. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-85

While many activities are frequent, most have a small footprint in proportion to the area available; and by 

their nature, they are short in duration. 

The potential for direct impact to birds on the water or on land is remote. The primary effect to birds is 

flushing of individual birds, such as passerines, which may use wetlands and scrub areas for nesting. The 

energy that a foraging, resting, or nesting bird must expend can affect its reproductive success, even if it 

is using the ROI for a short time as a stopover rest area during migration, and not to nest. Flushing could 

also occur from on-foot land-based activities, such as during the use of pyrotechnics. These effects are 

minor and short-term to birds because there are only small groups of personnel acting covertly; further, 

the personnel are dispersed throughout the 600 acres of inland area—concentrated near roads and away 

from wetlands where birds may be located. A portion of this activity does occur in wetland or semiwetland areas, or in low scrub where birds may be nesting—and naturally more secretive in behavior. 

Training activities are not allowed in vernal pools under the No Action Alternative. The overall impact on 

birds is short-term and minor; further the overall impact is on an individual species and not overall 

population level. 

Activities that disturb sediment, such as pile driving associated with ELCAS, which is infrequent, may 

cause turbidity in the water and could temporarily affect the foraging success of fish-eating birds, 

including the federally endangered California least tern and brown pelican. 

Noise impact could potentially, but likely negligibly affect migratory bird individuals under the No 

Action Alternative. 

3.12.6.2 Alternatives 1 and 2 

Increases in training under Alternatives 1 and 2 may result in increased impacts to the nesting and 

foraging of migratory birds, in addition to the California least tern and western snowy plover. Impacts to 

nesting and fledglings during the breeding season would be higher on the beaches where individual or 

colonial nesting occurs. Similar disruption of nesting could occur in the inland area of SSTC-S because of 

the physical impact of foot and vehicle activity, as well as the use of pyrotechnics; but no permanent 

habitat loss is expected. Much of the existing vegetation is iceplant, which supports low habitat value. 

Overall, the protection from urban development afforded by the security and safety requirement of 

military training activities has maintained the habitat for a wide array and abundance of migratory birds. 

A summary of effects by alternative is presented in Table 3.12-14. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-86

Table 3.12-8: Summary of Effects 

Alternative Effects 

No Action Alternative 

• Current management practices restrict activities from occurring in some 

nesting areas during the breeding season, particularly three SSTC-N beach 

lanes Blue 2, Orange 1, and Orange 2 as well as Delta North and South, 

• Potential impacts from air and marine vessel activities, as well as LCAC 

activities are expected to be minimal to nesting species, as activities 

typically occur or are scheduled for areas with no or minimal nesting. 

• If there are birds found diving or circling around an underwater detonation 

point, activities will be halted until the birds have left the area, which 

minimizes the potential for blast impacts to diving birds 

• Habitat for nesting and foraging migratory land birds, as well as for 

shorebirds and seabirds may be degraded due to the presence of foot 

traffic and from land detonations and pyrotechnics. None of these 

temporary effects are expected to have an adverse effect on migratory 

birds at the population level. 

• The majority of beach activities occur away from nests on the beach, 

generally below the high tide line. Activities occurring near the nesting 

area potentially affect nesting birds. However, current management 

practices minimize adverse effects. 

• Loss in California least tern nesting would not decrease the nesting total 

below the 5,722 annual nests to maintain a stable rangewide population, 

and would be below the 2007 incidental take allowance issued by the 

USFWS. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-87

Table 3.12-14: Summary of Effects (Continued) 

Alternative Effects 

Alternative 1 

• Alternative 1 would have additional effects on birds. The increased 

frequency and intensity of these activities would encourage birds to avoid 

the area. 

• Vehicle patrolling and testing at SSTC-N would minimally impact nesting 

migratory birds or shorebird foraging under this Alternative, because these 

activities would be restricted to specific training lanes. 

• Habitat for nesting and foraging migratory land birds, as well as for 

shorebirds and seabirds would be degraded due to the presence of foot 

traffic, and noise from pyrotechnics. While impacts to nesting habitats 

would increase under this Alternative, existing infrastructure, training 

requirements, scheduling needs, and mitigation measures will naturally 

pull activities away from these habitat areas, minimizing impacts. None of 

the temporary effects from training are expected to have an adverse effect 

on migratory birds at the population level. 

• Previously restricted beach areas for nesting California least terns and 

western snowy plovers would be affected by increases in beach activities, 

most notably those comprising of foot traffic or vehicle use. Loss in 

California least terns nesting would not decrease the nesting total below 

the 5,722 annual nests to maintain a stable rangewide population, and 

would be below the 2007 incidental take allowance issued by the USFWS. 

Consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of ESA is currently 

underway for this alternative. 

Alternative 2 

• Effects are the same as described for the No Action Alternative for air and 

marine vessel activities as well as LCAC and ELCAS activities. Effects of 

other activities are generally the same as Alternative 1. 

• Under Alternative 2, training has the option of going into Lanes 8, 9, and 

10 and impact nesting birds there. Migratory birds that coincidently use 

this area would also be impacted. Military activities will not often go into 

these training lanes, however, due to the infrastructure, training 

requirements, scheduling needs, and mitigation measures causing 

activities to naturally gravitate away from nesting areas. 

• Previously restricted beach areas for nesting California least terns and 

western snowy plovers would be affected by increases in all beach 

activities, most notably those comprising of foot traffic or vehicle use. 

Loss in California least terns nesting would not decrease the nesting total 

below the 5,722 annual nests to maintain a stable rangewide population, 

and would be below the 2007 incidental take allowance issued by the 

USFWS. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

BIRDS 3.12-88

Table 3.12-9: Summary of Effects (Continued) 

Alternative Effects 

Mitigation Measures 

• Mitigation measures include: communication and coordination of training 

area protocols, nest relocation, predator management and control, habitat 

modification, site preparation, nest substrate enhancement, signage and 

education, recreational use restriction, rearing of collected eggs, injured, 

and sick individuals, a western snowy plover health study, and 

monitoring. 

• Under Alternative 1, vehicle patrolling and LARC V Operator Training 

would not occur in Red, Blue or Orange Beach Lanes. Observation for 

birds will be conducted prior to and after underwater detonations and 

detonation activities would be delayed if flocks of diving birds are 

present. Mitigation measures are described in detail in place as described 

in Section 3.12.4.
3.13 Cultural Resources 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES

This section addresses the baseline level of naval activities at the Silver Strand Training Complex 

(SSTC), as well as proposed alternatives; and this section analyzes their potential effects on 

archaeological resources, submerged archaeological resources, architectural resources, and historic 

resources, as defined in the sections below. 

3.13.1 Affected Environment 

3.13.1.1 Introduction 

3.13.1.1.1 Definition of Resources 

Cultural resources or heritage resources are districts, buildings, sites, structures, areas of traditional use, 

or objects with historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. These resources 

can be divided into three categories: archaeological (prehistoric and historic) resources, architectural 

resources, and traditional cultural resources. To be considered significant in the federal planning process, 

heritage resources must be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as 

discussed below. 

Archaeological Resources 

Archaeological resources include prehistoric and historic sites where humans have caused detectable 

changes or left artifacts, ecofacts (charred seeds, bone, and shell), features, or other deposits. Prehistoric 

sites in San Diego County occur from prior to 9,000 years before present (B.P.) until the founding of the 

San Diego Mission and Presidio—the first Spanish settlement in Alta California—in 1769. Prehistoric 

artifacts consist of flaked stone tools, cores and waste flakes, groundstone tools, ceramics, and ecofacts. 

Archaeological components consist of deposits in the same site area that date to different times. A site 

may have an historic and a prehistoric component; a site’s surface component refers to materials on the 

ground surface and its subsurface component—buried materials. 

Historic archaeological resources are those sites or components dating after European settlement—1769 

in San Diego County. These resources may include subsurface structures or features, such as wells, 

cisterns, or privies. Other historic archaeological remains include artifact concentrations, and building or 

structure foundations. Historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects must be at least 50 years old or they 

must be of exceptional importance to be considered significant for National Register Criteria 

Consideration G. 

Submerged Archaeological Resources 

Submerged or underwater archaeological resources consist of both historic and prehistoric resources. 

Submerged historic resources consist of shipwrecks, wharves, or sunken aircraft. Underwater prehistoric 

sites consist of the remains of campsites and artifact scatters. Prior to 9,000 years ago (early Holocene), 

when people first arrived in the San Diego Region, the sea level was approximately 20 meters below that 

of today and the coast line was three to four thousand meters west of its current location (Masters 1988). 

All prehistoric campsites or villages located at or near the coast line during the early- and mid-Holocene 

are now underwater. The number of recorded underwater prehistoric sites in southern California is low 

because there has been very little underwater archaeological survey. Underwater surveys of Ballast Point, 

located to the south of Cabrillo National Monument, have identified nine locations of underwater cultural 

material that have been located and recorded as well as two shipwreck sites that have been located 

through core sampling (Kelly and May 2001). 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-1
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

All identified submerged historic archaeological resources in the vicinity of SSTC consist primarily of 

shipwrecks; however, no underwater prehistoric sites have been surveyed or identified within the SSTC 

activity areas. 

Architectural Resources 

Architectural resources consist of standing buildings and structures. For heritage resource management 

purposes, a building is something built to shelter or enclose humans or their activities, such as a house, 

school, barn, or factory. A structure is something built for other purposes, such as a dam, bridge, or silo. 

To be significant, architectural resources must be at least 50 years old or they must be of exceptional 

importance to be considered significant for National Register Criteria Consideration G. 

Some Cold War-era military buildings and structures may be considered significant under Criteria 

Consideration G.

Traditional Cultural Resources 

Traditional cultural resources are sites, buildings, structures or objects that are closely associated with 

beliefs and cultural practices of a living culture, subculture, or community. Called traditional cultural 

properties (TCPs), these sites must be at least 50 years old or they must be of exceptional importance to 

be considered significant for National Register Criteria Consideration G. 

These beliefs and practices must be rooted in the group’s history and must be important in maintaining 

their cultural identity. 

3.13.1.1.2 Regional Setting 

The Silver Strand peninsula is approximately five miles long and connects the City of Coronado to the 

City of Imperial Beach. The peninsula forms the western boundary of San Diego Bay. It is characterized 

by flat coastal beaches along its western edge. The eastern edge consists of developed areas, such as 

SSTC—the northeastern portion of the penninsula—and Coronado Cays, a residential development on the 

eastern side of the strand. Tidal flats are located in the southern portion of the strand. 

Prehistory 

Human occupation of coastal southern California began in the Paleo-Indian period (11,500-8500 B.P.). 

Characterized by the San Dieguito Complex in the San Diego Region, these early inhabitants supported 

themselves through generalized hunting and gathering. The San Dieguito assemblage consists of finely 

flaked leaf-shaped projectile points, choppers, scrapers, and crescentic stones. 

The following Archaic period (8500-1300 B.P.) encompassed both a coastal focus called the La Jollan 

Complex and an inland focus called the Pauma Complex. A large population existed along the coast 

during this period. Most sites related to this period consist of large shell middens: an abundance of manos 

and slab and basin metates: crude, cobble-based choppers, scrapers, and cutting tools. A few bone items, 

and shell beads characterize the artifact assemblage. Subsistence was based on hard seed and shellfish 

collection. 

The Late Prehistoric period (1300-200 B.P.) is marked by the appearance of small projectile points, which 

signifies the advent of the bow and arrow, the appearance of ceramics, and the replacement of 

inhumations with cremations. Ethnographically, the Tipai/Ipai, classified as part of the Yuman language 

family, inhabited the area. Early mission records indicate as many as 58 villages existed in the San Diego 

area. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-2
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Early Historic Period 

Juan Cabrillo, who explored the Alta California (Upper California) coast in 1542, was the first recorded 

European to visit the San Diego Region. In 1565, the Spanish initiated regular trade between Acapulco 

and Manila. Manila Galleons sailed along the coast of Alta California on their trip back to Acapulco and 

occasionally stopped for water and food. Sporadic visits by various explorers continued through the 17th

and 18th centuries. Native populations were wiped out by diseases introduced by Spanish maritime 

explorers, the Manila Galleon, and native traders and travelers from Sonora and Baja California during 

this time (Preston 2002). The first Spanish presence in Alta California occurred in 1769, when a mission 

and presidio were established at San Diego. From the 1700s to the mid-1800s, the Silver Strand area was 

used primarily for livestock grazing. By the 1840s, a wagon road existed along the Silver Strand 

peninsula. Anglo-Americans began settling on Silver Strand in the 1860s. The town of Oneonta appeared 

south of Imperial Beach in 1882. During this period, a whaling station was established on North Island. 

In the 1880s, southern California experienced a land boom, and many speculative, paper towns were 

created. In 1884, some local businessmen purchased the Peninsula of San Diego, a former Mexican 

rancho, to develop the resort of Coronado and build Hotel del Coronado. The first recorded development 

in the area was a road graded along Silver Strand peninsula in anticipation of eager land buyers. Coronado 

Heights and South Coronado were laid out in this area in 1887. However, these towns were not 

successful, and the land was purchased by John D. Spreckels (Department of the Navy [DoN] 1997). In 

1889, Coronado Belt Line Railroad Company began operating a steam train connecting Hotel del 

Coronado with San Diego. The train line followed the shoreline of the San Diego Bay through SSTCSouth (SSTC-S) and the site of Coronado Heights, then it proceeded south through Imperial Beach, east 

to the San Diego Saltworks and north to National City and San Diego. 

In 1894, Zuniga Jetty was built to help keep sand from blocking the mouth of San Diego Bay. This sand 

was brought north from the Tijuana River estuary by the California Countercurrent. A temporary railroad 

was built on North Island—and on scaffolding over the ocean—to bring in the rock to construct the jetty. 

After the jetty was built, sand accumulated east of the jetty which enlarged North Island at its 

southwestern tip (Integrated Publishing 2009; Masters 1988; Scanlon 2007). This area is now called 

Breaker Beach. 

20th Century Developments 

Around 1900, the Tent City resort was established by John Spreckels just south of Hotel del Coronado 

and north of SSTC-North (SSTC-N). The City of Coronado grew up around the hotel. The Curtiss School 

of Aviation was established on North Island in 1911, and the Navy moved its aviation camp there in 

1912. The U.S. Naval Air Station was officially established in 1917, with 524 acres on North Island. The 

Army maintained an aviation station adjacent to the Navy facilities until 1935. Also in 1935, growth of 

the town of Coronado forced Tent City to close. 

In 1920, the Navy established a small radio compass station at the present-day YMCA Surf Camp on 

SSTC- S, to aid ships in navigation. Coronado’s Tent City was dismantled in 1939 (Brandes and Carlin 

1988). Between 1930 and 1942, areas along Silver Strand were filled with materials dredged from San 

Diego Bay. The Army acquired land from the Spreckels Company in 1942 to establish Fort Emory 

(present-day Naval Amphibious Base [NAB] Coronado) to the north of the Navy’s small radio compass 

station. Massive reinforced concrete gun emplacements and associated buildings were constructed for 

coastal defense. 

Between 1940 and 1946, approximately 26 million cubic yards of sediment were dredged to deepen San 

Diego Bay to accommodate larger Naval vessels. Much of this was used to fill Spanish Bight, the bight or 

cove that separated North Island from Coronado Island. Much of the land lying east of Highway 75 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-3
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

(Silver Strand Boulevard) along SSTC-N, including the NAB Coronado cantonment proper, consists of 

fill which was deposited at that time (DoN 2002). In contrast, most of the oceanside of Silver Strand and 

Coronado Island consist of in situ deposits. In 1942, the Zuniga Jetty was improved and extended. This 

kept the channel to San Diego Bay free from sand deposits. Breakers Beach, lying on the southwest side 

of Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI), has naturally built out as a result of the construction of 

Zuniga Jetty (Integrated Publishing 2009; Scanlon 2007). This sand buildup is brought north by the 

California Countercurrent from the Tijuana River estuary (Masters 1988). 

By 1944, the threat of Japanese invasion was reduced and the Navy obtained Fort Emory from the Army 

to use as a training station. The Navy designated the site as the Amphibious Training Base Fort Emory, in 

conjunction with the amphibious training center located on Coronado (SSTC-N) in 1943. In 1946, the 

Amphibious Training Base was renamed the Naval Amphibious Base. In 1948, the Navy established a 

radio technical training school in conjunction with the radio station. The Navy acquired the Army’s land 

holdings on Silver Strand in 1952. Several new buildings were constructed, and the old batteries were 

used to store equipment. The Wullenweber Antenna array and headquarters were built in 1965. These 

areas became part of the Naval Amphibious Base in the 1990s. 

3.13.1.1.3 Region of Influence 

The Region of Influence for cultural resources includes all of SSTC-N and SSTC-S, portions of NASNI, 

the boat lanes and ocean anchorages offshore of SSTC, and the bayside training areas within San Diego 

Bay. Resource concerns for Silver Strand include prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and 

architectural resources. Cultural resource issues for the nearshore and offshore ranges primarily involve 

potential effects on underwater historic sites. 

3.13.1.2 Regulatory Requirements 

Cultural resources are unique and nonrenewable. Where located on federal land, these resources are 

subject to the regulatory requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, the 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 

and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA). 

For the purposes of this EIS, compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and 36 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 800 has been previously accomplished under the San Diego Metropolitan Area 

Programmatic Agreement (Metro Area PA), executed in February 2003 between the Commander Navy 

Region Southwest (CNRSW), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) and the California 

State Historic Preservation Officer. The Metro Area PA provides for CNRSW determinations of an 

undertaking’s area of potential effect (APE), identification of potentially affected historic properties, and 

assessment of “no historic properties affected” and “no adverse effect” without the further consultations 

with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (CASHPO) normally required under 36 CFR 800. 

Under the Section 106 compliance process promulgated by 36 CFR 800, only “historic properties” are 

subject to assessment of adverse effect. A historic property is any prehistoric or historic district, site, 

building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic 

Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This includes artifacts, records, and remains that are 

related to and located within such properties. The term historic property also includes properties of 

traditional spiritual and/or cultural importance to an Indian tribe, ethnic group, or subculture. TCPs must 

also meet criteria for listing on the NRHP. National Register eligibility criteria are published under 36 

CFR 60.4. A district, site, building, structure or object is eligible to the National Register if it: (a ) is 

associated with major historic events; (b) is associated with the lives of historically significant 

individuals: (c) embodies the distinct characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, is the 

work of a master, possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant an distinguishable entity whose 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-4
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-5

components may lack individual distinction: or (d) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information 

important to history and prehistory. 

Determinations of eligibility for historic properties within the SSTC are made either in consultation with 

the CASHPO or by the Coordinated Resource Management & Planning Council (CRMP) in accordance 

with Stipulation 71

 and 82 of the San Diego Metro Area PA. 

3.13.1.3 Silver Strand Training Complex-North 

3.13.1.3.1 Archaeology 

As mentioned in 3.13.1.1.2, the training areas in SSTC-North are located on fill deposits that resulted 

from the dredging of San Diego Bay and the construction of the Zuniga Jetty. These fill areas have no 

potential for in-situ heritage resource deposits. In the early 1900s, prehistoric archaeological site CA-SDI59 was identified. A recent survey identified four sites (CA-SDI-14411; CA-SDI-14412; CA-SDI-14413; 

and CA-SDI-14414) along with several artifacts in a secondary context associated with the fill (Dolan and 

Apple 1998). Table 3.13-1 contains a description of these sites. 

These four sites may be eligible for the National Register, but their eligibility cannot be determined 

without testing and evaluation of the resources. Because the project is located in areas with fill and 

aeolian sediments, additional buried archaeological resources may be present. 

Table 3.13-1: Archaeological Resources within the Project Limits at SSTC-N 

Resource 

Designation Description NRHP Status 

CA-SDI-59 

Shell and fire-affected rock scatter. Excavated in 1976 and Late Prehistoric 

and Archaic components were identified (Follette 1976). The site may have 

been destroyed by road construction or covered by associated fill. 

NE 

CA-SDI14411 

Shell and lithic scatter. May represent a disturbed shell-processing camp. It 

consists of a shell scatter with associated flakes. Fire-affected rock also is 

present. This site has been damaged or perhaps destroyed by road and 

utilities construction. 

PE 

CA-SDI14412 

Shell and lithic scatter. Consists of a shell scatter with two flakes and one 

piece of fire-affected rock. The site is a secondary deposit probably pushed 

from its original location to form a utility berm. 

PE 

CA-SDI14413 

World War II (WWII) historic trash dump/camp. Artifacts include burned 

wood and charcoal, glass, metal, and other trash. It dates to the World War 

II (WWII) era and may reflect early military activity in the area. 

PE 

CA-SDI14414 Shell scatter. A disturbed prehistoric shell concentration primarily consisting 

of Pismo clams. No artifacts were observed at the site. PE 

Notes: NE - Not Eligible; PE - Potentially Eligible. 

 

1

 7. Professional investigations have identified eligible and potentially eligible properties within the CNRSW Metro 

ROI. In conjunction with ICRMP development and as future investigations, CNRSW will determine if additional 

properties in the Metro ROI not previously evaluated may be eligible. 

2

 8. CNRSW will ensure that all new construction, alterations, equipment installation, structure modifications, or 

repairs and maintenance on land, buildings, or structures will be reviewed for potential effects to historic properties. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

3.13.1.4 Silver Strand Training Complex-South 

3.13.1.4.1 Archaeology 

As reviewed in a previous section, the bayside north of the Silver Strand State Beach in SSTC-N consists 

of fill that resulted from dredging of San Diego Bay. The former Cantonment area of the Naval Radio 

Receiving Facility (NRRF now SSTC-S) is not on fill, but the northern portion of that area has been 

disturbed during the grading for the Coronado Heights development (Underwood 2008). Fifteen 

archaeological sites are recorded within SSTC-S. One of the sites (CA-SDI-5454/12270) has been 

determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP. Two additional sites (CA-SDI-5514 and CA-SDI13968) are considered to be eligible. Five of the sites (Table 3.13-2) were recently investigated, and 

recommended to be ineligible for listing (Underwood 2008). Another seven known sites may be eligible 

for the National Register, but their status has not been determined. These sites are described below and 

summarized in Table 3.13-2. 

Table 3.13-2: Archaeological Resources within the Project Limits at SSTC-S 

Resource 

Designation Description NRHP Status 

CA-SDI-57/H Lithic and shell scatter; historic debris. Highly disturbed. No intact subsurface 

deposit. A small prehistoric campsite that also contains historic materials. 

Prehistoric artifacts include shell and lithics. Historic debris consists of domestic 

and construction materials. The majority of the site was destroyed by 

construction of SR-75. This site was subjected to archaeological testing in 2007 

and recommended ineligible for listing on the National Register (Underwood 

2008). 

NE 

CA-SDI5454/12270 A very large, multilocus site with a substantial shell midden, it was originally 

recorded as two separate sites; both consisting of extensive lithic and shell 

scatters with numerous metavolcanic flakes, fire-affected rock, and groundstone 

artifacts. Reexamination during the 2001 Coronado Undergrounding Project 

found that the area of CA-SDI-5454 extended into the boundaries recorded for 

CA-SDI-12270. This overlap resulted in their being redocumented as a single 

site. Much of the site had been significantly affected by 1940s, and later 

construction of SR-75 and an adjacent railroad berm. The principal intact portion 

of CA-SDI-5454/121270 extends for approximately one kilometer along the 

western side of SR-75, with more disturbed, remnant components lying deeply 

buried along 600 meters of the eastern, bay-margin side of the highway. 

Fragments of human remains were also found during the 2001 Coronado 

Undergrounding Project. This resulted in the site being treated as a TCP, with the 

participation and concurrence of Kumeyaay tribal representatives. 

E 

CA-SDI-5514 Lithic and shell scatter. A scatter of shell and flaked stone. Sometime in the past, 

shell-laden dredge material was dumped on the eastern end of the site. An intact 

portion of the site was identified during the Coronado Undergrounding Project 

archaeological investigations (Pigniolo et al. 2001). For that project’s Section 

106 consultation, this site was assumed to be eligible for listing, and testing for 

effect indicated that the site would not be disturbed by that undertaking (Pigniolo 

et al. 2001). 

E* 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-6
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Table 3.13-2: Archaeological Resources within the Project Limits at SSTC-S (Continued)

Resource 

Designation Description NRHP Status 

CA-SDI13964/H Lithic and shell scatter; historic debris. Highly disturbed. Recorded as a 

prehistoric shell and lithic scatter. Two artifacts recovered. No intact subsurface 

deposit. Test excavations documented that this site consists of secondary 

deposits: prehistoric shell and lithics mixed with historic and modern materials. 

There are late 19th century domestic refuse and construction debris, possibly 

associated with Coronado Heights and later materials probably associated with 

Camp Emory and World War II coastal defenses. The site was recommended 

ineligible for the National Register (Underwood 2008). 

NE 

CA-SDI13965H Historic period refuse scatter. A very small scatter of historic period debris. 

Initially reported as dating from 1900 to 1930, a later visit to the site located only 

more recent glass and modern debris (Apple and Van Wormer 1995). The site is 

in a partially stabilized dune, and additional material may be present. 

PE 

CA-SDI13966 Lithic and shell scatter. Highly disturbed site mixed with modern refuse. No 

intact subsurface deposit. Recorded as a low-density lithic and shell scatter. This 

site was subjected to archaeological test excavation in 2007 and found to be a 

mixed secondary deposit. It was recommended ineligible for listing in the 

National Register (Underwood 2008). 

NE 

CA-SDI13967 Lithic and shell scatter. A small prehistoric site located in a portion of SSTC-S 

leased by the YMCA Surf Camp. The site is composed of flaked lithics and shell. 

PE 

CA-SDI13968 Lithic and shell scatter. A large low-density scatter of flaked stone and marine 

shell. This site may be the remnant of a site recorded at the Museum of Man as 

W-194B. 

E* 

CA-SDI13969 Lithic and shell scatter. Highly disturbed. Mixed with dredge spoils. No intact 

subsurface deposit. Recorded as a shell and lithic scatter with cobble features, 

shell concentrations, and fire-affected rock. This site was subjected to 

archaeological test excavation in 2007. The marine shell was found to be dredge 

spoil and the cobble feature proved to be recent. A few artifacts were noted, but 

there were modern materials throughout the soil column suggesting that the site 

area had been graded. The site was recommended ineligible for listing in the 

National Register (Underwood 2008). 

NE 

CA-SDI13970 Lithic and shell scatter. A small site comprised of flaked stone and marine shell. 

Ground visibility in the area is poor due to vegetation cover. The site is located in 

a depositional environment and a subsurface deposit is possible. 

PE 

CA-SDI13971 A low-density lithic and shell scatter. Previously determined ineligible by Naval 

Facilities Southwest (NAVFAC SW) CRMP (CRMP Program files). 

NE 

CA-SDI13972 Lithic and shell scatter. Highly disturbed. Mixed with modern refuse. No intact 

subsurface deposit. Recorded as a low-density lithic and shell scatter. Test 

excavation in 2007 revealed that this site was a secondary deposit. It was 

recommended ineligible for listing in the National Register (Underwood 2008). 

NE 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-7
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Table 3.13-2: Archaeological Resources within the Project Limits at SSTC-S (Continued)

Resource 

Designation Description NRHP Status 

CA-SDI13973H Historic period debris scatter. A low- to moderate-density scatter of domestic and 

construction debris. Bottle glass, lumber, metal can fragments, cement, and 

asphalt were noted at the site. The site does not appear to include a subsurface 

deposit. Without strong associations or data potential, the site was recommended 

ineligible to the National Register (Apple and Van Wormer 1995). 

PE 

CA-SDI13974/H Foundations and historic debris scatter; lithic and shell scatter. Historic 

foundations and debris associated with Fort Emory. This includes 20 plus cement 

foundations, a cement pond, and historic construction debris. In addition, 

prehistoric component is present, consisting of a low-density prehistoric lithic 

scatter. Concurrent with the determination of National Register eligibility for the 

discontinuous Fort Emory Coastal Battery historic district, the surrounding 

“historic archaeological” landscape, comprised of features associated with 

demolished buildings and structures from the Amphibious Training Base Fort 

Emory, was determined to not eligible. Due to the highly developed and 

disturbed context of this landscape, the “low density prehistoric lithic scatter” 

was also determined ineligible. 

NE 

Notes: NE - Not Eligible; PE - Potentially Eligible, E - Eligible. *Treated as eligible (Pigniolo et al. 2001). 

3.13.1.4.2 Built Environment 

The WWII-era Fort Emory Coastal Battery Historic District was part of a system of defenses along the 

West Coast, which grew out of plans made by the Army Coastal Artillery Corps between 1915 and 1936. 

In 1941, the Army moved four 155mm artillery pieces from Fort Rosecrans to the Coronado Heights area 

to quickly improve San Diego coastal defenses. This gun emplacement was called Battery Imperial. In 

October 1942, the Army acquired 412 acres in the Coronado Heights area (a Taking Action) and, in 

December 1942, Fort Emory was dedicated in honor of Brigadier General William H. Emory. The Fort 

eventually consisted of Battery Imperial, Battery Grant, Battery 134 (informally known as Battery 

Gatchell) and associated plotting and sighting rooms, and other support buildings. Battery Grant, which 

superseded Battery Imperial, consisted of six-inch guns. Construction of Battery Grant began in 1942 and 

was completed in 1943. Construction began on Battery Gatchell in 1943. It was to consist of 16-inch 

guns, but was never completed. The batteries on what is now the SSTC were part of a large harbor 

defense system centered at Fort Rosecrans on Point Loma (California State Military Museum 2008; DoN 

1997). The Colorado Railroad was moved east in 1942 to avoid Fort Emory. This post-1942 route is now 

the route of a City of Coronado bike path. 

As the war wound down in 1944, the Navy took over a portion of Fort Emory to expand their radio 

receiving station located adjacent to Fort Emory to the south. This eventually became the NRRF at SSTCS. The Army ceded the balance of Fort Emory to the Navy in 1950 (California State Military Museum 

2008). By 1963, the Navy had demolished most of the buildings. Only the batteries and water tanks 

remained. The large Wullenweber Antenna array and the radio receiver building (Building 1) were 

constructed in 1965. The array was one of 14 built around the world by the Navy as part of its global 

communications system. Prior to being incorporated under Naval Base Coronado in 1998, SSTC-S was 

under NAVCOMTELSTA San Diego, which operated the NRRF Wullenweber antenna facility. 

In 1997, historic resources evaluations of the NRRF buildings and structures were conducted at SSTC-S. 

As part of that effort, the Fort Emory Coastal Battery Historic District was defined. Consisting of five 

buildings, it was nominated to the National Register under Criteria A and C (DoN 1997). The 1997 

historic resources evaluation omitted a determination of the Wullenweber Antenna properties because of a 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-8
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

lack of access to sensitive information. Subsequently, these properties were decommissioned; then they 

were addressed during the state-wide Cold War Era evaluations initiative and recommended as National 

Register eligible. Under Stipulation 7 of the San Diego Metro Area PA, the CRMP concurred in this 

determination, and the antenna and radio receiver building are now considered historic properties. The 

Wullenweber antenna structure, exclusive of Building 1, has been scheduled by Naval Base Coronado 

Public Works Office for demolition, an adverse effect under 36 CFR 800.5. In response, the CRMP is 

consulting with the CASHPO for resolution of the adverse effect, which is proposed to be by 

documentation under a previously consulted Alternative Documentation Standard protocol. Building 42, 

the Terminal Receiver Building, two former diesel storage tanks, and two water reservoirs have been 

evaluated and recommended ineligible (DoN 1997) (Table 3.13-3). 

Table 3.13-3: Historic Buildings and Structures within the Project Limits at SSTC-S 

Resource Designation Description NRHP Status 

Wullenweber Antenna E 

Building 1 Radio Receiver Building 

(associated with the Wullenweber Antenna) 

E 

Building 42 Terminal equipment building NE 

901 Reservoir potable NE 

902 Reservoir potable NE 

CA-SDI-13073H Coronado and San Diego Railroad, a 29-kilometer portion 

of the historic Coronado and San Diego Railroad 

including the railroad grade, track, ties and bridges.1

 

E and PE 

Bunker 98 Operational storage (Plotting and Spotting Room) E 

Bunker 99 Receiver building (Battery 134 [Gatchell]) E 

Bunker 100 Antenna maintenance shop (Battery Grant) E 

911 Former diesel oil storage tank (Battery Grant) E 

912 Former diesel storage tank (Battery Grant) E 

– Battery Imperial (artillery foundation features) E 

Notes: NE - Not Eligible; PE - Potentially Eligible, E – Eligible 

1 Slightly more than 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the track documented on the CDPR site record crosses the eastern margin SSTCS. This alignment was built in 1942 and is now a City of Coronado bike path. However, the existing DPR site record does not 

include an abandoned loop from the pre-1942 alignment of this railroad that remains partially preserved within the northern 

portion of SSTC-S. This portion of the railroad has not been evaluated for significance. NAVFAC SW will record and evaluate 

this portion of the site. 

3.13.1.4.3 Traditional Cultural Properties 

In 1992, amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act defined a new historic property type: the 

TCP. This type of property derives its significance from its association with traditional cultural practices 

or beliefs of an ethnic group, subculture, or community. For example, a place where traditional economic 

activities were undertaken, such as a place for gathering particular plant foods could qualify as a TCP. 

The site of some artistic activities, such as a prehistoric rock art panel or a mountain, mentioned in an 

origin account or migration myth might qualify as a TCP. A TCP is a resource that is eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register because of its association with the cultural practices or beliefs of a 

living community. These beliefs must be rooted in the community’s history and they must be important in 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-9
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. The place itself, like other types of historic 

properties, must be at least 50 years old. 

As previously noted, SSTC-S contains one eligible archaeological site, CA-SDI-5454/12270. This 

eligible site is a very large, multilocus site with a substantial shell midden, it was originally recorded as 

two separate sites; both consisting of extensive lithic and shell scatters with numerous metavolcanic 

flakes, fire-affected rock, and groundstone artifacts. Fragments of human remains were also found during 

the 2001 Coronado Undergrounding Project. This resulted in the site being treated as a TCP, with the 

participation and concurrence of Kumeyaay tribal representatives (Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation 

Committee) during NAGPRA consultation. 

3.13.1.5 Submerged Archaeological Resources 

Underwater prehistoric sites or isolated objects may be located in the southern NASNI beaches, offshore 

waters and in the offshore waters along Silver Strand. The potential for cultural resources is high; 

however, no submerged prehistoric sites have been previously recorded within the project area. When the 

first people arrived in the San Diego Region, before 9,000 B.P., during the time archaeologists call the 

early Holocene, the sea level was perhaps 20 or more meters below mean sea level of today. The coastline 

was about three to four kilometers west of its present location. It is highly likely that submerged 

archeological sites exist in this area. San Diego Bay and the Silver Strand date from approximately 6,000 

years ago during the mid-Holocene (Masters 1988) and prehistoric Indians evidently made use of the 

SSTC area since that time. Given the extensive use of shellfish and other intertidal resources by 

prehistoric populations, and the long period during which the area was occupied, it is likely that they 

made substantial use of the marshes and mud flats that existed along Silver Strand and those that are 

submerged a short distance offshore today. 

The potential for historic remains is also high. Several shipwrecks have occurred within San Diego Bay 

and in the offshore waters (Figure 3.13-1) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2005). The 

recorded locations of these resources are often inaccurate and the extent of their remains uncertain, due in 

part to the poor quality of information provided by survivors, in part to the effects of currents and other 

natural process, and in part to disturbance (e.g., dredging). The fate of many lost ships, especially from 

the first European contact to the mid-1880s, is simply unknown. 

Considerable cultural activity surrounding Point Loma make it likely to find sunken vessels, lost fishing 

boats, dumped aircraft, and military equipment offshore of Ballast Point. The 1981 survey off of Ballast 

Point located nine locations of underwater cultural material to the west of the Zuniga Jetty (Kelly and 

May 2001). The survey also documented two wreck sites. Any recovery of these resources has been 

deemed too difficult based on the depth of the locations and the seasonal sand deposition that has covered 

the potential resources in the area. 

On the bayside of the Silver Strand peninsula, at least three shipwrecks appear to be in or near the training 

beaches. An unnamed wreck is recorded in shallow water at the northern end of Delta South beach 

(Figure 3.13-1). An unnamed wreck is recorded in the middle San Diego Bay, along the outer edges of 

Delta I and Echo training areas. Finally, an unnamed wreck is recorded at the mouth of Fiddler’s Cove at 

a depth of about 27 feet. The ages of these wrecks, and their cultural value, are not known. 

On the ocean side of the peninsula, there are at least three shipwrecks in the vicinity of the SSTC training 

areas. In the areas of Boat Lanes 2 and 3, a bark built in 1883 called the Narwhale sank in 1934. Off of 

SSTC-S, the submarine S-142 sank. A little farther south, in Boat Lane 13, the Subchaser YC689 was 

grounded in 1943. The destroyer USS Hogan (DD178), a military aircraft (S2F Tracker), and a sunken 

sailboat have also been identified offshore, south of the project area and west of the City of Imperial 

Beach. Submerged cultural resources thought to exist in the SSTC area are depicted in Figure 3.13-1. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-10
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Figure 3.13-1: Shipwrecks and Obstructions in the SSTC Area 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-11
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

None of these potential historic properties have been properly recorded or evaluated for significance (i.e., 

eligibility for the National Register). 

3.13.1.6 Current Mitigation Measures 

The Navy strives to ensure that it retains access to ocean training areas as necessary to accomplish its 

mission, while facilitating joint military-civilian use of such areas to the extent practicable and consistent 

with safety. These goals of military access, joint use, and safety are promoted through various 

coordination and outreach measures. The Navy currently employs the following management practices to 

avoid impacts to cultural resources: 

• Restrict digging near any archaeological resource site that is known or assumed to be eligible 

for listing in the NRHP. 

• Limit operational training access on or across the recorded areas of eligible or potentially 

eligible archaeological sites to foot traffic only. 

• No alteration or damage to the appearance, structure, or features of NRHP-eligible built 

properties is permitted without appropriate Section 106 review and compliance. 

Specifically, digging would be restricted (whether as a part of a training activity or infrastructure 

development) at site CA-SDI-5454/12,270, which is a site formally determined to be eligible for listing 

on the NRHP. This site contains prehistoric human remains and is thus subject to the provisions of the 

NAGPRA. 

For the Single Anchor Leg Moor component of Offshore Petroleum Discharge System (Activity 38) the 

Navy procedure is to send down a diver to survey the bottom. This procedure avoids fouling of ground 

tackle and avoids impacts to submerged cultural resources. During other vessel activities, it is current 

practice that navigators avoid known obstructions and shipwrecks. 

3.13.2 Environmental Consequences 

This resource section focuses on groups of activities that could affect cultural resources. Similar types of 

activities are grouped together (agglomerated) for ease of analysis. Any substantial ground-disturbing 

activities could affect cultural resources if they took place in the immediate area of an archaeological site. 

These ground-disturbing activities consist of vehicular traffic, grading, pile-driving, anchoring, and 

intensive foot traffic associated with beach camps. Activities without the potential to result in substantial 

ground disturbance are numerous air, ground, surface, and mid-water column activities, including 

Activities 2-4, 6, 8, 13-15, 18, 20-24, 35, 49, 54, 55, 57, 65, 66, 70, 78, (Table 2-1) and N2 and N3 (Table 

2-2). Navy training discourages casual collection of artifacts (i.e., secondary impacts) by participants to 

the extent that casual artifact collecting would be negligible. Other activities that do not have the potential 

to affect cultural resources are activities with dispersed or small-footprint foot traffic, or foot traffic on 

hard surfaces (Activities 16, 17, 19, 30, 36, 47, 58-63, 67, 72, and 73, Table 2-1). All other activities 

(Activities 1, 5, 7, 9-12, 25-29, 31-34, 37-46, 48, 50-53, 56, 64, 68-69, 71, 74-77, N1, N4-N9, N10, 

Tables 2-1 and 2-2) are analyzed with respect to possible cultural impacts. 

3.13.2.1 Approach to Analysis 

Federal laws and regulations have established the requirements for identifying, evaluating, and mitigating 

impacts on cultural resources. Pertinent provisions of the NHPA, Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act (ARPA), and NAGPRA address management and treatment of cultural resources. Provisions of 

NHPA are addressed in more detail below. ARPA provides for site protection through penalties for noncompliance with its statutes and provides for authorizing archaeological investigations. NAGPRA 

contains requirements for repatriation of Native American human remains and associated funerary objects 

found on federal lands. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-12
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Under NHPA, resource significance is determined on the basis of NRHP criteria (36 CFR Part 60.4) in 

consultation with the CASHPO. A project affects a resource’s significance when it alters the 

characteristics of the property that qualify it as significant under NRHP criteria. Effects may include: 

• Physical destruction or damage to all or part of the resource; 

• Alteration of a property in a way that is inconsistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 68); 

• Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that alter the setting and diminish the 

integrity of the property’s significant features; 

• Neglect of a resource, resulting in its deterioration or destruction; and 

• Any change that could adversely affect the qualities that make the property significant. 

Under NHPA, assessing impacts involves identifying activities that could directly or indirectly affect ,

significant resources, identifying known or expected significant resources in the area of potential effects, 

and determining the level of impacts on the resources. Possible findings include no effect, no adverse 

effect, or an adverse effect on significant resources (36 CFR Part 800.4-9). 

Under NEPA of 1969 (NEPA), impacts on cultural resources are explicitly identified as attributes that 

must be addressed to determine the significance of a project’s anticipated environmental effects. The 

potential for adverse effects on cultural resources is considered in this NEPA assessment. An adverse 

effect on a historic property, however, does not necessarily equate to a significant impact under NEPA. 

Under NEPA, a significant impact can be mitigated to less than significant through data recovery or other 

treatment measures. In assessing impacts on cultural resources under NEPA, 40 CFR Part 1508.27 defines 

significance in terms of context and intensity. These elements include consideration of the impacts on the 

community, the importance of a site, the unique characteristics, and the severity of the impact. 

Impacts on cultural resources can be either direct or indirect. Direct impacts on archaeological resources 

usually result from ground disturbance. Architectural resources may be directly impacted by 

modifications to the respective structure. Indirect impacts on significant cultural resources can involve 

alterations in its setting, increased access leading to vandalism, or changes in land status without adequate 

protection of the resources. Potential impacts to cultural resources relate to current and proposed activities 

that could affect the prehistoric and historic archaeological sites and historic structures on the SSTC. A 

range of potential impacts to cultural resources at SSTC have been identified and developed to exclude 

training activities from the immediate vicinity of significant cultural resources (Yatsko 2007). Cultural 

resources of concern at SSTC consist primarily of prehistoric archaeological sites located on the strand 

itself. These sites are small, encompassing up to a few acres. There are a few Historic Period 

archaeological sites and historic structures on the SSTC as well. 

3.13.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Both military and non-military entities have been sharing the use of the surface comprising the SSTC for 

more than 50 years. Military, commercial, and general activities have established an operational 

coexistence consistent with federal, state, and local plans and policies and compatible with each interest’s 

varying objectives. Activities under the No Action Alternative include activities that are and have been 

routinely conducted in the area for decades. 

3.13.2.2.1 Inland Activities 

Activities within the SSTC-S inland areas are categorized within the following Navy Tactical Tasks 

(NTAs): Conduct Amphibious Activities, Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Training, Construct, Maintain, 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-13
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

and Operate Logistics Over-the-Shore, Mission Area Training, and Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and 

Other Nation Units and Individuals. 

Activities which include vehicle and foot traffic, helicopter insertion, and digging (Activities 25-26, 28-

29, 64, 74, 77, Table 2-1) could potentially result in damage to archaeological sites; however, the Navy 

restricts training activities to foot traffic only in the vicinity of NRHP site CA-SDI-5454/12,270, as well 

as in the vicinity of other eligible cultural resource sites. In an earlier Section 106 consultation with the 

CASHPO, the CRMP established Training Areas and Ranges (TARs) on San Clemente Island. In these, 

foot traffic was determined to constitute “no adverse effect” on cultural resources. The CRMP views the 

situation as analogous at SSTC and the San Clemente TARs precedent has been followed here. The 

CRMP provides management and oversight for conformance with the San Diego Metro Area PA at the 

SSTC under SAR, Categorical Exclusions, and other environmental review processes. In addition, the 

Navy uses a web-based scheduling tool that notifies operators of environmental issues prior to training. 

The avoidance measures described in Section 3.13.1.5 inform the training operators using the SSTC to 

avoid adversely affecting historic properties. Based on the established avoidance measures, no adverse 

effects to archaeological resources are not expected. 

Breacher Training (Activity 31, Table 2-1) is conducted at Bunker 98. All SSTC inland activities occur on 

Navy-owned lands which are inaccessible to civilians and the training area at Bunker 98 includes a buffer 

zone for safety and security. Breacher Training consists of entering a building or structure using manual 

force, compressed gas, torch, or shotguns. This involves temporary wooden or metal doors and frames 

constructed to simulate exterior and interior doors. Breaching occurs at Bunker 98 which is a National 

Register eligible resource. Training activities are directed at temporary doors and frames and the historic 

integrity of these heavy concrete bunkers is not compromised. During Breacher Training, small arm 

blanks may be discharged. When small arms live fire is conducted, the rounds are directed into traps. 

These activities have no impacts to the heavy concrete bunkers. Current management practices restrict 

Breacher Training activities from occurring near archaeological sites and the area immediately 

surrounding them at SSTC. Current activities are managed by NAVFAC SW for no adverse effect under 

Stipulation 8 of the Metro PA and in compliance with 36 CFR 800.5(d) (1). 

3.13.2.2.2 Oceanside/Bayside Activities 

Oceanside/bayside activities consist of Move Forces, Mine Countermeasures, Conduct Amphibious 

Activities, NSW Training, Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance, Construct, Maintain, and Operate 

Logistics Over-the-Shore, Mission Area Training, Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other Nation 

Units and Individuals, Protect against Combat Area Hazards, and Force Protection: Protect and Secure 

Area of Operations. 

The portions of SSTC used for these training events are the nearshore waters, surf zone, and wet and dry 

beach areas. Activities associated with each of these NTA categories involve large numbers of ground 

personnel and considerable foot and vehicular traffic on the oceanside and bayside training areas. Vehicle 

traffic can result in damage to archaeological sites, and foot traffic can cause secondary impacts (e.g., 

collection of artifacts). However, archaeological sites and their immediate surrounding areas are off-limits 

to vehicular training or ground-disturbing activities at SSTC. Underwater prehistoric cultural resources 

may be present in nearshore environments associated with the SSTC. However, no underwater prehistoric 

sites (cultural resources) have been identified which might be affected by naval landing craft, underwater 

detonations, or other vessels associated with training activities at SSTC or the nearshore area off of 

southern NASNI. 

Activities under Logistics Over-the-Shore require various landing crafts, amphibious vehicles, various 

wheeled and tracked vehicles, and ground personnel to complete each exercise (Activities 38, 39, 40, 41). 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-14
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Effects from foot traffic and wheeled vehicles associated with logistics training are similar to those 

described above; the training activities are conducted away from cultural resource site areas at SSTC. 

Other activities affecting the nearshore environment on the oceanside/bayside floor may cause bottom 

sediments to compact, bottom topography to be altered, and sediment to be stirred up (Activities 1, 5, 7, 

9-12, 25-29, 32-34, 37-46, 48, 50-53, 56, 64, 68-69, 71, 74-77, Table 2-1). The effects from these 

activities, such as of pile driving, increases sediment transport, creates eddies, and accelerates longshore 

currents. The maneuvering and positioning of powered vessels and barges in shallow water to position 

equipment also stirs up bottom sediments. The activities described in this section do not have the potential 

to adversely affect cultural resources. 

3.13.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

Under Alternative 1, the Navy would increase the tempo of training activities from 3,926 to 5,343, 

introduce new types of training activities, conduct existing training at additional locations within 

established SSTC training areas, and increase access to and availability of beach and inland training areas. 

3.13.2.3.1 Inland Activities 

Under Alternative 1, Activities within the SSTC-S inland areas are categorized within the same NTAs as 

under the No Action Alternative. Additional training tempo for Alternative 1 would not create adverse 

effects because increased activity tempo will still avoid cultural resources identified on SSTC Inland 

areas. 

New activities proposed under Alternative 1 within SSTC-S inland areas would also avoid identified 

cultural resources. Current management practices, which will continue to be implemented under 

Alternative 1, restrict vehicle or ground-disturbing activities near cultural resources and any increased 

pedestrian traffic associated with new activities will not represent an impact to cultural resources at 

SSTC. 

Breacher Training would also occur on a concrete pad northwest of Bunker 99. As noted in Section 

3.13.2.2.1 (No Action Alternative, Inland Activities), Breacher Training is managed by NAVFAC SW for 

no adverse effect under Stipulation 8 of the Metro PA and in compliance with 36 CFR 800.5(d)(1). 

Northwest of Bunker 99, a series of door frames would be placed on the existing concrete pad to facilitate 

mechanical breacher training. This breacher training area would be set 200 feet away from Building 99 

and not adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the Fort Emory Historic District. This would qualify 

for approval as a “no adverse effect,” under Stipulation 8 of the CNRSW Metro Programmatic Agreement 

and consistent with 36 CFR 68, and 36 CFR 800.5. 

3.13.2.3.2 Oceanside/Bayside Activities 

Under Alternative 1, Activities within the SSTC-S oceanside/bayside areas are categorized within the 

same NTAs as under the No Action Alternative. An increase in training tempo for Alternative 1 would 

not create adverse effects because training activities will still avoid all cultural resources identified on 

SSTC oceanside/bayside areas, Breakers Beach, or the waters off of NASNI. 

Oceanside/bayside activities are managed by NAVFAC SW for no adverse effect under Stipulation 8 of 

the Metro PA and in compliance with 36 CFR 800.5(d) (1). The portions of SSTC used for these training 

events are the near-shore waters, surf zone, waters out to 72 feet, and wet and dry beach areas. No 

underwater prehistoric sites (cultural resources) have been identified which might be affected by naval 

landing craft activities or underwater detonations in nearshore areas. Similarly, Organic Airborne Mine 

Countermeasures activities involving the proposed (inert) minefield in deeper waters would occur in areas 

(SSTC boat lanes with water depths greater than 40 feet) with no known cultural resources. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-15
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Oceanside/bayside training involves new activities performed within the SSTC Boat and Beach Lanes 

(N1, N4-N9, N10, Table 2-2). Because of the avoidance of cultural resource sites during 

oceanside/bayside training activities, neither new training activities nor an increase in existing 

oceanside/bayside training activities would have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources. 

3.13.2.4 Alternative 2 

Implementation of Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 and would increase the training tempo from 

3,926 activities to 5,343 activities annually. Implementation of Alternative 2 would also include the 

introduction of new types of training, conducting existing routine training at additional locations within 

SSTC established training areas, and increasing access to and availability of existing beach and inland 

training areas. The only difference between Alternative 1 and 2 is that, under Alternative 2, all SSTC-N 

oceanside beach training areas would be available for Navy training, regardless of time of year. Impacts 

associated with Alternative 2 would be the same as those described above for Alternative 1 for cultural 

resources. Under Alternative 2, the proposed change in availability and use of existing beach and inland 

training areas would not result in a modification of effects and activities would continue to be compatible 

with existing cultural resources. 

3.13.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Current mitigation measures to avoid impacts to cultural resources will continue to be implemented under 

all alternatives. No impacts to cultural resources have been identified for the No Action Alternative, 

Alternative 1, or Alternative 2; therefore, no additional mitigation measures are warranted. 

3.13.4 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 

There are no unavoidable adverse environmental effects to cultural resources as a result of 

implementation of any alternatives. 

3.13.5 Summary of Effects 

The impacts to cultural resources by alternative are summarized in Table 3.13-4. No impacts to cultural 

resources have been identified under any of the three alternatives and no mitigation measures are 

required. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-16
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Table 3.13-4: Summary of Effects 

Alternative Effects 

No Action Alternative • Vehicular activities and other ground disturbing activities are excluded 

from cultural resource sites and their immediate surrounding areas. Foot 

traffic does not constitute an adverse effect. 

• Training activities may occur in areas with known submerged cultural 

resources; however, resources are avoided as necessary to prevent damage. 

Alternative 1 • Vehicular activities and other ground disturbing activities are excluded 

from cultural resource sites and their immediate surrounding areas. Foot 

traffic does not constitute an adverse effect. 

• Training activities may occur in areas with known submerged cultural 

resources; however, resources would be avoided as necessary to prevent 

damage. 

Alternative 2 • The effects of Alternative 2 on cultural resources would be to the same as 

those described under Alternative 1. 

Mitigation Measures • The Navy currently employs the following management practices to avoid 

impacts to cultural resources. Restricts digging near any cultural resource 

site that is known to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, limit operational 

training access on or across the recorded areas of eligible or potentially 

eligible archaeological sites to foot traffic only, and no alteration or 

damage to the appearance, structure, or features of NRHP-eligible built 

properties is permitted without appropriate Section 106 review and 

compliance. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-17
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-18

This page intentionally left blank 
3.14 Transportation and Circulation 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

This section addresses potential impacts of the alternatives, including the Proposed Action, on 

transportation and circulation in the vicinity of the Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC) and the 

southern area of Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI), focusing on vehicular traffic and recreational 

boating. 

3.14.1 Affected Environment 

3.14.1.1 Introduction 

3.14.1.1.1 Definition of Resource 

In this section, transportation and circulation refer to the movement of vehicles on public roadways and 

vessels on the ocean and bay. 

3.14.1.1.2 Vehicle Traffic 

Road and highway networks consist of primary roads and secondary roads. Primary roads are principal 

arterials, such as interstate freeways and state highways, designed to move vehicle traffic. Primary roads 

provide limited access to adjacent areas. Secondary roads are arterials such as major surface streets that 

provide access to residential, commercial and recreational areas, public service facilities such as hospitals 

and schools, government facilities, and other commonly accessed infrastructure. Secondary roads also 

collect traffic from common areas and transfer it to primary roads. 

Roadway operating conditions and the adequacy of the existing and future roadway system to 

accommodate vehicular movements are described in terms of Level of Service (LOS). Table 3.14-1 shows 

the United States (U.S.) Department of Transportation’s standard LOS—a set of letter designations, 

ranging from A through F, which describes the range of operating conditions on a particular type of 

roadway facility. LOS A and LOS B indicate free-flow travel and minimal-delay travel, while LOS C 

indicates acceptable delays. LOS D indicates the beginning of traffic congestion with tolerable delays, 

while LOS E and LOS F indicate significant and excessive congested conditions. The region-wide goal 

for an acceptable LOS on all urban freeways, roadway segments, and intersections is LOS D. For 

undeveloped or not densely developed locations, the goal may be to achieve LOS C (San Diego Traffic 

Engineers Council [SANTEC]/ITE 2007). 

Table 3.14-1: Level of Service Descriptions 

LOS Signalized Delay 

(seconds/vehicle) 

Unsignalized Delay 

(seconds/vehicle) Description 

A ≤10 ≤10 Free-Flowing

B >10 and ≤20 >10 and ≤15 Minimal Delays

C >20 and ≤35 >15 and ≤25 Acceptable Delays

D >35 and ≤55 >25 and ≤35 Tolerable Delays

E >55 and ≤80 >35 and ≤50 Significant Delays

F >80 >50 Excessive Delays

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board of the Academies, 2000. 

3.14.1.1.3 Vessel Traffic 

Ocean and San Diego Bay traffic consists of the transit of commercial, private, or military vessels. The 

ocean traffic flow in congested waters, especially near coastlines, is controlled by the use of directional 

shipping lanes for large vessels, including cargo, container ships, and tankers. Traffic flow controls are 

implemented to ensure that harbors and ports-of-entry remain as uncongested as possible. There is less 

control on open-ocean traffic involving recreational boating, sport fishing, commercial fishing, and 

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14-1
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

activity by naval vessels. In most cases, the factors that govern shipping or boating traffic include the 

following: adequate depth of water, weather conditions—primarily affecting recreational vessels—, 

availability of fish, and water temperature. Warmer weather and warm water temperatures will increase 

recreational boat traffic, jet skis, and diving activities. 

3.14.1.2 Regional Setting 

The principal regional access to SSTC is via Interstate 5 (I-5), which is located east of San Diego Bay and 

is a major north-south route in the federal highway system. Access to and from SSTC from the north is 

from I-5 via State Route 75 (SR-75), which includes the San Diego–Coronado Bridge, and the following 

streets in Coronado: 3rd Street (westbound), 4th Street (eastbound), Orange Avenue, and Silver Strand 

Boulevard/SR-75. Access to and from SSTC from the south is from I-5, via SR-75 (noted as Palm 

Avenue in Imperial Beach). SR-75 runs through SSTC-North (SSTC-N) and SSTC-South (SSTC-S) 

(Figure 3.14-1). 

Marine traffic in the SSTC Region of Influence (ROI) consists of multiple marinas, mooring locations, 

and military installations. San Diego Bay is bordered by the cities of San Diego, National City, Chula 

Vista, Imperial Beach, and Coronado. Access to San Diego Bay by incoming vessels is through the mouth 

of the harbor to the north, or through the many marinas and boat launch locations within San Diego Bay. 

The Port of San Diego manages the harbor and administers the public lands adjacent to San Diego Bay. 

3.14.1.3 Region of Influence 

The ROI for the traffic and circulation analysis includes the road networks on SSTC and the neighboring 

communities of the City of Coronado and City of Imperial Beach. For marine vessel traffic, the ROI 

includes San Diego Bay and the offshore area at SSTC-N, and SSTC-S. Naval Air Station North Island 

(NASNI) is not discussed because current and proposed training activities would only occur on the 

southern beaches of NASNI and these training activities have minimal effect on transportation and 

circulation outside of the base boundaries. Except where specific city standards are described, the 

standards used for traffic description are taken from SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies 

in the San Diego Region (SANTEC/ITE 2007). The analysis focuses on segments of the transportation 

network that serve as direct or indirect links to SSTC. 

3.14.1.4 Key Regional Roadways 

3.14.1.4.1 Silver Strand Boulevard/State Route 75 

The main roadway link to the cities of Coronado and Imperial Beach is via SR-75, which connects the 

City of Coronado at the east end of the peninsula to the City of San Diego via the San Diego-Coronado 

Bridge and also connects the city at the south end of the Silver Strand to the City of Imperial Beach. SR75 travels along the entire length of the Silver Strand through SSTC-N and SSTC-S with access points 

into Naval Amphibious Base (NAB) Coronado. South of Pomona Avenue, SR-75 is referred to as Silver 

Strand Boulevard/SR-75. Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75 is a two-way, four-lane principal arterial 

roadway with left-turn lanes at signalized intersections and a posted speed limit of 45 miles-per-hour 

south of Avenida Del Sol and 65 miles-per-hour south of Tulagi Road. According to the SANTEC 

guidelines, the roadway capacity for SR-75 is 40,000 average daily trips (ADT) from Pomona Avenue 

(just north of Glorietta Bay) to the city limits of Imperial Beach. 

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14-2
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Figure 3.14-1: Transportation and Circulation of SSTC 

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14-3
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

As shown in Table 3.14-2, the ADT for weekday 24-hour traffic volume on SR-75 was 39,053 vehicles 

between Pomona Avenue and Tarawa Road (Gate 2 of SSTC-N) (Department of the Navy [DoN] 2008). 

The ADT for weekday 24-hour traffic volume on SR-75 was 25,566 vehicles between Tarawa Road and 

Tulagi Road (Gate 4 of SSTC-N) and 30,327 vehicles between Tulagi Road and Leyte Road (DoN 2008). 

Between Coronado Cays Boulevard/Silver Strand State Park and Rainbow Drive in Imperial Beach (i.e., 

through SSTC-S), the ADT was 22,000 vehicles which amounted to a decrease of two percent in ADT 

(SANDAG 2008). 

Table 3.14-2: Average Traffic Volumes at Selected Coronado Road Segments 

Primary Street First Cross 

Street 

Second Cross 

Street 

Average Daily Traffic 

(ADT) Counts 

Silver Strand Blvd / (SR-75) Pomona Ave. Tarawa Rd. 39,0531

Silver Strand Blvd / (SR-75) Tarawa Rd. Tulagi Rd. 25,5661

Silver Strand Blvd / (SR-75) Tulagi Rd. Leyte Rd. 30,3271

Silver Strand Blvd / (SR-75) Coronado 

Cays Blvd. Rainbow Dr. 22,0002

1

 DoN 2008: ADTs based on 3 CVNs 

2

SANDAG 2008:ADTs for Coronado Cays Blvd. to Rainbow Dr. is based on 2006 data. 

Table 3-14-3 provides peak hour intersection volumes at the Avenida De Las Arenas intersection and the 

three signalized NAB access gates along Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75. Peak hour traffic counts were 

conducted from 5:30 AM to 7:30 AM and from 2:30 PM to 5:00 PM. 

Table 3.14-3: Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Delays, and LOS for Selected Intersections along 

Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75 

Intersection 

AM Peak 

Hour 

Intersection 

Volumes 

Existing AM PM Peak 

Hour 

Intersection 

Volumes 

Existing PM 

Delay in 

Seconds LOS Delay in Seconds LOS 

Silver Strand & 

Avenida De Las 

Arenas 

2,867 7.6 A 3,252 12.3 B 

Silver Strand & 

Rendova Road 

(Gate 1) 

3,328 75.0 E 3,260 12.8 B 

Silver Strand & 

Tarawa (Gate 2) 3,284 ECL1 F 3,406 82.5 F 

Silver Strand & 

Tulagi (Gate 4) 2,683 4.2 A 2,612 2,612 B 

1

 Exceeds Calculated Limit (ECL), reported when delay exceeds 180 seconds. 

Source: City of Coronado City-Wide Major Traffic Study 2005. Data Collected July 2003 through August 2003. 

DoN 2008. 

LOS for specific segments on SR-75 are shown in Table 3.14-3. SR-75 between Pomona Avenue and 

Avenida De Las Arenas operate at LOS A (City of Coronado 2005). There are three intersections on SR75 that provide access gates to NAB. The Rendova Road (Gate 1) and Tarawa Road (Gate 2) intersections 

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14-4
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

operate at LOS E during the busiest morning commute hour and Tarawa again operates at LOS E during 

the busiest afternoon commute hour (City of Coronado 2005). All other intersections surrounding NAB 

operate at an acceptable LOS. 

The City of Coronado is currently in the process of analyzing traffic conditions for SR-75, to determine 

the best long-term traffic solution for the community. The City plans to evaluate final design plans for a 

selected preferred traffic alternative. A significant part of this process will include working closely with 

project stakeholders, such as the Navy (Coronado Currents 2007). 

3.14.1.4.2 Palm Avenue 

The City of Imperial Beach is in the process of preparing a Master Plan for the redevelopment of Palm 

Avenue. Palm Avenue merges with SR-75 at Delaware Street in the City of Imperial Beach. Palm Avenue 

is a three-lane collector street from Seacoast Drive to 3rd Street and a four-lane collector street from 3rd

Street to Palm Avenue/SR-75. Access to SSTC-S for military personnel traveling from NAB is by Silver 

Strand Boulevard/SR-75 to Rainbow Drive and then to Palm Avenue (Figure 3.14-1). From Palm 

Avenue, access to the Naval Radio Receiving Facility (NRRF) Gate is provided via a two-lane residential 

roadway. Traffic volumes along Palm Avenue between 2005 and 2006 have decreased by about 12 

percent (Table 3.14-4). The roadway capacity for Palm Avenue (operating at LOS E) is 34,200 ADTs 

from SR-75 to Seacoast Drive (County of San Diego 1999). 

Table 3.14-4: Average Traffic Volumes at Selected Imperial Beach Road Segments 

Primary 

Street

First Cross 

Street 

Second Cross 

Street 

Average Daily Traffic Counts (Weekdays) 

2004 2005 2006 2005-2006 

Change 

Palm 

Avenue Seacoast Drive Delaware Street/SR 75 19,000 20,900 12,600 -12% 

Rainbow 

Drive 

Silver Strand 

Blvd/SR 75 Palm Avenue 5,000 5,000 5,200 4% 

Source: SANDAG 2008. 

3.14.1.4.3 Rainbow Drive 

Rainbow Drive is a three-lane collector roadway. Typical roadway capacity for a three-lane collector is 

27,400 operating at a LOS C (County of San Diego 1999). Traffic volumes along Rainbow Drive from 

Silver Strand Boulevard to Palm Avenue between 2005 and 2006 have only increased by four percent, 

from 5,000 to 5,200 ADTs (Table 3.14-4). 

3.14.1.4.4 Silver Strand 

Silver Strand is a two-lane residential roadway servicing the entrance to SSTC-S. It is the main access 

point for Navy personnel onto SSTC-S. There are no ADTs available for Silver Strand between Palm 

Avenue and the entrance into SSTC-S. However, based on the County of San Diego Public Road 

Standards, typical roadway capacity for a residential street operating at a LOS C is 1,500 (County of San 

Diego 1999). 

3.14.1.5 Installation Roadways and Gates 

3.14.1.5.1 SSTC-N 

There are four access gates to the bayside facilities of SSTC-N. As shown in Figure 3.14-1, SR-75 is 

signalized at Gates 1, 2, and 4. Gate 1 at Rendova Road is the most northerly access and is a secondary 

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14-5
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

access point open during the morning and afternoon peak hours, or when necessary to permit the crossing 

of the boat movers and other Navy support vehicles. Gate 1 has a direct connection to SR-75 with all 

turning movements permitted; it accommodates one lane of traffic in each direction. 

Gate 2 at Tarawa Road is a secondary access point that is open during the morning and afternoon peak 

hours as needed. It has a direct connection to SR-75 with all turning movements permitted; it 

accommodates one lane of traffic in each direction. 

Gate 3 at Guadalcanal Road is the main entrance and the most heavily used gate; it is open 24 hours a 

day. Access to Gate 3 is via Strand Way, a frontage road for traffic signals near Gates Two and Four. 

Strand Way serves as a queuing area off SR-75 for vehicles awaiting SSTC clearance and experiences 

backups that have a negative effect on the peak morning traffic on Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75, 

specifically at the intersection; it accommodates one lane of traffic in each direction. 

Gate 4 at Tulagi Road is the most southerly access point and is a secondary access point that is open 

during morning and afternoon peak hours; it has a direct connection to SR-75 and turning movements are 

permitted except the southbound left-turn. 

Immediate access to oceanside facilities at SSTC-N is via two gates that are located opposite of Gates 1 

and 2 on the bayside. Access is available to both gates via Strand Way, which serves as a queuing area for 

vehicles awaiting clearance. It accommodates one lane of traffic in each direction; backups occur during 

peak hours on Strand Way, resulting in congestion at intersections on Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75. 

Both gates have traffic signals at SR-75, with all turning movements permitted, except the northbound 

left-turn at the northerly gate. The southerly gate (opposite Gate 2) is the primary entrance and the 

northerly gate is the secondary entrance. Both gates can accommodate one lane of traffic in each 

direction. 

Access to the oceanside training beaches at SSTC-N is provided either from SR-75 or the Main Base 

oceanside. An unpaved roadway parallel to SR-75 runs along the beach and provides a vehicular 

connection to the training beaches; this roadway connects with SR-75 near the SSTC marina. 

3.14.1.5.2 SSTC-S 

Access to SSTC-S for everyday ingress/egress is provided via the NRRF gate at Silver Strand (Figure 

3.14-1). A second access gate, normally kept locked, is located to the north bordering Silver Strand 

Boulevard/SR-75. Hooper Boulevard begins at the NRRF main entrance and continues through the 

middle of the facility. Camp Surf is accessible both directly from Carnation Avenue and via a guarded, 

locked gate that intersects Hooper Boulevard. An overlook parking area is provided off SR-75 for 

pedestrian access to view the wildlife preserve to the north of the NRRF facility. 

3.14.1.6 On-base Roadways 

3.14.1.6.1 SSTC-N 

SSTC-N contains about 6.5 miles of paved roads on the bayside, most of which are in fair condition. 

Traffic circulation through the base is on a series of disjointed grid-system roads. Tarawa Road, Attu 

Road, Guadalcanal Road, Bougainville Road, and Tulagi Road are the main east/west streets. 

Guadalcanal Road and Tulagi Road are the most heavily used. The north/south roadways are less 

prominent than the east/west roadways. Only Lavella Road, Rendova Road, and Inchon Road are 

continuous between Tarawa Road and Tulagi Road. Trucks are routed through the base on Guadalcanal 

Road to Makin Road to Attu Road. Truck traffic represents about five percent of the total traffic through 

the base. 

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14-6
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

3.14.1.6.2 SSTC-S 

Traffic circulation on SSTC-S consists of two major roads: Hooper Boulevard and an unnamed perimeter 

road. Hooper Boulevard leads from the main entrance through the middle of the facility. A perimeter road 

begins at the main gate and follows the southern and eastern perimeter of the base then turns west and 

provides the main access to the buildings on the northern section of SSTC-S. The perimeter road also 

connects with SR-75 at the northern boundary of SSTC-S. The oceanside training beaches are accessed 

via roads connecting to Hooper Boulevard. 

3.14.1.7 Marine Vessels 

San Diego Bay is under the jurisdiction of the Port of San Diego and the San Diego Harbor Police. 

Marine traffic in San Diego Bay is generated by commercial, recreational, military, and commuter 

vessels. Sport fishing fleets and whale-watching tour boats access San Diego Bay daily and berth along 

the Bay’s east side. 

Military traffic includes vessel activity from the Naval Station San Diego, NAB piers, NASNI pier-side 

carrier locations and berthing, and Naval Base Point Loma submarine base at the mouth of the harbor. 

To the north of the Coronado Bridge, vessels must follow U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) regulations and 

general maritime restrictions while traversing San Diego Bay. The circulation of San Diego Bay is from 

the harbor berthing areas, along channel buoy markers, and out to the mouth of the channel. To the south 

of the Coronado Bridge, large vessels remain within the state channels on the east side of San Diego Bay 

to accommodate deep draft, and recreational vehicles may traverse east and west or north or south 

depending on the draft of their vessel. 

Commuter and general transportation by water taxi and Coronado passenger/bike ferry is also used by 

many people on San Diego Bay. Recreational boating traffic is generated through various boat ramps, 

marinas, and moorings around San Diego Bay. 

There are four Port District-maintained launch ramps throughout San Diego Bay. Three of these are 

within the ROI. These are National City—Pepper Park, adjacent to the 24th Street Marine Terminal; 

Chula Vista—in the J Street Park; and Coronado—adjacent to the Municipal Pool in Glorietta Bay 

(Figure 3.14-1). 

3.14.1.8 Current Mitigation Measures 

The Navy strives to ensure that it retains access to oceanside and bayside training areas as necessary to 

accomplish its mission, while facilitating joint military-civilian use of such areas to the extent practicable 

and consistent with safety. These goals of military access, joint use, and safety are promoted through 

various coordination and outreach measures, including publication of potentially hazardous activities 

planned for the oceanside and bayside areas through Notices to Mariners (NOTMARs) issued by the 

USCG. 

3.14.2 Environmental Consequences 

This resource section focuses on groups of activities that would generate an increase in vehicle trips 

associated with military training activities. Training activities that would not affect transportation and 

circulation on local roadways include 1-3, 8-14, 16, 21, 24, 32-34, 55, 57, 78 (Table 2-1), and N1, N4-N7 

(Table 2-2); however, these activities are analyzed as they relate to vessel traffic within the ocean and San 

Diego Bay area. All other activities are analyzed for their effects on both roadways and vessel traffic. 

Since no increase in employment is associated with implementation of the Proposed Action, this section 

focuses on increased traffic related to the proposed increase in training tempo. In addition, since traffic 

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14-7
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

generated by military personnel is accommodated on local and regional roadways in the area, no further 

discussion of military personnel-generated trips is provided in this section. 

3.14.2.1 Approach to Analysis 

This analysis focuses on the potential effects of traffic loading on SSTC and the surrounding roadway 

network system, as well as potential effects to marine traffic within the ocean area off of SSTC and San 

Diego Bay. Factors considered in assessing potential roadway impacts include the extent and degree in 

which implementation of the Proposed Action would result in traffic increases exceeding the design 

capacity of an affected portion of the roadway system; and impacts to marine traffic that would include 

the extent or degree to which an alternative would seriously disrupt commercial and recreational vessels. 

A serious disruption to vehicular traffic occurs when the LOS of an area increases to unacceptable levels 

of an LOS of D or higher. A serious disruption to marine traffic occurs when a vessel in unable to proceed 

to its intended destination due to exclusion from the area. However, the need to use alternative routes 

during the time of exclusion does not constitute a serious disruption. Navy personnel transiting roadways 

at intersections do so upon appropriate traffic cycles and do not disrupt roadway traffic. 

3.14.2.2 No Action Alternative 

3.14.2.2.1 Ground Transportation 

Under the No Action Alternative, military training activities along Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75 are 

estimated to generate approximately 217 ADTs. These ADTs consist of military personnel driving 

training vehicles from NAB to SSTC-N and SSTC-S. Based on transportation data from the U.S. Navy 

CVN Homeporting Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DoN 2008) and SANDAG 

transportation data, in 2006, ADTs along Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75 ranged between 22,000 and 

39,053 along selected road segments (Table 3.14-2). Therefore, traffic generated by military training 

activities along the stretch of Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75 from Pomona Avenue to Rainbow Drive 

under the No Action Alternative would represent less than one percent of the total daily traffic volume; 

these volumes are well within the existing roadway capacities. 

As presented in Table 3.14-3, there are two intersections that are currently operating at an unacceptable 

LOS (LOS of D or worse). These intersections are Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75 and Rendova Road, 

operating at a LOS E during peak morning hours and Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75 and Tarawa Road, 

operating at a LOS F during peak morning and evening hours. Under the No Action Alternative, about 

eight percent of the estimated 217 total vehicle trips associated with military training activities would 

occur during peak morning hours and about 19 percent would occur during peak evening hours. 

Therefore, under the No Action Alternative, about 17 peak morning-hour vehicle trips and about 41 peak 

evening-hour vehicle trips would be associated with military training activities. Based on the total peak 

hour intersection volumes along Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75 (Table 3.14-3), peak hour (both before 

noon and after noon) vehicle trips associated with military training activities under the No Action 

Alternative would represent less then one percent of the total vehicle trips at these intersections. 

Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not substantially change the existing morning and evening 

peak hour LOS at the intersections of Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75 and Rendova Road or Silver Strand 

Boulevard/SR-75 and Tarawa Road. In addition, all other intersections as presented in Table 3.14-3 

would continue to operate at the current LOS. 

Of the 217 vehicles traveling along Silver Strand Boulevard /SR-75, it is estimated that about 147 of 

those vehicles would be traveling to SSTC-S to conduct training activities. As shown in Table 3.14-4, 

average traffic volumes along Palm Avenue and Rainbow Drive (within Imperial Beach) are 12,600 and 

5,200, respectively. Therefore, traffic generated by military training activities would represent about one 

percent of the traffic volume along Palm Avenue and about three percent along Rainbow Drive. These 

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14-8
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

traffic volumes would be well within the existing roadway capacities and would not result in a change to 

an unacceptable LOS along Palm Avenue or Rainbow Drive. 

Traffic volumes were not available for the two-lane residential roadway from Palm Avenue that provides 

access into SSTC-S. However, the typical roadway capacity for a residential street operating at a LOS C 

according to the County of San Diego Public Road Standards is 1,500. Military vehicular traffic would 

represent almost 10 percent of the traffic volume along Palm Avenue; this increase would not result in an 

unacceptable LOS for roadways near the NRRF gate. 

3.14.2.2.2 Vessel Transportation 

Both military and nonmilitary entities have been sharing use of the ocean for more than 50 years. 

Activities under the No Action Alternative are and have been routinely conducted in the area for decades. 

Local NOTMARs are issued through the USCG 11th District on an as-needed basis for underwater 

detonations only. Ocean training areas on SSTC-N oceanside are infrequently closed and accessed on an 

as-needed basis for security and safety. 

Naval bayside activities are centered within nine bayside training areas (Alpha, Bravo, Delta I, Delta II, 

Delta III, Echo, Foxtrot, Golf, and Hotel) and include the Lilly Ann Drop Zone (DZ). These areas are not 

within state channels. A restricted zone surrounds NAB bayside and surrounding waters to the south 

(Code of Federal Regulations 33 § 334.860) (Figure 3.14-1) (refer to Section 3.16, Public Health and 

Safety). For safety purposes, all vehicles entering the restricted area must proceed across the area by the 

most direct route and without unnecessary delay. For vessels under sail, necessary tacking shall constitute 

a direct route. USCG Inland Rules apply within San Diego Bay (USCG 2007); mariners following 

general inland regulations are not affected by Navy training activities and vessels are not prevented from 

getting to their desired locations. 

3.14.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would increase the training tempo from 3,926 activities to 5,343 

activities annually. Implementation of Alternative 1 would also include the introduction of new types of 

training, conducting existing routine training at additional locations within SSTC established training 

areas, and increasing access to and availability of existing beach and inland training areas. 

3.14.2.3.1 Ground Transportation 

Under Alternative 1, military training activities along Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75 are estimated to 

generate approximately 336 ADTs, an increase of about 119 vehicle trips per day from the No Action 

Alternative. While the proposed increase in training would result in an increase in military training 

vehicle trips per day along the stretch of Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75 from Pomona Avenue to 

Rainbow Drive, this increase would represent less than two percent of the total daily traffic volume and 

increases would continue to be well within the existing roadway capacities. 

As previously discussed, there are two intersections that are currently operating at an unacceptable LOS 

(LOS of D or worse). These intersections are Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75 and Rendova Road, 

operating at a LOS E during peak morning hours and Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75 and Tarawa Road, 

operating at a LOS F during peak morning and evening hours (Table 3.14-3). Under Alternative 1, about 

eight percent of the estimated 336 total vehicle trips associated with military training activities occurs 

during peak morning hours and about 19 percent occur during peak evening hours. Therefore, under 

Alternative 1, about 27 peak morning hour vehicle trips and about 64 peak evening hour vehicle trips 

would occur at these two intersections. Based on the total peak hour intersection volumes along Silver 

Strand Boulevard/SR-75 (Table 3.14-3), peak hour vehicle trips associated with military training activities 

at these two intersections under Alternative 1 would represent less than one percent of the total morning 

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14-9
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

peak hour vehicle trips and less than two percent of the total evening peak hour vehicle trips. Therefore, 

implementation of Alternative 1 would not substantially change the existing morning and evening peak 

hour LOS at the intersections of Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75 and Rendova Road or Silver Strand 

Boulevard/SR-75 and Tarawa Road. In addition, all other intersections as presented in Table 3.14-3 

would continue to operate at the current LOS. 

Of the 336 vehicles traveling along Silver Strand Boulevard/SR-75, it is estimated that about 249 of those 

vehicles would be traveling to SSTC-S to conduct training activities. Therefore, traffic generated by 

military training activities under Alternative 1 represents about two percent of the traffic volume along 

Palm Avenue and about four percent along Rainbow Drive. These traffic volumes are well within the 

existing roadway capacities and would not result in a change to an unacceptable LOS along Palm Avenue 

or Rainbow Drive. 

As previously discussed, traffic volumes were not available for Silver Strand, the roadway that provides 

access into SSTC-S; however, based on the County of San Diego Public Road Standards, typical roadway 

capacity for a residential street operating at a LOS C is 1,500. Therefore, the increase in training tempo 

associated with implementation of Alternative 1 would represent approximately 16 percent of the traffic 

volume along Silver Strand. This increase would not result in a change to an unacceptable LOS along 

Silver Strand. 

3.14.2.3.2 Vessel Transportation 

As described under the No Action Alternative, NOTMARs would continue to be issued by the USCG. 

Ocean training areas on SSTC-N oceanside would be closed on an as needed basis for security and safety. 

Breakers Beach and the Zuniga Jetty training area would continue to be restricted from civilian activity. 

Navy interference with non-participant marine traffic would not be likely because Navy training activities 

are restricted to a 500-yard boat lane during exercises. Vessels would not be prevented from getting to 

their desired locations. 

Naval bayside activities are centered within nine bayside training areas (Alpha, Bravo, Delta I, Delta II, 

Delta III, Echo, Foxtrot, Golf, and Hotel) and include the Lilly Ann DZ. These areas are not within state 

channels and are restricted from civilian use while training activities are being conducted. Navy security 

would continue to ensure that all marine traffic is diverted when training activities are being conducted 

for safety reasons. USCG Inland Rules apply within San Diego Bay. Increased Navy activities would not 

have an effect on San Diego Bay’s circulation interests because public activities are centered on local 

marinas and anchorages to the south of the activity areas. Therefore, no conflict would occur with vessels 

as a result of conducting training activities. 

3.14.2.4 Alternative 2 

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the training tempo from 3,926 activities to 5,343 

activities annually. Implementation of Alternative 2 would also include the introduction of new types of 

training, conducting existing routine training at additional locations within SSTC established training 

areas, and increasing access to and availability of existing beach and inland training areas. The only 

difference between Alternative 1 and 2 is that, under Alternative 2, all SSTC-N oceanside beach training 

areas would be available for Navy training, regardless of time of year. Therefore, transportation and 

circulation effects associated with Alternative 2 would be the same as those described above for 

Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, the proposed change in access and availability to existing beach and 

inland training areas would not result in a change in the number of training vehicles or traffic patterns. 

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14-10
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

3.14.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

No adverse effects on transportation and circulation were identified; therefore, no additional mitigation 

measures are warranted. Current measures, which facilitate joint military-civilian use of SSTC consistent 

with safety, would continue. 

3.14.4 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 

There are no unavoidable adverse environmental effects to transportation and circulation as a result of 

implementation of any of the alternatives. 

3.14.5 Summary of Effects 

Table 3.14-5 summarizes possible effects and mitigation measures for the No Action Alternative, 

Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. 

Table 3.14-5: Summary of Transportation and Circulation Effects 

Alternative Summary of Effects 

No Action Alternative 

• Intersections and roadways within the ROI typically experience an 

acceptable LOS. Although the intersections at Gates 1 and 2 experience 

unacceptable LOS, traffic related to the No Action Alternative 

represents less than 1% of the volume at these intersections. 

• Marine traffic is diverted from training areas while some training is 

being conducted; however, vessels are not prevented from getting to 

their desired locations. 

Alternative 1 

• Increases in military training vehicle trips per day would represent less 

than 2% of the total daily traffic and would be well within the capacities 

of the existing regional roadway network. 

• Intersections and roadways within the ROI typically experience an 

acceptable LOS. Although the intersections at Gates 1 and 2 experience 

unacceptable LOS, traffic related to Alternative 1 represents less than 

1% of the morning volume and less than 2% of the evening traffic at 

these intersections. 

• Marine traffic is diverted from training areas while some training is 

being conducted; however, vessels are not prevented from getting to 

their desired locations. 

Alternative 2 • Potential effects on transportation and circulation from Alternative 2 

would be the same as effects from implementation of Alternative 1. 

Mitigation Measures 

• The Navy strives to ensure that it retains access to oceanside and 

bayside training areas as necessary to accomplish its mission, while 

facilitating joint military-civilian use of such areas to the extent 

practicable and consistent with safety. These goals of military access, 

joint use, and safety are promoted through various coordination and 

outreach measures, including publication of potentially hazardous 

activities planned for the oceanside and bayside areas through 

NOTMARs issued by the USCG. No additional mitigation measures are 

warranted 

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14-11
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14-12

This page intentionally left blank 
3.15 Socioeconomics 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

3.15 SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

3.15.1 Affected Environment 

3.15.1.1 Introduction 

This section evaluates effects related to socioeconomics, environmental justice (as required under 

Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations), and protection of children (as required under EO 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). 

3.15.1.2 Definition of Resource 

Socioeconomics includes an evaluation of the basic attributes and resources associated with the human 

environment, particularly population, and economic activity. Economic activity encompasses 

employment, personal income, and industrial growth. Impacts on these fundamental socioeconomic 

components influence other issues such as housing availability and provision of public services. 

3.15.1.3 Federal Requirements 

EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Population, focuses on identification and analysis of disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of actions on minority and low-income populations in the United States. The 

United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Council for Environmental Quality have 

emphasized the importance of incorporating environmental justice review in the analyses conducted by 

federal agencies under National Environmental Policy Act and of developing protective measures that 

avoid disproportionate environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. For this Proposed 

Action, analysis for EO 12898 requires assessment of readily available demographic data on the local, 

regional, and national populations, including race and ethnicity, age, income, and poverty metrics. 

Information to support this analysis is derived from US Census Bureau and San Diego Association of 

Governments (SANDAG) readily accessible documents and internet sites. The US Decennial Census 

forms the basis of the data for 2000, which is completed every 10 years, with the next scheduled census 

occurring in 2010. The US Census Bureau also conducts ongoing surveys to supplement the decennial 

survey, and the most recent US Census American Community Survey (ACS) for 2007 data is used to 

document the most recent conditions. The SANDAG publication “2030 Regional Growth Forecast 

Update” is referenced for economic and population trends in the San Diego County area through 2030. 

EO 13045 Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, focuses on 

environmental health risks and safety risks that may affect children. This EO was prompted by the 

recognition that children are more sensitive than adults to adverse environmental health and safety risks 

because they are still undergoing physiological growth and development. For this Proposed Action, 

analysis for EO 13045 requires assessment of readily available information regarding demographic data 

on the local, regional, and national populations, and, in particular, children less than 18 years old to 

evaluate the number and distribution of children in the region and whether these children are exposed to 

environmental health and safety risks from the Proposed Action. Information to support this analysis is 

derived from the US Census Bureau (2000 census and 2007 ACS) and identified locations with 

potentially high concentrations of children, such as schools, recreational areas for children, and residential 

areas 

3.15.1.3.1Regional Setting 

The Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC) is located in a populated urban area and is accessible from 

the greater San Diego metropolitan area via the Coronado Bay Bridge and State Route 75 through 

Imperial Beach. As presented in Section 3.1, Land Use, the land use in the surrounding areas consists of 

SOCIOECONOMICS 3.15-1
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

mixed residential and commercial, hotel/motel, commercial recreation, civic use, open space, and military 

land uses. 

3.15.1.3.2Region of Influence 

The region of influence (ROI) is the area of southwestern San Diego County, surrounding SSTC. This 

area includes the cities of Coronado and Imperial Beach, and also includes Navy housing communities. 

The summary of socioeconomics activity in the ROI is compiled from regional and federal government 

sources. For environmental justice and protection of children, the air quality, water resources, acoustic, 

and public health and safety concerns with the ROI are evaluated in regard to effects to low-income, 

minority, and children populations. 

3.15.1.4 Regional Employment 

The economy of the San Diego region is diversified; the leading employment sectors are business and 

professional services, retail trade, government, and hospitality. As of December 2008, the county average 

unemployment rate was 6.9 percent, which is below the state rate of 5.6 percent but above the federal rate 

of 4.5 percent (San Diego Workforce Partnership 2008). The estimated total employment for San Diego 

County, the City of Imperial Beach, and the City of Coronado is shown in Table 3.15-1. The estimated 

total employment for San Diego County is expected to increase 36 percent from 2000 to 2030. The City 

of Imperial Beach has a smaller anticipated increase of 18 percent (SANDAG 2008). This is due to the 

full use of properties within the city for residential and commercial structures—the built-out character of 

the City of Imperial Beach. The City of Coronado is projected to have an increase of 12 percent due to the 

similar built-out character of the city. 

Table 3.15-1: Estimated Total Employment 

20001 20042 20103 20203 20303

Percent Change 

from 2000 to 

2030

San Diego County 1,384,673 1,449,349 1,573,742 1,741,033 1,913,682 36% 

City of Imperial 

Beach4 3,931 4,189 4,189 4,539 4,792 18% 

City of Coronado4 29,913 33,708 33,935 34,041 34,043 12% 1

 U.S. Census 2000, 2 SANDAG 2008, 3 US Census 2007, 4 Includes military and civilian employment 

The Naval Base Coronado (NBC) employs over 36,000 military and civilian personnel and is considered 

the largest workforce in San Diego County (Department of the Navy 2008). Many of the NBC military 

and civilian workforce support training activities at SSTC. 

3.15.1.5 Regional Housing 

According to the 2000 census, housing stock in San Diego County was 1,040,149 units. As summarized in 

Table 3.15-2, the number of housing units for San Diego County is expected to increase 25 percent from 

the year 2000 to 2030 (SANDAG 2008). The City of Imperial Beach projects a smaller increase of 19 

percent over the same 30-year time frame. The City of Coronado has a projected housing increase of only 

2 percent. The relatively small increases for Imperial Beach and Coronado are because of the built-out 

character of these cities. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 3.15-2
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Table 3.15-2: Estimated Total Housing Units 

20001 20072 20103 20203 20303

Percent Change

From 2000 To 

2030

San Diego County 1,040,149 1,131,749 1,174,180 1,309,340 1,383,803 25% 

City of Imperial Beach 9,739 9,881 9,830 11,349 12,063 19% 

City of Coronado 9,494 9,436 9,405 9,690 9,796 2% 

1

 U.S. Census 2000, 2 US Census 2007 American Community Survey, 3 SANDAG 2008 

Naval Amphibious Base (NAB) Coronado includes military housing for both unaccompanied personnel 

and families. Unaccompanied personnel housing for officers is located on the southwest bayside section 

of NAB; unaccompanied enlisted housing is located on both the oceanside and bayside portions of NAB. 

Officer family housing is located in the southern bayside section of NAB; this housing area consists of 

single-family and duplex housing units, some of which front San Diego Bay. 

Naval Special Warfare student housing is located on the oceanside portion of NAB. Permanent personnel 

and transient students are billeted in housing on the bayside portion of NAB. An enlisted family housing 

area is located immediately south of the Fiddler’s Cove Marina; the housing area consists of duplex and 

townhome units and the Silver Strand Elementary School, which is operated by the Coronado Unified 

School District for students living on Silver Strand in Navy housing and Coronado residential areas. 

3.15.1.6 Population Demographics 

SSTC and neighboring communities are located in the southwestern portion of San Diego County, 

California. Table 3.15-3 presents population characteristics, including the population in 2000, estimated 

2007 population, and projected population for 2010, 2020, and 2030. The projected percent change from 

2000 to 2030 for San Diego County population is expected to increase 29 percent, while population 

growth for the cities of Imperial Beach and Coronado are expected to increase at lower rates of 17 and 19 

percent, respectively, primarily due to the built-out character of these two communities. 

Table 3.15-3: Estimated Population Growth for San Diego County, SSTC, and Surrounding Area 

20001 20072 20103 20203 20303 

Percent Change

from 2000 to 

2030

San Diego County 2,813,833 2,954,960 3,245,279 3,635,855 3,984,753 29% 

City of Imperial Beach 26,992 25,023 27,799 28,331 32,590 17% 

City of Coronado 24,100 22,022 26,591 27,512 29,738 19% 1

 U.S. Census 2000, 2 US Census 2007 American Community Survey, 3 SANDAG 2008 

3.15.1.6.1Minority Populations 

Table 3.15-4 provides the racial and ethnic composition for the cities, county, state, and nation, using the 

2000 census and 2007 ACS data. In general, the City of Imperial Beach has a racial and ethnic 

composition similar to the County of San Diego and California while the City of Coronado has fewer 

minorities than the county, state, or national populations. The City of Imperial Beach has a higher 

percentage of Hispanic than county, state or national populations. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 3.15-3
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Table 3.15-4: Population, Race, and Ethnicity for the SSTC ROI 

Race / 

Ethnicity 

City of 

Imperial 

Beach 

City of 

Coronado San Diego County California USA 

2000 1 2007 2 2000 2007 2000 2007 2000 2007 2000 2007 

Population 26,992 25,023 24,100 22,202 2,813,833 2,954,960 33,871,648 36,264,467 281,421,906 298,757,310

White persons 

(%) 62.3 71.8 84.4 89.2 66.5 69.5 59.5 60.4 75.1 74.1 

Black or 

African 

American 

persons (%) 

5.3 5.1 5.1 4.9 5.7 5.2 6.7 6.3 12.3 12.4 

American Indian 

and Alaskan 

Native persons 

(%) 

1.1 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.8 

Asian persons 

(%) 6.5 5.4 3.7 1.9 8.9 10.2 10.9 12.2 3.6 4.3 

Native Hawaiian 

and Pacific 

Islander (%) 

0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 

Other race (%) 17.8 11.4 3.1 0.8 12.8 10.3 16.8 16.8 5.5 6.2 

Two or more 

races (%) 6.5 5.0 2.6 2.4 4.7 3.6 4.7 3.3 2.4 2.1 

Hispanic 3 40.1 43.9 9.8 13.1 26.7 29.9 32.4 35.7 12.5 14.7 1

 U.S. Census 2000, 2 From the US Census 2007 American Community Survey, 3 The Hispanic category is an ethnic, rather than a racial 

distinction. These tables therefore include only non-Hispanic individuals in the black, white, and other categories to avoid over counting.

3.15.1.6.2Low-Income Populations 

Table 3.15-5 depicts median household income and poverty levels for the cities, county, state, and nation, 

using the 2000 census and 2007 ACS data. In general, the City of Imperial Beach has a median household 

income below Coronado, San Diego County, California, and the USA. The City of Imperial Beach also 

has a greater percentage of persons below the poverty level than Coronado, San Diego County, California, 

and the USA. 

Table 3.15-5: Low-Income Populations for the SSTC ROI 

 Metrics City of Imperial 

Beach 

City of 

Coronado San Diego County California USA 

2000 1 2007 2 2000 2007 2000 2007 2000 2007 2000 2007 

Population 26,992 25,023 24,100 22,202 2,813,833 2,954,960 33,871,648 36,264,467 281,421,906 298,757,310

Median 

household 

income 

$35,882 $46,214 $66,544 $80,132 $47,067 $71,139 $47,493 $58,361 $41,994 $50,007 

% Persons 

below 

poverty 

18.8 16.8 5.0 7.6 12.4 11.3 14.2 13.0 12.4 13.3 

1

 U.S. Census 2000, 2 US Census 2007 American Community Survey 

SOCIOECONOMICS 3.15-4
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

3.15.1.7 Children in the Communities 

EO 13035 requires assessment of readily available information regarding demographic data on the local, 

regional, and national populations for children. Children are defined as individuals less than 18 years of 

age for the purposes of this assessment. Information to support this analysis is derived from the US 

Census Bureau (2000 census and 2007 ACS) and identified locations with potentially high concentrations 

of children, such as schools, recreational areas for children, and residential areas in areas potentially 

exposed to project impacts. 

3.15.1.7.1Population of Children 

Table 3.15-6 depicts percentage of population less than 18 years of age and average family size for the 

cities, county, state, and nation, using the 2000 census and 2007 ACS data. The City of Imperial Beach’s 

population of children is similar to San Diego and California, while the City of Coronado has fewer 

children than the City of Imperial Beach, county, state, or national populations. City of Coronado 

population includes children located in NAB family housing as well. Areas within the cities of Coronado 

and Imperial Beach with higher concentrations of children are addressed in the following subsection. 

Table 3.15-6: Population of Children in the SSTC ROI 

 Metrics 

City of 

Imperial 

Beach 

City of 

Coronado San Diego County California USA 

2000 1 2007 2 2000 2007 2000 2007 2000 2007 2000 2007 

Population 26,992 25,023 24,100 22,202 2,813,833 2,954,960 33,871,648 36,264,467 281,421,906 298,757,310

Population 

less than 18 

years of age 

(%) 

29.4% 26.8% 16.0% 17.2% 25.7% 25.1% 27.3% 25.9% 25.7% 24.7% 

Average 

family size 3.30 3.17 2.84 2.88 3.29 3.34 3.43 3.52 3.14 3.19 

1

 U.S. Census 2000, 2 US Census 2007 American Community Survey 

3.15.1.7.2Schools 

According to the California Department of Education, Coronado Unified School District, South Bay 

Union School District, and Sweetwater Union High School District, approximately 12,000 students are 

enrolled in elementary, middle and high schools in the cities of Imperial Beach and Coronado, including 

the NAB family housing area. Schools located within the region of influence (as defined by the maximum 

extent of acoustic impacts, see Section 3.6) include the following public elementary, middle and high 

schools: Bayside Elementary School, Central Elementary School, Harbor View Elementary School, 

Imperial Beach Elementary School, Mar Vista High School, Mar Vista Middle School, Oneonta School 

Elementary School, Silver Strand Elementary School, and West View Elementary School (Figure 3.1-3). 

Of these schools, three elementary schools are near SSTC. Bayside Elementary School is located on the 

north side of Imperial Beach, adjacent to the salt works in south San Diego Bay. West View Elementary 

School is located on the southern boundary of SSTC-South (SSTC-S). The Silver Strand Elementary 

School is located in on the bayside portion of SSTC-North (SSTC-N), approximately 1,000 feet from the 

ocean beach and 500 feet from bayside beaches. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 3.15-5
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SOCIOECONOMICS 3.15-6

3.15.1.7.3Recreational Areas 

Recreational areas in the ROI include nature preserves, parks, parkways, beaches, playgrounds, and 

community gardens. Outdoor recreation entails programs, activities, or opportunities dependent upon the 

natural environment. Examples include fishing, picnicking, surfing, bird-watching, hiking and interpretive 

trails, and camping areas. Many outdoor recreational opportunities are available in the SSTC ROI (see 

Table 3.1-1). 

One of the main recreational opportunities for children in the ROI is the YMCA Camp Surf, located in the 

southwest corner of SSTC-S. The YMCA operates approximately twelve, one-week camp sessions 

annually, for children between the ages of seven and sixteen, on 80 acres of land under lease from the US 

Navy. This camp, located on ocean frontage, consists of housing units, mobile homes, and recreational 

vehicles associated with the camp. According to the YMCA, approximately 10,000 children use Camp 

Surf each year. While some of the children are day campers, the majority are onsite 24 hours per day. 

3.15.1.8 Current Mitigation Measures 

There are no current mitigation measures related to socioeconomics, environmental justice, and protection 

of children. However, mitigation measures in place for other resources (e.g., Water Resources [Section 

3.5], Acoustic Environment [Section 3.6], and Public Health and Safety [Section 3.16]) also ensure that 

non-participants, including children, are not affected by Navy actions. 

3.15.2 Environmental Consequences 

This section focuses on potential impacts and overall changes, as they relate to employment, housing, low 

income and minority populations, and protection of children, associated with implementation of all 

current and proposed training activities at SSTC. Assessments of environmental justice and protection of 

children are intertwined with other environmental topics. In particular, air emissions, water discharges, 

and noise emissions from the Proposed Action may affect the quality of air, water resources, and public 

health and safety in communities surrounding SSTC. Air emissions and pollutants are addressed in 

Section 3.3, Air Quality, in accordance with the Clean Air Act. Effects to water quality of the ocean are 

addressed in Section 3.5, Water Resources. The effect of noise from training is addressed in Section 3.6, 

Acoustic Environment and health and safety issues are addressed in Section 3.16, Public Health and 

Safety. 

3.15.2.1 Approach to Analysis 

The socioeconomic analysis addresses the potential for Navy training activities to affect, either positively 

or negatively, the basic attributes and resources associated with the human environment, particularly, 

population and economic activity. Economic activity encompasses employment, personal income, and 

industrial growth. 

In compliance with EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and LowIncome Populations, this analysis addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects of the Proposed Action on minority and low-income populations. 

Minority and low-income populations are indentified using readily available demographic data on the 

local, regional, and national populations, including race and ethnicity, age, income, and poverty metrics.1

 

1 Demographic information to support analyses related to Environmental Justice and Protection of Children is derived from US 

Census Bureau and SANDAG readily accessible documents and internet sites. The US Decennial Census forms the basis of the 

data for 2000, which is completed every 10 years, with the next scheduled census occurring in 2010. The US Census Bureau also 

conducts ongoing surveys to supplement the decennial survey, and the most recent US Census ACS for 2007 data is used to 

document the most recent conditions. The SANDAG publication “2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update” is referenced for 

economic and population trends in the San Diego County area through 2030. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

The Navy’s training activities that result in air emissions, water discharges, and noise emissions from the 

Proposed Action are considered to have significant environmental justice impacts if training activities 

generate disproportionately high environmental effects on low income or minority populations within the 

ROI. 

In compliance with EO 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks, this analysis examines demographic data on the local, regional, and national populations; and, in 

particular on children, to evaluate the number and distribution of children in the region and whether these 

children are exposed to environmental health and safety risks from the Proposed Action. The Navy’s 

training activities that result in air emissions, water discharges, and noise emissions are considered to 

have a significant environmental health and safety risks if SSTC activities generate disproportionately 

high environmental effects on populations of children within the ROI. Potential effects include health and 

safety concerns such as hearing loss, non-auditory health effects, and interruption of communication or 

attention in nearby residences and schools with children present (see Section 3.6, Acoustic Environment)

3.15.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the number of personnel stationed at SSTC and tempo of training would 

remain the same as the baseline conditions. 

3.15.2.2.1 Socioeconomics 

No changes to the current socioeconomic conditions (employment, housing, and population growth) of 

southwestern San Diego County are expected under the No Action Alternative as the Navy will maintain 

baseline levels of personnel and staffing already employed in the region. In addition, increases in training 

activities associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives are not expected to disrupt normal business 

operations in the ROI. Therefore, regional and community employment, housing, and population growth 

are not affected by the No Action Alternative. 

3.15.2.2.2Environmental Justice 

Based on the analysis presented in Section 3.3 Air Quality, 3.5 Water Resources, and 3.6 Acoustic 

Environment associated with the No Action Alternative (see sections 3.3, 3.5, and 3.6), no 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to low-income or minority 

populations is expected. 

3.15.2.2.3Protection of Children 

Based on the analysis presented in Section 3.3 Air Quality, 3.5 Water Resources, and 3.6 Acoustic 

Environment associated with the No Action Alternative, no disproportionate environmental health and 

safety risks specific to children is expected. 

3.15.2.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would increase the training tempo and would include the introduction of 

new types of training, conducting existing routine training at additional locations within SSTC established 

training areas, and increasing training access to, and availability of, existing beach and inland training 

areas. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 3.15-7
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

3.15.2.3.1 Socioeconomics 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in an increase in permanently stationed personnel or 

employees at SSTC. Training activities and tempo under Alternative 1 would be implemented by Navy 

personnel and staffing already employed in the region. In addition, increases in training activities 

associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives are not expected to disrupt normal business 

operations in the ROI. Therefore, regional and community employment, housing, and population growth 

are not expected to be affected by Alternative 1. 

3.15.2.3.2Environmental Justice 

Based on the analysis presented in Section 3.3 Air Quality, 3.5 Water Resources, and 3.6 Acoustic 

Environment under Alternative 1, no disproportionate effect to low-income or minority populations 

would occur. 

3.15.2.3.3Protection of Children 

Based on the analysis presented in Section 3.3 Air Quality, 3.5 Water Resources, and 3.6 Acoustic 

Environment under Alternative 1, no disproportionate environmental health and safety risks specific to 

children is expected. 

3.15.2.4 Alternative 2 

The only difference between Alternative 1 and 2 is that, under Alternative 2, all SSTC-N oceanside beach 

training areas would be available for Navy training, regardless of time of year. Water quality, air quality, 

and acoustical noise effects are the same as Alternative 1. Thus, implementation of Alternative 2 would 

have similar socioeconomic, environmental justice, and protection of children effects as Alternative 1. 

3.15.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

No adverse socioeconomic effects were identified; therefore, no proposed mitigation measures are 

warranted. However, mitigation measures proposed for other resources (e.g., Water Resources [Section 

3.5], Acoustic Environment [Section 3.6], and Public Health and Safety [Section 3.16]) would serve to 

further minimize effects related to environmental justice and protection of children. 

3.15.4 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 

There are no unavoidable adverse socioeconomic effects identified. 

3.15.5 Summary of Effects 

Table 3.15-7 summarizes effects and mitigation measures for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, 

and Alternative 2. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 3.15-8
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Table 3.15-7: Summary of Socioeconomic Effects 

Alternative Summary of Effects 

No Action Alternative 

• Navy presence currently has a beneficial socioeconomic impact on the 

region. 

• EO 12898 – There are no disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects from the No Action Alternative on low 

income populations. 

• EO 13045 – The No Action Alternative would not disproportionately 

affect children. 

Alternative 1 

• Socioeconomics - Existing regional population and associated housing 

impacts, employment rates, and regional economy would remain 

unchanged. 

• EO 12898 – There would be no disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on low income populations with 

the implementation of Alternative 1. 

• EO 13045 – Alternative 1 would not disproportionately affect children. 

Alternative 2 • Impacts are expected to be the same as Alternative 1. 

Mitigation Measures 

• Mitigation measures proposed for other resources (e.g., Water 

Resources [Section 3.5], Acoustic Environment [Section 3.6], and 

Public Health and Safety [Section 3.16]) would serve to further 

minimize effects related to environmental justice and protection of 

children. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 3.15-9
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SOCIOECONOMICS 3.15-10

This page intentionally left blank 
3.16 Public Health and Safety 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

3.16 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

3.16.1 Introduction 

3.16.1.1 Definition of Resource 

Public health and safety issues are defined as those elements of the Proposed Action that directly affect 

the health and safety of individuals in the communities adjacent to Silver Strand Training Complex 

(SSTC). The Navy’s policy is to use every possible precaution in planning and executing all onshore or 

offshore activities—to prevent injury to people or damage to property. Effects that occur within Navycontrolled areas do not pose a substantial public safety or health concern because the public normally 

does not have access to these areas. 

This public health and safety assessment addresses effects that are not entirely contained within Navycontrolled areas, and to training activities that take place in areas of public use. Proposed Action effects 

that do not directly affect an individual’s health or safety are not considered in this assessment. Also, 

concerns that affect single individuals and isolated incidents may not rise to the level of a public health or 

public safety issue. Noise effects are not addressed in this section (Section 3.6, Acoustic Environment); 

thus, the resource to be evaluated for Proposed Action effects is the collective health and safety of groups 

of individuals in the communities adjacent to SSTC training areas. 

3.16.1.2 Regional Setting 

SSTC training activities occur on and adjacent to the Silver Strand peninsula—an isthmus of land with 

the Pacific Ocean to the west and San Diego Bay to the east. The City of Coronado abuts the southern 

boundary of Naval Air Station, North Island (NASNI) and borders SSTC-North (SSTC-N) on the north 

and south. The City of Imperial Beach adjoins SSTC-South (SSTC-S). State Route (SR) 75 traverses the 

peninsula from north to south, bisecting SSTC and connecting the City of Coronado with the City of 

Imperial Beach. In the event of a natural disaster or other public emergency, SR-75 is the sole evacuation 

route for vehicular traffic to and from SSTC-N facilities on the Silver Strand peninsula. 

3.16.1.3 Region of Influence 

The Region of Influence (ROI) for public health and safety concerns includes SR-75, those portions of the 

cities of Coronado and Imperial Beach adjoining SSTC, those portions of San Diego Bay adjoining 

SSTC, and offshore ocean areas adjacent to SSTC and NASNI. Areas of heightened sensitivity to public 

health and safety concerns within the ROI include residential districts—where substantial populations of 

people are present at all times of the day and night—and areas where large groups of people may gather, 

such as parks, marinas, public beaches, and other recreational open spaces. 

3.16.2 Affected Environment 

3.16.2.1 Hazards Overview 

3.16.2.1.1 Electromagnetic Radiation 

Communications and electronic devices such as radar, electronic jammers, and other radio transmitters 

produce Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR). Equipment that produces an electromagnetic field has the 

potential to generate hazardous levels of EMR. An EMR hazard exists when transmitting equipment 

generates electromagnetic fields that induce currents strong enough or voltages high enough to trigger 

electro-explosive devices in ordnance, to directly harm people or wildlife, or to create sparks that can 

ignite flammable substances. Hazards are reduced or eliminated by establishing minimum distances 

between EMR emitters and people, ordnance, and fuels. 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 3.16-1
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Personnel (HERP), Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to 

Ordnance (HERO), and Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Fuel (HERF) have been determined for 

EMR sources, based on their operating frequency and power output. Navy personnel use low-power 

communications equipment, such as two-way radios andcell phones, during training. No known hazards 

to personnel (HERP), ordnance (HERO), or fuel (HERF) exist at SSTC, and there are no hazards to the 

public in off-site areas;therefore this issue will not be addressed further in this Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). 

3.16.2.1.2 Training Ordnance 

Explosives, pyrotechnic devices (e.g., smoke grenades), and other ordnance (e.g., blanks, simunitions) 

used for training are transported to SSTC by ground vehicles, stored on site, and used in accordance with 

Navy standard operating procedures. The types and amounts of explosive materials that may be stored at 

a single location are determined by the quantity-distance requirements established by the Department of 

Defense (DoD) Explosives Safety Board. Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) arcs determine the 

minimum safe separation between munitions storage areas and habitable structures. The Navy has 

established ESQDs for ordnance storage lockers used for SSTC training activities (Figure 3.16-1). 

Further, safety zones are established during the use of explosives in training activities involving 

underwater detonations (Section 3.16.2.1.7). 

3.16.2.1.3 Aircraft Accident Potential 

Guidelines for establishing aviation safety zones around helicopter landing zones (LZs) are identified in 

NAVFAC P-80.3, and include clear zones and Accident Potential Zones (APZs). Infrequent helicopter 

activities—such as at SSTC—require designation of a clear zone, but not APZs. The clear zone for Visual 

Flight Rule (VFR) aircraft is the same as the takeoff safety zone. The takeoff safety zone constitutes the 

area under the approach/departure surface until that surface is 50 to 100 feet above the landing zone 

elevation;this zone must be free of obstructions. 

3.16.2.1.4 High-Velocity Air/Overpressure 

High-velocity air is expelled by hovercraft during amphibious activities. The high-velocity air exiting the 

hovercraft traps foreign objects, and then propels these objects with the force of the exhaust air. As the 

distance from the hovercraft increases, the velocity of the exhaust air decreases. While in operation, the 

hovercraft requires a 50-yard radius safety zone. 

Helicopters generate high-velocity air, called rotor wash, during landing and takeoff. Small objects can be 

trapped in this air stream and thrown through the air.The area affected is proportional to the diameter of 

the helicopter’s rotor, with strong rotor wash occurring within an area of approximately three times the 

rotor diameter. The strength of the rotor wash is related to the weight of the helicopter, with rotor wash 

velocity increasing with increasing helicopter weight. 

Overpressure from underwater detonations can pose a physical hazard in surrounding waters. Based on 

observations of Explosive Ordnance Disposal divers conducting the activity, detonating a 20- to 40-pound 

charge of explosives can create a 10-foot diameter crater in the ocean bottom (Section 3.5.2.3.2). 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 3.16-2
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Figure 3.16-1: SSTC ESQD Arcs 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 3.16-3
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

3.16.2.1.5 Public Access and Proximity 

Generally, public access to SSTC is controlled for security reasons, and to safeguard against potential 

hazards associated with military activities. Potential hazards include EMR, ordnance storage and loading, 

heavy equipment operation, and amphibious activities. The control of public access to SSTC training 

areas is for safety concerns—to protect the public from harm. Training events or exercises in nearshore 

waters shared with recreational and commercial users may be delayed or relocated, if needed and if the 

area is not clear of nonparticipating vessels and individuals. 

Public access to SSTC-N beaches from Coronado Municipal Beach to the north and Silver Strand State 

Beach to the south is restricted. The Navy leases the oceanside beaches and nearshore waters on SSTC-N; 

a fence that runs parallel to SR-75 prevents public access on the bayside. 

At SSTC-S, the Navy owns the oceanside beach down to the mean high tide line and restricts public 

access to the beach training lanes (White 1 and 2 and Purple 1 and 2) above the mean high tide line. 

Training activities, when they are occurring, may require public access restrictions to one or more beach 

lanes below the mean high tide line, depending on the nature of the training activity (hazards, security, 

etc.). If and when restricted access is required, safety personnel are stationed to keep nonparticipants from 

harm, and to ensure mission security. Navy training scheduling varies on SSTC and is not limited to any 

particular day/days of the year. When beach closure is required, it typically lasts from one to four hours, 

on average, for only about 2 hours. The public would still have access to surrounding beach areas. 

3.16.2.1.6 Sonar 

Swimmers and divers in the vicinity of Navy training activities involving sonar could be exposed to 

underwater acoustical signals. The effect of sonar on humans varies with the frequency of sonar involved. 

Of the three types of sonar (high-, mid-, and low-frequency), mid-frequency and low-frequency have the 

greatest potential to affect humans; however, low-frequency and mid-frequency sonar are not used in 

SSTC training activities. The primary effect of high-frequency sonar is thermal heating—items exposed 

to high-frequency sonar can absorb some of the acoustical energy and experience a small rise in 

temperature. However, the power of high-frequency sonar declines rapidly as the distance from the source 

increases.The safe operating distance from a high-frequency source for swimmers and divers is about 10 

yards (Department of the Navy [DoN]. 2008. U.S. Navy Diving Manual; Appendix 1A – Safe Diving 

Distances from Transmitting Sonar). 

3.16.2.1.7 Underwater Detonations and Swimmer / Diver Safety 

Swimmers and divers in the vicinity of Navy training activities involving underwater detonations could 

be exposed to over-pressure. Beyond specific thresholds, either impulse pressure (measured in pounds per 

square inch – millisecond [psi-msec]) or peak pressure (measured in psi) could injure individuals in the 

water. Excessive underwater pressure waves could damage hearing or vital organs. Based on modeling 

performed by the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC), the maximum estimated zone of influence 

for swimmers or divers from the types and intensities of underwater detonations conducted at SSTC is 

about 570 yards (NUWC 2009). 

3.16.2.1.8 Installation Restoration Program 

The migration of hazardous substances from historical waste deposits can pose a risk to public health. The 

Installation Restoration Program (IRP) was developed to identify, assess, characterize, and clean up or 

control contamination from past hazardous waste disposal activities and hazardous materials spills at DoD 

facilities. The IRP is a tool for identifying and cleaning up contaminant releases that could endanger 

public health, welfare, or the environment. 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 3.16-4
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

The DoN IRP process is designed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) requirements. Its three phases are: 1) the study phase, which 

includes (a) preliminary assessment/site inspection and (b) remedial investigation/feasibility study; 2) the 

design phase, which includes (c) remedial design and (d) remedial action construction; and 3) the cleanup 

phase, which includes (e) interim removal action and remedial action, (f) remedial action operation, and 

(g) long-term management of the remedy. 

IRP sites on SSTC-N, SSTC-S, and NASNI are listed and described in Section 3.4.1.4.2 (Hazardous 

Materials and Wastes, CERCLA Sites). Based on best available information these sites pose no hazard to 

public health or safety, and training activities will not disturb or cause contaminants from these sites to be 

released and affect public health. While the natures and locations of these sites may need to be considered 

in planning training activities, there is no historical contamination associated with the Proposed Action. 

Therefore, any health or safety issues associated with IRP sites are not within the scope of environmental 

analyses performed in this EIS. 

3.16.2.2 Hazards Ashore (Beach Activities) 

SSTC is located in an urban area that is used heavily for recreational and commercial activities. Public 

beaches are located adjacent to both SSTC-N and SSTC-S; and public parks, bicycle paths, marinas, and 

boating areas are located in its vicinity. SSTC beach training areas are accessible from the water; 

thus,physical barriers and other security measures instituted to prevent public access from adjacent lands 

do not assure the complete isolation of the range. However, the types of training that take place at SSTC 

and the manner in which the training is conductedtake into account the proximity of public areas and the 

lack of isolation. 

3.16.2.2.1 SSTC North (SSTC-N) 

Ordnance Transportation and Storage 

Ordnance arrives at SSTC-N via truck; and is transported to and from SSTC ordnance storage areas by a 

an established route (U.S. Navy 1999). Flammable materials, explosives, and other hazardous materials 

such as ordnance are not allowed on Coronado Bridge, so these materials are transported on SR-75 via 

Imperial Beach. Base security notifies the Receiving Office in the Supply Department when these 

shipments arrive. Ground shipments of ordnance are escorted to storage areas by security personnel via 

predetermined routes. Once offloaded from a truck, ordnance is transported to storage locations or 

directly to a designated range area for use. 

Ordnance is stored at three locations on SSTC-N (Figure 3.16-1). The SSTC-N ordnance storage facilities 

each require a 100-foot ESQD arc. An ESQD arc exists around Building 255, used by SSTC-N security 

personnel and other tenants. This building is an earth-covered magazine with a capacity of 1,000 pounds 

to store Class 1, Division 3, and Division 4 small arms ammunition and pyrotechnics. Three ready service 

lockers located on the oceanside behind Buildings 614, 616, and 600 also require ESQD arcs. These 

lockers are used by Naval Special Warfare (NSW) for training. The public is not affected by these 

ordnance storage facilities because the ESQD arcs are completely within Navy property. 

Accident Potential Zones 

SSTC does not contain an airfield. The only air support facility at SSTC is the helicopter LZ at Turner 

Field. This LZ is located near the eastern edge of Naval Amphibious Base (NAB) Coronado’s Main Base, 

adjacent to the Turner Field recreational area. Helicopters at SSTC operate under VFR. These activities 

are infrequent—three to four times per week—and normally provide support for administrative functions 

or operational training, such as rappelling and helicopter rope suspension training. The number of flights 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 3.16-5
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

can triple during major training activities. On SSTC, helicopters are required to approach and depart from 

the LZ in an easterly direction over San Diego Bay. 

Public Access and Proximity 

Within SSTC-N, bachelor housing (officer and enlisted) and officer family housing are located on NAB 

Coronado. On the Main Base, the officer family housing is located adjacent to Delta North Beach. This 

Rendova housing includes single-family units and duplexes, some of which front on San Diego Bay. 

Military housing at the southern end of SSTC-N is next to the Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie beaches and 

across SR-75 from Boat Lanes 7 through 10. Residential communities in the City of Coronado are to the 

north and south of SSTC-N. 

Glorietta Bay Park adjoins NAB Coronado’s Main Base on the north. Also to the north of SSTC-N, on 

the oceanside, is Coronado Shores, a 1,467-unit high-rise condominium complex. Silver Strand State 

Beach is between SSTC-N and SSTC-S on the oceanside of SR-75. On the bayside, Coronado Cays Park 

is located to the south of SSTC-N. A public bicycle path runs the length of Silver Strand peninsula. Public 

land uses near SSTC-N are described and their locations are shown in Land Use (Section 3.1). 

On SSTC-N bayside, a fence parallel to Silver Strand Highway from Rendova Housing to Fiddler’s Cove 

prevents public access from the land to bayside training areas. Oceanside access to the beach is controlled 

by a guard, posted on the northern-edge of Yellow 1. In addition, trainers and trainees assure that 

nonparticipants do not enter training areas during a training activity if needed to ensure their safety. 

Installation Restoration Program 

As noted in Section 3.16.2.1.7, IRP sites on SSTC-N are listed and described in Section 3.4.1.4.2. 

3.16.2.2.2 SSTC South (SSTC-S) 

Public Access and Proximity 

Loews Coronado Bay Resort Hotel and Coronado Cays residential development are located north of 

SSTC-S along the western side of SR-75, opposite Silver Strand State Beach. Land use on the southern 

side of SSTC-S in Imperial Beach is predominantly residential. Other nearby uses in Imperial Beach 

include an elementary school and some commercial development. Residential areas of Imperial Beach are 

located more than 2,000 feet south of Boat Lane 14; however, the residential areas abut the southerly 

boundary of SSTC-S. The YMCA Camp Surf is located on land leased from the Navy in the southeastern 

corner of SSTC-S. 

SSTC-S inland areas are fully-fenced. Entrance into this area is controlled by guarded, manned gates. 

However, oceanside beaches are accessible from public beaches to the south. On SSTC-S oceanside 

beaches, Navy trainers and trainees assure that nonparticipants do not enter training areas during a 

potentially hazardous training event. 

Installation Restoration Program 

As noted in Section 3.16.2.1.7, the IRP site on SSTC-S is described in Section 3.4.1.4.2. 

3.16.2.2.3 Naval Air Station, North Island (NASNI) 

Public Access and Proximity 

The public is not allowed access to NASNI; the shore areas of NASNI used for SSTC training activities 

are also not publicly accessible. 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 3.16-6
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Installation Restoration Program 

As noted in Section 3.16.2.1.7, IRP sites on NASNI are listed and described in Section 3.4.1.4.2. 

3.16.2.3 Hazards Afloat (Water Activities) 

San Diego Bay and the nearshore ocean waters off the Silver Strand peninsula are heavily used for a 

variety of commercial, recreational, and institutional purposes. Glorietta Bay Marina is located next to 

NAB Coronado and training area Golf. The Navy’s Fiddler’s Cove Marina lies between training areas 

Delta I and Charlie. Swimming beaches, including those with the possible use of small, unpowered 

watercraft such as kayaks and inflatable rafts and boats, are located adjacent to Boat Lane 1, Boat Lane 

10, and Boat Lane 11. YMCA Surf Camp, which teaches water sports to children, is located just south of 

Boat Lane 14. 

In accordance with 33 CFR Part 334, Danger Zone and Restricted Area Regulations, portions of the 

bayside waters surrounding NAB and an offshore Pacific Ocean area have been designated Restricted 

Areas (33 CFR 334.860), bayside areas surrounding NASNI and specified piers across San Diego Bay (33 

CFR 334.865), and waters at the mouth of the San Diego Bay harbor (33 CFR 334.870 and 33 CFR 

334.880) (Figure 3.16-2). Within these areas, anchoring, dredging, dragging, seining, and other similar 

activities are prohibited without Navy approval. 

The public is restricted from public swimming, fishing, and waterskiing in the bayside areas surrounding 

NAB and NASNI (Figure 3.16-2); the portion of the Restricted Area within 120 feet of the NAB pierhead 

is limited to vessels that are owned or under hire to NAB Coronado. San Diego Bay has no vessel traffic 

control system, but the Navy monitors radio communications and informally provides traffic information 

to private and commercial vessels. 

Naval Vessel Protection Zones established by U.S. Coast Gurad regulations (33 CFR 165.2010) require 

other (non-Navy) vessels to slow to a minimum speed within 500 yards of a Navy vessel greater than 100 

feet long; they are prohibited from approaching within 100 yards of a Navy vessel greater than 100 feet 

long. 

3.16.2.4 Current Mitigation Measures 

The Navy has specific and documented procedures in place to ensure that nonparticipants are not 

endangered by Navy actions. Personnel and first aid kits are on site for each training activity in the 

unlikely event of an injury. For underwater detonations, a safety zone is established for each training 

activity to protect swimmers and divers from injury . 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 3.16-7
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Figure 3.16-2: Public Land Uses and Project Hazard Zones 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 3.16-8
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Fences on portions of SSTC, and the use of gates and guards to control access, protects the public from 

potentially hazardous training activities. Navy monitoring of training events serves to identify potential 

public health and safety risks and avoid them. Mitigation measures for other resources that affect public 

health and safety would continue to be implemented 

3.16.2.4.1 Exercise Planning 

The Navy considers public safety in planning its exercises. Factors considered in evaluating the impact of 

the training on public safety include proximity of the activity to public areas; access control; schedule 

(time of day, day of week); public notification; frequency, duration, and intensity of activities; range 

safety procedures; operational control of hazardous activities or events; and safety history. 

3.16.2.4.2 Range Control 

Current range control procedures at SSTC-N and SSTC-S limit unanticipated interactions with the 

public. On SSTC-N bayside, a fence parallel to Silver Strand Highway from Rendova Housing to 

Fiddler’s Cove prevents public access from the land to bayside training areas. Oceanside access to the 

beach is controlled by a watch guard posted on the northern edge of Yellow 1. SSTC-S inland areas are 

fully-fenced. Entrance into these areas is controlled by manned gates. Signs also are posted to warn the 

public of potentially hazardous activities. Trainers and exercise participants are responsible for assuring 

that nonparticipants are not close enough that they are at risk during all land and water training activities. 

3.16.2.4.3 Range Inspection 

Range users are instructed to discuss planned activities with the range scheduler to ensure that current and 

applicable range procedures are applied prior to conducting any activities. Scheduling officials regularly 

inspect beach areas. 

3.16.2.4.4 Coordination Procedures 

Close coordination between military and civilian facilities enables effective, real-time, shared use. 

Notices to Mariners are issued for underwater detonations. An individual activity must be coordinated 

between the appropriate range scheduler and range user, at the time the range is scheduled for the 

operation. 

3.16.3 Environmental Consequences 

Public health and safety is an interdisciplinary issue—aspects of which are intertwined with other 

environmental topics. Other sections will cover some of these topics: The potential for the release of 

hazardous substances to result in chronic health effects is addressed in Section 3.4, Hazardous Materials 

and Waste. Transportation of project personnel on public roads is addressed in Section 3.14, 

Transportation and Circulation. Hazardous air pollutants are addressed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act’s National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

regulations. Seismic hazards are addressed in Section 3.2, Geology and Soils. Human annoyance and the 

potential for hearing loss from training noise are addressed in Section 3.6, Acoustic Environment. The 

remaining public health and safety issues are addressed in this section. 

This resource section focuses on groups of activities that could pose a credible risk to public health and 

safety. Similar types of activities are grouped together (agglomerated) for ease of analysis. Types of 

activities that could pose a risk to public health are those in which hazardous constituents are released to 

the environment in substantial amounts (addressed in Section 3.4), or in which hazardous levels of energy 

(e.g., EMR) are released. Types of activities that raise public safety concerns are those where members of 

the public are proximate or within the footprint of a potentially hazardous training activity. Training 

activities that pose no public safety concerns include: 1-4, 8, 13-24, 32-34, 36, 43, 44, 47, 54-58, 60-70, 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 3.16-9
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

72-74, 78 [Table 2-1], and N10 [Table 2-2]. Land detonations of small amounts of explosives in a 

controlled training environment on Navy property, where a substantial buffer exists between the training 

site and adjacent public areas (Activity 31 [Table 2-1]), are deemed not to constitute a risk to public 

safety. 

3.16.3.1 Approach to Analysis 

Navy training activities are considered to have a significant impact on public health or safety if the 

general public is substantially endangered. Most of the training activities consist of individuals, vehicles, 

and equipment stationed at or moving within SSTC. Those activities that take place wholly within Navycontrolled areas have little potential to affect public safety in the absence of unauthorized public access. 

Some activities take place within SSTC and are designed to be wholly contained therein, but have some 

potential to project secondary effects outside of SSTC. Training and support activities that take place in 

joint military-public use areas or outside of SSTC, such as heavy equipment operations and aircraft and 

watercraft movements, have the most potential for impacts on public health and safety. For each training 

activity or group of similar activities, risks to the public are estimated—taking into consideration the 

Navy’s safety procedures for range activities (Section 3.16.2.4). 

3.16.3.2 No Action Alternative 

SSTC land training activities do not use live ammunition, with the exception of shotgun shells for 

breacher training (Activity 31, Table 2-1). Blasting caps are not capable of projecting hazardous effects 

off site because of their size; and because safety zones are been established specifically to control these 

effects. Flares, smoke grenades, and other small pyrotechnics used in training do not release projectiles or 

scatter fragments; thus they have no potential for effects in the absence of direct contact. SSTC training 

activities do not use high-power radar or other sources of intense EMR; also the area is checked for the 

public prior to use of lasers at SSTC. Routine training activities conducted within SSTC pose little risk to 

public health or safety outside of the training areas. Transportation and storage of energetic training 

materials in accordance with federal, state, and Navy requirements pose no substantial risk to public 

safety. 

3.16.3.2.1 Land Activities (Hazards Ashore) 

Training activities at SSTC take place in well-defined locations under the close supervision of 

experienced military personnel. The same policies and procedures that protect training participants from 

injury or adverse health exposures would protect members of the public who were inadvertently present 

in the vicinity. However, trainers and exercise participants observe for the approach of nonparticipants, 

and respond accordingly. 

Amphibious activities range from small boat raids to larger activities with marine vessels such as 

Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAVs), Landing Craft Units (LCU), and Landing Craft, Air Cushion 

(LCACs). The largest exercises are Amphibious Raids, which took place only twice in the baseline year. 

These exercises involve up to 14 AAVs, plus LCUs and LCACs. Personnel performing the training 

observe for nonparticipants walking on the beach or swimming in the water to ensure that they do not 

enter the training area during these activities. Under the No Action Alternative, about 66 training events 

involving large amphibious craft will occur on SSTC-S beaches. 

At SSTC-S, some potential exists for nonparticipants to be present on the beach or in the surf zone. Most 

of the 66 training events expected under the No Action Alternative will occur during daylight hours and 

will not pose a safety risk to personnel in the area. Also, any nonparticipants will be clearly visible to 

exercise participants; hence the potential for a person to approach an amphibious vessel or vehicle 

unobserved is very low. Also, the training activities will occur primarily during business hours on 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 3.16-10
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

weekdays, when public use of the beaches is at its lowest level. Thus, the potential for public safety to be 

at risk from amphibious exercises on SSTC-S is very low. 

Heavy equipment activities on the beach, and cables stretched between bulldozers or anchor points and 

vessels or equipment, pose a risk of injury to untrained and unprotected individuals in the vicinity of these 

activites. Heavy equipment use is associated with Logistics Over the Shore training (Navy tactical task 

Action [NTA] 4.5.6). Except for Landing Craft Beaching (Activity 45, Table 2-1), these activities are 

conducted exclusively at SSTC-N. Personnel performing the training watch for nonparticipants walking 

on the beach or swimming in the water to ensure that they do not enter the training area; thus, no public 

safety concern is expected under the No Action Alternative. 

3.16.3.2.2 Air Activities (Hazards Aloft) 

Air activities under the No Action Alternative are limited to helicopters, which will be involved in about 

588 training activities per year (Activities 4, 6, 7, 12, 16, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 35, 37, and 64, Table 2-1). 

Helicopters supporting SSTC training operate out of the Naval Outlying Landing Field (NOLF) Imperial 

Beach or NASNI. Transit routes are over water, substantially reducing the risk to the general public in the 

event of an accident. Helicopters participate in the Mine Countermeasures, Amphibious Activities, NSW, 

Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance, and NSW Diving and Beach training. In the baseline year, 

SSTC training required about 400 helicopter sorties, or about one to two sorties per day. There have been 

no incidents involving aircraft during training at SSTC that have put the safety of the public at risk. Given 

this exemplary safety record, and the relatively low frequency and short duration of helicopter flights over 

public areas, aircraft activities associated with the No Action Alternative will not affect public safety. 

3.16.3.2.3 Water Activities (Hazards Afloat) 

Watercraft are involved in all general categories of SSTC training. One safety concern for private vessels 

during Navy training activities in public waters is the potential for a collision with a Navy vessel or 

amphibious vehicle. Watercraft and amphibious vehicles transiting nearshore waters during their 

approaches to the beach avoid non-military vessels. Avoidance of nonparticipants, low frequency of 

activities, and close operational control, serve to minimize the potential for interactions with 

nonparticipants, and to minimize the consequences of any interactions that do occur. 

Small quantities of explosives are used for training in surface and underwater detonation in water areas 

accessible to the public Seven training activities (5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 37, Table 2-1) require the use of 

explosive charges; a maximum Net Explosive Weight (NEW) of 20 pounds is used (Activity 11, Table 2-

1). These types of training represent 105 underwater or surface detonations per year. Event participants 

will establish an appropriate exclusion zone for each event (maximum zone of influence for human 

exposure is a radius of about 570 yards) prior to detonation. Activities are not conducted if nonparticipants are observed in the exclusion zone. Navy has found through modeling that an exclusion zone 

of 570 yards (for the largest charge) protects divers and swimmers from the types and intensities of 

underwater detonations that occur during training activities on SSTC (NUWC 2009). Thus, these 

activities will have no effect on public safety. 

Underwater detonation packages could pose a hazard to the public if they were to be lost during a training 

exercise and not immediately recovered. The potential for such an incident to occur is low because (a) 

these items are carefully handled during training, (b) the Navy strictly accounts for all explosives under 

its control, and (c) the number of training events in which underwater detonations occur is small. If an 

underwater detonation package is lost during training, the Navy will immediately search for it, and most 

likely will recover it before the public comes in contact with it. Unrecovered packages will still pose little 

or no hazard to the public because they do not readily detonate, and they tend to sink and become buried 

in the bottom sediments or sand. 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 3.16-11
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

3.16.3.3 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

SSTC land training activities would not employ live ammunition, with the exception of shotgun shells for 

breacher training and small arms for training inside bunkers on SSTC-S. Blasting caps are not capable of 

projecting hazardous effects offsite because of their size and because berms and buffer zones have been 

established specifically to control these effects. Flares, smoke grenades, and other small pyrotechnics 

used in training do not release projectiles or scatter fragments, and thus have no potential for effects in the 

absence of direct contact. SSTC training activities would not use high-power radar or other sources of 

intense electromagnetic radiation. Routine training activities conducted within SSTC would pose little 

risk to public health or safety outside of the training areas. Transportation and storage of energetic 

training materials in accordance with federal, state, and Navy requirements would pose no substantial risk 

to public safety. 

3.16.3.3.1 Land Activities (Hazards Ashore) 

Under Alternative 1, the proximity of public areas to training activities and the potential for unauthorized 

nonparticipants to be in the vicinity of a training exercise would remain unchanged. Under Alternative 1, 

the number of land training activities would increase by about 23 percent (228 vs. 186). However, the 

Navy would continue to implement Range Control Coordination Procedures to avoid public safety issues. 

In addition, unauthorized access may decrease because the more frequent and visible use of beach training 

areas by military personnel could tend to discourage the public from routinely entering beach training 

areas. 

3.16.3.3.2 Air Activities (Hazards Aloft) 

Under Alternative 1, helicopter sorties in support of SSTC training activities would increase to about 

1,250 from 588 in the baseline tempo (Activities 4, 6, 7, 12, 16, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 35, 37, 64 [Table 2-1], 

N4, N5, N6, N7, and N8 [Table 2-2]), or by about 13 percent. The most intense helicopter use anticipated 

under Alternative 1 would be for the Amphibious Raid (NTA 1.5.4) training on SSTC-S, when up to 16 

aircraft would be in operation at once. Based upon the factors discussed for aircraft activities under the 

No Action Alternative, aircraft activities under Alternative 1 generally would have no effect on public 

safety. 

New MCM training activities (N4-N7, Table 2-2) would require the exclusive use of ocean areas, so the 

potential for nonparticipants to be put at risk by these activities would be very low. Activity N5, Airborne 

Laser Mine Detection, would use a helicopter-mounted Light Detection and Ranging blue-green laser to 

detect, classify, and locate floating and near-surface mine shapes in shallow water. Given that this system 

would be used only in areas from which nonparticipants would be excluded and would be used in 

accordance with Navy standard operating procedures and safety protocols, the potential for this activity to 

have an effect on public safety would be extremely low. 

3.16.3.3.3 Water Activities (Hazards Afloat) 

Under Alternative 1, the number of annual activities involving landings of large watercraft (e.g., LCACs, 

LCUs, AAVs) would increase to 143 from the 127 baseline tempo (Activities 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 25, 26, 27, 

28, 29, 30, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 49, 51, 53, N1, Tables 2-1 and 2-2). The overall number of 

activities using vessels in training would increase, with the greatest increase in the use of Combat Rubber 

Raiding Craft and Boston whalers. Under Alternative 1, the most intense use of large, fast, powered 

vessels would be for the Amphibious Raid Activities (NTA 1.5.4) training to be held twice per year on 

SSTC-S, in which up to 29 small boats, landing craft, and amphibious vehicles would participate. The 

potential for an incident in nearshore waters involving watercraft engaged in training activities would be 

slightly greater than under the No Action Alternative. 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 3.16-12
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

The use of small quantities of explosives in water areas accessible to the public for training in surface and 

underwater detonation is another area of potential safety concern. Twelve training activities (Activities 5, 

6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 37, N1, N3, N7, N9, and N11, Tables 2-1 and 2-2) require the use of explosive charges; a 

maximum NEW of 29 pounds would be used (Activity 11, Table 2-1). These types of training represent a 

total of 415 underwater or surface detonations per year. Event participants would establish an appropriate 

exclusion zone for each event, and would proceed with the detonation when the exclusion zone was 

determined to be clear of people. The potential for underwater detonation packages to be lost during a 

training activity would increase in proportion to the increase in the number of training activities, but still 

would be very low. Thus, these activities would have no effect on public safety. 

3.16.3.4 Alternative 2 

The only difference between Alternative 1 and 2 is that, under Alternative 2, all SSTC-N oceanside beach 

training areas would be available for Navy training, regardless of time of year. Under Alternative 2, the 

proposed change in access and availability to existing beach and inland training areas would not change 

current range control and coordination procedures. These procedures would continue to be implemented 

under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, risks to public safety would be similar to that under Alternative 

1. Increased training and more visible use of Blue 2, Orange 1, and Orange 2 may further discourage 

unauthorized access. 

3.16.4 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Mitigation measures for other resources that affect public health and safety (e.g. noise, hazardous 

materials and waste, water resources) would be implemented. Current measures in place to ensure that 

nonparticipants are not endangered by Navy actions would continue (Section 3.16.2.4). No additional 

mitigation measures are warranted. 

3.16.5 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 

There are no unavoidable adverse environmental effects to public health and safety as a result of 

implementation of the alternatives. 

3.16.6 Summary of Effects 

Table 3.16-1 summarizes the effects of and mitigation measures for the No Action Alternative, 

Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 3.16-13
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 3.16-14

Table 3.16-1: Summary of Effects 

Alternative Effects 

No Action Alternative 

• Routine training activities conducted within SSTC pose little risk to public 

health or safety outside of the training areas. 

• Risks to the public from rotary-wing aircraft supporting SSTC training is 

minimal, based on past safety record, low number of flights, and over-water 

flight paths. 

• Risks to the public from marine vessels supporting SSTC training and small 

craft participating in training are minimal based on past safety record and 

established right-of-way conventions and avoidance procedures. 

Alternative 1 

• On-site training activities would increase. The Navy would continue to 

implement Range Control Coordination Procedures to avoid public safety 

issues. Unauthorized access may decrease because more frequent and visible 

use of beach training areas by military units could discourage the public from 

entering beach training areas. 

• Air support and marine vessel support would increase, but for the reasons 

noted under the No Action Alternative, public safety would be maintained. 

Alternative 2 

• Impacts would be similar to those under Alternative 1. Increased training and 

more visible use of Blue 2, Orange 1, and Orange 2 may further discourage 

unauthorized access. 

Mitigation Measures 

• Mitigation measures for other resources that affect public health and safety 

(e.g. noise, hazardous materials and waste, water resources) would be 

implemented. Current measures in place to ensure that nonparticipants are not 

endangered by Navy actions would continue: safety buffers for underwater 

detonations, existing guards and/or gates around many training areas, and 

monitoring for non-participants during training. 
4 Cumulative Impacts 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-1

4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

4.1 PRINCIPLES OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS

The approach taken to analyze cumulative impacts (or cumulative effects)1 follows the objectives of 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations, and CEQ guidance. CEQ regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-

1508) provide the implementing procedures for NEPA. The regulations define “cumulative effects” as: 

“. . . the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other 

actions Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over a period of time.” (40 CFR 1508.7) 

CEQ provides guidance on cumulative impacts analysis in Considering Cumulative Effects under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997). This guidance further identifies cumulative effects as 

those environmental effects resulting “from spatial and temporal crowding of environmental 

perturbations. The effects of human activities will accumulate when a second perturbation occurs at a site 

before the ecosystem can fully rebound from the effects of the first perturbation.” Noting that 

environmental impacts result from a diversity of sources and processes, this CEQ guidance observes that 

“no universally accepted framework for cumulative effects analysis exists,” while noting that certain 

general principles have gained acceptance. One such principle provides that “cumulative effects analysis 

should be conducted within the context of resource, ecosystem, and community thresholds—levels of 

stress beyond which the desired condition degrades.” Thus, “each resource, ecosystem, and human 

community must be analyzed in terms of its ability to accommodate additional effects, based on its own 

time and space parameters.” Therefore, cumulative effects analysis normally will encompass geographic 

boundaries beyond the immediate area of the Proposed Action, and a time frame including past actions 

and foreseeable future actions, in order to capture these additional effects. Bounding the cumulative 

effects analysis is a complex undertaking, appropriately limited by practical considerations. Thus, CEQ 

guidelines observe, “[i]t is not practical to analyze cumulative effects of an action on the universe; the list 

of environmental effects must focus on those that are truly meaningful.” 

4.1.1 Identifying Geographical Boundaries for Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

Geographic boundaries or Regions of Interest (ROI) for analyses of cumulative impacts in this 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) vary for different resources and environmental media. For air 

quality, the potentially affected air quality region is the appropriate boundary for assessment of 

cumulative impacts from releases of pollutants into the atmosphere. For terrestrial biological resources, 

the area in which Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC) activities occur, or are proposed to occur, is the 

appropriate geographical area for assessing cumulative impacts. For wide-ranging or migratory wildlife, 

specifically marine mammals, sea turtles, and migratory birds, any impacts from the Proposed Action or 

alternatives might combine with impacts from other sources within the ranges of each population. 

4.1.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

Identifiable effects of actions occurring in the past and present are analyzed along with reasonably 

foreseeable future actions to assess additive impacts of the Proposed Action. In general, the Navy need 

not list or analyze the effects of individual past actions; cumulative impacts analysis of past actions focus 

 

1 CEQ Regulations provide that the terms “cumulative impacts” and “cumulative effects” are synonymous (40 CFR § 1508.8[b]); 

the terms are use interchangeably. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

on aggregate effects. Reasonably foreseeable future actions that may have impacts additive to the effects 

of the Proposed Action also are to be analyzed, and are listed in Section 4.2 (Table 4-1). 

4.2 ACTIVITIES ANALYZED FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

4.2.1 Specific Projects Analyzed 

Projects in the SSTC EIS ROI (listed in Table 4-1) are considered on a resource-specific basis in the 

cumulative effects analysis. Other activities are addressed in Section 4.2.2. 

Table 4-1: Past, Present, and Planned Projects in the SSTC EIS ROI 

Number Project Description Status 

1. Glorietta Bay Marina Dredging of the marina and installation of 

new docks. Planned 

2.

Sand Removal & Sand 

Relocation at Naval Radio 

Receiving Facility 

Removal and relocation of excess sand along 

perimeter fence line on the southwest corner 

of the SSTC. 

Ongoing 

3.

Naval Air Station, North 

Island (NASNI), Naval Base 

Coronado (NBC) Lodge 

Expansion 

Demolition of four existing Navy Lodge 

buildings and several smaller structures and 

the construction of a lodge building and 

cottages to increase room capacity. 

Construction of recreation facilities, parking 

lots and road upgrades, retail shops, a 

restaurant, and landscaping and utility 

upgrades. 

Planned 

4.

The Marina at Naval 

Amphibious Base Coronado, 

NBC 

Erosion control, restoration of deteriorated 

marina facilities, and enhancement and 

expansion of existing recreational functions 

of the marina at NBC. 

Ongoing 

5. Sixth and Orange Drainage 

Improvements 

The City of Coronado is planning the 

preparation of drainage studies and 

improvements for the Fourth and Alameda 

drainage basin and the Sixth and Orange 

drainage basin. 

Planned 

6. Traffic Tunnel 

Environmental Phase 

A City of Coronado project study to 

determine costs and design of two side-byside 1.4-mile traffic tunnels commencing east 

of Glorietta Boulevard and exiting west of 

Alameda Boulevard onto NASNI. 

Planned 

7. Coronado Cays Storm Drain 

Rehabilitation Phase III 

Repair of storm drains in the Coronado Cays 

that show failed joint lines, non-storm related 

flow, and heavy debris and soil build up 

within the lines. 

Past, Present, 

and Proposed 

8. Beach Public Safety and 

Restrooms 

Replacement of the Silver Strand State Beach 

Central Beach Lifeguard Tower and restroom 

construction. 

Completed 

9. Roadway Preventive 

Maintenance 

Slurry seal of one-sixth of the City of 

Coronado’s streets. Slurry seal is a thin 

mixture consisting of fine sand, water, and 

emulsified asphalt applied to asphalt. 

Past, Present, 

and Proposed 

10. Fiber Optic Cabling 

Connection Project 

The City of Coronado plans an 

interconnection of the main sewer pump 

stations for monitoring purposes and future 

automated control. 

Present 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-2
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Table 4-1: Past, Present, and Planned Projects in the SSTC EIS ROI (Continued) 

11. Wastewater Master Plan 

A City of Coronado plan for sewer main 

replacement, rehabilitation of the Cays main 

pump station, and Margarita Avenue sewer 

main replacement. 

Past 

12. U.S. Navy Lighterage 

Construction of a Waterfront Command and 

Control Facility for Amphibious Construction 

Battalion One facilities to support the 

introduction of the improved Navy 

Lighterage System at NBC. 

Ongoing 

13.

Mobile Security Forces and 

Naval Special Clearance 

Team-One Pier and Boat 

Ramp 

Provision of facilities for the co-location of 

two new commands at NASNI, the Mobile 

Security Forces and the Naval Special 

Clearance Team-One, including construction 

of a pier, boat ramp, and several buildings; 

paving; site improvements with security 

fencing and lighting, landscaping and 

irrigation; and a paved vehicle storage yard. 

Planned 

14. Dredging and Sand 

Replenishment Projects 

Projects range from Regional Sediment 

Management Plans for regional scale 

management to specific dredging projects. 

The San Diego Bay maintenance dredging is 

currently conducted as well as future projects 

such as San Diego Association of 

Government’s Regional Beach Sand 

Replenishment Project that is in planning 

stages for the City of Imperial Beach. 

Specific information on projects can be found 

on websites maintained by the projects’ lead 

agencies, including the Army Corps of 

Engineers Los Angeles District. 

Past, Present, 

and Planned 

15. Seacoast Inn Project 

Part of Imperial Beach redevelopment plan to 

increase investment to the downtown areas. 

Consists of the building of a 4-story, 78-

room, 111-subterranean parking space 

hotel/condo structure. 

Planned to begin 

in 2009 with 

2010 completion 

16. Imperial Beach 

Redevelopment Projects 

Redevelopment projects for Palm and 

Carnation street ends, including sidewalk and 

street construction, sound and visual walls, 

landscaping, emergency vehicle access, 

pollution diversion system, public art, ramp 

installation, and direct beach access for 

emergency vehicles and individuals with 

disabilities. 

Planned for 

2008/2009 

17.

Development of Home Port 

Facilities for the Three 

NIMITZ-Class Aircraft 

Carriers in Support of the 

Pacific Fleet 

Construction and operation of facilities and 

infrastructure needed to support the capacity 

to homeport three NIMITZ-class nuclearpowered aircraft carriers within the U.S. 

Pacific Fleet. 

Planned 

18. AIMS Cable Array 

Installation 

A cable array to extend from a proposed 

building on NRRF inland, onto the beach, 

into the water on oceanside SSTC-S, and 

within the boat lanes. Being evaluated under 

the BRAC Ingleside EA, Phase II. 

Past 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-3
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Table 4-1: Past, Present, and Planned Projects in the SSTC EIS ROI (Continued) 

19. Camp Surf Improvements 

Leased area held by the YMCA will undergo 

improvements to existing structures on the 

YMCA Camp Surf site within the SSTC-S 

fenced area. 

Ongoing 

20.

USFWS Refuges 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) 

The CCP addresses topics of resource 

management, visitor use, refuge operations, 

and development in general terms. 

Past 

21.

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) for the 

Introduction of the P-8A 

Multi-Mission Maritime 

Aircraft (MMA) into the 

U.S. Navy Fleet 

This FEIS evaluates the environmental 

consequences associated with homebasing 

twelve P-8A Fleet squadrons and one Fleet 

Replacement Squadron at established 

maritime patrol home bases. The FEIS 

analyzes personnel transition, new 

construction and renovation of structures, and 

all airfield operations necessary to 

accommodate the basing of P-8A MMA. The 

P-8A is being introduced to replace the aging 

P-3C Orion aircraft. Currently, P-3C patrol 

squadrons have periodic detachments at 

NASNI. The Notice of Record of Decision 

was published in the Federal Register on 

January 2, 2009. 

Planned 

22.

Current, Emerging, and 

Future Training Operations 

in the Southern California 

(SOCAL) Range Complex 

Within the SOCAL Range Complex, 

continuation of training, an increase in 

training activities, force structure changes 

associated with introduction of new weapons 

systems, new classes of ships, and the 

introduction of new types of aircraft into the 

Fleet. 

Present, Planned 

4.2.2 Other Activities 

4.2.2.1 Commercial and Recreational Marine Traffic 

The Port of San Diego is an important commercial cargo and cruise ship port. In 2005, cargo volume 

reached over 2,900,000 metric tons. Annually, approximately 400 commercial cargo vessels utilize port 

facilities (Economic Research Associates 2007). In 2006, San Diego recorded 219 cruise ship calls 

(619,000 passengers) (San Diego Unified Port District [SDUPD] 2007). 

While the U.S. Coast Guard has indicated that there are no precise estimates for recreational or 

commercial fishing or boating activity in the area, it is estimated that San Diego Bay accommodates over 

7,000 boat slips in several marinas (SDUPD 2007). According to statistical data maintained by the 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), commercial fishing is not considered to constitute a 

significant nonmilitary use in the vicinity of NASNI (CDFG 2002); recreational fishing occurs on a 

limited scale in these waters. 

4.2.2.2 Activities Contributing to Ocean Pollution 

Commercial and recreational vessels are potential sources of pollutants, including fuel or oil leaks and 

toxins from antifouling paints; these vessels constitute an environmental concern that has not been 

quantified. Sewage, sludge, blackwater, graywater, bilge water, plastics, and other trash components and 

waste materials are routinely discharged from vessels into coastal and ocean waters in Southern 

California. Polluted runoff, or non-point source pollution, is considered the major cause of impairment of 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-4
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

California’s ocean waters. Storm water runoff from coastal urban areas and beaches carries waste such as 

petroleum, plastics, and Styrofoam into coastal waters. Sewer outfalls also are a source of ocean pollution 

in Southern California. The Tijuana River, located directly south of Imperial Beach, is a major source of 

pollution for Southern California beaches. Bacteria levels are measured routinely to determine the quality 

of water at recreational beaches, and as indicators of the possible presence of other harmful 

microorganisms. 

4.2.2.3 Activities Contributing to San Diego Bay Pollution 

Due to the high density of commercial vessel traffic in San Diego Bay, commercial vessels are a 

potentially significant source of pollutants, including, fuel leaks, antifouling paint toxins, and illegal trash 

dumping. San Diego Bay also accommodates a large number of recreational boaters that potentially 

contribute pollutants through illegal dumping. Other sources of vessel-related pollution include naval boat 

activities, dumping by bayside industries, and San Diego Bay’s numerous marinas. The high density of 

urban development on the eastern shore of San Diego Bay produces runoff which can contribute to 

concentrations of pollutants such as pesticides, household waste, and several other non-point source 

pollutants. Local streams and creeks that feed into San Diego Bay also augment contaminated 

sedimentary deposits and are a major source of coliform bacterial concentrations. 

4.2.2.4 Air Quality Emissions 

In the California Air Resources Board (CARB) emission inventories by category (CARB 2008), the San 

Diego Air Basin (SDAB) includes emissions (Reactive Organic Gases [ROG], carbon monoxide [CO], 

oxides of nitrogen [NOX]) and particulate matter less than 10 microns [PM10]) from aircraft, ships, and 

commercial boats. Emission estimates are based on emissions from onshore (land) or nearshore (<3 nm 

from mean high tide line) activities. These emissions account for a small percentage of the overall air 

emissions budgets for the air basin. Emissions from marine vessels operating in offshore areas are not 

included in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) emissions budget and in air quality planning because they 

are assumed to have a negligible effect on the ambient air quality; and because reductions in emissions 

from these sources would not generate a great improvement in the ambient air quality. The SIP emissions 

inventory also includes emissions from motor vehicles and construction activities within the SDAB. 

4.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.3.1 Land Use 

The Proposed Action would include activities that are consistent with long-established military land uses. 

Activities are consistent with established land uses within and outside of SSTC and NASNI boundaries. 

Cumulative effects associated with increased noise levels are addressed in Section 4.3.6 (Acoustic 

Environment [Terrestrial]). At SSTC-South (SSTC-S), some activities require public access to be 

restricted in one or more beach training lanes below the high tide line for public safety or mission security 

purposes (Section 3.1.2.2.2). If public access restrictions are required, they would typically last one to 

four hours; however, on average, these activities could require the beach to be closed for about 2 hours at 

a time; even then, the closures would only occur in one of the beach lanes, allowing public access to other 

public areas of the beach. 

Cumulative impacts on land use would consist of the effects of the Proposed Action in combination with 

other projects, actions, and processes that would result in increased noise levels or restrict public access to 

beaches. None of the projects identified as past, present, or planned in the SSTC EIS ROI (Table 4-1) 

involve permanent public access restrictions to the beach. In addition, any changes to land use as a result 

of implementation of Navy projects would be compatible with existing military uses of the installation. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-5
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Therefore, cumulative effects related to land use due to implementation of the Proposed Action in 

combination with past, present, or planned projects in the ROI would be minimal. 

4.3.2 Geology and Soils 

Cumulative impacts on marine geology and sediments would consist of the aggregate effects of the 

Proposed Action and other projects, actions, and processes that deposit sediment or debris, alter 

bathymetry, or disturb ocean bottom sediments. Relevant effects would include debris contributions from 

recreational fishing, dredging and sand replenishment projects, coastal development, and other ocean 

industries (Projects 1, 3, 4, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 22 in Table 4-1). The effects of these activities are 

known only in a very general sense. The ROI for the Proposed Action with regard to cumulative impacts 

to geology and soils is the Silver Strand peninsula and adjacent areas of San Diego Bay and the Pacific 

Ocean.

The Proposed Action would affect marine geology and sediments by creating craters in bottom sediments 

and depositing training debris on the ocean bottom. In addition, previously disturbed surface soils in 

existing training areas on SSTC would be further disturbed. The Proposed Action is expected to increase 

the level of soil disturbance in both beach and inland portions of SSTC (Section 3.2). It also is expected to 

disturb small areas of benthic habitat associated with underwater detonations required for training, 

increases in erosion or off-site sediment transport, and changes in topography. The Proposed Action 

would expend small amounts of training materials (e.g., flare residues) that would not be recovered. 

Dredging mostly occurs in nearshore Pacific Ocean areas, harbors, and San Diego Bay. Disposal areas for 

dredged materials, other than sand for beach replenishment projects, are located farther offshore in deep 

waters. These projects temporarily alter ocean and San Diego Bay bottom contours, which tend to 

reestablish themselves (mounded materials being dispersed and dredged basins being filled in) over time. 

This activity is closely regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in order to ensure that major 

alterations of bathymetry have no significant adverse environmental effects. Replenishment of sandy 

beaches on the Silver Strand would have beneficial effects. The Proposed Action would not affect the 

quantities of materials dredged or deposited in the ROI in the future. 

Existing coastal development generates large amounts of surface runoff into the San Diego Bay and ocean 

during winter storms; this runoff contains substantial quantities of fine sediments that are deposited on the 

bottom. Construction of the coastal development projects proposed for the ROI (see Table 4-1) would 

denude and disturb surface soils, possibly generating additional sediments that would be conveyed to the 

San Diego Bay or ocean. These projects also would increase the aggregate area of paved surfaces on the 

Silver Strand, thus increasing incrementally the volume of runoff generated during storms. Combined 

with the Proposed Action, which also would incrementally increase sediment transport into marine areas, 

the quantities of sediments deposited in these nearshore areas would increase by an insignificant degree. 

Cumulative impacts on terrestrial SSTC geology and soils would consist of the combined effects of the 

Proposed Action and other Navy actions at SSTC that alter the local topography or disturb surface soils. 

Periodic removal of excess sand under the Naval Radio Receiving Facility (NRRF) Sand Removal and 

Relocation (Project 2 in Table 4-1) would serve to maintain the existing topography along the 

southwestern edge of SSTC-S. New construction (Projects 3, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 21 in Table 4-1) would 

remove ground cover, disturb surface soils, alter surface drainage patterns, and, by increasing the ground 

coverage of impervious surfaces, increase the volume of surface water flows during storms. These new 

activities, along with elements of the Proposed Action (see Section 3.2) would contribute locally and 

incrementally to increased sediment transport and deposition; however, the cumulative effects on local 

beach erosion still would be negligible relative to the scale of the natural processes that occur in the ROI 

(e.g., northward transport of sediments by longshore currents, as discussed in Section 3.2). Best 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-6
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Management Practices for soil-disturbing activities, such as drainage improvements, and road 

improvements would be implemented for any construction activity. Therefore, the cumulative effects on 

geology and soils from implementation of the Proposed Action in combination with past, present, or 

planned projects in the ROI would be minimal. 

4.3.3 Air Quality 

Cumulative impacts on air quality would consist of the effects of the Proposed Action in combination 

with other projects, actions, and processes that would result in increases in emissions of air pollutants. 

The ROI for assessing cumulative impacts to air quality is the SDAB. 

Emissions estimates for the Proposed Action would account for a small percentage of the overall air 

emissions budgets for the SDAB; these estimates do not include marine vessel emissions for vessels 

operating in surrounding air basins or outside of U.S. territorial waters. These emissions are not included 

in the SIP emissions budget and in air quality planning because they are assumed to have a negligible 

effect on the ambient air quality; and because reductions in emissions from these sources would not 

generate a great improvement in the ambient air quality. 

The Proposed Action would be required to conform to the applicable SIP, which would require a 

demonstration that the Proposed Action would not result in a cumulatively significant impact for 

nonattainment pollutants. As discussed in Section 3.3.4, emissions associated with the Proposed Action 

are below the de minimis levels for the SDAB, and are within the SIP emissions budget. The analysis of 

air pollutant emissions to determine conformance to ambient air quality standards is a regional analysis 

that, by nature, is cumulative. The SIP and 2010 emissions inventory consider foreseeable projects 

(including those on the cumulative list) and cumulative growth. Section 3.3, Air Quality, demonstrates 

conformance with the SIP. 

Activities affecting air quality in the region include mobile sources such as automobiles and aircraft, and 

stationary sources such as power generating stations, manufacturing operations, and other industry. In 

CARB emission inventories by category (CARB 2010), SDAB includes emissions from aircraft, ships, 

and commercial boats. These emissions are included in the mobile source category. Traditionally, the 

emission estimates are based on emissions from onshore or nearshore operations. The emission inventory 

for the SDAB also includes emissions from motor vehicles and construction activities. 

The background ambient air quality data presented in Table 4-2 includes contributions from those projects 

listed in Table 4-1 that are past and ongoing projects. As indicated in Table 4-2, the data in the SDAB 

shows that ambient pollutant concentrations are below the required National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for most criteria pollutants. 

Currently, the air basin is considered a maintenance area for CO and a maintenance plan has been 

adopted. The SDAB is also considered a basic nonattainment area for the NAAQS for ozone (O3), and an 

Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County has been adopted as the SDAB portion of the 

California SIP. The SDAB is in attainment for the NAAQS for all other criteria pollutants. The SDAB is 

currently classified as a nonattainment area under the CAAQS for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. However, 

cumulative impacts on air quality would be less than significant due to the minimal increase expected to 

be attributable to the Proposed Action and programs in the air basin designated to reduce emissions over 

time. Those projects listed in Table 4-1 that are planned projects for the future would result in emissions 

associated with construction and motor vehicles. Growth in these activities has been accounted for in the 

SIP, and emissions from the projects listed in Table 4-1 would be minor. Therefore, the cumulative 

effects on air quality from implementation of the Proposed Action in combination with past, present, or 

planned projects and other activities would be minimal. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-7
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Table 4-2: Background Ambient Air Quality – Chula Vista Monitoring Station 

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 20041 20051 20061 20071 20081 CAAQS1 NAAQS1

O3

8 hour 0.087 0.081 0.068 0.087 0.083 0.070 0.075 

1 hour 0.097 0.093 0.084 0.105 0.107 0.09 - 

PM102 

Annual 

Arithmetic 

Mean 

25.8 

μg/m3

26.5 

μg/m3

26.3 

μg/m3

25.5

μg/m3

26.2

μg/m3 20 μg/m3 50 μg/m3

24 hour 44 

μg/m3 52 μg/m3 52 μg/m3 57 μg/m3 53 μg/m3 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3

PM2.5

Annual 

Arithmetic 

Mean 

12.2 

μg/m3

11.8 

μg/m3

11.2 

μg/m3

12.5 

μg/m3

12.3 

μg/m3 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3

24 hour 32.7 

μg/m3

34.3 

μg/m3

30.2 

μg/m3

77.8

μg/m3

32.9

μg/m3 - 35 μg/m3

NO2

Annual 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.015 0.015 - 0.053 

1 hour 0.072 0.071 0.074 0.082 0.072 0.25 - 

CO 8 hour 2.48 2.13 2.20 2.2 1.9 9.0 9 

1 hour 3.9 2.8 2.7 3.1 2.0 20 35 

SO2

Annual 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 - 0.030 

24 hour 0.016 0.005 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.04 0.14 

3 hour3 0.021 0.009 0.013 0.007 0.005 - 0.5 

1 hour 0.042 0.016 0.017 0.012 0.007 0.25 - 1

Concentrations in ppm unless otherwise indicated

2

California averages reported for PM10 3

Secondary NAAQS 

“–”= not available from current website data 

Source: www.arb.ca.gov (all pollutants except 1-hour CO and 1-hour and 3-hour SO2) 

www.epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html (1-hour CO and 1-hour and 3-hour SO2) 

4.3.3.1 Global Climate Change 

The increase in operational tempo, consisting of specific activities listed in Table 2-1, along with regional 

growth of urban areas and regional increases in recreational visitors, would incrementally increase 

regional emissions of CO2 and other green house gases (GHG). Scientists are in general agreement that 

the Earth’s climate is gradually changing, and that change is due—at least in part—to emissions of CO2

and other GHG from man-made sources. The anticipated magnitude of global climate change is such that 

a significant cumulative impact on global climate exists. 

Executive Order (EO) 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic 

Performance, was signed by President Obama on October 5, 2009. EO 13514 defines three scopes of 

emissions, which include the following: (a) scope 1: direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from sources 

that are owned or controlled by the Federal agency; (ii) scope 2: direct greenhouse gas emissions resulting 

from the generation of electricity, heat, or steam purchased by a Federal agency; and (iii) scope 3: 

greenhouse gas emissions from sources not owned or directly controlled by a Federal agency but related 

to agency activities such as vendor supply chains, delivery services, and employee travel and commuting. 

The Department of the Navy will be subject to the requirements of EO 13514. Although the new EO 

13514 for the first time calls for GHG emission reductions from federal agencies, the exact amount of 

GHG reductions and the required Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan to achieve those reductions is 

still under development and therefore not included in the analysis for this document. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-8
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Table 4-3 summarizes the annual GHG emissions associated with the No Action Alternative in 

comparison with Alternatives 1 and 2. These data show that the ratio of annual CO2-equivalent (CO2e) 

emissions estimated for the Preferred Alternative to CO2e emissions generated from all sources in the 

U.S. in 2006 is approximately 0.067:7,054 million metric tons (USEPA 2009). Therefore, CO2e 

emissions associated with the preferred alternative would amount to approximately 0.00095 percent of the 

total CO2e emissions generated by the U.S. Under any of the alternatives, cumulative impacts to global 

climate change would be minimal. 

Table 4-3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Emissions (tons/year)1 

Emission Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 

No Action Alternative

Aircraft 4,635 0.3 0.2 4,709 

Surface Ships 57,125 4.2 1.2 57,666 

Ordnance 0.3 - - 0.3 

Ground Vehicles/TSE 2,785 2.4 2.2 3,509 

Total 64,545 6.9 3.6 65,884 

Alternatives 1 and 2

Aircraft 39,543 1.1 1.3 39,964 

Surface Ships 75,347 5.5 1.9 76,061 

Ordnance 0.4 - - 0.4 

Ground Vehicles/TSE 9,481 3.5 2.8 10,413 

Total 124,371 10.1 6.0 126,438 

Alternatives 1 and 2 Increases over Baseline 59,826 3.2 2.4 60,554 

U.S. 2006 Baseline Emissions (106 metric tons) 2 7,054.2 

Proposed Emissions as a % of U.S. Emissions 0.00086 

Notes: 

1 CO2e = (CO2 * 1) + (CH4* 21) + (N2O * 310) (GWPs from California Climate Action Registry General Reporting

Protocol, Version 3.1, January 2009). 

 2 USEPA 2009. 

Although the proposed action would not contribute substantially to cumulative impacts associated with 

global climate change, this important topic warrants discussion of DoN leadership in broad-based 

programs to reduce energy consumption and shift to renewable and alternative fuels, thereby reducing 

emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. 

The Secretary of the Navy has established several goals for reducing the Navy’s consumption of fossil 

fuels: 

• Mandate that energy usage, efficiency, life-cycle costs and other such factors be part of the 

Navy's decision when acquiring new equipment or systems, as well as vendors' efficiency or 

energy policies. 

• Cut petroleum use by half in the Navy's fleet of commercial vehicles by 2015, by phasing in new 

hybrid trucks to replace older ones. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-9
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

• Procure half the power at Navy shore installations from alternative energy sources - including 

wind or solar - by 2020, and where possible, supply energy back to the grid, as the Navy does 

today at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California. 

• Reach the point that half the energy used throughout the Navy Department, including in ships, 

aircraft, vehicles and shore stations, comes from alternative fuel or alternative sources by 2020. 

Today that percentage is about 17 percent. 

These examples illustrate the leadership role that the Navy has in achieving energy reductions that will 

contribute to the national effort to mitigate global climate change. 

4.3.4 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

Cumulative impacts on hazardous materials would consist of the effects of the Proposed Action and other 

proposed projects, actions, and processes in the ROI that would use large quantities of hazardous 

materials, or that otherwise affect the hazardous materials management system. The ROI for hazardous 

materials is the Silver Strand peninsula and adjacent San Diego Bay and nearshore Pacific Ocean waters, 

all of which share local hazardous waste recycling and treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities 

and regional transportation networks that link the region to more distant TSD facilities. 

The Proposed Action would increase releases into the environment of hazardous materials (see Section 

3.4). However, the Navy’s existing hazardous materials and hazardous wastes management systems—

responsible for safely storing and transporting these materials—would be able to accommodate the 

anticipated increases in throughput and would have no adverse effects. 

The primary impact of hazardous materials use in the marine and terrestrial environment in the ROI 

would be an increase in the amounts of munitions, petroleum products, or other chemicals that are 

released. Hazardous materials settling out of the water column would contribute to contamination of 

ocean bottom sediments. Activities resulting in this contamination would include releases of hazardous 

constituents from fishing vessels or other ocean vessels, wastewater treatment plant outfalls, and nonpoint source pollution from terrestrial sources. 

Hazardous materials would accumulate differently within San Diego Bay and in the Pacific Ocean 

because of differences in their circulation and currents. Hazardous materials released from sources in the 

eastern and southern portions of San Diego Bay would be concentrated by a long residence time (i.e., the 

amount of time that pollutants remain in a contained body of water). High to medium residence times of 

contaminants would contribute to further degradation of the San Diego Bay’s water and sediment quality. 

Hazardous materials released in western and northern portions of San Diego Bay have much shorter 

average residence times; shorter residence times are due to the proximity of open-ocean in the northern 

portion of the Bay and circulation patterns in other areas of the Bay. Hazardous constituents are 

eventually either incorporated into bottom sediments or flushed out of the San Diego Bay into the ocean 

by tidal exchanges. The quality of San Diego Bay bottom sediments has improved in recent years, 

indicating that recent levels of hazardous materials discharges are generally not resulting in adverse 

effects. The estimated quantities of hazardous materials from the Proposed Action (Sections 3.4.2.3 and 

3.4.2.4), in combination with those anticipated from other reasonably foreseeable future projects and 

activities in the ROI, are not expected to alter that trend. 

Commercial ocean industries, such as fishing and ocean transport, are dispersed over broad areas of the 

Pacific Ocean. Small-scale deposits of trash and debris from these activities are quickly degraded and 

buried in ocean bottom sediments. In combination with small-scale deposition of debris from the 

Proposed Action, the cumulative effect would be a low-density of deposited materials in heavily used 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-10
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

areas and a very low density in lesser used areas. There is no central point of contaminant discharge, but 

the intensity of ocean uses, and correspondingly the density of hazardous materials discharges, declines 

with increasing distance from the coast. Discharges of hazardous constituents from non-point source 

runoff and treatment plant outfalls contribute contaminants to the area, mostly affecting the waters within 

three nautical miles of the coast. Ocean currents and sediment transport processes disperse the released 

materials over a much larger area. Overall, the quality of Pacific Ocean waters and bottom sediments 

offshore of Southern California are relatively high, indicating that current releases of hazardous materials 

are not causing adverse effects. Accidental release or spill of hazardous materials associated with the 

Proposed Action, along with those of other reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities in the 

ROI, would not substantially alter the quantities of these materials being discharged, and thus would not 

affect resources in the ROI. 

Hazardous materials used on land by non-Navy activities in the vicinity of SSTC consist of fuels and 

other petroleum products; paint, adhesives, glues, and other coatings; and other materials used in 

construction projects (see Table 4-1). Some hazardous materials could be stored in bulk on construction 

sites. Use of these materials is closely regulated by local, state, and federal agencies, and off-site release 

of substantial quantities of these items is rare. The overall risk of a substantial release of such materials 

from the Proposed Action or other projects is low. 

Hazardous wastes generated aboard vessels engaged in training activities under the Proposed Action 

would offload those wastes to Navy shore facilities, where they would become part of the overall 

hazardous waste stream managed aboard Naval Base Coronado. Hazardous waste generated during 

terrestrial SSTC training activities under the Proposed Action also would be managed as part of the 

overall hazardous waste stream aboard Naval Amphibious Base (NAB) Coronado. Increased levels of 

training would result in increased throughput of hazardous wastes, but likely would not require additional 

storage, transport, or disposal facilities ashore for these materials. The Navy’s hazardous waste 

management system and procedures are adequate to accommodate an increase in hazardous waste 

volumes. Other hazardous waste generators in the region, along with the Navy, would require the services 

of hazardous waste transporters and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. While the costs for 

hazardous waste transport, treatment, storage, and disposal could increase in response to increased 

cumulative demand, the hazardous waste management industry in the region has sufficient physical 

capacity to respond to this increased demand. 

Therefore, the cumulative effects of hazardous materials use and hazardous waste generation from the 

Proposed Action and other reasonably foreseeable future projects on environmental resources in the ROI 

and on the regional hazardous wastes treatment, storage, and disposal infrastructure would be minimal.

4.3.5 Water Resources 

Cumulative impacts on water resources would consist of the effects of the Proposed Action when added 

to other projects, actions, and processes that affect surface or groundwater hydrology, or consistency with 

the Basin Plan and the National Ambient Water Quality Criteria (NAWQC); those that release potential 

water pollutants or otherwise result in long-term degradation of marine, surface, or groundwater quality; 

and those that have substantial effects on public uses of state or federal waters. The ROI for water 

resources with regard to assessment of cumulative impacts consists of the Silver Strand peninsula and 

adjacent portions of San Diego Bay and the Pacific Ocean. 

Effects from the Proposed Action on marine, surface, or groundwater quality is discussed in Section 3.5; 

Water Resources. The Proposed Action would be consistent with the Basin Plan and with the NAWQC. 

Releases of potential water contaminants from training activities would be minimal, and no long-term 

degradation of water quality would occur. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-11
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

The Proposed Action could release water pollutants into the marine environment, directly or via surface 

flows to the marine environment. Cumulative impacts on ocean water quality would consist of the effects 

of the Proposed Action along with other industrial, commercial, and municipal sources of water pollution 

in San Diego Bay and offshore. The effects of these activities on the SSTC ROI are frequently monitored, 

but the individual effects are not well known. The Tijuana River discharge has become a problem for 

local beaches and ocean water quality because the local currents along Imperial Beach and Coronado 

cause contaminated waters to flow north from the international boundary, resulting in frequent beach 

closures from contamination. In addition to these effects, the San Diego Bay and Pacific Ocean waters 

continue to be affected by urban storm water runoff through non-point source pollution of roads, parking 

areas, and residential drain pipes that flush to the sea. 

Cumulative impacts on terrestrial SSTC water quality would consist of the aggregate effects of the 

Proposed Action and other military and civilian projects and activities on and adjacent to SSTC (see 

Table 4-1). Because of a relatively high water table in the area, the use of pesticides, leaks and spills from 

motor vehicles, seepage from sewer lines, and other pollutants, the water quality is affected by various 

sources in the area. Navy training activities would result in materials expended in the water that are 

considered pollutants; however, compliance with federal and state standards, as such presented in the 

Basin Plan, are not exceeded, according to Section 3.5. 

4.3.6 Acoustic Environment (Terrestrial) 

Cumulative impacts on the acoustical environment would consist of the effects of the Proposed Action 

when added to other projects, actions, and processes that would result in an increase in intrusive noise 

sources, a substantial long-term increase in average ambient noise levels, or a substantial increase in the 

number of impulsive sound events. The ROI for the acoustical environment consists of the Silver Strand 

peninsula, San Diego Bay and ocean training areas, and adjacent public areas. 

Under the Proposed Action, training at SSTC would result in an increase in intrusive noise events, such as 

aircraft, vehicle/vessel pass-bys, and personnel activity but hourly sound levels would not generally be 

affected. Activities associated with the Proposed Action could occur simultaneously (e.g., Elevated 

Causeway activities and Hellweek) and could produce a cumulative effect on intrusive noise. However, 

loud activities would rarely occur at the same time or within close proximity to each other. Therefore, 

cumulative effects from these increases in noise levels would be minimal. 

Several local construction projects (Projects 2, 3, 6, 13, 15-18 in Table 4-1) would generate short-term 

intrusive noise. Construction of the Mobile Security facilities and Navy Lodge Expansion would generate 

construction noise for short periods on NASNI, and construction of a new traffic tunnel could generate 

construction noise along the San Diego Bay side of NASNI and SSTC-North (SSTC-N). Construction 

along Palm Avenue in Imperial Beach in combination with redevelopment would raise the background 

noise level, with various types of construction equipment and activities generating intermittent periods of 

intrusive noise and occasional impulse noise events. Periodic removal of excess sand along the SSTC-S 

fenceline will continue to generate occasional construction-type noise. 

Construction of higher density residential and commercial facilities in the area, especially redevelopment 

of the Palm Avenue area of Imperial Beach, could result in substantially increased weekday traffic 

volumes on local roads, most notably State Route 75. Construction of new transportation corridors, such 

as the proposed tunnel connecting the northern portion of Coronado Bridge and NBC, could encourage 

more vehicular traffic on the peninsula, especially weekend visitors to recreational facilities such as Silver 

Strand State Beach. Traffic volume increases on major roads would be insufficient to substantially affect 

long-term background noise levels. Therefore, cumulative effects of traffic noise in the ROI from the 

Proposed Action, and in combination with other proposed new sources of vehicular traffic would be 

minimal. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-12
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

In summary, the Proposed Action, along with other anticipated projects and activities, could result in 

minor increases in intrusive noise, traffic noise, and marine vessel noise that would incrementally degrade 

the acoustical environment of the ROI, but cumulative effects would be minimal. 

4.3.7 Marine Biological Resources 

Cumulative impacts on marine plants, algae, and invertebrates could result from the effects of the 

Proposed Action in conjunction with other past and future projects, actions, and processes that occur 

collectively and over a period of time. The ROI for potential cumulative effects varies widely among the 

various marine organisms. Marine plants and macroalgae are sedentary, attaching to substrate and 

growing where physical and chemical conditions are suitable, including light transmissivity, water and 

sediment quality, and substrate conditions such as grain size (e.g., sand versus silt or cobble). Invertebrate 

communities may be localized in their life cycle, never moving more than a few feet through generations 

(such as benthic infauna). In contrast, macroinvertebrates such as the California spiny lobster may have 

the ability to move in and out of San Diego Bay and the nearshore coastal waters of the Southern 

California Bight (SCB). 

Cumulative impacts on marine plants and invertebrates would include release of munitions, petroleum 

products, and other chemicals into the water, introduction of debris into the water column and onto the 

sea floor, mortality and injury of marine organisms near the detonation or impact point of ordnance or 

explosives, and destruction of eelgrass or other habitat or substrate modification by foot or propeller wash 

within the activity areas. These impacts could in turn indirectly affect the foraging activities of fish, birds, 

and marine mammals in and around the SSTC. 

Contributory activities from the projects listed within Table 4-1 can be categorized into sources of 

potential impact such as vessel activity, dredging, and harvesting of macroinvertebrates. Projects listed 

within Table 4-1 (e.g. Projects 1, 4, 7, 12, 13, and 14-18) that involve dredging or shoreline development 

temporarily disturb invertebrates and modify their habitat within a localized area. Changes to substrate 

from dredging and shoreline modifications that do not require mitigation would also not be sufficient to 

affect individual populations or productivity to a measurable degree. These changes would result in 

minimal disturbance of sandy bottom habitat and increased turbidity from amphibious landings and 

underwater demolitions. The areas of highest abundance and diversity for marine invertebrates such as 

mudflats, salt ponds, and salt marsh are avoided under the Proposed Action and other proposed activities 

in Table 4-1. 

Vessel activity from other naval activities, commercial traffic, and private pleasure craft have steadily 

increased for decades and are not considered to adversely affect marine plants and invertebrates or their 

habitat. Commercial and recreational harvesting of invertebrates typically targets specific species (such as 

California spiny lobster or sea urchins) within the ROI and are managed by CDFG and National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS). The level of mortality within San Diego Bay and adjacent nearshore waters 

attributed to harvesting activities is minimal due to regulations that permit recreational versus commercial 

harvest. 

Therefore, cumulative effects related to marine plants and invertebrates due to implementation of the 

Proposed Action in conjunction with past, present, or planned projects in the ROI would be minimal. 

4.3.8 Fish 

Cumulative impacts on fish would consist of the effects of the Proposed Action in combination with other 

projects, actions, and processes that would result in an incremental increase in fish mortality, disturbance, 

and habitat modification within San Diego Bay and the adjacent coastal nearshore waters. Contributory 

activities such as vessel activity, in-water development (e.g., dredging), and fishing are potential sources 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-13
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

of impact. The ROI for potential cumulative effects to fish includes San Diego Bay and coastal nearshore 

waters of Southern California. Fish within the ROI range from resident to migratory species that utilize 

the ROI to various degrees, both in time and space. 

Potential effects to fish from the Proposed Action include mortality, injury, disturbance, and habitat 

modification. Injury and mortality can occur from physical and acoustic impacts associated with activities 

such as pile driving and underwater detonations, while behavioral modification can be associated with 

vessel traffic and other sound sources. 

Vessel activity from naval activities, commercial traffic, and private pleasure craft have steadily increased 

for decades, and are not considered to adversely impact fish or their habitat. Other sound sources that are 

of major concern to fish and fisheries include strong underwater shock pulses that can cause physical 

damage to fish, and underwater noise that could affect their biology or catchability by fishermen. Naval 

training activities coupled with sources from commercial and recreational activities would not create a 

considerable impact. 

Habitat modification can occur from naval vessel traffic, primarily beach landings, underwater 

detonations, and in-water construction associated with several training activities. However, impacts are 

reduced as training is limited to specific areas, to avoid sensitive or special aquatic sites. Projects that 

involve dredging or shoreline development (1, 4, 5, 13, 14, 17, and 18 in Table 4-1) can temporarily 

disturb fish and modify fish habitat within a localized area. Changes to fish habitat from dredging and 

shoreline modification not requiring mitigation would not be sufficient to affect individual fish 

populations or productivity to a measurable degree. 

Commercial and recreational fishing target specific fish species within the ROI, and are managed by 

CDFG and the NMFS. Potential impacts of commercial fishing include overfishing of targeted species 

and bycatch, both of which negatively affect fish stocks; recreational fishing also poses a threat because 

of the large number of participants and the intense, concentrated use of specific habitats. However, 

increased regulation and management have led to population increases of several species (e.g., white sea 

bass, California halibut) near San Diego Bay and the ROI. 

Given the transient nature of the training exercises and the minor, localized potential effects, there would 

not be incremental or synergistic impacts from present or reasonably foreseeable future uses of the SSTC, 

and the overall effect on fish stocks would be negligible compared to the impact of commercial and 

recreational fishing. Implementation of protective measures designed to avoid long-term impacts would 

further protect marine life and the environment. Therefore, cumulative effects related to fish as a result of 

implementation of the Proposed Action in combination with past, present, or planned projects in the ROI 

would be minimal. 

4.3.9 Marine Mammals 

Cumulative impacts on marine mammals would consist of the effects of the Proposed Action in 

combination with other projects, actions, and processes that would result in an incremental increase in 

injury or disturbance within San Diego Bay and the adjacent coastal nearshore waters. Contributory 

activities can be categorized into vessel activity, fishing, shoreline development, and acoustic disturbance 

as sources of potential impact. The ROI for potential cumulative effects to marine mammals includes San 

Diego Bay and coastal nearshore waters of Southern California. 

Potential cumulative impacts of Navy training activities conducted in the SSTC on marine mammals 

would result primarily from possible commercial, recreational, and military ship strikes, underwater 

detonation, and pile driving effects within the training areas. Injury and disturbance of marine mammals 

and modification of habitat that could affect marine mammal foraging are based on physical and acoustic 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-14
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

impacts of vessel activity, pile driving, and explosives within the area the individual actions encompass, 

and the value and type of habitat known to occur within the specific footprint. 

Ship strikes, or ship collisions with whales, are a recognized source of whale mortality worldwide (Laist 

et al., 2001; Geraci and Lounsbury, 2005; de Stephanis and Urquiola, 2006). All types of ships can hit 

whales, with animals usually either seen too late, not observed until the collision occurs, or not detected. 

An animal at the surface could be struck directly by a vessel, a surfacing animal could hit the bottom of a 

vessel, or an animal just below the surface could be cut by a vessel’s propeller. The severity of injuries 

typically depends on the size and speed of the vessel and the size of the animal (Knowlton and Kraus, 

2001; Laist et al., 2001; Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007). The ability of a ship to avoid or detect a collision 

depends on a variety of factors, including environmental conditions, ship design, size, and manning. A 

review of recent reports on ship strikes provides some insight regarding the types of whales, locations, 

and vessels involved, but review also reveals significant gaps in the data. The Large Whale Ship Strike 

Database provides a summary of the 292 worldwide confirmed or possible whale/ship collisions from 

1975 through 2002 (Jenson and Silber 2003). The report notes that the database represents a minimum 

number of collisions, because the vast majority probably goes undetected or unreported. 

The growth in commercial ports and associated commercial vessel traffic is a result of the globalization in 

trade. The Final Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) International 

Symposium on Shipping Noise and Marine Mammals: A Forum for Science, Management, and 

Technology stated that the worldwide commercial fleet has grown from approximately 30,000 vessels in 

1950 to over 85,000 vessels in 1998 (National Research Council, 2003; Southall, 2005). It is unknown 

how international shipping volumes and densities will continue to grow. However, current statistics 

support the prediction that the international shipping fleet will continue to grow at the current rate or at 

greater rates in the future. Shipping densities in specific areas and trends in routing and vessel design are 

as, or more, significant than the total number of vessels. Densities along existing coastal routes are 

expected to increase both domestically and internationally. New routes are also expected to develop as 

new ports are opened and existing ports are expanded. Vessel propulsion systems are also advancing 

toward faster ships operating in higher sea states for lower operating costs; and container ships are 

expected to become larger along certain routes (Southall, 2005). 

While there are reports and statistics of whales struck by vessels in U.S. waters, the magnitude of the risks 

that commercial ship traffic poses to marine mammal populations is difficult to quantify or estimate. In 

addition, there is limited information on vessel strike interactions between ships and marine mammals 

outside of U.S. waters (de Stephanis and Urquiola, 2006). Laist et al. (2001) concluded that ship 

collisions may have a negligible effect on most marine mammal populations in general, except for 

regionally-based small populations where the significance of low numbers of collisions would be greater, 

given smaller populations or populations segments. 

NOAA continues to review all shipping activities and their relationship to cumulative effects, particularly 

on large whale species. According to the NOAA report, the factors that contribute to ship strikes of 

whales are not clear, nor is it understood why some species appear more vulnerable than others. 

Nonetheless, the number of known ship strikes indicates that deaths and injuries from ships and shipping 

activities remain a threat to endangered large whale species. 

One of the greatest threats to cetacean mortality and injury occurs in the commercial fishing industry. 

More whales die every year through entanglement in fishing gear than from any other cause. Gillnets, set 

nets, trammel nets, seines, trawling nets, and longlines pose the biggest threat. Gillnets contribute a very 

high proportion of global cetacean bycatch because of their low cost and widespread use. Traps and pots 

are often left in the water for extended periods of time. Whales may become entangled in the lines and 

have been observed swimming with portions of the gear wrapped around fins, flukes, neck, and mouth. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-15
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Animals may travel long distances over time before they free themselves of the gear or die from the 

entanglement (Angliss and Demaster 1998). Programs targeted specifically to address the effects on large 

whales from commercial fisheries include a gear research and development program to reduce the amount 

of potentially hazardous gear in the water, and the disentanglement network whose personnel work to 

locate, assess, and remove gear from entangled whales. Recommendations under the recovery plan 

specific for right whales, designed to reduce commercial fishery interactions with whales, include gear 

restrictions and modifications, research, and regulatory and enforcement actions (NMFS 2007). 

Entanglements may also occur with recreational fishing gear. Little data exists for recreational fishing 

interactions with marine mammals. As with commercial fishing, large whale entanglements may also 

result from interactions with recreational fishing. Finfish recreational fisheries typically involve rod and 

reel and hand lines while traps/pots are common for the lobster and crab industry. The risk of 

entanglement in recreational gear is relatively small for marine mammals (NMFS 2007). 

Habitat loss and degradation is now acknowledged to be a significant threat to cetacean populations 

(Kemp 1996). The impact of coastal development on whales has not been thoroughly investigated. 

Habitat alteration has the potential to disrupt the social behavior, food supply, and health of whales. Such 

activities may stress the animals and cause them to avoid traditional feeding and breeding areas or 

migratory routes. The most serious threat to cetacean populations from habitat destruction may ultimately 

prove to be its impact on the lower trophic levels in their food chains (Kemp 1996). Projects that involve 

dredging or shoreline development (1, 4, 5, 13, 14, 17, and 18 in Table 4-1) could temporarily disturb fish 

and modify fish habitat within a localized area and indirectly affect individual marine mammals. 

However, changes to fish habitat from dredging and shoreline modifications not considered to require 

mitigation would not be sufficient to affect individual fish populations or productivity to a measurable 

degree. 

Insufficient information is available to determine how, or at what levels and in what combinations, 

environmental contaminants may affect cetaceans (Marine Mammal Commission [MMC] 2003). There is 

growing evidence that high contaminant burdens are associated with several physiological abnormalities, 

including skeletal deformations, developmental effects, reproductive and immunological disorders, and 

hormonal alterations (Reijnders and Aguilar 2002). It is possible that anthropogenic chemical 

contaminants initially cause immunosuppression, rendering whales susceptible to opportunistic bacterial, 

viral, and parasitic infection (De Swart et al. 1995). 

Several mortality events (die-offs) have been reported for cetaceans. Biotoxins, viruses, bacteria, and El 

Niño events have been implicated in recent mass mortality events (Domingo et al. 2002). A mass 

mortality event for humpback whales, apparently associated with biotoxins, occurred along the beaches of 

Massachusetts in 1987 and 1988. Geraci et al. (1989) concluded that the whales had died from saxitoxin 

poisoning after consumption of Atlantic mackerel containing the toxin. During the summer of 2003, 17 

humpback whales, 3 fin whales, 1 minke whale, 1 long-finned pilot whale, and 3 whales of undetermined 

species were found dead in the vicinity of Georges Bank. Although a biotoxin (saxitoxin) was found in 

several samples collected, it was not at lethal levels. Domoic acid was also detected and suspected as a 

probable cause, but because no brain samples were collected, the role of this biotoxin could not be 

confirmed (MMC 2004). 

Underwater detonations may also have effects on marine mammals. Naval activities within the ROI 

include underwater detonations. Marine mammals that can be found in the area include gray whales, 

harbor seals, California sea lions, and bottlenose dolphins. Navy standard operating procedures (SOPs) 

include the observation of the activity area for 30 minutes prior to detonation and for 30 minutes after to 

ensure limited effects. Navy SOPs also require that Beaufort sea conditions are less than three before the 

activity is performed, so that adequate observation is possible. The likelihood that an injury would occur 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-16
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

for marine mammal species typically present within the ROI would be negligible because of the low 

density, lack of high quality foraging habitat, and these species are often near the surface and the water 

area is relatively shallow. This last condition allows for successful sitings by personnel observing the area 

before training activities occur. 

Risks to marine mammals emanate primarily from ship strikes, exposure to chemical toxins or biotoxins, 

exposure to fishing equipment that may result in entanglements, underwater detonation, and disruption or 

depletion of food sources from fishing pressure and other environmental factors. Past, present, and 

proposed activities within the ROI do not pose a threat to whale populations within the Pacific range. 

Ship strike, entanglement, and habitat impacts will not have a considerable impact on marine mammal 

species within the ROI. The cumulative impact of the Proposed Action and the identified projects in 

Table 4-1 could impact individual marine mammals but these effects would not be at a marine mammal 

stock level. Therefore, cumulative effects related to marine mammals due to implementation of the 

Proposed Action in conjunction with past, present, or planned projects in the ROI would be minimal. 

4.3.10 Sea Turtles 

Cumulative impacts on sea turtles would consist of the effects of the Proposed Action in combination 

with other projects, actions, and processes that would result in an incremental increase in sea turtle 

mortality, disturbance, and habitat modification. Contributory activities can be categorized into vessel 

activity, dredging, shoreline development, disturbance, and fishing as sources of potential impact. The 

ROI for potential cumulative effects to sea turtles encompasses a large area that includes San Diego Bay, 

nearshore waters of Southern California, and coastal waters and beaches of Mexico. Green sea turtles are 

the only known sea turtle species likely to be encountered in the ROI. Green sea turtles are considered 

resident occupants and are not documented to breed within the waters of the ROI. 

Potential effects to green sea turtles from the Proposed Action include injury, disturbance, and 

modification of habitat. Injury and disturbance of green sea turtles and modification of green sea turtle 

habitat from activities are based on physical and acoustic impacts from vessel activity, pile driving, and 

explosives within the area the individual actions encompass, and the value and type of habitat known to 

occur within the specific footprint. (Sections 3.9.2.3 and 3.9.2.4). 

Projects that involve dredging or shoreline development (1, 4, 5, 13, 14, 17, and 18 in Table 4-1) could 

temporarily disturb green sea turtles and may modify foraging habitat within a localized area. Changes to 

green sea turtle foraging habitat from dredging and shoreline modification not considered to require 

mitigation would not be sufficient to affect individual green sea turtle populations or productivity to a 

measurable degree. Impacts from subsistence fishing, coastal development, and disturbance at green sea 

turtle breeding beaches in Mexico remain the largest threats to green sea turtle populations and breeding 

success. Vessel activity from other naval activities, commercial traffic, and private pleasure craft have 

steadily increased for decades and are not considered to adversely impact green sea turtles or their habitat. 

Green sea turtle mortalities from vessel strikes have not been increasing relative to the increased vessel 

traffic within the ROI. Historically, commercial fishing activities utilizing long lines and gill nets are 

documented to adversely impact green sea turtle populations but impacts to the San Diego Bay resident 

population foraging outside the Bay is unknown. Acoustic sources that are of major concern to green sea 

turtles include strong underwater shock pulses that can cause physical injury and underwater noise that 

could affect their behavior or foraging success. Navy training activities coupled with other consistent 

underwater noise sources from commercial and recreational sources would not be anticipated to create a 

considerable impact based on acoustic thresholds of the green sea turtle and the fact that the resident 

population of sea turtles is in San Diego Bay (away from areas most utilized for training activities and 

underwater detonations). 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-17
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

The status and trend of the resident San Diego Bay green sea turtle population has not been well studied 

and is based on limited formal data sets. Considering the variability and limited nature of available data 

sets in conjunction with the green sea turtles’ large geographic range and migratory patterns, potential 

cumulative effects to green sea turtles attributed to San Diego County regional activities are below any 

measurable threshold. Therefore, cumulative effects related to green sea turtles due to implementation of 

the Proposed Action in combination with past, present, or planned projects in the ROI would be minimal. 

4.3.11 Terrestrial Biological Resources 

Cumulative impacts on terrestrial biota could result from the effects of the Proposed Action in 

conjunction with other past and future projects, actions, and processes that occur collectively and over a 

period of time. The area of influence for potential cumulative effects varies among the various mammals, 

reptiles, invertebrates (including the San Diego fairy shrimp), and plants including a number of special 

status species. In general, these plants and wildlife are limited to coastal Southern California and are 

resident in the terrestrial areas of the SSTC. The San Diego fairy shrimp is found in vernal pools and 

other seasonally filled soil depressions in coastal Southern California, from Santa Barbara County to 

northern Baja California, Mexico. Other species are more limited to Southern California dune complexes, 

including spiders and special status beetles, due to increased training tempo and access to training lanes. 

The types of military training activities that could affect terrestrial biological resources include all those 

taking place on the upper beach above the wrack line (just above the high tide line), the dunes, and 

vegetated and unvegetated inland areas including vernal pools. These actions are amphibious and beach 

activities, vehicle use, fluid transfer actions, foot traffic, pyrotechnics including simunitions and blanks, 

manual excavations, and inland activities at SSTC-S. Several activities contribute to increased foot traffic 

and human presence that can degrade habitat; this may be through direct trampling of native vegetation 

and rare plants, the spread of invasive nonnative species, soil compaction, and erosion and sedimentation. 

These activities may also increase the potential for altering the competitive status of special status plants 

and wildlife through favoring more habitat generalists. In the inland area of SSTC-S, mammals such as 

the San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit could experience increased defensive behaviors due to increased 

human presence and noise. Navy training activities proposed at SSTC may have an effect on the San 

Diego fairy shrimp; however, management plans through INRMP guidelines would minimize potential 

effects from occurring in sensitive areas. 

The potential impacts on terrestrial species and their respective habitats as a result of the projects 

identified in Table 4-1 stem from new beachfront development and public access improvements, such as 

NRRF Dredging, City of Coronado and Coronado Cays Storm Drain Rehabilitation, Beach Public Safety 

and Restrooms, Wastewater Master Plan, and Sand Replenishment Projects (Projects 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 14 

respectively). Also, potential impacts may occur from construction associated with the NASNI/NBC 

Lodge Expansion, U.S. Navy Lighterage, Seacoast Inn Project, Imperial Beach Redevelopment, NRRF 

Cable Array, and Camp Surf Improvements (Projects 3, 11, 15, 16, 18, and 19 in Table 4-1, respectively) 

which contribute to effects on terrestrial biological resources by eliminating or degrading habitat. By far, 

the greatest past and future potential cumulative impact from the collective effect over time and space of 

non-Navy activities is terrestrial habitat loss. 

According to various Navy Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMPs) for San Diego, 

Coronado, and Imperial Beach, the Navy is addressing potential effects on terrestrial biota in several 

important ways, including measures to prevent the establishment of invasive plant species by minimizing 

the potential for introductions of seed or other plant parts (propagules) of exotic species and finding and 

eliminating incipient populations before they are able to spread. Key measures include 1) regular 

monitoring and treatment to detect and eliminate establishing exotic species; 2) effective measures to 

foster the reestablishment of native vegetation in areas where nonnative vegetation is present; 3) measures 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-18
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

to correct developing erosion problems, such as correcting drainage from roads and culvert outlets where 

they contribute to concentration of flow potentially leading to gullying, and measures designed to stop the 

progression of existing gullies associated with developed sites and roads; and 4) maintenance of an up-todate inventory of sensitive plant and wildlife species locations and consulting the inventory in all 

environmental reviews. 

The Proposed Action’s effects on terrestrial biology in the ROI would be mitigated through INRMP 

guidelines, general management practices, and Endangered Species Act consultation. Any Navy 

contribution to cumulative effects of all past, present, and proposed projects within the ROI as it relates to 

habitat degradation and subsequent species impacts is reduced as a result of implementation of the 

specific mitigation measures identified. Therefore, cumulative effects related to terrestrial biological 

resources due to implementation of the Proposed Action in conjunction with past, present, or planned 

projects in the ROI would be minimal. 

4.3.12 Birds 

Cumulative impacts on birds could result from the Proposed Action in conjunction with other past and 

future projects, actions, and processes that occur collectively and over a period of time. Bird species 

encompass varying distribution patterns; thus cumulative impacts have varying areas of influence. Some 

are resident breeders, while others are fall or winter migrants that come to rest and forage, and still others 

arrive to nest (mostly seabirds) in the spring and summer. Each species uses the area in various ways in 

time and space. The area of influence for potential cumulative effects is very wide for migratory birds of 

the Pacific Flyway coming from Canada and Alaska, as well as the neotropical migrants arriving from 

southern Mexico, Central America, and farther. Resident breeders have a much more constrained range, 

generally coastal Southern California’s wetland areas. 

Potential effects to birds from the Proposed Action include mortality and injury, disturbance, and 

modification of habitat. Mortality, injury, and disturbance of birds or modification of habitat could stem 

from most of the activities described for the Proposed Action, including physical and acoustic impacts of 

detonations, pyrotechnics, pile driving, vessel traffic that causes flushing or direct impact, vehicle use or 

foot traffic that tramples nests or flushes birds, shoreline construction or amphibious activities that alter 

substrate conditions or create temporary turbidity, activities that might release chemicals into the water, or 

introduction of debris into the water column. Impacts to diving birds in the vicinity of underwater 

detonation points are avoided and minimized because these activities are halted until the birds have left 

the area (Sections 3.12.2.3 and 3.12.2.4 for full analysis). 

Contributory activities from the projects listed within Table 4-1 can be categorized into the following 

sources of potential impact: 1) restoration plans that involve habitat type conversion or foster increased 

predation, 2) beachfront development, 3) dredging, and 4) increased public access of areas used by birds. 

Projects listed within Table 4-1 that involve shoreline development or dredging (1, 4, 5, 13, 14, 17, and 

18) temporarily or permanently disturb habitat used by birds within a localized area, and can create 

habitat for predators of shorebirds and nesting seabirds. Changes to substrate from shoreline modification 

not requiring mitigation would not be sufficient to affect individual populations or productivity of avian 

forage to a measurable degree. Vessel activity from other naval activities, commercial traffic, and private 

pleasure craft have steadily increased for decades and are not considered to have adversely impacted bird 

populations or their habitat. The areas of highest abundance and diversity for invertebrate forage for birds, 

such as mudflats, salt pond, and salt marsh, are avoided by the Proposed Action as well as other proposed 

activities in Table 4-1, with the exception of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) restoration 

proposal (Project 21 in Table 4-1). Restoration plans that involve habitat type conversion can affect one 

class of bird over another. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS’ CCP for the South Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge, if implemented, could favor salt marsh over shorebird habitat. Therefore, there 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-19
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

could be a cumulative impact to shorebirds due to development or restoration plans in combination with 

projects that degrade intertidal areas preferred by shorebirds for foraging or resting. However, this 

concern is minimized or even eliminated because of the protection from development afforded to 

shorebirds by the presence of the Refuge, and because of the requirement to mitigate any losses under the 

Clean Water Act. 

Large scale concerns for bird populations, such as climate change, reduced fish populations, discharge of 

hazardous chemicals and sewage, and development in other regions or countries are not well defined for 

individual species; however, the overall decline of birds has been attributed to these causes and so they 

must be considered. The single greatest concern is the loss of suitable habitat for nesting and roosting 

shorebirds and seabirds throughout coastal California due to land development and human encroachment. 

No permanent habitat loss is expected from the Proposed Action. Overall, the protection from urban 

development afforded by the security and safety requirement of military training activities has maintained 

the habitat for a wide array and abundance of migratory birds. By default, open space within military 

installations in coastal locations has become vital to the persistence of bird breeding and roosting 

populations because effective Navy training requires land to be in its natural state. 

The cumulative impact of the Proposed Action and the identified projects in Table 4-1 could impact 

individual birds, their overall foraging success, and breeding opportunity, but these would not affect any 

overall bird populations. The consequences of the proposed military training on nonfederally listed 

migratory birds or modification of their habitat are evaluated based on the significance criteria described 

in the final rule authorizing the Department of Defense to take migratory birds during military readiness 

activities (50 CFR 21). As mentioned previously (Section 3.12.1.5.1), military readiness activities are 

exempt from the take prohibitions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act provided they do not result in a 

significant adverse effect on a population of a migratory bird species. Analysis within Section 3.12 states 

that all native, indigenous birds are covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (3.12.1.1.1). Further 

analysis states that there would be no adverse effect on overall populations of bird species with the 

implementation of the Proposed Action. Similarly, contributing stressors from Table 4-1 listed above 

would not adversely affect overall populations of bird species. Therefore, cumulative effects related to 

birds due to implementation of the Proposed Action in conjunction with past, present, or planned projects 

in the ROI would be minimal. 

4.3.12.1 California Least Tern 

California least terns are present in the area of San Diego Bay from about mid-April to early September. 

Effects from activities described under the Proposed Action are analyzed in detail in the Biological 

Assessment associated with this EIS, and cumulative effects from other nonfederal actions in the SSTC 

ROI are also considered in the assessment. The additional vessels, shoreline development, human access, 

and other effects of the projects listed in Table 4-1 are not expected to make a measurable difference on 

the California least tern’s success because the other nesting sites nearby and in the region are for the most 

part already protected from development and human access. An exception may be the cumulative effect 

of actions that increase the probability of invasive weeds in nesting areas or predation at nesting sites, 

such as by the gull-bill tern, rats, feral cats, and ants. Fewer, more densely occupied protected sites on 

both federal and nonfederal lands for nesting terns also increases the probability of impacts from 

predation, disease, or other catastrophic events. Counteracting these cumulative effects would be the 

expected enhancement of areas of intertidal habitat in San Diego Bay, such as at the Chula Vista Wildlife 

Reserve. The Navy’s comprehensive management program for the California least tern on its training 

areas in San Diego Bay includes intensive monitoring of the birds as well as predator control and habitat 

enhancement projects. These management measures can help mitigate, with additional effort, adverse 

effects from off-site sources. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-20
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

4.3.12.2 Western Snowy Plover 

The western snowy plover nests in colonies on sandy beaches in the San Diego Bay area from March into 

mid-to-late September. Kelp wrack provides an abundant food source for the invertebrates that frequent 

these kelp piles, and mudflats are also used for foraging. Effects of increased human access, increased 

predation, and loss or conversion of intertidal mudflats to vegetated habitat could have cumulative 

impacts on the snowy plover. Intrusion of salt marsh vegetation, or of nonnative vegetation, on plover 

nesting grounds poses problems for plover chicks, possibly preventing them from moving freely to forage 

or escape incoming tides (Copper 1997a, b). Predation by birds and mammals (especially ravens and 

crows) is the primary cause of reproductive failure for plovers (Copper 1997a, b; USFWS 1997b). Several 

of the projects identified in Table 4.2.1 include increased public usage to SSTC beaches, specifically 

projects 3, 15, and 16. This increased public usage could result in adverse cumulative effects in 

combination with the Navy’s Proposed Action. However, the Navy’s comprehensive management 

program for the western snowy plover on its training areas in San Diego Bay includes intensive 

monitoring of the birds, predator control, limiting public usage of nesting beaches, and habitat 

enhancement projects. Other unknown causes of mortality in and around San Diego Bay have been 

documented and studied by the USFWS with full support of the Navy. These management measures can 

help mitigate, with additional effort, adverse effects from off-site sources. 

4.3.12.3 California Brown Pelican 

In the SSTC ROI, pelicans, especially postbreeding juveniles gather before fall migration, roost, and 

prepare to scatter to find new territory. The only breeding population in United States waters is the SCB 

population, which consists of breeding birds on the Channel Islands. The USFWS estimates that 12,000 

individual California brown pelicans (6,000 pairs) have bred in southern California in recent years, 

composing approximately 12 percent of the California subspecies (about 100,000 breeding birds). None 

of the actions described under the Proposed Action or in the projects listed in Table 4-1 are expected to 

have a cumulative impact on this species. Previous causes of decline have been greatly reduced largely 

through the Environmental Protection Agency’s banning of the use of dichlorodiphenyltricholoroethane 

and similar pesticides in 1972. Other factors implicated in the decline of this subspecies include human 

disturbance at nesting colonies and food shortages (USFWS 2008). The brown pelican nests mostly on 

offshore islands, so such disturbance is not possible by any of the activities under the Proposed Action. 

Food shortages are part of a larger climate effect and are not affected by any of the activities under the 

Proposed Action. 

4.3.13 Cultural Resources 

Cumulative impacts on cultural resources would consist of the effects of the Proposed Action in 

combination with other projects, actions, and processes that would result in potential impacts on cultural, 

archaeological, and historic sites. Implementation of the Proposed Action would have little or no 

contribution to impacts on known underwater and terrestrial cultural resources, due to the few cultural 

sites present and the limited use of the activity area and because training activities actively avoid these 

locations. 

Projects listed in Table 4-1 with the potential to disturb cultural resources would undergo environmental 

review and, if necessary, be assigned mitigation measures similar to those described for the Proposed 

Action. All digging and dredging around any recorded archeological sites with known or potential 

eligibility for listing with the National Register of Historic Places (NHPA) would be restricted. All 

eligible or potentially eligible archeological sites, if located, would be restricted to foot traffic only. With 

mitigation measures observed, most other ongoing and anticipated projects described in Table 4-1 would 

not substantially affect underwater cultural resources. Military projects detailed in Table 4-1 would be 

addressed under the NHPA. As dictated by the NHPA, the U.S. Navy is obligated to protect its own 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-21
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

historic properties in a way that emphasizes preservation and minimizes the impact of undertakings that 

might adversely affect such properties. 

In conclusion, proposed and ongoing projects by surrounding cities and municipalities may cause effects 

to cultural resources but they would not be the same resources potentially affected by the Navy. 

Therefore, cumulative effects related to cultural resources as a result of implementation of the Proposed 

Action in combination with past, present, or planned projects in the ROI would be minimal. 

4.3.14 Transportation and Circulation 

Implementation of the Proposed Action would generate an increase in vehicle trips and vessel traffic 

associated with military training activities. Since no increase in employment is associated with the 

Proposed Action, increases in traffic volumes would be associated with proposed increases in training 

tempo. The Proposed Action would contribute to increased traffic at intersections in front of NAB in 

Coronado and at the NRRF gate in Imperial Beach. Military training activities along Silver Strand 

Boulevard would represent approximately two percent of the total daily traffic volume. 

Cumulative impacts on transportation and circulation would consist of the effects of the Proposed Action 

in combination with other projects, actions, and processes that would result in increased traffic volumes 

or vessel traffic in the ROI. Traffic generation associated with military and civilian projects that are 

completed, in progress, or planned for development in Coronado and Imperial Beach detailed in Table 4-1 

have been factored into San Diego Association of Governments traffic forecasts. Therefore, while 

individual projects would contribute to traffic generation on roadways affected by the Proposed Action, 

regional level planning has taken place to consider associated traffic levels. Increased traffic from three 

NIMITZ-Class aircraft carriers (Project 17 in Table 4-1) was determined to have a minimal cumulative 

effect due to the fact that the three carriers would be in port concurrently an average of twenty nine 

intermittent, non-consecutive days each year (DoN 2008). Projects in the past, present, or planned in the 

SSTC ROI involving marine vessels generally do not result in disruptions to vessel traffic in the area. 

Therefore, cumulative effects related to transportation and circulation (vehicles and vessels) due to 

implementation of the Proposed Action in combination with past, present, or planned projects in the ROI 

would be minimal. 

4.3.15 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Protection of Children 

Cumulative impacts on socioeconomics, E.J., and Protection of Children would consist of the effects of 

the Proposed Action in combination with other projects, actions, and processes that would result effects 

to regional employment, income, housing, or infrastructure. 

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in an increase in permanently stationed 

personnel or employees at SSTC. Despite an increase in training tempo, proposed activities would be 

conducted by Navy personnel and staffing employed in the region. Therefore, existing regional 

population and associated housing impacts, employment rates, and regional economy would remain 

unchanged as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action. In addition, implementation of the 

Proposed Action there would be no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low income populations, nor would the safety risks of the Proposed Action 

disproportionately affect children. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not affect the hearing of 

children, but may momentarily disrupt communication in nearby residences and schools (See Sections 

3.15.2.3 and 3.15.2.4). 

The Proposed Action would not contribute to cumulative effects in the region due to lack of effect on 

regional employment, income, housing, or infrastructure. In conclusion, cumulative effects related to 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-22
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-23

socioeconomics due to implementation of the Proposed Action in combination with past, present, or 

planned projects in the ROI would be minimal. 

4.3.16 Public Health and Safety 

Cumulative impacts on public health and safety would consist of the aggregate effects of the Proposed 

Action and other projects, actions, and processes that could increase risks to people within the ROI. The 

ROI for public health and safety consists of Silver Strand peninsula, bayside and oceanside training areas, 

and adjacent public areas. Relevant effects in marine areas would include danger from the Proposed 

Action, recreational and commercial fishing, dredging and sand replenishment projects (see Table 4-1), 

ship collisions/ ship strike, and other natural ocean dangers. Relevant effects in terrestrial areas would 

include danger from proximity to construction vehicles and equipment. The cumulative effects of these 

activities are known only in a very general sense. 

Training at SSTC has the potential to pose a risk to the public primarily through off-site aircraft and 

vessel operations, underwater detonations, and intrusion of the public into SSTC training areas. Under the 

Proposed Action, the level of unauthorized access to training areas could decrease in response to more 

intense use of beach areas by the Navy. Aircraft and marine vessel support for Navy training activities 

would increase, but public safety is expected to be maintained (see Section 3.16). The volume of Navy 

underwater detonation activities poses a risk that training equipment could be lost and recovered by 

beachgoers, recreational fisherman, or divers. The Navy has specific and documented procedures in place 

to ensure that nonparticipants are not endangered by Navy actions. 

Marine and terrestrial naval training activities could affect nearby individuals; however this potential is 

mitigated by United States Coast Guard regulations on the water, vehicle and traffic laws of surrounding 

areas, and local ordinances. Navy range clearance measures after completion of training evolutions and 

active monitoring for nonparticipant activity on the beach, ocean, and bayside training areas are 

mitigation measures established by the military to prevent harm and ensure public safety. Training and 

support activities in joint military-public use areas outside of SSTC, such as aircraft and watercraft 

transiting to and from the training areas, have the most potential for impacts on public health and safety. 

The Proposed Action and other activities performed and proposed by surrounding commercial, industrial, 

and recreational interests do not normally increase the risk of impacts on health and public safety 

resources. The incremental impacts of the Proposed Action do not represent any appreciable contribution 

to cumulative health and safety risks when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. Therefore, cumulative effects on public health and safety from implementation of the Proposed 

Action when added to past, present, or planned projects in the ROI would be minimal.
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

This page intentionally left blank 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-24
5 Mitigation 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

5 MITIGATION 

As part of the Navy’s commitment to sustainable use of resources and environmental stewardship, the 

Navy incorporates measures that are protective of the environment into all of its activities. These include 

employment of best management practices, standard operating procedures, adoption of conservation 

recommendations, and other measures that mitigate the impacts of Navy activities on the environment. 

Some of these measures are applicable and others are designed to apply to certain geographic areas during 

certain times of year and for specific types of Navy training. Mitigation measures covering habitats and 

species occurring in the Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC) have been developed through various 

environmental analyses conducted by the Navy for land and sea ranges and adjacent coastal waters. These 

mitigation measures are promulgated through the use of Navy messages issued to all units and commands 

training on SSTC. The following discussion describes mitigation measures applicable to Navy activities 

at SSTC. 

In addition to identification of current mitigation measures, the EIS also identifies, in compliance with 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1502.14 [h], further measures not currently being undertaken that 

would mitigate environmental impacts to a given resource. Each of the alternatives, including the 

Proposed Action considered in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), includes mitigation measures 

intended to reduce the environmental effects of Navy activities. 

5.1 LAND USE

There are no mitigation measures implemented to minimize impacts specific to land use in the SSTC 

Region of Interest (ROI). However, the Navy strives to be a good neighbor to the community by 

maintaining, to the greatest extent practicable, land use compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood 

and providing public access whenever possible. The Navy recognizes the importance of public access and 

works with the community to ensure access to the public beach areas. Further, there are mitigation 

measures in place for other resources that apply to land use on SSTC, mainly through the stipulation of 

training parameters (e.g., Acoustic Environment [Section 3.6], Biological Resources [Sections 3.7-3.12], 

Public Health and Safety [Section 3.16]). 

5.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The Navy has implemented the following measures to mitigate the effects of its training activities on 

soils: 

• Sand (of a quality that is appropriate for nesting California least terns) is periodically replenished 

on Delta beaches when available. 

• Vegetation on the back dunes of SSTC beaches is maintained to reduce water and wind erosion. 

• In inland SSTC-South (S) areas, vehicles are restricted to existing roads to minimize the loss of 

vegetation. 

No new measures are necessary to mitigate effects of the Proposed Action on SSTC soils or sediments. 

No substantial impacts on soils from these activities were identified. However, current mitigation 

measures, in place to mitigate the effects of training activities on soils, would continue to be implemented 

at SSTC. 

5.3 AIR QUALITY

The Navy has a comprehensive air quality management program. Mitigation measures that are part of the 

Navy’s air quality management practices are implemented at SSTC. Vehicles participating in training 

exercises that occur on unpaved surfaces travel at slow speeds, which minimizes fugitive dust generation. 

MITIGATION 5-1
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Training areas at SSTC include beach areas, where vehicles travel on hard-packed or wet sand with 

minimal silt content, which also minimizes fugitive dust generation. Aircraft, marine vessels, ground 

vehicles, and TSE are required to be maintained and meet applicable emission standards (such as smog 

certification for on-road vehicles) in accordance with state requirements. 

The current Navy air quality management program and practices would continue to be implemented at 

SSTC. 

5.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE

The Navy's general instructions (e.g., Chief of Naval Operations Instruction [OPNAVINST] 5090.1) and 

training activity planning and review processes serve to ensure that hazardous materials and hazardous 

wastes are stored and handled appropriately. The Navy’s current mitigation measures include its Business 

Plan (Section 3.4.1.3), Naval Base Coronado (NBC) Hazardous Substance Release Integrated 

Contingency Plan (DoN 2008), and Regional Explosive HWMP (Section 3.4.1.4). Navy personnel also 

collect expended training materials at the conclusion of a training activity to the extent practicable. 

Current mitigation measures, including implementation of practices outlined in Navy plans (listed in 

Section 3.4.1.5) and the collection of expended training materials, would continue to be implemented. 

5.5 WATER RESOURCES

The Navy’s current practices affecting water quality, primarily hazardous materials handling and waste 

disposal practices, are based on requirements in OPNAVINST 5090.1. Those requirements, in turn, were 

developed primarily to comply with federal environmental regulations. Efforts to preserve vegetation on 

the backsides of dunes along the shoreline may reduce erosion and thus reduce transport of sediments into 

adjacent surface waters. Collection of spent training materials at the conclusion of training activities also 

may incrementally reduce the amounts of contaminants transported into adjacent waters. 

With respect to water use, the Navy mitigates potential effects by avoiding washing causeway pier 

sections in the ocean and by pumping seawater through its Offshore Petroleum Discharge System during 

training instead of using petroleum products. OPNAVINST includes guidance on shipboard operations 

afloat. 

Current mitigation measures implemented to protect water quality would continue to be implemented. 

5.6 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT (TERRESTRIAL) 

Noise effects of Navy training activities at SSTC are managed via administrative controls (planning). 

Activity planning considers location (e.g., Breacher training are located in inland areas) and time of day. 

Call-outs during physical conditioning training are minimized at night and when in residential areas. The 

Navy notifies local emergency personnel prior to training exercises that include the use of pyrotechnics or 

blanks. 

There are no new proposed mitigation measures for any of the alternatives. Current mitigation measures 

(Section 3.6.2) will continue to be implemented for Navy training at SSTC. 

MITIGATION 5-2
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

5.7 MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

5.7.1 Current Management of Marine Special Aquatic Sites 

Eelgrass is mapped throughout San Diego Bay about every three to five years jointly by the Navy and 

Port of San Diego as part of implementing the San Diego Bay Integrated Natural Resources Management 

Plan (INRMP). Eelgrass transects are monitored on an annual basis by the Navy and Port of San Diego. 

5.7.2 Current Management of Invertebrates as Water and Sediment Quality Indicators 

The Navy participates in the national water quality monitoring program called Mussel Watch. National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Status and Trends Program Mussel Watch 

Project (1986-present) monitors bioaccumulation in mussels, plus other parameters offshore in south San 

Diego Bay and intertidal and offshore in north San Diego Bay. NOAA also conducts the National Benthic 

Surveillance Program (1984-present) to examine physical, chemical, and biological (diseases and 

bioaccumulation in fish) parameters in offshore areas of central and north San Diego Bay. 

5.7.3 Current Mitigation Measures 

The sections above describe special aquatic sites, and what the Navy does to monitor their status and to 

comply with state and federal regulations. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is discussed in Section 3.8.1.4. 

Eelgrass is managed in compliance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, created 

jointly in 1991 by United Stated Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), which established protocols for 

mitigating adverse impacts to eelgrass. Project sponsors must follow the guidelines of how and when to 

survey, map, choose a mitigation site, replant, monitor, and meet success criteria for the eelgrass. Delays 

in any of these stages can result in financial penalties. The Navy has established several Navy Eelgrass 

Mitigation Sites (NEMS) to compensate for past impacts and to mitigate future impacts on eelgrass 

habitat within San Diego Bay. Eelgrass that has been planted and not used to compensate for previous 

losses is banked for future use in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. 

Five eelgrass mitigation sites contributing to the bank have already been constructed and met the fiveyear performance standards required by NMFS. This mitigation banking agreement between the Navy and 

NMFS was recently signed as the Navy’s Eelgrass Mitigation Bank Management Plan, and establishes a 

system of management, administration, and accounting for the Navy (Department of the Navy [DoN], 

2008). The principal goal of the mitigation bank is to establish functional eelgrass habitat qualifying as a 

special aquatic site, as defined in 40 CFR 230.40-45, within San Diego Bay for mitigating impacts 

associated with projects and operational training needs, and to establish credits from surplus habitats for 

future use. A Mitigation Bank Technical Team, a multiagency team, provides technical expertise in and 

support for implementing the Bank. The team includes the Navy as Chair, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

USFWS, NMFS, and CDFG. 

Besides the NEMS, the Navy maintains permanent eelgrass monitoring transects in San Diego Bay that 

are monitored every year (Figure 3.7-9) and bay wide mapping of eelgrass density classes is conducted 

every three to five years in a joint Navy-Port of San Diego effort (1994, 1999/2000, 2004, and 2008, the 

most current 2008 data was recently made available (DoN, 2009). This monitoring program allows the 

Navy to track fluctuations in the coverage, extent, and health of eelgrass in San Diego Bay. These data 

provide a valuable long-term perspective that can help identify effects from catastrophic, as well as 

seasonal natural and anthropogenic events. 

5.7.4 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Mitigation for impacts to 1.13 acres of eelgrass (designated as EFH) for larger boat landings, Elevated 

Causeway (ELCAS), and causeway insertions in the designated training lane on Bravo Beach will be 

MITIGATION 5-3
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

mitigated and consistent with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. This mitigation will 

occur at an established NEMS and be drawn as part of the Navy Eelgrass Mitigation Bank. 

5.8 FISH

Habitat mitigation for intertidal and subtidal areas (see Section 3.7), including eelgrass, provide a degree 

of mitigation for fish species documented to reside within those habitats. 

All species groups are monitored through the San Diego Bay INRMP, including, at a minimum, baseline 

inventory and regular monitoring. A portion of the fish species are also intermittently evaluated through 

the project site approval process. The most recent comprehensive San Diego Bay survey effort was in 

April and July 2005 (Pondella et al. 2006). Surveys identify and quantify San Diego Bay’s utilization of 

fishery populations, identify habitats that support juvenile fish, and determine areas of San Diego Bay that 

support important populations of forage fish species. The INRMP and surveys are funded jointly by the 

U.S. Navy and the Port of San Diego. 

Since most of the local marine environment consists of soft-bottom habitat with few rocky habitats, the 

local fish populations are not robust, thus most Navy activities implemented for Alternatives 1 and 2 will 

not affect fish populations within the ROI. The largest expected impact to fish species and assemblages 

comes from underwater detonations and the modification or destruction of eelgrass habitat within Bravo 

training area. The mitigation for 1.13 acres of lost eelgrass habitat stipulated in Section 3.7 would 

compensate for fish and fish habitat lost or displaced by Navy activities, thus partially mitigating effects 

to fish and eelgrass habitat. Additionally, the set aside of undeveloped shoreline for training assures that 

high value eelgrass and saltmarsh habitat remains available to fish for foraging and reproduction. 

5.9 MARINE MAMMALS AND SEA TURTLES

As discussed in Section 3.9 and 3.10, the measures implemented by the Navy to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals also serves to mitigate potential impacts on sea turtles. These measures apply to marine 

mammals and sea turtles that transit through the offshore training lanes. In particular, establishment of 

marine mammal exclusion zones for underwater detonations of explosives and pre- and post-exercise 

surveys, all serve to reduce or eliminate potential impacts of Navy activities on sea turtles and marine 

mammals that may be present in the vicinity. 

Effective training in the SSTC dictates that activity participants utilize their sensors and exercise weapons 

to their optimum capabilities as required by the mission. This section is a comprehensive list of mitigation 

measures that would be utilized for training activities analyzed in the SSTC in order to minimize potential 

for impacts on marine mammals and sea turtles in the SSTC. 

This section includes protective and mitigation measures that are followed for all types of exercises; those 

that are associated with a particular type of training event; and those that apply to a particular geographic 

region or season. Appropriate measures are also provided to non-Navy participants (other Department of 

Defense [DoD] and allied forces) as information in order to ensure their use by these participants. 

5.9.1 Current Mitigation Measures 

The following mitigation measures, which are situation/location dependent (e.g., substrate type, water 

depth, charge weights, etc) for underwater detonations incorporate the existing range procedures at SSTC 

and are consistent with existing training objectives and activities as well as established human safety 

procedures. In case of unanticipated conflict, human safety considerations will take precedence and such 

conflicts are always used to make incremental improvements in the procedures used in subsequent 

activities. For the underwater charges laid on SSTC oceanside: 

MITIGATION 5-4
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

• A safety buffer zone will be established around each detonation point. For detonations 

occurring in 0-24 feet of water, the safety buffer shall be a 1,300 feet radius around the 

detonation point. For detonations occurring in 24-72 feet of water, the safety buffer shall be 

2,220 feet. 

• Two observers (one on the beach and one in a small craft for 0 to 24 feet of water depth and 

two in small craft for 24 to 72 feet of water depth) with binoculars will survey detonation area 

and the safety buffer zone for marine mammals from at least 30 minutes prior to 

commencement of the scheduled explosive event until at least 30 minutes after detonation. 

Observers will pay extra attention within the buffer zone to large amounts of floating kelp 

strands and other marine debris (if any), since these may provide shelter and food for marine 

mammal prey. 

• Divers placing charges on mines and dive support vessels will check the area immediately 

around the mine location for marine mammals or sea turtles. 

• If a vessel not associated with the event is sighted in the buffer zone or headed toward it, 

suspend activities and ensure the area is clear prior to detonation. 

• If a marine mammal is sighted within the buffer zone or moving towards it, exercises will be 

suspended until the animal has voluntarily left the area and the area is clear of marine 

mammals or sea turtles for at least 30 minutes for 24-72 feet and 10 minutes for 0-24 feet. 

• Immediately following the detonation, visual monitoring for sea turtles or marine mammals 

within the buffer zone will continue for 30 minutes. Any animals appearing will be observed 

for signs of injury. Injured marine mammals or sea turtles will be reported to the Commander 

Navy Region Southwest (CNRSW) Environmental Director, the Pacific Fleet (PACFLT) 

Environmental Office, and the NMFS Southwest Regional Office. 

• Sequential detonations will be conducted either less than 10 seconds apart or greater than 30 

minutes apart to allow for birds attracted to the area by fish kill to vacate the area. 

For ELCAS/Pile Driving Activities: 

• Observers with binoculars will be positioned on the beach, causeway or a small craft and will 

survey pile driving area for marine mammals prior to commencement of the scheduled 

activity. The observer will pay extra attention within the pile driving area to large amounts of 

floating kelp strands and other marine debris (if any), since these may provide shelter and 

food for marine mammal and turtle prey. 

• If a marine mammal is sighted within the activity area or moving towards it, exercises will be 

suspended until the animal has voluntarily left the area. 

5.9.2 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

For Shock Wave Generator (SWAG) charges laid bayside on SSTC: 

• A safety buffer zone of 180 feet will be established around each SWAG detonation point. 

• Observer(s) with binoculars and small craft will survey the detonation area and the safety 

buffer zone for marine mammals or sea turtles from at least 10 minutes prior to 

commencement of the scheduled explosive event until at least 10 minutes after detonation. 

Lookouts will pay extra attention within the buffer zone to large amounts of floating kelp 

strands and other marine debris (if any), since these may provide shelter and food for prey. 

• Divers placing charges on mines and dive support vessels will check the area immediately 

around the mine location for marine mammals or sea turtles. 

MITIGATION 5-5
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

• If a marine mammal or turtle is sighted within the buffer zone or moving towards it, exercises 

will be suspended until the animal has voluntarily left the area and the area is clear of sea 

turtles and marine mammals for at least 10 minutes. 

• Immediately following the detonation, visual monitoring for marine mammals or sea turtles 

within the buffer zone will continue for 10 minutes. Any animals appearing will be observed 

for signs of injury. Injured marine mammals will be reported to the CNRSW Environmental 

Director, the PACFLT Environmental Office, and the NMFS Southwest Regional Office. 

5.9.3 Alternative Mitigation Measures Considered but Eliminated 

As described in Section 3.9.2.7 and 3.9.2.8, estimated sound exposures of marine mammals during 

proposed training activities are not expected to cause injury. Potential behavioral effects on marine 

mammals would be reduced by the mitigation measures described in Section 3.9.1.7 and 3.9.3. Therefore, 

the Navy concludes the Proposed Action and mitigation measures would achieve the least practical 

adverse impact on species or stocks of marine mammals. 

A determination of “least practicable adverse impacts” includes consideration of personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity in 

consultation with the DoD. Therefore, the following additional mitigation measures were analyzed and 

eliminated from further consideration: 

• Visual monitoring using third-party observers from air or surface platforms. 

o Reliance on the availability of third-party personnel would also impact training flexibility, 

adversely affecting training effectiveness. 

o Some training events (e.g., ELCAS) will span extended 24-hour periods, with operations 

underway continuously in that timeframe. It is not feasible to maintain non-Navy surveillance 

of these activities, given the length of time the exercises are conducted. 

o Scheduling civilian vessels or aircraft to coincide with training events would impact training 

effectiveness, since exercise event timetables cannot be precisely fixed and are instead based 

on the free-flow development of tactical situations. Waiting for civilian aircraft or vessels to 

complete surveys, refuel, or be on station would slow the unceasing progress of the exercise 

and impact the effectiveness of the military readiness activity. 

• Vessel speed: Establish and implement a set vessel speed. 

o Navy personnel are required to use caution and operate at a slow, safe speed consistent with 

mission and safety. Vessels need to be able to react to changing tactical situations in training 

as they would in actual combat. Placing arbitrary speed restrictions would not allow them to 

properly react to these situations, resulting in decreased training effectiveness and reduction 

the crew proficiency. 

• Increasing buffer zones: 

o The current buffer zones were developed to minimize exposing marine mammals to sound 

levels that could cause temporary or permanent threshold shifts, levels that are supported by 

the scientific community. Implementation of the safety zones discussed above will prevent 

exposure to sound levels that could cause Marine Mammal Protection Act Level A 

Harrassment or injury for animals sighted. The safety range the Navy has developed is buffer 

zones within a range sailors can realistically maintain situational awareness and achieve 

visually during most sea conditions. 

MITIGATION 5-6
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

5.10 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The following sections identify general and specific management and mitigation measures that take place 

for terrestrial resources. However, the largest benefit to natural resources has arisen from Navy control of 

the SSTC; this control precludes the development of these lands in a manner similar to adjacent 

properties. The Navy needs these lands for the open space for training; by restricting development and 

acting as a steward for the resources, the needs of sensitive habitats and special status species can be 

better met. The Navy’s extensive and long-term engagement with its partner agencies in managing these 

resources has led to these natural resources thriving on Navy lands. 

5.10.1 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 

Navy natural resources are managed through INRMPs, which are intended to take an ecosystem approach 

to natural resources planning. These are long-term, collaborative strategies for managing natural resources 

as required by the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (SAIA). Conservation responsibilities for natural 

resources on all DoD installations are required by laws and Executive Orders, and specified in the 

relevant INRMPs’ instructions and guidance. An INRMP’s scope is largely defined by the SAIA, DoD 

Instruction 4715.3 (Naval Facilities Real Estate Manual), and the Navy’s Environmental and Natural 

Resources Program Manual (OPNAVINST 5090.1 October 2007). 

INRMPs are developed jointly by the Navy and fish and wildlife agencies such as the CDFG, USFWS, 

and other resource agencies as appropriate. Mutual agreement from these agencies is sought for the fish 

and wildlife component of natural resources management identified in the INRMP, and an annual review 

with the agencies discussing Navy-wide natural resources is mandatory. For this reason, there is a long 

history of collaboration between the Navy and its agency partners in managing resources of the SSTC. As 

a result of this and the implementation of INRMP strategies by Navy natural resources professionals, the 

Navy management program is successful and occurs in a multiple-use environment. Terrestrial and 

marine aspects of natural resources management are addressed in the NBC INRMP. The NBC INRMP 

was completed in 2002 and is in the process of being revised; natural resources staff also provides day-today management based on current circumstances. 

5.10.2 Terrestrial Habitat and Vegetation Management 

Terrestrial habitats and vegetation have benefited from implementation of INRMP-funded projects such 

as invasive species control and habitat enhancement, but also as a collateral benefit of the long-term 

collaborative approach undertaken by the Navy and its partner agencies to protect nesting, federally listed 

birds (See Section 3.12). 

The protected status of certain aquatic habitats under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as well 

as occupation of certain of these habitats by federally listed species (San Diego fairy shrimp and the 

clapper rail), have also framed the management of these areas. The jurisdictional status of wetlands and 

waters under Section 404 of the CWA drives certain management actions. 

The Navy has an established management program for vegetation and soils. Revegetation and habitat 

enhancement are important elements of the Navy program, such as on the dunes and for vernal pools 

Vegetation management and erosion control plans are developed and implemented. Vegetation 

management includes survey and monitoring of federally listed and other special status species. It also 

includes a prioritization program for invasive species control. Invasive plant issues related to the 

implementation of specific projects or activities are minimized through pre-project planning. Highpriority invasive plants are targeted for control. The current landscaping guidelines for CNRSW require 

that the NBC Botanist, NBC Wildlife Biologist, and Navy Landscape Architect review and approve the 

plant palettes for all landscaping projects at NBC. The landscaping guidelines prohibit the planting of 

MITIGATION 5-7
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

species listed on the California Invasive Plant Council Invasive Plant Inventory, all non-native grasses 

(except those used for turf/lawns), and other non-native species observed or expected to have the potential 

to become invasive at the installation. Current management also includes delineation and monitoring of 

wetlands, and implementing avoidance and minimization measures as necessary to ensure no net loss of 

these areas under the CWA. Other management is accomplished through habitat protection as described 

above, and through public access limits to natural resource areas. 

Elements of the California least tern and western snowy plover management program and the 

requirements of related Biological Opinions (BOs) dominate the Navy’s natural resources strategy in the 

ROI, and therefore influence the habitat condition of vegetation, and the status of plant and other wildlife 

species. For instance, as stated below, vegetation and the soil substrate are prepared and managed to 

attract the least tern in designated nesting areas at Delta Beach North and South, while marking for 

avoidance special status plant species. In active training lanes where conflict may occur with operations, 

historic site preparation may include means to discourage nesting before the terns arrive in the spring, 

such as the creation of sand hummocks. In some cases, as at SSTC-S, vegetation such as iceplant is not 

cleared in case such clearing may attract terns to establish nests, and thus create a conflict with 

operations. At Naval Air Station, North Island (NASNI), vegetation is mowed consistent with 

Bird/Animal Aircraft Strike Hazard hazard reduction while accommodating special status plants such as 

Brand’s phacelia. 

5.10.2.1 Delta Beach North and South 

Delta Beach North and Delta Beach South are managed as a preserve for the California least tern, 

although military training is not restricted outside of the nesting season. Past management measures of 

these lands that were partly created by fill have included grading, disking, fencing, signage, and herbicide 

application, Prior to disturbances such as grading or herbicide treatment, the locations of two sensitive 

plants, Nuttall’s lotus and coast woolly-heads, are marked to minimize the impacts to these species. While 

the primary vegetation condition is sparse, low cover on the Delta beaches, tidal mudflats and salt marsh 

rim the shoreward edge of both properties. The marsh between Delta Beach North and South is about 12 

acres in area. Approximately 9.8 acres of coastal dunes are graded annually at North Delta Beach. 

5.10.2.2 Dune Management 

A dune management area along the ocean side of NASNI provides broad-based ecological benefits as a 

habitat restoration project. 

A second dune restoration site (1.2 acres) is bayside at NASNI and is intended to restore sand verbenabeach bursage habitat and Nuttall’s lotus individuals affected by the remediation of smelter slag wastes 

disposed at the site from 1943 to 1967 (AMEC 2003). Qualitative and quantitative monitoring is 

conducted. Maintenance and monitoring includes regularly maintaining the native dune habitat landscape 

and the evapotranspiration cover plant species in the Waste Consolidation Area. 

Invasive species removal is a regular activity on all dune areas. 

5.10.3 Habitat Areas that are Leased or Licensed 

In the project area entire habitats are protected through special-purpose leases or licenses to the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR), the City of Coronado for a South Bay Marine Biological 

Study Area, the City of Coronado for a dog walking beach, and the YMCA for a youth surf camp. 

5.10.3.1 South Bay Marine Biological Study Area 

The South Bay Marine Biological Study Area (also called “South Bay Wildlife Preserve” or “Ecological 

Preserve” on some maps and signs) is a 27-acre site in the northeast corner of SSTC-S that has been 

leased to San Diego County since May 1972, but this lease is currently being transferred to the City of 

Coronado. As of 1974, the Navy has issued five-year licenses to San Diego County for “the establishment 

MITIGATION 5-8
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

of an Educational Ecological Preserve which is open to the public,” with use limited to the study of 

marine biology and open to the students of the Unified School Districts of San Diego County. As 

conditions of the lease, the Navy requires a parking limit of 50 cars, and compliance with the CWA’s 

Section 404 conditions for wetlands. The site contains 26.35 acres of “federally protected wetlands” and 

the county cannot conduct any manipulation projects, including restoration, without a “Modification of 

License” from the U.S. Navy to ensure Section 404 permit compliance. The County Parks and Recreation 

Department manages the South Bay Marine Biological Study Area. 

5.10.3.2 YMCA Camp Surf 

YMCA Camp Surf operates on the southwestern 45 acres of SSTC-S on land leased from the U.S. Navy 

in a long-term agreement that expires in 2048. For over 30 years the YMCA has served about 10,000 

youth per year here. The YMCA remains responsible for the planning and management of the site and is 

liable for all activities on the site as well as those of any contractor used in the site’s day-to-day 

operations. 

The YMCA pays for their current lease by maintaining and enhancing the natural resources of the leased 

property, which includes maintenance of fences, invasive weed control, and signage. 

5.10.3.3 Lease to California Department of Parks and Recreation 

The 40-acre NAB Coronado parcel leased to CDPR supports the wandering skipper, a Federal Species of 

Concern, and Brand’s phacelia, which is a Federal Candidate Species for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). The San Diego Coastal State Park System General Plan (1984) guides the 

management of the 40-acre parcel leased to CDPR. The purpose is to preserve and protect opportunities 

for the public to enjoy quality beaches and to provide recreational opportunities in the ocean and 

nearshore environments. 

5.10.3.4 Salt Pond Connection to South San Diego Bay NWR 

A portion of SSTC-S that includes a salt pond and associated levee (“Pond 11” in the National Wildlife 

Refuge [NWR] Comprehensive Conservation Plan [CCP]; USFWS 2006)) is part of the NWR’s 

Approved Acquisition Area. The USFWS may seek a lease agreement with the Navy in this area; at a 

minimum, the CCP states that the NWR may seek approval to alter the current conditions in the 

northwestern corner of Pond 11 (USFWS 2006). The Navy also owns and manages 35 acres of open 

water and associated intertidal habitat within the NWR’s approved acquisition boundary. According to the 

CCP, no management actions are proposed for the NWR on submerged lands north of and adjacent to 

Emory Cove that would restrict Navy access to SSTC-S (USFWS 2006). However, the Navy provided 

comments on the NWR CCP regarding NWR plans in the vicinity of the Emory Cove as well as other 

areas that could result in habitat changes that affect Navy activities or that convert habitat for least terns 

and snowy plovers at the NWR (16 November 2001 Ser N45RN.tc/353; 23 August 2004 5216 Ser 

NOOC/43619; September 2005 Ser N45JNW.tc/0313). The Navy requested that the USFWS plans avoid 

reducing or modifying the amount of habitat available for the California least tern or western snowy 

plover such that Navy lands would have an higher proportion of available habitat for these species; that 

proposed NWR activities adjacent to and north of Emory Cove be modified; that all land and water 

owned by the Navy at SSTC-S be removed from the CCP; and that management recommendations that 

increase the presence of gull-billed terns be changed. 

5.10.4 Species-Specific Management and Mitigation Measures 

In addition to the current management elements of the Natural Resources Program (see Section 3.11.1.6), 

impacts are avoided or minimized through pre-project site approval and planning process. All species 

groups are managed through implementing habitat and species conservation guidelines and projects 

identified in the INRMPs. At a minimum an extensive invasive plant control program is implemented 

MITIGATION 5-9
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

annually in the ROI. Natural resources staff adapts strategies based on the INRMP, personal observation, 

or new information such as resource inventories, weather, operational requirements, etc. 

A Metro Area Instruction and Family Housing Occupant Handbook has been developed to advise 

personnel of what to do if they come in contact with sick, dead or injured wildlife. There is a DoD 

Instruction, Chief of Naval Operations Letter (5090 Ser N456M/1U595820 of 10 Jan 2002), and NBC 

Instruction regarding pet management. Except for dogs restrained by fences in family housing areas, 

animals (including cats and birds) are not permitted to run loose on Navy property. Possession or feeding 

of wild animals (including feral animals), regardless of docility or tameness, is prohibited. All dogs must 

be licensed, registered with security, and confined to a leash. Stray/loose animals should be reported to 

San Diego County Animal Control or Station Police for violations of policy. The Family Housing 

Occupant Handbook contains guidelines for properly disposing of trash so as not to attract feral animals. 

NBC has a domestic cat management policy associated with the housing area. Cats are not allowed to be 

loose outdoors, nor may pet food be left outdoors. 

A Metro Area Pest Management Plan (per OPNAVINST 6250.4B ) is currently being drafted that directs 

how the Navy uses pesticides and herbicides in the ROI, including means to protect non-target plants and 

wildlife. DoD and Navy policies require that use of pesticides is minimized on their property 

(OPNAVINST 5090.1 [30 October 2007]). The pest management plan incorporates new direction for 

management of invasives on DoD installations (Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999 and July 14, 

2000 DoD implementing direction). Chapter 17 of OPNAVINST 5090.1 requires that the use of 

pesticides comply with applicable regulations to prevent pollution. 

5.10.4.1 Special Status Plants 

Three rare plants exist within the area of influence of the SSTC: Brand’s phacelia, coast wooly-heads and 

Nuttall’s lotus. All are considered rare by the California Native Plant Society, while Brand’s phacelia is a 

Federal Candidate species under the ESA. These special status plants are managed through habitat 

protection, described above, but most occur in areas that receive some degree of use. As part of the 

project siting process, avoidance measures are undertaken, where practicable, to protect these special 

status plants. Known locations are mapped, and site-specific surveys are conducted to confirm the 

locations of sensitive plants. Invasive plant control and some habitat enhancement are periodically 

undertaken by the Navy as part of INRMP project planning. 

Specific mitigation measures from past projects are sometimes undertaken. When 14 acres of upland were 

excavated for the first nuclear carrier berthing project in 1995, the Navy agreed to establish a seed bank 

for Nuttall’s lotus. To minimize impacts to these species, locations of special status species are marked 

prior to routine grading on Delta Beach North and Delta Beach South. When herbicide is used, it is 

applied to target species only; weed crews are able to distinguish between target and non-target species. 

Brand’s phacelia is an extremely rare species managed through habitat protection, inventory, and 

monitoring. It was recently listed as a Candidate species by the USFWS. When Brand’s phacelia was 

mapped on NASNI, the population number was estimated at approximately 5,000 individuals occurring 

on site in the ruderal habitat south of the airfield. This may be the largest known population within its 

range in the United States. The current mowing of the ruderal habitat around the airfield does not appear 

to negatively affect this species and may, in fact, reduce competition with non-native grasses. The 

iceplant spreading in the ruderal habitat may be of concern as it is unaffected by mowing. The Navy has 

been removing iceplant from this area for the past several years through a combination of herbicide 

application and hand-pulling. The newly discovered populations in Bravo and Charlie training areas 

receive similar management treatment through INRMP-funded inventory, monitoring, and invasive 

species control. The population that exists on the 40-acre lease is adjacent to Alpha training area, but is 

not part of the Proposed Action for this EIS. 

MITIGATION 5-10
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

5.10.4.2 Salt Marsh Bird’s Beak 

The only federally listed plant in the ROI, salt marsh bird’s beak, is located on the YMCA Camp Surf 

leased property, and is protected with signage to prevent entry into the wetland area by YMCA staff 

members or campers. YMCA Camp Surf is not in the operations and training footprint of the SSTC. A 

1998 report (RECON 1998) discussed this plant's distribution, pollinators, seed set, and general 

population health based on field work done in the mid-1990s. Because this species is federally listed as 

endangered, formal consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA would be required prior to 

any potential impacts. Certain habitat restoration work done by the YMCA Camp Surf under their lease 

agreement benefits this species (T. Conkle personal communication 2006). 

5.10.4.3 Management of San Diego Fairy Shrimp 

The following management in the inland area of SSTC-S benefits the vernal pools: 

• Prior to routing grading and/or herbicide application to reduce vegetation cover within the 

California least tern preserve, the locations of Nuttall's, coast woolly heads, and other desirable 

patches of native vegetation are marked to minimize impacts. 

• Vernal pools in the inland area of SSTC-S that are occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp have 

undergone some restoration as a result of an incident during a training activity in which there was 

some damage to vernal pools. 

Current management of vernal pools restricts all activities from the pools at all times. Vehicle traffic in 

the inland area of SSTC-S is always limited to roads. Vehicle traffic adjacent to vernal pools is limited to 

paved roads except by emergency vehicles (e.g. security, fire, and medical support) in emergency 

situations only. 

5.10.5 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Current mitigation measures will be continued. Proposed mitigation measures for terrestrial biological 

resources under the Alternatives are summarized below. 

Current natural resource protection measures would continue, such as those derived through Navy 

Instructions, ecosystem-based planning in the INRMPs, and the employment of best management 

practices and standard operating procedures to avoid and minimize environmental impacts. Existing 

measures include invasive species control, erosion control, inventory, monitoring, and habitat 

enhancement. 

For the San Diego fairy shrimp, under the Proposed Action training would not be allowed in vernal pools 

when conditions are wet. Foot traffic would be permitted in the pools when conditions are dry. Dry 

conditions would be determined by a qualified person overseen by a NBC Botanist or Wildlife Biologist. 

In order to ensure that vernal pool management is based on current species presence or absence, regular 

surveys would be conducted at least once every five years to determine the status of San Diego fairy 

shrimp in the SSTC-South inland. These surveys would examine shrimp presence, especially in regard to 

periodic flooding in El Niño years, and the resulting possible changes in pool condition and species 

distribution. 

Under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, Vehicle Patrolling and Lighter, Amphibious, 

Resupply, Cargo-5 ton (LARC V) Operator Training are limited to training lanes Yellow 1 and 2 and 

Green 1 and 2, and will not occur in Red, Blue, or Orange Beach Lanes. Training activity restrictions 

serve to minimize effects to terrestrial biological resources in these lanes. This mitigation measure only 

occurs under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. 

MITIGATION 5-11
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Coincidental benefit to special status plants would occur through measures that are designed that may be 

implemented to support nesting by the California least tern and western snowy plover. For instance, the 

Long-term Site Enhancement Plan for the tern would benefit terrestrial plants and wildlife. In this 

scenario, the dunes on the windward (west) edges of Delta North and South would be enhanced for 

plovers, the least tern nesting area would be enhanced with sand, which also benefits special status plants. 

5.11 BIRDS

The following describes efforts the Navy has undertaken to protect avian species listed under ESA present 

in military training areas. For over 30 years, the Navy has built a comprehensive program to protect and 

manage resources on SSTC and NASNI. The program has been adaptive in nature, adjusting to changes in 

natural resource conditions and training needs, and adding to and modifying management measures based 

on experience and past effectiveness. The Navy and USFWS have worked extensively together to hone 

these measures over the years. 

5.11.1 California Least Tern and Western Snowy Plover Management 

The following describes efforts the Navy has undertaken to protect avian species listed under ESA present 

in military training areas. For over 30 years, the Navy has built a comprehensive program to protect and 

manage resources on SSTC and NASNI. The program has been adaptive in nature, adjusting to changes in 

natural resource conditions and training needs, and adding to and modifying management measures based 

on experience and past effectiveness. The Navy and USFWS have worked extensively together to hone 

these measures over the years. The Navy’s current mitigation measures are discussed in Section 

3.12.1.5.2. Areas mentioned in the following text are indicated on figures in the Terrestrial Section of this 

EIS, Figures 3.11-7 and 3.11-8. 

5.11.1.1 Origin of the Navy’s Establishment of Protected Nesting Sites for Terns 

The early days of the Navy’s tern management program originated with the construction of a helicopter 

Maintenance and Training (MAT) facility, including a Light Airborne Multipurpose System (LAMPS) 

MK III, that resulted in the loss of a nesting area and displacement of what was 13 tern nests in 1977, the 

year terns were first documented as nesting there. By 1979, according to the BO that was signed in 1980 

(USFWS BO 1-1-80-F-18 5 March 1980), about 68 nests were located at the facility. A total of 63.45 

acres were affected by the project, including 36 acres to resurface the asphalt. 

In order to establish a defined site where the nests could be protected, a 21.55-acre area of the existing 

nesting area called the MAT site was preserved, indefinitely, for nesting terns at NASNI. An additional 

29.2 acres were prepared on an annual basis as alternate nest sites, including predator and vegetation 

control, in the event the MAT site was not successful. 

In addition to the sites at NASNI, the Navy agreed in a 1983 BO (USFWS BO 1-1-82-F-123 2 March 

1983) to “exclude 75 acres of land at Delta Beach from public access by fencing for least terns under the 

terms of a Memorandum of Understanding between the USFWS and NAB Coronado...” The BO required 

that the area be “fenced and officially established as a nesting site.” The designation of the Delta beaches 

as a “least tern preserve” was formalized in a 1984 MOU between the U.S. Navy and USFWS (DoN and 

USFWS 1984) that was drawn up to provide long-term management of the 75 acres identified for least 

tern nesting at the Delta beaches in the 1983 BO 1-F-82-F-123. The MOU did not intend to inhibit the use 

of Delta beaches for military maneuvers, but it attempted to restrict these maneuvers to the north and east 

perimeters during the nesting season. Up until the time of this BO and MOU, Delta Beach North had been 

used both for Navy training and as a public boat launching facility. Installing fencing around the area 

eliminated the site for use as a public boat launch facility. The Navy was required to address the loss of 

public recreational access to the site, and under a California Coastal Commission (CCC) Consistency 

MITIGATION 5-12
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Determination (CD-4-84 22 February 1984), was required to leased 40 acres of land (Alpha Beach) to the 

State of California to develop for park and recreation purposes. The Navy also graded a road to Alpha 

Beach to facilitate public access there. 

The Navy implemented a number of measures to promote nesting at the Delta site. The Navy begain 

controlling vegetation at the site to enhance suitability for terns which do not prefer highly vegetated 

areas for nesting habitat. The Navy also added sand to the site to enhancing the substrate for nesting. The 

Navy employed decoys on the site at the beginning of the nesting season to attract nesting terns to the 

protected site. The Navy also began a program for controlling predators on the site and a program for 

monitoring the site for nesting success. 

5.11.1.2 Navy Adaptation to the Expansion of Least Tern and Snowy Plover Nesting 

Colonies on SSTC 

In 1994, California least terns began nesting on oceanside beaches where military training takes place. 

Protections had to be established to protect the terns, and this began the development and evolution of a 

series of adaptive set of measures, with each year bringing ever-increasing tern numbers and a new sets of 

circumstances. As nesting on oceanside training beaches continued to increase, the Navy adapted and 

improved their approach as a result of information gained from monitoring and experimentation. 

In 1996, the Navy coned off 500 yards of Green 2 Beach from training activity to avoid incidental take of 

nests, and also added decoys to attract birds to a designated nesting area where they could be protected 

and training could continue unimpeded elsewhere (BO 1-6-97-F-37 2 June 1997). Around the same time, 

the Navy enhanced the substrate of Delta Beach South, which expanded that nesting area from 10 to 15 

acres. This resulted in an increase from one nest to 21 nests at Delta Beach South, and the expansion of 

nesting on the oceanside beaches continued, amplifying the challenge of protecting the terns (Copper 

2003). 

In 1997, western snowy plover nests began appearing on the SSTC-North (SSTC-N) oceanside beaches. 

The Navy began establishing avoidance zones by emplacing stakes less than 30 meters around the nests 

which were avoided during training. 1,200 yards of Green Beach were coned off by the Navy to protect 

nesting in the lanes. Poles for powerlines along the Silver Strand Highway were also removed and the 

powerlines were placed underground to reduce perches for predators. The Navy also purchased receivers 

to monitor peregrine falcons and increased predator control on SSTC-N. Along the eastern boundary of 

SSTC-N Oceanside beaches, the Navy installed no trespassing signs to deter the public from entering or 

wandering into the nesting area. 

The Navy and USFWS continued to collaboratively re-think the strategy to protect terns. In 2000, the 

Navy added beach crossing lanes to allow training groups to move between the sand road near Highway 

75 and the hard-packed area near the water’s edge (BO 1-6-99-F-28 3 May 1999 and extensions in 2000 

and 2001). This was to protect nesting birds from accidental disturbance or mortality due to military 

activities (there had been incidental take (mortality) due to military activities of one western snowy plover 

and several terns in 2000). The coning off of Green Beach was discontinued as attempts to attract the 

birds to this safe area had failed, and by then almost 50 percent of San Diego Bay Navy terns were on the 

oceanside beaches. The bright orange and large cones were abandoned in favor of smaller and more 

portable blue stakes. The blue color was selected as it was believed that the bright orange color of the 

cones might attract avian predators (primarily ravens and crows). Instead of coning off the entire beach, 

individual tern nests were marked with a three-foot stake, but this created confusion for operators as to 

where training was permitted to occur. 

The Navy changed its strategy in 2002 when lanes Green 2 and Blue 1 became the focus of concern about 

nesting in needed training areas (BO 1-6-02-F-2645.1 16 April 2002). The beaches were raked with an 

MITIGATION 5-13
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

instrument dragged behind a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle vehicle to deter nesting in 

those lanes and eggs were collected if present during pre-raking surveys. Collected eggs were taken for 

care to Project Wildlife (a wildlife rehabilitation non-governmental organization). Raking continued as 

often as twice per day, with the intent of discouraging tern nesting without affecting plovers. Other 

measures to discourage nesting were also undertaken, such as placing wooden stakes with flagging. Beach 

raking was found to be labor intensive, costly, and ineffective since terns continued to attempt to nest 

behind the raking activity. Raking was abandoned after one year (2002) as ineffective. However, the 

Navy continued to collect eggs that were in harm’s way and take them to Sea World to be hatched, where 

it was determined if the chicks could be reared in captivity. The Navy set aside three unraked lanes for 

nesting. Tern nests outside the three lanes were marked with tongue depressors and subject to incidental 

take. Plover nests continued to be afforded protection with marking and buffer distances of less than 30 

meters; military personnel were instructed to avoid the staked areas. At the same time, efforts continued 

to attract the oceanside birds to nest on the Delta beaches. A fence was removed at Delta Beach South and 

grading was expanded to the entire southern site (Copper 2003). At the same time, the Navy also 

implemented efforts to retain washed-up vegetation on the Oceanside beaches to promote foraging of 

western snowy plover where it didn’t interfere with military operations. 

Around 2003, it was determined that annual disking of the Delta sites to improve the substrate for nesting 

habitat was promoting undesirable weeds, so the Navy switched its practice of disking to grading the 

sites. Also, despite efforts to deconflict training activity on the beaches and attract the birds to the Delta 

nesting sites, there were double the birds on the oceanside beaches compared to the previous year. For 

unknown reasons, the training beaches continued to be preferred by the birds despite efforts at preparing 

the Delta beach sites and heavier training activity on the Oceanside training lanes. Despite this, the Navy 

successfully avoided incidental take of the birds, which remained far below the incidental take authorized 

in its biological opinions. 

Pursuant to BO FWS-SDG-3452.1, the Navy continued the seasonal restriction of training in the three 

beach lanes in 2003, with beach crossing lane alignments modified, as needed, to minimize the number of 

nests requiring relocation (15 May 2003). Trying another approach, a lane in front of Green 1, called the 

Alpha lane, was added to allow high tide crossing by training groups. Incidental take was permitted for up 

to 50 eggs to be collected and taken to Sea World for captive rearing. Up until the 2003 breeding season, 

predator management was conducted in all Navy nesting areas; however, in another effort to deter terns 

from nesting on the beach, predator control was discontinued on the NAB ocean beaches in 2003 (only 

conducted in Orange 1 and 2). The effort was undertaken as an experiment, to see if discontinuing 

predator control would deter terns and move to the safer Delta Beach areas to nest, as previous efforts had 

been costly and unsuccessful (Martin Kenney, pers. comm. 2004). A change in nesting pattern was never 

apparent, and predator management on all sites resumed in 2004. Around this time, the Navy also began 

installing mini-exclosures around western snowy plover nests to reduce predation on eggs and fledglings. 

In 2005, the Navy worked to further improve its predator control efforts. NixiliteTM (a deterrent material 

applied to structures to prevent roosting and repel birds) was installed on the fence by Delta South to deter 

predators from perching on the fence and preying on nests on Delta South. The Navy also installed video 

and still cameras to better understand which species are predating on the terns. In a new approach to 

attract terns to where they could be protected, about 3,000 cubic yards of sand were added to Delta Beach 

to benefit the substrate conditions for both least tern and snowy plover nesting there. The Navy graded 

and topographically modified Green 1 and Green 2 with hummocks (small sand hills) to reduce their 

attractiveness for nesting; the hummocks were effective in deterring terns from nesting in that area. The 

Delta beaches, Blue 2, Orange 1, and Orange 2 were treated with herbicides to enhance nesting 

attractiveness. The same management strategies used in 2005 and 2006 were implemented in 2007 with 

an extension of the 2005 BO (FWS-SDG-3452.3 16 July 2007). 

MITIGATION 5-14
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

5.11.1.3 Western Snowy Plover Management Evolvolution With Measures Adapted for 

NASNI Airfield and Expansion of the Navy Lodge

Two BOs discuss snowy plover management at NASNI and resulted in changes in the action area 

regarding how snowy plovers are managed. The BO on NASNI Ongoing Operations addressed 

Bird/Animal airstrike hazards on the runway, as well as recreational and military training use of the 

southern NASNI beaches) (FWS-SDG-3908.3 2005). One of the historic problems at NASNI has been 

plover nesting on the airfield runway to the north, which may be due to inadequate availability of 

alternative areas for the plovers closer to the shoreline. Also, in some years the southern beaches have 

narrowed and have been temporarily unsuitable for nesting. The Navy Lodge Expansion (BO FWS-SDG3908.5 20 July 2005) addressed the expansion of the Navy Lodge and its potential effect on western 

snowy plovers that nest on adjacent beaches. Among other requirements, the BO required (1) continued 

marking for 30-meter diameter buffers and monitoring; (2) avoidance of staked areas when beach raking; 

(3) setting aside of 14.9 acres of suitable (and historically used) plover habitat as off-limits to foot traffic, 

vehicle traffic, beach raking, and pets during the snowy plover breeding season; (4) implementation of 

predator controls including anti-perch materials on buildings; (5) placement of signage and distribution of 

educational materials to patrons, employees, life guards; (6) training for construction workers; and (7) 

shielding of lighting away from the beach during nesting season. The CCC added a requirement in its 

Consistency Determination (CCC ND-93-05 15 December 2005) as follows: “During the plover nesting 

season (March 1 through August 15), the Navy agrees to monitor the beach for plover nests in front of the 

NASNI Navy Lodge prior to each raking event. However if our [i.e. Navy] natural resources personnel 

determine that our efforts are meeting the objectives set forth in our BOs, specifically that NASNI 

supports 12-13 pairs or a maximum number of 12 nests. The Navy, at its discretion, may refrain from 

monitoring prior to raking.” The stated informal management objective of 12-13 nesting pairs (20 

breeding season adults) for NASNI is carried forward in the Final Recovery Plan for the western snowy 

plover (Unit CA-127 in USFWS 2007b). 

5.11.1.4 Other Navy Agreements Related to California Least Terns 

The Navy’s management measures for the California least tern and western snowy plover with regard to 

training activities in the SSTC are covered above. In addition to these measures, further avoidance and 

minimization measures are undertaken for past military construction projects, and for routine in-water 

construction and maintenance works. Two important elements of the Navy program are described below. 

In-Water Construction Noise and Turbidity Programmatic Agreement. A programmatic agreement 

between the USFWS and the U.S. Navy establishes standards and conditions for in-water construction 

activities in San Diego Bay to protect the endangered California least tern (DoN and USFWS 1987, 1993, 

1999, 2000, 2004). Originally a five-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), it was most recently 

renewed for two years in 2004, and a letter from USFWS allows for recognition of that MOU until a new 

one is signed (Letter from Therese O’Rourke to Capt. Anthony T. Gaiani FWS-SDG-08B0211-08I0203 

December 18, 2007). This MOU was developed concurrently with the development and improvement of 

the management program on SSTC, and many of the protective measures described above were 

formalized in this MOU agreement. The MOU provided an additional 10 acres of tern nesting area at 

South Delta Beach, as well as an additional three to five acres of California least tern foraging habitat, the 

removal of overhead power lines at Delta Beach, predator control efforts for tern colonies, studies to 

determine effects of various in-water construction activities, end-of-year reports on tern population 

monitoring, and a list of proposed U.S. Navy projects to be conducted in San Diego Bay. In exchange, 

ongoing maintenance and new construction activities could be conducted by the U.S. Navy in San Diego 

Bay without the need for formal consultation with USFWS on each activity as long as specific, delineated 

least tern foraging areas were not affected. Under the agreement, the U.S. Navy provides an annual 

funding source of $250,000 for management and monitoring of the least tern, as well as a one-time 

funding source of $500,000 to be used to create additional tern foraging or nesting habitat. In addition, the 

MITIGATION 5-15
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

U.S. Navy provides a permanent position within the U.S. Navy to oversee the implementation of the 

MOU. The 1987 MOU was updated in 1993 and provided for annual funding by the U.S. Navy to 

continue least tern management and predator control. 

The western snowy plover derives coincident benefit from the California least tern protection measures 

afforded through the Navy-USFWS MOU on in-water construction activities, as well as other measures 

that enhance nesting success in the same locations where the plovers nest. 

Fiddler’s Cove Surface Coverage Biological Opinion. A BO addressing marina repairs and 

improvements at Fiddler’s Cove was issued in 2007 regarding least tern foraging concerns (FWS-SDG4032.6). These concerns arose as the result of the development of additional dock structures in Fiddler’s 

Cove Marina that would cover bay waters adjacent to the Delta South least tern colony. The USFWS 

determined that this project would not result in any incidental take of the California least tern, but noted 

that the significance of any future net losses of such habitat on the survival and recovery of the species 

would be magnified, given the importance of protecting or enhancing high quality foraging habitat in San 

Diego Bay in close proximity to nesting colonies. 

Based on the management experience gained by the Navy and its agency partners over the years, the 

following sections list current management that would be carried forward under the No Action 

Alternative of both the least tern and snowy plover on training beaches. Modifications to this management 

under Alternatives 1 and 2 are discussed in Sections 3.12.2.3 and 3.12.2.4, respectively. Management 

measures have been adaptive in the past and will continue to be in the future as changing circumstances 

dictate a modified approach. 

5.11.1.5 Beach Lane Seasonal Conservation Areas and Marking/Avoidance Measures 

• Two bayside training areas (Delta North and South) of beachfront Navy-administered lands are 

restricted from military foot and vehicle traffic during the breeding seasons of western snowy 

plover and California least tern except for a Beach Crossing Lane on South Delta. Access to the 

three oceanside lanes (Blue 2, Orange 1, and Orange 2), which under current management 

measures are set aside during the breeding season, will be modified by the two access criteria 

discussed in Section 3.12.2.3 for Alternative 1. When restricted from use, the perimeter of the 

oceanside training lanes is delineated with blue flexi-stakes or cones when terns first arrive. No 

military training is permitted within the protected areas except for designated beach crossing 

lanes. Since plovers nest individually or in loose groups rather than in dense colonies like the 

terns do, plover nest scrapes are marked with approximately 30-meter buffers for avoidance 

beginning approximately March 1. The beach crossing lanes are positioned to avoid the largest 

number of nests that would require relocation. Beach crossing lanes are marked with stakes for 

their entire length. Differences in training lane access do occur between the alternatives in this 

EIS, such that all SSTC-N surfside beach training areas would be available for use under 

Alternative 2, regardless of time of year, whereas usage is dependent on training needs in 

Alternative 1. 

• Beach scheduling procedures bias activities with heavier beach use towards beach lanes with 

fewer nests, when it does not impact the realism of training or training needs. 

• Plover nests are marked except in the training lanes set aside during nesting season. A 

surrounding buffer area of approximately 30 meters, or smaller, is also marked with blue flexistakes which are removed seven days after hatching, or when biologically practical to minimize 

impacts to plovers. No military training is permitted to occur within the delineated buffer or 

protected areas. Under Alternative 1 and 2, the Navy would post stakes around up to 22 western 

snowy plover nests at one time on SSTC oceanside beaches. 

MITIGATION 5-16
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

• Also depending on site-specific circumstances, some plover nests are covered with a minienclosures (MEs) to protect from mammalian and avian predators. Once chicks hatch, markers 

and MEs are removed within seven days, or when biologically practical to minimize impacts to 

plovers. The MEs are not installed when the risk of attracting humans that will potential disturb 

the nest appears to outweigh the risk of predation. Also, the MEs can be a foreign object debris 

concern at the airfield if they are blown out of place, so are not used there. 

• Due to the high predation rate from gull-billed terns, “wickets” or domes are used to offset 

predation by this species. Wickets are made of two pieces of small gage wire and formed into a 

one-foot dome. Domes are placed over least tern nests to discourage gull-billed terns from 

preying on eggs or chicks and/or destroying eggs when feeding from flight. A study on the 

effectiveness of domes that documents reproductive success of the terns with domes is being 

funded by the Navy. Due to this study wickets or any other form of exclusion that is developed 

will be used unless they are determined to be ineffective. 

• To reduce harassment of nesting plovers, symbolic fencing with blue stakes (fencing that marks 

the area for people to avoid but does not prevent birds from entering or leaving) is practiced on 

NASNI in front of the golf course, building 710 of the Recreational Beach, and in all western 

snowy plover management areas on NASNI. 

5.11.1.6 Communication of Training Area Protocols 

• The Navy works to ensure effective communication and coordination among the biological 

monitors, the Natural Resource Office, and the scheduling commands for NASNI, SSTC-N and 

SSTC-S. Beach users are informed: (1) that blue flexi-stakes or cones denote the boundaries of 

nests or protected nesting areas for least terns and snowy plovers; (2) that the presence of tongue 

depressors within beach lanes mark the location of least tern nests; (3) which training areas are 

authorized; and (4) that take of least terns and snowy plovers at SSTC-N and SSTC-S shall be 

avoided to the extent consistent with effective, realistic training. These access restrictions will be 

modified and communicated as necessary as the Navy meets criteria and thresholds for opening 

additional lanes. 

5.11.1.7 Nest Relocation 

• Nests may be moved small distances, as necessary and appropriate, to reduce conflicts with 

training, although such moving is infrequent. Snowy plover and least tern nests located in the 

Beach Crossing Lanes are relocated to safe areas as conflict is expected, and nests have been 

relocated due to the threat of flooding. The Navy contacts the USFWS and reports the 

circumstance that necessitated movement of any tern or plover nest. This is done with submittal 

of the Navy’s weekly reports to the USFWS Carlsbad Field Office. If relocation is necessary, 

nests are moved the shortest distance possible into suitable habitat to increase the chances for nest 

success. 

5.11.1.8 Predator Management and Control 

• Predator control of mammalian and avian predators of the least tern and snowy plover is 

conducted at all nesting sites. Due to the rarity and overall status of the gull-billed tern, 

management of this known predator has not been possible. To date, the Navy has not been 

authorized to capture, relocate, shoot, or otherwise deter this species although Migratory Bird 

Depredation permits have been submitted since 2005. Isolated attempts by U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Wildlife Services to discourage gull-billed terns from entering least tern 

nesting colonies were considered ineffective. 

MITIGATION 5-17
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

• The Navy has been using pole traps on and off since the inception of the program dependent on 

discussions with the USDA and the USFWS. These pole traps are designed to catch avian 

predators that prey on least tern and plover chicks, such as the gull billed tern. 

• Predator control to manage southern fire ants, field ants, Argentine ants, and pyramid ants found 

on North and South Delta Beaches and NASNI is conducted prior to and during the snowy plover 

and least tern nesting season. 

• The Navy and the USFWS work cooperatively regarding the relocation of American peregrine 

falcons if they are detected. 

• In cooperation with USFWS Refuges, peregrine falcons are removed and relocated if necessary 

from Navy California least tern nesting sites, as described in the 2005 Training BO (FWS-SDG3452.3 10 March 2005), under the USFWS take permit. 

• Cameras are used to monitor least tern colonies on Navy property for predators. Cameras are also 

used as a tool for monitoring, specifically collecting status information. 

5.11.1.9 Nesting Deterrence through Habitat Modification and Harassment 

• Sand hummocks or other substrate modification may occur in the Green Beach Lanes prior to the 

breeding season to discourage nesting there. If necessary, sand hummocks or other substrate 

modification may be considered for other lanes, in a manner that is compatible with military 

training requirements. 

• Although California least tern nests have not been documented on SSTC-S beaches, the Navy is 

authorized to deter least terns from nesting there. If any least tern eggs are found they would be 

collected and taken to Project Wildlife if feasible. Least tern scrapes may be smoothed over to 

deter nesting. 

5.11.1.10 Continued Site Preparation for Maintenance 

• Site preparation, in accordance with the USFWS’s BO on the MAT Development Program (1980-

BO 1-1-80-F-18; 1983-BO 1-1-82-F-123 Navy’s LAMPS MKIII facilities development program) 

and the California least tern MOUs, is performed on North and South Delta Beach and NASNI. 

Continued maintenance of these sites offsets the effects of previous construction projects and 

associated loss of habitat at NASNI as well as some of the effects of the current Proposed Action. 

Site preparation includes grading or mowing to remove annual plant growth, inspection, 

replacement or reinstallation of the site grid poles and of chick barriers around the site perimeter, 

use of tern decoys, and placement of chick shelters throughout the nesting colony. 

• Sand enhancement of nesting sites occurs as feasible. 

• Although site preparation was discontinued on all NASNI alternate nest sites in the past, it will 

continue at the alternate nest site near Zuniga Point and other designated areas as an experiment 

in the event that the MAT site needs to be moved. 

• In order to provide nesting cover for chicks, minimize invasive weeds, and protect rare plants, the 

locations of coastal woolly-heads (Nemacaulis denudata), and Nuttall’s lotus (Lotus nuttallianus), 

are marked for avoidance prior to grading or herbicide use. Coast woolly-heads and Nuttall’s 

lotus are indicators of a healthy, natural habitat that is conducive to nesting by providing a mosaic 

of vegetation for chick shelter and escape cover. 

MITIGATION 5-18
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

• No kelp or other natural marine vegetation that collects on beach tidal areas is removed from the 

oceanside beaches of SSTC-N or SSTC-S. Kelp is managed at YMCA Camp Surf by relocating it 

to areas where it does not provide an unsafe environment for children. All marine vegetation at 

YMCA Camp Surf is not buried, but it is left on the surface for use as forage material by plovers. 

• Mowing is practiced at NASNI airfield to maintain a habitat condition that is not preferred by 

nesting birds, in order to deter bird-related airstrikes. Areas within and adjacent to the airfield are 

mowed when 25 percent of the vegetation reaches eight inches or higher as measured from the 

soil. The mowing schedule is coordinated with the NBC Botanist and Wildlife Biologist. 

• Beach cleanup in targeted areas will be conducted. 

5.11.1.11 Nest Substrate Enhancement 

• In order to provide suitable nesting substrate that does not foster weed invasion that may harm 

nesting or fledging success, the Navy treats invasive exotic plants. Because iceplant can help 

dune stabilization and removal can be expensive, some iceplant may be left in place. This iceplant 

may be subsequently removed when money is available for natives to be planted at the site. 

• Substrate enhancement of nesting sites occurs as opportunities arise with available sand or dredge 

spoil. 

5.11.1.12 Signage and Education 

• Signs have been positioned every 500 feet on the hard pack sand road that parallels State Route 

(SR)-75. They inform the public of the need to avoid areas marked that designate nesting 

locations of snowy plovers or least terns on the beach. 

• Signs are also placed at South Delta such as the large sign informing about least terns. Most 

plover areas also include a sign to explain the blue stakes. 

• Signs are occasionally provided by State Parks to help with managing trespassers at Orange 

Beach and north of SSTC-S. 

• An interpretive sign on least terns and snowy plovers is in development for the bike trail near 

South Delta Beach. 

5.11.1.13 Recreational Use Restriction 

• The Navy works to eliminate recreational or casual use of the beaches by military personnel and 

their dependents who live in the Naval housing that is across SR-75 from Blue 2, Orange 1, and 

Orange 2. An annual letter is sent out to educate military housing residents about recreational use 

restrictions. In addition, the Navy works to eliminate nonmilitary civilian use of nesting beaches 

through security patrols and guards. Signage, fencing, public awareness campaigns, and/or 

enforcement are all necessary and implemented to achieve successful control. 

5.11.1.14 Rearing of Collected Eggs, Injured, and Sick Individuals 

• All injured or sick individuals are taken to a wildlife rehabilitation center, preferably Project 

Wildlife, for rehabilitation. 

• If needed, least tern eggs that have been collected are provided to Project Wildlife or Sea World, 

as appropriate, for hatching and rearing. Terns were reared in captivity in 2002 and 2003 after the 

MITIGATION 5-19
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

eggs were collected to discourage nesting on the operational beaches. The least tern chicks 

proved very difficult to raise, whereas snowy plover chicks, which are precocial, are easier to 

raise. Tern survival after rehabilitation proved to be minimal if at all. All chicks are released in 

areas approved by the Navy with guaranteed predator management. 

• The success of reared western snowy plovers as adults is tracked and evaluated to develop more 

effective rearing methods, with a few releases that were preliminarily successful. 

5.11.1.15 Western Snowy Plover Health Study 

• Due to an unknown cause of mortality in adult snowy plovers in and around San Diego Bay that 

began in 2005, the Navy supports studies and efforts by the USFWS to determine the cause of the 

mortality. 

5.11.1.16 Monitoring for Effects and Adaptive Management 

• California least terns and WSP are monitored for take at all San Diego Bay NBC training 

locations. The Navy prepares an end of the year report that documents, at a minimum, the 

locations of nests collected, number of nests/eggs collected, the hatch date of each egg collected, 

the unique band combination given each captive-reared chick, the approximate fledgling date and 

the release date/location of each fledglings, and suggestions to improve the efficacy of this 

process if used in future years. This information is necessary to assess the amount of incidental 

take, and the effectiveness of using this approach to minimize impacts. 

• Biological monitoring of the least tern and the snowy plover during the breeding season is 

performed by qualified and USFWS-permitted experts at all nesting sites. The general schedule 

for monitoring is provided below but is modified based on findings in the field and/or operational 

requirements. 

o NAB Ocean Beach: Monitoring for least terns and snowy plovers is conducted three to 

four days each week from March 1 to April 15, five to six days per week from April 15 to 

August 1, and three to four days per week from August 1 to August 31. 

o NAB North and South Delta Beach: Monitoring for least terns and snowy plovers is 

conducted three days a week from April 15 to April 30, four to five days a week from 

April 30 to July 31, and three days a week from July 31 to August 31. 

o Monitoring for snowy plover occurs one day per week from September through February. 

o Monitoring at SSTC-S for snowy plovers is conducted one to three days a week from 

March 1 to mid-September (and one day per week during the winter). 

• Banding of least tern and snowy plover adults and chicks is done in conjunction with monitoring 

of nests at NASNI, SSTC-N and SSTC-S. Due to the large number of nests that must be 

monitored and the number of quality bands received from the USFWS, not all adults or chicks are 

banded. Any least tern or snowy plover nest relocations are reported to the USFWS Carlsbad 

Field Office. Semi-monthly and annual reports are provided to the USFWS. 

• A California least tern foraging study was begun in 2008 to examine foraging patterns to evaluate 

if certain areas have higher foraging value than others. 

MITIGATION 5-20
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

5.11.2 Light-Footed Clapper Rail Management 

Since the light-footed clapper rail is listed as federally endangered, formal consultation with the USFWS 

under Section 7 of the ESA is required prior to any potential impacts to this species. The Navy currently 

does not conduct activities at the location where this species may breed, which is leased to the County of 

San Diego for the South Bay Marine Biological Study Area. Periodic surveys are conducted to determine 

species presence and breeding status. 

Management of the clapper rail is addressed in the NBC INRMP with a program at Naval Outlying 

Landing Field (NOLF) Imperial Beach driving the management of this species at SSTC-S. The NOLF 

Imperial Beach program was established in 1992 through an MOU between the U.S. Navy and the 

USFWS. The focus of management is a little over 600 acres of the south and west NOLF Imperial Beach 

property that is managed as part of the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve and Tijuana 

Slough National Wildlife Refuge. The MOU is reviewed for renewal every five years. 

The NBC INRMP identifies three primary approaches for protecting the light-footed clapper rail: 

1. Develop and participate with other agencies in a regional approach and formal agreements for 

conserving salt marsh across the species’ range in the context of local land use requirements; 

2. Protect cordgrass sites from erosion; and 

3. Improve nesting and foraging opportunities when habitat restoration or creation projects are 

undertaken. The Navy has participated as a partner in the light-footed clapper rail captive 

propagation program at the Sweetwater Marsh NWR (USFWS 2006). 

5.11.2.1 Underwater Detonation Measures 

A safety buffer zone is established around each detonation point. The buffer is 1,300 feet for detonations 

occurring in zero to 24 feet of water depth and 2,220 feet for detonations in 24 to 72 feet of water depth. 

Observer(s) (two per activity) with binoculars and small craft survey the detonation area and safety buffer 

zone for birds. If flocks of birds or foraging birds are sighted within the buffer zone or moving towards it, 

activities are suspended until the birds voluntarily leave the area. Immediately following the detonation, 

visual monitoring for birds within the buffer zone takes place for 30 minutes. Observations are made for 

animals with signs of injury; injured animals are reported to the NRSW Environmental Director and the 

PACFLT Environmental Office. Sequential detonations are conducted either less than 10 seconds apart or 

greater than 30 minutes apart to allow for birds attracted by fish kill to vacate the area. 

5.11.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures 

All listed species management measures currently employed under No Action alternative will continue, 

with the exception of lane management of SSTC-N training lanes Blue 2 through Orange 2 as previously 

described in 3.12.1.6. In addition, the following mitigation measures are proposed. 

5.11.3.1 California Least Tern and Western Snowy Plover Measures 

Due to anticipated impacts to California least tern and western snowy plover from the action alternatives, 

the following measure is proposed to minimize and manage these impacts. 

• Long-term Site Enhancement Plan. Develop a site enhancement plan that includes establishing 

dunes on the windward (west) edges of Delta North and South that would enhance this area for 

plovers, create a source of sand for the least tern nesting area, and establish a better visual barrier 

MITIGATION 5-21
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

between SR-75 and the nesting colony. This plan could be developed as a part of the NBC 

INRMP revision. 

5.11.3.2 Training Activity Restrictions 

Vehicle Patrolling and LARC V Operator Training. Vehicle patrolling and LARC V Operator training 

will not occur in Red, Blue, or Orange Beach Lanes.

5.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES

The Navy strives to ensure that it retains access to ocean training areas as necessary to accomplish its 

mission, while facilitating joint military-civilian use of such areas to the extent practicable and consistent 

with safety. These goals of military access, joint use, and safety are promoted through various 

coordination and outreach measures. The Navy currently employs the following management practices to 

avoid impacts to cultural resources: 

• Restrict digging near any cultural resource site that is known to be eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

• Limit operational training access on or across the recorded areas of eligible or potentially 

eligible archaeological sites to foot traffic only. 

• No alteration or damage to the appearance, structure, or features of NRHP-eligible built 

properties is permitted without appropriate Section 106 review and compliance. 

Specifically, digging would be restricted (whether as a part of a training activity or infrastructure 

development) at site CA-SDI-5454/12,270, which is a site formally determined to be eligible for listing 

on the NRHP. This site contains prehistoric human remains and is thus subject to the provisions of the 

Native American Graves Protection. 

For the Single Anchor Leg Moor component of Offshore Petroleum Discharge System the Navy 

procedure is to send down a diver to reconnoiter the bottom. This procedure avoids fouling of ground 

tackle and avoids impacts to submerged cultural resources. During other vessel activities, it is current 

practice that navigators avoid known obstructions and shipwrecks. 

Current mitigation measures to avoid impacts to cultural resources will continue to be implemented under 

the action alternatives. 

5.13 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

The Navy strives to ensure that it retains access to oceanside and bayside training areas as necessary to 

accomplish its mission, while facilitating joint military-civilian use of such areas to the extent practicable 

and consistent with safety. These goals of military access, joint use, and safety are promoted through 

various coordination and outreach measures, including publication of potentially hazardous activities 

planned for the oceanside and bayside areas through Notices to Mariners issued by the U.S. Coast Guard. 

Current measures, which facilitate joint military-civilian use of SSTC consistent with safety, would 

continue 

5.14 SOCIOECONOMICS

There are no current mitigation measures related to socioeconomics, environmental justice, and protection 

of children. However, the Navy strives to be a good neighbor to the community by maintaining, to the 

greatest extent practicable, land use compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and providing 

public access whenever possible. The Navy recognizes the importance of public access and works with 

MITIGATION 5-22
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

MITIGATION 5-23

the community to ensure access to the public beach areas. Mitigation measures in place for other 

resources (e.g., Water Resources [Section 3.5], Acoustic Environment [Section 3.6], and Public Health 

and Safety [Section 3.16]) also ensure that non-participants, including children, are not affected by Navy 

actions. 

5.15 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

The Navy has specific and documented procedures in place to ensure that nonparticipants are not 

endangered by Navy actions. Emergency medical personnel and first aid kits are on site for each training 

activity in the unlikely event of an injury. 

5.15.1 Exercise Planning 

The Navy considers public safety in planning its exercises. Factors considered in evaluating the impact of 

the training on public safety include proximity of the activity to public areas; access control; schedule 

(time of day, day of week); public notification; frequency, duration, and intensity of activities; range 

safety procedures; operational control of hazardous activities or events; and safety history. 

5.15.2 Range Control 

Current range control procedures at SSTC-N and SSTC-S limit the potential for unanticipated interactions 

with the public. On SSTC-N bayside, a fence parallel to Silver Strand Highway from Rendova Housing to 

Fiddler’s Cove prevents public access from the land to bayside training areas. Oceanside access to the 

beach is controlled by a watch guard posted on the northern edge of Yellow 1. SSTC-S inland areas are 

fully fenced. Entrance into this area is controlled by manned gates. During all land and water training 

activities, trainers and exercise participants are responsible for assuring that nonparticipants are not close 

enough for their safety to be at risk. 

5.15.3 Range Inspection 

Range users are instructed to discuss planned activities with the range scheduling activity to ensure the 

current and applicable range inspection procedures are applied prior to conducting any activities. 

Scheduling officials regularly inspect beach areas. 

5.15.4 Coordination Procedures 

Close coordination between military and civilian facilities enables effective real-time shared use. Notices 

to Mariners are issued for all underwater detonation activities. An individual activity must be coordinated 

between the appropriate range scheduling activity and range user at the time the range is scheduled for the 

operation. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

This page intentionally left blank 

MITIGATION 5-24
6 Other Considerations 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

6 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY NEPA 

6.1 POSSIBLE CONFLICTS WITH OBJECTIVES OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PLANS,

POLICIES, AND CONTROLS

Implementation of the Navy’s alternatives, including the Proposed Action for the Silver Strand Training 

Complex (SSTC) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), would not conflict with the objectives or 

requirements of Federal, state, regional, or local plans, policies, or legal requirements. The Navy will 

consult with regulatory agencies as appropriate during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process and prior to implementation of the Proposed Action to ensure requirements are met. Table 6-1 

provides a summary of environmental compliance requirements that may apply. 

Table 6-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action 

Plans, Policies, and 

Controls 

Responsible 

Agency 

 Status of Compliance 

NEPA of 1969 (42 

United States Code 

[U.S.C] §§ 4321 et seq.); 

Council on 

Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) Regulations for 

Implementing the 

Procedural Provisions of 

NEPA (40 Code of 

Federal Regulations 

[C.F.R.] §§ 1500-1508); 

Department of the Navy 

Procedures for 

Implementing NEPA (32 

C.F.R. § 775) 

U.S. Navy 

This EIS has been prepared in accordance with NEPA, CEQ 

regulations, and Navy NEPA procedures. Public participation 

and review is being conducted in compliance with NEPA. 

Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 

USC §§ 7401 et seq.); 

CAA General Conformity 

Rule (40 C.F.R. § 93[B]); 

State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) 

U.S. 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency 

(USEPA) 

and 

San Diego Air 

Pollution 

Control 

District 

The Proposed Action would be compatible with attainment and 

maintenance goals established in the SIP. A CAA conformity 

determination will not be required because emissions attributable 

to the alternatives including the Proposed Action would be 

below the de minimis thresholds. 

Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (Clean Water 

Act [CWA]) 

(33 U.S.C. §§ 1344 et 

seq.) 

USEPA 

CWA Section 401 water quality certification and CWA Section 

404 permit will be prepared for Elevated Causeway System, 

Causeway Pier activities; and other activities involving fill 

below the high tide line within the SSTC. An amendment 

request to the existing Naval Base Coronado (NBC) National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit to include 

Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit discharge into the Bay 

and Ocean has been submitted. 

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 6-1
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Table 6-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action (Continued) 

Plans, Policies, and 

Controls 

Responsible 

Agency 

 Status of Compliance 

Rivers and Harbors Act 

(RHA) 

(33 U.S.C. §§ 401 et 

seq.) 

United States 

Army Corps of 

Engineers 

(USACE) 

A RHA Section 10 permit is required for Elevated Causeway 

and Causeway Pier construction and training. The permit 

application will be submitted to the USACE. 

Coastal Zone 

Management Act 

(CZMA) (16 C.F.R. §§ 

1451 et seq.) 

California 

Coastal 

Commission 

(CCC) 

A Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) will be prepared in 

compliance with the CZMA, which states that Federal actions 

that have reasonably foreseeable effects on coastal uses or 

resources must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable 

with the enforceable policies of approved state coastal 

management programs. Applicable sections of the California 

Coastal Act of 1976 (14 California Code of Regulations § 13001 

et seq.) were thoroughly analyzed against the Proposed Action. 

The Navy determined that the Proposed Action is consistent to 

the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of 

the California Coastal Management Program, pursuant to the 

requirements of CZMA The Navy will submit the CCD to the 

CCC in due course. 

Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act 

(16 U.S.C. §§ 1801-

1802) 

National 

Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration 

(NOAA) - 

National 

Marine 

Fisheries 

Service 

(NMFS) 

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a direct 

effect on eelgrass. However, based upon the minimal short-term 

impacts associated with the Proposed Action and extensive 

mitigation through eelgrass planting, there will not be any 

adverse effects to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The Navy will 

submit a separate EFH assessment to NMFS that reviews the 

impacts of the Proposed Action on EFH that includes applicable 

mitigation measures. 

Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 

1531 et seq.) 

U.S. Navy, 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service 

(USFWS), and 

NMFS 

The EIS analyzes potential effects to species listed under the 

ESA. In accordance with ESA requirements, the Navy will 

complete consultation under Section 7 of the ESA with USFWS 

and NMFS on the potential that implementation of the Proposed 

Action may affect listed species. With regard to USFWS 

jurisdiction over species present in SSTC, the Navy will initiate 

Section 7 consultation and conduct its activities in accordance 

with any applicable Biological Opinions. The Navy will conduct 

informal consultation with NMFS for the green sea turtle. 

Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (16 

U.S.C. §§ 1431 et seq.) 

NOAA-NMFS 

The Navy is determining what effects the implementation of the 

Proposed Action would have on marine mammals and is 

submitting an application to NMFS for an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization. 

The National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act (16 

U.S.C. §§ 1431 et. seq.) 

NOAA 

Implementation of the Proposed Action will have no effect on 

sanctuary resources in the offshore environment of southern 

California. Review of agency actions under Section 304 is not 

required. 

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 6-2
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Table 6-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action (Continued)

Plans, Policies, and 

Controls 

Responsible 

Agency 

 Status of Compliance 

The Sikes Act of 1960 

(16 U.S.C. §§ 670a-670o, 

as amended by the Sikes 

Act Improvement Act of 

1997, Pub. L. No. 105-

85) 

Department of 

Defense 

Implementation of the Proposed Action will be implemented in 

accordance with the management and conservation criteria 

developed in the Sikes Act Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plans for NBC. 

National Historic 

Preservation Act (16 

U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq.) 

U.S. Navy 

The Proposed Action will be implemented in compliance with 

Section 106 through a programmatic agreement with the State 

Historic Preservation Office, and pursuant to the criteria 

developed by the Navy for cultural resources management 

practices. As a result of cultural resource management practices, 

implementation of the Proposed Action will not result in any 

adverse effects to cultural resources. 

Executive Order (EO) 

12898, Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority 

Populations and LowIncome Populations 

U.S. Navy 

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects on minority or low income 

populations. 

EO 13045, Protection of 

Children from 

Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

U.S. Navy 

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in 

disproportionate environmental health or safety risks to 

children. 

EO 13112 Invasive 

Species U.S. Navy 

EO 13112 requires agencies to identify actions that may affect 

the status of invasive species and take measures to avoid 

introduction and spread of these species. To the extent invasive 

species management relates to ESA compliance on SSTC, the 

BO is expected to ensure compliance with EO 13112. This EIS 

also otherwise satisfies the requirement of EO 13112. 

EO 11990 Protection of 

Wetlands U.S. Navy 

Section 2 (b) of EO 11990 requires federal agency action when 

there would be a significant impact to wetlands. Implementation 

of the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on 

wetlands. 

EO 12962 Recreational 

Fisheries U.S. Navy 

EO 12962 requires agencies to conserve, restore and enhance 

aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational fishing 

opportunities nationwide. Implementation of the Proposed 

Action will comply with these duties. 

California Marine Life 

Protection Act (MLPA); 

Marine Managed Areas 

Improvement Act 

(California Department of 

Fish and Game [CDFG] 

Code §§ 2850-2863) 

CDFG 

MLPA requires CDFG to confer with the Navy regarding issues 

related to Navy activities as such may engage Marine Managed 

Areas. 

Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act (MBTA) 

(16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712) 

USFWS 

Implementation of military readiness activities will not have a 

significant adverse effect on any population of migratory birds, 

and will comply with the MBTA, and will not require a permit 

under the MBTA. 

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 6-3
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

6.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

NEPA requires an analysis of the relationship between a project’s short-term impacts on the environment 

and the effects that these impacts may have on the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term 

productivity of the affected environment. Impacts that narrow the range of beneficial uses of the 

environment are of particular concern. This means that choosing one option may reduce future flexibility 

in pursuing other options, or that committing a resource to a certain use may often eliminate the 

possibility for other uses of that resource. 

The majority of activities addressed in this EIS would be categorized as long-term. For example, although 

the use of training areas for individual training activities (e.g., breacher) may be of short duration, the 

training areas would continue to receive increased and repeated use for the foreseeable future. As the 

proposed action includes an increase in training tempo, areas designated for training would accommodate 

a higher level of operational uses in the long-term which would, in turn, affect the long-term productivity 

of environmental resources in those areas. The Navy’s proposal to increase access and availability of 

SSTC-N and SSTC-S oceanside beach training lanes and SSTC-S inland areas for military training is an 

example of the balancing of long-term productivity of the environment with the need to address range 

capability shortfalls. Addressing such shortfalls through planning and accommodation of future training 

tempo requirements and deployment schedules will allow the Navy to more readily facilitate long-term 

resource management strategies while achieving the near-term goal of providing the capacity and 

capabilities to fully support required training tasks and meet the Title 10 mandate. 

6.3 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

NEPA requires that environmental analysis include identification of “any irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.” 

Irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments are related to the use of non-renewable resources and 

the effects that the uses of these resources have on future generations. Irreversible effects primarily result 

from the use or destruction of a specific resource (e.g., energy or minerals) that cannot be replaced within 

a reasonable time frame. Irretrievable resource commitments involve the loss in value of an affected 

resource that cannot be restored as a result of the action (e.g., the disturbance of a cultural site). 

Construction activities associated with increased training activities at the SSTC would result in the 

irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels 

(including fuel oil), natural gas, and gasoline construction equipment. Implementation of the Proposed 

Action would require fuels used by aircraft, vessels, and ground-based vehicles. Since fixed- and rotarywing flight, amphibious vessels, and small craft activities could increase, total fuel use would increase. 

Fuel use by ground-based vehicles involved in training activities would also increase. Therefore, total fuel 

consumption would increase and this nonrenewable resource would be considered irreversibly lost. 

6.4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL

Increased training activities on SSTC would result in an increase in energy demand over the No Action 

Alternative. Although the required electricity demands would be met by the existing electrical 

infrastructure at SSTC, energy requirements would be subject to any established energy conservation 

practices. The use of energy sources would be minimized wherever possible without compromising 

safety, training, or testing operations. 

6.5 NATURAL OR DEPLETABLE RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL

Resources that will be permanently and continually consumed by project implementation include water, 

electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels. To the extent practicable, pollution prevention considerations are 

included. In addition, sustainable range management practices are in place that protect and conserve 

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 6-4
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 6-5

natural and cultural resources while preserving of access to training areas for current and future training 

requirements.
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

This page intentionally left blank 

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 6-6
7 List of Preparers 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

7 LIST OF PREPARERS 

GOVERNMENT PREPARERS

Linda Burgum, Technical/Staff Director, Expeditionary Warfare Training Group Pacific (EWTGPAC) 

M.A., San Diego State University 

Ph.D., San Diego State University 

Years of Experience: 26 

Rob Chichester, Current NBPL IEPM, Former Water Program Manager, Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command Southwest (NAVFAC SW) 

B.S. Civil Engineering, San Diego State University 

Years of Experience: 15 

Tamara Conkle, Former Natural Resources Manager, NAVFAC SW, Naval Base Coronado (NBC) 

Botanist 

B.S. Biology, George Fox College 

Years of Experience: 15 

J.T. Hesse, Former Marine Resources Specialist, Navy Region Southwest (CNRSW)/NBC 

B.S. Marine Ecology, Oregon State University 

Years of Experience: 8

Chip Johnson, Marine Mammals Specialist, COMPACFLT 

M.A. Marine Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary 

B.S. Biology, University of North Carolina at Wilmington 

Years of Experience: 17 

 

Tim Latas, Former Senior Environmental Planner, NAVFAC SW 

B.S. Geology, Wichita State University 

M.A. Anthropology, University of Washington 

Years of Experience: 30 

Delphine Lee, Project Coordinator, COMPACFLT 

M.S. Environmental Engineering, Pennsylvania State University 

B.S. Civil Engineering, Pennsylvania State University 

Years of Experience: 12 

Jenny Marshall, Environmental Planning and Policy Specialist, FACSFAC 

M.A. Moss Landing Marine Labs, California State University 

B.S. University of California, Los Angeles 

Years of Experience: 9 

Glen Mitchell, Environmental Planner and Oceanographer, Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) 

B.S. Zoology, University of Rhode Island 

B.S. Electrical Engineering, University of Rhode Island 

Years of Experience: 16 

LIST OF PREPARERS 7-1
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Kim O’Connor, Botanist, NAVFAC SW 

M.S. Natural Resources, Cornell University 

B.A. Botany, University of California, Berkeley 

Years of Experience: 13 

Kathryn Ostapuk, NEPA Coordinator, CNRSW 

J.D. California Western School of Law 

B.A. Communication, University of Arizona 

Years of Experience: 3 

Scott Penwell, Environmental Specialist, Naval Special Warfare (NAVSPECWAR) 

B.S. Industrial Technology, San Diego State University 

Years of Experience: 16 

Patricia Ryan, Environmental Public Affairs, CNRSW/NBC 

B.A. Communications, California State University at Sacramento 

Years of Experience: 22 

Tiffany Shepherd, Biologist, NAVFAC SW 

M.S. Biology, San Diego State University 

 Years of Experience: 5 

Molly Thrash, Former NEPA Planner, NAVFAC SW 

B.A. Anthropology, University of Colorado 

Years of Experience: 9 

Glen White, Program Manager for Strategic Sealift Training, EWTGPAC 

M.A. Strategic Studies 

B.A. Geography 

Years of Experience: 13 

CONTRACTOR PREPARERS

Matthew Bartlett (Parsons Infrastructure and Technology), Analyst 

B.S. Environmental Policy and Planning, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

Years of Experience: 4 

Blair Brownyard (ManTech SRS), Deputy Project Manager 

J.D. Touro Law Center 

B.A. History, California State University, San Marcos 

Years of Experience: 7

Bruce Campbell (Parsons Infrastructure and Technology), Lead Analyst, Geology and Soils, Hazardous 

Materials and Waste, Noise, Public Health and Safety, Water Resources 

M.S. Environmental Management, University of San Francisco 

B.S. Environmental Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara 

Years of Experience: 28 

LIST OF PREPARERS 7-2
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Steffanie Chan (ManTech SRS), Terrestrial Biologist 

B.S. Biology, George Mason University 

B.B.A. International Business, Marymount University 

Years of Experience: 12 

Erica Cunningham (Tierra Data, Inc.), Ecologist/Subject Matter Expert 

M.S. Environmental Science, College of Charleston, S.C. 

B.S. Marine Biology, University of Miami, Ohio 

Years of Experience: 3 

Lawrence Honma (Merkel & Associates, Inc.), Analyst, Marine Biology and Fish 

M.S. Marine Sciences, Moss Landing Marine Laboratory, California State University, San 

Francisco 

B.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of California, Davis 

Years of Experience: 19 

Elizabeth Kellogg (Tierra Data, Inc.), President/Senior Subject Matter Expert 

M.S. International Agricultural Development with specialization in Range Management, 

 University of California at Davis 

 B.S. Agricultural Science and Management, University of California at Davis 

 Years of Experience: 21 

Krystal Kermott (ManTech SRS), Senior Subject Matter Expert 

B.S. Biological Sciences, University of California at Santa Barbara 

Years of Experience: 7 

Derek Lerma (Tierra Data, Inc.), Senior Marine Biologist 

M.S. Oceanography, Humboldt State University 

Years of Experience: 11 

Thanh Luc (Parsons Infrastructure and Technology), Senior Sound Engineer 

B.S. Mechanical Engineering 

 Years of Experience: 18 

Daniel Nelson (ManTech SRS), Document Production Specialist 

B.S. Aerospace Engineering, San Diego State University (In Progress) 

Years of Experience: 1 

Karyn Palma (ManTech SRS), Technical Editor 

B.A. Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara 

Years of Experience: 16 

Molly Rodriguez (ManTech SRS), Geospatial Analyst 

BS: Geography, Pennsylvania State University 

Years of Experience: 3 

Valorie L. Thompson (Scientific Resources Associated), President/Lead Analyst, Air Quality 

Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, Purdue University 

 M.S. Chemical Engineering, Purdue University 

 B.S. Chemistry, Eastern Michigan University 

Years of Experience: 23 

LIST OF PREPARERS 7-3
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

LIST OF PREPARERS 7-4

Phil Thorson (ManTech SRS), Senior Research Biologist/Marine Mammal Biologist 

Ph.D. Biology, University of California at Santa Cruz 

Years of Experience: 28 

Brian Tucker (ManTech SRS), Environmental Planner 

J.D. Loyola Law School, Los Angeles 

B.A. History, University of Notre Dame 

Years of Experience: 22 

Jackson Underwood (RECON), Senior Archaeologist/Ethnographer 

Ph.D. Anthropology, University of California Los Angeles 

M.A. Anthropology, San Diego State University 

B.A. Anthropology, San Diego State University 

Years of Experience: 25 

Karen Waller (ManTech SRS), Vice President/Quality Assurance 

 B.S. Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University 

 Years of Experience: 21 

Lawrence Wolski (ManTech SRS), Project Manager and Marine Scientist 

M.S. Marine Sciences, University of San Diego 

 B.S. Biology, Loyola Marymount University 

 Years of Experience: 13 
8 References 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

8 REFERENCES

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Naval Base Coronado Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan (INRMP) (2002) 

EA for the San Diego Bay INRMP (2001) 

Final EIS for Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV) (2003) 

Marine Resource Assessment (MRA) for the SOCAL OPAREA (2005) 

Naval Base Coronado INRMP (2002) 

Programmatic EA for Grow the Force Permanent Bed Down Facilities at Marine Corps Base 

Camp Pendleton (2009) 

San Diego Bay INRMP (2000) 

Southern California Range Complex Final Environmental Impact Statement (2008) 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 2004. Full citation not available. 

CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Akçakaya, H.R., J.L. Atwood, D. Breininger, C.T. Collins, and B. Duncan. 2003. Metapopulation 

dynamics of the California least tern. J. Wildl. Manage. 67(4):829-842. 

GlobalSecurity.org. 2008. Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/aaav-program.htm. 24 June. 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 2002. Full citation not available. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. 2007. Employability and Deployability: Striking a Balance. Story 

Number NNS070323-19 Release Date 23 March 2007 at http://www.news.navy.mil/ 

search/display.asp?story_id=28461.

CHAPTER 3.1 LAND USE 

California Coastal Code. 2008. Public Resources Code Division 20 California Coastal Act 

Section 30500 Preparation. Amended by Ch. 1173, Stats. 1981; Ch. 1009, Stats. 1984. 

California Coastal Commission (CCC). 2007. Information taken from the California Coastal 

Commission’s web site. http://www.coastal.ca.gov/web/whoweare.html. 

City of Coronado. 2004. City of Coronado Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Adopted by 

Coronado Planning Commission August 26, 1980. Adopted by Coronado City Council 

December 3, 1980. Revised by Coronado City Council May 12, 1981. Certified by 

California Coastal Commission December 1983. Revised February 8, 1996, May 7, 1996, 

October 2001 and August 2004. 

City of Coronado. 2003. City of Coronado General Plan Chapter A-Land Use Element. Adopted 

November 11,1986. Revised August 6, 1996, November 4, 2003. 

City of Coronado. 2008. City of Coronado Glorietta Bay Master Plan. Adopted 2002. 

City of Coronado. 2009. City of Coronado Municipal Code, Title 86: Zoning. 

Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure 2004. http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/bei/disdi.shtml. 

Accessed December 2008. 

REFERENCES 8-1

Chapter 1 Chapter 2 3.1 Land Use 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

SANDAG 2000. http://www.sandag.cog.ca.us/. Accessed December 2008. 

San Diego Unified Port District (SDUPD). 1996. San Diego Port Master Plan. Adopted 1996. 

U.S. Department of Navy. 1998. Final Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan for the 

Naval Radio Receiving Facility Imperial Beach, California. Prepared by RECON. San 

Diego, CA. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge Sweetwater 

Marsh and South San Diego Bay Units Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement. August 2006 

CHAPTER 3.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

California Department of Conservation; California Geological Survey 2004. 

California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). 1990. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in 

California by Earl W. Hart. Special Publication 42. 

Centaur Associates. 1984. Mitigation of Sea Floor Conflicts Between Oil and Gas Pipelines and 

Commercial Trawl Fisheries on the California Outer Continental Shelf. U.S. Minerals 

Management Service Contract Number 14-12-001-30050. 

Inman, D.L. and C.E. Nordstrom. 1973. Beach Cliff Erosion in San Diego County, California. In: 

Studies on the Geology and Geologic Hazards of the Greater San Diego Area, California. 

A. Ross and R.J. Dowlen, eds. San Diego Association of Geologists. Pp. 125-131. 

Inman, D.L., R.T. Guza, D.W. Skelly, and T.E. White. 1986. Southern California Coastal 

Processes Data Summary. Report No. CCSTWS 86-1, Los Angeles District, Corps of 

Engineers, 572 p. 

Naval Ocean Systems Center. 2002. Sediment Bioassays for NAVSTA San Diego Dredging 

Project. 49 p. 

Pryde. 1992. San Diego. An Introduction to the Region. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). 1985. Littoral Zone Sediments, San Diego Region, 

Oct. 83-June 84. Los Angeles Disrict Publication, CCSTWS 85-11. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). 1987. Silver Strand Littoral Cell Preliminary 

Sediment Budget Report. Los Angeles District Publication, CCSTWS 87-3. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2003. Economic Technical Report, San Diego Harbor Deepening. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1973. Soil Survey San Diego Area, California. 

December. 

U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC). 1998. Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for the International Boundary and Water Commission 

South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant Long Term Treatment Options. 

Volume 1. January. 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 2002. Naval Base Coronado Integrated Natural Resource 

Management Plan. 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 1992. Environmental Assessment: MILCON Project O-187. 

Small craft berthing pier, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, Coronado, California. 

Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. April 1992. 

REFERENCES 8-2

3.1 Land Use 3.2 Geology and Soils 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 1989. Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado Master Plan. 

Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Bruno, California. May 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 2004. GIS Layers. Accessed December 2008. 

CHAPTER 3.3 AIR QUALITY

Aircraft Environmental Support Office. 1999a. Aircraft Emission Estimates: H-60 Landing and 

Takeoff Cycle and In-Frame, Maintenance Testing Using JP-5. DRAFT. AESO 

Memorandum Report No. 9929. February. 

Aircraft Environmental Support Office. 1999b. Aircraft Emission Estimates: H-60 Mission 

Operations Using JP-5. DRAFT. AESO Memorandum Report No. 9953. June. 

Aircraft Environmental Support Office. 2000a. Aircraft Emission Estimates: H-53 Landing and 

Takeoff Cycle and In-Frame, Maintenance Testing Using JP-5. DRAFT. AESO 

Memorandum Report No. 9822, Revision C. February. 

Aircraft Environmental Support Office. 2000b. Aircraft Emission Estimates: H-53 Mission 

Operations Using JP-5. DRAFT. AESO Memorandum Report No. 9960, Revision B. 

April. 

Aircraft Environmental Support Office. 2001a. Aircraft Emission Estimates: H-46 Landing and 

Takeoff Cycle and In-Frame, Maintenance Testing Using JP-5. DRAFT. AESO 

Memorandum Report No. 9816, Revision F. January. 

Aircraft Environmental Support Office. 2001b. Aircraft Emission Estimates: H-46 Mission 

Operations Using JP-5. DRAFT. AESO Memorandum Report No. 9959, Revision B. 

January. 

California Air Resources Board. 2008. Current Air Quality Standards. 

www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. 

California Air Resources Board. 2007. EMFAC 2007 Model. 

JJMA. 2001. Emission Factors for Navy Ships. Personal Communication. May. 

San Diego Air Pollution Control District. 2008. Rules and Regulations. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2006. Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate 

Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM2.5 CEQA Significance Thresholds. October. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008a. Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/index.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008b. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, Fifth Edition, Chapter 15, Ordnance Detonation. 

Western Regional Climatic Center (WRCC). 2005. Western U.S. Climatic Historical 

Summaries, San Diego International Airport. 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmsca.html 

CHAPTER 3.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE

Brinkley, S.R. and E.B. Wilson. 1943. Calculation of detonation pressures for several explosives. 

OSRD 1231. 

Cook, D.S. and E. Spillman. 2000. Military training ranges as a source of environmental 

contamination. Federal Facilities Environmental Journal. Summer 27-37, 2000. 

Janes. 2005. Jane's Ammunition Handbook: 5-inch 54-calibre naval gun ammunition. 

REFERENCES 8-3

3.2 Geology and Soils 3.3 Air Quality 3.4 Hazardous Materials and Waste
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Janes. 2006. Jane's Air-Launched Weapons: Mk 80 Series General Purpose Bombs (Mk 81, 82, 

83, 84 and BLU-110/111/117) 

John, H. 1941. British Report RC-166 and British Report RC-212. 

Navy Environmental Leadership Program. 2000. NAS North Island and NAB Coronado 

Installation Restoration Program (www.nelp.navy.mil/ir.html). 

John, H. 1943. British Report RC-383. 

Renner, R.H. and J.M. Short. 1980. Chemical Products of Underwater Explosions. Naval Surface 

Weapons Center, Dahlgren, VA. NSWC/WOL. TR 78-87, February. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). 2003. Estimates for Explosives Residue from the 

Detonation of Army Munitions. September. 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN) 2004. Explosive Hazardous Waste Management Plan 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 2007. Hazardous Waste Management Plan. 

U.S. Department of the Navy 2008. NBC Hazardous Substance Release Integrated Contingency 

Plan 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Environmental Compliance On-Line. 

CHAPTER 3.5 WATER RESOURCES

California Spatial Information Library 2003. http://gio.resources.ca.gov/. Accessed December 

2008. 

City of San Diego, 2003, Annual Receiving Waters Monitoring Report for the South Bay Outfall. 

City of San Diego, 2004, Annual Receiving Waters Monitoring Report for the South Bay Outfall. 

Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure 2004. http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/bei/disdi.shtml. 

Accessed December 2008. 

Engineering Science. 1988. Tijuana Oceanographic Engineering Study. 

Hendricks, T. J. 1988. Modeling of Flow Fields and Effluent Trajectories in the San Diego Bight. 

In Tijuana Oceanographic Engineering Study, prepared by Engineering Science. 

Largier, J.L. 1995. San Diego Bay Circulation. Final Report. Center for Coastal Studies, Scripps 

Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. Prepared for the 

California State Water Resources Control Board and the California Regional Water 

Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. July. 

Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. 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. 

Moffatt & Nichol Engineers. 2000. Shoreline Morphology Study, San Diego Regional Beach 

Sand Project. Prepared for KEA Environmental. January 14. 

Port of San Diego 2007. San Diego Bay Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. 

September 1999. 

Port of San Diego 2002. San Diego Harbor Deepening EIS/EIR. Prepared by USACOE 

November 25, 2002. 

RWQCB 2007. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb9/. Accessed December 2008. 

REFERENCES 8-4

3.4 Hazardous Materials and Waste 3.5 Water Resources
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

San Diego Association of Governments. 2000. The San Diego Regional Beach Sand Project Final 

Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment. June. 

San Diego County, Department of Health. 2005. San Diego County Department of Health 2006 - 

San Diego County 2006 Beach Closure and Advisory Report 

State Water Resources Control Board. 2001. Ocean Plan; Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean 

Waters of California. 

State Water Resources Control Board. 2005. Ocean Plan; Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean 

Waters of California. 

Teale GIS Solutions Group 1997. http://gis.ca.gov/BrowseCatalog.epl. Accessed December 2008. 

U.S. Census 2000. http://www.census.gov/. Accessed December 2008. 

USEPA 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable/. Accessed December, 2008. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2002, Silver Strand Shoreline Final General Reevaluation Report. 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 2007. San Diego Bay Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan. September 1999. 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 2004. Final Wetland Delineation Report for the Naval 

Radio Receiving Facility, Naval Base Coronado, San Diego, CA. 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 1998. Environmental Assessment; MCON Project P-144, 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit Three Waterfront Operations Facility. Naval 

Amphibious Base, Coronado. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest 

Division. June. 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 1992. Environmental Assessment: MILCON Project O-187. 

Small craft berthing pier, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, Coronado, California. 

Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. April. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. National Ambient Water Quality Criteria. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the San 

Diego (LA-5) Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation. USEPA Region IX, 

San Francisco, CA. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1983. Swenson, Herbert: Why Is the Ocean Salty? Geological Survey 

(Dept. of Interior), Reston, Va. 83 9p.; From the series "Popular Publications of the U.S. 

Geological Survey." 

U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission. 1998. Draft Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement for the International Boundary and Water Commission South Bay 

International Wastewater Treatment Plant Long Term Treatment Options. Volume 1. 

January. 

Waller, G. (editor). 1996. SeaLife: A Complete Guide to the Marine Environment. Washington, 

D.C. Smithsonian Institute Press. 

REFERENCES 8-5

3.5 Water Resources
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

CHAPTER 3.6 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT

California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). 2009. 2008 Traffic Volumes for Route 75. 

Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems Unit. Website: http://trafficcounts.dot.ca.gov/2008all/r071-80i.htm. Date Accessed: 06 December 2009. 

California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). 2004. Highway Capacity Manual. 

California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). 2003. Highway Capacity Manual. 

City of San Diego. 2007. Draft General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report. 

September. Available on-line at: www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/peir/. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1977. Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. 

Report #FHWA-RD-77-108. 

Harris, C.M. 1997. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Third Edition. 

Chapter 16. 

Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. 1997. Community noise assessment for the Silver 

Strand Training Complex EIS. 

Schomer, P.D. 2005. Criteria for Assessment of Noise Annoyance. Journal of Noise Control 

Engineering 53(4), July-August 2005. 

U.S. Air Force. 2008. Draft Environmental Assessment for Charting the Delta MOA Complex, 

Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. An Investigation of Community Attitudes Toward Blast 

Noise. 

U.S. Army. 2006. Pennsylvania Army National Guard Operational Noise Management Plan. 

Prepared by U.S. Army CHPPM. January 2006. 

U.S. Army. 2005. Operational Noise Manual. Center for Health Promotion and Preventive 

Medicine. 

U.S. Army. 2003. Range Safety. DA-PAM 385-63. 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 2009. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Southern California Range Complex. 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 2007. OPNAVINST 5090.1C. Chapter 20 – Noise 

Prevention Ashore. October 30. 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 1989. Navy Outlying Landing Field, Imperial Beach Master 

Plan Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study (excerpts). 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 1988. OPNAVINST 11010.36A, Air Installations 

Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Program. 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 1978. Planning in the Noise Environment; P-970. Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command. 

Wyle Research and Consulting. 2005. Guidelines for Sound Insulation of Residences Exposed to 

Aircraft Operations. Prepared for the Department of the Navy. April. 

CHAPTER 3.7 MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Allen, L.G., D.J. Pondella, and M.H. Horn. 2006. The Ecology of Marine Fishes, California and 

Adjacent Waters. University of California Press, Los Angeles, pp 119-155. 

REFERENCES 8-6

3.6 Acoustic Environment 3.7 Marine Biological Resources 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Barnard, J.L. 1963. Relationship of benthic Amphipoda to invertebrate communities of inshore 

sublittoral sands of southern California. Pac. Nat. 3:439-467. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2006. Draft Aquatic Invasive Species 

Management Plan. 

City of San Diego. 2001. Annual rainfall amounts at Lindbergh Field, San Diego County, CA. 

Accessed at: http://www.sdcwa.org/manage/rainfall-lindbergh.phtml. 

Davis, J.L.D., L.A. Levin and S. Walther. 2002. Artificial armored shorelines: introduction of 

open coast communities into a southern California bay. Marine Biology 2002; 140:1249-

1262. 

Dexter, D.M. 1978. The infauna of a subtidal, sand-bottom community at Imperial Beach, 

California. Calif. Fish Game. 64(4):268-279. 

Ford, R.F. and R.L. Chambers. 1974. Thermal Distribution and Biological Studies for the South 

Bay Power Plant, vol. 5C, Biological Studies. Prepared for the San Diego Gas & Electric 

Co., San Diego, CA. Environmental Engineering Laboratory Technical Report under 

Contract P-25072. 

Ford, R.F., R.W. Chambers, and R.L. Chambers. 1975. Thermal distribution and biological 

studies for the Station B Power Plant, vol. 5A & 5B, Environmental Engineering 

Laboratory Tech. Report. Contract P-25072. 

Merkel & Associates, Inc., Science Applications International Corporation, and Kawasaki 

Theilacker Ueno + Associates. 2002. Habitat Classification for: Inventory and Evaluation 

of Habitats and Other Environmental Resources in San Diego Region’s Nearshore 

Coastal Zone. Technical Memorandum No. 3 March 12, 2002. Prepared for California 

Coastal Conservancy and San Diego Association of Governments. 

Nybakken, J.W. 1997. Marine Biology: An Ecological Approach, 4th ed. California: AddisonWesley Educational Publishers Inc. 

Oliver, J.S., P.N. Slatterey, L.W. Hulberg, and J.W. Nybakken. 1980. Relationships between 

wave disturbance and zonation of benthic invertebrate communities along a subtidal high 

energy beach in Monterey, California. U.S. Natl.Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. 78:437-454. 

Pister, B.A. 2007. Intertidal Ecology of Riprap Jetties and Breakwaters: Marine Communities 

Inhabiting Anthropogenic Structures along the West Coast of North America. Ph.D. 

Dissertation Biology, University of California, San Diego. 

Pondella, D., J. Froeschke, and B. Young. 2006. Fisheries Inventory and Utilization of San Diego 

Bay, San Diego, California for Surveys Conducted in April and July 2005. Vantuna 

Research Group. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2000. San Diego Regional Beach Sand 

Project: Environmental Impact Study. 

Thompson, B.E., D.T. Tsukada, and J.D. Laughlin. 1993. Megabenthic assemblages of the coastal 

shelf, slopes, and basins off southern California. Bull. South. Calif. Acad. Sci. 92:25-42. 

Tierra Data Inc. 2006. Evaluation of Bathymetry, Substrate and Biological Communities of the 

Outer San Diego Bay, Naval Base Coronado. Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command Southwest, December 2006. 

Tierra Data, Inc. 2008 (draft). San Diego Bay Avian Species Survey 2006-2007. Prepared for the 

U.S. Department of the Navy, Commader Navy Region Southwest and the San Diego 

Unified Port District, San Diego, California. 

REFERENCES 8-7

3.7 Marine Biological Resources 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Unitt, P. 2004. San Diego County Bird Atlas. San Diego Natural History Museum, San Diego, 

California, USA. 645pp. 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. 1973. Draft environmental statement, San 

Diego Harbor, San Diego County, CA. 

U. S. Department of the Navy; Navy Region Southwest; Natural Resources Office (DoN). 2000. 

San Diego Bay Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Avifauna of South San Diego Bay: the Western 

Salt Works 1993-1994. Prepard by D. Stadtlander and J. Konecny. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995a. Waterbirds of Central and South San Diego Bay 

1993–1994. Prepared by J. Manning. 

CHAPTER 3.8 FISH

Allen, L.G. 1985. A habitat analysis of the nearshore marine fishes from southern California. 

Bull. So. Calif. Acad. Sci. 84: 133-55. 

Allen, L.G. 1997. Fisheries Inventory and Utilization of San Diego Bay, 3rd Annual Report, FY 

1996-97. California State University Northridge Nearshore Marine Fish Research 

Program, under contract with the US Navy Southwest Division Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, San Diego, CA. August 1997. 

Allen, L.G. 1998. Fisheries Inventory and Utilization of San Diego Bay, 4th Annual Report, FY 

1997–98. California State University Northridge Nearshore Marine Fish Research 

Program, under Contract with U.S. Department of the Navy Southwest Division Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, CA. 

Allen, L.G. 1999. Fisheries Inventory and Utilization of San Diego Bay, 5th Annual Report, FY 

1997–99. California State University Northridge Nearshore Marine Fish Research 

Program, under Contract with U.S. Department of the Navy Southwest Division Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, CA. 

Allen, L. G., Findlay, A. M., Phalen, C. M. 2002. Structure and standing stock of the fish 

assemblages of San Diego Bay, California from 1994-1999. Bull. So. Calif. Acad. Sci. 

101(2), 49.85. 

Allen, L.G., D.J. Pondella, and M.H. Horn. 2006. The Ecology of Marine Fishes, California and 

Adjacent Waters. University of California Press, Los Angeles, pp 119-155. 

Atema, J., R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper, W.N. Tavolga, eds. 1988 *Sensory Biology of Aquatic 

Animals. Springer-Verlag, New York, London. 936 pp. 

Blackwell, S. B. and C. R. Greene, Jr., 2005. Underwater and in-air sounds from a small 

hovercraft. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 118(6), p. 3646-3652. 

Blaxter, J.H.S, J.A.B. Gray, E.J. Denton. 1981. Sound and startle responses in herring shoals. 

Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the U.K. 61:851-869. 

Bond, A.B.., J.S. Stephens, Jr., D.J. Pondella, M.J. Allen, and M. Helvey. 1999. A method for 

estimating marine habitat values based on fish guilds, with comparisons between sites in 

the Southern California Bight. Bull. Mar. Sci. 64(2):219-242 

Caltrans. 2001. “Pile Installation Demonstration Project, Fisheries Impact Assessment.” PIDP EA 

012081, Caltrans Contract 04A0148. San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge East Span 

Seismic Safety Project. 

REFERENCES 8-8

3.7 Marine Biological Resources 3.8 Fish 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Caltrans. 2004. “Fisheries and Hydroacoustic Monitoring Program Compliance Report for the 

San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project.” Prepared by 

Strategic Environmental Consulting, Inc. and Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. June. 

Chapman, C.J., A.D. Hawkins. 1969. The importance of sound in fish behaviour in relation to 

capture by trawls. p. 717-729 In: A. Ben-Tuvia and W. Dickson (eds.), Proceedings of the 

FAO conference on fish behaviour in relation to fishing techniques and tactics, 19-27 

Oct. 1967. FAO Fisheries Report No. 62, Vol. 3, Rome. 

Collin, Shaun P.; Marshall, N.Justin (Eds.) Sensory Processing in Aquatic Environments 2003, 

XXI, 446 p. 140 illus., 10 in color., Hardcover, ISBN: 978-0-387-95527-8 

Cronin, L.E. and A.J. Mansueti. 1971. “The biology of the estuary”. Pages 14-39 in A 

Symposium on the Biological Significance of Estuaries. P.A. Douglas and R.H. Stroud, 

eds. Washington, DC: Sport Fish. Inst. 

Dalen J., and A. Raknes. 1985. Scaring effects on fish from three-dimensional seismic surveys. 

Report No. FO 8504. Institute of Marine Research. Bergen, Norway. 

Dalen J., and G. M. Knutsen 1986. Scaring effects in fish and harmful effects on eggs, larvae and 

fry by offshore seismic exploration. In: Merklinger, H.M. (Ed.), Progress in Underwater 

Acoustics. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 93–102. 

Davis J.L.D., L.A. Levin, S.M. Walther. 2002. Artificial armored shorelines: sites for open-coast 

species in a southern California bay. Marine Biology 140: 1249–1262. 

Eigenmann, C.M. 1892. The fishes of San Diego, California. Proc. of the U.S. Natl. Mus. 

15:123–178. 

Elliot, M. 2002. An overview of the status, study and management of fishes in estuaries. In: 

Fishes in estuaries, M. Elliot and K. Hemingway (eds.), Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 

555-575. 

Engas, A., S. Lokkeborg, E. Ona, and A. Soldal 1996. Effects of seismic shooting on local 

abundance and catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus 

aeglefinus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2238-2249. 

Fay, R.R. 1988. Hearing in vertebrates, A psychophysics databook. Hill-Fay Associates, 

Winnetka, IL. 

Fay R, Popper AN. 2000. Evolution of hearing in vertebrates: the inner ears and processing. 

Hearing Research. 149: 1-10. 

Fay, R.R., C.D.; Popper, A.N.; (Eds.) 2005, Electroreception. Series: Springer Handbook of 

Auditory Research, Vol. 21. Bullock, T.H.; Hopkins, 485 p. 67 illus., Hardcover ISBN: 

0-387-23192-7. 

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, CA. Environmental Engineering Laboratory Technical Report under Contract C188. 

Ford, R.F., R.L. Chambers, and J.M. Merino. 1971. Ecological effects of power station cooling 

water in south San Diego Bay during Feb.–March 1971. Prepared for the San Diego Gas 

& Electric Co. Environmental Engineering Laboratory Tech. Dept. on Contract C-821. 

San Diego, CA. 

REFERENCES 8-9

3.8 Fish 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Goertner, J. F., M. L. Wiley, G. A. Young, and W. W. McDonald 1994. Effects of underwater 

explosions on fish without swimbladders. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren 

Division, White Oak Detachment, Silver Spring, MD. NSWC TR 88-114. 

Haedrich, R.L. and C.A.S. Hall. 1976. Fishes and estuaries. Oceanus 19(5):55-63. 

Hastings MC, Popper AN, Finneran JJ, Lanford PJ. 1996. “Effects of low-frequency underwater 

sound on hair cells of the inner ear and lateral line of the teleost fish Astronotus 

ocellatus.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 99(3):1759-1766. 

Hastings MC, Popper AN. 2005. Effects of sound on fish. Jones & Stokes under California 

Department of Transportation Contract No. 43A0139, Task Order 1. 

Haymes, G.T., and P.H. Patrick. 1986. Exclusion of adult alewife, Alsoa pseudoharengus, using 

low-frequency sound for application at water intakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Science, 43:855-862. 

Hickey, B.M. 1993. Physical Oceanography. Chapter 2 in Ecology of the Southern California 

Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation. M.D. Dailey, D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson, eds. 

Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Hoffman, R.S. 1986. Species composition, distribution and abundance of fishes along the 

southern shore of Coronado Cays, San Diego, in February 1986. Prepared for David D. 

Smith and Associates, Inc., San Diego, and Coronado Landmark, Inc., Irvine. April 10, 

1986. 10 pp. 

Hoffman, R.S. 1995. Data Summary for Mission Bay/San Diego Bay beach seine study. January 

1988 to July 1994. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Long Beach 

Horn, M.H. 1980. Diversity and ecological roles noncommercial fishes in California marine 

habitats. California Cooperative Fisheries Investigation 21:37-47. 

Horn, M.H. and L.G. Allen. 1981. Ecology of fishes in upper Newport Bay, California: seasonal 

dynamics and community structure. California Fish and Game 45:101. 

Johnson, J.M. 1999. Fish Use of a Southern California Salt Marsh. M.S. Thesis, San Diego State 

University, CA. 

Kalmijn, A.J. 1988. “Hydrodynamic and acoustic field detection.” In Sensory Biology of Aquatic 

Animals, eds. A. Atema, R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper, and W.N. Tavolga, 83-130. New York: 

Springer-Verlag. 

Kalmijn, A.J. 1989. “Functional evolution of lateral line and inner ear sensory systems.” In: The 

mechanosensory lateral line - Neurobiology and evolution, eds. S. Coombs, P. Görner, 

and M. Münz, 187-215. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 

Kramer, S.H. 1990. Distribution and Abundance of Juvenile California Halibut, (Paralichtys 

californicus), in Shallow Waters of San Diego County. In The California Halibut, 

Parlichtys californicus, Resource and Fisheries. C.W. Haugen, ed. 99–152. Fish Bull. 174 

California Department of Fish and Game. 

Ladich F. and A. H. Bass. 2003. Underwater sound generation and acoustic reception in fishes 

with some notes on frogs. Pages 173-193 in Collin, S.P. and N.J. Marshall (editors), 

Sensory Processing in Aquatic Environments. Springer-Verlag, New York. 

Lockheed Center for Marine Research (Lockheed). 1979. Biological Reconnaissance of Selected 

Sites of San Diego Bay. Prepared for San Diego Unified Port District, Environmental 

Management. 

REFERENCES 8-10

3.8 Fish 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Love, M.S., J.S. Stephens, Jr., P.A. Morris, M.M. Singer, M. Sandhy, and T.C. Sciarrotta. 1986. 

Inshore soft substrata fishes in the Southern California Bight: an overview. Calif. Coop. 

Oceanic Fish. Invest. Rep. 27:84–104. 

Macdonald, K.B., R.F. Ford, E.B. Copper, P. Unitt, and J.P.Haltiner. 1990. South San Diego Bay 

Enhancement Plan, vol. 1, Bay History, Physical Environment and Marine Ecological 

Characterization, vol. 2, Resources Atlas: Birds of San Diego Bay, vol. 3, Enhancement 

Plan, vol. 4, Data Summaries. Published by San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego, 

CA and California State Coastal Conservancy. 

Mann, D. A., D. M. Higgs, W. N. Tavolga, M. J. Souza, and A. N. Popper 2001. Ultrasound 

detection by clupeiform fishes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109:3048-3054. 

McCauley RD, Fewtrell J, Popper AN. 2003. High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish 

ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113 (1): 638-642. 

Merkel & Associates, Inc., Science Applications International Corporation, and Kawasaki 

Theilacker Ueno + Associates. 2002. Habitat Classification for: Inventory and Evaluation 

of Habitats and Other Environmental Resources in San Diego Region’s Nearshore 

Coastal Zone. Technical Memorandum No. 3 March 12, 2002. Prepared for California 

Coastal Conservancy and San Diego Association of Governments. 

Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2002. Foraging behavior of the California least tern adjacent to piers in 

San Diego Bay. Prepared for SWDIV NAVFACENGCOM, Contract No. N68711-97-D8814, Delivery order No. 0014. Merkel & Associates, San Diego, CA. 

Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2008, Characterization of Essential Fish Habitat in San Diego Bay, 

PHASE II: Qualitative Habitat Characterization and Mapping Report, In Prep. 

Murray, S.N. and M.M. Littler. 1981. Biogeographical Analysis of Intertidal Macrophyte Floras 

of Southern California. Journal of Biogeography 8(5): 339-351. 

NSWC/Anteon Corp., Inc., 2005. Very shallow water explosion tests at Naval Amphibious Base, 

Coronado, CA and San Clemente Island, CA: Conditions, results, and model predictions. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 1998. Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery 

Management Plan. Portland, OR. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2004. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan. Portland, OR. 

Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 2005. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management 

Plan: Amendment 19. Portland, OR. 

Pearson, W. J., J. R. Skalski, and C. I. Malme 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey 

device on behaviour of captive rockfish (Sebastes sp.). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 

1343.1356. 

Pinkas, L., M.S. Oliphant, and I.L.K. Iverson, eds. 1971. Food habitats of albacore, bluefin tuna, 

and bonito in California waters. California Department Fish and Game Bull. No. 152. 

Pondella, D., J. Froeschke, and B. Young. 2006. Fisheries Inventory and Utilization of San Diego 

Bay, San Diego, California for Surveys Conducted in April and July 2005. Vantuna 

Research Group. 

Popper AN.1980. Scanning electron microscopic study of the sacculus and lagena in several 

deep-sea fishes. The American Journal of Anatomy157:115-136 

Popper, A. N. 2003. Effects of anthropogenic sounds on fishes. Fisheries 28(10): 24-31. 

REFERENCES 8-11

3.8 Fish 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Popper, A. N., M. E. Smith, P. A. Cott, B. W. Hanna, A. O. MacGillivray, M. E. Austin, and D. 

A. Mann. 2005. Effects of exposure to seismic airgun use on hearing of three fish species. 

J. Acoust. Soc. Am, 117:3958-3971. 

Richardson, W. J., C. R. J. Green, C. I. Malme and D. H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and 

Noise. San Diego, CA, Academic Press, London. 

Scholik, A. R., and H. Y. Yan. 2002. The effects of noise on the auditory sensitivity of the 

bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. Comp. Biochem. Phys. A 133, 43-52. 

Schwartz, A.L., G.L. Greer. 1984. Responses of Pacific herring, Clupea harengus pallasi, to some 

underwater sounds. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 41:1183-1192. 

Skalski, J. R., W.H. Pearson, and C. I. Malme. 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey 

device on catch-per-unit-effort in a hook-and-line fishery for rockfish (Sebastes spp.). 

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 1357.1365. 

Takahashi, E. 1992a. Invertebrate communities associated with natural and transplanted eelgrass 

(Zostera marina) beds in San Diego Bay, California. M.S. Thesis, San Diego State 

University, San Diego, CA. 

Tierra Data Inc. 2006. Evaluation of Bathymetry, Substrate and Biological Communities of the 

Outer San Diego Bay, Naval Base Coronado. Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command Southwest, December 2006. 

U.S. Air Force. 1999. Final Environmental Assessment, Search and Rescue Training, HH-60 And 

HC-130 Rescue Squadrons, Moody AFB, Georgia. United States Air Force, Headquarters 

Air Combat Command. 

U. S. Department of the Navy; Navy Region Southwest; Natural Resources Office (DoN). 2000. 

San Diego Bay Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. 

Vantuna Research Group (VRG). 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. 

Wysocki, L.E., Ladich, F., 2005. Effects of noise exposure on click detection and the temporal 

resolution ability of the goldfish auditory system. Hear. Res. 201, 27–36. 

Yelverton JT, DR Richmond, ER Fletcher, RK Jones. 1973. Safe distances from underwater 

explosions for mammals and birds. Report by Lovelace Foundation for Medical 

Education and Research, Albuquerque, NM, for Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, 

DC. Report No. 3114T. 72 p. 

Yelverton JT, Richmond DR, Hicks W, Saunders K, Fletcher ER. 1975. “The relationship 

between fish size and their response to underwater blast.” Report DNA 3677T prepared 

by Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research for Director, Defense 

Nuclear Agency, Washington, DC. 

Yelverton, J.T. 1981, Underwater Explosion Damage Risk Criteria for Fish, Birds, and Mammals, 

Manuscript, presented at 102nd Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Miami 

Beach, FL, December, 1982. 32pp. 

Young, G. A. 1991. Concise methods for predicting the effects of underwater explosions on 

marine life. NAVSWC NO 91-220. Naval Surface Warfare Center. Silver Spring, MD. 

REFERENCES 8-12

3.8 Fish 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Zelick, R.D., Mann D., Popper, A.N. 1997, Acoustic Communication in Fishes and Frogs, 

Chapter 1, Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians, Springer Handbook of Auditory 

Research, Fay RR, Popper AN, Eds, Springer-Verlag, New York, (in press) 

CHAPTER 3.9 MARINE MAMMALS

Ahroon, W. A., Hamernik, R. P., and Sheau-Fang, L. 1996. The effects of reverberant blast waves 

on the auditory system, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 100, 2247–2257. 

Allen, L.G., D.J. Pondella, and M.H. Horn. 2006. The Ecology of Marine Fishes, California and 

Adjacent Waters. University of California Press, Los Angeles, pp 119-155. 

Angliss, R.P. and R.B. Outlaw. 2008. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 2007. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-180:1-252. 

Au, W.W.L., 1993. The sonar of dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York. 277 pp. 

Ballance, L. T., R. L. Pitman, and P. C. Fiedler. 2006. Oceanographic influences on seabirds and 

cetaceans of the eastern tropical Pacific: a review. Progr. Oceanogr. 69:360-390. 

Barlow, J. 1995. The abundance of cetaceans in th California waters. Part I: Ship surveys in 

summer and fall of 1991. Fishery Bulletin. 93:1-14. 

Barlow, J. 1999. Trackline detection probability for long-diving whales. Pages 209-221 in G.W. 

Garner, S.C. Amstrup, J.L. Laake, B.F.J. Manly, L.L. McDonald, and D.G. Robertson, 

eds. Marine mammal survey and assessment methods. Brookfield, Vermont: A.A. 

Balkema. 

Barlow J, Gerrodette T and J. Forcada, 2001. Factors affecting perpendicular sighting distances 

on shipboard line-transect surveys for cetaceans. Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management 3:201-212. 

Barlow, J. and K.A. Forney. 2007. Abundance and population density of cetaceans in the 

California Current ecosystem. Fisheries Bulletin. 105:509–526. 

Bearzi, M., C.A. Saylan, and A. Hwang. 2009. Ecology and comparison of coastal and offshore 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in California. Marine and Freshwater Research 

60:584-593. 

Bejarano, A.C.,F.M. Gulland,T. Goldstein, J. St Leger,M. Hunter, L.H. Schwacke, F.M. 

VanDolah, T.K. Rowles. 2008. Demographics and spatio-temporal signature of the 

biotoxin domoic acid in California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) stranding records. 

Marine Mammal Science 24(4):899-912. 

Bejder, L. et al. (2006). Decline in relative abundance of bottlenose dolphins exposed to longterm disturbance. Conservation Biology 20(6): 1791-1798. 

Benson, S.R., D.A. Croll, B.B. Marinovic, F.P. Chavez & J.T. Harvey. 2002. Changes in the 

cetacean assemblage of a coastal upwelling ecosystem during El Nino 1997-98 and La 

Nina 1999. Progress in Oceanography. 54:279-291. 

Bester MN, Ferguson JWL, FC Jonker, 2002. Population densities of pack ice seals in the. 

Lazarev Sea, Antarctica. Antarctic Science 14:123-127 

Bigg M.A., 1981. Harbour seal Phoca vitulina L., 1758 and Phoca larga P., 1911. In: Ridgway 

SH, Harrison RJ, editors. Handbook of marine mammals, vol. 2. seals. London: 

Academic Press, p. 1-26. 

REFERENCES 8-13

3.8 Fish 3.9 Marine Mammals 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Bjørgesæter, A., K.I. Ugland, and A. Bjørge. 2004. Geographic variation and acoustic structure of 

the underwater vocalization of harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) in Norway, Sweden and 

Scotland. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 116(4):2459-2468. 

Blackwell, S.B. and C.R. Greene, Jr., 2005. Underwater and in-air sounds from a small 

hovercraft. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118(6):3646-3652. 

Bodson, A. L. Miersch, B. Mauck, and G. Dehnhardt. 2006. Underwater auditory localization by 

a swimming harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 

120(3):1550-1557. 

Bonnell, M.L. and Dailey, M.D. 1993. Marine Mammals. pp. 604-81. In: M.D. Dailey, D.J. Reish 

and J.W. Anderson (eds.) Ecology of the Southern California Bight. University of 

California, Berkeley, CA. 

Bonnell, M.L. and R.G. Ford, 1987. California Sea Lion Distribution: A Statistical Analysis of 

Aerial Transect Data. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 51(1): 13-20. 

Bowen, W. D., S. J. Iverson, J. I. McMillan, and D. J. Boness. 2006. Reproductive performance 

in grey seals: age-related improvement and senescence in a capital breeder. J. Anim. 

Ecology 75: 1340-1351. 

Braham, H.W., 1984. Distribution and migration. In: Jones, M.L., Swartz, S.L., and Leatherwood, 

S., eds. The gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus. San Diego, California: Academic Press. 

249-266. 

Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P and Laake, J.L. (1993). Distance sampling: 

Estimating abundance of biological populations. New York: Chapman and Hall. 

Calambokidis, J., G.H. Steiger, and J.C. Cubbage. 1987. Marine mammals in the southwestern 

Strait of Juan de Fuca: Natural history and potential impacts of harbor development in 

Neah Bay. Contract number DACW67-85-M-0046. Prepared for Seattle District Army 

Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington by Cascadia Research Collective, Olympia, 

Washington. 

Calambokidis, J., G.H. Steiger, K. Rasmussen, J. Urban R., K.C. Balcomb, P. L. de Guevara P., 

M. Salinas Z., J.K. Jacobsen, C.S. Baker, L.M. Herman, S. Cerchio and J.D. Darling. 

2000. Migratory destinations of humpback whales that feed off California, Oregon and 

Washington. Marine Ecology Progress Series 192:295-304. 

Calambokidis, J., J.D. Darling, V. Deecke, P. Gearin, M. Gosho, W. Megill, C.M. Tomback, D. 

Goley, C. Toropova, and B. Gisborne. 2002. Abundance, range and movements of a 

feeding aggregation of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) from California to 

southeastern Alaska in 1998. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 4(3):267-276. 

Calambokidis, J., R. Lumper, J. Laake, M. Gosho, and P. Gearin. 2004. “Gray Whale 

Photographic Identification in 1998-2003: Collaborative Research in the Pacific 

Northwest.” Final report prepared for National Marine Mammal Laboratory. Available 

from www.cascadiaresearch.org. 

Carretta, J.V., M.S. Lowry, C.E. Stinchcomb, M.S. Lynn, and R.E. Cosgrove, 2000. Distribution 

and abundance of marine mammals at San Clemente Island and surrounding offshore 

waters: Results from aerial and ground surveys in 1998 and 1999. Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center Administrative Report LJ-00-02. La Jolla, California: National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

REFERENCES 8-14

3.9 Marine Mammals
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, M.M. Muto, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson, and M.S. Lowry, 2007. 

U.S. Pacific marine mammal stock assessments: 2006. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-398. 

321 pp. 

Carretta, J.V., K. A. Forney, M. S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. Baker, D. Johnston, B. Hanson, and M. 

M. Muto, 2008. U.S. Pacific marine mammal stock assessments: 2008. 179 pp. 

Clarke R. 1956. Sperm whales off the Azores. 'Discovery' Rep 28:239-298 

Committee on Potential Impacts of Ambient Noise in the Ocean and Marine Mammals and NRC 

2003. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. National Academies Presss. Washington D.C., 

204. 

Costa, D.P., B.A. Block, S. J. Bograd, and F. D. Schwing 2007. Understanding Apex Predator 

and Pelagic Fish Habitat Utilization in the California Current System By Integrating 

Animal Tracking With In Situ Oceanographoic Observations. Award Number: N00014-

05-1-0045 http:// www.topp.org. 

Crane, L.N. and K. Lashkari, 1996. Sound production of gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, 

along their migration: A new approach to signal analysis. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America, 100: 1878–1886. 

Cummings, W.C. and P.O. Thompson, 1971. Underwater sounds from blue whale, Balaenoptera 

musculus. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 50(4, Pt. 2): 1193-1198. 

Cummings, W.C., Thompson, P.O. and R. Cook, 1968. Underwater sounds of migrating gray 

whales, Eschrichtius glaucus (Cope). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 44(5): 

1278-1281. 

Dalheim, M.E. and D.K. Ljungblad, 1990. Preliminary hearing study on gray whales Eschrictius 

robustus in the field. In Sensory Abilities of Cetaceans. Laboratory and Field Evidence 

(ed. J.A. Thomas and R.A. Kastelein), pp. 335-346.Plenum Press, New York. 710pp. 

Dahlheim, M.E., H.D. Fisher, and J.D. Schempp. 1984. Sound production by the gray whale and 

ambient noise levels in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Pages 511-541 

in M. L. Jones, Steven L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood, editors. The gray whale.Academic 

Press, New York. 

David L. 2002. Disturbance to Mediterranean cetaceans caused by vessel traffic. In: G. 

Notarbartolo di Sciara (Ed.), Cetaceans of the Mediterranean and Black Seas: state of 

knowledge and conservation strategies. A report to the ACCOBAMS Secretariat, 

Monaco, February 2002. Section 11, 21 pp. 

Deane, G.B. 1997. Sound generation and air entrainment by breaking waves in the surf zone. 

Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 2671-2689. 

Deane, G.B. 2000. Long time-based observations of surf noise. Journal of the Acoustic Society of 

America 107(2):758-770. 

Defran, R.H. and D.W. Weller, 1999. Occurrence, distribution, site fidelity, and school size of 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) off San Diego, California. Marine Mammal 

Science 15:355–380. 

Defran, R.H., D.W. Weller, D.L. Kelly, and M.A. Espinosa, 1999. Range characteristics of 

Pacific coast bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Southern California Bight. 

Marine Mammal Science 15:381–393 

Dudzik, K.J., K.M. Baker, and D.W. Weller. 2006. Mark-recapture abundance estimate of 

California coastal stock bottlenose dolphins: February 2004 to April 2005. SWFSC 

REFERENCES 8-15

3.9 Marine Mammals
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Administrative Report LJ-06-02C, available from Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 

8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037. 15p. 

Eguchi, R. and J.T. Harvey. 2005. Diving behavior of the Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina 

richardii) in Monterey Bay, California. Marine Mammal Science 21(2):283-295. 

Eller, A. and R. Cavanaugh, 2000. Subsonic Aircraft Noise at and Beneath the Ocean Surface: 

Estimation of Risk for Effects on Marine Mammals.Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA, June 2000. 

Elsayed, N.M. (1997). Toxicology of blast overpressure. Toxicology 121, 1–15. 

Elsayed, N.M., and Gorbunov, N.V. (2007). Pulmonary biochemical and histological alterations 

after repeated low-level blast overpressure exposures. Toxicol. Sci. 95, 289–296. 

Etnoyer, P., D. Canny, B. Mate, L. Morgan, J. Ortega-Otiz and W. Nichols. 2006. Sea-surface 

temperature gradients across blue whale and sea turtle foraging trajectories off the Baja 

California Peninsula, Mexico. Deep-Sea Research II. 43: 340-358. 

Feldkamp, S.D., R.L. DeLong, and G.A. Antonelis, 1989. Diving patterns of California sea lions, 

Zalophus californianus. Can. J. Zool. 67:872-883. 

Ferguson, M.C., and J. Barlow. 2001. Spatial distribution and density of cetaceans in the eastern 

tropical Pacific Ocean based on summer/fall research vessel surveys in 1986-1996. 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report LJ-01-04. La Jolla, California: 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Ferguson, M. C., J. Barlow, P. Fiedler, S. B. Reilly, and T. Gerrodette. 2006. Spatial models of 

delphinid (Family delphinidae) encounter rate and school size in the eastern tropical 

Pacific Ocean. Ecological Modeling 193:645–662. 

Finneran, J.J. and D.S. Houser. 2006. Comparison of in-air evoked potential and underwater 

behavioral hearing thresholds in four bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Journal of 

the Acoustical Society of America 119: 3181-3192. 

Finneran, J. J. and D.S. Houser. 2007. Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) steady-state 

evoked responses to multiple simultaneous sinusoidal amplitude modulated tones. 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 121: 1775-1782.

Finneran, J. J., and C.E. Schlundt, 2004. Effects of intense pure tones on the behavior of trained 

odontocetes. TR 1913, SSC San Diego, San Diego, CA. 

Finneran, J.J., R. Dear, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway, 2002. Temporary shift in masked hearing 

thresholds in odontocetes after exposure to single underwater impulses from a seismic 

watergun. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 111:2929-2940. 

Finneran, J.J., R. Dear, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2003. Auditory and behavioral responses 

of California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) to single underwater impulses from an 

arc-gap transducer. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 114(3):1667-16. 

Finneran, J. J., D. A. Carder, C. E. Schlundt, and S. H. Ridgway, 2005. Temporary threshold shift 

(TTS) in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to mid-frequency tones," J. 

Acoust. Soc. Am. 118, 2696-2705. 

Finneran, J. J., C. E. Schlundt, B. Branstetter, and R. L. Dear. 2007. Assessing temporary 

threshold shift in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) using multiple simultaneous 

auditory evoked potentials. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122:1249–1264. 

REFERENCES 8-16

3.9 Marine Mammals
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Forcada, J. 2002. Distribution. Pages 327-333 in W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, 

eds. Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San Diego: Academic Press. 

Forney, K. A. 2000. Environmental models of cetacean abundance: reducing uncertainty in 

population trends. Conserv. Biol. 14(5):1271-1286. 

Gailey, G., B. Würsig, and T.L. McDonald. 2007. Abundance, behavior, and movement patterns 

of western gray whales in relation to a 3-D seismic survey, Northeast Sakhalin Island, 

Russia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 134(1-3):75-91. doi: 10.1007/s10661-

007-9812-1. 

Gaspin, J.B. 1983. Safe swimmer ranges from bottom explosions. Naval Surface Weapons 

Center, White Oak Lab, Def. Tech. Info. Cent., Silver Spring, MD. NSWC/WOL.TR-83-

84. 

Gjertz, I. and A. Børset. 1992. Pupping in the most northerly harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). Marine 

Mammal. Science 8:103-109. 

Goertner, J.F., 1982. Prediction of underwater explosion safe ranges for sea mammals. 

NSWC/WOL TR-82-188. Naval Surface Weapons Center, White Oak Laboratory, Silver 

Spring, MD. 25 pp. 

Goldstein, T., J. A. K. Mazet, T. S. Zabka,G. Langlois, K.M. Colegrove, M. Silver, S. Bargu, F. 

Van Dolah, T. Leighfield, P. A. Conrad, J. Barakos, D. C. Williams, S. Dennison, M. 

Haulena, and F. M. D. Gulland. 2008. Novel symptomatology and changing 

epidemiology of domoic acid toxicosis in California sea lions (Zalophus californianus): 

an increasing risk to marine mammal health. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 

275:267-276. 

Goldstein, T., T.S. Zabka, R.L. DeLong, E.A. Wheeler, G. Ylitalo, S. Bargu, M.Silver, T. 

Leighfield, F. Van Dolah, G. Langlois, I. Sidor, J. L. Dunn, and F.M. D. Gulland. 2009. 

The role of domoic acid in abortion and premature parturition of California sea lions 

(Zalophus californianus) on San Miguel Island, California. Journal of Wildlife Disease 

451(1):91-108. 

Grigg, E.K., A.P. Klimley. S.G. Allen, D.E. Green, D.L. Elliott-Fisk, and H. Markowitz. 2009. 

Spatial and seasonal relationships between Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) 

and their prey, at multiple scales. Fisheries Bulletin 107:359-372. 

Hamernik, R. P., Turrentine, G., Roberto, M., Salvi, R., & D. Henderson, 1984. Anatomical 

correlates of impulse noiseinduced mechanical damage in the cochlea. Hearing Research, 

13, 229–247. 

Hanan, D. A. 1996. Dynamics of Abundance and Distribution for Pacific Harbor Seal, Phoca 

vitulina richardsi, on the Coast of California. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of 

California, Los Angeles. 158pp. 

Hanggi, E.B., and R.J. Schusterman, 1994. Underwater acoustic displays and individual variation 

in male harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). Animal Behaviour, 48, 1275-1283. 

Hansen, L. J., 1990. California coastal bottlenose dolphins. In: S. Leatherwood and R.R. Reeves 

(eds.), The Bottlenose Dolphin, p. 403-420. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego. 

Hansen, M.T., and R.H. Defran, 1993. The behavior and feeding ecology of the Pacific coast 

bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus. Aquatic Mammals. 19:127-142. 

REFERENCES 8-17

3.9 Marine Mammals
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Harvey, J.T. and B.R. Mate. 1984. Dive characteristics and movements of radio-tagged gray 

whales in San Ignacio Lagoon, Baja California Sur, Mexico. In: The Gray Whale M.L. 

Jones, S. Swartz and S. Leatherwood (eds.), Academic Press, pp. 561-575. 

Hastie, G.D., B. Wilson and P.M. Thompson. 2005. Diving deep in a foraging hotspot: acoustic 

insights into bottlenose dolphin dive depths and feeding behaviour. Marine Biology. 

148:1181-1188. 

Hastings, M. C. and A. N. Popper. 2005. Effects of sound on fish. California Department of 

Transportation Contract 43A0139 Task Order, 1. 

Heath, C.B., 2002. California, Galapagos, and Japanese sea lions Zalophus californianus, Z. 

wollebaeki, and Z. japonicus. Pp. 180-186 in W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig, and J. G. M. 

Thiewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of marine mammals. Academic Press. 

Heitmeyer, R. M., S.C. Wales, and L.A. Pflug. 2004.Shipping noise predictions: capabilities and 

limitations. Marine Technology Society Journal 37:54–65. 

Hewitt, R.P. 1985. Reaction of dolphins to a survey vessel: effects on census data. Fishery 

Bulletin 83(2):187-193. 

Hickey, B.M. 1993. Physical Oceanography. Chapter 2 in Ecology of the Southern California 

Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation. M.D. Dailey, D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson, eds. 

Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Hildebrand, J. 2005. Impacts of Anthropogenic Sound. Pp. 101-123. IN: J.E. Reynolds II, W.F. 

Perrin, R.R. Reeves, S. Montgomery, and T.J. Ragen, eds. Marine Mammal ResearchConservation beyond Crisis. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore MD. 

Hildebrand, J. 2009. Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series. 395:5-20. 

Holcomb, K, J.K. Young, and L.R. Gerber. 2009. The influence of human disturbance on 

California sea lions during the breeding season. Animal Conservation 12:592-598. 

Hoover, A. A. 1988. Harbor seal. Pp. 125-157 In J. W. Lentfer (ed.), Selected marine mammals 

of Alaska: Species accounts with research and management recommendations. Marine 

Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 

Huber, H. R. 1991. Changes in the distribution of California sea lions north of the breeding 

rookeries during the 1982-83 El Nino. In Pinnipeds and El Nino: responses to 

environmental stress (F. Trillmich and K. A. Ono, eds.) p. 129-137. Springer-Verlag, 

Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany. 

Jehl, J.R., and C.F. Cooper, eds. 1980. Potential effects of space shuttle booms on the biota and 

geology of the California Channel Islands: research reports. Center for Marine Studies, 

San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, Tech. Rep. 80-1. 246 pp. 

Jones, M.L. and S.L. Swartz. 2002. Gray Whale, Eschrichtius robustus. In: Encyclopedia of 

Marine Mammals. Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds). Academic 

Press, San Diego. Pp. 524-536. 

Kastak, D., and R.J. Schusterman, 1998. Low-frequency amphibious hearing in pinnipeds: 

methods, measurements, noise, and ecology. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America. 103:2216-2228. 

Kastak, D., and R.J. Schusterman, 2002 Changes in auditory sensitivity with depth in a freediving California sea lion (Zalophus californianus). Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America, 112:329-333. 

REFERENCES 8-18

3.9 Marine Mammals
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Kastelein, R.A., P. Wensveen, and L. Hoek. 2009. Underwater hearing sensitivity of harbor seals 

(Phoca vitulina) for narrow noise bands between 0.2 and 80 kHz. Journal of the Acoustic 

Society of America 126(1):476-483. 

Ketten, D.R., 1992. The marine mammal ear: Specializations for aquatic audition and 

echolocation. Pages 717-750 in D. Webster, R. Fay, and A. Popper, eds. The evolutionary 

biology of hearing. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 

Ketten, D.R., 1998. Marine mammal auditory systems: A summary of audiometric and 

anatomical data and its implications for underwater acoustic impacts. NOAA-TMNMFS-SWFSC-256, Department of Commerce. 

Kryter K, Ward WD, Miller JD, 1966. Hazardous exposure to intermittent and. steady state noise. 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 393:451–464. 

Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions between 

ships and whales. Marine Mammal Science 17(1): 35-75. 

Laney, H. and R. Cavanaugh, 2000. Supersonic Aircraft Noise at and Beneath the Ocean Surface: 

Estimation of Risk for Effects on Marine Mammals.Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA, June 2000. 

Largier, J.L. 1995. San Diego Bay circulation--A study of the ciruclation of water in San Diego 

Bay for the purpose of assessing, monitoring and managing the transport and potential 

accumulation of pollutants and sediment in San Diego Bay. Final report. Interagency 

Agreement # 1-188-190-0. Prepared for the California State Water Resources Control 

Board and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. 

Largier, J. L., C. J. Hearn, and D. B. Chadwick .1996. Density Structures in "Low Inflow 

Estuaries," in Buoyancy Effects on Coastal Esturine Dynamics Coastal Esturine 

Stud., vol. 53, edited by D. G. Aubrey and C. T. Friedrichs, pp 227-242, 

American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. 

Leatherwood, J.S. 1974. Aerial Observations of Migrating Gray Whales (Eschrichtius robustus) 

off Southern California, 1969-1972. Mar. Fish. Rev. 36(4):45-49. 

Leatherwood S., R.R. Reeves, W.F. Perrin, and W.E. Evans. 1982. Whales, dolphins and 

porpoises of the eastern North Pacific and adjacent Arctic waters. NOAA technical report 

NMFS Circular, 444: 1-245. 

Leatherwood, S., R.R. Reeves, W.F. Perrin, and W.E. Evans. 1988. Whales, dolphins, and 

porpoises of the eastern North Pacific and adjacent Arctic waters: A guide to their 

identification. New York, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 

Le Boeuf, B. J.; Crocker, D. E.; Blackwell, S. B.; Morris, P. A. and Thorson, P. H. (1993), Sex 

differences in diving and foraging behaviour of northern elephant seals. Symposium of 

the Zoological Society, London, 66, 149-178. 

Lefebvre, K.A., C.L. Powell, M. Busman, G.J. Doucette, P.D.R. Moeller, J. B. Silver, P.E. Miller, 

M.P. Hughes, S. Singaram, M.W. Silver, R.S. Tjeerdema. 1999. Detection of domoic acid 

in northern anchovies and California sea lions associated with an unusual mortality event. 

Natural Toxins 7(3):85-92. 

Lowry, M.S., 2002. Counts of northern elephant seals at rookeries in the Southern California 

Bight, 1981-2001. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-345, 68 pp. 

Lowry, M.S., J.V. Carretta, and K.A. Forney, 2005. Pacific harbor seal, Phoca vitulina richardsi, 

census in California during May - July 2004. Administrative Report LJ-05-06, available 

REFERENCES 8-19

3.9 Marine Mammals
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

from Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 

92037. 38 p 

Lowry, M.S., J.V. Carretta, and K.A. Forney. 2008. Pacific harbor seal census in California 

during May-July 2002 and 2004. California Fish and Game 94(4):180-193. 

Lowry, M. S. and J. V. Carretta, 2003. Pacific harbor seal, Phoca vitulina richardii, census in 

California during May-July 2002. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSNOAA-TMNMFS-SWFSC-353. 48p. 

Lowry, M.S., P. Boveng, R.J. DeLong, C.W. Oliver, B.S. Stewart, H. DeAnda and J. Barlow, 

1992. Status of the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus californianus) population 

in 1992. Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report LJ-92-32. 34 pp. 

Available from Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries, 8604 La Jolla 

Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037. 

MacDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand, S.M. Wiggins, and D. Ross. 2009. A 50 Year comparison of 

ambient ocean noise near San Clemente Island: A bathymetrically complex coastal region 

off Southern California. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 124(4):1985-1992. 

Malcolm, C.D. and D.A. Duffus, 2000. Subjective and statistical analysis of dive data from a 

TDR attached to a gray whale (Eschrichitius robustus). Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management. 2(3):177-182. 

Malcolm, C.D., D.A. Duffus, and S.G. Wischniowski, 1996. Small scale behavior of large scale 

subjects: diving behavior of a gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). West. Geogr. 5/6:35–

44. 

Malme, C.I., Miles, B. Wursig, J.E. Bird, and P. Tyack, 1986. Behavioral responses of gray 

whales to industrial noise: Feeding observations and predictive modeling. BBN Report 

6265, Report from BBN Laboratories Inc.. Cambridge, MA for US National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration and US Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, AK. 

Mate, B. R. and J. Urban-Ramirez. 2003. A note on the route and speed of a gray whale on its 

northern migration from Mexico to central California, tracked by satellite-monitored 

radio tag. Journal of Cetacean Research Management 5:155-157. 

McDonald, M.A., J.A Hildebrand, and S.M. Wiggins. 2006. Increases in deep ocean 

ambient noise in the Northeast Pacific west of San Nicolas Island, California. 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 120:711-718. 

Melin, S.R., R.L. Delong, J.R. Thomason, G.R. Vanblaricom, 2000. Attendance patterns of 

California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) females and pups during the non-breeding 

season at San Miguel Island. Marine Mammal Science 16 (1), 169–185. 

Melin S. R., R. L. DeLong, and D. B. Siniff. 2008. The effects of El Niño on the foraging 

behavior of lactating California sea lions (Zalophus californianus californianus) during 

the nonbreeding season Canadian Journal of Zoology 86(3):192-206. 

Miller, J.D. 1974. Effects of noise on people. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 

56:729–764. 

Moochhala, S.M., Md, S., Lu, J., Teng, C.H., and C. Greengrass, 2004. Neuroprotective role of 

aminoguanidine in behavioral changes after blast injury. J. Trauma 56, 393–403. 

Moore, S.E. and J.T. Clarke, 2002. Potential impact of offshore human activities on gray whales. 

J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 4(1): 19-25. 

REFERENCES 8-20

3.9 Marine Mammals
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Moore, S.E, W.L. Perryman, F. Gulland, H. Perez-Cortez, P.R. Wade, L. Rojas-Bracho and T. 

Rowles. 2001. Are gray whales hitting “K” hard? Marine Mammal Science 17(4):954-

958. 

Moore, S.E., K.M. Wynne, J. Clement-Kinney and J.M. Grebmeir. 2007. Gray whale occurrence 

and forage southeast of Kodiak Island, Alaska. Marine Mammal Science 23(2):419–

428. 

Murray, S.N. and M.M. Littler, 1981. Biogeographical analysis of intertidal macrophyte floras of 

southern California. Journal of Biogeography. 8: 339-351. 

Nachtigall, P.E., D.W. Lemonds, and H.L. Roitblat, 2000. Psychoacoustic studies of dolphins and 

whales in Hearing by Dolphins and Whales, W.W.L. Au, A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay, eds. 

Springer, New York. Pp. 330-363. 

Nachtigall, P.E., J.L. Pawloski, and W.W.L. Au, 2003. Temporary threshold shift and recovery 

following noise exposure in the Atlantic bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 113:3425-3429. 

Nachtigall, P.E., A. Supin, J.L. Pawloski, and W.W.L. Au, 2004. Temporary threshold shift after 

noise exposure in bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) measured using evoked 

auditory potential. Marine Mammal Science. 20:673-687. 

NCCOS. 2005. A Biological Assessment of the Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary- A 

Review of Boundary Expansion Concepts for NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuary 

Program. Prepared by NCCOS’s Biogeographic Team in cooperation with the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Program, Silver Springs, MD. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS 

NCCOSS 21. 215 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2001. Interim Findings on the Stranding of Beaked 

Whales in the Bahamas–December 20, 2001. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/bahamasbeakedwhales. htm. Accessed January 24, 2007. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2009a. 74FR1456 (Final Rule- Taking and Importing 

Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy Training in the Hawaii Range Complex, 12 Jan 2009). 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2009b. 74FR3882 (Final Rule- Taking and Importing 

Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy Training in the Southern California Range Complex 21 Jan 

2009) 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2000. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to 

specified activities; marine seismic-reflection data collection in southern 

California/Notice of receipt of application. Fed. Regist. 65(60, 28 Mar.):16374-16379. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Ocean noise and marine mammals. The National 

Academic Press, Washington D.C. 208 pp. 

NRC. 2005. Marine mammal populations and ocean noise, determining when noise causes 

biologically significant effects. The National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

NSWC/Anteon Corp., Inc., 2005. Very shallow water explosion tests at Naval Amphibious Base, 

Coronado, CA and San Clemente Island, CA: Conditions, results, and model predictions. 

Norris, K.S., and J.H. Prescott, 1961. Observations on Pacific cetaceans of Californian and 

Mexican waters. University of California Publications in Zoology. 63:291-402. 

REFERENCES 8-21

3.9 Marine Mammals
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Patenaude, N. J., W.J. Richardson, M.A. Smultea, W.R. Koski, G.W. Miller, B. Wursig, and C.R. 

Greene. 2002. Aircraft sound and disturbance to bowhead and beluga whales during 

spring migration I the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Marine Mammal Science 18(2):309-335. 

Perryman, W. L., Donahue, M.A., Laake, J.L., and Martin, T.E. 1999. Diel variation in migration 

rates of eastern Pacific gray whales measured with thermal imaging sensors. Mar. 

Mammal Sci. 15: 426-445. 

Poole, M. M. 1984. Migration corridors of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) along the central 

California coast, 1980-82. Pages 389-407 in M. L. Jones, S. L. Swartz and S. 

Leatherwood, eds. The gray whale. Academic Press, New York, NY. 

Poole, M. 1984. Preliminary assessment of annual calf production in the gray whale, Eschrichtius 

robustus from Pt. Piedras Blancas, California. Reports of the International Whaling 

Commission (Special Issue 6):221-231. 

Quaranta, A., P. Portalatini, and D. Henderson. 1998. Temporary and permanent 

threshold shift: An overview. Scandinavian Audiology. 27:75–86. 

Redfern, J.V., M.C. Ferguson, E.A. Becker, K.D. Hyrenbach, C. Good, J. Barlow, K. Kaschner, 

M.F. Baumgartner, K.A. Forney, L.T. Ballance, P. Fauchald, P. Halpin, T. Hamazaki, 

A.J. Pershing, S. S. Qian, A. Read, S.B. Reilly, L. Torres, F. Werner. 2006. Techniques 

for cetacean–habitat modeling. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 310:271–295. 

Reeves, R.R., B.S. Stewart, P.J. Clapham, and J.A. Powell, 2002. National Audubon Society 

guide to marine mammals of the world. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 

Reichmuth, C. 2008. Hearing in marine carnivores. Bioacoustics 17:89-92. 

Rice, D.W. and Wolman, A.A. 1971. The Life History and Ecology ofthe Gray Whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus). American Society of Mammalogists, Special Publication No. 3, 

Stillwater, Oklahoma, 142pp. 

Rice, D. W., A. A. Wolman, D. E. Withrow and L. A. Fleischer. 1981. Gray whales in the winter 

grounds in Baja California. Report of the International Whaling Commission 31: 477–

493. 

Richardson, W.J. and Malme, B. 1995. Zones of Noise Influence. In: Richardson et al. (eds). 

Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. p325. 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thompson, 1995. Marine mammals 

and noise. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc. 

Ridgway, S.H., 2000. The auditory central nervous system. Pages 273-293 in W.W.L. Au, A.N. 

Popper, and R.R. Fay, eds. Hearing by whales and dolphins. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Ridgway, S.H., B.L. Scronce, and J. Kanwisher, 1969. Respiration and deep diving in the 

bottlenose porpoise. Science. 166:1651-1654. 

Ridgway, S.H., D.A. Carder, R.R. Smith, T. Kamolnick, C.E. Schlundt, and W.R. Elsberry, 1997. 

Behavioral responses and temporary shift in masked hearing threshold of bottlenose 

dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, to 1-second tones of 141 to 201 dB re 1 μPa. Technical 

Report 1751, Revision 1. San Diego: Naval Sea Systems Command. 

Ritter, F. 2002. Behavioural observations of rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis) off La 

Gomera, Canary Islands (1995-2000), with special reference to their interactions with 

humans. Aquatic Mammals 28(1):46-59. 

REFERENCES 8-22

3.9 Marine Mammals
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Rugh, D.J., 1984. Census of gray whales at Unimak Pass, Alaska, November–December 1977–

1979. In: Jones, M.L., Swartz, S.L., and Leatherwood, S., eds. The gray whale. New 

York: Academic Press. 225–247. 

Rugh, D.J., K.E.W. Shelden, and A. Shulman-Janiger, 2001. Timing of the gray whale 

southbound migration. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 3(1):31 -39. 

Rugh, D.J., R.C. Hobbs, J.A. Lerczak, and J.M. Breiwick. 2005. Estimates of abundance of the 

eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) 1997 to 2002. Journal 

of Cetacean Research and Management 7(1):1–12. 

Schlundt, C.E., J.J. Finneran, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway, 2000. Temporary shift in masked 

hearing thresholds of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, and white whales, 

Delphinapterous leucas, after exposure to intense tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society 

of America. 107: 3496-3508. 

Schlundt, C.E., R.L. Dear, D.A. Carder, and J.J. Finneran. 2006. Growth and recovery of 

temporary threshold shifts in a dolphin exposed to mid-frequency tones with durations up 

to 128 s. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 120:3227A. 

Scholin, C.A., F. Gulland, G.J. Doucette, S. Benson, M. Busman, F.P. Chavez, J. Cordaro, R. 

DeLong, A. De Vogelaere, J. Harvey, M. Haulena, K. Lefebvre, T. Lipscomb, S. 

Loscutoff, L.J. Lowenstine, R. Marin III, P.E. Miller, W.A. McLellan, P.D.R. Moeller, 

C.L. Powell, T. Rowles, P. Silvagni, M. Silver, T. Spraker, V. Trainer, and F.M. Van 

Dolah. 1999. Mortality of sea lions along the central California coast linked to a toxic 

diatom bloom. Nature 403:80-84. 

Schusterman, R.J., 1974. Auditory sensitivity of a California sea lion to airborne sound. Journal 

of the Acoustical Society of America, 56:1248-1251. 

Schusterman, R.J., 1977. Temporal patterning in sea lion barking (Zalophus californianus). 

Behavioral Biology, 20:404-408. 

Schusterman, R.J. and R.F. Balliet, 1969. Underwater barking by male sea lions (Zalophus 

californianus). Nature, 222:1179-1181. 

Schusterman, R.J., R. Gentry, and J. Schmook, 1967. Underwater sound production by captive 

California sea lions. Zoologica, 52:21-24. 

Schusterman, R.J., R.F. Balliet, and J. Nixon, 1972. Underwater audiogram of the California sea 

lion by the conditioned vocalization technique. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of 

Behavior, 17:339-350. 

Schusterman, R.J., R. Gentry, and J. Schmook, 1966. Underwater vocalizations by sea lions: 

social and mirror stimuli. Science, 154:540-542. 

Schwartz, M., A. Hohn, H. Bernard, S. Chivers, and K. Peliter, 1992. Stomach contents of beach 

cast cetaceans collected along the San Diego County coast of California, 1972–1991. 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report LJ-92-18. 

Shane, S.H., R.S. Wells, and B. Würsig. 1986. Ecology, behavior and social organization of the 

bottlenose dolphin: A review. Marine Mammal Science 2(1):34-63. 

Shelden, K.E. D.J. Rugh, A. Schulman-Janiger. 2004. Gray whales born north of Mexico: 

Inidcator of recovery or consequence of regime shift? Ecological Applications 14(6): 

1789-1805. 

Siderius, M.and M.B. Porter, M.B. 2006. Modeling techniques for marine-mammal risk 

assessment. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 31(1): 49 – 60. 

REFERENCES 8-23

3.9 Marine Mammals 3.9 Marine Mammals
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Skov, H., J. Dunrinck, M.F. Leopold amd M. L. Tasker, 2007. A quantitative method for 

evaluating the importance of marine areas for conservation of birds. Biological 

Conservation 136: 362–371. 

Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene, Jr., D. 

Kastak, D.R. Kettern, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and R. 

L Tyack. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific 

recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 33(4). 

Southall, B.L., R.J. Schusterman, D. Kastak, and C.R. Kastak. 2005. Acoustic Research Letters 

Online [DOI: 10.1121/1.1985956] Published Online 14 July 2005. 

Stevick, P.T., B.J. McConnell, and P.S. Hammond. 2002. Patterns of movement. Pages 185-216 

in A.R. Hoelzel, ed. Marine mammal biology: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: 

Blackwell Science. 

Stewart, B.S. and P. K. Yochem, 1994. Ecology of harbor seals in the Southern California Bight. 

Pages 123-134 in Halvorson, W. L. and G. J. Maender (eds.), The Fourth California 

Islands Symposium. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Santa Barbara, CA 

Sumich, J.L. 1984. Gray whales along the Oregon coast in summer, 1977-1 980. Murrelet 65:33-

40. Sumida, B.Y. and H.G. Moser. 1980. Food and feeding of Pacific hake larvae, 

Merluccius productus, off southern California and northern Baja California. CalCOFl 

Reports XXI:161-166. 

Terhune, J.M. and W.C. Verboom. 1999. Right whales and ship noise. Marine Mammal Science 

15: 256–258. 

Terhune, J., and S. Turnbull. 1995. Variation in the psychometric functions and hearing 

thresholds of a harbour seal. In: R.A. Kastelein, J.A. Thomas and P.E. Nachtigall (eds.). 

Sensory System of Aquatic Mammals. De Spil Publisher, Woerden, Netherlands. 

Tershy, B.R., and D. Breese. 1991. Observations of gray whales and feeding behavior in 

the Gulf of California. Journal of Mammology: 72:830-831. 

Thorson, P.H., E.A. Berg, S. Noren-Kramer, L.E. Fillmore and J.K. Francine. 2002. Sonic Boom 

Measurements from the 11 February 2002 Delta II Iridium MS-12 Launch and 

Quantitative Analysis of Behavioral Responses of Selected Pinnipeds on San Miguel 

Island, CA. SRS Technologies technical report submitted to the United States Air Force 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service, May 2002. 32 pp. 

Turl, C.W., 1993. Low-frequency sound detection by a bottlenose dolphin, Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America. 94:3006–3008. 

Tynan, C.T., D.G. Ainley, J.A. Barth, T.J. Cowles, S.D. Pierce, and L.B. Spear, 2005. Cetacean 

distributions relative to ocean processes in the northern California Current System. Deep 

Sea Research Part II – Topical Studies in Oceanography, 52, 145-167. 

U. S. Department of the Navy (DoN), 2005. Marine resources assessment for the Southern 

California Operating Area. Prepared for the Pacific Division, Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, HI, by Geo-Marine, Inc., Plano, TX. Contract # 

N62470-02-D-9997, CTO 0025. 

U. S. Department of the Navy (DoN), 2000. San Diego Bay Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan. Navy Region Southwest; Natural Resources Office 

REFERENCES 8-24

3.9 Marine Mammals
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 2008. 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Southern California Range Complex, April 2008. 

Department of the Navy. 

Urbán R.J., A. Gómez-Gallardo, and L.S. Ludwig, 2003. Abundance and mortality of gray whales 

at Laguna San Ignacio, México, during the 1997-98 El Niño and the 1998-99 La Niña. 

Goefísica Internacional 42(3): 439-446State University, San Diego, CA. 93 pp. 

Urian, K. W., D. A. Duffield, A. J. Read, R. S. Wells, and E. D. Shell, 1996. Seasonality of 

reproduction in bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus. Journal of Mammalogy 

77(2):394-403. 

Urick R.J., 1972, Noise signature of an aircraft in level flight over a hydrophone in the sea. 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 52:993-999. 

Urick, R. J. 1983. Principles of Underwater Sound for Engineers, McGraw-Hill, NY, 1975. 

Van Parijs, S. and R.J. Schusterman, 2003. Aquatic Mammals: Special Issue on Vocal 

Communication in Pinnipeds. S. Van Parijs and R.J. Schusterman (Eds.), 29, 319 pp. 

Walker, W.A., 1981. Geographical variation in morphology and biology of bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops) in the eastern North Pacific. Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

Administrative Report LJ-81-03C. La Jolla, California: National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

Ward, W.D. 1997. Effects of high-intensity sound. In Encyclopedia of Acoustics, ed. M.J. 

Crocker, 1497-1507. New York: Wiley. 

Watkins, W. A. 1986. Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Mar. Mammal 

Sci. 2(4):251-262. 

Wells, R.S., L.J. Hansen, A.B. Baldridge, T.P. Dohl, D.L. Kelly and R.H. Defran, 1990. In: S. 

Leatherwood and R. R. Reeves (eds.), The Bottlenose Dolphin, p. 421-431. Academic 

Press, Inc., San Diego. 

Wenz, G. M. 1962. Acoustic ambient noise in the ocean: Spectra and sources. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 34, 1936-1956. 

Wolski, L.F., R.C. Anderson, A.E. Bowles, and P.K. Yochem, 2003. Measuring hearing in the 

harbor seal (Phoca vitulina): comparison of behavioral and auditory brainstem response 

techniques. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113(1): 629-637. 

Würsig, B., S.K. Lynn, T.A. Jefferson, and K.D. Mullin. 1998. Behaviour of cetaceans in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico relative to survey ships and aircraft. Aquatic Mammals. 24:41-

50. 

Yost, W.A. 2000. Fundamentals of Hearing: An Introduction (4th. Ed.) , Academic Press, New 

York. 

Young, R.W. 1973. Sound Pressure in Water from a Source in Air and Vice Versa. Journal of the 

Acoustic Society of America 53:1708-1716. 

Zagzebski, K.A., F. Gulland, M. Haulena, M.E. Lander, D. Greig, L.J. Gage, M.B. Hanson, P.K. 

Yochem, and B.S. Stewart. 2002. Twenty-Five Years of Rehabilitation of Odontocetes 

Stranded in Central and Northern California, 1977 to 2002. Aquatic Mammals 32(3):334-

345. 

Zorn, H.M., J.H. Churnside, and C.W. Oliver. 1998. Laser safety thresholds for cetaceans and 

pinnipeds. Southwest Fisheries Science Center Admin. Rpt. LJ-98-10C 21p. 

REFERENCES 8-25

3.9 Marine Mammals
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

CHAPTER 3.10 SEA TURTLES

Bartol, S. M., Musick, J.A. and Lenhardt, M. L. (1999) Auditory evoked potentials of the 

loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) Copeia 1999, 3: 836 – 840. 

Bartol S.M. and D. Ketten. 2003. Auditory brainstem responses of multiple species of sea turtles. 

In: Gisiner R, editor. Environmental consequences of underwater sound (ECOUS) 

abstracts, 12–16 May 2003, San Antonio. Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research; 

2003. p. 29. 

Bartol Moein S, Ketten DR (2006) Turtle and tuna hearing. In: Swimmer Y, Brill R (eds) Sea 

turtle and pelagic fish sensory biology: Developing techniques to reduce sea turtle 

bycatch in longline fisheries. NOAA (Natl Ocean Atmos Adm) Tech Mem NMFSPIFSC-7, p 98–105 

Berkson H. 1967. Physiological adjustments to deep diving in the Pacific green turtle (Chelonia 

mydassagassizii). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. 21:507-524. 

Brill RW, Balazs GS, Holland KN, Chang RKC, Sullivan S, George J. 1995. Daily movements, 

habitat use, and submergence intervals of normal and tumor-bearing juvenile green turtles 

(Chelonia mydas L.) within a foraging area in the Hawaiian Islands. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 185:203-218. 

Blackwell, S.B. and C.R. Greene, Jr. 2005. Underwater and in-air sounds from a small hovercraft. 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118(6):3646-3652. 

Carr, A. 1972. The case for long-range, chemoreceptive piloting in Chelonia. In Animal 

Orientation and Navigation (ed. S. R. Galler, K. Schmidt-Koenig, G. J. Jacobs and R. E. 

Belleville), pp. 469–484. Washington, DC: NASA SP-262. 

Carr A. 1995. Notes on the behavioral ecology of sea turtles. In K.A. Bjorndal, ed. Biology and 

conservation of sea turtles. Rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Pp 

19-26. 

Caribbean Conservation Corporation [CCC]. 2003. Sea turtles: An introduction. 

http://www.cccturtle.org/overview.htm 

Clifton, K., Cornejo, D.O., and Felger R.S. 1982. Sea turtles of the Pacific coast of Mexico. In 

Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, ed. K.A. Bjomdal, pp. 199-209. Smithsonian 

Dutton PH, McDonald DL. 1990a. Status of sea turtles in San Diego Bay, 1989-1990. Final 

report. Sea World Research Institute Technical Report #90-225. 

Dutton PH, McDonald DL. 1990b. Sea turtles present in San Diego Bay. In T.H. Richardson, J.I. 

Richardson, and M. Donnelly, eds. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea 

Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-278. pp 

139-141. 

Dutton, P. 1998. Personal Communication. National Marine Fisheries Service, Long Beach, CA. 

Dutton, P. 2003. Molecular ecology of Chelonia mydas in the eastern Pacific Ocean. pge 69 in 

Seminoff, J.A. ed. Proceedins of the Twenty-SecondAnnual Symposium on Sea Turtle 

Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-503. 

Eckert KL. 1987. Environmental unpredictability and leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys 

coriacea) nest loss. Herpetologica. 43:315-323. 

REFERENCES 8-26

3.10 Sea Turtles 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Eckert KL. 1995. Anthropogenic threats to sea turtles. In K.A. Bjorndal, ed. Biology and 

conservation of sea turtles, Rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Pp 

611-612. 

Eckert SA. 2002. Distribution of juvenile leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea sightings. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series. 230:289-293. 

Ernst, C. H., R. W. Barbour, and J. E. Lovich. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. 

Smithsonian Inst. Press, Wash., D. C. 

EuroTurtle. 2001 accessed online at http://www.euroturtle.org/loggerhead_biology.htm 

Ford, R.F., R.L. Chambers, and J. Merino. 1970. Ecological effects of power station cooling 

water discharge in south San Diego Bay during August 1970. San Diego State College. 

Technical report prepared for the San Diego Gas and Electric Co., San Diego, CA. 

Ford, R.F. and R.L. Chambers. 1973. Thermal Distribution and Biological Studies for the South 

Bay Power Plant, vol. 5A & 5B, Biological Measurements. Prepared for the San Diego 

Gas & Electric Co., San Diego, CA. Environmental Engineering Laboratory Technical 

Report under Contract P-25072. 

Fritts TH, Stinson ML, Márquez-M R. 1982. Status of sea turtle nesting in southern Baja 

California, Mexico. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences. 81:51-60. 

Galli, L., B. Hurlbutt, W. Jewett, W. Morton, S. Schuster, Z. Van Hilsen. 2008. Boat SourceLevel Noise in Haro Strait: Relevance to Orca Whales, accessed online: 

http://www.coloradocollege.edu/Dept/EV/Research/Faculty/OVALItems/FinalRptWeb/fi

nalAll.html. 

Goertner JF. 1982. Prediction of underwater explosion safe ranges for sea mammals. Report 

NSWC/WOL TR 82-188. Silver Spring, MD: Naval Ordnance Laboratory. 

Guess, R.C. 1981a. A Pacific loggerhead captured off California's northern Channel Islands. 

Herp. Rev. 12(1):15. 

Guess, R.C. 1981b. Occurrence of a Pacific loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta gigas

Deraniyagala, in the waters off Santa Cruz, California. Calif. Fish Game Notes 68:122-

123. 

Hays GC, Adams CR, Broderick AC, Godley BJ, Lucas DJ, Metcalfe JD, Prior AA. 2000. The 

diving behaviour of green turtles at Ascension Island. Animal Behaviour. 59:577-586. 

Hazel, J Lawler, IR, Marsh H, Robson S. 2007. Vessel speed increases collision risk for the green 

turtle Chelonia mydas. Endangered Species Research. 3:105-113. 

Hickey, B.M. 1993. Physical Oceanography. Chapter 2 in Ecology of the Southern California 

Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation. M.D. Dailey, D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson, eds. 

Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Hochscheid S, Godley BJ, Broderick AC, Wilson RP. 1999. Reptilian diving: Highly variable 

dive patterns in the green turtle Chelonia mydas. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 

185:101-112. 

Hodge, R.P. 1982. “Caretta caretta gigas (Pacific loggerhead) USA: Washington.” Herpetology 

Review 13(1):24. 

Ketten, D.R. 2003. Effects of noise on Hearing: Marine mammal evidence and analyses Invited 

paper, European Cetacean Society, Workshop on Effects of Sonar, Gran Canarias. 

REFERENCES 8-27

3.10 Sea Turtles 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Klima EF, Gitschlag GR, Renaud ML. 1988. Impacts of explosive removal of offshore petroleum 

platforms on sea turtles and dolphins. Marine Fisheries Review. 50:33-42. 

Lenhardt, M.L. 1994. Seismic and very low frequency sound induced behaviors in captive 

loggerhead marine turtles (Caretta caretta). In Proceedings of the fourteenth annual 

symposium on sea turtle biology and conservation (K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, D.A. 

Johnson & P.J. Eliazar, eds.) NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-SEFC-351, 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, 238-241 

Lenhardt, M.L., S. Bellmund, R.A. Byles, S.W. Harkins, and J.A. Musick. 1983. Marine turtle 

reception of bone conducted sound. J. Aud. Res. 23:119-125. 

López-Castro MC, Nichols WJ, Orantes M. 2000. Olive ridley nesting in Baja California Sur, 

Mexico: Preliminary observations. In H. Kalb and T. Wibbels, eds. Proceedings of the 

Nineteenth Annual symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443. pp 273-4. 

Lutcavage ME, Lutz PL. 1997. Diving physiology. In P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick, eds. The 

biology of sea turtles. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. pp 277-296. 

Macdonald, K.B., R.F. Ford, E.B. Copper, P. Unitt, and J.P.Haltiner. 1990. South San Diego Bay 

Enhancement Plan, vol. 1, Bay History, Physical Environment and Marine Ecological 

Characterization, vol. 2, Resources Atlas: Birds of San Diego Bay, vol. 3, Enhancement 

Plan, vol. 4, Data Summaries. Published by San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego, 

CA and California State Coastal Conservancy. 

McDonald, D. and P. Dutton. 1992. Status of Sea Turtles in San Diego Bay: 1992 Report. 

Prepared for the San Diego Fish and Wildlife Advisory Commission. 

[//idt.net/~donna39/sdbay92.html] San Diego, CA. 

McDonald, D. and P. Dutton. 1993. Status of Sea Turtles in San Diego Bay: 1991-1993 Progress 

Report. Prepared for the San Diego Fish and Wildlife Advisory Commission. 

[//idt.net/dona39/sdbay.html] San Diego, CA. 

Meylan A. 1995. Sea turtle migration—evidence from tag returns. In K.A. Bjorndal, ed. Biology 

and conservation of sea turtles, Rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

pp 91-100. 

Miller JD. 1997. Reproduction in sea turtles. Pages 51-81 in P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick, eds. The 

biology of sea turtles. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. 

Moein S.M. 1994. Auditory evoked potentials of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), MS 

thesis, College of William and Mary. 

Moein Bartol S, Musick JA (2003) Sensory biology of sea turtles. In: Lutz PL, Musick JA, 

Wyneken J (eds) Biology of sea turtles, Vol II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 79–102 

Moein S.E., Musick J.A., and Lenhardt M.L. 1994. Auditory behavior of the loggerhead sea turtle 

(Caretta caretta). In: Bjorndahl KA, Bolten AB, Johnson DA, Eliazar PJ, Compilers, 

editors. Proceedings of the fourteenth annual symposium on sea turtle biology and 

conservation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Technical 

Memo. 

Murray, S.N. and M.M. Littler. 1981. Biogeographical analysis of inter-tidal macrophyte floras of 

southern California. Journal of Biogeography 8(5): 339-351. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Recovery plan for US Pacific populations of 

the east Pacific green sea turtle. Washington, DC. 

REFERENCES 8-28

3.10 Sea Turtles 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2001. Taking and importing marine mammals: Taking of 

marine mammals incidental to naval activities: Final rule. Federal Register 

66(87):22,450-467. 

NMFS and USFWS. 2007a. Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). 5-Year Review: Summary and 

evaluation. 105 pp. 

NMFS and USFWS. 2007b. Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). 5-Year Review: 

Summary and evaluation. 81 pp. 

NMFS and USFWS. 2007c. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). 5-Year Review: Summary 

and evaluation. 67 pp. 

NMFS and USFWS. 2007d. Olive Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea). 5-Year Review: 

Summary and evaluation. 67 pp. 

NMFS. 2008 Reconciling Biodiversity with Fishing: A Holistic Strategy for Pacific Sea Turtle 

Recovery. Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, California 

National Research Council. 1990. Decline of the sea turtles: Causes and prevention. Washington, 

D.C.: National Academy Press. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. Prepared by the 

Committee on Potential Impacts of Ambient Noise in the Ocean on Marine Mammals, 

Ocean Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies. The National Academies Press: 

Washington D.C. 

Naval Special Warefare Center (NSWC)/Anteon Corp., Inc. 200. Very Shallow Water Explosion 

Tests at Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado, CA and San Clemente Island CA: Model 

Predictions 

O’HARA, J. & J.R. WILCOX. 1990. Avoidance responses of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, 

to low frequency sound. Copeia 1990: 564-567. 

O'Keeffe, D. J., and G. A. Young. 1984. Handbook on the environmental effects of underwater 

explosions. NSWC TR 83-240. Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren, VA. 

Pitman, R.L. 1990. Pelagic distribution and biology and sea turtles in the eastern tropical Pacific. 

Pages 143-148 in T.H. Richardson, J.I. Richardson, and M. Donnelly (compilers), Proc. 

Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dep. Commerce, 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-278. 286 pp. 

Richardson, W. J., C. R. J. Green, C. I. Malme and D. H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and 

Noise. San Diego, CA, Academic Press, London. 

Ridgway, S.H., B.L. Scronce, and J. Kanwisher. 1969. Respiration and deep diving in the 

bottlenose porpoise. Science. 166:1651-1654. 

Sarti-M L, Eckert SA, Garcia-T N, Barragan AR. 1996. Decline of the world's largest nesting 

assemblage of leatherback turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter. 74:2-5. 

Seminoff JA, Nichols WJ, Resendiz A, Brooks L. 2003. Occurrence of hawksbill turtles, 

Eretmochelys imbricata (Reptilia: Cheloniidae), near the Baja California Peninsula, 

Mexico. Pacific Science. 57:9-16. 

Seminoff JA, Jones TT, Marshall GJ. 2006. Underwater behaviour of green turtles monitored 

with video-time-depth recorders: what’s missing from dive profiles?. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, 

Vol. 322:269-280. 

REFERENCES 8-29

3.10 Sea Turtles 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Smith, D.D., and K.F. Graham. 1976. Relative Significance of Contemporary Dredging Impacts 

in San Diego Bay, a Historically Stressed Environment. Pages 3-30 in Proceedings of the 

Second Annual Conference of the Coastal Society. Arlington, VA. 

Spotila JR, O'Connor MP, Paladino FV. 1997. Thermal biology. In P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick, 

eds. The biology of sea turtles. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. pp 297-314. 

Spotila J. 2004. Sea Turtles: A complete guide to their biology, behavior, and conservation. 

Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press and Oakwood Arts. 

Stinson, M.L. 1984. Biology of Sea Turtles in San Diego Bay and in the Northeastern Pacific 

Ocean. M.S. thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. 

Terzich, I.M. 1965. San Diego Bay, California: A Review-Beneficial Uses, Waste Disposal 

Practices, Water Quality. Div. Water Supply and Pollution Control, US Public Health 

Service, San Francisco, CA. 

U.S. Air Force. 1999. Final Environmental Assessment, Search and Rescue Training, HH-60 And 

HC-130 Rescue Squadrons, Moody AFB, Georgia. United States Air Force, Headquarters 

Air Combat Command. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. 2001. Final environmental impact statement, shock trial of the 

WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG 81). NAVSEA. 597 pp. 

U.S. Department of Navy. 2005. Marine resource assessment for the Southern California 

operating area. Prepared for the Navy Commander, US Pacific Fleet. 574 pp. 

Viada, S.T., R. M. Hammer, R. Racca, D. Hannay, M. J. Thompson, B.J. Balcom, N. W. Phillips, 

2008. Review of potential impacts to sea turtles from underwater explosive removal of 

offshore structures. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28: 267-285. 

Wever EG. 1978. The reptile ear: Its structure and function. Princeton University Press, 

Princeton, NJ. 1,024 pp. 

Whittow GC, Balazs GH. 1982. Basking behavior of the Hawaiian green turtle (Chelonia mydas). 

Pacific Science. 36:129-139. 

Wyneken, J. 1997. Sea turtle locomotion: Mechanisms, behavior and energetics, p.165-198. In: P. 

L. Lutz and J. A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, New York. 

CHAPTER 3.11 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. 2003. Draft Dune Restoration Plan for IR Site 10. April. 

Project No. 326210000. 

Bauder, E.T. 1987. Species assortment along a small-scale gradient in San Diego vernal pools. 

Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Davis, CA. 275 pp. 

Bauder, E.T. 1986. San Diego vernal pools, recent and projected losses; their condition; and 

threats to their existence 1979-1990, volume I. Prepared for the Endangered Plant 

Program, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 

Bond, S. I. 1977. An Annotated List of the Mammals of San Diego County, California. San 

Diego Society of Natural History Transactions 18(14):229-248. 

Bowles, A. E. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise. In Knight, R. L. and Gutzwiller, K. J. (Eds.), 

Wildlife and recreationists, (pp. 154-212). Washington, D.C.: Island Press 

Branchiopod Research Group. 1996. Vernal pool faunal survey Naval Air Station Miramar. 

Department of Biology, University of San Diego, San Diego, California. 

REFERENCES 8-30

3.10 Sea Turtles 3.11 Terrestrial Biological Resources 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Brand, M. R., D. Wier, R. Glen, and C. Edwards. 1982. Biological Resources of the U.S. Naval 

Radio Station (R) Imperial Beach, CA, Preliminary Final Report. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1965. California Fish and Wildlife Plan. The 

Resources Agency 3(c). 908 pp. 

California Natural Diversity Database 2009. http://www.calflora.org. 

California State Department of Parks and Recreation. 1984. San Diego coastal state park system, 

general plan volume 9, Silver Strand State Beach. July 1984. 

Cobb, C. and K. O’Connor. 2003. Presence/Absence Surveys for Federally Listed Fairy Shrimp 

Conducted during 2001 and 2003 at Naval Radio Receiving Facility, Imperial Beach. 

Permit Number NVSYSW-9. 

Crother, B. I. 2000. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North 

America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding. 

SSAR Herpetological Circular 29. iii + 82 pp. 

Dugan, J.E., D.M. Hubbard, J.M. Engle, D.L. Martin, D.M. Richards, G.E. Davis, K.D. Lafferty, 

and R.F. Ambrose. 2000. Macrofauna communities of exposed sandy beaches on the 

southern California mainland and Channel Islands, pp. 339-346 Fifth California Islands 

Symposium, OCS Study, MMS 99-0038. 

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. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 58 (1): 25-40. 

Faulkner, D. and M. Klein. 2001. San Diego’s Sensitive Butterflies: A Workshop Focusing on 10 

Local Species. February. 

Hall, E. R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. 2nd ed., vol. 2. John Wiley & Sons, New 

York. 

Hickman, J. C. (ed.) 1996. The Jepson Manual: Higher plants of California. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, California, USA. 1400pp. 

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. 

Unpublished report. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and 

Game, natural Heritage Division. Sacramento, California, USA. 

Hubbard, D.M. and J.E. Dugan. 2003. Shorebird use of an exposed sandy beach in southern 

California. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 58 (1): 41-54. 

Kaseloo, P.A. 2005. Synthesis of noise effects on wildlife populations. IN: Proceedings of the 

2005 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Eds. Irwin CL, Garrett P, 

McDermott KP. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State 

University, Raleigh, NC: pp. 33-35. 

Keeler-Wolf, T. and J. M. Evens. 2005. CNPS vegetation program: a fresh look back and a new 

look forward. Fremontia 33(3):18-23. 

Larkin, R. P. 1996. Effects of military noise on wildlife: a literature review. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Research Laboratory. 87 p. 

Morey, S. 1996. Amphibian life history attributes and implications for vernal pool conservation 

practice. C.W. Witham, E. Bauder, D. Belk, W. Ferren, and R. Ornduff (Editors). 

Ecology, Conservation and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems- Proceedings from a 

1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 

REFERENCES 8-31

3.11 Terrestrial Biological Resources 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Nagano, C. D. 1980 Population Status of the Tiger Beetles of the Genus Cincindela (Coleoptera: 

Cincindelidae) Inhabiting the Marine Shoreline of Southern California. Atala: Jour. of the 

Xerces Soc. Vol. 8, No. 2, 33-42. 

Nagano, C.D. 1982a. The population status of seven species on insects inhabiting Tijuana Estuary 

National Wildlife Refuge, San Diego County, CA. Report to the Office of Endangered 

Species. Contract No. 11310-1400-710. 

National Invasive Species Council. 2001. National Management Plan: Meeting the Invasive 

Species Challenge. Washington, DC: National Invasive Species Council: Web page: 

www.invasivespecies.gov/council/ mp.pdf. Accessed: April 8, 2004. 

Oberbauer, T. A. 1996 Terrestrial Vegetation Communities in San Diego County Based on 

Holland’s Descriptions. San Diego Association of Governments. San Diego. 

RECON 2006. Natural Resources Inventory Report for Naval Air Station North Island, Naval 

Base Coronado, San Diego, California. Prepared for Commander, Navy Region 

Southwest Environmental Department, Natural Resources Office, under contract with 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest. 

RECON Environmental Inc. Draft 2005. Natural Resources Inventory Report for Naval Air 

Station North Island, Naval Base Coronado, San Diego, California. Prepared for 

Commander, Navy Region Southwest Environmental Department, Natural Resources 

Office, under contract with Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest. 

Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON). 2004. Final Biological Resources Survey Report 

for the Naval Radio Receiving Facility, Naval Base Coronado, San Diego, California. 

Prepared for Naval Resources Office Environmental Department (N45RN) Commander 

Navy Region Southwest. Contract Number: N68711-00-D-44144 0006. 

Rollins, B. L. 1998. Correspondence to Charles Houghten, Chief Planning Branch, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service from U.S. Navy Acting Chief B. L. Rollins, dated May 11, 1998. 

Simovich, M.A., M. Boudrias, and R. Gonzalez. 1996. Vernal Pool Faunal Survey Naval Air 

Station Miramar. Prepared by the Branchiopod Research Group, University of San Diego, 

for the Naval Air Station Miramar, San Diego, California. 

Stewart, B. 2004. Personal communication. Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, San Diego, CA. 

Sawyer, J. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant 

Society, Sacramento, California. 

Snover, S.A. 1992. Ecology and distribution of the globosa dune beetle (Coelus globusus) in 

relation to native and non-native host plants. M.S. Thesis, San Diego State University, 

CA. 

Unitt, P. 2004. San Diego County Bird Atlas. San Diego Natural History Museum, San Diego, 

California, USA. 645pp. 

U.S. Department of the Navy; Navy Region Southwest; Natural Resources Office (DoN). 1982. 

Natural Resources Inventory of the Naval Amphibious Base Coronado San Diego, 

California. Prepared by WESTEC Services, Inc. San Bruno, CA. 

U.S. Department of the Navy; Navy Region Southwest; Natural Resources Office (DoN). 1998a. 

Final Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for the Naval Amphibious Base, 

Coronado, California. Prepared by RECON. San Diego, CA. 

REFERENCES 8-32

3.11 Terrestrial Biological Resources 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

U.S. Department of the Navy; Navy Region Southwest; Natural Resources Office (DoN). 2002. 

Naval Base Coronado: Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. Contract number: 

N68711-00-D-4413/0005. 

U.S. Department of the Navy; Navy Region Southwest; Natural Resources Office (DoN). 1998b. 

Final Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for the Naval Radio Receiving 

Facility Imperial Beach, California. Prepared by RECON. San Diego, CA. 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 2007. California least tern and western snowy plover GIS 

data. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Draft Environmental Assessment and Land 

Protection Plan for the Proposed South San Diego Bay Unit, San Diego Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge, Carlsbad, CA. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Draft environmental assessment and land 

protection plan for the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit, San Diego National Wildlife 

Refuge, Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement for Sweetwater Marsh and South San Diego Bay Units, 

San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. San Diego, CA. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006b. San Diego Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta 

sandiegonensis). Viewed on 09 January 2006 at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/life_histories/K049.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. USFWS Candidate Conservation Program. 

Internet website <http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/hcp/Candidate Conservation 

Program>. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. San Diego Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta 

sandiegoensis) 5-Year Review: Summary Evaluation. 

Wagoner, Benjamin and B.J.Grizzle.1989. Natural Resource Management Plan, Naval Outlying 

Landing Field, Imperial Beach, CA. 

Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (eds). 1993. Mammal Species of the World. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, 1206 pp. 

CHAPTER 3.12 BIRDS

Akçakaya, H. R., J. L. Atwood, D. Breininger, C. T. Collins, and B. Duncan. 2003. 

Metapopulation dynamics of the California least tern. J. Wildl. Manage. 67(4):829-842. 

Adams, D. A. and T. L. Quay. 1958. Ecology of the Clapper Rail in southeastern North Carolina. 

Journal of Wildlife Management. 22:149-156. 

Allen, L. G. 1999. Fisheries Inventory and Utilization of San Diego Bay, San Diego, California, 

Final Report: Sampling Periods July 1994 to April 1999. Nearshore Marine Fish 

Research Program, Department of Biology, California State University, Northridge. 48pp 

+ tables and figures. 

American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 1957. Check-list of North American birds. Fifth Edition. 

Port City Press. Baltimore, MD. 691 pp. 

Atwood, J. L. and D. E. Minsky. 1983. Least tern foraging ecology at three major California 

breeding colonies. Western Birds 14: 57-72. 

REFERENCES 8-33

3.11 Terrestrial Biological Resources 3.12 Birds 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Atwood, J. L. and P. R. Kelly. 1984. Fish Dropped on Breeding Colonies as Indicators of Least 

Tern Food Habits. The Wilson Bulletin 96(1): 34-47. 

Atwood, J. L. 1986. Delayed noctural occupation of breeding colonies by Least Terns (Sterna 

antillarurn). Auk 103(1): 242-244. 

Atwood, J. L. and B. W. Massey. 1988. Site Fidelity of Least Terns in California. The Condor 

90(2): 389-394. 

Avian Research Associates. 2007. Annual report to U.S. Navy. 

Avian Research Associates. 2008. Annual report to U.S. Navy. 

Bailey, S. F. 1984. California least tern foraging and other off-colony activities around Alameda 

Naval Air Station during 1984. Unpublished report. Department of Ornithology and 

Mammalogy, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, 

California. 

Baird, P. H. 1993. Birds. Chapter 10 In Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis 

and Interpretation. M.D. Dailey, D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson, eds. Berkeley: 

University of California Press. 

Baker, A. J., P. M. Gonzalez, T. Piersma, L. J. Niles, I. de Lima Serrano do Nascimento, P. W. 

Atkinson, N. A. Clark, C. D. T. Minton, M. K. Peck, and G. Aarts. “Rapid population 

decline in red knots: fitness consequences of decreased refuelling rates and late arrival in 

Delaware Bay.” Proc. Biol. Sci. 2004 April 22; 271(1541): 875–882. 

Banks, P.S. and J.V. Bryant. 2007. Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking Displaces native birds 

from natural areas. Biology Letters 3:611-613. 

Barrett, D. E. 1997. California Study Addresses Issues of Roadway Noise Control for the Benefit 

of Endangered Songbirds. Road Management and Engineering Journal. TranSafety, Inc. 

October 1, 1997. 

Blandin, W. W. 1963. Renesting and multiple brooding habits of marked clapper rails. Proc. 

Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 17: 60-68. 

Blokpoel, H. (Ed.). 1976. Bird Hazards to Aircraft. Ottawa,Canada: Clarke,Irwin, & Co., Ltd.pp. 

Bondello, M. C. 1976. The Effects of High-Intensity Motorcycle Sounds on the Acoustical 

Sensitivity of the Desert Iguana, Dipsosaurus Dorsalis. M.A. Thesis. California State 

University, Fullerton 37 pp. 

Bondello, M. C. and B. H. Brattstrom. 1979. The Experimental Effects of Off-Road Vehicle 

Sounds on Three Species of Desert Invertebrates. Report to the Bureau of Land 

Management. 61 pp. 

Bowles, A. E. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise. In Knight, R. L. and Gutzwiller, K. J. (Eds.), 

Wildlife and recreationists, (pp. 154-212). Washington, D.C.: Island Press 

Bowles, A. E., B. Tabachnick, and S. Fidell. 1991. Review of the Effects of Aircraft Overflights 

on Wildlife. Volume II of III, Technical Report, National Park Service, Denver, 

Colorado. 

Briggs, K. T., and E. W. Chu. 1987. Trophic relationships and food requirements of California 

seabirds: Updating models of trophic impacts. in Seabirds: Feeding Ecology and Marine 

Ecosystems. J.P. Croxall, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 

Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, eds. 2001. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation 

Plan, 2nd ed. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 

REFERENCES 8-34

3.12 Birds 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Bunnell, F. L., D. Dunbar, L. Koza, and G. Ryder. 1981. Effects of Disturbance on the 

Productivity and Numbers of White Pelicans in British Colombia - Observations and 

Models. Colonial Waterbirds, Vol. 4, pp. 2-11. 

Caffrey, C. 1993. Summary of monitoring activities of California least terns in southern 

Califorina. Unpublished Report. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, 

CA. 

Cogswell, H. L. 1977. Water birds of California. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 399pp. 

Collazo, J. A., D. A. O’Harra, and C. A. Kelly. 2002 “Accessible habitat for shorebirds: Factors 

influencing its availability and conservation implications.” Waterbirds 25(Special 

Publication 2):13–24. 

Collins, C. T., D. D. Rypka, B. W. Massey, and J. L. Atwood. 1979. California least tern banding 

project, 1979. State of California, Resources Agency, Dept. Fish and Game. 

Colwell, M. A. and S. L. Landrum. 1993. “Nonrandom shorebird distribution and fine-scale 

variation in prey abundance.” Condor 95:94-103. 

Copper, E. 1997b. The status of the Western snowy plover at Naval Base Coronado, from 

November 1994 through February 1998. Draft report prepared for the Natural Resources 

Management Branch, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San 

Diego, CA. 

Copper, E. 2002. Personal Communication. Avian Research Associates. Coronado, CA. 

Copper, E. 2003. Submittal of report on work done in 2002 under Endangered Species Permit No. 

PRT-789254. Report summarizing the breeding season results of monitoring of 

California least terns and western snowy plovers at San Diego Navy sites in 2002 along 

with the egg-collecting data for 2002. Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Carlsbad, California. 

Copper, E. 2007. Personal Communication. Avian Research Associates, Coronado, CA. 

Copper, E. 2008. Annual report to U.S. Navy. 

County of San Diego. 1980. General Plan, Part VII: Revised Noise Element. December 17. 

Cywinski, K. 2004. The effects of motorized watercraft on waterfowl. Wildlife CPR. Summer 

Soltice 9(2). 

Dahlgren, R. B., and C. E. Korschgen. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: an annotated 

bibliography. US Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 188.Delaney et al 1999. 

Page 3-134. 

Duffy, D. C., N. Atkins, and D. C. Schneider. 1981. “Do Shorebirds Compete on Their Wintering 

Grounds?” The Auk, Vol. 98, No. 2 (Apr., 1981), pp. 215-229. 

Ehrlich, P., D. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook: A Field Guide to the 

Natural History of North American Birds. New York: Simon and Schuster. 

Evens, J. G., G. W. Page, S. A. Laymon, and R. W. Stallcup. The Condor, Vol. 93, No. 4 (Nov., 

1991), pp. 952-966. 

Figley, W. K. and L. W. Vandruff. 1982. The ecology of urban mallards. Wildlife Monograph 81, 

The Wildlife Society, Washington, DC. 

REFERENCES 8-35

3.12 Birds 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Finn, P. G, C. P. Catterall, and P. V. Driscoll. Prey versus substrate as determinants of habitat 

choice in a feeding shorebird. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, v. 80, iss. 3, p. 381-

390. 

Finney, S.K., J.W. Pearce-Higgins, and D.W. Yalden. 2005. The effect of recreational 

disturbance on an upland breeding bird, the golden plover Pluvialis apricaria. Biological 

Conservation, 121(1):53-63. 

Flemming, S. P., R. D. Chasson, P. C. Smith, P. J. Austin-Smith, and R. P. Bancroft. 19871988. 

Piping plover status in Nova Scotia related to its reproductive and behavioral responses to 

human disturbance. J. Field Ornithol. 59:321-330. 

Fletcher, J. L. 1980. Effects of noise on wildlife: a review of relevant literature 1971-1978. pp. 

611-620 In Tobias, J.V. Jansen, G. and Ward, W.D. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Third 

International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association, Rockville, MD. 

Foster, B. D. 2006. Breeding Status of the California Least Tern at Marine Corps Base, Camp 

Pendleton, CA, 2004. Prepared for Department of the Navy, Environmental Core, Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, San Diego, CA. October 2006. 

Furness, R. W., and D. G. Ainley. 1984. “Threats to seabird populations presented by commercial 

fisheries”. in Status and Conservation of the World’s Seabirds. J.P. Croxall, P.G.H. 

Evans, and R.W. Schreider, eds. Int. Comm. Bird Preserv. Tech. Publ.2. 

Garcia, V. and C. J. Conway. 2007. Plan to Conserve and Manage Burrowing Owls on Naval 

Base Coronado, San Diego, CA. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Naval Base 

Coronado EPR Number 00246NR026. 

Garrett, K., and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of southern California: status and distribution. Los Angeles: 

Los Angeles Audubon Society. 

Gill, F. 1995. Ornithology. New York: WH Freeman and Co. 

Goertner, J. F., M. L. Wiley, G. A. Young, and W. W. McDonald 1994. Effects of underwater 

explosions on fish without swimbladders. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren 

Division, White Oak Detachment, Silver Spring, MD. NSWC TR 88-114. 

Gress, F. 2005. Unpublished data. California Institute for Environmental Studies, Davis, 

California. 

Gress, F., J. L. Lee, D. W. Anderson, and A. L. Harvey. 2003. Breeding success of brown 

pelicans in 2002 at West Anacapa Island, California, and long term trends in reproductive 

performance, 1985-2002. Unpublished report. California Institute for Environmental 

Studies, Davis, CA. 36pp. 

Groom, M.J., G.K. Meffe, C.R. Carroll. 2006. Principles of Conservation Biology, 3rd edition. 

699pp. 

Havera, S., L. Boens, M. Georgi, and R. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on 

Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-298. 

Hoffman, S. M. 2005 (draft). Assessment of the Population Status of the Light-footed Clapper 

Rail, Rallus longirostris levipes, at Naval Base Coronado, San Diego, California. 29 pp. 

Hoffman, S. M. 2007. Assessment of the Population Status of the Light-Footed Clapper Rail 

(Rallus longirostris levipes) at Naval Base Coronado, San Diego, California. 33p. 

REFERENCES 8-36

3.12 Birds 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute. 2006. The Effects of Helicopter Noise on the Coastal 

California Gnatcatcher at Marine Corps Air Station Final Report.Miramar Contract 

Number N68711-05-M-1008Prepared for: Marine Corps Air Bases Western Area Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest November 2006. Principal Investigator: Don 

Hunsaker II. 

James, R. A. 2006. California innovation with highway noise and bird issues. IN: Proceedings of 

the 2005 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Eds. Irwin CL, Garrett 

P, McDermott KP. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State 

University, Raleigh, NC: p. 569. 

James, R., J. Tutton, and D. Stadtlander. 1992. A survey of the snowy plover on Camp Pendleton 

San Diego, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southern California Field Station, 

Carlsbad CA. 

Johnson, R. W. 1973. Observations on the ecology and management of the Northern Clapper 

Rail, Rallus longirostris crepitans in Nassau County, NY. PhD thesis. 223 pp. 

Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1988. Studies of California least terns and water-associated 

birds at the Chula Vista Bayfront, San Diego County, California. City of Chula Vista and 

San Diego Unified Port District. 

Jorgensen, P. 1979. Notes on the clapper rail in San Diego County in 1979. Unpublished Navy 

record. 

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. 

Wild. Soc. Bulletin. 19:242–248. 

Keane, K. 1998. California least tern breeding season, 1997 season. California Department of 

Fish and Game Wildlife Management Division, Bird and Mammal Conservation Program 

Report 98-12, Sacramento, CA. 46 pp. 

Keane, K. 1999, California least tern breeding season, 1998 season. California State University 

Long Beach Foundation. 

Keane, K. 2001. California least tern breeding season, 1999 season. California Department of 

Fish and Game Habitat Conservation and Planning Branch Species Conservation and 

Recovery Program Report 2000-01, Sacramento, CA. 16 pp. + app. 

Kennard, J. H. 1975. Longevity records of North American birds. Bird-Banding 48(1):55-73. 

Kenny, M. 2004. Personal Communication. 

Klimkiewicz, K. M. and A. G. Futcher. 1989. Longevity records of North American birds, 

Supplement 1. J. Field Ornithol. 60: 469–494. 

Korschgen, C., L. George, and W. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a 

migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:290-296. 

Kushlan, J. A. 1979. Effects of helicopter censuses on wading bird colonies. Journal of Wildlife 

Management, 43:756-760. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation, 

101: 315-325. 

Lafferty, K.D., D. Goodman, and C. Sandoval. 2006. Restoration of breeding by snowy plovers 

following protection from disturbance. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15: 2217-2230. 

REFERENCES 8-37

3.12 Birds 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Larkin, R. P. 1976. The theory and practice of scaring birds away from airports and aircraft. 

Paper presented at the Bird Hazards to Aircraft Training Seminar and Workshop, East 

Point, Georgia. 

Larkin, R. 1996. Effects of Military Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review. USA CERL 

Technical Report. January 1996. 

Lord, A., J.R. Waas, J. Innes, and M.J. Whittingham. 2001. Effects of human approaches to nests 

of northern New Zealand dotterels. Biological Conservation, 98(2):233-240. 

Macdonald, K. B., R. F. Ford, E. B. Copper, P. Unitt, and J. P.Haltiner. 1990. South San Diego 

Bay Enhancement Plan, vol. 1, Bay History, Physical Environment and Marine 

Ecological Characterization, vol. 2, Resources Atlas: Birds of San Diego Bay, vol. 3, 

Enhancement Plan, vol. 4, Data Summaries. Published by San Diego Unified Port 

District, San Diego, CA and California State Coastal Conservancy. 

Manning, J. 1998. Personal communication. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, CA. 

Marschalek, D. A. 2006. Califorina Least Tern Breeding Survey, 2005 Season. California 

Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento. 

Marschalek, D. A. 2007 (Revised 19 February). California Least Tern Breeding survey 2006 

Season. State of California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game Wildlife 

Branch. Nongame Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

Marschalek, D.A. 2009. California least tern breeding survey, 2008 season. California 

Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Branch, Nongame Wildlife Program Report, 

2009-02. Sacramento, CA. 23 pp. + app. 

Massey,B. W., R. Zembal, and P. D. Jorgensen. 1984. Nesting habitat of the light-footed clapper 

rail in southern California. J. Field Ornith. 53:67-80. 

Massey, B. W. and J. L. Atwood. 1981. Second-wave nesting of the California least tern: Age 

composition and reproductive success. The Auk. 98: 596-605. 

Massey, B. W. 1974. Breeding biology of the California least tern. Proc. Linnean Soc. New York 

72: 1-24. 

Massey, B.W. 1977. A census of the breeding population of the Belding’s Savannah Sparrow in 

California, 1977. E-1-1, Study IV, Job 1.2, Final Report, California Department of Fish 

and Game. 

Massey, B. W. and J. L. Atwood. 1979-1985. Application of Ecological Information to Habitat 

Management for the California Least Tern. Annual report numbers: 1-7. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Laguna Niguel, CA. 

Massey, B. W. 1987. California least tern foraging study, Los Angeles Harbor, 1986-1987. Port 

of Los Angeles, Environmental Division. Marine Ecological Consultants, Encinitas, CA. 

Massey, B. W. and R. L. Zembal. 1980. A comparative study of the light-footed clapper rail, 

Rallus longirostris levipes, population in Anaheim Bay and Upper Newport Bay, Orange 

County, CA. Final Report. February 21, 1980. 71 pp. 

Massey, B. W. 1988. California least tern field study, 1988 Breeding Season. California 

Department of Fish and Game Report (FG 7660). 

Massey, B. W., D. W. Bradley, and J. L. Atwood. 1992. Demography of a California Least Tern 

Colony Including Effects of the 1982-1983 El Niño. The Condor 94: 976-983. 

REFERENCES 8-38

3.12 Birds 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Meanley, B. 1985. The marsh hen. A natural history of the clapper rail of the Atlantic coast salt 

marsh. Tidewater. Centerville, MD. 123 pp. 

Melvin, S. M., A. Hecht, and C. R. Griffin. 1994. Piping plover mortalities caused by off-road 

vehicles on Atlantic Coast beaches. Wildl. Sot. Bull. 22:409-414. 

Minsky, D. 1984. A study of the foraging ecology of the California Least Tern at Camp 

Pendleton, season of 1984. Purchase Order No. N62474-84-M-4561. U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service, Laguna Nigel CA. 

Moore, F. R., S. A. Gauthreaux, P. Kerlingearn, and T. R. Simons. 1995. “Habitat requirements 

during migration: important link in conservation,” p. 121-144. In T. E. Martin and D. M. 

Finch [eds.], Ecology and management of Neotropical migratory birds: a synthesis and 

review of critical issues. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. 

Moore, F. R., R. J. Smith, and R. Sandberg. 2005. “Stopover ecology of intercontinental 

migrants: en route problems and consequences for reproductive performance.” In: R. 

Greenberg and P. P. Marra (eds) Birds of Two Worlds: The ecology and evolution of 

migration. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 251–261 

Morrison, R. I. G. 2006. “Body transformations, condition, and survival in the red knot Calidris 

canutus: travelling to breed at Alert.” Ardea 94 (in press) 

National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Wildlife Services. 2000. Reduction in bird/aircraft strike hazards at Naval Air Station 

North Island, San Diego, California. Prepared for the U.S. Navy, Naval Air Station North 

Island, California, Natural Resources Office. San Diego, California. 

Ogden Environmental and Energy Services (Ogden). 1994. Waterbird Survey North and Central 

San Diego Bay, 1993. Prepared for US Department of the Navy, Naval Air Station North 

Island, Coronado, CA. 

Ogden Environmental and Energy Services (Ogden). 1995. Waterbird Survey Central San Diego 

Bay, 1994. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Air Station North Island, 

Coronado, CA. 

Ogden, L. J. E., S. Bittman, D. B. Lank, and F. C. Stevenson. “Factors influencing farmland 

habitat use by shorebirds wintering in the Fraser River Delta, Canada.” Agriculture, 

Ecosystems and Environment 124 (2008) 252–258. 

Page, G. W., and L. E. Stenzel (eds.). 1981. The breeding status of the Snowy Plover in 

California. Western Birds 12:1-40. 

Page, G. W., L. E. Stenzel, D. W. Winkler, and C. W. Swarth. 1983. Spacing out at Mono Lake: 

breeding success, nest density, and predation in the snowy plover. Auk 100:13-24. 

Page, G. W., L. E. Stenzel, W. D. Shuford, and C. R Bruce. 1991. Distribution and abundance of 

the snowy plover on its western North American breeding grounds. J. Field Ornithol. 62: 

245-255. 

Page, G. W., J. S. Warriner, J. C. Warriner, and P. W. C. Paton. 1995. Snowy plover (Charadrius 

alexandrinus). In The Birds of North America, No. 154 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The 

Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA and The American Ornithologists’ 

Union, Washington, D.C. 

Palacios, E. and E. Mellink. 2003. Status, distribution, and ecology of nesting larids in western 

Mexico, with emphasis on vanrossemi Gull-billed Terns and Caspian Terns. Final report 

to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

REFERENCES 8-39

3.12 Birds 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Paton, P. W. C. 1994. Survival estimates for Snowy plovers breeding at Great Salt Lake, Utah. 

Condor 96: 1106-1109. 

Persons, P. E. 1994. Western Snowy Plover Monitoring in 1993 at Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

California. Report prepared for U.S. Air Force, 30th Space Wing, Vendenberg A.F.B., By 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California. 

Pondella. 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. 

Powell, A. and C. Collier. 1994. The Status of Western Snowy Plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus 

nivosus) in San Diego County, 1994. Report to the California Department of Fish and 

Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 23pp. 

Powell, A. N. and C. L. Collier. 1998. Reproductive success of Belding's Savannah sparrows in a 

highly fragmented landscape. Auk 115:508-513. 

Powell, A. N., B. L. Peterson, and J. M. Terp. 1996. The status of western Snowy plovers 

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) in San Diego County, 1996. Report to the California 

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Carlsbad, CA, and Portland, OR. 25pp. 

Powell, A. N., J. M. Terp, C. L. Collier, and B. L. Peterson. 1997. The status of western snowy 

plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) in San Diego County, 1997. Report to the 

California Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Powell, A. N., C. L. Fritz, B. L. Peterson, and J. M. Terp. 2002. Status of breeding and wintering 

Snowy Plovers in San Diego County, California, 1994-1999. Journal of Field 

Ornithology. 73:156-165. 

Quammen, M. L. 1981. Use of enclosures in studies of predation by shorebirds on intertidal 

mudflats. Auk. 98:812-817. 

Quammen, M. L. 1982. Influence of subtle substrate differences on feeding by shorebirds on 

intertidal mudflats. Mar. Biol. 71(3): 339-343. 

Radasky, K., J. Stroh, E. Easton, and C. Sandoval. 2003. Snowy Plover Docent Manual: Coal 

Point Reserve and Santa Barbara Audubon Society. Santa Barbara, CA, January 2003. 

Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON). 1996. Integrated natural resources management 

plan for the Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado, California. Prepared for Southwest 

Division, NAVFACENGCOM. September. Revised October 1998. 

Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON). 2004. Final Biological Resources Survey Report 

for the Naval Radio Receiving Facility, Naval Base Coronado, San Diego, California. 

Prepared for Naval Resources Office Environmental Department (N45RN) Commander 

Navy Region Southwest. Contract Number: N68711-00-D-44144 0006. 

Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON). Draft 2005. Natural Resources Inventory Report 

for Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base Coronado, San Diego, California. 

Prepared for Commander Navy Region Southwest Environmental Department, Natural 

Resources Office, under contract with Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest. 

Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON). 2006. Final natural resources inventory report 

for Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base Coronado, San Diego, California. 

REFERENCES 8-40

3.12 Birds 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Prepared for Commander Navy Region Southwest Environmental Department, Natural 

Resources Office, under contract with Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest. 

Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, and G. Veenbaas. 1997. Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds: 

Evaluation of the effect and considerations in planning and managing road corridors. 

Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 6: No. 4 pp. 567-581. 

http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0960-3115. 

Ribic, C. A., S. Lewis, S. Melvin, J. Bart, and B. Peterjohn. 1999. Proceedings of the Marshbird 

monitoring workshop. USFWS Region 3 Administrative Report, Fort Snelling, MN. 52 

pp. 

Rigney, M. and L. Emery. 1980. California least tern breeding survey, San Francisco Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish and Wild. Serv., San Francisco Bay Natl. 

Wildl. Refuge Rep. 22pp. 

Rodgers, J., Jr., and S. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard- powered boats. 

Conservation Biology 16(1):216-224. 

Ronconi, R. A. and C. C. St. Clair. 2002. Management options to reduce boat disturbance on 

foraging black guillemots (Cepphus grylle) in the Bay of Fundy. Biological 

Conservation 108 (3) 265-271. 

Saul, S. M. 1982. Clam diggers and snowy plovers. Washington Wildl. 32(1):28-30. 

Schmidt, F. V. and P. D. McLain. 1951. The clapper rail in New Jersey. New Jersey Division 

Fish and Game. Trenton, NJ. 9 pp. 

Schneider, F. B. 1926. Los Angeles region. Bird-Lore 28:355. 

Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali (eds). 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked 

assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate 

conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field 

Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, 

Sacramento. 

Skagen, S. K. 2006. Migration stopovers and the conservation of Arctic-breeding Calidridine 

sandpipers. Auk 123(2): 313–322. 

Smith, J. W., and R. B. Renken. 1993. Reproductive success of least terns in the Mississippi 

River Valley. Colonial Waterbirds 16:39-44. 

Stenzel, L. E., J. C. Warriner, J. S. Warriner, K. S. Wilson, F. C. Bidstrup, and G. W. Page. 1994. 

Long-distance breeding dispersal of snowy plovers in western North America. Journal of 

Animal Ecology 63:887-902. 

Swickard, D. K. 1971. The Status of the California Least Tern at Camp Pendleton. Camp 

Pendleton Marine Base Rep. 30pp. 

Swickard, D. K. 1972. Status of the least tern at Camp Pendleton, California. Calif. Birds 3:49-

58. 

Taft, O. W. and S. M. Haig. 2006. Landscape context mediates influence of local food abundance 

on wetland use by wintering shorebirds in an agricultural valley. Biol. Conserv. 128(3): 

298–307. 

REFERENCES 8-41

3.12 Birds 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Thelander, C. G. (Ed). 1994. Life on the Edge - A Guide to California's Endangered Natural 

Resources: Wildlife. BioSystems Books, in collaboration with Heyday Books. Santa 

Cruz, California, USA. 

Thompson, B. C., and R. D. Slack. 1984. Post-fledging departure from colonies by juvenile Least 

Terns in Texas: implications for estimating production. Wilson Bull. 96(2):309-313. 

Tierra Data, Inc. 2008 (draft). San Diego Bay Avian Species Survey 2006-2007. Prepared for the 

U.S. Department of the Navy, Commader Navy Region Southwest and the San Diego 

Unified Port District, San Diego, California. 

Unitt, P. 1984. Birds of San Diego County. San Diego: San Diego Society of Natural History. 

Unitt, P. 2004. San Diego County Bird Atlas. San Diego Natural History Museum, San Diego, 

California, USA. 645pp. 

U.S Department of Interior National Park Service. 1994. Report to Congress on Effects of 

Aircraft Overflights on The National Park System. Prepared pursuant to Public Law 100-

91, The National Parks Overflight Act of 1987. 

U.S. Department of the Navy; Navy Region Southwest; Natural Resources Office (DoN). 2000. 

San Diego Bay Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. 

U.S. Department of the Navy; Navy Region Southwest; Natural Resources Office (DoN). 2002. 

Naval Base Coronado: Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. Contract number: 

N68711-00-D-4413/0005. 

U.S. Department of the Navy, Western Division (USDoN WESTDIV). 1982. Natural Resources 

Inventory of the Naval Amphibious Base Coronado San Diego, California. Prepared by 

WESTEC Services, Inc. San Bruno, CA. 

U.S. Department of the Navy, Western Division (USDoN WESTDIV). 1998a. Final Integrated 

Natural Resources Management Plan for the Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado, 

California. Prepared by RECON. San Diego, CA. 

U.S. Department of the Navy, Western Division (USDoN WESTDIV). 1998b. Final Integrated 

Natural Resources Management Plan for the Naval Radio Receiving Facility Imperial 

Beach, California. Prepared by RECON. San Diego, CA. 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN). 2004. Silver Strand Training Complex, Operations Training 

Plan. 

U.S. Department of the Navy; Navy Region Southwest. 2006. Request for Formal Consultation 

Regarding the Fiddler’s Cove Marina Repairs and Improvements Project. Letter to the 

USFWS 5090 Ser N45JP.jl/0155 May 1, 2006. 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. 

Memorandum of Understanding USFWS Relating to the Designation and Management of 

a Preserve for the California Least Tern at Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado. 

U.S. Department of the Navy (DoN) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987, 1993, 

1999, 2000, 2004. Memorandum of Understanding between USFWS and the US Navy 

Concerning Conservation of the Endangered California Least Tern in San Diego Bay, 

California. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHA). 2004. Synthesis of 

Noise Effects on Wildlife Populations. Publication No. FHWA-HEP-06-016. 

REFERENCES 8-42

3.12 Birds 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Light-footed clapper rail recovery plan. USFWS. 

Portland. OR. 121 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered species management and protection 

plan. Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach and Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. 

Final environmental impact statement. Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Avifauna of South San Diego Bay: the Western 

Salt Works 1993-1994. Prepard by D. Stadtlander and J. Konecny. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Waterbirds of Central and South San Diego Bay 

1993–1994. Prepared by J. Manning. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Biological Opinion on Military Training 

Operations During 2005 and 2006 Breeding Seasons at Naval Base, Coronado and Naval 

Radio Receiving Facility, Imperial Beach, Naval Base Coronado, San Diego, California. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006a. Species information: Threatened and 

endangered animals and plants. Webpage viewed on 07 January 2006 at: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html#Species 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006b. San Diego Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta 

sandiegoensis). Viewed on 09 January 2006 at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/life_histories/K049.html 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006c. Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement for Sweetwater Marsh and South San Diego Bay Units, 

San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. San Diego, CA. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007a. Listed distinct population segment of the brown 

pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), 5-year review: summary and evaluation. USFWS 

Division of Ecological Services, Southwestern Regional Office, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007b. Recovery plan for the Pacific Coast population 

of the western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). USFWS 

California/Nevada operation office, Sacramento, California. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United 

States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at 

<http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/>] 

Ward, D. and J. Andrews. 1993. Waterfowl and recreational disturbance on inland waters. British 

Wildlife 4(4):221- 229. Upper Mississippi National Waterfowl Refuge. 

Warriner, J. S., J. C. Warriner, G. W. Page and L. E. Stenzel. 1986. Mating system and 

reproductive success of a small population of polygamous snowy plovers. Wilson Bull. 

98:15-37. 

Welchell, A. and K. Keane. 1998. Western Snowy Plover Breeding Survey for Bataquitos 

Lagoon, San Diego County, 1997 Season. A report from Wetland Research Associates 

and Keane Biological Consulting for the Bataquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project. 17pp. 

Widrig, R. S. 1980. Snowy plovers at Leadbetter Point. An opportunity for wildlife management? 

Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Willapa National Wildlife Refuge, 

Ilwaco, Washington. 14 pp. 

REFERENCES 8-43

3.12 Birds 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Wilson, R. A. 1980. Snowy plover nesting ecology on the Oregon coast. M.S. Thesis, Oregon 

State Univ., Corvallis, Oregon. 41 pp. 

Wilson-Jacobs, R., and G. L. Dorsey. 1985. Snowy plover use of Coos Bay North Spit, Oregon. 

Murrelet 66:75-81. 

Yalden, P.E. and D.W. Yalden. 1990. Receational disturbance of breeding golden plovers 

Pluvialis apricarius. Biological Conservation 51(4): 243-262. 

Yelverton J. T., D. R. Richmond, E. R. Fletcher, and R. K. Jones. 1973. Safe distances from 

underwater explosions for mammals and birds. Report by Lovelace Foundation for 

Medical Education and Research, Albuquerque, NM, for Defense Nuclear Agency, 

Washington, DC. Report No. 3114T. 72 p. 

Yelverton, J. T. 1981, Underwater Explosion Damage Risk Criteria for Fish, Birds, and 

Mammals, Manuscript, presented at 102nd Meeting of the Acoustical Society of 

America, Miami Beach, FL, December, 1982. 32pp. 

Zedler, J. B. 1992. Restoring cordgrass marshes in southern California. Pages 7-51 in Restoring 

the Nation’s Marine Environment, G. W. Thayer, ed. College Park: A Maryland Sea 

Grant Book. 

Zedler, J. B. 1993. Canopy architecture of natural and planted cordgrass marshes: selecting 

habitat evaluation criteria. Ecol. Appl. 3(1):123–138 

Zeiner, D. C. W., F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. Editors. 1990. California’s 

Wildlife. Volume 2. Birds. State of California, Department of Fish and Game. 

Sacramento, California. 731 pp. 

Zembal, R., B. W. Massey, and J. M. Fancher. 1989. Movements and activity patterns of the 

Light-footed Clapper Rail. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(1):39-42. 

Zembal, R. and S. M. Hoffman. 2002. A Survey of the Belding’s Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus 

sandwichensis beldingi) in California, 2001. 

Zembal, R. 1993. Light-footed clapper rail management and population assessment, 1993. 

Contract Report Calif. Dep. Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Sec. rep., 94-6. 

32 pp. 

Zembal, R., J. M. Fancher, C. S. Nordby, and R. J. Bransfield. 1985. Intermarsh movements by 

Light-footed Clapper Rails indicated in part through regular censusing. Calif. Fish and 

Game 71(3): 164 - 171. 

Zembal, R., S. Hoffman, J. Konecny, and C. Collins. 2005. Status and distribution of the lightfooted clapper rail in California, 2005. A report to the Natural Resources Management 

Office, Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Carlsbad, CA; and California Dept. of Fish and Game, South Coast Region. June 2005. 

Zembal, R., S. Hoffman, C. Gailband, and L. Conrad. 2007. Light-footed Clapper Rail 

Management, Study, and Propogation in California, 2006. California Department of Fish 

and Game, Wildlife Branch, Nongame Wildlife Unit Report, 2007-02. Sacramento, CA. 

31 pp. 

CHAPTER 3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Brandes, R. and K. Carlin. 1988. Coronado, the Enchanted Island. Coronado, CA: The Coronado 

Historical Company. 

REFERENCES 8-44

3.12 Birds 3.13 Cultural Resources
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

California State Military Museum. 2008. Historic California Posts: Fort Emory. Electronic 

document accessed 24Mar08: http://www.militarymuseum.org/FtEmory.html.

Dolan, C. and R. McCorkle Apple. 1998. Archaeological Survey Report for the Naval 

Amphibious Base, Coronado, California. Prepared for SWDIV. Prepared by KEA 

Environmental, Inc, San Diego. 

Erlandson, J. M. 1994. Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York. 

Erlandson, J.M., and R. Colten (editors). 1991. Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal 

California. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1. Institute of Archaeology, 

University of California, Los Angeles. 

Jones, T. 1991. Marine Resource Value and the Priority of Coastal Settlement: A California 

Perspective. American Antiquity 56:419-443. 

Masters, P. 1998. Paleo-Environmental Reconstruction of Sa Diego Bay, 10,000 B.P. to Present. 

In Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subisstenceat CA-SDIl-48, on Ballast Point, San 

Diego County, California. Coyote Press Archives of California History, 40, Salinas, 

California. 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 2005. Shipwreck Database. 

Pettus, R. and J. Hildebrant. 2000. Appendix E to the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Review 

Environmental Assessment for the SANDAG Regional Beach Sand Project Marine 

Archaeology Technical Report: Geophysical Data Interpretation, Core Analysis, and 

Probability Zone Assessment. Prepared for KEA Environmental, Inc. Prepared by 

GeoArch Marine Archaeology Consultants. 

Pigniolo, A. R., J. Deitler, I. C. Zepeda, and S. Murray. 2001. A Look at Silver Strand Prehistory: 

Cultural Resources Testing and Evaluation Report for the Coronado Undergrounding 

Project, City of Coronado, California. Prepared for Schmidt Design Group, San Diego. 

Prepared by Tierra Environmental Services, San Diego. 

Preston, W. 2002. Serpent in Eden. In Prehistoric California: Archaeology and the Myth of 

Paradise, edited by L. M. Raab and T. L. Jones. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 

pp. 184-202. 

Underwood, J. 2008. Evaluation of Seven Potential Archaeological Sites on the U.S. Navy Silver 

Strand Training Complex, Coronado, San Diego County, California. Document on file 

with the Cultural Resources Management Program, Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command, Southwest, San Diego, California 

U.S. Department of the Navy. 2003. Programmatic Agreement Among the Commander Navy 

Region Southwest. Cultural Resources Program, Environmental Operations and Planning, 

Environmental Requirements and Assessments, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 

Southwest, San Diego, California. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. 2002. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. 1997. Historic Resources Evaluation, Naval Radio Receiving 

Facility, Imperial Beach, San Diego County, California. Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command, Southwest Division. June. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. 1995. Historical and Archeological Resources Protection Plan for 

the Naval Radio Receiving Facility, Imperial Beach. Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command, Southwest Division. September. 

REFERENCES 8-45

3.13 Cultural Resources
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

U.S. Department of the Navy. 1982. Cultural Resources - Archaeology and History - Naval Radio 

Receiving Facility, Imperial Beach, California. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 

Western Division. Unpublished report on file at NFEC Southwest Division, San Diego. 

As cited in Department of the Navy 1995. 

Yatsko, A. 2007. Personal Conversation with Jackson Underwood. 

CHAPTER 3.14 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION 

California Spatial Information Library 2003. http://gio.resources.ca.gov/. Accessed December 

2008. 

City of Coronado, 2005. City-Wide Major Traffic Study- Final Report. Prepared by: Parsons 

Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. March 15, 2005. 

Coronado Currents, 2007. Navy Reinforces Commitment to Coronado Traffic Solutions. The 

Official Publication of the City of Coronado. Volume 16, May 2007. 

County of San Diego Department of Public Works, 1999. Public Road Standards. Adopted July 

14, 1999. 

Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure 2004. http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/bei/disdi.shtml. 

Accessed December 2008. 

DoN 2008. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Developing Home Port 

Facilities for Three NIMITZ-Class Aircraft Carriers in Support of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, 

Department of the Navy, December 2008. 

Transportation Research Board of the Academies. 2000. http://www.trb.org/default.asp. Accessed 

January 2008. 

USCG, 2007. Inland Navigation Rules, Rule 9(b) 

US Census 2000. http://www.census.gov/. Accessed December 2008. 

SANDAG, 2008. 

http://www.sandag.org/resources/demographics_and_other_data/transportation/adtv/. 

Accessed January 2008. 

SANTEC/ITE 2007. San Diego Traffic Engineers Council/Institute of Transportation Engineers 

(SANTEC/ITE) . Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region. 

Teale GIS Solutions Group 1997. http://gis.ca.gov/BrowseCatalog.epl. Accessed December 2008. 

CHAPTER 3.15 SOCIOECONOMICS

Department of the Navy, 2008. Naval Base Coronado. 

https://www.cnic.navy.mil/Coronado/About/index.htm. Accessed September 24, 2008. 

San Diego Association of Governments. [SANDAG] United States Census 2008 Data 

Warehouse. http://datawarehouse.sandag.org/. Accessed 23 January 2008. 

San Diego Workforce Partnership 2008. The Manpower Workforce Report: A San Diego Labor 

Market Snapshot, Workforce Edition. Volume VIII, Issue 4 

United States Census, 2000. United States Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/ Accessed 

September 24, 2008. 

REFERENCES 8-46

3.13 Cultural Resources 3.14 Transportation & Circulation 3.15 Socioeconomics
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

CHAPTER 3.16 PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY

California Spatial Information Library 2003. http://gio.resources.ca.gov/. Accessed December 

2008. 

Department of the Navy. 1999. Site Development Plan. Naval Amphibious Base Coronado. 

Navy Environmental Leadership Program. 2000. NAS North Island and NAB Coronado 

Installation Restoration Program (www.nelp.navy.mil/ir.html). 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2005. Data Warehouse (on-line). 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2007. Data Warehouse (on-line). 

Teale GIS Solutions Group 1997. http://gis.ca.gov/BrowseCatalog.epl. Accessed December 2008. 

U.S. Census 2000. http://www.census.gov/. Accessed December 2008. 

CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE

Angliss, R. P., and D. P. DeMaster. 1998. Differentiating serious and non-serious injury of 

marine mammals taken incidental to commercial fishing operations: Report of the serious 

injury workshop 1-2 April 1997, Silver Spring, Maryland. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-13, 48 pp. 

California Air Resources Board. 2008. California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality – 2006 

Edition. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2002. A Survey of Non-Indigenous Species in 

the Coastal and Estuarine Waters of California for the State Water Resources Control 

Board, California Department of Fish and Game, and National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation. Prepared by A. N. Cohen, L. H. Harris, B. L. Bingham, J. T. Carlton, J. W. 

Chapman, G. Lambert, C. C. Lambert, J. C. Ljubenkov, S. N. Murray, L. C. Rao, K. 

Reardon, E. Schwindt. 

CEQ 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. 40 

CFR §§ 1500-1508. 

Copper, E. 1997a. The status of the Western snowy plover at the Radio Receiving Facility, 

Imperial Beach in 1995. Unpublished report prepared for the Natural Resources 

Management Branch, Southwestern Division Naval Facilities Command, San Diego, CA. 

Copper, E. 1997b. The status of the Western snowy plover at Naval Base Coronado, from 

November 1994 through February 1998. Draft report prepared for the Natural Resources 

Management Branch, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San 

Diego, CA. 

De Swart, R.L., Ross, P.S., Timmerman, H.H., Hijman, W.C., De Ruiter, E., Liem, A.K.D., 

Brouwer, A., Van Loveren, H., Reijnders, P.J.H., Vos, J.G., and Osterhaus, A.D.M.E. 

1995. Short-term fasting does not aggravate immunosuppression in harbour seals (Phoca 

vitulina) with high body burdens of organochlorines. Chemosphere, 31: 4289–4306. 

Domingo, M., Kennedy, S. and M-F. Van Bressem. 2002. Marine Mammal Mass Mortalities. In 

Marine Mammals Biology and Conservation P.J.G.H. Evans and A.J. Raga (eds.). 

Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, Pp. 425-456. 

Geraci, J. R. 1989. Clinical investigation of the 1987-88 mass mortality of bottlenose dolphins 

along the U.S. central and south Atlantic coast. Final report to the National Marine 

REFERENCES 8-47

4 Cumulative 3.16 Public Health & Safety
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

Fisheries Service, U. S. Navy, Office of Naval Research, and Marine Mammal 

Commission: 63. 

Kemp N.J. 1996. Habitat Loss and Degradation. Pp 263-280 in M.P. Simmonds and J.D. 

Hutchinson (eds.). The Conservation of Whales and Dolphins. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 

Chichester. 

Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions between 

ships and whales. Marine Mammal Science. 17:35–75. 

Marine Mammal Commission 2003. Annual Report to Congress. 

Marine Mammal Commission 2004. Annual Report to Congress. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007. Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, p. 1006.Reijnders, P.J.H. & A. Aguilar 

2002. Pollution and Marine Mammals. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig & J.G.M. Thewissen, 

Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, 948-956. 

San Diego Unified Port District (SDUPD). 2007. Port of San Diego 2007 annual report. San 

Diego, CA. 

CHAPTER 5 MITIGATION

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2006. Draft Aquatic Invasive Species 

Management Plan. 

Commander, Navy Region Southwest. 2002. Policy and procedure regarding sick, injured, or 

dead animals. June. 

Crooks, J.A. 1996. The population ecology of an exotic mussel, Musculista senhousia, in a 

southern California bay. Estuaries 19(1):42–50. 

Crooks, J.A. 1997. Invasions and effects of exotic marine species: a perspective from southern 

California. Paper presented at 1997 American Fisheries Society Meeting, Monterey, CA. 

Crooks, J.A. 1998b. Habitat alteration and community-level effects of an exotic mussel, 

Musculista senhousia. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 162:137–152. 

Foss, S. F., P. R. Ode, M. Sowby, M. Ashe. 2007 Non-indigenous Aquatic Organisms In The 

Coastal Waters Of California. California Fish and Game 93(3):111-129 Summer 

2007.Scatolini, S.R., and J.B. Zedler. 1996. Epibenthic invertebrates of natural and 

constructed marshes of San Diego Bay. Wetlands 16(1):24–37. 

Reusch, T.H.B. and S.L. Williams. 1998. Variable response of native eelgrass Zostera marina to a 

non-indigenous bivalve Musculista senhousia. Oecologia 113:428-441. 

Reusch, T.H.B. and S.L. Williams. 1999. Macrophyte canopy structure and the success of an 

invasive marine bivalve. Oikos 84:398-416. 

Takahashi, E. 1992b. Invertebrate communities associated with natural and transplanted eelgrass 

(Zostera marina) beds in San Diego Bay, California. M.S. Thesis, San Diego State 

University, San Diego, CA. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement for Sweetwater Marsh and South San Diego Bay Units, San Diego 

National Wildlife Refuge. San Diego, CA. 

REFERENCES 8-48

5 Mitigation 4 Cumulative 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

U.S. Department of the Navy 2008. NBC Hazardous Substance Release Integrated Contingency 

Plan 

CHAPTER 6 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY NEPA 

There are no references for this Chapter. 

CHAPTER 7 LIST OF PREPARERS

There are no references for this Chapter.

REFERENCES 

5 Mitigation 6 Other Considerations Required by NEPA 

8-49

7 List of Preparers 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX EIS REDLINE (DECEMBER 2009) 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: MAY NOT BE RELEASABLE UNDER FOIA 

This page intentionally left blank 

REFERENCES 8-50
9 Distribution List 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 9-1 

9 DISTRIBUTION LIST 

This chapter provides a list of public officials, agencies, tribal groups, organizations, and 

individuals who have either participated in the EIS scoping process or have been identified by 

the Navy as being on the notification or distribution list for the DEIS. 

Elected Officials and 

Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

Ronald Anzalone 

Washington, D.C. 

 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Jim Cason 

Washington, D.C. 

 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southern 

California Agency 

Virgil Townsend 

Riverside, CA 

Bureau of Land Management 

Maitland Sharpe Resource 

Assessment & Planning, 

Washington, D.C. 

 

Bureau of Land Management, 

California Coastal National 

Monument 

Rick Hanks 

Monterey, CA 

 

Bureau of Land Management, Palm 

Springs-South Coast Field Office 

Gail Acheson 

North Palm Springs, CA 

Bureau of Oceans and International 

Environmental and Scientific Affairs, 

Office of Ecology, Health, and 

Conservation 

David Balton 

Washington, D.C. 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Frank Michny 

Sacramento, CA 

 

California Air Resources Board 

Chief: Compliance Division 

James J Morgester 

Sacramento, CA 

 

California Air Resources Board 

Enforcement Division 

Jim Ryden 

Sacramento, CA 

California Coastal Commission, 

San Diego Coast District Office 

Sherilyn Sarb 

San Diego, CA 

 

California Coastal Commission 

Peter Douglas 

San Francisco, CA 

California Coastal Commission 

Mark Delaplaine 

San Francisco, CA 

 

California Coastal Commission, 

Federal Consistancy Office 

Larry Simon 

San Francisco, CA 

 

California Department of Boating 

and Waterways 

David Johnson 

Sacramento, CA 

California Department of Fish and 

Game, Environmental Services 

Division 

Robert Tasto 

Sacramento, CA 

 

California Department of Fish and 

Game, Marine Region -San Diego 

Field Office 

Patricia wolf 

San Diego, CA 

California Department of Fish and 

Game, Region 5 Manager 

Long Beach, CA 

California Department of Fish and 

Game, South Coast Region 

San Diego, CA 

California Department of Health 

Services 

Environmental Health Division 

David Spath 

Sacramento, CA 

 

California Department of Parks 

and Recreation 

Milford Wayne Donaldson 

Sacramento, CA 

California Department of Parks 

and Recreation 

Resource Management Division 

Paul Romero 

Sacramento, CA 

California Department of Parks 

and Recreation 

Tijuana Estuary 

Greg Abbott 

Imperial Beach, CA 

 

California Department of Toxic 

Substance Control, Region 4 

San Francisco, CA 

 

California Department of 

Transportation 

Will Kempton 

Sacramento, CA 

California Department of 

Transportation 

District 11 

San Diego, CA 

California Department of Water 

Resources 

Environmental Services Office 

Randall Brown 

Sacramento, CA 

California Energy Commission 

Jackalyne Pfannenstiel 

Sacramento, CA 

 

California Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Linda Adams 

Sacramento, CA 

 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 9-2 

California Fish and Game 

Commission 

Michael Flores 

Sacramento, CA 

California Indian Legal Services 

Brenda Tomaras 

Escondido, CA 

California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board 

Shirley Virosik 

Monterey Park, CA 

California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board, San Diego Region 9 

Dat Quach 

San Diego, CA 

 

California Resources Agency 

Mike Chrisman 

Headquarters 

Sacramento, CA 

 

California Resources Agency, 

Department of Conservation 

Brian Leahy 

Sacramento, CA 

California Resources Agency, 

Department of Conservation 

Carolyn Baker 

Sacramento, CA 

California State Assembly 

54th Assembly District 

Bonnie Lowenthal 

Long Beach, CA 

California State Assembly 

76th Assembly District 

Lori Saldana 

San Diego, CA 

California State Assembly 

78th Assembly District 

Marty Block 

Lemon Grove, CA 

 

California State Clearinghouse 

Sacramento, CA 

California State Coastal Conservation 

Michael Fischer 

Oakland, CA 

California State Lands Commission 

Dwight Sanders 

Sacramento, CA 

California State Senate, 

District 38 

Mark Wyland 

Carlsbad, CA 

California State Senate, 

District 39 

Christine Kehoe 

San Diego, CA 

California State Assembly, 

District 40 

Lloyd E. Levine 

Van Nuys, CA 

California State Water Resources 

Control Board 

Harry Schueller 

Sacramento, CA 

California State Water Resources 

Control Board 

Sacramento, CA 

California Wildlife Conservation 

Board 

John Donnelly 

Sacramento, CA 

Channel Islands national Marine 

Sanctuaries 

Chris Mobley 

Santa Barbara, CA 

City of Chula Vista 

Jim Sandoval 

Chula Vista, CA 

 

City of Chula Vista 

Cheryl Cox 

Chula Vista, CA 

City of Chula Vista 

Rudy Ramirez 

Chula Vista, CA 

City of Chula Vista 

John McCann 

Chula Vista, CA 

 

City of Chula Vista 

Pamela Bensoussan 

Chula Vista, CA 

City of Chula Vista 

Steve Castaneda 

Chula Vista, CA 

City of Coronado 

City Manager 

Mark Ochenduszko 

Coronado, CA 

 

City of Coronado 

Casey Tanaka 

Coronado, CA 

 

City of Coronado 

Mike Woiwode 

Coronado, CA 

City of Coronado 

Barbara Denny 

Coronado, CA 

 

City of Coronado 

Carrie Downey 

Coronado, CA 

 

City of Coronado 

Al Ovrom, Jr. 

Coronado, CA 

City of Coronado 

Central Library 

Coronado, CA 

City of Coronado 

Community Development 

Department 

Tony Pena 

Coronado, CA 

City of Coronado 

Unified School District 

Coronado, CA 

City of Coronado 

Silver Strand Elementary School 

Coronado, CA 

City of Imperial Beach 

Bayside Elementary School 

Imperial Beach, CA 

City of Imperial Beach 

Gary Brown 

Imperial Beach, CA 

 

City of Imperial Beach 

Jim Janney 

Imperial Beach, CA 

City of Imperial Beach 

Branch Library 

Imperial Beach, CA 

City of Imperial Beach 

Westview Elementary School 

Imperial Beach, CA 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 9-3 

City of Imperial Beach 

Community Development 

Department 

Imperial Beach, CA 

 

City of National City 

Chris Zapata 

National City, CA 

City of National City 

Ron Morrison 

National City, CA 

 

City of National City 

Francisco Parra 

National City, CA 

City of National City 

Jesse VanDeventer 

National City, CA 

 

City of National City 

Rosalie Zarate 

National City, CA 

City of Oceanside 

Oceanside Public Library 

Oceanside, CA 

 

City of San Diego 

Jerry Sanders 

City Administration Building, San 

Diego, CA 

City of San Diego 

Balboa Branch Library 

San Diego, CA 

City of San Diego 

Central Library 

Government Publications 

Gary Klockenga 

San Diego, CA 

City of San Diego 

East Branch Library 

San Diego, CA 

City of San Diego 

Mission Hills Branch Library 

San Diego, CA 

 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Washington, D.C. 

County of San Diego 

Department of Planning and Land 

Use 

San Diego, CA 

County of San Diego 

Chief Administration Officer 

Walter F Ekard 

San Diego, CA 

County of San Diego 

Deputy Chief Administration 

Officer 

Helen N Robbins-Meyer 

San Diego, CA 

 

County of San Diego Board of 

Supervisors District 1 

Gregory Cox 

San Diego, CA 

 

County of San Diego Board of 

Supervisors District 2 

Dianne Jacob 

San Diego, CA 

County of San Diego Board of 

Supervisors District 3 

Pam Slater-Price 

San Diego, CA 

County of San Diego Board of 

Supervisors District 4 

Ron Roberts 

Diego, CA 

 

County of San Diego Board of 

Supervisors District 5 

Bill Horn 

San Diego, CA 

City of San Diego Parks and 

Recreation Department 

Josh Garcia 

San Diego, CA 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Lawndale, CA 

 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Region IX 

Nancy Ward 

Oakland, CA 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

Sandro Amaglio 

San Francisco, CA 

 

Federal Maritime Commission, 

Office of the Information 

Resource Management 

Stephanie Burwell 

Washington, D.C. 

Governor of California 

Honorable Arnold 

Schwarzenegger 

Sacramento, CA 

 

Governor's Office of Planning 

and Research 

Cynthia Bryant 

Sacramento, CA 

Marine Mammal Commission 

Michael L. Gosliner 

Bethesda, MD 

Mineral Management Service 

National Offshore Office 

Herndon, VA 

Minerals Management Service, 

Pacific OCS Region 

Camarillo, CA 

 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service 

Roger Gentry 

Seattle, WA 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Southwest Regional 

Office 

Christina Fahy 

Long Beach, CA 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Office of Protected 

Resources 

Ken Hollingshead 

Silver Spring, MD 

 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Office of Protected 

Resources 

Jaclyn Daly 

Silver Spring, MD 

 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Office of Protected 

Resources 

Craig Johnson 

Silver Spring, MD 

NOAA Administration 

Ecological Conservation and 

Policy 

Donna Wieting 

Washington, D.C. 

NOAA Administration 

Regional Administration 

Southwest Region 

Hilda Diaz-Soltero 

Long Beach, CA 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 9-4 

NOAA Administration 

Roger Gentry 

Seattle, WA 

NOAA Administration 

Mark Helvey 

Santa Rosa, CA 

NOAA Marine Protected Areas 

Center 

Joseph Uravitch 

Silver Spring, MD 

 

NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center 

James Carretta 

La Jolla, CA 

 

Office of Environmental Health 

Hazard Assessment 

Joan Denton 

Sacramento, CA 

Office of Historic Preservation 

California Department of Parks and 

Recreation 

Sacramento, CA 

 

Office of Military Base Retention and 

Reuse 

General Jefferds, Director 

Sacramento, CA 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

John Coon 

Portland, OR 

 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

Commission 

Randy Fisher 

Portland, OR 

Port of San Diego 

Captain of the Port 

Stanley Westover 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Air Pollution Control 

District 

Scott Underhill 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Association of 

Governments 

Rob Rundle 

San Diego, CA 

 

San Diego Harbor Police 

San Diego, CA 

 

San Diego Unified Port District, 

Environmental Services 

David Merk 

San Diego, CA 92112-0488 

San Diego Unified Port District, 

Land Use Planning 

John Helmer 

San Diego, CA 

Silver Strand State Beach 

Coronado, CA 

 

South Coast Air Quality 

Management District 

Diamond Bar, CA 

 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

San Diego Project Office 

Mark Tucker 

San Diego, CA 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

South Pacific Division, 

Los Angeles District 

Thomas H. Magness, IV 

Los Angeles, CA 

 

U.S. Coast Guard 

T.J. Granito 

Washington, D.C. 

 

U.S. Coast Guard 

LT CDR Daniels 

Long Beach, CA 

U.S. Coast Guard Activities Port 

Operations 

Kathleen Garza 

San Diego, CA 

U.S. Coast Guard, Eleventh Coast 

Guard District 

Marine Safety Division 

Long Beach, CA 

U.S. Coast Guard Activities 

Marine Safety Division 

CDR James Farley 

San Diego, CA 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service 

Shannon Starratt 

Portland, OR 

U.S. Department of Defense 

Deputy Natural Resources 

ODASD (E) 

L Peter Boice 

Arlington, VA 

U.S. Department of Education 

Department of Education, 

Science, and Environmental 

Education Unit 

Mr. David Hammond 

Sacramento, CA 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Ms. Tara J. O’Toole 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Ms. Carol Borgstrom 

NEPA Oversight Director 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services 

Mr. Richard Green 

Safety Manager 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

James Kilbourne 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Dirk Kempthorne 

Washington, D.C. 

 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Office of Environmental Policy 

& Compliance 

Patricia S. Port 

Oakland, CA 

U.S. Department of State 

Bureau of Oceans, International 

Environment, and Scientific 

Affairs (OES/EHC) 

Evelyn Wheeler 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Daniel W. Leubecker 

Maritime Administration 

Washington, D.C. 

 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Kim DePaul 

Washington, D.C 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX 

Office of Federal Activities 

David Farrel 

San Francisco, CA 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 9-5 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

California-Nevada Operations 

Steve Thompson 

Sacramento, CA 

 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Sacramento Office 

Sacramento, CA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San 

Diego NWRC 

Chula Vista, CA 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Sandy Vissman 

Carlsbad, CA 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Gordon Eaton 

Palo Alto, CA 

 

U.S. Geological Survey, Marine 

Coastal Group 

Michael Fisher 

Menlo Park, CA 

U.S. Geological Survey, Western 

Regional Offices 

Menlo Park, CA 

U.S. House of Representatives 

District 44 

Ken Calvert 

Riverside, CA 

U.S. House of Representatives 

District 46 

Dana Rohrabacher 

Huntington Beach, CA 

 

U.S. House of Representatives 

District 48 

John Campbell 

Newport Beach, CA 

U.S. House of Representatives 

District 49 

Darrell Issa 

Vista, CA 

U.S. House of Representatives 

District 50 

Brian Bilbray 

Solana Beach, CA 

U.S. House of Representatives 

District 51 

Robert Filner 

Chula Vista, CA 

U.S. House of Representatives 

District 52 

Duncan Hunter 

El Cajon, CA 

U.S. House of Representatives 

District 53 

Susan Davis 

San Diego, CA 

U.S. Senate 

Barbara Boxer 

San Diego, CA 

 

U.S. Senate 

Dianne Feinstein 

San Diego, CA 

 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 9-6 

Public List

American Association of Port 

Authorities 

Susan Monteverde 

Alexandria, VA 

 

American Bird Conservancy 

Michael J. Parr 

Washington, D.C. 

American Cetacean Society 

Patty Geary 

San Pedro, CA 

 

American Fisheries Society 

Ghassan Rassam 

Bethesda, MD 

American Legion, San Diego Chapter 

San Diego, CA 

 

American Oceans Campaign 

Herbert Beldofe 

Washington, D.C. 

American Veterans 

New York, NY 

Audubon Society, San Diego Chapter 

Mel Hinton 

San Diego, CA 

 

Audubon Society, San Diego Chapter 

Chris Redfern 

San Diego, CA 

Barona Band of Mission Indians 

Clifford M. Lachappa, Sr., Chairman 

Lakeside, CA 

Helen Bourne 

Carlsbad, CA 

 

California Abalone Association 

John Colgate 

Santa Barbara, CA 

California Cooperative Fishery 

Research Unit 

Walter Duffy 

Arcata, CA 

 

California Indian Legal Services 

Charmaine Huntting-Coronel 

Escondido, CA 

California Lobster & Trap 

Fishermen’s Association 

John Guth 

Vista, CA 

 

California Native Plant Society, 

San Diego Chapter 

Carolyn Martus 

c/o San Diego Natural History 

Museum, 

San Diego, CA 

 

California Yacht Marina, Chula 

Vista 

Chula Vista, CA 

Jane Carney Schulze 

Visuals Plus 

San Diego, CA 

Cassedy, Jayne 

Catfish Club 

San Diego, CA 

Center for Biological Diversity 

San Diego, CA 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay 

Indians 

Ralph Goff, Chairman 

Campo, CA 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Los Angeles, CA 

Center for Marine Conservation 

Kristina Roy 

Washington, D.C. 

Charter Connections 

Pamela Terrebone 

Coronado, CA 

 

CHIPS Magazine 

NCTAMS LANT 

Norfolk, VA 

Chubasco Sportfishing 

Ernie Cazis 

Reseda, CA 

Chula Vista Chamber of 

Commerce 

Chula Vista, CA 

Chula Vista Marina 

Chula Vista, CA 

Chula Vista Yacht Club 

Chula Vista, CA 

 

Clean Bay Campaign 

San Diego, CA 

 

Coastal Maritime Archaeological 

Resources 

Los Angeles Maritime Museum 

San Pedro, CA 

Coronado Cays Homeowners 

Association 

Coronado, CA 

 

Coronado Cays Yacht Club 

Jim Shirey 

Coronado, CA 

Coronado Chamber of 

Commerce 

Coronado, CA 

Coronado Eagle and Journal 

Dean Eckenroth 

Coronado, CA 

Coronado Navy League 

Mr. Mike Conner 

Coronado, CA 

Coronado Shores Condominium 

Association Number 1 

Coronado, CA 

Coronado Shores Condominium 

Association Number 2 

Coronado, CA 

Coronado Shores Condominium 

Association Number 3 

Coronado, CA 

Coronado Shores Condominium 

Association Number 4 

Coronado, CA 

Coronado Shores Condominium 

Association Number 5 

Coronado, CA 

Coronado Shores Condominium 

Association Number 6 

Coronado, CA 

Coronado Shores Condominium 

Association Number 7 

Coronado, CA 

Coronado Shores Condominium 

Association Number 8 

Coronado, CA 

Coronado Shores Condominium 

Association Number 9 

Coronado, CA 

Coronado Shores Condominium 

Association Number 10 

Coronado, CA 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 9-7 

Coronado Yacht Club 

Lou Milioti 

Coronado, CA 

Cousteau Society 

Clark Merriam 

Hampton, VA 

Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians 

Tony J. Pinto, Chairman 

Alpine, CA 

Joan Dean 

San Diego, CA 

 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Sacramento, CA 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Washington, D.C. 

 

Defense News 

Sharon Denny 

Springfield, CA 

Dogs at Play 

Imperial Beach, CA 

 

E&E Publishing, LLC Greenwire 

Washington, D.C. 

Earthjustice 

Elizabeth Carpino 

Oakland, CA 

 

Ecology Center of Southern 

California 

Anna Harlowe 

Los Angeles, CA 

Endangered Species Recovery 

Council 

William Everett 

La Jolla, CA 

Engineering Management Concepts 

Anthony Parisi 

Camarillo, CA 

Environment Now 

Terry O'Day 

Santa Monica, CA 

Environmental Defense Fund 

New York, NY 

Environmental Health Coalition 

Laura Hunter 

National City, CA 

Federal/Navy Times 

Springfield, VA 

Marilyn Field 

Coronado, CA 

FOX - 6 

San Diego, CA 

 

Friends of Sea Lions 

Bill Ford 

Laguna Beach, CA 

Fury Sportfishing Inc. 

Rick Doesburg 

San Clemente, CA 

 

Glorietta Bay Marina 

Coronado, CA 

Greater San Diego Business 

Association 

San Diego, CA 

Greenaction for Health and 

Environmental Justice 

Bradley Angel 

San Francisco, CA 

Greenpeace 

Washington, D.C. 

Wayne Harmon 

San Diego, CA 

 

Helgren Sportsfishing 

Richard Helgren 

Oceanside, CA 

The Hook 

San Diego, CA 

Horizon Charter 

Lou & Sandy Crivetto 

San Diego, CA 

 

Hotel Del Coronado 

Coronado, CA 

Hubbs-Sea World Research 

Institute 

Ann Bowles 

San Diego, CA 

 

Hubbs-Sea World Research 

Institute 

Brent Stewart 

San Diego, CA 

Humane Society 

Naomi Rose 

Washington, D.C. 

 

Imperial Beach Chamber of 

Commerce & Visitors Bureau 

Imperial Beach, CA 

Imperial Beach Times 

Imperial Beach, CA 

Inaja & Cosmit Band of Mission 

Indians 

Rebecca Maxcy, Chairperson 

San Ysabel, CA 

Institute for Wildlife Studies 

Shane Heath 

Arcata, CA 

 

International Boundary and 

Waters Commission 

Steve Smullen 

El Paso, TX 

Island Gabrieleno Group 

John Jeffredo, PhD 

San Marcos, CA 

Jamul Band of Mission Indians 

Raymond Hunter, Chairman 

Jamul, CA 

Johnson, Marianne 

Juaneno Band Mission Indians 

Chair 

San Juan Capistrano, CA 

KCBQ (1170 AM) 

San Diego, CA 

 

KCEO (1000 AM) 

Carlsbad, CA 

Kelp Cutters 

Dale Glantz 

San Diego, CA 

KFMB - 760 

San Diego, CA 

KFMB - Ch 8 

Nichelle Medina 

San Diego, CA 

 

KGTV - Ch 10 

San Diego, CA 

Kiwanis Club, San Diego 

Chapter 

San Diego, CA 

 

KNSD 7/39 

San Diego, CA 

KOGO (600 AM) 

San Diego, CA 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 9-8 

KPBS TV 

San Diego, CA 

KSWB 69 

San Diego, CA 

Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation 

Committee 

Mr. Steve Banegas, Chairman 

Lakeside, CA 

 

KUSI 51 

San Diego, CA 

La Posta Band of Mission Indians 

Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson 

Lakeside, CA 

La Prensa San Diego 

National City, CA 

 

Lions Club, Downtown San Diego 

Dennis Smith 

San Diego, CA 

Loews Coronado Bay Resort 

Coronado. CA 

Loews Coronado Marina 

Coronado, CA 

Marv Lyons 

Chula Vista, CA 

Manzanita Band of Mission Indians 

Frances Shaw, Chairperson 

Boulevard, CA 

Marlin Club 

Helen Pros 

San Diego, CA 

Marlin Club 

Mr. Halen 

San Diego, CA 

Michael McGinty 

PHRF San Diego 

San Diego, CA 

Neil McGuinness 

Coronado Yacht Club 

Coronado, CA 

McKiman, Dan 

Mesa Grande Band of Mission 

Indians 

Carlos Guassac, Chairman 

Santa Ysabel, CA 

Military Press 

San Diego, CA 

Mitchell, Ken 

San Diego, CA 

National Audubon Society 

New York, NY 

 

National City Chamber of 

Commerce 

National City, CA 

National Coalition for Marine 

Conservation 

Ken Hinman 

Leesburg, VA 

National Resources Defense 

Council 

San Francisco, CA 

 

Native American Heritage 

Commission 

Rob Wood 

Sacramento, CA 

Natural Resources Defense 

Council 

New York, NY 

Natural Resources Defense 

Council 

Joel Reynolds 

Los Angeles, CA 

 

Nature Conservancy, San Diego 

Chapter 

San Diego, CA 

Naval Aviation News Magazine 

Blake Towler 

Washington, D.C. 

 

Navy Compass 

San Diego, CA 

Navy Dispatch 

San Diego, CA 

Navy League, Coronado Chapter 

Mike Conner 

Coronado, CA 

 

Navy League, Coronado Council 

Harlan Dinger 

La Mesa, CA 

Navy Marine Corps Times 

San Diego Bureau 

Gidget Fuentes 

Carlsbad, CA 

Navy Yacht Club San Diego 

Fiddler’s Cove Marina 

Coronado, CA 

North County Times 

Joe Beck 

Escondido, CA 

 

North County Times 

Dennis Devine 

Escondido, CA 

Ocean Beach Branch Library 

San Diego, CA 

 

Ocean Futures Society 

Richard Murphy 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Oceanside Anglers Club 

Jim Squibb 

Oceanside, CA 

 

Oceanside Chamber of 

Commerce 

David L. Nydegger 

Oceanside, CA 

Office of Military Base 

Retention and Reuse 

General Jefferds 

Sacramento, CA 

Optimist International, 

San Diego 

San Diego, CA 

Orange County Marine Institute 

Harry Helling 

Dana Point, CA 

 

Pacific Anglers 

Joanne Bowen 

Irvine, CA 

Pacific Coast Archaeological 

Society (PCAS) 

Megan Galway 

Costa Mesa, CA 

Pacific Coast Federation of 

Fishermen’s Associations 

Southwest Regional Office 

Chuck Wise 

San Francisco, CA 

Pacific Merchant Shipping 

Association 

Jon McLauren 

San Francisco, CA 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 9-9 

Robert Patton 

San Diego, CA 

 

Peace Resource Center 

Carol Jahnkow 

San Diego, CA 

Peninsula Beacon 

San Diego, CA 

 

Peninsula Chamber of Commerce 

San Diego, CA 

People for the Ethical Treatment of 

Animals 

Norfork, VA 

 

Planning and Conservation League 

Gary A. Patton 

Sacramento, CA 

 

Recreational Boaters of California 

Sacaramento, CA 

 

Retired Officers Association 

Jim Cahil 

Coronado, CA 

Rod and Reel Club 

Bertram Serden 

San Diego, CA 

 

Rotary Club 

San Diego, CA 

Rural Alliance for Military 

Accountability (RAMA) 

Grace Potorti 

Reno, NV 

Salt Water Fly Rodders 

Kevin Olson 

Montrose, CA 

 

San Diego Anglers 

Dave Parenude 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego County Archaeological 

Society 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Association of Yacht 

Clubs 

Pete Curtin 

Chula Vista, CA 

San Diego Business Journal 

San Diego, CA 

 

San Diego Central Library 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Chamber of Commerce 

San Diego, CA 

 

San Diego Coastkeeper 

Bruce Reznik 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Community 

Newsgroup 

Kailee Bradstreet 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Council of Divers 

Scott Anderson 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego County Archeological 

Society 

Jim Royal 

San Diego, CA 

 

San Diego Daily Transcript 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Flyfishers 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Harbor Police 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Herpetological Society 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Log 

Welch 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Magazine 

San Diego, CA 

 

San Diego Marlin Club 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Natural History 

Museum 

San Diego, CA 

 

San Diego Oceans Foundation 

John Valencia 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Port District 

Paul Speer 

Coronado, CA 

San Diego Port Tenants 

Association 

Kristin Tyson 

San Diego, CA 

 

San Diego Reader 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Regional Chamber of 

Commerce 

San Diego, CA 

 

San Diego Rod and Reel Club 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Shark Diving 

Expeditions 

Paul Anes 

San Diego, CA 

 

San Diego State University 

Robert Fisher 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego State University 

Department of Anthropology 

Lynn Gamble 

San Diego, CA 

 

San Diego Union Tribune 

Cheryl Walker 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Voice and Viewpoint 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Yacht Club 

Commodore 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego Yacht Club Anglers 

Bill Carey 

San Diego, CA 

San Fernando Valley Salt Water 

Fishermen 

Gerald Sanchez 

Newbury Park, CA 

San Pasqual Band of Mission 

Indians 

Dorothy Tavui, Chairperson 

Valley Center, CA 

San Ysidro Chamber of 

Commerce 

Leonardo Alarcon 

San Ysidro, CA 

Sandia National Laboratories 

Albuquerque, NM 

Santa Ysabel Band of Mission 

Indians 

Ben Scerato, Chairman 

Santa Ysabel, CA 

Santana Magazine/Dockside 

Media Corporation 

Kitty James 

Irvine, CA 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 9-10 

Save Our Bay 

William Claycomb 

Imperial Beach, CA 

Scripps Institute of Oceanography 

Cindy Clark 

La Jolla, CA 

 

Scripps Institute of Oceanography 

Bill Gaines 

La Jolla, CA 

Sea Divers 

Erik Storsteen 

Redondo Beach, CA 

 

Sea Grant Program 

James J. Sullivan 

La Jolla, CA 

Sea Magazine 

Mary Pivovaroff 

Irvine, CA 

Sea Urchin Harvester’s Association 

of California 

Peter Halmay 

Lakeside, CA 

Sea World 

Jim McBain 

San Diego, CA 

Shivley, Ellen 

San Diego, CA 

Shore Station Management Center 

Heather McIntosh 

Patuxent River, MD 

Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter 

Joe Zechman 

San Diego, CA 

Silver Strand State Beach 

Coronado, CA 

Society for California Archaeology 

Business Office 

Department of Anthropology 

California State University Fresno 

Fresno, CA 

 

Society for Ecological Restoration 

International 

Tucson, AZ 

Southern California Coastal Water 

Research Project 

Westminster, CA 

Kay Stewart 

San Diego, CA 

Southern California Trawlers 

Association 

Mike McCorkle 

Summerland, CA 

Southern California Yachting 

Association 

Gail Hine 

Tustin, CA 

Southwest Anglers Incorp 

Val Valdez 

Torrence, CA 

Southwest Network for 

Environmental and Economic 

Justice 

Jose T. Bravo 

Albuquerque, NM 

Southwest Yacht Club Anglers 

Bob Bossier 

San Diego, CA 

Sportfishing Association of 

California 

Bob Fletcher 

San Diego, CA 

Steamship Association of 

Southern California 

Jay Winter 

Los Angeles, CA 

 

Surface Warfare Magazine 

Steven C. Sparling 

Alexandria, VA 

Surfrider Foundation, San Diego 

Chapter 

Heather Hoogendam 

Solana Beach, CA 

Sycuan Band of Mission Indians 

Georgia Tucker, Chairwoman 

El Cajon, CA 

Taylor/Pacific Beach Branch 

Library 

San Diego, CA 

U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary 

Coronado Bay Flotilla 

Joan Swartz 

c/o Coronado Yacht Club 

Coronado, CA 

University of California, Los 

AngelesYoung Research Library 

Roberta Medford 

Los Angeles, CA 

University of California-San 

Diego, Dept. Of Biology 

David S. Woodruff 

La Jolla, CA 

Upfront Communications 

Dan Walsh 

Encinitas, CA 

Urchin Producers Marketing 

Association 

Ed Kanig 

San Diego, CA 

Judith Vaquier, Ph.D. 

La Jolla, CA 

 

Vernal Pools Society 

Ramona, CA 

Veterans of Foreign Wars, 

San Diego Regional Office 

San Diego, CA 

Viejas Band of Mission Indians 

Anthony Pico, Chairman 

Alpine, CA 

Wadham, Willis Robert 

 

Wildland Resources Center 

University of California 

Berkeley, CA 

Wildlife Society, Western 

Section 

Forestry Services Lab 

John Kie 

Fresno, CA 

 

Wings of Gold 

Naval Aviation Foundation 

Rosario Rausa 

Alexandria, VA 

XETV - Ch 6 

San Diego, CA 

 

Yim, Douglas 

Coronado, CA 

YMCA - Camp Surf 

Mark Thompson 

Imperial Beach, CA 

Zoological Society of San Diego 

Jeff Opdycke 

San Diego, CA 

 
Appendix A 

Federal Register Notice of Intent 

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2001 / Notices 41009

1. The SSA will use 60–0103, entitled

‘Supplemental Security Income Record

and Special Veterans Benefits’, last

published on February 21, 2001 at 66 FR

11080.

2. The DMDC will use S322.10

DMDC, entitled ‘Defense Manpower

Data Center Data Base’, last published

on May 31, 2001 at 66 FR 29552.

E. DESCRIPTION OF COMPUTER MATCHING

PROGRAM:

SSA, as the source agency, will

provide DMDC with an electronic file

which contains the data elements. Upon

receipt of the electronic file, DMDC, as

the recipient agency, will perform a

computer match using all nine digits of

the SSN of the SSI/SVB file against a

DMDC database which contains the data

elements. The DMDC database consists

of extracts of personnel and pay records

of retired members of the uniformed

services or their survivors. The ‘‘hits’’ or

matches will be furnished to SSA. SSA

is responsible for verifying and

determining that the data on the DMDC

electronic reply file are consistent with

the SSA source file and resolving any

discrepancies or inconsistencies on an

individual basis. SSA will also be

responsible for making final

determinations as to eligibility for

/entitlement to, or amount of payments/

benefits, their continuation or needed

adjustments, or any recovery of

overpayments as a result of the match.

The DMDC database consists of extracts

of personnel and pay records of retired

members of the uniformed services or

their survivors.

1. The electronic SSA query file

contains approximately 6.5 million

records extracted from the

Supplemental Security Income Record.

2. The electronic DMDC database

contains records on approximately 2.15

million retired uniformed service

members or their survivors.

F. INCLUSIVE DATES OF THE MATCHING PROGRAM:

This computer matching program is

subject to public comment and review

by Congress and the Office of

Management and Budget. If the

mandatory 30 day period for comment

has expired and no comments are

received and if no objections are raised

by either Congress. The Office of

Management and Budget within 40 days

of being notified of the proposed match,

the computer matching program

becomes effective and the respective

agencies may begin the exchange at a

mutually agreeable time on a quarterly

basis, shifting to a monthly basis when

and if the computer system work can be

completed to effectuate the increased

frequency. By agreement between SSA

and DMDC, the matching program will

be in effect for 18 months with an

option to renew for 12 additional

months unless one of the parties to the

agreement advises the other by written

request to terminate or modify the

agreement.

G. ADDRESS FOR RECEIPT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

OR INQUIRIES:

Director, Defense Privacy Office, 1941

Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 920,

Arlington, VA 22202–4502. Telephone

(703) 607–2943.

[FR Doc. 01–19591 Filed 8–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Notice of Intent To Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

for Optimizing Current and Future

Operations, Training and Maintenance

at the Beaches of Naval Amphibious

Base (NAB) Coronado and Naval Radio

Receiving Facility (NRRF) Imperial

Beach and To Announce Public

Scoping Meetings

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy

(Navy) announces its intent to prepare

an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) to evaluate the environmental

effects of current and future operations,

training and maintenance at the beaches

of Naval Amphibious Base Coronado,

‘‘NAB’’, Naval Radio Receiving Facility

Imperial Beach, ‘‘NRRF’’, and within the

fenced compound at NRRF.

DATES AND ADDRESSES: Public scoping

open houses will be held to receive oral

and/or written comments on

environmental concerns that should be

addressed in the EIS. Public scoping

open houses will be held from 7:00 to

8:30 p.m. the following dates and

locations: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 at

the Coronado Public Library (Winn

Room), 640 Orange Avenue, Coronado,

CA; Wednesday, August 29, 2001 at

Bayside Elementary School, 490 Emory

Street, Imperial Beach, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Jenny Boyd, South Bay Area Focus

Team, Southwest Division, Naval

Facilities Engineering Command, 2585

Callagan Highway, Building 99, San

Diego, CA 92136–5198, telephone (619)

556–8589.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to section 102(2)(c) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of

1969, as implemented by the Council on

Environmental Quality Regulations (40

CFR Parts 1500–1508), the Department

of the Navy (Navy) announces its intent

to prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) to evaluate the

environmental effects of current and

future operations, training and

maintenance at the beaches of Naval

Amphibious Base Coronado, ‘‘NAB’’,

Naval Radio Receiving Facility Imperial

Beach, ‘‘NRRF’’, and within the fenced

compound at NRRF.

NAB Coronado is the only Navy

amphibious base on the West Coast. It

includes 5,500 yards of Pacific Ocean

and bayside beachfront that is used for

training. This area, along with 2,000

yards of Pacific Ocean beachfront at

NRRF, provide operators with 7,500

yards of expansive beaches, unique

topography, and on-base facilities that

encompass a critical area for

amphibious and clandestine training in

support of littoral, unconventional, and

special warfare operations.

The proposed action is to allocate

operations and training between NAB

and NRRF in a manner that optimizes

use of those facilities while protecting

threatened and endangered species.

Operationally realistic training at NAB

and NRRF is critical to military mission

readiness requirements. However, due

to the Navy’s on-going, successful

resource management program,

threatened and endangered biological

resources are thriving on the beaches at

NAB Coronado. This poses a problem

for scheduling required training because

the increase in least tern and snowy

plover populations is decreasing the

size of beachfront available for crucial

training and the time during which it is

available.

NAB has reviewed its current and

future operations, training and

maintenance requirements as well as the

training needs of tenant commands and

other commands in Southern California

that use the training facilities at NAB.

The EIS will address three alternatives

(including the No Action Alternative)

for optimizing training at NAB and

NRRF based on that internal review.

The No Action Alternative would

continue current levels of operations at

NAB and NRRF and utilize natural

resource management strategies

identified in NAB’s natural resource

management plan. While most

operations and training currently are

conducted at NAB, a limited number of

amphibious training operations are

conducted at NRRF. Specific operations

are delineated for each location. Current

operations delineated for NAB include

Warfare Training (amphibious assaults

and combat training, clandestine shore

assaults, mine countermeasures,


Appendix A

1
41010 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2001 / Notices

navigation/surf handling training,

SCUBA training, ship surveillance) and

Strategic Sealift Training (Elevated

Causeway System Training) on the

Pacific Ocean beachfront. Current

bayside operations also include Warfare

Training (amphibious assaults and

clandestine shore assaults) and Strategic

Sealift Training (ELCAS, amphibious

assault bulk fuel/water systems). NAB

also supports several training area users

that have unique training requirements.

One of the larger users is the Marine

Corp’s Expeditionary Warfare Training

Group, Pacific. Their primary mission is

to conduct warfare training courses for

expeditionary and amphibious

operations with emphasis on landing

force operations using amphibious

platforms. Current operations delineated

for NRRF include inflatable landing

craft, practice assault beaching and

underwater navigation techniques.

Current resource management strategies

will continue with the habitat

maintenance practice of predator

control, decoy placement, beach

maintenance, and coning off Western

snowy plover nests on the beaches at

NAB. It will also continue using the

formal scheduling process for training

operations.

Alternative One proposes a more

integrated use of NAB and NRRF for

current operations as well as the

addition of new types of operations at

NAB and NRRF. Under Alternative One,

all 7,500 yards of beach area at NAB and

NRRF would be available to support

current operations. This alternative

recognizes the dynamic that exists

between operational uses and protection

of natural resources. As the most

significant natural resource issues at

NAB involve nesting and foraging,

location and timing of operations are

critical considerations. Training

operations often conflict with nesting

season of growing least tern and snowy

plover populations. Alternative One

would provide operators with the

option of training at NAB or NRRF

during nesting season and would

address the complete range of impacts

of training at both NAB and NRRF.

Rather than a rigid matrix that pairs

specific operations with a specific

location, Alternative One proposes that

decisions on the location of operations

be based upon the ability of the location

to handle a given type and level of

operations at a given time of year. This

would allow greater flexibility for year

round use of NAB and NRRF. The

following operations are included under

Alternative One: Warfare Training,

Strategic Sealift Training, and landing

force operations currently conducted at

NAB; inflatable landing craft, practice

assault beaching, and underwater

navigation techniques currently

conducted at NRRF; and new operations

consisting of mine disabling training in

San Diego Bay along the NAB shoreline;

new operations consisting of ordnance

disposal training and land

reconnaissance exercises on the beach

and within the fenced compound at

NRRF.

In addition to the current habitat

maintenance practice of predator

control, decoy placement, beach

maintenance, coning off Western snowy

plover nests and using a formal

scheduling procedure, Alternative One

proposes to incorporate coning off

California least tern nests and clearly

delineating beach-crossing lanes.

Alternative Two proposes to relocate

the majority of current Warfare

Training, Strategic Sealift Training, and

landing force operations from NAB to

NRRF during nesting season. Current

operations involving inflatable landing

craft, practice assault beaching, and

underwater navigation techniques

would continue at NRRF. Alternative

Two also includes: the addition of mine

disabling training in San Diego Bay

along the NAB shoreline, new ordnance

disposal training, and land

reconnaissance exercises on the beach

and within the fenced compound at

NRRF. Alternative Two also proposes

the additional habitat maintenance

practices of coning off California least

tern nests and clearly delineating beachcrossing lanes, as proposed in

Alternative One at NAB.

In addition to analyzing impacts on

the full range of natural, biological, and

cultural resources, the EIS will examine

aesthetic and socioeconomic issues,

management practices for California

least tern and Western snowy plover

nesting habitat avoidance, and

management practices for the salt marsh

bird’s beak.

To facilitate preparation of its EIS, the

Navy has initiated this scoping process.

The purpose of the scoping process is to

identify community concerns and local

issues that should be addressed.

Federal, state, and local agencies,

elected officials, non-governmental

organizations, and interested persons

are encouraged to attend scheduled

scoping meetings and provide

comments on the scope of issues to be

addressed in the EIS. Scoping comments

that clearly describe specific issues or

topics are particularly helpful.

All comments not received at the

scheduled public meetings must be in

writing and must be postmarked by

September 14, 2001. Comments should

be mailed or faxed to: Southwest

Division, Naval Facilities Engineering

Command, Attn: Ms. Jenny Boyd, South

Bay Area Focus Team, 2585 Callagan

Highway, Building 99, San Diego, CA

92136–5198, fax (619) 556–8929.

Dated: July 30, 2001.

T.J. Welsh,

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate

General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register

Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–19613 Filed 8–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Idaho Operations Office; Emerging

Technology Deployment

AGENCY: Idaho Operations Office, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of availability of

financial assistance solicitation No. DE–

PS07–01ID14181.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE) Idaho Operations Office

(ID) is soliciting the submission of

proposals for field testing of

technologies to reduce energy

consumption, enhance economic

competitiveness, and reduce

environmental impacts, specifically in

the Industries of the Future (IOF)

industrial sectors. The objective of the

solicitation is to find ways to mitigate

the risk to industries of accepting and

using emerging technologies developed

by the IOF program. It is not the intent

of DOE–ID to solicit research and

development projects. At least a 50%

cost share will be required.

This solicitation is commissioned on

behalf of the DOE’s Office of Industrial

Technology (OIT) BestPractices

Program, which has been established to

provide integrated delivery of energysaving products, services, and

technologies to the nine IOF sectors.

Additional information about the

BestPractices Program can be found on

the website (http://www.oit.doe.gov/

bestpractices). The IOF industryspecific vision documents and

technology roadmaps are available at

http://www.oit.doe.gov/ under

individual IOF program areas.

DATES: The deadline for receipt of

applications is October 19, 2001.

Awards are expected to be made on or

about January 15, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The solicitation in its full

text is available on the Internet at the

following URL address: http://ecenter.doe.gov. All applications must be

submitted through the DOE e-center

site.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.

Wade Hillebrant, Contract Specialist,

hillebtw@id.doe gov.


Appendix A

2
Appendix B 

Description of Vessels 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

APPENDIX B 

Appendix B 

 Descriptions of Vessels, Vehicles, and Aircraft used at SSTC 

TYPE OF 

EQUIPMENT

DESCRIPTION

MARITIME VESSELS

Small 

Insertion/Extraction 

Vessels 

Consists of different types of crafts such as the Combat Rubber Raiding Craft 

(CRRC), Inflatable Boats (IBS), and Sea Kayak. The CRRC is a 15-foot rubber raft 

and may be equipped with a small engine. IBS and Kayak boats are propelled by 

paddling. CRRCs and IBS hold up to 9 crew members. 

Support/Transport 

Vessels 

The Mark V Special Operations Craft (Mark V SOC) is an 82-foot vessel used to 

carry Special Operations Forces (SOF), primarily SEAL combat swimmers, into 

and out of operations. 

The Landing Craft, Mechanized and Utility (LCM/LCU) and Maritime 

Prepositioned Force Utility Boat (MPFUB) are capable of transporting cargo, 

tracked and/or wheeled vehicles and troops from amphibious assault ships to 

beachheads or piers. LCUs are 135-foot propeller driven craft that are typically 

used to land/retrieve personnel and equipment (tanks, artillery, equipment, motor 

vehicles) during amphibious operations. LCMs have a bow ramp for 

unload/offload. Holds 14 crew members. 

Landing Craft, Air Cushioned (LCAC) is an 87-foot high-speed, over-the-beach 

fully amphibious landing craft, capable of carrying a 60- to 75-ton payload and 

capable of speeds of more than 40 knots over water. Capable of operating from 

existing and planned well deck ships, it is used to transport weapons systems, 

equipment, cargo and personnel from ship to shore and across the beach. The 

LCAC, like all "hovercraft," rides on a cushion of air. The air is supplied to the 

cushion by four centrifugal fans driven by the craft's gas turbine engines. The air is 

enclosed by a flexible skirt system manufactured of rubberized canvas. Holds 5 

crew members. 

Propeller Driven 

Crafts 

Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats (RHIBs) are 35-foot high-speed, high-buoyancy, 

extreme-weather craft with the primary mission of SEAL insertion/extraction, 

which have a rigid hull and inflatable tube gunwale made of reinforced fabric. The 

rugged, seaworthy, versatile 36-foot RHIB has a 200-nm range at 32 knots, with a 

45-knot top speed. It can carry 8 passengers or 3,200-pound payload and 3 crew 

members. 

Water-Jet Driven 

Craft/Personal 

Watercraft 

The Jet-boat craft that will replace outboard engine RHIB vessels in the future. 

Small jet-driven vessel (i.e., wave runner) is primarily used for safety support and 

in the surf zone. 

Ship to Shore 

Logistics Equipment 

Causeway Section Powered/Warping Tug and Barge Ferrys make up the main 

building blocks for the modular causeway section and ELCAS activities. The 

causeway sections are 24 foot x 80 foot platforms configured from compatible 

floating pontoons. Causeway sections are assembled to configure three subsystems: Floating Causeway, Roll On/Roll Off Discharge Facility (RRDF), and 

Causeway Ferry. The OUB (Offshore Petroleum Discharge System [OPDES] 

Utility Boat) to support ship to shore transfer of fluids. 

Unmanned 

Underwater Vehicles 

(UUV) 

Self-propelled submersible used in reconnaissance activities for either fully 

autonomous (programmed) or under minimal supervisory control. Vehicles range 

from 63-70 inches in length and have a 7.5-inch diameter. 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

APPENDIX B 

TYPE OF 

EQUIPMENT

DESCRIPTION

VEHICLES

Construction/ 

Excavation 

Equipment

Bulldozers, forklifts, payloaders, and cranes, used for grading, digging, and 

transport of equipment.

Amphibious Vehicles 

Lighter, Amphibious, Resupply, Cargo-5 ton (LARC V) is a 63-ft aluminum 

hulled amphibious cargo vehicle capable of transporting 5 tons. 

The tracked Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) is a 26-ton (23,991-kilograms 

[kg]) fully combat-loaded vehicle with a 3-man crew. With a road speed of 45 

miles per hour (mph), it is also fully amphibious with water speeds up to 8 mph. 

Light-Wheeled 

Vehicles 

Consists of light tactical vehicles for command and control, special purpose 

shelter carriers, and special purpose weapons platforms. Types used include the 

High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) or 4-wheeled drive 

pick-up trucks. 

AIRCRAFT

Helicopters Helicopters typically used are CH-60, SH-60, MH-60S (proposed), CH-53E, 

and CH-46E. AH-1W attack and UH-1N may also be used. 

Unmanned Aircraft 

System (UAS) 

Small, light, unmanned electric driven crafts that are remotely flown. UASs 

less than 20 lbs and with a 5 foot wingspan are typically used. 
Appendix C 

Emissions Calculations 

SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-1

Operations Summaries

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

No. of 

Personnel Ship/Boat Type Number of 

vessels 

possible

Number of 

vessels 

assumed

Vessels per 

year Ground Vehicles Number of 

vehicles 

possible

Number of 

vehicles 

assumed

Vehicles per 

year Aircraft Number of 

aircraft 

possible

Number of 

aircraft 

assumed

Aircraft per 

year Or

1.1.2 Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 RHIB 1 1 72 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 None 

 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 1 72 

2 Towing 1 30 Foss Tug 1 1 30 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 None 

 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 1 30 

3 Moor to Buoy 1 36 RHIB 1 1 36 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 None 

 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 1 36 

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 216 10 to 20 RHIBs 2-4 3 648 4WD Pickups 2 432 SH60 1 1 216 Smoke Grenades/Fla

5 MCM Operations 1 32 9 Zodiacs 1 32 4WD Pickups 2 64 None 0 0 0 Blast Caps/ Diver Re

10 - 20 lb Underwate

6 Floating Mine Operations 1 25 RHIBs 2 2 50 4WD Pickups 1 1 25 SH-60 - 2 Hours1 1 25 Blast Caps/ Diver Re

Less than or equal to 

7 Dive Platoon 1 8 RHIB 2 2 16 None 0 0 0 SH-60 - 2 Hours1 1 8 Blast Caps/Explosive

3.5 lb 

8 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 4 10 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 2 8 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 Diver Recalls 

9 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 120 10 to 20 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 to 3 3 360 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 Diver Recalls 

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) 

Operations/UUV Operations 1 120 5 to 10 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2-3 2 240 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 Blast Caps/ Diver Re

Submersible 2 2 240

11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 175 11 to 13 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 to 4 4 700 4WD Pickups 0 0 None 0 0 0 13lbs [MK 87/88 C-4 

 29lb [MK86/89 PBXN 

12 Mine Neutralization 1 4 16 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 8 4WD Pickups 2 2 8 SH-60 - 2 Hours1 1 4 Blast Caps/ Diver Re

3.5lb explosive 

1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 30 Foss Tug 1 1 30 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 None 

RHIB 1 1 30

 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 1 30 

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 28 CRRC 4 4 376 HMMWV 1 1 94 None 0 0 0 None 

15 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins

1 189 16 Personal Watercraft / CRRC / RHIB 1 1 189 HMMWV 1 1 189 None 0 0 0 None 

Truck 1 1 189 

16 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 40 (in groups of 6 to 8) IBS 1 1 8 None 0 0 0 SH60 1 1 8 None 

LCU 1 1 8

17 Obstacle Course 1 138 8 to 150 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 1-3 2 276 None 0 0 0 None 

NAA Operations and Description

18 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 40 8 to 60 Personal Watercraft 1 1 40 4WD Pickups 1-4 3 120 None 0 0 0 None 

 Small Water Craft 1 to 8 8 40 

RHIB / CRRC 1 1 40rigid, 10-meter craft 1 1 40

19 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 16 to 48 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2 2 232 None 0 0 0 None 

20 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf 

Passage/Boat Team Organization and Function

1 72 28 to 60 CRRC/Zodiac/Propeller Surface Craft/RHIB 4 to 10 6 432 HMMWV/ 4WD Pickup 1 to 3 2 144 None 0 0 0 None 

 Personal Watercraft 1 1 72

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 28 CRRC 4 4 32 4WD Pickups / HMMW1 1 8 None 0 0 0 None 

 Personal Watercraft 11 8 

22 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch 

and Recover - Bay and Ocean 1 24 28 CRRC 4 4 96 4WD Pickups / HMMW1 1 24 None 0 0 0 None 

 Personal Watercraft 1 1 24 

RHIB 1 1 24

 LCU 1 1 24 

23 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 40 CRRC 6 6 156 4WD Pickups / HMMW1 1 26 None 0 0 0 None 

 RHIB 1 1 26 

24 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 110-130 LCU 2 2 48 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 None 

 CRRCs 6-18 12 288 

25 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 2 150 on foot , 20-40 additional CRRCs 10-15 13 26 HMMWVs 4-8 6 12 CH-53E 2 to 4 3 6 Flares 

 LPD 1 1 2 4WD Pickups 5 to 10 8 16 CH-46E 4 4 8 Grenades 

 LCUs 1-2 2 4 AAVs 4-8 6 12 UH-1N 1 1 2 9MM 

 LCACs 1-2 2 4 LAVs 4-8 6 12 5.56MM/38CAL  Submersibles 1-2 2 4 IFAVs 4-8 6 12 Diver Recalls  EFV 4-8 6 12 

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 2 90 on foot, 20-40 additional CRRCs 8-10 9 18 Light Wheeled Vehicles11 to 20 16 32 CH-46E 6 to 8 7 14 Explosives 

C-1
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-1

Operations Summaries

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

No. of 

Personnel Ship/Boat Type Number of 

vessels 

possible

Number of 

vessels 

assumed

Vessels per 

year Ground Vehicles Number of 

vehicles 

possible

Number of 

vehicles 

assumed

Vehicles per 

year Aircraft Number of 

aircraft 

possible

Number of 

aircraft 

assumed

Aircraft per 

year Or

 LPD 1 1 2 UH-1N 1 1 2 Smoke 

 Submersibles 1-2 2 4 9MM 

 5.56MM/38CAL 

Diver Recalls 

27 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 1 LCAC per CLZ 1 1 4 HMMWVs 1 1 4 None 0 0 0 Smoke 

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-theBeach 4 52 80 to 20 RHIBs / CRRCs 2 to 4 3 156 4WD Pickups 1-4 3 156 SH-60 Helo 1 1 52 Smokes/Flares/Surfa

 Rigid, 10-meter craft 1 1 52 Small Arms 

29 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 16 CRRCs 1 1 16 4WD Pickups 1 1 16 SH-60 Helo 1 1 16 None

 Boston Whaler 1 1 16 

30 Immediate Action Drills 1 8 Small groups of 8 to 10 RHIBs 1 1 8 4WD Pickups 4 4 32 SH-60 Helo 1 1 8 Smokes/Flares/Surfa

CRRCs 1 1 8 Small Arms 

31 Breacher Training 1 20 12 to 40 None 0 20 4WD Pickups 3 3 60 None 0 0 0 PETN 1.14

0.25 

 Small Arms - 12gaug

32 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 50 RHIBs 2 2 100 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 Smoke Grenades/Fla

 MK V 2 2 100 

33 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 RHIB or MK V 2 to 4 4 800 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 Smoke/Flares 

34 Escape and Evasion 1 20 RHIBs 2 2 40 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 Smoke/Flares 

 MK V 2 2 40 

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and 

Surveillance

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & 

Recovery Operation 1 124 8 to 50 RHIBs 1 1 124 4WD Pickups 2 to 4 2 248 SH60 1 1 124 Smoke Grenades/Fla

CRRCs 1 to 3 2 CH46 1 1 124

36 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 6 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 4 24 NONE 0 0 0 None 

37 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal 

Delivery System (ASDS) Certification to Deploy

14 14 20 RHIBs 2 2 28 4WD Pickups 2 2 28 SH-60 1 14 ≤ 10 lbs C-4 (underw

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics 

Over-the-Shore

38 OPDS 25 6 25 to 65 OUBs 1-5 2 12 HMMWVs 1 1 6 None 0 0 0 None 

5-ton truck 1 1 6 Dozer 2 2 12 

Comm Van Comm Van 1 1 6

RTV forklift 1 1 6 

LARCV 2 2 12 

39 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System 

(ABLTS) 10 4 65 Warping Tug 1 1 4 HMMWVs 1 1 4 None 0 0 0 None 

 Barge Ferry 2 2 8 5-ton truck 1 1 4 

Van 1 1 4 

Dozers 2 2 8 Rough Terrain Forklift 1 1 4 

LARCV 2 2 8

40 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 34 up to 36 Barge Ferry 2 2 68 HMMWVs 1 1 34 None 0 0 0 None 

5-ton truck 1 1 34 Van 1 1 34 Dozer 2 2 68 

LARCV 2 2 68 

41 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 9 65 to 75 WTs 4 4 36 HMMWVs 2 2 18 None 0 0 0 None 

5-ton truck 1 1 9 Van 1 1 9 Rough Terrain Forklift 1 1 9 

Dozers 2 2 18LARCV 2 2 18

42 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 2 75 to 125 WTs 2 2 4 HMMWVs 3 to 4 4 8 None 0 0 0 None 

 Personal Watercraft 2 2 4 5-ton truck 1 to 3 3 6 

Light Trucks 4 8 

 LCM 1 1 2 Dozers 2 2 4 

Forklifts 1 1 2 75-Ton Crane 2 2 4 Pile Driver 2 2 4 

ambulance 1 1 2water buffalo 1 1 2140-ton crane 1 1 230-ton crane 2 2 4LARCV 2 2 4Air compressors 2 2 4Pile Extractor 1 1 2

43 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 19 on foot None 2 2 32 HMMWVs 3 3 48 None 0 0 0 5.56 caliber rounds 

5-ton truck 1 1 16 7.62 caliber blanks 

C-1
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-1

Operations Summaries

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

No. of 

Personnel Ship/Boat Type Number of 

vessels 

possible

Number of 

vessels 

assumed

Vessels per 

year Ground Vehicles Number of 

vehicles 

possible

Number of 

vehicles 

assumed

Vehicles per 

year Aircraft Number of 

aircraft 

possible

Number of 

aircraft 

assumed

Aircraft per 

year Or

Dozer 1 1 16 

Generators/various 2 2 32 Heaters 2 2LARCV 2 2 32

44 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 LCU 2 2 80 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 None 

45 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 LCU 0 to 2 1 60 HMMWVs 1 60 None 0 0 0 None 

LCM-8 0 to 2 1 60 5-ton truck 1 60

Dozer 1 60LARCV 1 60

46 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 LCU 2 2 120 Dozer 1 1 60 None 0 0 0 None 

LCM-8 2 2 120

47 Communications Training 2 1 60 persons, but they work in two shifts None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 4 4 None 0 0 0

RTVs 4 4 

Bus 2 2 2 Tractor with flat bed 1 1 1

48 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 1 19 None 2 2 HMMWVs 2 2 None 0 0 0 5.56 caliber rounds 

5-ton truck 1 1 7.62 caliber blanks Dozer 2 2 

4WD Pickups 10 10 10 

Fuel Truck 1 1 1 20-ton Stake Trucks 1 1 1 50-ton Low-bed Trucks1 1 1 

Wheeled Loaders 2 2 2 Generators/various 23 23 23 Heaters 117 117 117Welder 6 6 6LARCV 2 2

49 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload

5 1 72 LCM-8 2 2 HMMWVs 2 2 None 0 0 0 None 

 WTs 2 2 5-ton truck 1 1  Barge Ferry 2 2 Dozer 1 1 

1 1 4WD Pickups 3 3 

LARCV 1 1 

50 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 6 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2 8 None 0 0 0 None 

RTVs 6 24 Generator 1 4 

Flatbed Truck 1 1 4

51 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 1 40 WTs 2 2 HMMWVs/Jeeps 3 3 None 0 0 0 None 

 Personal Watercraft 2 2 6-ton truck 1 1 

2 2 Dozer 1 1 

Cranes 2 2 RTVs 2 2 LARCV 2 2 

52 MPF Utilit B t O t C MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 15 MPF Utilit B t MPF Utility Boat 2 2 4 Dozer 1 1 2 None 0 0 0 None 

2 2 4 Van 1 1 2 

LARCV 2 2 4 

53 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 10 None 2 2 2 LARCV 2 2 2 None 0 0 0 None 

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed 

Circuit Breathing Diving 1 126 RHIBs 5 5 630 4WD Pickups 3 3 378 None 0 0 0 Diver Recall 

Bus 2 2 252

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 60 RHIBs 5 5 60 4WD Pickups 3 3 36 None 0 0 0 Diver Recall 

 LCU 1 1 12 Bus 2 2 24 

56 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 60 CRRCs 5 5 180 4WD Pickups 3 3 108 None 0 0 0 Small arm 57 Rock Portage 1 18 60 CRRCs 5 to 8 7 126 4WD Pickups 1 1 18 None 0 0 0 Smoke Grenades/Fla

IBS 8 to 10 9 162

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 60 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2 2 36 None 0 0 0 None 

59 Immediate Action Drills 1 5 60 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2 2 10 None 0 0 0 50CAL/7.62 BLANK 

NSW Advanced Training

60 Over the Beach Insertion / Photo Reconnaissance 1 31 20 RHIB/CRRC 2 1 31 4WD Pickup 2 2 62 None 0 0 0 Small arms/blanks 

Kayak 1 1 31

61 Photo Image Capture 14 3 20 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2 2 28 None 0 0 0 Small arms/blanks 

62 Field Skills (Observation Drill, Sketching, Range 

Estimation) 1 22 20 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2 2 44 None 0 0 0 Small arms/blanks 

63 Stalking, Movement and Hide-Sites 5 8 14 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 3 3 24 None 0 0 0 None 

C-1
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-1

Operations Summaries

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

No. of 

Personnel Ship/Boat Type Number of 

vessels 

possible

Number of 

vessels 

assumed

Vessels per 

year Ground Vehicles Number of 

vehicles 

possible

Number of 

vehicles 

assumed

Vehicles per 

year Aircraft Number of 

aircraft 

possible

Number of 

aircraft 

assumed

Aircraft per 

year Or

64 CQC/CQD 1 109 580 CRRCs 5 4WD Pickups 5 545 SH-60 1 1 109 Small Arms 

Small Arms Grenades (flash crashExplosives (<1lb), ac

65 Communications 5 6 20 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 6 6 36 None 0 0 0 None 

66 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training 5 12 6 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 1 1 12 UAV 2 2 24 none 

67 Around the World Training 1 6 60 CRRCs 7 7 42 4WD Pickups 4 4 24 None 0 0 0 none 

Sea Kayaks 5 5 30

4.9.4 Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other 

Nation Units and Individuals

NSW Physical Fitness Training

68 Physical Training Runs 1 464 30 to 150 averaging 60 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2-3 3 1392 None 0 0 0 None 

69 Physical Conditioning Training Exercise 1 280 60 to 150 (avg 60) CRRCs / Propeller Surface Craft 2-4 3 840 4WD Pickups 2 2 560 None 0 0 0 None 70 Swim Training 1 170 48-60 RHIBs 5 5 850 4WD Pickups 1 1 170 None 0 0 0 None 71 Hell Week 5 6 60 CRRCs 5 5 30 4WD Pickups 3 3 18 None 0 0 0 Smokes 

 Grenade Simulators 

White Para Flares 

 7.62 Blank (A111) 

50 CAL Blank 

72 Rucksack March 1 54 60 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2-3 3 162 None 0 0 0 None 

73 Monster Mash 1 6 60 CRRCs 3 18 4WD Pickups 3 3 18 None 0 0 0 None

4.12.6 Provide Industrial and Environmental Health 

Services

74 Conduct Environmental Health Site Assessment

3 3 14 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 4 4 12 None 0 0 0 None 

5-ton truck 1 1 33/4-ton trailer 1 1 3small trailers 3 3 9 

6.1.1 Conduct Explosive Ordnance Disposal

75 Conventional Ordnance/Improvised Explosive 

Device Response 1 64 9 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2 2 128 None 0 0 0

76 Land Mine Detection/Neutralization 1 24 8 to 10 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups / Vans 2 2 48 None 0 0 0

6.3.1 Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of 

Operations

77 Field Training Exercise (FTX) e.g. SEAHAWK

14 53 50-1000 Boston Whalers 0 to 24 12 144 4WD Pickups 7 to 85 140 None 0 0 0 0.50 cal blanks 

Generators 3 to 16 176 Grenades/flares Forklift 8 8 M16 Rounds 

M60 Rounds 9mm Rounds 

6.3.3 Combat Terrorism

78 Small Boat Attack 1 30 Boston Whalers 1 1 30 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 .50 cal rounds 

 surface vessel dropping anchor and 3 shots c 1 1 30 

18’ Bayliner 1 1 30

Totals 3937 10138 8126 764

(a) Days = the number of days per operation(b) Operations = the number of operations per year

C-1
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-2

Aircraft Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

Aircraft Number

Aircraft Time on 

Range (hrs) Emissions Factors (lb/operation) (c) Emissions (lbs)

Hours CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 CO Nox ROG Sox PM

1.1.2 Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 None 02 Towing 1 30 None 03 Moor to Buoy 1 36 None 0

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 216 SH60 1 1.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 1620 1658.88 142.56 103.68 1088.645 MCM Operations 1 32 None 06 Floating Mine Operations 1 25 SH-60 - 2 Hours 1 2.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 375 384 33 24 2527 Dive Platoon 1 8 SH-60 - 2 Hours 1 2.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 120 122.88 10.56 7.68 80.648 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 4 None 09 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 120 None 0

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Operations/UUV 

Operations

1 120 None 0

11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 175 None 012 Mine Neutralization 1 4 SH-60 - 2 Hours 1 2.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 60 61.44 5.28 3.84 40.32

1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 30 None 0

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 None 015 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins 1 189 None 016 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 SH60 1 4.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 240 245.76 21.12 15.36 161.2817 Obstacle Course 1 138 None 018 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 40 None 019 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 None 020 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf Passage/Boat Team 

Organization and Function

1 72 None 0

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 None 022 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch and Recover 

- Bay and Ocean

1 24 None 0

23 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 None 024 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 None 025 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 2 CH-53E 3 4.0 9.51 36.07 0.67 1.79 9.87 228.24 865.68 16.08 42.96 236.88

 CH-46E 4 4.0 22.109 4.41 3.84 0.45 1.99 707.488 141.12 122.88 14.4 63.68 CH-53E T&G 3 1.0 0.77 2.11 0.13 0.11 0.61 4.62 12.66 0.78 0.66 3.66 CH-46E T&G 4 1.0 1.85 0.4 0.34 0.04 0.19 14.8 3.2 2.72 0.32 1.52

 UH-1N 1 4.0 0.7 4.01 0.09 0.28 2.91 5.6 32.08 0.72 2.24 23.28

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 2 CH-46E 7 4.0 22.109 4.41 3.84 0.45 1.99 1238.104 246.96 215.04 25.2 111.44

 UH-1N 1 4.0 0.7 4.01 0.09 0.28 2.91 5.6 32.08 0.72 2.24 23.28

27 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 None 0

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-the-Beach 4 52 SH-60 Helo 1 1.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 1560 1597.44 137.28 99.84 1048.3229 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 16 SH-60 Helo 1 1.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 120 122.88 10.56 7.68 80.6430 Immediate Action Drills 1 8 SH-60 Helo 1 1.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 60 61.44 5.28 3.84 40.3231 Breacher Training 1 20 None32 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 50 None33 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 None34 Escape and Evasion 1 20 None

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & Recovery 

Operation

1 124 SH60 1

1.0 0.81 1.03 0.08 0.06 0.64 100.44 127.72 9.92 7.44 79.36

1 124 CH46 1 1.0 1.87 0.39 0.35 0.04 0.19 231.88 48.36 43.4 4.96 23.56

36 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 6 NONE 037 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal Delivery 

System (ASDS) Certification to Deploy

14 14 SH-60 1

1.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 1470 1505.28 129.36 94.08 987.84

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-theShore

38 OPDS 25 6 None 039 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS) 10 4 None 040 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 34 None 041 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 9 None 0

NAA Operations and Description

C-2
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-2

Aircraft Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

Aircraft Number

Aircraft Time on 

Range (hrs) Emissions Factors (lb/operation) (c) Emissions (lbs)

Hours CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 CO Nox ROG Sox PM

42 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 2 None 043 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 None 044 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 None 045 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 None 046 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 None 047 Communications Training 2 1 None 048 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 1 None 049 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload 5 1 None 050 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 None 051 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 1 None 052 MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 None 053 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 None 0

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed Circuit 

Breathing Diving

1 126 None 0

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 None 056 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 None 057 Rock Portage 1 18 None 0

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 None 059 Immediate Action Drills 1 5 None 0

NSW Advanced Training

60 Over the Beach Insertion / Photo Reconnaissance 1 31 None 061 Photo Image Capture 14 3 None 062 Field Skills (Observation Drill, Sketching, Range Estimation) 1 22 None 063 Stalking, Movement and Hide-Sites 5 8 None 064 CQC/CQD 1 109 SH-60 1 3.0 7.5 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 3793.2 2881.96 368.42 189.66 1898.7865 Communications 5 6 None 066 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training 5 12 UAV 267 Around the World Training 1 6 None 0

4.9.4 Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other Nation 

Units and IndividualsNSW Physical Fitness Training

68 Physical Training Runs 1 464 None 069 Physical Conditioning Training Exercise 1 280 None 070 Swim Training 1 170 None 071 Hell Week 5 6 None 072 Rucksack March 1 54 None 073 Monster Mash 1 6 None 0

4.12.6 Provide Industrial and Environmental Health Services

74 Conduct Environmental Health Site Assessment 3 3 None 0

6.1.1 Conduct Explosive Ordnance Disposal

75 Conventional Ordnance/Improvised Explosive Device 

Response

1 64 None

76 Land Mine Detection/Neutralization 1 24 None

6.3.1 Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of 

Operations

77 Field Training Exercise (FTX) e.g. SEAHAWK 14 53 None 0

6.3.3 Combat Terrorism

78 Small Boat Attack 1 30 None 0

pounds/year 11954.972 10151.82 1275.68 650.08 6245.44

Assumptions: Assume that SH-60 and CH-46 operation for Cast and Recovery are Special Personnel Insertion and Extraction Rig operations. tons/year 5.98 5.08 0.64 0.33 3.12Assume 4 hours of cruise time for Amphibious Raid Operations, and one touch and go operationSH60 from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9929, February 1999CH53 from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9822 Rev C, February 2000CH46 from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9816 Rev F, January 2001UH1N from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9904 Rev A, May 1999AH-1W from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9824 Rev A, April 1999

C-2
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-2

Aircraft Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

Aircraft Number

Aircraft Time on 

Range (hrs) Emissions Factors (lb/operation) (c) Emissions (lbs)

Hours CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 CO Nox ROG Sox PM

Assume Aircraft participate for one day during Amphibious Raid Operations and Direct Action OperationsAssume 1 LTO and 3 hours of cruise for CQC/CQD SH-60 operation.(a) Days = the number of days per operation(b) Operations = the number of operations per year

C-2
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-3

Marine Vessels Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ship/Boat Type

Number

Ship Time on 

Range (hrs) (e) Engines and Generators

Ave. Speed 

(Knots)

Power Level (%) 

or horsepower

Engines on Line

Generator - Load 

(kW)

Hours Propulsion No. Generator No. 

1.1.2 Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 RHIB 1 4 Caterpillar 3126 

Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 72 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 4 GE LM 2500 4 Allison 501-K34, 2,000 kW ea 3 4-6 2.5% 2 2@1300

W ea 

2 Towing 1 30 Foss Tug 1 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

 1 30 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 4 GE LM 2500 4 Allison 501-K34, 2,000 kW ea 3 4-6 2.5% 2 2@1300

W ea 

3 Moor to Buoy 1 36 RHIB 1 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 36 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 4 GE LM 2500 4 Allison 501-K34, 2,000 kW ea 3 4-6 2.5% 2 2@1300

W ea 

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 216 RHIBs 3 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

5 MCM Operations 1 32 Zodiacs 1 4 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

6 Floating Mine Operations 1 25 RHIBs 2 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

7 Dive Platoon 1 8 RHIB 2 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

8 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 4 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

9 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 120 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 3 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Operations/UUV Operation1 120 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

1 120 Submersible 2 2

11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 175 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 4 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

12 Mine Neutralization 1 4 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 30 Foss Tug 1 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

1 30 RHIB 1 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 30 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 4 GE LM 2500 4 Allison 501-K34, 2,000 kW ea 3 4-6 2.5% 2 2@1300

W ea 

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 CRRC 4 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

15 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins 1 189 Personal Watercraft / CRRC / RHIB 1 1 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 

16 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 IBS 1 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

1 8 LCU

1 6 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

17 Obstacle Course 1 138 None18 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 40 Personal Watercraft 1 6 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 

 1 40 Small Water Craft 8 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

1 40 RHIB / CRRC 1 6 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

1 40 rigid, 10-meter craft 1 6 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

19 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 None20 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf Passage/Boat Team Organi1 72 CRRC/Zodiac/Propeller Surface Craft/RH 6 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

 1 72 Personal Watercraft 1 6 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 CRRC 4 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

NAA Operations and Description

C-3
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-3

Marine Vessels Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ship/Boat Type

Number

Ship Time on 

Range (hrs) (e) Engines and Generators

Ave. Speed 

(Knots)

Power Level (%) 

or horsepower

Engines on Line

Generator - Load 

(kW)

Hours Propulsion No. Generator No. 

 1 8 Personal Watercraft 1 6 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 

22 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch and Recover - Bay a1 24 CRRC 4 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

 1 24 Personal Watercraft 1 6 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 

1 24 RHIB 1 6 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 24 LCU

1 6 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

23 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 CRRC 6 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

 1 26 RHIB 1 6 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

24 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 LCU

2 2 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

 1 24 CRRCs 12 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

25 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 2 CRRCs 13 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

 3 2 LPD 1 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA  3 2 LCUs

2 2 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

 3 2 LCACs

2 2

Avco Lycoming TF40B3,955 hp each

4 APU T-62-T-40-7 Sunstrand 60 kW each 2 35 80% 4 2@ 10kW ea 

3 2 EFV 6 2 

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 2 CRRCs 9 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

 3 2 LPD 1 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

27 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 1 LCAC per CLZ

1 2

Avco Lycoming TF40B3,955 hp each

4 APU T-62-T-40-7 Sunstrand 60 kW each 2 35 80% 4 2@ 10kW ea 

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-the-Beach 4 52 RHIBs / CRRCs 3 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 4 52 Rigid, 10-meter craft 1 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

29 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 16 CRRCs 1 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

1 16 Boston Whaler 1 2 OMC Johnson Outboards (d) 2 None 0 2-3 1000 2 NA 

30 Immediate Action Drills 1 8 RHIBs 1 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 8 CRRCs 1 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

31 Breacher Training 1 20 None 032 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 50 RHIBs 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 50 MK V 2 2 MTU 12V 396 TE94, 12 cyl 2 Northern Light, M844, 4 cyl 16 kW 1 5-6 30% 1 10 kW 

33 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 RHIB or MK V 4 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

34 Escape and Evasion 1 20 RHIBs 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 20 MK V 2 2 MTU 12V 396 TE94, 12 cyl 2 Northern Light, M844, 4 cyl 16 kW 1 5-6 30% 1 10 kW 

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & Recovery Operation 1 124 RHIBs 1 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

1 124 CRRCs 2 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

36 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 6 None37 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal Delivery System (ASD14 14 RHIBs 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

C-3
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-3

Marine Vessels Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ship/Boat Type

Number

Ship Time on 

Range (hrs) (e) Engines and Generators

Ave. Speed 

(Knots)

Power Level (%) 

or horsepower

Engines on Line

Generator - Load 

(kW)

Hours Propulsion No. Generator No. 

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-the-Shore

38 OPDS 25 6 OUBs

2 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

39 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS) 10 4 Warping Tug 1 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

 10 4 Barge Ferry 2 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

40 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 34 Barge Ferry 2 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

41 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 9 WTs 4 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

42 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 2 WTs 2 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

 10 2 Personal Watercraft 2 4 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 

10 2 LCM

1 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

43 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 None44 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 LCU

2 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

45 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 LCU

1 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

1 60 LCM-8

1 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

46 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 LCU

2 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

1 60 LCM-8

2 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

47 Communications Training 2 1 None48 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 1 None49 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload 5 1 LCM-8

2 2 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

 5 1 WTs 2 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

 5 1 Barge Ferry 2 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

50 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 None51 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 1 WTs 2 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

 5 1 Personal Watercraft 2 2 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 

52 MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 MPF Utility Boat 2 4 Diesel Engines 2 None 0 2 660 2 NA 53 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 None

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed Circuit Breathing Divin 1 126 RHIBs 5 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 RHIBs 5 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 LCU 1

56 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 CRRCs 5 2 assume paddling57 Rock Portage 1 18 CRRCs 7 2 assume paddling

1 18 IBS 9 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 None59 Immediate Action Drills 1 5 None

NSW Advanced Training

60 Over the Beach Insertion / Photo Reconnaissance 1 31 RHIB/CRRC 1 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

1 31 Kayak 1 2 assume paddling

61 Photo Image Capture 14 3 None62 Field Skills (Observation Drill, Sketching, Range Estimation) 1 22 None

C-3
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-3

Marine Vessels Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ship/Boat Type

Number

Ship Time on 

Range (hrs) (e) Engines and Generators

Ave. Speed 

(Knots)

Power Level (%) 

or horsepower

Engines on Line

Generator - Load 

(kW)

Hours Propulsion No. Generator No. 

63 Stalking, Movement and Hide-Sites 5 8 None64 CQC/CQD 1 109 CRRCs 5 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

65 Communications 5 6 None66 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training 5 12 None67 Around the World Training 1 6 CRRCs 7 2 assume paddling

1 6 Sea Kayaks 5 2 assume paddling

4.9.4 Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other Nation Units and

NSW Physical Fitness Training

68 Physical Training Runs 1 464 None69 Physical Conditioning Training Exercise 1 280 CRRCs / Propeller Surface Craft 3 2 assume paddling70 Swim Training 1 170 RHIBs 5 2 assume paddling71 Hell Week 5 6 CRRCs 5 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

72 Rucksack March 1 54 None73 Monster Mash 1 6 CRRCs 3 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

4.12.6 Provide Industrial and Environmental Health Services

74 Conduct Environmental Health Site Assessment 3 3 None

6.1.1 Conduct Explosive Ordnance Disposal

75 Conventional Ordnance/Improvised Explosive Device Response 1 64 None76 Land Mine Detection/Neutralization 1 24 None

6.3.1 Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of Operations

77 Field Training Exercise (FTX) e.g. SEAHAWK 14 53 Boston Whalers 144 2 OMC Johnson Outboards (d) 2 None 0 2-3 1000 2 NA 

6.3.3 Combat Terrorism

78 Small Boat Attack 1 30 Boston Whalers 1 2 OMC Johnson Outboards (d) 2 None 0 2-3 1000 2 NA 

1 30 surface vessel dropping anchor and 3 sho 1 2

1 30 18’ Bayliner 1 2 OMC Johnson Outboards (d) 2 None 0 2-3 1000 2 NA 

Assume marine vessels participate for one day during Amphibious Raid Operations and Direct Action Operations and SeahawkAssumptions: Watercraft operates 8 hours per day for the days during which the operation occurs 

C-3
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-4

Ground Vehicles Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ground Vehicles Number

Engine Load

Hours per day

Horsepower Emissions Factors (lb/hr

CO NOx ROG SO

1.1.2 Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 None2 Towing 1 30 None3 Moor to Buoy 1 36 None

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 216 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 5 MCM Operations 1 32 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 6 Floating Mine Operations 1 25 4WD Pickups 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 7 Dive Platoon 1 8 None8 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 4 None9 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 120 None

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Operations/UUV Operations1 120 None

11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 175 4WD Pickups 0 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 12 Mine Neutralization 1 4 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 

1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 30 None

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 HMMWV 1 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 15 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins 1 189 HMMWV 1 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 

 1 189 Truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 

16 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 None17 Obstacle Course 1 138 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 18 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 40 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 19 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 20 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf Passage/Boat Team Organiza1 72 HMMWV/ 4WD P 2 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 4WD Pickups / H 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 22 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch and Recover - Bay an1 24 4WD Pickups / H 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 

23 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 4WD Pickups / H 1 8 0.20 0.02 0.01 24 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 None 025 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 2 HMMWVs 6 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 

 3 2 4WD Pickups 8 8 0.20 0.02 0.01  3 2 AAVs 6 2 0.444918 1.0 0.2 

 3 2 LAVs 6 65% 2 0.04 0.06 0.01 

3 2 IFAVs 6 65% 2 0.04 0.06 0.01 

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 2 Light Wheeled Ve 16 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 

27 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-the-Beach 4 52 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 29 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 16 4WD Pickups 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 30 Immediate Action Drills 1 8 4WD Pickups 4 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 31 Breacher Training 1 20 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 32 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 50 None 033 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 None 034 Escape and Evasion 1 20 None 0

NAA Operations and Description

C-4
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-4

Ground Vehicles Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ground Vehicles Number

Engine Load

Hours per day

Horsepower Emissions Factors (lb/hr

CO NOx ROG SO

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & Recovery Operation 1 124 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 36 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 6 4WD Pickups 4 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 37 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal Delivery System (ASDS14 14 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-the-Shore

38 OPDS 25 6 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 

 25 6 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02  25 6 Dozer 2 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00  25 6 Comm Van 1 8 0.20 0.02 0.01  25 6 RTV forklift 1 48% 8 93.0 0.01 0.02 0.00  25 6 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7

39 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS) 10 4 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 

 10 4 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02  10 4 Van 1 8 0.20 0.02 0.01  10 4 Dozers 2 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00  10 4 Rough Terrain Fo 1 48% 8 37.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 

10 4 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7

40 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 34 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 

 3 34 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02  3 34 Van 1 8 0.20 0.02 0.01  3 34 Dozer 2 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00  3 34 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7

41 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 9 HMMWVs 2 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 

 5 9 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02  5 9 Van 1 8 0.20 0.02 0.01  5 9 Rough Terrain Fo 1 48% 8 37.0 0.01 0.02 0.00  5 9 Dozers 2 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 

5 9 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7

42 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 2 HMMWVs 4 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 

 10 2 5-ton truck 3 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02  10 2 Light Trucks 4 62% 8 161.0 0.01 0.02 0.00  10 2 Dozers 2 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00  10 2 Forklifts 1 48% 8 37.0 0.01 0.02 0.00  10 2 75-Ton Crane 2 74% 8 194.0 0.00 0.02 0.00  10 2 Pile Driver 2 30% 24 20.0 0.01 0.01 0.00 

10 2 ambulance 1 8 0.20 0.02 0.01 10 2 water buffalo 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 10 2 140-ton crane 1 74% 8 399.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 10 2 30-ton crane 2 74% 8 194.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 10 2 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.710 2 Air compressors 2 48% 8 106.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 10 2 Pile Extractor 1 30% 24 20.0 0.01 0.01 0.00 

43 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 HMMWVs 3 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 

 4 16 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02  4 16 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00  4 16 Generators/vario 2 30% 24 Various 11.98 55.59 4.52 

4 16 Heaters 2 51% 8 238.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 4 16 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7

44 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 None 045 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 

1 60 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 

C-4
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-4

Ground Vehicles Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ground Vehicles Number

Engine Load

Hours per day

Horsepower Emissions Factors (lb/hr

CO NOx ROG SO

1 60 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 1 60 LARCV 1 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7

46 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 47 Communications Training 2 1 4WD Pickups 4 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 

 2 1 RTVs 4 48% 8 93.0 0.01 0.02 0.00  2 1 Bus 2 2 0.21 0.74 0.04  2 1 Tractor with flat b 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 

48 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 1 HMMWVs 2 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 

 14 1 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02  14 1 Dozer 2 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00  14 1 4WD Pickups 10 2 0.20 0.02 0.01  14 1 Fuel Truck 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01  14 1 20-ton Stake Truc 1 2 0.10 0.46 0.02 

 14 1 50-ton Low-bed T 1 2 0.10 0.46 0.02  14 1 Wheeled Loaders 2 47% 8 147.0 0.01 0.02 0.00  14 1 Generators/vario 23 30% 24 Various 11.98 55.59 4.52 

14 1 Heaters 117 51% 8 238.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 14 1 Welder 6 45% 8 45.0 0.01 0.01 0.01 14 1 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7

49 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload 5 1 HMMWVs 2 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 

 5 1 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02  5 1 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00  5 1 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01  5 1 LARCV 1 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7

50 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 

 4 4 RTVs 6 48% 8 93.0 0.01 0.02 0.00  4 4 Generator 1 74% 8 22.0 0.01 0.01 0.00 

4 4 Flatbed Truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 

51 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 1 HMMWVs/Jeeps 3 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 

 5 1 6-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02  5 1 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00  5 1 Cranes 2 43% 8 94.0 0.00 0.02 0.00  5 1 RTVs 2 48% 8 93.0 0.01 0.02 0.00  5 1 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7

52 MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 

 9 2 Van 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01  9 2 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7

53 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed Circuit Breathing Diving 1 126 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 

1 126 Bus 2 2 0.21 0.74 0.04 

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 

 1 12 Bus 2 2 0.21 0.74 0.04 

56 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 57 Rock Portage 1 18 4WD Pickups 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 59 Immediate Action Drills 1 5 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 

NSW Advanced Training

60 Over the Beach Insertion / Photo Reconnaissance 1 31 4WD Pickup 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 

C-4
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-4

Ground Vehicles Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ground Vehicles Number

Engine Load

Hours per day

Horsepower Emissions Factors (lb/hr

CO NOx ROG SO

61 Photo Image Capture 14 3 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 62 Field Skills (Observation Drill, Sketching, Range Estimation) 1 22 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 63 Stalking, Movement and Hide-Sites 5 8 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 64 CQC/CQD 1 109 4WD Pickups 5 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 65 Communications 5 6 4WD Pickups 6 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 66 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training 5 12 4WD Pickups 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 67 Around the World Training 1 6 4WD Pickups 4 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 

4.9.4 Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other Nation Units and Individuals

NSW Physical Fitness Training

68 Physical Training Runs 1 464 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 69 Physical Conditioning Training Exercise 1 280 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 70 Swim Training 1 170 4WD Pickups 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 71 Hell Week 5 6 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 72 Rucksack March 1 54 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 73 Monster Mash 1 6 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 

4.12.6 Provide Industrial and Environmental Health Services

74 Conduct Environmental Health Site Assessment 3 3 4WD Pickups 4 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 

3 3 5-ton truck 1 2 0.25 0.30 0.02 3 3 3/4-ton trailer 1 2 0.25 0.30 0.02 3 3 small trailers 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 

6.1.1 Conduct Explosive Ordnance Disposal

75 Conventional Ordnance/Improvised Explosive Device Response 1 64 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 76 Land Mine Detection/Neutralization 1 24 4WD Pickups / Va 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 

6.3.1 Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of Operations

77 Field Training Exercise (FTX) e.g. SEAHAWK 14 53 4WD Pickups 140 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 

 14 53 Generators 176 74% 2 22.0 0.01 0.01 0.00  14 53 Forklift 8 48% 8 37.0 0.01 0.01 0.00 

6.3.3 Combat Terrorism

78 Small Boat Attack 1 30 None

lbs/yea

Assumptions: Fuel truck is equivalent to 4WD vehicle; large trucks modeled as MDTs. Busses assumed to be diesel poweredEmission factors from ARB's OFFROAD 2007 Model tons/ye

C-4
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-5

Ordnance Emissions

No Action Alternative

CO 

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ordnance Number Type Compound Number or Amount Weight of Compound, grams lbs/item lb

Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 None2 Towing 1 30 None3 Moor to Buoy 1 36 None

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 216 Smoke Grenades/Flares 3 Smoke Gre M18 Green 648 1.20E-02 1

Green Para M195 648 9.40E-03 2

5 MCM Operations 1 32 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 1 Underwater6 Floating Mine Operations 1 25 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 1 25 0.026 07 Dive Platoon 1 8 Blast Caps/Explosives 9 per training Underwater

1 8 3.5 lb 8 sequential command detonated Underwater

8 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 4 Diver Recalls 2 per training Underwater9 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 120 Diver Recalls 2 per training Underwater

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Operations/UUV Operatio 1 120 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 2 per training Underwater

11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 175 13lbs [MK 87/88 C-4 in GRP Approximately 10% of training inv Underwater

 29lb [MK86/89 PBXN in AL canis Approximately 10% of training inv Underwater

12 Mine Neutralization 1 4 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 9 per training Underwater 8 0.026 0

1 4 3.5lb explosive 8 sequential command detonated Underwater

1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 30 None

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 None15 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins 1 189 None16 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 None17 Obstacle Course 1 138 None18 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 40 None19 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 None20 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf Passage/Boat Team Organ 1 72 None

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 None22 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch and Recover - Bay 1 24 None23 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 None24 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 None25 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 2 Flares 3 Green Para M195 6 9.40E-03 2

 Grenades 20 Grenades M116A1 40 3.70E-04 5 9MM 210 9 MM 210 3.10E-04 1 5.56MM/38CAL 60/15 5.56 Blank 60 2.80E-04 2

38 cal Blank 15 1.00E-04 6

Diver Recalls 3 Underwater

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 2 Explosives 10 20 0.026 0

 Smoke 3 Smoke 6 1.20E-02 1 9MM 137 per year 9 MM 137 3.10E-04 1 5.56MM/38CAL 50/10 per year 5.56 Blank 50 2.80E-04 2

38 cal 10 1.00E-04 6

Diver Recalls 3 Underwater

27 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 Smoke 3 Smoke 12 1.20E-02 1

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-the-Beach 4 52 Smokes/Flares/Surface Explosive3 flares, 10 grenades Grenades M116A1 520 3.70E-04 5

NAA Operations and Description

C-5
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-5

Ordnance Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ordnance Number Type Compound Number or Amount Weight of Compound, grams lbs/item lb

Green Para M195 156 9.40E-03 2

 Small Arms 6600/5000 .5 cal/7.62 mm 0.5 cal 6600 1.80E-03 2

7.62 mm 5000 6.80E-04 4

29 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 16 None30 Immediate Action Drills 1 8 Smokes/Flares/Surface 10 Grenades M116A1 80 3.70E-04 5

3 Green Para M195 24 9.40E-03 2

 6 Small Arms 5000 0.50 cal/7.62 blank 30000 1.80E-03 2

31 Breacher Training 1 20 Small Arms 0 12 gauge 150 1.50E-03 432 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 50 Smoke Grenades/Flares 333 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 Smoke/Flares 3 Smoke 600 1.20E-02 134 Escape and Evasion 1 20 Smoke/Flares 3 Smoke 60 1.20E-02 1

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & Recovery Operation 1 124 Smoke Grenades/Flares 3 Smoke 372 1.20E-02 136 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 6 None 037 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal Delivery System (AS 14 14 ≤ 10 lbs C-4 (underwater) 1 Underwater

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-the-Shore

38 OPDS 25 6 None 039 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS) 10 4 None 040 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 34 None 041 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 9 None 042 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 2 None 043 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 5.56 caliber rounds 30 5.56 Blank 30 2.80E-04 2

 7.62 caliber blanks 100 7.62 caliber blanks 100 (b) 6.80E-04 4

44 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 None 045 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 None 046 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 None 047 Communications Training 2 1 048 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 1 5.56 caliber rounds 30 5.56 Blank 30 (c) 2.80E-04 2

 7.62 caliber blanks 100 7.62 caliber blanks 100 (c) 6.80E-04 4

49 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload 5 1 None 050 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 None 051 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 1 None 052 MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 None 053 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 None 0

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed Circuit Breathing Divin 1 126 Diver Recall 1 Underwater

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 Diver Recall 1 Underwater56 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 Small arm 15000 7.62mm; 19800 .5cal ANN 7.62 mm 15000 6.80E-04 4

0.5 cal 19800 1.80E-03 2

57 Rock Portage 1 18 Smoke Grenades/Flares 3 Smoke 54 1.20E-02 1

Grenades M116A1 54 3.70E-04 5

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 None 059 Immediate Action Drills 1 5 50CAL/7.62 BLANK 5000 RNDS per operation (250000.5 cal 25000 1.80E-03 2

7.62 blank 6.80E-04 4

NSW Advanced Training

60 Over the Beach Insertion / Photo Reconnaissance 1 31 Small arms/blanks 10 9 mm blanks; 10 5.56 blanks pe9 mm blank 310 3.10E-04 1

5.56 blank 310 2.80E-04 2

C-5
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-5

Ordnance Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ordnance Number Type Compound Number or Amount Weight of Compound, grams lbs/item lb

61 Photo Image Capture 14 3 Small arms/blanks 10 9 mm blanks; 10 5.56 blanks pe9 mm blank 30 3.10E-04 1

5.56 blank 30 2.80E-04 2

62 Field Skills (Observation Drill, Sketching, Range Estimation) 1 22 Small arms/blanks 10 9 mm blanks; 10 5.56 blanks pe9 mm blank 220 3.10E-04 1

5.56 blank 220 2.80E-04 2

63 Stalking, Movement and Hide-Sites 5 8 None64 CQC/CQD 1 109 Small Arms 57600 9 MM simunition annual; 20000 5.56 simunition annual; 

8 Small Arms 7200 9 MM 57600 3.10E-04 18 Small Arms 10000 5.56 Blank 20000 2.80E-04 2

Small Arms 4000 .38 cal 0.38 cal 4000 1.00E-04 6

8 Grenades (flash crash) 3 Grenades M116A1 327 3.70E-04 5

65 Communications 5 6 None 066 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training 5 12 none 067 Around the World Training 1 6 none 0

4.9.4 Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other Nation Units and I

NSW Physical Fitness Training

68 Physical Training Runs 1 464 None 069 Physical Conditioning Training Exercise 1 280 None 070 Swim Training 1 None 071 Hell Week 5 6 Smokes 128 per year Smoke 128 1.20E-02 1

 Grenade Simulators 200 per year Grenades M116A1 200 3.70E-04 5

 White Para Flares 12 per year Flares M127A1 12 4.40E-03 5

7.62 Blank (A111) 27000 per year 7.62 mm 27000 6.80E-04 450 CAL Blank 2000 per year 0.5 cal 2000 1.80E-03 2

72 Rucksack March 1 54 None 073 Monster Mash 1 6 None 

4.12.6 Provide Industrial and Environmental Health Services

74 Conduct Environmental Health Site Assessment 3 3 None 0

6.1.1 Conduct Explosive Ordnance Disposal

75 Conventional Ordnance/Improvised Explosive Device Response 1 64 076 Land Mine Detection/Neutralization 1 24 0

6.3.1 Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of Operations

77 Field Training Exercise (FTX) e.g. SEAHAWK 14 53 0.50 cal blanks 15650 per year 15650 1.10E-02 1

 Grenades/flares 66 per year Grenades M116A1 66 3.70E-04 5

M16 Rounds 8250 per year 8250 7.80E-03 9M60 Rounds 8250 per year 8250 7.80E-03 9

 9mm Rounds 6600 per year 6600 3.10E-04 1

6.3.3 Combat Terrorism

78 Small Boat Attack 1 30 .50 cal rounds 350 per exercise 10500 1.80E-03 2

C-5
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-11

Aircraft GHG Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

Aircraft Number

Aircraft Time on 

Range (hrs)

Aircraft Fuel Use 

per hour

Total Fuel Use Emissions Factors (lb/gallon fuel) (c) Emissions Factors (lb/operation) (c) Emissions (lbs)

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O

1.1.2 Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 None 02 Towing 1 30 None 03 Moor to Buoy 1 36 None 0

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 216 SH60 1 1.0 1200.0 1200.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 3565.92 0.10 0.12 770238.3085 21.730861 24.9502485 MCM Operations 1 32 None 06 Floating Mine Operations 1 25 SH-60 - 2 Hours 1 2.0 1200.0 2400.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 7131.84 0.20 0.23 356591.8095 10.060584 11.5510417 Dive Platoon 1 8 SH-60 - 2 Hours 1 2.0 1200.0 2400.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 7131.84 0.20 0.23 114109.379 3.2193869 3.69633318 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 4 None 09 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 120 None 0

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Operations/UUV 

Operations

1 120 None 0

11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 175 None 012 Mine Neutralization 1 4 SH-60 - 2 Hours 1 2.0 1200.0 2400.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 7131.84 0.20 0.23 57054.68952 1.6096934 1.8481665

1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 30 None 0

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 None 015 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins 1 189 None 016 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 SH60 1 4.0 1200.0 4800.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 14263.67 0.40 0.46 456437.5162 12.877547 14.78533217 Obstacle Course 1 138 None 018 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 40 None 019 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 None 020 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf Passage/Boat Team 

Organization and Function

1 72 None 0

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 None 022 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch and Recover 

- Bay and Ocean

1 24 None 0

23 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 None 024 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 None 025 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 2 CH-53E 3 4.0 4464.0 17856.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 53060.86 1.50 1.72 1273460.67 35.928357 41.251077

 CH-46E 4 4.0 1120.0 4480.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 13312.76 0.38 0.43 426008.3484 12.019044 13.799643 CH-53E T&G 3 1.0 274.0 274.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 814.22 0.02 0.03 4885.30779 0.13783 0.1582493 CH-46E T&G 4 1.0 97.0 97.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 288.25 0.01 0.01 2305.960368 0.0650584 0.0746967

 UH-1N 1 4.0 692.0 2768.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 8225.38 0.23 0.27 65803.07525 1.8565131 2.1315521

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 2 CH-46E 7 4.0 1120.0 4480.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 13312.76 0.38 0.43 745514.6097 21.033328 24.149376

 UH-1N 1 4.0 692.0 2768.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 8225.38 0.23 0.27 65803.07525 1.8565131 2.1315521

27 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 None 0

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-the-Beach 4 52 SH-60 Helo 1 1.0 1200.0 1200.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 3565.92 0.10 0.12 741710.9638 20.926015 24.02616529 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 16 SH-60 Helo 1 1.0 1200.0 1200.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 3565.92 0.10 0.12 57054.68952 1.6096934 1.848166530 Immediate Action Drills 1 8 SH-60 Helo 1 1.0 1200.0 1200.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 3565.92 0.10 0.12 28527.34476 0.8048467 0.924083331 Breacher Training 1 20 None32 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 50 None33 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 None34 Escape and Evasion 1 20 None

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & Recovery 

Operation

1 124 SH60 1

1.0 1200.0 1200.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 3565.92 0.10 0.12 442173.8438 12.475124 14.323291

1 124 CH46 1 1.0 1120.0 1120.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 3328.19 0.09 0.11 412695.5875 11.643449 13.368405

36 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 6 NONE 037 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal Delivery 

System (ASDS) Certification to Deploy

14 14 SH-60 1

1.0 1200.0 1200.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 3565.92 0.10 0.12 698919.9466 19.718745 22.64004

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-theShore

38 OPDS 25 6 None 039 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS) 10 4 None 040 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 34 None 041 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 9 None 0

NAA Operations and Description

C-11
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-11

Aircraft GHG Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

Aircraft Number

Aircraft Time on 

Range (hrs)

Aircraft Fuel Use 

per hour

Total Fuel Use Emissions Factors (lb/gallon fuel) (c) Emissions Factors (lb/operation) (c) Emissions (lbs)

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O

42 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 2 None 043 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 None 044 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 None 045 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 None 046 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 None 047 Communications Training 2 1 None 048 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 1 None 049 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload 5 1 None 050 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 None 051 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 1 None 052 MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 None 053 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 None 0

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed Circuit 

Breathing Diving

1 126 None 0

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 None 056 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 None 057 Rock Portage 1 18 None 0

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 None 059 Immediate Action Drills 1 5 None 0

NSW Advanced Training

60 Over the Beach Insertion / Photo Reconnaissance 1 31 None 061 Photo Image Capture 14 3 None 062 Field Skills (Observation Drill, Sketching, Range Estimation) 1 22 None 063 Stalking, Movement and Hide-Sites 5 8 None 064 CQC/CQD 1 109 SH-60 1 3.0 1200.0 3600.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 10697.75 0.30 0.35 3499506.351 469.29433 265.9157165 Communications 5 6 None 066 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training 5 12 UAV 267 Around the World Training 1 6 None 0

4.9.4 Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other Nation 

Units and Individuals

NSW Physical Fitness Training

68 Physical Training Runs 1 464 None 069 Physical Conditioning Training Exercise 1 280 None 070 Swim Training 1 170 None 071 Hell Week 5 6 None 072 Rucksack March 1 54 None 073 Monster Mash 1 6 None 0

4.12.6 Provide Industrial and Environmental Health Services

74 Conduct Environmental Health Site Assessment 3 3 None 0

6.1.1 Conduct Explosive Ordnance Disposal

75 Conventional Ordnance/Improvised Explosive Device 

Response

1 64 None

76 Land Mine Detection/Neutralization 1 24 None

6.3.1 Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of 

Operations

77 Field Training Exercise (FTX) e.g. SEAHAWK 14 53 None 0

6.3.3 Combat Terrorism

78 Small Boat Attack 1 30 None 0

10218801.48 658.8669185 483.573129

Assumptions: Assume that SH-60 and CH-46 operation for Cast and Recovery are Special Personnel Insertion and Extraction Rig operations. 5109.40 0.33 0.24

Assume 4 hours of cruise time for Amphibious Raid Operations, and one touch and go operationSH60 from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9929, February 1999CH53 from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9822 Rev C, February 2000CH46 from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9816 Rev F, January 2001UH1N from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9904 Rev A, May 1999AH-1W from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9824 Rev A, April 1999

C-11
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-11

Aircraft GHG Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

Aircraft Number

Aircraft Time on 

Range (hrs)

Aircraft Fuel Use 

per hour

Total Fuel Use Emissions Factors (lb/gallon fuel) (c) Emissions Factors (lb/operation) (c) Emissions (lbs)

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O

Assume Aircraft participate for one day during Amphibious Raid Operations and Direct Action OperationsAssume 1 LTO and 3 hours of cruise for CQC/CQD SH-60 operation.(a) Days = the number of days per operation(b) Operations = the number of operations per year

C-11
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-12

Marine Vessels GHG Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ship/Boat Type

Number

Ship Time on 

Range (hrs) (e) Engines and Generators

Ave. Speed 

(Knots)

Power Level (%) 

or horsepower

Engines on Line

Generator - Load 

(kW)

Hours Propulsion No. Generator No. 

1.1.2 Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 RHIB 1 4 Caterpillar 3126 

Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 72 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 4 GE LM 2500 4 Allison 501-K34, 2,000 kW ea 3 4-6 2.5% 2 2@1300k W ea 1

2 Towing 1 30 Foss Tug 1 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

 1 30 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 4 GE LM 2500 4 Allison 501-K34, 2,000 kW ea 3 4-6 2.5% 2 2@1300k W ea 1

3 Moor to Buoy 1 36 RHIB 1 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 36 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 4 GE LM 2500 4 Allison 501-K34, 2,000 kW ea 3 4-6 2.5% 2 2@1300k W ea 1

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 216 RHIBs 3 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

5 MCM Operations 1 32 Zodiacs 1 4 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 6 Floating Mine Operations 1 25 RHIBs 2 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

7 Dive Platoon 1 8 RHIB 2 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

8 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 4 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 9 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 120 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 3 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Operations/UUV Operation1 120 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

1 120 Submersible 2 2

11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 175 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 4 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

12 Mine Neutralization 1 4 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 30 Foss Tug 1 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

1 30 RHIB 1 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 30 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 4 GE LM 2500 4 Allison 501-K34, 2,000 kW ea 3 4-6 2.5% 2 2@1300k W ea 1

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 CRRC 4 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

15 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins 1 189 Personal Watercraft / CRRC / RHIB 1 1 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 

16 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 IBS 1 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

1 8 LCU

1 6 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

17 Obstacle Course 1 138 None18 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 40 Personal Watercraft 1 6 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 

 1 40 Small Water Craft 8 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

1 40 RHIB / CRRC 1 6 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

1 40 rigid, 10-meter craft 1 6 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

19 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 None20 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf Passage/Boat Team Organi1 72 CRRC/Zodiac/Propeller Surface Craft/RH 6 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

 1 72 Personal Watercraft 1 6 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 CRRC 4 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

NAA Operations and Description

C-12
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-12

Marine Vessels GHG Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ship/Boat Type

Number

Ship Time on 

Range (hrs) (e) Engines and Generators

Ave. Speed 

(Knots)

Power Level (%) 

or horsepower

Engines on Line

Generator - Load 

(kW)

Hours Propulsion No. Generator No. 

 1 8 Personal Watercraft 1 6 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 

22 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch and Recover - Bay a1 24 CRRC 4 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

 1 24 Personal Watercraft 1 6 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 

1 24 RHIB 1 6 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 24 LCU

1 6 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

23 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 CRRC 6 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

 1 26 RHIB 1 6 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

24 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 LCU

2 2 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

 1 24 CRRCs 12 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

25 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 2 CRRCs 13 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

 3 2 LPD 1 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA  3 2 LCUs

2 2 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

 3 2 LCACs

2 2

Avco Lycoming TF40B3,955 hp each

4 APU T-62-T-40-7 Sunstrand 60 kW each 2 35 80% 4 2@ 10kW ea 1

3 2 EFV 6 2

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 2 CRRCs 9 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

 3 2 LPD 1 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

27 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 1 LCAC per CLZ

1 2

Avco Lycoming TF40B3,955 hp each

4 APU T-62-T-40-7 Sunstrand 60 kW each 2 35 80% 4 2@ 10kW ea 

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-the-Beach 4 52 RHIBs / CRRCs 3 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 4 52 Rigid, 10-meter craft 1 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

29 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 16 CRRCs 1 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

1 16 Boston Whaler 1 2 OMC Johnson Outboards (d) 2 None 0 2-3 1000 2 NA 

30 Immediate Action Drills 1 8 RHIBs 1 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 8 CRRCs 1 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

31 Breacher Training 1 20 None 032 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 50 RHIBs 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 50 MK V 2 2 MTU 12V 396 TE94, 12 cyl 2 Northern Light, M844, 4 cyl 16 kW 1 5-6 30% 1 10 kW 

33 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 RHIB or MK V 4 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

34 Escape and Evasion 1 20 RHIBs 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 20 MK V 2 2 MTU 12V 396 TE94, 12 cyl 2 Northern Light, M844, 4 cyl 16 kW 1 5-6 30% 1 10 kW 

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & Recovery Operation 1 124 RHIBs 1 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

1 124 CRRCs 2 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

36 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 6 None37 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal Delivery System (ASD14 14 RHIBs 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

C-12
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-12

Marine Vessels GHG Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ship/Boat Type

Number

Ship Time on 

Range (hrs) (e) Engines and Generators

Ave. Speed 

(Knots)

Power Level (%) 

or horsepower

Engines on Line

Generator - Load 

(kW)

Hours Propulsion No. Generator No. 

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-the-Shore

38 OPDS 25 6 OUBs

2 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

39 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS) 10 4 Warping Tug 1 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

 10 4 Barge Ferry 2 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

40 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 34 Barge Ferry 2 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

41 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 9 WTs 4 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

42 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 2 WTs 2 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

 10 2 Personal Watercraft 2 4 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 

10 2 LCM

1 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

43 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 None44 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 LCU

2 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

45 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 LCU

1 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

1 60 LCM-8

1 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

46 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 LCU

2 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

1 60 LCM-8

2 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

47 Communications Training 2 1 None48 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 1 None49 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload 5 1 LCM-8

2 2 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 

 5 1 WTs 2 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

 5 1 Barge Ferry 2 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

50 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 None 51 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 1 WTs 2 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

 5 1 Personal Watercraft 2 2 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 

52 MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 MPF Utility Boat 2 4 Diesel Engines 2 None 0 2 660 2 NA 53 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 None

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed Circuit Breathing Divin 1 126 RHIBs 5 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 RHIBs 5 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 LCU 1

56 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 CRRCs 5 2 assume paddling57 Rock Portage 1 18 CRRCs 7 2 assume paddling

1 18 IBS 9 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 None59 Immediate Action Drills 1 5 None

NSW Advanced Training

60 Over the Beach Insertion / Photo Reconnaissance 1 31 RHIB/CRRC 1 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

1 31 Kayak 1 2 assume paddling

61 Photo Image Capture 14 3 None62 Field Skills (Observation Drill, Sketching, Range Estimation) 1 22 None

C-12
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-12

Marine Vessels GHG Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ship/Boat Type

Number

Ship Time on 

Range (hrs) (e) Engines and Generators

Ave. Speed 

(Knots)

Power Level (%) 

or horsepower

Engines on Line

Generator - Load 

(kW)

Hours Propulsion No. Generator No. 

63 Stalking, Movement and Hide-Sites 5 8 None64 CQC/CQD 1 109 CRRCs 5 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

65 Communications 5 6 None66 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training 5 12 None67 Around the World Training 1 6 CRRCs 7 2 assume paddling

1 6 Sea Kayaks 5 2 assume paddling

4.9.4 Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other Nation Units and

NSW Physical Fitness Training

68 Physical Training Runs 1 464 None69 Physical Conditioning Training Exercise 1 280 CRRCs / Propeller Surface Craft 3 2 assume paddling70 Swim Training 1 170 RHIBs 5 2 assume paddling71 Hell Week 5 6 CRRCs 5 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

72 Rucksack March 1 54 None73 Monster Mash 1 6 CRRCs 3 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 

4.12.6 Provide Industrial and Environmental Health Services

74 Conduct Environmental Health Site Assessment 3 3 None

6.1.1 Conduct Explosive Ordnance Disposal

75 Conventional Ordnance/Improvised Explosive Device Response 1 64 None76 Land Mine Detection/Neutralization 1 24 None

6.3.1 Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of Operations

77 Field Training Exercise (FTX) e.g. SEAHAWK 14 53 Boston Whalers 144 2 OMC Johnson Outboards (d) 2 None 0 2-3 1000 2 NA 

6.3.3 Combat Terrorism

78 Small Boat Attack 1 30 Boston Whalers 1 2 OMC Johnson Outboards (d) 2 None 0 2-3 1000 2 NA 

1 30 surface vessel dropping anchor and 3 sho 1 2

1 30 18’ Bayliner 1 2 OMC Johnson Outboards (d) 2 None 0 2-3 1000 2 NA 

Assume marine vessels participate for one day during Amphibious Raid Operations and Direct Action Operations and SeahawkAssumptions: Watercraft operates 8 hours per day for the days during which the operation occurs 

C-12
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-13

Ground Vehicles GHG Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ground Vehicles Number

Engine Load

Hours per day

Horsepower Emissions Facto

CO2 CH4 

1.1.2 Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 None2 Towing 1 30 None3 Moor to Buoy 1 36 None

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 216 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.05 MCM Operations 1 32 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.06 Floating Mine Operations 1 25 4WD Pickups 1 2 22.71 0.07 Dive Platoon 1 8 None8 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 4 None9 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 120 None

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Operations/UUV Operations1 120 None

11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 175 4WD Pickups 0 2 22.71 0.012 Mine Neutralization 1 4 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.0

1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 30 None

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 HMMWV 1 65% 3 150 1.25 0.015 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins 1 189 HMMWV 1 65% 3 150 1.25 0.0

 1 189 Truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.0

16 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 None17 Obstacle Course 1 138 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.018 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 40 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.019 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.020 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf Passage/Boat Team Organiza1 72 HMMWV/ 4WD P 2 65% 3 150 1.25 0.0

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 4WD Pickups / H 1 2 22.71 0.022 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch and Recover - Bay an1 24 4WD Pickups / H 1 2 22.71 0.0

23 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 4WD Pickups / H 1 8 22.71 0.024 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 None 025 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 2 HMMWVs 6 65% 3 150 1.25 0.0

 3 2 4WD Pickups 8 8 22.71 0.0 3 2 AAVs 6 2 180.277 0

 3 2 LAVs 6 65% 2 150.0 1.25 0.0

3 2 IFAVs 6 65% 2 150.0 1.25 0.0

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 2 Light Wheeled Ve 16 2 22.71 0.0

27 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 150 1.25 0.0

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-the-Beach 4 52 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.029 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 16 4WD Pickups 1 2 22.71 0.030 Immediate Action Drills 1 8 4WD Pickups 4 2 22.71 0.031 Breacher Training 1 20 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.032 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 50 None 033 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 None 034 Escape and Evasion 1 20 None 0

NAA Operations and Description

C-13
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-13

Ground Vehicles GHG Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ground Vehicles Number

Engine Load

Hours per day

Horsepower Emissions Facto

CO2 CH4 

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & Recovery Operation 1 124 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.036 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 6 4WD Pickups 4 2 22.71 0.037 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal Delivery System (ASDS14 14 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.0

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-the-Shore

38 OPDS 25 6 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 150 1.25 0.0

 25 6 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.0 25 6 Dozer 2 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.0 25 6 Comm Van 1 8 22.71 0.0 25 6 RTV forklift 1 48% 8 93.0 1.25 0.0 25 6 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.33

39 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS) 10 4 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 150 1.25 0.0

 10 4 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.0 10 4 Van 1 8 22.71 0.0 10 4 Dozers 2 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.0 10 4 Rough Terrain Fo 1 48% 8 37.0 1.25 0.0

10 4 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.33

40 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 34 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 150 1.25 0.0

 3 34 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.0 3 34 Van 1 8 22.71 0.0 3 34 Dozer 2 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.0 3 34 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.33

41 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 9 HMMWVs 2 65% 3 150 1.25 0.0

 5 9 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.0 5 9 Van 1 8 22.71 0.0 5 9 Rough Terrain Fo 1 48% 8 37.0 1.25 0.0 5 9 Dozers 2 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.0

5 9 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.33

42 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 2 HMMWVs 4 65% 3 150 1.25 0.0

 10 2 5-ton truck 3 80% 1 48.21 0.0 10 2 Light Trucks 4 62% 8 161.0 1.25 0.0 10 2 Dozers 2 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.0 10 2 Forklifts 1 48% 8 37.0 1.25 0.0 10 2 75-Ton Crane 2 74% 8 194.0 1.25 0.0 10 2 Pile Driver 2 30% 24 20.0 1.25 0.0

10 2 ambulance 1 8 22.71 0.010 2 water buffalo 1 80% 1 48.21 0.010 2 140-ton crane 1 74% 8 399.0 1.25 0.010 2 30-ton crane 2 74% 8 194.0 1.25 0.010 2 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.3310 2 Air compressors 2 48% 8 106.0 1.25 0.010 2 Pile Extractor 1 30% 24 20.0 1.25 0.0

43 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 HMMWVs 3 65% 3 150 1.25 0.0

 4 16 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.0 4 16 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.0 4 16 Generators/vario 2 30% 24 Various 2064.95 0.0

4 16 Heaters 2 51% 8 238.0 1.25 0.04 16 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.33

44 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 None 045 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 150 1.25 0.0

1 60 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.0

C-13
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-13

Ground Vehicles GHG Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ground Vehicles Number

Engine Load

Hours per day

Horsepower Emissions Facto

CO2 CH4 

1 60 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.01 60 LARCV 1 2 350.0 10.85 2.33

46 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.047 Communications Training 2 1 4WD Pickups 4 2 22.71 0.0

 2 1 RTVs 4 48% 8 93.0 1.25 0.0 2 1 Bus 2 2 89.15 0.0 2 1 Tractor with flat b 1 80% 1 48.21 0.0

48 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 1 HMMWVs 2 65% 3 150 1.25 0.0

 14 1 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.0 14 1 Dozer 2 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.0 14 1 4WD Pickups 10 2 22.71 0.0 14 1 Fuel Truck 1 2 22.71 0.0 14 1 20-ton Stake Truc 1 2 150 1.25 0.0

 14 1 50-ton Low-bed T 1 2 150 1.25 0.0 14 1 Wheeled Loaders 2 47% 8 147.0 1.25 0.0 14 1 Generators/vario 23 30% 24 Various 2064.95 0.0

14 1 Heaters 117 51% 8 238.0 1.25 0.014 1 Welder 6 45% 8 45.0 1.25 0.014 1 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.33

49 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload 5 1 HMMWVs 2 65% 3 150 1.25 0.0

 5 1 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.0 5 1 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.0 5 1 4WD Pickups 3 2 150 22.71 0.0 5 1 LARCV 1 2 350.0 10.85 2.33

50 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.0

 4 4 RTVs 6 48% 8 93.0 1.25 0.0 4 4 Generator 1 74% 8 22.0 1.25 0.0

4 4 Flatbed Truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.0

51 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 1 HMMWVs/Jeeps 3 65% 3 150 1.25 0.0

 5 1 6-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.0 5 1 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.0 5 1 Cranes 2 43% 8 94.0 1.25 0.0 5 1 RTVs 2 48% 8 93.0 1.25 0.0 5 1 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.33

52 MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.0

 9 2 Van 1 2 22.71 0.0 9 2 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.33

53 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.33

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed Circuit Breathing Diving 1 126 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.0

1 126 Bus 2 2 89.15 0.0

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.0

 1 12 Bus 2 2 89.15 0.0

56 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.057 Rock Portage 1 18 4WD Pickups 1 2 22.71 0.0

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.059 Immediate Action Drills 1 5 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.0

NSW Advanced Training

60 Over the Beach Insertion / Photo Reconnaissance 1 31 4WD Pickup 2 2 22.71 0.0

C-13
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-13

Ground Vehicles GHG Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ground Vehicles Number

Engine Load

Hours per day

Horsepower Emissions Facto

CO2 CH4 

61 Photo Image Capture 14 3 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.062 Field Skills (Observation Drill, Sketching, Range Estimation) 1 22 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.063 Stalking, Movement and Hide-Sites 5 8 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.064 CQC/CQD 1 109 4WD Pickups 5 2 22.71 0.065 Communications 5 6 4WD Pickups 6 2 22.71 0.066 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training 5 12 4WD Pickups 1 2 22.71 0.067 Around the World Training 1 6 4WD Pickups 4 2 22.71 0.0

4.9.4 Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other Nation Units and Individuals

NSW Physical Fitness Training

68 Physical Training Runs 1 464 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.069 Physical Conditioning Training Exercise 1 280 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.070 Swim Training 1 170 4WD Pickups 1 2 22.71 0.071 Hell Week 5 6 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.072 Rucksack March 1 54 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.073 Monster Mash 1 6 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.0

4.12.6 Provide Industrial and Environmental Health Services

74 Conduct Environmental Health Site Assessment 3 3 4WD Pickups 4 2 22.71 0.0

3 3 5-ton truck 1 2 48.21 0.03 3 3/4-ton trailer 1 2 48.21 0.03 3 small trailers 3 2 22.71 0.0

6.1.1 Conduct Explosive Ordnance Disposal

75 Conventional Ordnance/Improvised Explosive Device Response 1 64 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.076 Land Mine Detection/Neutralization 1 24 4WD Pickups / Va 2 2 22.71 0.0

6.3.1 Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of Operations

77 Field Training Exercise (FTX) e.g. SEAHAWK 14 53 4WD Pickups 140 2 22.71 0.0

 14 53 Generators 176 74% 2 22.0 1.25 0.0 14 53 Forklift 8 48% 8 37.0 1.25 0.0

6.3.3 Combat Terrorism

78 Small Boat Attack 1 30 None

Assumptions: Fuel truck is equivalent to 4WD vehicle; large trucks modeled as MDTs. Busses assumed to be diesel poweredEmission factors from ARB's OFFROAD 2007 Model 

C-13
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-14

Ordnance GHG Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ordnance Number Type 

Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 None2 Towing 1 30 None3 Moor to Buoy 1 36 None

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 216 Smoke Grenades/Flares 3 Smoke Gre 

Green Para 

5 MCM Operations 1 32 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 1 Underwater6 Floating Mine Operations 1 25 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 1 7 Dive Platoon 1 8 Blast Caps/Explosives 9 per training Underwater

1 8 3.5 lb 8 sequential command detonated Underwater

8 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 4 Diver Recalls 2 per training Underwater9 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 120 Diver Recalls 2 per training Underwater

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Operations/UUV Operations 1 120 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 2 per training Underwater

11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 175 13lbs [MK 87/88 C-4 in GRP Approximately 10% of training invo Underwater

 29lb [MK86/89 PBXN in AL canist Approximately 10% of training invo Underwater

12 Mine Neutralization 1 4 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 9 per training Underwater 

1 4 3.5lb explosive 8 sequential command detonated Underwater

1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 30 None

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 None15 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins 1 189 None16 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 None17 Obstacle Course 1 138 None18 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 40 None19 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 None20 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf Passage/Boat Team Organiza 1 72 None

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 None22 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch and Recover - Bay and 1 24 None23 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 None24 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 None

NAA Operations and Description

C-14
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-14

Ordnance GHG Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ordnance Number Type 

25 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 2 Flares 3 Green Para 

 Grenades 20 Grenades  9MM 210 9 MM  5.56MM/38CAL 60/15 5.56 Blank 

38 cal Blan

Diver Recalls 3 Underwater

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 2 Explosives 10 

 Smoke 3 Smoke  9MM 137 per year 9 MM  5.56MM/38CAL 50/10 per year 5.56 Blank 

38 cal 

Diver Recalls 3 Underwater

27 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 Smoke 3 Smoke 

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-the-Beach 4 52 Smokes/Flares/Surface Explosives3 flares, 10 grenades Grenades 

Green Para 

 Small Arms 6600/5000 .5 cal/7.62 mm 0.5 cal 

7.62 mm 

29 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 16 None30 Immediate Action Drills 1 8 Smokes/Flares/Surface 10 Grenades 

3 Green Para 

 6 Small Arms 5000 0.50 cal/7.6

31 Breacher Training 1 20 Small Arms 0 12 gauge 32 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 50 Smoke Grenades/Flares 333 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 Smoke/Flares 3 Smoke 34 Escape and Evasion 1 20 Smoke/Flares 3 Smoke 

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & Recovery Operation 1 124 Smoke Grenades/Flares 3 Smoke 36 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 6 None 037 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal Delivery System (ASDS 14 14 ≤ 10 lbs C-4 (underwater) 1 Underwater

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-the-Shore

38 OPDS 25 6 None 039 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS) 10 4 None 040 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 34 None 041 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 9 None 042 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 2 None 043 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 5.56 caliber rounds 30 5.56 Blank 

C-14
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-14

Ordnance GHG Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ordnance Number Type 

 7.62 caliber blanks 100 7.62 caliber 

44 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 None 045 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 None 046 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 None 047 Communications Training 2 1 048 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 1 5.56 caliber rounds 30 5.56 Blank 

 7.62 caliber blanks 100 7.62 caliber 

49 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload 5 1 None 050 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 None 051 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 1 None 052 MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 None 053 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 None 0

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed Circuit Breathing Diving 1 126 Diver Recall 1 Underwater55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 Diver Recall 1 Underwater56 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 Small arm 15000 7.62mm; 19800 .5cal ANNU7.62 mm 

0.5 cal 

57 Rock Portage 1 18 Smoke Grenades/Flares 3 Smoke 

Grenades 

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 None 059 Immediate Action Drills 1 5 50CAL/7.62 BLANK 5000 RNDS per operation (25000 0.5 cal 

7.62 blank 

NSW Advanced Training

60 Over the Beach Insertion / Photo Reconnaissance 1 31 Small arms/blanks 10 9 mm blanks; 10 5.56 blanks pe9 mm blank 

5.56 blank 

61 Photo Image Capture 14 3 Small arms/blanks 10 9 mm blanks; 10 5.56 blanks pe9 mm blank 

5.56 blank 

62 Field Skills (Observation Drill, Sketching, Range Estimation) 1 22 Small arms/blanks 10 9 mm blanks; 10 5.56 blanks pe9 mm blank 

5.56 blank 

63 Stalking, Movement and Hide-Sites 5 8 None64 CQC/CQD 1 109 Small Arms 57600 9 MM simunition annual; 20000 5.56 si

8 Small Arms 7200 9 MM 8 Small Arms 10000 5.56 Blank 

Small Arms 4000 .38 cal 0.38 cal 

8 Grenades (flash crash) 3 Grenades 

65 Communications 5 6 None 066 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training 5 12 none 067 Around the World Training 1 6 none 0

4.9.4 Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other Nation Units and In

C-14
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-14

Ordnance GHG Emissions

No Action Alternative

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ordnance Number Type 

NSW Physical Fitness Training

68 Physical Training Runs 1 464 None 069 Physical Conditioning Training Exercise 1 280 None 070 Swim Training 1 None 071 Hell Week 5 6 Smokes 128 per year Smoke 

 Grenade Simulators 200 per year Grenades 

 White Para Flares 12 per year Flares 

7.62 Blank (A111) 27000 per year 7.62 mm 50 CAL Blank 2000 per year 0.5 cal 

72 Rucksack March 1 54 None 073 Monster Mash 1 6 None 

4.12.6 Provide Industrial and Environmental Health Services

74 Conduct Environmental Health Site Assessment 3 3 None 0

6.1.1 Conduct Explosive Ordnance Disposal

75 Conventional Ordnance/Improvised Explosive Device Response 1 64 076 Land Mine Detection/Neutralization 1 24 0

6.3.1 Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of Operations

77 Field Training Exercise (FTX) e.g. SEAHAWK 14 53 0.50 cal blanks 15650 per year 

 Grenades/flares 66 per year Grenades 

M16 Rounds 8250 per year M60 Rounds 8250 per year 

 9mm Rounds 6600 per year 

6.3.3 Combat Terrorism

78 Small Boat Attack 1 30 .50 cal rounds 350 per exercise 

C-14
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-6

Operations Summaries

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

No. of 

Personnel Ship/Boat Type Number of 

vessels 

possible

Number of 

vessels 

assumed

Vessels per 

year Ground Vehicles Number of 

vehicles 

possible

Number of 

vehicles 

assumed

Vehicles per 

year Aircraft Number of 

aircraft 

possible

Number of 

aircraft 

assumed

Aircraft per 

year Ordnance 

1.1.2 Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 RHIB 1 1 72 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 None 

 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 1 72 

2 Towing 1 30 Foss Tug 1 1 30 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 None 

 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 1 30 

3 Moor to Buoy 1 36 RHIB 1 1 36 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 None 

 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 1 36 

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 228 10 to 20 RHIBs 2-4 3 684 4WD Pickups 2 456 SH60 1 1 228 Smoke Grenades/Flares 

5 MCM Operations 1 58 9 Zodiacs 1 58 4WD Pickups 2 116 None 0 0 0 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls

10 - 20 lb Underwater Explosives 

6 Floating Mine Operations 1 53 RHIBs 2 2 106 4WD Pickups 1 1 53 SH-60 - 2 Hour 1 1 53 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 

Less than or equal to 5 lb 

7 Dive Platoon 1 8 RHIB 2 2 16 None 0 0 0 SH-60 - 2 Hour 1 1 8 Blast Caps/Explosives 

3.5 lb 

8 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 6 10 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 2 12 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 Diver Recalls 

9 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 156 10 to 20 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 to 3 3 468 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 Diver Recalls 

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) 

Operations/UUV Operations 1 156 5 to 10 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2-3 2 312 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 

Submersible 2 2 312

11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 208 11 to 13 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 to 4 4 832 4WD Pickups 0 0 None 0 0 0 13lbs [MK 87/88 C-4 in GRP 

 29lb [MK86/89 PBXN in AL caniste

12 Mine Neutralization 1 4 16 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 8 4WD Pickups 2 2 8 SH-60 - 2 Hour 1 1 4 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 

3.5lb explosive 

N1 Shock Wave Generator 1 90 20 CRRC 1 1 90 4WD Pickups 1 1 90 None 0 0 0 Underwater Explosives (15 grams o

LCM-8 1 1 90 Diver Recalls 

N2 Surf Zone Test Detachment/Equipment T&E 1 200 10 to 20 RHIB / Water-Jet Driven Craft / CRRC 2 2 400 4WD Pickups 1 1 200 None 0 0 0 None N3 UUV Neutralization 1 4 RHIBs 2 8 4WD Pickups 2 8 None 0 0 0 Explosives 

Seafox (3.3 lb PBXN9) Archerfish (3.57 lb PBXN10)

N4 Mine Hunting

1 200 4 Acoustic Explorer (mine seeding & maintena 1 1 200 None 0 0 0

SH-60 - 1.5 Hours cruise, 0.5 hours hover 1 1 200 None 

N5 Airborne Laser Mine Detection

1 48 4 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0

SH-60 - 1.5 Hours cruise, 0.5 hours hover 1 1 48 None 

N6 Organic Airborne Surface Influence Sweep

1 100 4 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0

SH-60 - 1.5 Hours cruise, 0.5 hours hover 1 1 100 None 

N7 Airborne Mine Neutralization SH-60 - 1.5 

Hours cruise,

Alternatives 1 and 2 Operations and Description

1 48 RHIB 1 1 1 None 0 0 0

Hours cruise, 

0.5 hours hover 1 1 48 1.6 kg net explosive (PBXN110) 

1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 42 Foss Tug 1 1 42 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 None 

RHIB 1 1 42

 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 1 42 

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 28 CRRC 4 4 376 HMMWV 1 1 94 None 0 0 0 None 

15 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins

1 189 16 Personal Watercraft / CRRC / RHIB 1 1 189 HMMWV 1 1 189 None 0 0 0 None 

Truck 1 1 189 

16 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 40 (in groups of 6 to 8) IBS 1 1 8 None 0 0 0 SH60 1 1 8 None 

LCU 1 1 8

17 Obstacle Course 1 142 8 to 150 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 1-3 2 284 None 0 0 0 None 

18 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 44 8 to 60 Personal Watercraft 1 1 44 4WD Pickups 1-4 3 132 None 0 0 0 None 

 Small Water Craft 1 to 8 8 44 

RHIB / CRRC 1 1 44rigid, 10-meter craft 1 1 44

19 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 16 to 48 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2 2 232 None 0 0 0 None 

20 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf 

Passage/Boat Team Organization and Function

1 72 28 to 60 CRRC/Zodiac/Propeller Surface Craft/RHIB 4 to 10 6 432 HMMWV/ 4WD Pickup1 to 3 2 144 None 0 0 0 None 

 Personal Watercraft 1 1 72

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 28 CRRC 4 4 32 4WD Pickups / HMMW1 1 8 None 0 0 0 None 

 Personal Watercraft 1 1 8 

22 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch 

and Recover - Bay and Ocean 1 24 28 CRRC 4 4 96 4WD Pickups / HMMW1 1 24 None 0 0 0 None 

 Personal Watercraft 1 1 24 

RHIB 1 1 24

C-6
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-6

Operations Summaries

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

No. of 

Personnel Ship/Boat Type Number of 

vessels 

possible

Number of 

vessels 

assumed

Vessels per 

year Ground Vehicles Number of 

vehicles 

possible

Number of 

vehicles 

assumed

Vehicles per 

year Aircraft Number of 

aircraft 

possible

Number of 

aircraft 

assumed

Aircraft per 

year Ordnance 

 LCU 1 1 24 

23 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 40 CRRC 6 6 156 4WD Pickups / HMMW1 1 26 None 0 0 0 None 

 RHIB 1 1 26 

24 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 110-130 LCU 2 2 48 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 None 

 CRRCs 6-18 12 288 

25 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 18 150 on foot , 20-40 additional CRRCs 10-15 13 234 HMMWVs 4-8 6 108 CH-53E 2 to 4 3 54 Flares 

 LPD 1 1 18 4WD Pickups 5 to 10 8 144 CH-46E 4 4 72 Grenades 

 LCUs 1-2 2 36 AAVs 4-8 6 108 UH-1N 1 1 18 9MM 

 LCACs 1-2 2 36 LAVs 4-8 6 108 5.56MM/38CAL  Submersibles 1-2 2 36 IFAVs 4-8 6 108 Diver Recalls  EFV 4-8 6 108 

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 18 90 on foot, 20-40 additional CRRCs 8-10 9 162 Light Wheeled Vehicles11 to 20 16 288 CH-46E 6 to 8 7 126 Explosives 

 LPD 1 1 18 UH-1N 1 1 18 Smoke 

 Submersibles 1-2 2 36 9MM 

 5.56MM/38CAL 

Diver Recalls 

27 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 1 LCAC per CLZ 1 1 4 HMMWVs 1 1 4 None 0 0 0 Smoke 

N8 Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel 1 4 5 + (10-20 monitor) +1(0 – 20 aggressorNone 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 5-8 9 36 CH-46E / CH-5 4 to 6 3 12 Small Arms 

AH-1W 1 1 4 Smoke UH-1N 1 1 4

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-theBeach 4 86 80 to 20 RHIBs / CRRCs 2 to 4 3 258 4WD Pickups 1-4 3 258 SH-60 Helo 1 1 86 Smokes/Flares/Surface Explosives 

 Rigid, 10-meter craft 1 1 86 Small Arms 

29 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 24 CRRCs 1 1 24 4WD Pickups 1 1 24 SH-60 Helo 1 1 24 None

 Boston Whaler 1 1 24 

30 Immediate Action Drills 1 12 Small groups of 8 to 10 RHIBs 1 1 12 4WD Pickups 4 4 48 SH-60 Helo 1 1 12 Smokes/Flares/Surface 

CRRCs 1 1 12 Small Arms 

31 Breacher Training 1 20 12 to 40 None 0 20 4WD Pickups 3 3 60 None 0 0 0 Small Arms 32 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 84 RHIBs 2 2 168 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 Smoke Grenades/Flares 

 MK V 2 2 168 

33 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 RHIB or MK V 2 to 4 4 800 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 Smoke/Flares 

34 Escape and Evasion 1 84 RHIBs 2 2 168 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 Smoke/Flares 

 MK V 2 2 168 

N9 Underwater Demolition Qualification / Certification Underwater Demolition Qualification / Certification 1 12 RHIBs or CRRC RHIBs or CRRC 2 2 24 4WD Pickups 4WD Pickups 2 2 24 None 0 0 0 12 5.-13 75 pound (underwater) .75 pound (underwater) 

25.5-pound (underwater) 

N10 Vehicle Patrolling and Testing 1 50 20 None 0 0 0 HMMVS 6 6 300 None 0 0 0 None N11 NSW Demolition Traning: Demolition Requalifications 1 12 40 CRRCs 4 4 48 4WD Pickups 1 1 12 None 0 0 0 Blast Caps/Diver Recall 

 5 -10 pounds of C-4 

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and 

Surveillance

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & 

Recovery Operation 1 154 8 to 50 RHIBs 1 1 154 4WD Pickups 2 to 4 2 308 SH60 1 1 154 Smoke Grenades/Flares 

CRRCs 1 to 3 2 CH46 1 1 154

36 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 11 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 4 44 NONE 0 0 0 None 

37 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal 

Delivery System (ASDS) Certification to Deploy

14 40 20 RHIBs 2 2 80 4WD Pickups 2 2 80 SH-60 1 40 ≤ 10 lbs C-4 (underwater) 

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics 

Over-the-Shore

38 OPDS 25 6 25 to 65 OUBs 1-5 2 12 HMMWVs 1 1 6 None 0 0 0 None 

5-ton truck 1 1 6 Dozer 2 2 12 

Comm Van 1 1 6 RTV forklift 1 1 6 LARCV 2 2 12 

39 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System 

(ABLTS) 10 5 65 Warping Tug 1 1 5 HMMWVs 1 1 5 None 0 0 0 None 

 Barge Ferry 2 2 10 5-ton truck 1 1 5 

Van 1 1 5 

Dozers 2 2 10 Rough Terrain Forklift 1 1 5 

LARCV 2 2 10

40 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 54 up to 36 Barge Ferry 2 2 108 HMMWVs 1 1 54 None 0 0 0 None 

5-ton truck 1 1 54 Van 1 1 54 

C-6
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-6

Operations Summaries

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

No. of 

Personnel Ship/Boat Type Number of 

vessels 

possible

Number of 

vessels 

assumed

Vessels per 

year Ground Vehicles Number of 

vehicles 

possible

Number of 

vehicles 

assumed

Vehicles per 

year Aircraft Number of 

aircraft 

possible

Number of 

aircraft 

assumed

Aircraft per 

year Ordnance 

Dozer 2 2 108 

LARCV 2 2 108 

41 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 10 65 to 75 WTs 4 4 40 HMMWVs 2 2 20 None 0 0 0 None 

5-ton truck 1 1 10 Van 1 1 10 Rough Terrain Forklift 1 1 10 

Dozers 2 2 20LARCV 2 2 20

42 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 4 75 to 125 WTs 2 2 8 HMMWVs 3 to 4 4 16 None 0 0 0 None 

 Personal Watercraft 2 2 8 5-ton truck 1 to 3 3 12  LCM 1 1 4 Light Trucks 4 16 

Dozers 2 2 8 Forklifts 1 1 4 75-Ton Crane 2 2 8 Pile Driver 2 2 8 

ambulance 1 1 4water buffalo 1 1 4140-ton crane 1 1 430-ton crane 2 2 8LARCV 2 2 8Air compressors 2 2 8Pile Extractor 1 1 4

43 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 19 on foot None HMMWVs 3 3 48 None 0 0 0 5.56 caliber rounds 

5-ton truck 1 1 16 7.62 caliber blanks Dozer 1 1 16 

Generators/various 2 2 32 Heaters 2 2LARCV 2 2 32

44 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 LCU 2 2 80 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 None 

45 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 LCU 0 to 2 1 60 HMMWVs 1 60 None 0 0 0 None 

LCM-8 0 to 2 1 60 5-ton truck 1 60

Dozer 1 60LARCV 1 60

46 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 LCU 2 2 120 Dozer 1 1 60 None 0 0 0 None 

LCM-8 2 2 120

47 Communications Training 2 2 60 persons, but they work in two shifts None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 4 8 None 0 0 0

RTVs 4 8 

Bus 2 2 4 Tractor with flat bed 1 1 2

48 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 2 19 None 2 4 HMMWVs 2 4 None 0 0 0 5.56 caliber rounds 

5-ton truck 1 2 7.62 caliber blanks Dozer 2 4 4WD Pickups 10 10 20 

Fuel Truck 1 1 2 20-ton Stake Trucks 1 1 2 50-ton Low-bed Trucks1 1 2 

Wheeled Loaders 2 2 4 Generators/various 23 23 46 Heaters 117 117 234Welder 6 6 12

LARCV 2 4

49 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload

5 2 72 LCM-8 2 4 HMMWVs 2 4 None 0 0 0 None 

 WTs 2 4 5-ton truck 1 2  Barge Ferry 2 4 Dozer 1 2 

1 2 4WD Pickups 3 6 

LARCV 1 2 

50 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 6 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2 8 None 0 0 0 None 

RTVs 6 24 Generator 1 4 

Flatbed Truck 1 1 4

51 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 2 40 WTs 2 4 HMMWVs/Jeeps 3 6 None 0 0 0 None 

 Personal Watercraft 2 4 6-ton truck 1 2 

Dozer 1 2 

Cranes 2 4 RTVs 2 4 LARCV 2 4 

52 MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 15 MPF Utility Boat 2 2 4 Dozer 1 1 2 None 0 0 0 None 

2 2 4 Van 1 1 2 

LARCV 2 2 4 

53 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 10 None LARCV 2 2 2 None 0 0 0 None 

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed 

Circuit Breathing Diving 1 126 RHIBs 5 5 630 4WD Pickups 3 3 378 None 0 0 0 Diver Recall 

Bus 2 2 252

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 60 RHIBs 5 5 60 4WD Pickups 3 3 36 None 0 0 0 Diver Recall 

 LCU 1 1 12 Bus 2 2 24 

56 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 60 CRRCs 5 5 180 4WD Pickups 3 3 108 None 0 0 0 Small arm 57 Rock Portage 1 20 60 CRRCs 5 to 8 7 140 4WD Pickups 1 1 20 None 0 0 0 Smoke Grenades/Flares 

IBS 8 to 10 9 180

C-6
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-6

Operations Summaries

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

No. of 

Personnel Ship/Boat Type Number of 

vessels 

possible

Number of 

vessels 

assumed

Vessels per 

year Ground Vehicles Number of 

vehicles 

possible

Number of 

vehicles 

assumed

Vehicles per 

year Aircraft Number of 

aircraft 

possible

Number of 

aircraft 

assumed

Aircraft per 

year Ordnance 

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 60 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2 2 36 None 0 0 0 None 

59 Immediate Action Drills 1 6 60 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2 2 12 None 0 0 0 .5CAL/7.62 BLANK 

NSW Advanced Training

60 Over the Beach Insertion / Photo Reconnaissance 1 31 20 RHIB/CRRC 2 1 31 4WD Pickup 2 2 62 None 0 0 0 Small arms/blanks 

Kayak 1 1 31

61 Photo Image Capture 14 4 20 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2 2 28 None 0 0 0 Small arms/blanks 62 Field Skills (Observation Drill, Sketching, Range 

Estimation) 1 24 20 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2 2 48 None 0 0 0 Small arms/blanks 

63 Stalking, Movement and Hide-Sites 5 8 14 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 3 3 24 None 0 0 0 None 

64 CQC/CQD 1 198 580 CRRCs 5 4WD Pickups 5 990 SH-60 1 1 198 Small Arms 

Small Arms Grenades (flash crash) Explosives (<1lb), accounted for in B

65 Communications 5 6 20 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 6 6 36 None 0 0 0 None 

66 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training 5 12 6 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 1 1 12 UAV 2 2 24 none 67 Around the World Training 1 6 60 CRRCs 7 7 42 4WD Pickups 4 4 24 None 0 0 0 none 

Sea Kayaks 5 5 30

4.9.4 Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other 

Nation Units and IndividualsNSW Physical Fitness Training

68 Physical Training Runs 1 464 30 to 150 averaging 60 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2-3 3 1392 None 0 0 0 None 

69 Physical Conditioning Training Exercise 1 280 60 to 150 (avg 60) CRRCs / Propeller Surface Craft 2-4 3 840 4WD Pickups 2 2 560 None 0 0 0 None 70 Swim Training 1 172 48-60 RHIBs 5 5 860 4WD Pickups 1 1 172 None 0 0 0 None 

71 Hell Week 5 6 60 CRRCs 5 5 30 4WD Pickups 3 3 18 None 0 0 0 Smokes 

 Grenade Simulators 

White Para Flares 

 7.62 Blank (A111) 

50 CAL Blank 

72 Rucksack March 1 54 60 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2-3 3 162 None 0 0 0 None 

73 Monster Mash 1 6 60 CRRCs 3 18 4WD Pickups 3 3 18 None 0 0 0 None

4.12.6 Provide Industrial and Environmental Health 

Services Services

74 Conduct Environmental Health Site Assessment

3 3 14 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 4 4 12 None 0 0 0 None 

5-ton truck 1 1 33/4-ton trailer 1 1 3small trailers 3 3 9 

6.1.1 Conduct Explosive Ordnance Disposal

75 Conventional Ordnance/Improvised Explosive 

Device Response 1 120 9 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups 2 2 240 None 0 0 0

76 Land Mine Detection/Neutralization 1 45 8 to 10 None 0 0 0 4WD Pickups / Vans 2 2 90 None 0 0 0

6.3.1 Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of 

Operations

77 Field Training Exercise (FTX) e.g. SEAHAWK

14 53 50-1000 Boston Whalers 0 to 24 12 144 4WD Pickups 7 to 85 140 None 0 0 0 0.50 cal blanks 

Generators 3 to 16 176 Grenades/flares Forklift 8 8 M16 Rounds 

M60 Rounds 9mm Rounds 

6.3.3 Combat Terrorism

78 Small Boat Attack 1 36 Boston Whalers 1 1 36 None 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 .50 cal rounds 

 surface vessel dropping anchor and 3 shots c 1 1 36 

18’ Bayliner 1 1 36

Totals 5343 12893 10966 1697

(a) Days = the number of days per operation

(b) Operations = the number of operations per year

C-6
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-7

Aircraft Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

Aircraft

Number

Aircraft Time on 

Range (hrs) Emissions Factors (lb/operation) (c) Emissions (lbs)

Hours CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 CO Nox ROG Sox PM

1.1.2 Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 None 02 Towing 1 30 None 03 Moor to Buoy 1 36 None 0

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 228 SH60 1 1.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 1710 1751.04 150.48 109.44 1149.12

5 MCM O ti 1 58 N 0

Alternatives 1 and 2 Operations and Description

5 MCM Operations 1 58 None 06 Floating Mine Operations 1 53 SH-60 - 2 Hours 1 2.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 795 814.08 69.96 50.88 534.247 Dive Platoon 1 8 SH-60 - 2 Hours 1 2.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 120 122.88 10.56 7.68 80.648 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 6 None 09 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 156 None 0

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Operations/UUV 

Operations

1 156 None 0

11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 208 None 012 Mine Neutralization 1 4 SH-60 - 2 Hours 1 2.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 60 61.44 5.28 3.84 40.32

N1 Shock Wave Generator 1 90 NoneN2 Surf Zone Test Detachment/Equipment T&E 1 200 NoneN3 UUV Neutralization 1 4 NoneN4 Mine Hunting 1 200 SH-60 - 1.5 Hours cruise,1 1.5 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 2250 2304 198 144 1512

1 200 Hover 1 0.5 1.63 2.44 0.19 0.14 1.48 162.9635 243.915 19.4425 14.14 148.47

N5 Airborne Laser Mine Detection 1 48 SH-60 - 1.5 Hours cruise,1 1.5 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 540 552.96 47.52 34.56 362.88

1 48 Hover 1 0.5 1.63 2.44 0.19 0.14 1.48 39.11124 58.5396 4.6662 3.3936 35.6328

N6 Organic Airborne Surface Influence Sweep 1 100 SH-60 - 1.5 Hours cruise,1 1.5 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 1125 1152 99 72 756

1 100 Hover 1 0.5 1.63 2.44 0.19 0.14 1.48 81.48175 121.9575 9.72125 7.07 74.235

N7 Airborne Mine Neutralization 1 48 SH-60 - 1.5 Hours cruise,1 1.5 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 540 552.96 47.52 34.56 362.88

1 48 Hover 1 0.5 1.63 2.44 0.19 0.14 1.48 39.11124 58.5396 4.6662 3.3936 35.6328

146 . . Conduct Maritime Interception Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 42 None 0

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 None 015 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins 1 189 None 016 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 SH60 1 4.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 240 245.76 21.12 15.36 161.28

17 Obstacle Course 1 142 None 018 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 44 None 019 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 None 020 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf Passage/Boat Team 

Organization and Function

1 72 None 0

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 None 022 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch and Recover 

- Bay and Ocean

1 24 None 0

23 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 None 024 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 None 025 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 18 CH-53E 3 4.0 9.51 36.07 0.67 1.79 9.87 2054.16 7791.12 144.72 386.64 2131.92

 CH-46E 4 4.0 22.109 4.41 3.84 0.45 1.99 6367.392 1270.08 1105.92 129.6 573.12 CH-53E T&G 3 1.0 0.77 2.11 0.13 0.11 0.61 41.58 113.94 7.02 5.94 32.94 CH-46E T&G 4 1.0 1.85 0.4 0.34 0.04 0.19 133.2 28.8 24.48 2.88 13.68

UH 1N - 1 4 0. 0 7. 4 01 . 0 09 . 0 28 . 2 91 . 50 4. 288 72 . 6 48 . 20 16 . 209 52 .

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 18 CH-46E 7 4.0 22.109 4.41 3.84 0.45 1.99 11142.94 2222.64 1935.36 226.8 1002.96

 UH-1N 1 4.0 0.7 4.01 0.09 0.28 2.91 50.4 288.72 6.48 20.16 209.52

27 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 None 0

N8 Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel 1 4 CH-46E / CH-53E 3 4.0 22.109 4.41 3.84 0.45 1.99 1061.232 211.68 184.32 21.6 95.52

1 4 AH-1W 1 4.0 8.96 4.72 0.48 0.34 3.57 143.36 75.52 7.68 5.44 57.121 4 UH-1N 1 4.0 0.7 4.01 0.09 0.28 2.91 11.2 64.16 1.44 4.48 46.56

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-the-Beach 4 86 SH-60 Helo 1 1.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 2580 2641.92 227.04 165.12 1733.7629 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 24 SH-60 Helo 1 1.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 180 184.32 15.84 11.52 120.9630 Immediate Action Drills 1 12 SH-60 Helo 1 1.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 90 92.16 7.92 5.76 60.4831 Breacher Training 1 20 None32 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 84 None33 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 None34 Escape and Evasion 1 84 None

N9 Underwater Demolition Qualification / Certification 1 12 None

N10 Vehicle Patrolling and Testing 1 50 None

C-7
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-7

Aircraft Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

Aircraft

Number

Aircraft Time on 

Range (hrs) Emissions Factors (lb/operation) (c) Emissions (lbs)

Hours CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 CO Nox ROG Sox PM

N11 NSW Demolition Traning: Demolition Requalifications and 

Training (Underwater Detonations)

1 12 None

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & Recovery 

Operation

1 154 SH60 1

1.0 0.81 1.03 0.08 0.06 0.64 124.74 158.62 12.32 9.24 98.56

1 154 CH46 1 1.0 1.87 0.39 0.35 0.04 0.19 287.98 60.06 53.9 6.16 29.26

36 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 11 NONE 037 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal Delivery 

System (ASDS) Certification to Deploy

14 40 SH-60 1

1.0 7.50 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 4200 4300.8 369.6 268.8 2822.4

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-theShore

38 OPDS 25 6 None 039 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS) 10 5 None 040 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 54 None 041 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 10 None 042 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 4 None 043 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 None 044 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 None 045 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 None 046 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 None 047 Communications Training 2 2 None 048 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 2 None 049 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload 5 2 None 050 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 None 051 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 2 None 052 MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 None 053 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 None 0

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed Circuit 

Breathing Diving

1 126 None 0

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 None 0

56 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 None 057 Rock Portage 1 20 None 0

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 None 059 Immediate Action Drills 1 6 None 0

NSW Advanced Training

60 Over the Beach Insertion / Photo Reconnaissance 1 31 None 061 Photo Image Capture 14 4 None 062 Field Skills (Observation Drill, Sketching, Range 

Estimation)

1 24 None 0

63 Stalking, Movement and Hide-Sites 5 8 None 064 CQC/CQD 1 198 SH-60 1 3.0 7.5 7.68 0.66 0.48 5.04 6890.4 5235.12 669.24 344.52 3449.1665 Communications 5 6 None 066 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training 5 12 UAV 267 Around the World Training 1 6 None 0

4.9.4 Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other Nation 

Units and Individuals

NSW Physical Fitness Training

68 Physical Training Runs 1 464 None 069 Physical Conditioning Training Exercise 1 280 None 070 Swim Training 1 172 None 0

71 Hell Week 5 6 None 0 Hell Week 5 6 None 072 Rucksack March 1 54 None 073 Monster Mash 1 6 None 0

4.12.6 Provide Industrial and Environmental Health Services

74 Conduct Environmental Health Site Assessment 3 3 None 0

6.1.1 Conduct Explosive Ordnance Disposal

75 Conventional Ordnance/Improvised Explosive Device 

Response

1 120 None

76 Land Mine Detection/Neutralization 1 45 None

6.3.1 Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of 

Operations

77 Field Training Exercise (FTX) e.g. SEAHAWK 14 53 None 0

6.3.3 Combat Terrorism

C-7
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-7

Aircraft Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

Aircraft

Number

Aircraft Time on 

Range (hrs) Emissions Factors (lb/operation) (c) Emissions (lbs)

Hours CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 CO Nox ROG Sox PM

78 Small Boat Attack 1 36 None 0

pounds/year 43111.648 33068.452 5467.6962 2135.1372 17940.771

Assumptions: Assume that SH-60 and CH-46 operation for Cast and Recovery are Special Personnel Insertion and Extraction Rig operations. tons/year 21.56 16.53 2.73 1.07 8.97

Assume 4 hours of cruise time for Amphibious Raid Operations, and one touch and go operation

SH60 f AESO M d SH60 from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9929, February 1999 R t N 9929 F b 1999CH53 from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9822 Rev C, February 2000CH46 from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9816 Rev F, January 2001UH1N from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9904 Rev A, May 1999

AH-1W from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9824 Rev A, April 1999Assume Aircraft participate for one day during Amphibious Raid Operations and Direct Action OperationsAssume 1 LTO and 3 hours of cruise for CQC/CQD SH-60 operation.(a) Days = the number of days per operation(b) Operations = the number of operations per year

C-7
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-8

Marine Vessels Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ship/Boat Type

Number

Ship Time on 

Range (hrs) (e) Engines and Generators

Ave. Speed 

(Knots)

Power Level (%) 

or horsepower

Engines on Line

Generator - Load 

(kW)

Hour Propulsion No. Generator No. C

1.1.2 Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 RHIB 1 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 72 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 4 GE LM 2500 4 Allison 501-K34, 2,000 kW ea 3 4-6 2.5% 2 2@1300k W ea 10

2 Towing 1 30 Foss Tug 1 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

 1 30 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 4 GE LM 2500 4 Allison 501-K34, 2,000 kW ea 3 4-6 2.5% 2 2@1300k W ea 10

3 Moor to Buoy 1 36 RHIB 1 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 36 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 4 GE LM 2500 4 Allison 501-K34, 2,000 kW ea 3 4-6 2.5% 2 2@1300k W ea 10

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 228 RHIBs 3 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

5 MCM Operations 1 58 Zodiacs 1 4 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

6 Floating Mine Operations 1 53 RHIBs 2 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

7 Dive Platoon 1 8 RHIB 2 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

8 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 6 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

9 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 156 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 3 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Operations/UUV Operatio 1 156 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

1 156 Submersible 2 2

11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 208 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 4 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

12 Mine Neutralization 1 4 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

N1 Shock Wave Generator 1 90 CRRC 1 4 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

1 90 LCM-8

1 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 3

N2 Surf Zone Test Detachment/Equipment T&E 1 200 RHIB / Water-Jet Driven Craft / CRRC 2 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

N3 UUV Neutralization 1 4 RHIBs 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

N4 Mine Hunting 2 6 Acoustic Explorer (mine seeding & main 1 12 GM-16-V-92N Diesel 2 GM Detroit Diesel 6-71, 75 kW 2 3 30% 550 rpm 2 49 kW 

N5 Airborne Laser Mine Detection 1 48 NoneN6 Organic Airborne Surface Influence Sweep 1 100 NoneN7 Airborne Mine Neutralization 1 48 RHIB 1 12 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 42 Foss Tug 1 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

1 42 RHIB 1 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 42 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 4 GE LM 2500 4 Allison 501-K34, 2,000 kW ea 3 4-6 2.5% 2 2@1300k W ea 10

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 CRRC 4 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

15 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins 1 189 Personal Watercraft / CRRC / RHIB 1 1 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 26.1

16 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 IBS 1 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

1 8 LCU

1 6 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 3

17 Obstacle Course 1 142 None18 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 44 Personal Watercraft 1 6 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 26.1

 1 44 Small Water Craft 8 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

1 44 RHIB / CRRC 1 6 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

1 44 rigid, 10-meter craft 1 6 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

Alternatives 1 and 2 Operations and Description

C-8
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-8

Marine Vessels Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ship/Boat Type

Number

Ship Time on 

Range (hrs) (e) Engines and Generators

Ave. Speed 

(Knots)

Power Level (%) 

or horsepower

Engines on Line

Generator - Load 

(kW)

Hour Propulsion No. Generator No. C

19 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 None20 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf Passage/Boat Team Organ1 72 CRRC/Zodiac/Propeller Surface Craft/RH 6 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

 1 72 Personal Watercraft 1 6 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 26.1

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 CRRC 4 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

 1 8 Personal Watercraft 1 6 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 26.1

22 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch and Recover - Bay1 24 CRRC 4 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

 1 24 Personal Watercraft 1 6 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 26.1

1 24 RHIB 1 6 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 24 LCU

1 6 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 3

23 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 CRRC 6 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

 1 26 RHIB 1 6 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

24 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 LCU

2 2 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 3

 1 24 CRRCs 12 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

25 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 18 CRRCs 13 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

 3 18 LPD 1 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

 3 18 LCUs

2 2 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 3

 3 18 LCACs

2 2

Avco Lycoming TF40B3,955 hp each

4 APU T-62-T-40-7 Sunstrand 60 kW each 2 35 80% 4 2@ 10kW ea 2

3 18 EFV 6 2 2.06

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 18 CRRCs 9 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

 3 18 LPD 1 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

27 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 1 LCAC per CLZ

1 2

Avco Lycoming TF40B3,955 hp each

4 APU T-62-T-40-7 Sunstrand 60 kW each 2 35 80% 4 2@ 10kW ea 2

N8 Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel 1 4 None

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-the-Beach 4 86 RHIBs / CRRCs 3 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 4 86 Rigid, 10-meter craft 1 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

29 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 24 CRRCs 1 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

1 24 Boston Whaler 1 2 OMC Johnson Outboards (d) 2 None 0 2-3 1000 2 NA 8.98

30 Immediate Action Drills 1 12 RHIBs 1 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 12 CRRCs 1 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

31 Breacher Training 1 20 None 032 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 84 RHIBs 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 84 MK V 2 2 MTU 12V 396 TE94, 12 cyl 2 Northern Light, M844, 4 cyl 16 kW 1 5-6 30% 1 10 kW 

33 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 RHIB or MK V 4 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

34 Escape and Evasion 1 84 RHIBs 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 1 84 MK V 2 2 MTU 12V 396 TE94, 12 cyl 2 Northern Light, M844, 4 cyl 16 kW 1 5-6 30% 1 10 kW 

N9 Underwater Demolition Qualification / Certification 1 12 RHIBs or CRRC 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

N10 Vehicle Patrolling and Testing 1 50 NoneN11 NSW Demolition Traning: Demolition Requalifications and Training1 12 CRRCs 4 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance

C-8
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-8

Marine Vessels Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ship/Boat Type

Number

Ship Time on 

Range (hrs) (e) Engines and Generators

Ave. Speed 

(Knots)

Power Level (%) 

or horsepower

Engines on Line

Generator - Load 

(kW)

Hour Propulsion No. Generator No. C

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & Recovery Operation 1 154 RHIBs 1 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

1 154 CRRCs 2 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

36 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 11 None37 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal Delivery System (A 14 40 RHIBs 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-the-Shore

38 OPDS 25 6 OUBs

2 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 3

39 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS) 10 5 Warping Tug 1 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

 10 5 Barge Ferry 2 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

40 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 54 Barge Ferry 2 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

41 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 10 WTs 4 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

42 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 4 WTs 2 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

 10 4 Personal Watercraft 2 4 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 26.1

10 4 LCM

1 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 3

43 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 None44 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 LCU

2 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 3

45 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 LCU

1 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 3

1 60 LCM-8

1 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 3

46 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 LCU

2 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 3

1 60 LCM-8

2 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 3

47 Communications Training 2 2 None48 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 2 None49 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload 5 2 LCM-8

2 2 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 3

 5 2 WTs 2 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

 5 2 Barge Ferry 2 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

50 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 None51 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 2 WTs 2 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 

 5 2 Personal Watercraft 2 2 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 26.1

52 MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 MPF Utility Boat 2 4 Diesel Engines 2 None 0 2 660 2 NA 253 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 None

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed Circuit Breathing Div 1 126 RHIBs 5 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 RHIBs 5 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

 LCU 1

56 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 CRRCs 5 2 assume paddling57 Rock Portage 1 20 CRRCs 7 2 assume paddling

1 20 IBS 9 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 None59 Immediate Action Drills 1 6 None

NSW Advanced Training

60 Over the Beach Insertion / Photo Reconnaissance 1 31 RHIB/CRRC 1 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 

1 31 Kayak 1 2 assume paddling

61 Photo Image Capture 14 4 None62 Field Skills (Observation Drill, Sketching, Range Estimation) 1 24 None63 Stalking, Movement and Hide-Sites 5 8 None

C-8
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-8

Marine Vessels Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ship/Boat Type

Number

Ship Time on 

Range (hrs) (e) Engines and Generators

Ave. Speed 

(Knots)

Power Level (%) 

or horsepower

Engines on Line

Generator - Load 

(kW)

Hour Propulsion No. Generator No. C

64 CQC/CQD 1 198 CRRCs 5 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

65 Communications 5 6 None66 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training 5 12 None67 Around the World Training 1 6 CRRCs 7 2 assume paddling

1 6 Sea Kayaks 5 2 assume paddling

4.9.4 Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other Nation Units and

0 NSW Physical Fitness Training

68 Physical Training Runs 1 464 None69 Physical Conditioning Training Exercise 1 280 CRRCs / Propeller Surface Craft 3 2 assume paddling70 Swim Training 1 172 RHIBs 5 2 assume paddling71 Hell Week 5 6 CRRCs 5 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

72 Rucksack March 1 54 None73 Monster Mash 1 6 CRRCs 3 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 8.98

4.12.6 Provide Industrial and Environmental Health Services

74 Conduct Environmental Health Site Assessment 3 3 None

6.1.1 Conduct Explosive Ordnance Disposal

75 Conventional Ordnance/Improvised Explosive Device Response 1 120 None76 Land Mine Detection/Neutralization 1 45 None

6.3.1 Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of Operations

77 Field Training Exercise (FTX) e.g. SEAHAWK 14 53 Boston Whalers 144 2 OMC Johnson Outboards (d) 2 None 0 2-3 1000 2 NA 8.98

6.3.3 Combat Terrorism

78 Small Boat Attack 1 36 Boston Whalers 1 2 OMC Johnson Outboards (d) 2 None 0 2-3 1000 2 NA 8.98

1 36 surface vessel dropping anchor and 3 sh 1 2

1 36 18’ Bayliner 1 2 OMC Johnson Outboards (d) 2 None 0 2-3 1000 2 NA 8.98

Assume marine vessels participate for one day during Amphibious Raid Operations and Direct Action Operations and SeahawkAssumptions: Watercraft operates 8 hours per day for the days during which the operation occurs 

C-8
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-9

Ground Vehicles Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ground Vehicles Number

Engine Load

Hours per day

Horsepower Emissions Factors (lb/hr) Emissions (lbs)

CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 CO Nox ROG Sox 

1.1.2 Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 None2 Towing 1 30 None3 Moor to Buoy 1 36 None

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 228 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 184.22 15.41 11.04 05 MCM Operations 1 58 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 46.86 3.92 2.81 06 Floating Mine Operations 1 53 4WD Pickups 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 21.41 1.79 1.28 07 Dive Platoon 1 8 None8 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 6 None9 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 156 None

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Operations/UUV Operation1 156 None

11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 208 4WD Pickups 0 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 012 Mine Neutralization 1 4 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 3.23 0.27 0.19 0

N1 Shock Wave Generator 1 90 4WD Pickups 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 36.36 3.04 2.18 0N2 Surf Zone Test Detachment/Equipment T&E 1 200 4WD Pickups 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 80.80 6.76 4.84 0N3 UUV Neutralization 1 4 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 3.23 0.27 0.19 0N4 Mine Hunting 1 200 NoneN5 Airborne Laser Mine Detection 1 48 NoneN6 Organic Airborne Surface Influence Sweep 1 100 NoneN7 Airborne Mine Neutralization 1 48 None

1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 42 None

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 HMMWV 1 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 0.19 0.17 33.88 378.24 110.32 3515 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins 1 189 HMMWV 1 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 0.19 0.17 68.13 760.51 221.82 70

 1 189 Truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.01 37.08 45.03 3.20 0

16 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 None17 Obstacle Course 1 142 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 114.74 9.60 6.87 018 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 44 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 53.33 4.46 3.19 019 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 93.73 7.84 5.61 020 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf Passage/Boat Team Organ1 72 HMMWV/ 4WD P 2 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 0.19 0.17 51.91 579.44 169.00 53

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 4WD Pickups / H 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 3.23 0.27 0.19 0

22 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch and Recover - Bay a1 24 4WD Pickups / H 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 9.70 0.81 0.58 023 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 4WD Pickups / H 1 8 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 42.02 3.52 2.52 024 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 None 025 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 18 HMMWVs 6 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 0.19 0.17 116.79 1303.74 380.26 120

 3 18 4WD Pickups 8 8 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 698.11 58.41 41.82 0 3 18 AAVs 6 2 0.444918 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 288.31 671.38 112.81 33 3 18 LAVs 6 65% 2 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.01 18.60 27.28 3.60 0

3 18 IFAVs 6 65% 2 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.01 18.60 27.28 3.60 0

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 18 Light Wheeled Ve 16 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 349.06 29.20 20.91 027 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 0.19 0.17 1.44 16.10 4.69 1

N8 Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel 1 4 4WD Pickups 9 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 14.54 1.22 0.87 0

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-the-Beach 4 86 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 416.93 34.88 24.97 029 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 24 4WD Pickups 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 9.70 0.81 0.58 030 Immediate Action Drills 1 12 4WD Pickups 4 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 19.39 1.62 1.16 031 Breacher Training 1 20 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 24.24 2.03 1.45 032 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 84 None 033 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 None 0

Alternatives 1 and 2 Operations and Description

C-9
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-9

Ground Vehicles Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ground Vehicles Number

Engine Load

Hours per day

Horsepower Emissions Factors (lb/hr) Emissions (lbs)

CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 CO Nox ROG Sox 

34 Escape and Evasion 1 84 None 0

N9 Underwater Demolition Qualification / Certification 1 12 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 9.70 0.81 0.58 0

N10 Vehicle Patrolling and Testing 1 50 HMMVS 6 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 0.19 0.17 108.14 1207.16 352.09 111N11 NSW Demolition Traning: Demolition Requalifications and Training 1 12 4WD Pickups 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 4.85 0.41 0.29 0

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & Recovery Operation 1 154 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 124.43 10.41 7.45 036 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 11 4WD Pickups 4 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 17.78 1.49 1.06 037 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal Delivery System (AS 14 40 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 452.48 37.86 27.10 0

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-the-Shore

38 OPDS 25 6 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 0.19 0.17 54.07 603.58 176.04 55

 25 6 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.01 29.43 35.74 2.54 0 25 6 Dozer 2 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1955.47 6211.06 696.78 4 25 6 Comm Van 1 8 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 242.40 20.28 14.52 0 25 6 RTV forklift 1 48% 8 93.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 483.83 882.35 149.59 0 25 6 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7175 0.77 6510.00 1402.80 527.96 430

39 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS) 10 5 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 0.19 0.17 18.02 201.19 58.68 18

 10 5 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.01 9.81 11.91 0.85 0 10 5 Van 1 8 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 80.80 6.76 4.84 0 10 5 Dozers 2 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 651.82 2070.35 232.26 1 10 5 Rough Terrain Fo 1 48% 8 37.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.84 118.25 20.05 0

10 5 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7175 0.77 2170.00 467.60 175.99 143

40 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 54 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 0.19 0.17 58.40 651.87 190.13 60

 3 54 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.01 31.78 38.59 2.74 0 3 54 Van 1 8 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 98.17 21.90 15.68 0 3 54 Dozer 2 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 2111.91 6707.94 752.52 4 3 54 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7175 0.77 7030.80 1515.02 570.20 464

41 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 10 HMMWVs 2 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 0.19 0.17 36.05 402.39 117.36 37

 5 10 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.01 9.81 11.91 0.85 0 5 10 Van 1 8 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 80.80 6.76 4.84 0 5 10 Rough Terrain Fo 1 48% 8 37.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.84 118.25 20.05 0

 5 10 Dozers 2 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 651.82 2070.35 232.26 1

5 10 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7175 0.77 2170.00 467.60 175.99 143

42 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 4 HMMWVs 4 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 0.19 0.17 57.68 643.82 187.78 59

 10 4 5-ton truck 3 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.01 23.54 28.59 2.03 0 10 4 Light Trucks 4 62% 8 161.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 983.08 1943.63 278.87 255 10 4 Dozers 2 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 521.46 1656.28 185.81 1 10 4 Forklifts 1 48% 8 37.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.87 94.60 16.04 0 10 4 75-Ton Crane 2 74% 8 194.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 397.01 1423.98 141.79 1 10 4 Pile Driver 2 30% 24 20.0 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.95 121.15 19.05 0

10 4 ambulance 1 8 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 64.64 5.41 3.87 010 4 water buffalo 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.01 7.85 9.53 0.68 010 4 140-ton crane 1 74% 8 399.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 408.27 1464.36 145.81 110 4 30-ton crane 2 74% 8 194.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 397.01 1423.98 141.79 110 4 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7175 0.77 1736.00 374.08 140.79 114

10 4 Air compressors 2 48% 8 106.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 292.90 557.09 94.76 010 4 Pile Extractor 1 30% 24 20.0 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.48 60.57 9.52 0

43 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 HMMWVs 3 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 0.19 0.17 69.21 772.58 225.34 71

 4 16 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.01 12.55 15.25 1.08 0 4 16 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 417.17 1325.03 148.65 0 4 16 Generators/vario 2 30% 24 Various 11.98 55.59 4.52 3.67 3.93 5519.25 25617.23 2084.62 1689

4 16 Heaters 2 51% 8 238.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 463.10 1866.08 172.63 14 16 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7175 0.77 2777.60 598.53 225.26 183

44 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 None 045 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 0.19 0.17 21.63 241.43 70.42 22

1 60 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.01 11.77 14.29 1.01 01 60 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 391.09 1242.21 139.36 01 60 LARCV 1 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7175 0.77 1302.00 280.56 105.59 86

46 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 391.09 1242.21 139.36 0

C-9
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-9

Ground Vehicles Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ground Vehicles Number

Engine Load

Hours per day

Horsepower Emissions Factors (lb/hr) Emissions (lbs)

CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 CO Nox ROG Sox 

47 Communications Training 2 2 4WD Pickups 4 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 6.46 0.54 0.39 0

 2 2 RTVs 4 48% 8 93.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.61 94.12 15.96 0 2 2 Bus 2 2 0.21 0.74 0.04 0.00 0.02 3.28 11.85 0.66 0 2 2 Tractor with flat b 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.78 0.95 0.07 0

48 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 2 HMMWVs 2 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 0.19 0.17 20.19 225.34 65.72 20

 14 2 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.01 5.49 6.67 0.47 0 14 2 Dozer 2 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 365.02 1159.40 130.07 0 14 2 4WD Pickups 10 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 113.12 9.46 6.78 0 14 2 Fuel Truck 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 11.31 0.95 0.68 0 14 2 20-ton Stake Tru 1 2 0.10 0.46 0.02 0.01 0.02 5.77 25.64 1.00 0

 14 2 50-ton Low-bed T 1 2 0.10 0.46 0.02 0.01 0.02 5.77 25.64 1.00 0 14 2 Wheeled Loaders 2 47% 8 147.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 230.22 470.56 60.09 0

 14 2 Generators/vario 23 30% 24 Various 11.98 55.59 4.52 3.67 3.93 2414.67 11207.54 912.02 739

14 2 Heaters 117 51% 8 238.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.0014 2 Welder 6 45% 8 45.0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 403.21 363.61 171.60 014 2 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7175 0.77 1215.20 261.86 98.55 80

49 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload 5 2 HMMWVs 2 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 0.19 0.17 7.21 80.48 23.47 7

 5 2 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.01 1.96 2.38 0.17 0 5 2 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.18 207.04 23.23 0 5 2 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 12.12 1.01 0.73 0 5 2 LARCV 1 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7175 0.77 217.00 46.76 17.60 14

50 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 12.93 1.08 0.77 0

 4 4 RTVs 6 48% 8 93.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 309.65 564.70 95.74 0 4 4 Generator 1 74% 8 22.0 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.41 18.84 6.66 4

4 4 Flatbed Truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.01 3.14 3.81 0.27 0

51 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 2 HMMWVs/Jeeps 3 65% 3 0.18 2.06 0.60 0.19 0.17 10.81 120.72 35.21 11

 5 2 6-ton truck 1 80% 1 0.25 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.01 1.96 2.38 0.17 0 5 2 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.18 207.04 23.23 0 5 2 Cranes 2 43% 8 194.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.67 206.86 20.60 0 5 2 RTVs 2 48% 8 93.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.51 117.65 19.95 0 5 2 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7175 0.77 434.00 93.52 35.20 28

52 MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 117.33 372.66 41.81 0

 9 2 Van 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 7.27 0.61 0.44 0 9 2 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7175 0.77 781.20 168.34 63.36 51

53 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 0.7175 0.77 260.40 56.11 21.12 17

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed Circuit Breathing Divin1 126 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 152.71 12.78 9.15 0

1 126 Bus 2 2 0.21 0.74 0.04 0.00 0.02 103.32 373.26 20.71 0

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 14.54 1.22 0.87 0

 1 12 Bus 2 2 0.21 0.74 0.04 0.00 0.02 9.84 35.55 1.97 0

56 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 218.16 18.25 13.07 057 Rock Portage 1 20 4WD Pickups 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 8.08 0.68 0.48 0

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 14.54 1.22 0.87 059 Immediate Action Drills 1 6 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 4.85 0.41 0.29 0

NSW Advanced Training

60 Over the Beach Insertion / Photo Reconnaissance 1 31 4WD Pickup 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 25.05 2.10 1.50 061 Photo Image Capture 14 4 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 45.25 3.79 2.71 062 Field Skills (Observation Drill, Sketching, Range Estimation) 1 24 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 19.39 1.62 1.16 063 Stalking, Movement and Hide-Sites 5 8 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 48.48 4.06 2.90 064 CQC/CQD 1 198 4WD Pickups 5 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 399.96 33.46 23.96 065 Communications 5 6 4WD Pickups 6 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 72.72 6.08 4.36 066 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training 5 12 4WD Pickups 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 24.24 2.03 1.45 067 Around the World Training 1 6 4WD Pickups 4 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 9.70 0.81 0.58 0

4.9.4 Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other Nation Units and Individuals

NSW Physical Fitness Training

68 Physical Training Runs 1 464 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 562.37 47.05 33.69 0

C-9
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-9

Ground Vehicles Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ground Vehicles Number

Engine Load

Hours per day

Horsepower Emissions Factors (lb/hr) Emissions (lbs)

CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 CO Nox ROG Sox 

69 Physical Conditioning Training Exercise 1 280 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 226.24 18.93 13.55 070 Swim Training 1 172 4WD Pickups 1 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 69.49 5.81 4.16 071 Hell Week 5 6 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 36.36 3.04 2.18 072 Rucksack March 1 54 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 65.45 5.48 3.92 073 Monster Mash 1 6 4WD Pickups 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 7.27 0.61 0.44 0

4.12.6 Provide Industrial and Environmental Health Services

74 Conduct Environmental Health Site Assessment 3 3 4WD Pickups 4 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 14.54 1.22 0.87 0

3 3 5-ton truck 1 2 0.25 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.01 4.41 5.36 0.38 03 3 3/4-ton trailer 1 2 0.25 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.01 4.41 5.36 0.38 03 3 small trailers 3 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 10.91 0.91 0.65 0

6.1.1 Conduct Explosive Ordnance Disposal

75 Conventional Ordnance/Improvised Explosive Device Response 1 120 4WD Pickups 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 96.96 8.11 5.81 0

76 Land Mine Detection/Neutralization 1 45 4WD Pickups / V 2 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 36.36 3.04 2.18 0

6.3.1 Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of Operations

77 Field Training Exercise (FTX) e.g. SEAHAWK 14 53 4WD Pickups 140 2 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 28.28 2.37 1.69 0

 14 53 Generators 176 74% 2 22.0 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.59 0.56 0 14 53 Forklift 8 48% 8 37.0 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.07 0.03 0

6.3.3 Combat Terrorism

78 Small Boat Attack 1 36 None

lbs/year 54230.04 89062.56 12407.03 5275

Assumptions: Fuel truck is equivalent to 4WD vehicle; large trucks modeled as MDTs. Busses assumed to be diesel poweredEmission factors from ARB's OFFROAD 2007 Model tons/year 27.12 44.53 6.20 2Generator Emissions from Table C-12(a) Days = the number of days per operation(b) Operations = the number of operations per yearHeater is assumed to be "other industrial equipment" from URBEMIS Model.

C-9
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-10

Ordnance Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

CO NO

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ordnance Number Type Compound Number or Amount Weight of Compound, grams lbs/item lbs/

Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 None2 Towing 1 30 None3 Moor to Buoy 1 36 None

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 228 Smoke Grenades/Flares 3 Smoke Gre M18 Green 684 1.20E-02 1.7

Green Para M195 684 9.40E-03 2.4

5 MCM Operations 1 58 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 1 Underwater6 Floating Mine Operations 1 53 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 1 53 0.026 0.07 Dive Platoon 1 8 Blast Caps/Explosives 9 per training Underwater

1 8 3.5 lb 8 sequential command detonated Underwater

8 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 6 Diver Recalls 2 per training Underwater9 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 156 Diver Recalls 2 per training Underwater

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Operations/UUV Operatio 1 156 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 2 per training Underwater

11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 208 13lbs [MK 87/88 C-4 in GRP Approximately 10% of training inv Underwater

 29lb [MK86/89 PBXN in AL canis Approximately 10% of training inv Underwater

12 Mine Neutralization 1 4 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 9 per training Underwater 8 0.026 0.0

1 4 3.5lb explosive 8 sequential command detonated Underwater

N1 Shock Wave Generator 1 90 Underwater Explosives (15 grams1 command detonation Underwater

Diver Recalls 1 per training Underwater

N2 Surf Zone Test Detachment/Equipment T&E 1 200 NoneN3 UUV Neutralization 1 4 Explosives 2 sequential charges of either 3.3 Underwater

1 4 Seafox (3.3 lb PBXN9) 2 sequential charges of either 3.3 Underwater1 4 Archerfish (3.57 lb PBXN10) Underwater

N4 Mine Hunting 1 200 NoneN5 Airborne Laser Mine Detection 1 48 NoneN6 Organic Airborne Surface Influence Sweep 1 100 NoneN7 Airborne Mine Neutralization 1 48 1.6 kg net explosive (PBXN110) 1 per training Underwater

1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 42 None

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 None15 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins 1 189 None16 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 None17 Obstacle Course 1 142 None18 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 44 None19 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 None20 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf Passage/Boat Team Organ 1 72 None

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 None22 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch and Recover - Bay 1 24 None23 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 None24 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 None25 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 18 Flares 3 Green Para M195 54 9.40E-03 2.4

 Grenades 20 Grenades M116A1 360 3.70E-04 5.6

 9MM 1490 9 MM 1490 3.10E-04 1.5 5.56MM/38CAL 520/100 5.56 Blank 520 2.80E-04 2.0

38 cal Blank 100 1.00E-04 6.8

Alternatives 1 and 2 Operations and Description

C-10
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-10

Ordnance Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ordnance Number Type Compound Number or Amount Weight of Compound, grams lbs/item lbs/

Diver Recalls 3 Underwater

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 18 Explosives 10 180 0.026 0.0

 Smoke 3 Smoke 54 1.20E-02 1.7 9MM 1240 per year 9 MM 1240 3.10E-04 1.5 5.56MM/38CAL 430/90 per year 5.56 Blank 430 2.80E-04 2.0

38 cal 90 1.00E-04 6.8

Diver Recalls 3 Underwater

27 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 Smoke 3 Smoke 12 1.20E-02 1.7

N8 Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel 1 4 Small Arms 5000 rnds 50 cal/7.62 blanks 50 cal blank 1250 1.80E-03 2.8

7.62 blank 3750 6.80E-04 4.4

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-the-Beach 4 86 Smokes/Flares/Surface Explosive3 flares, 10 grenades Grenades M116A1 860 3.70E-04 5.6

Green Para M195 258 9.40E-03 2.4

 Small Arms 6600/5000 .5 cal/7.62 mm 0.5 cal 6600 1.80E-03 2.8

7.62 mm 5000 6.80E-04 4.4

29 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 24 None30 Immediate Action Drills 1 12 Smokes/Flares/Surface 10 Grenades M116A1 120 3.70E-04 5.6

3 Green Para M195 36 9.40E-03 2.4

 6 Small Arms 5000 0.50 cal/7.62 blank 30000 1.80E-03 2.8

31 Breacher Training 1 6 Small Arms 1400 12 gauge 1400 1.50E-03 4.232 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 84 Smoke Grenades/Flares 333 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 Smoke/Flares 3 Smoke 600 1.20E-02 1.734 Escape and Evasion 1 84 Smoke/Flares 3 Smoke 252 1.20E-02 1.7

N9 Underwater Demolition Qualification / Certification 1 12 12.5-13.75 pound (underwater) two sequential 12.5-13.75 pound cUnderwater

1 12 25.5-pound (underwater) two sequential 12.5-13.75 pound charges or a single 25.5-pound charge 

N10 Vehicle Patrolling and Testing 1 50 None 0N11 NSW Demolition Traning: Demolition Requalifications and Training 1 12 Blast Caps/Diver Recall Underwater

 5 -10 pounds of C-4 1 Underwater

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & Recovery Operation 1 154 Smoke Grenades/Flares 3 Smoke 462 1.20E-02 1.736 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 11 None 037 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal Delivery System (AS 14 40 ≤ 10 lbs C-4 (underwater) 1 Underwater

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-the-Shore

38 OPDS 25 6 None 039 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS) 10 5 None 040 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 54 None 041 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 10 None 042 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 4 None 043 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 5.56 caliber rounds 30 5.56 Blank 30 2.80E-04 2.0

 7.62 caliber blanks 100 7.62 caliber blanks 100 (b) 6.80E-04 4.4

44 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 None 045 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 None 046 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 None 047 Communications Training 2 2 048 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 2 5.56 caliber rounds 30 5.56 Blank 30 (c) 2.80E-04 2.0

 7.62 caliber blanks 100 7.62 caliber blanks 100 (c) 6.80E-04 4.4

49 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload 5 2 None 050 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 None 051 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 2 None 0

C-10
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-10

Ordnance Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ordnance Number Type Compound Number or Amount Weight of Compound, grams lbs/item lbs/

52 MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 None 053 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 None 0

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed Circuit Breathing Divin 1 126 Diver Recall 1 Underwater

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 Diver Recall 1 Underwater56 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 Small arm 15000 7.62mm; 19800 .5cal ANN 7.62 mm 15000 6.80E-04 4.4

0.5 cal 19800 1.80E-03 2.8

57 Rock Portage 1 20 Smoke Grenades/Flares 3 Smoke 60 1.20E-02 1.7

Grenades M116A1 60 3.70E-04 5.6

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 None 059 Immediate Action Drills 1 6 .5CAL/7.62 BLANK 5000 RNDS each per operation (30.5 cal 30000 1.80E-03 2.8

C-10
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-15

Aircraft GHG Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

Aircraft

Number

Aircraft Time on 

Range (hrs)

Aircraft Fuel Use 

per hour

Total Fuel Use Emissions Factors (lb/gallon fuel) (c) Emissions Factors (lb/operation) (c) Emissions (lbs)

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2

1.1.2 Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 None 02 Towing 1 30 None 03 Moor to Buoy 1 36 None 0

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 228 SH60 1 1.0 1200.0 1200.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 3565.92 0.10 0.12 813029.3257 22.938131 26.335 MCM Operations 1 58 None 06 Floating Mine Operations 1 53 SH-60 - 2 Hours 1 2.0 1200.0 2400.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 7131.84 0.20 0.23 755974.6361 21.328438 24.48

7 Di Pl t 1 8 SH 60 2 H 1 2 0 1200 0 2400 0 21 10 0 00 0 00 7131 84 0 20 0 23 114109 379 3 2193869 3 696

Alternatives 1 and 2 Operations and Description

7 Dive Platoon 1 8 SH-60 - 2 Hours 1 2.0 1200.0 2400.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 7131.84 0.20 0.23 114109.379 3.2193869 3.6968 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 6 None 09 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 156 None 0

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Operations/UUV 

Operations

1 156 None 0

11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 208 None 012 Mine Neutralization 1 4 SH-60 - 2 Hours 1 2.0 1200.0 2400.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 7131.84 0.20 0.23 57054.68952 1.6096934 1.848

N1 Shock Wave Generator 1 90 NoneN2 Surf Zone Test Detachment/Equipment T&E 1 200 NoneN3 UUV Neutralization 1 4 NoneN4 Mine Hunting 1 200 SH-60 - 1.5 Hours cruise,1 1.5 1200.0 1800.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 5348.88 0.15 0.17 1604663.143 45.272628 51.97

1 200 Hover 1 0.5 1200.0 600.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 1782.96 0.05 0.06 178295.9048 5.030292 5.775

N5 Airborne Laser Mine Detection 1 48 SH-60 - 1.5 Hours cruise,1 1.5 1200.0 1800.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 5348.88 0.15 0.17 385119.1543 10.865431 12.47

1 48 Hover 1 0.5 1200.0 600.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 1782.96 0.05 0.06 42791.01714 1.2072701 1.386

N6 Organic Airborne Surface Influence Sweep 1 100 SH-60 - 1.5 Hours cruise,1 1.5 1200.0 1800.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 5348.88 0.15 0.17 802331.5714 22.636314 25.98

1 100 Hover 1 0.5 1200.0 600.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 1782.96 0.05 0.06 89147.95238 2.515146 2.887

N7 Airborne Mine Neutralization 1 48 SH-60 - 1.5 Hours cruise,1 1.5 1200.0 1800.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 5348.88 0.15 0.17 385119.1543 10.865431 12.47

1 48 Hover 1 0.5 1200.0 600.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 1782.96 0.05 0.06 42791.01714 1.2072701 1.386

1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 42 None 0

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations p p

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 None 015 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins 1 189 None 016 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 SH60 1 4.0 1200.0 4800.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 14263.67 0.40 0.46 456437.5162 12.877547 14.7817 Obstacle Course 1 142 None 018 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 44 None 019 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 None 020 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf Passage/Boat Team 

Organization and Function

1 72 None 0

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 None 022 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch and Recover 

- Bay and Ocean

1 24 None 0

23 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 None 024 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 None 025 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 18 CH-53E 3 4.0 4464.0 17856.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 53060.86 1.50 1.72 34383438.09 970.06565 1113

 CH-46E 4 4.0 1120.0 4480.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 13312.76 0.38 0.43 11502225.41 324.5142 372.5 CH-53E T&G 3 1.0 274.0 274.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 814.22 0.02 0.03 131903.3103 3.72141 4.2 CH-46E T&G 4 1.0 97.0 97.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 288.25 0.01 0.01 62260.92994 1.756578 2.016

 UH-1N 1 4.0 692.0 2768.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 8225.38 0.23 0.27 1776683.032 50.125854 57.55

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 18 CH-46E 7 4.0 1120.0 4480.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 13312.76 0.38 0.43 20128894.46 567.89984 652.0

 UH-1N 1 4.0 692.0 2768.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 8225.38 0.23 0.27 1776683.032 50.125854 57.55

27 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 None 0

N8 Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel 1 4 CH-46E / CH-53E 3 4.0 1120.0 4480.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 13312.76 0.38 0.43 639012.5226 18.028566 20.69

1 4 AH-1W 1 4 0. 786 4. 3145 6. 21 10 . 0 00 . 0 00 . 9347 46 9347.46 0 26 . 0 30 . 149559 3595 149559.3595 4 2195431 4.2195431 4 844

4.844

1 4 UH-1N 1 4.0 692.0 2768.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 8225.38 0.23 0.27 131606.1505 3.7130262 4.263

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-the-Beach 4 86 SH-60 Helo 1 1.0 1200.0 1200.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 3565.92 0.10 0.12 1226675.825 34.608409 39.7329 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 24 SH-60 Helo 1 1.0 1200.0 1200.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 3565.92 0.10 0.12 85582.03428 2.4145402 2.77230 Immediate Action Drills 1 12 SH-60 Helo 1 1.0 1200.0 1200.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 3565.92 0.10 0.12 42791.01714 1.2072701 1.38631 Breacher Training 1 20 None32 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 84 None33 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 None34 Escape and Evasion 1 84 None

N9 Underwater Demolition Qualification / Certification 1 12 None

N10 Vehicle Patrolling and Testing 1 50 NoneN11 NSW Demolition Traning: Demolition Requalifications and 

Training (Underwater Detonations)

1 12 None

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & Recovery 

Operation

1 154 SH60 1

1.0 1200.0 1200.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 3565.92 0.10 0.12 549151.3866 15.493299 17.78

1 154 CH46 1 1.0 1120.0 1120.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 3328.19 0.09 0.11 512541.2942 14.460413 16.60

C-15
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-15

Aircraft GHG Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

Aircraft

Number

Aircraft Time on 

Range (hrs)

Aircraft Fuel Use 

per hour

Total Fuel Use Emissions Factors (lb/gallon fuel) (c) Emissions Factors (lb/operation) (c) Emissions (lbs)

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2

36 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 11 NONE 037 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal Delivery 

System (ASDS) Certification to Deploy

14 40 SH-60 1

1.0 1200.0 1200.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 3565.92 0.10 0.12 1996914.133 56.33927 64.68

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-theShore

38 OPDS 25 6 None 039 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS) 10 5 None 040 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 54 None 041 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 10 None 042 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 4 None 043 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 None 044 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 None 045 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 None 046 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 None 0

47 Communications Training 2 2 None 0 C i ti T i i 2 2 N 048 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 2 None 049 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload 5 2 None 050 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 None 051 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 2 None 052 MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 None 053 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 None 0

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed Circuit 

Breathing Diving

1 126 None 0

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 None 056 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 None 057 Rock Portage 1 20 None 0

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 None 059 Immediate Action Drills 1 6 None 0

NSW Advanced Training

60 Over the Beach Insertion / Photo Reconnaissance 1 31 None 061 Photo Image Capture 14 4 None 062 Field Skills (Observation Drill, Sketching, Range 

Estimation)

1 24 None 0

63 Stalkin 63 Stalking, Movement and Hide-Sites 5 8 None 0 Movement and Hide Sites 5 8 None 0

64 CQC/CQD 1 198 SH-60 1 3.0 1200.0 3600.0 21.10 0.00 0.00 10697.75 0.30 0.35 6354466.045 179.27961 205.865 Communications 5 6 None 066 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training 5 12 UAV 267 Around the World Training 1 6 None 0

4.9.4 Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other Nation 

Units and IndividualsNSW Physical Fitness Training

68 Physical Training Runs 1 464 None 069 Physical Conditioning Training Exercise 1 280 None 070 Swim Training 1 172 None 071 Hell Week 5 6 None 072 Rucksack March 1 54 None 073 Monster Mash 1 6 None 0

4.12.6 Provide Industrial and Environmental Health Services

74 Conduct Environmental Health Site Assessment 3 3 None 0

6.1.1 Conduct Explosive Ordnance Disposal

75 Conventional Ordnance/Improvised Explosive Device 

Response

1 120 None

76 Land Mine Detection/Neutralization 1 45 None

6.3.1 Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of 

Operations

77 Field Training Exercise (FTX) e.g. SEAHAWK 14 53 None 0

6.3.3 Combat Terrorism

78 Small Boat Attack 1 36 None 0

87177252.5 2459.546309 2823.

Assumptions: Assume that SH-60 and CH-46 operation for Cast and Recovery are Special Personnel Insertion and Extraction Rig operations. 43588.63 1.23 

Assume 4 hours of cruise time for Amphibious Raid Operations, and one touch and go operationSH60 from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9929, February 1999CH53 from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9822 Rev C, February 2000CH46 from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9816 Rev F, January 2001UH1N from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9904 Rev A, May 1999AH-1W from AESO Memorandum Report No. 9824 Rev A, April 1999Assume Aircraft participate for one day during Amphibious Raid Operations and Direct Action OperationsAssume 1 LTO and 3 hours of cruise for CQC/CQD SH-60 operation.

C-15
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-15

Aircraft GHG Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b)

Aircraft

Number

Aircraft Time on 

Range (hrs)

Aircraft Fuel Use 

per hour

Total Fuel Use Emissions Factors (lb/gallon fuel) (c) Emissions Factors (lb/operation) (c) Emissions (lbs)

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2

(a) Days = the number of days per operation(b) Operations = the number of operations per year

C-15
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-16

Marine Vessels GHG Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ship/Boat Type

Number

Ship Time on 

Range (hrs) (e) Engines and Generators

Ave. Speed 

(Knots)

Power Level (%) 

or horsepower

Engines on Line

Generator - Load 

(kW)

Ship hp

Hour Propulsion No. Generator No. 

1.1.2 Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 RHIB 1 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

 1 72 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 4 GE LM 2500 4 Allison 501-K34, 2,000 kW ea 3 4-6 2.5% 2 2@1300k W ea 104960 

2 Towing 1 30 Foss Tug 1 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 4000 

 1 30 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 4 GE LM 2500 4 Allison 501-K34, 2,000 kW ea 3 4-6 2.5% 2 2@1300k W ea 104960 

3 Moor to Buoy 1 36 RHIB 1 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

 1 36 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 4 GE LM 2500 4 Allison 501-K34, 2,000 kW ea 3 4-6 2.5% 2 2@1300k W ea 104960 

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 228 RHIBs 3 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

5 MCM Operations 1 58 Zodiacs 1 4 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

6 Floating Mine Operations 1 53 RHIBs 2 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

7 Dive Platoon 1 8 RHIB 2 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

8 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 6 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

9 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 156 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 3 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Operations/UUV Operatio 1 156 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

1 156 Submersible 2 2

11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 208 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 4 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

12 Mine Neutralization 1 4 RHIBs / Water-Jet Driven Craft 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

N1 Shock Wave Generator 1 90 CRRC 1 4 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

1 90 LCM-8

1 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 940 

N2 Surf Zone Test Detachment/Equipment T&E 1 200 RHIB / Water-Jet Driven Craft / CRRC 2 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 N3 UUV Neutralization 1 4 RHIBs 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 N4 Mine Hunting 2 6 Acoustic Explorer (mine seeding & main 1 12 GM-16-V-92N Diesel 2 GM Detroit Diesel 6-71, 75 kW 2 3 30% 550 rpm 2 49 kW 940 

N5 Airborne Laser Mine Detection 1 48 NoneN6 Organic Airborne Surface Influence Sweep 1 100 NoneN7 Airborne Mine Neutralization 1 48 RHIB 1 12 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 42 Foss Tug 1 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 4000 

1 42 RHIB 1 4 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

 1 42 Ship (DDG or CG) 1 4 GE LM 2500 4 Allison 501-K34, 2,000 kW ea 3 4-6 2.5% 2 2@1300k W ea 104960 

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 CRRC 4 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

15 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins 1 189 Personal Watercraft / CRRC / RHIB 1 1 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 160 

16 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 IBS 1 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

1 8 LCU

1 6 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 460 

17 Obstacle Course 1 142 None18 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 44 Personal Watercraft 1 6 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 160 

 1 44 Small Water Craft 8 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

1 44 RHIB / CRRC 1 6 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

1 44 rigid, 10-meter craft 1 6 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

Alternatives 1 and 2 Operations and Description

C-16
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-16

Marine Vessels GHG Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ship/Boat Type

Number

Ship Time on 

Range (hrs) (e) Engines and Generators

Ave. Speed 

(Knots)

Power Level (%) 

or horsepower

Engines on Line

Generator - Load 

(kW)

Ship hp

Hour Propulsion No. Generator No. 

19 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 None20 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf Passage/Boat Team Organ1 72 CRRC/Zodiac/Propeller Surface Craft/RH 6 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

 1 72 Personal Watercraft 1 6 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 160 

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 CRRC 4 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

 1 8 Personal Watercraft 1 6 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 160 

22 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch and Recover - Bay1 24 CRRC 4 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

 1 24 Personal Watercraft 1 6 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 160 

1 24 RHIB 1 6 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

 1 24 LCU

1 6 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 460 

23 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 CRRC 6 6 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

 1 26 RHIB 1 6 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

24 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 LCU

2 2 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 920 

 1 24 CRRCs 12 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

25 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 18 CRRCs 13 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

 3 18 LPD 1 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 4000 

 3 18 LCUs

2 2 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 920 

 3 18 LCACs

2 2

Avco Lycoming TF40B3,955 hp each

4 APU T-62-T-40-7 Sunstrand 60 kW each 2 35 80% 4 2@ 10kW ea 11820 

3 18 EFV 6 2 

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 18 CRRCs 9 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

 3 18 LPD 1 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 4000 

27 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 1 LCAC per CLZ

1 2

Avco Lycoming TF40B3,955 hp each

4 APU T-62-T-40-7 Sunstrand 60 kW each 2 35 80% 4 2@ 10kW ea 7910 

N8 Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel 1 4 None

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-the-Beach 4 86 RHIBs / CRRCs 3 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

 4 86 Rigid, 10-meter craft 1 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

29 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 24 CRRCs 1 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

1 24 Boston Whaler 1 2 OMC Johnson Outboards (d) 2 None 0 2-3 1000 2 NA 160 

30 Immediate Action Drills 1 12 RHIBs 1 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

 1 12 CRRCs 1 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

31 Breacher Training 1 20 None 032 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 84 RHIBs 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

 1 84 MK V 2 2 MTU 12V 396 TE94, 12 cyl 2 Northern Light, M844, 4 cyl 16 kW 1 5-6 30% 1 10 kW 4570 

33 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 RHIB or MK V 4 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

34 Escape and Evasion 1 84 RHIBs 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

 1 84 MK V 2 2 MTU 12V 396 TE94, 12 cyl 2 Northern Light, M844, 4 cyl 16 kW 1 5-6 30% 1 10 kW 4570 

N9 Underwater Demolition Qualification / Certification 1 12 RHIBs or CRRC 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

N10 Vehicle Patrolling and Testing 1 50 NoneN11 NSW Demolition Traning: Demolition Requalifications and Training1 12 CRRCs 4 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance

C-16
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-16

Marine Vessels GHG Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ship/Boat Type

Number

Ship Time on 

Range (hrs) (e) Engines and Generators

Ave. Speed 

(Knots)

Power Level (%) 

or horsepower

Engines on Line

Generator - Load 

(kW)

Ship hp

Hour Propulsion No. Generator No. 

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & Recovery Operation 1 154 RHIBs 1 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

1 154 CRRCs 2 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

36 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 11 None37 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal Delivery System (A 14 40 RHIBs 2 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-the-Shore

38 OPDS 25 6 OUBs

2 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 1840 

39 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS) 10 5 Warping Tug 1 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 4000 

 10 5 Barge Ferry 2 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 4000 

40 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 54 Barge Ferry 2 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 4000 

41 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 10 WTs 4 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 4000 

42 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 4 WTs 2 4 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 4000 

 10 4 Personal Watercraft 2 4 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 160 

10 4 LCM

1 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 1840 

43 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 None44 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 LCU

2 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 1840 

45 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 LCU

1 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 1840 

1 60 LCM-8

1 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 1840 

46 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 LCU

2 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 1840 

1 60 LCM-8

2 4 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 1840 

47 Communications Training 2 2 None48 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 2 None49 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload 5 2 LCM-8

2 2 GM Detroit, V12-71N 460bhp 2 3-71 GM Detroit, 40 kW 2 10 2000 rpm (97%) 2 2@ 7kW ea 920 

 5 2 WTs 2 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 4000 

 5 2 Barge Ferry 2 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 4000 

50 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 None 400051 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 2 WTs 2 2 Foster Wheeler/ Babcock & Wilcox 2 NA - No separate emissions 0 7 25% 2 NA 4000 

 5 2 Personal Watercraft 2 2 Yamaha Outboard, 160 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 100% 1 NA 160 

52 MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 MPF Utility Boat 2 4 Diesel Engines 2 None 0 2 660 2 NA 1320 53 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 None

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed Circuit Breathing Div 1 126 RHIBs 5 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 RHIBs 5 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

 LCU 1

56 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 CRRCs 5 2 assume paddling57 Rock Portage 1 20 CRRCs 7 2 assume paddling

1 20 IBS 9 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 None59 Immediate Action Drills 1 6 None

NSW Advanced Training

60 Over the Beach Insertion / Photo Reconnaissance 1 31 RHIB/CRRC 1 2 Caterpillar 3126 Diesels 2 None 0 1-2 600 2 NA 940 

1 31 Kayak 1 2 assume paddling

61 Photo Image Capture 14 4 None62 Field Skills (Observation Drill, Sketching, Range Estimation) 1 24 None63 Stalking, Movement and Hide-Sites 5 8 None

C-16
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-16

Marine Vessels GHG Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ship/Boat Type

Number

Ship Time on 

Range (hrs) (e) Engines and Generators

Ave. Speed 

(Knots)

Power Level (%) 

or horsepower

Engines on Line

Generator - Load 

(kW)

Ship hp

Hour Propulsion No. Generator No. 

64 CQC/CQD 1 198 CRRCs 5 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

65 Communications 5 6 None66 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training 5 12 None67 Around the World Training 1 6 CRRCs 7 2 assume paddling

1 6 Sea Kayaks 5 2 assume paddling

4.9.4 Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other Nation Units and

0 NSW Physical Fitness Training

68 Physical Training Runs 1 464 None69 Physical Conditioning Training Exercise 1 280 CRRCs / Propeller Surface Craft 3 2 assume paddling70 Swim Training 1 172 RHIBs 5 2 assume paddling71 Hell Week 5 6 CRRCs 5 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

72 Rucksack March 1 54 None73 Monster Mash 1 6 CRRCs 3 2 OMC Outboard, 55 hp (d) 1 None 0 2 600-800 1 NA 55 

4.12.6 Provide Industrial and Environmental Health Services

74 Conduct Environmental Health Site Assessment 3 3 None

6.1.1 Conduct Explosive Ordnance Disposal

75 Conventional Ordnance/Improvised Explosive Device Response 1 120 None76 Land Mine Detection/Neutralization 1 45 None

6.3.1 Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of Operations

77 Field Training Exercise (FTX) e.g. SEAHAWK 14 53 Boston Whalers 144 2 OMC Johnson Outboards (d) 2 None 0 2-3 1000 2 NA 60 

6.3.3 Combat Terrorism

78 Small Boat Attack 1 36 Boston Whalers 1 2 OMC Johnson Outboards (d) 2 None 0 2-3 1000 2 NA 60 

1 36 surface vessel dropping anchor and 3 sh 1 2

1 36 18’ Bayliner 1 2 OMC Johnson Outboards (d) 2 None 0 2-3 1000 2 NA 60 

Assume marine vessels participate for one day during Amphibious Raid Operations and Direct Action Operations and SeahawkAssumptions: Watercraft operates 8 hours per day for the days during which the operation occurs 

C-16
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-17

Ground Vehicles GHG Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ground Vehicles Number

Engine Load

Hours per day

Horsepower Emissions Factors (lb/hr) Emissions (lbs)

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O

1.1.2 Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 None2 Towing 1 30 None3 Moor to Buoy 1 36 None

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 228 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 20714 1.72 1.465 MCM Operations 1 58 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 5269 0.44 0.376 Floating Mine Operations 1 53 4WD Pickups 1 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 2408 0.20 0.177 Dive Platoon 1 8 None8 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 6 None9 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 156 None

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Operations/UUV Operations 1 156 None11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 208 4WD Pickups 0 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0012 Mine Neutralization 1 4 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 363 0.03 0.03

N1 Shock Wave Generator 1 90 4WD Pickups 1 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 4088 0.34 0.29N2 Surf Zone Test Detachment/Equipment T&E 1 200 4WD Pickups 1 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 9085 0.75 0.64N3 UUV Neutralization 1 4 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 363 0.03 0.03N4 Mine Hunting 1 200 NoneN5 Airborne Laser Mine Detection 1 48 NoneN6 Organic Airborne Surface Influence Sweep 1 100 NoneN7 Airborne Mine Neutralization 1 48 None

1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 42 None

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 HMMWV 1 65% 3 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 34448 3.82 0.0015 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins 1 189 HMMWV 1 65% 3 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 69263 7.68 0.00

 1 189 Truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.00 0.03 7289 0.20 4.28

16 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 None17 Obstacle Course 1 142 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 12901 1.07 0.9118 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 44 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 5996 0.50 0.4219 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 10539 0.87 0.7420 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf Passage/Boat Team Organiza1 72 HMMWV/ 4WD P 2 65% 3 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 52772 5.85 0.00

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 4WD Pickups / H 1 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 363 0.03 0.0322 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch and Recover - Bay an1 24 4WD Pickups / H 1 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 1090 0.09 0.08

23 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 4WD Pickups / H 1 8 22.71 0.00 0.00 4724 0.39 0.3324 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 None 025 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 18 HMMWVs 6 65% 3 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 118737 13.16 0.00

 3 18 4WD Pickups 8 8 22.71 0.00 0.00 78496 6.51 5.55 3 18 AAVs 6 2 180.277 0.0 0.0 116819 8.52 2.99 3 18 LAVs 6 65% 2 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 79158 8.78 0.00

3 18 IFAVs 6 65% 2 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 79158 8.78 0.00

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 18 Light Wheeled Ve 16 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 39248 3.26 2.77

27 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 1466 0.16 0.00

N8 Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel 1 4 4WD Pickups 9 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 1635 0.14 0.12

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-the-Beach 4 86 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 46880 3.89 3.3129 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 24 4WD Pickups 1 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 1090 0.09 0.0830 Immediate Action Drills 1 12 4WD Pickups 4 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 2180 0.18 0.1531 Breacher Training 1 20 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 2726 0.23 0.19

Alternatives 1 and 2 Operations and Description

C-17
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-17

Ground Vehicles GHG Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ground Vehicles Number

Engine Load

Hours per day

Horsepower Emissions Factors (lb/hr) Emissions (lbs)

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O

32 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 84 None 033 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 None 034 Escape and Evasion 1 84 None 0

N9 Underwater Demolition Qualification / Certification 1 12 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 1090 0.09 0.08

N10 Vehicle Patrolling and Testing 1 50 HMMVS 6 65% 3 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 109941 12.19 0.00N11 NSW Demolition Traning: Demolition Requalifications and Training (U1 12 4WD Pickups 1 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 545 0.05 0.04

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & Recovery Operation 1 154 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 13991 1.16 0.9936 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 11 4WD Pickups 4 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 1999 0.17 0.1437 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal Delivery System (ASD 14 40 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 50877 4.22 3.60

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-the-Shore

38 OPDS 25 6 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 54971 6.09 0.00

 25 6 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.00 0.03 5785 0.15 3.40 25 6 Dozer 2 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 425783 47.20 0.00 25 6 Comm Van 1 8 22.71 0.00 0.00 27256 2.26 1.93 25 6 RTV forklift 1 48% 8 93.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 66416 7.36 0.00 25 6 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 6510 1402.80 527.96

39 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS) 10 5 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 18324 2.03 0.00

 10 5 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.00 0.03 1928 0.05 1.13 10 5 Van 1 8 22.71 0.00 0.00 9085 0.75 0.64 10 5 Dozers 2 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 141928 15.73 0.00 10 5 Rough Terrain Fo 1 48% 8 37.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 8901 0.99 0.00

10 5 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 2170 467.60 175.99

40 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 54 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 59368 6.58 0.00

 3 54 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.00 0.03 6247 0.17 3.67 3 54 Van 1 8 22.71 0.00 0.00 29436 2.44 2.08 3 54 Dozer 2 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 459846 50.98 0.00 3 54 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 7031 1515.02 570.20

41 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 10 HMMWVs 2 65% 3 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 36647 4.06 0.00

 5 10 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.00 0.03 1928 0.05 1.13 5 10 Van 1 8 22.71 0.00 0.00 9085 0.75 0.64 5 10 Rough Terrain Fo 1 48% 8 37.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 8901 0.99 0.00

 5 10 Dozers 2 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 141928 15.73 0.00

5 10 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 2170 467.60 175.99

42 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 4 HMMWVs 4 65% 3 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 58635 6.50 0.00

 10 4 5-ton truck 3 80% 1 48.21 0.00 0.03 4628 0.12 2.72 10 4 Light Trucks 4 62% 8 161.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 160082 17.75 0.00 10 4 Dozers 2 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 113542 12.59 0.00 10 4 Forklifts 1 48% 8 37.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 7120 0.79 0.00 10 4 75-Ton Crane 2 74% 8 194.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 115114 12.76 0.00 10 4 Pile Driver 2 30% 24 20.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 14433 1.60 0.00

10 4 ambulance 1 8 22.71 0.00 0.00 7268 0.60 0.5110 4 water buffalo 1 80% 1 48.21 0.00 0.03 1543 0.04 0.9110 4 140-ton crane 1 74% 8 399.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 118377 13.12 0.0010 4 30-ton crane 2 74% 8 194.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 115114 12.76 0.0010 4 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 1736 374.08 140.7910 4 Air compressors 2 48% 8 106.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 40798 4.52 0.0010 4 Pile Extractor 1 30% 24 20.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 7217 0.80 0.00

43 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 HMMWVs 3 65% 3 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 70363 7.80 0.00

 4 16 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.00 0.03 2468 0.07 1.45 4 16 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 90834 10.07 0.00 4 16 Generators/vario 2 30% 24 Various 2064.95 0.00 5.28 951529 0.00 2433.02

4 16 Heaters 2 51% 8 238.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 155726 17.26 0.004 16 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 2778 598.53 225.26

44 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 None 0

C-17
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-17

Ground Vehicles GHG Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ground Vehicles Number

Engine Load

Hours per day

Horsepower Emissions Factors (lb/hr) Emissions (lbs)

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O

45 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 HMMWVs 1 65% 3 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 21988 2.44 0.00

1 60 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.00 0.03 2314 0.06 1.361 60 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 85157 9.44 0.001 60 LARCV 1 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 1302 280.56 105.59

46 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 85157 9.44 0.0047 Communications Training 2 2 4WD Pickups 4 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 727 0.06 0.05

 2 2 RTVs 4 48% 8 93.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 7084 0.79 0.00 2 2 Bus 2 2 89.15 0.00 0.07 1426 0.03 1.13 2 2 Tractor with flat b 1 80% 1 48.21 0.00 0.03 154 0.00 0.09

48 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 2 HMMWVs 2 65% 3 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 20522 2.28 0.00

 14 2 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.00 0.03 1080 0.03 0.63 14 2 Dozer 2 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 79480 8.81 0.00 14 2 4WD Pickups 10 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 12719 1.06 0.90 14 2 Fuel Truck 1 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 1272 0.11 0.09 14 2 20-ton Stake Truc 1 2 1.25 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 14 2 50-ton Low-bed T 1 2 1.25 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 14 2 Wheeled Loaders 2 47% 8 147.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 38367 4.25 0.00 14 2 Generators/vario 23 30% 24 Various 2064.95 0.00 5.28 416294 0.00 1064.45

14 2 Heaters 117 51% 8 238.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 3985614 441.83 0.0014 2 Welder 6 45% 8 45.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 34099 3.78 0.0014 2 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 1215 261.86 98.55

49 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload 5 2 HMMWVs 2 65% 3 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 7329 0.81 0.00

 5 2 5-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.00 0.03 386 0.01 0.23 5 2 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 14193 1.57 0.00 5 2 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 1363 0.11 0.10 5 2 LARCV 1 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 217 46.76 17.60

50 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 1454 0.12 0.10

 4 4 RTVs 6 48% 8 93.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 42506 4.71 0.00 4 4 Generator 1 74% 8 22.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 2611 0.29 0.00

4 4 Flatbed Truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.00 0.03 617 0.02 0.36

51 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 2 HMMWVs/Jeeps 3 65% 3 150 1.25 0.00 0.00 10994 1.22 0.00

 5 2 6-ton truck 1 80% 1 48.21 0.00 0.03 386 0.01 0.23 5 2 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 14193 1.57 0.00 5 2 Cranes 2 43% 8 194.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 16723 1.85 0.00 5 2 RTVs 2 48% 8 93.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 8855 0.98 0.00 5 2 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 434 93.52 35.20

52 MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 Dozer 1 59% 8 240.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 25547 2.83 0.00

 9 2 Van 1 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 818 0.07 0.06 9 2 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 781 168.34 63.36

53 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 LARCV 2 2 350.0 10.85 2.338 0.879935 260 56.11 21.12

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed Circuit Breathing Diving 1 126 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 17171 1.43 1.21

1 126 Bus 2 2 89.15 0.00 0.07 44933 0.97 35.46

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 1635 0.14 0.12

 1 12 Bus 2 2 89.15 0.00 0.07 4279 0.09 3.38

56 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 24530 2.04 1.7357 Rock Portage 1 20 4WD Pickups 1 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 909 0.08 0.06

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 1635 0.14 0.1259 Immediate Action Drills 1 6 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 545 0.05 0.04

NSW Advanced Training

60 Over the Beach Insertion / Photo Reconnaissance 1 31 4WD Pickup 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 2816 0.23 0.2061 Photo Image Capture 14 4 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 5088 0.42 0.3662 Field Skills (Observation Drill, Sketching, Range Estimation) 1 24 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 2180 0.18 0.15

C-17
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-17

Ground Vehicles GHG Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ground Vehicles Number

Engine Load

Hours per day

Horsepower Emissions Factors (lb/hr) Emissions (lbs)

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O

63 Stalking, Movement and Hide-Sites 5 8 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 5451 0.45 0.3964 CQC/CQD 1 198 4WD Pickups 5 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 44972 3.73 3.1865 Communications 5 6 4WD Pickups 6 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 8177 0.68 0.5866 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training 5 12 4WD Pickups 1 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 2726 0.23 0.1967 Around the World Training 1 6 4WD Pickups 4 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 1090 0.09 0.08

4.9.4 Provide/Execute Training for U.S. and Other Nation Units and Individuals

NSW Physical Fitness Training

68 Physical Training Runs 1 464 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 63233 5.25 4.4769 Physical Conditioning Training Exercise 1 280 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 25439 2.11 1.8070 Swim Training 1 172 4WD Pickups 1 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 7813 0.65 0.5571 Hell Week 5 6 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 4088 0.34 0.2972 Rucksack March 1 54 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 7359 0.61 0.5273 Monster Mash 1 6 4WD Pickups 3 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 818 0.07 0.06

4.12.6 Provide Industrial and Environmental Health Services

74 Conduct Environmental Health Site Assessment 3 3 4WD Pickups 4 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 1635 0.14 0.12

3 3 5-ton truck 1 2 48.21 0.00 0.03 0 0.00 0.003 3 3/4-ton trailer 1 2 48.21 0.00 0.03 0 0.00 0.003 3 small trailers 3 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 1227 0.10 0.09

6.1.1 Conduct Explosive Ordnance Disposal

75 Conventional Ordnance/Improvised Explosive Device Response 1 120 4WD Pickups 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 10902 0.90 0.7776 Land Mine Detection/Neutralization 1 45 4WD Pickups / Va 2 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 4088 0.34 0.29

6.3.1 Force Protection: Protect and Secure Area of Operations

77 Field Training Exercise (FTX) e.g. SEAHAWK 14 53 4WD Pickups 140 2 22.71 0.00 0.00 4718853 391.63 333.45

 14 53 Generators 176 74% 2 22.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 5327398 590.58 0.00 14 53 Forklift 8 48% 8 37.0 1.25 0.00 0.00 1056674 117.14 0.00

6.3.3 Combat Terrorism

78 Small Boat Attack 1 36 None

20901965 7733.26 6100.02

Assumptions: Fuel truck is equivalent to 4WD vehicle; large trucks modeled as MDTs. Busses assumed to be diesel poweredEmission factors from ARB's OFFROAD 2007 Model 10451 3.87 3.05Generator Emissions from Table C-12(a) Days = the number of days per operation(b) Operations = the number of operations per yearHeater is assumed to be "other industrial equipment" from URBEMIS Model.

C-17
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-18

Ordnance GHG Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ordnance Number Type Co

Conduct Maneuver - Move Forces

1 Anchoring 1 72 None2 Towing 1 30 None3 Moor to Buoy 1 36 None

1.3.1 Perform Mine Countermeasures

4 Parachute Operations 1 228 Smoke Grenades/Flares 3 Smoke Gre M

Green Para 

5 MCM Operations 1 58 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 1 Underwater6 Floating Mine Operations 1 53 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 1 7 Dive Platoon 1 8 Blast Caps/Explosives 9 per training Underwater

1 8 3.5 lb 8 sequential command detonatedUnderwater

8 Very Shallow Water (VSW) Operator Course 8 6 Diver Recalls 2 per training Underwater9 VSW Mine Countermeasure Operations 1 156 Diver Recalls 2 per training Underwater

10 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Operations/UUV Operatio 1 156 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 2 per training Underwater

11 MK8 Marine Mammal/MMS Operations 1 208 13lbs [MK 87/88 C-4 in GRP Approximately 10% of training inv Underwater

 29lb [MK86/89 PBXN in AL canistApproximately 10% of training inv Underwater

12 Mine Neutralization 1 4 Blast Caps/ Diver Recalls 9 per training Underwater 

1 4 3.5lb explosive 8 sequential command detonatedUnderwater

N1 Shock Wave Generator 1 90 Underwater Explosives (15 grams1 command detonation Underwater

Diver Recalls 1 per training Underwater

N2 Surf Zone Test Detachment/Equipment T&E 1 200 NoneN3 UUV Neutralization 1 4 Explosives 2 sequential charges of either 3.3Underwater

1 4 Seafox (3.3 lb PBXN9) 2 sequential charges of either 3.3Underwater1 4 Archerfish (3.57 lb PBXN10) Underwater

N4 Mine Hunting 1 200 NoneN5 Airborne Laser Mine Detection 1 48 NoneN6 Organic Airborne Surface Influence Sweep 1 100 NoneN7 Airborne Mine Neutralization 1 48 1.6 kg net explosive (PBXN110) 1 per training Underwater

1.4.6 Conduct Maritime Interception

13 Visit, Board, Search and Seizure 1 42 None

1.5.4 Conduct Amphibious Operations

14 Small Boat Handling 1 94 None15 Swimmer Conditioning - Bay and Ocean with fins 1 189 None

Alternatives 1 and 2 Operations and Description

C-18
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-18

Ordnance GHG Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ordnance Number Type Co

16 Basic Reconnaissance Course Final Mission 1 8 None17 Obstacle Course 1 142 None18 Hydrographic Reconnaissance 1 44 None19 Surf Observations (SUROBS) 1 116 None20 CRRC Inflatable Boat Small (IBS)/Surf Passage/Boat Team Organ 1 72 None

21 CRRC Towing and High Speed Maneuver 1 8 None22 CRRC Bay Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Launch and Recover - Bay a 1 24 None23 CRRC Navigation, Bay and Ocean Runs 1 26 None24 Amphibious Raid Course Final Mission 1 24 None25 Amphibious Raid Operations 3 18 Flares 3 Green Para 

 Grenades 20 Grenades  9MM 1490 9 MM  5.56MM/38CAL 520/100 5.56 Blank 

38 cal Blank 

Diver Recalls 3 Underwater

26 Direct Action (DA) Operations 3 18 Explosives 10 

 Smoke 3 Smoke  9MM 1240 per year 9 MM  5.56MM/38CAL 430/90 per year 5.56 Blank 

38 cal 

Diver Recalls 3 Underwater

27 Craft Landing Zone (CLZ) 1 4 Smoke 3 Smoke 

N8 Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel 1 4 Small Arms 5000 rnds 50 cal/7.62 blanks 50 cal blank 

7.62 blank 

1.5.7 Conduct Naval Special Warfare

28 Swimmer/Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Over-the-Beach 4 86 Smokes/Flares/Surface Explosive3 flares, 10 grenades Grenades 

Green Para 

 Small Arms 6600/5000 .5 cal/7.62 mm 0.5 cal 

7.62 mm 

29 Over-the-Beach Stalk 1 24 None30 Immediate Action Drills 1 12 Smokes/Flares/Surface 10 Grenades 

3 Green Para 

 6 Small Arms 5000 0.50 cal/7.62 b

31 Breacher Training 1 6 Small Arms 1400 12 gauge 32 Amphibious Warfare Exercise 1 84 Smoke Grenades/Flares 333 Mobility Primary Mission Area 1 200 Smoke/Flares 3 Smoke 

C-18
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-18

Ordnance GHG Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ordnance Number Type Co

34 Escape and Evasion 1 84 Smoke/Flares 3 Smoke 

N9 Underwater Demolition Qualification / Certification 1 12 12.5-13.75 pound (underwater) two sequential 12.5-13.75 pound Underwater

1 12 25.5-pound (underwater) two sequential 12.5-13.75 pound charges or a s

N10 Vehicle Patrolling and Testing 1 50 None 0N11 NSW Demolition Traning: Demolition Requalifications and Trainin 1 12 Blast Caps/Diver Recall Underwater

 5 -10 pounds of C-4 1 Underwater

2.2.3 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Surveillance

35 Helicopter Rope Suspension Training/Cast & Recovery Operation 1 154 Smoke Grenades/Flares 3 Smoke 36 Rappel and Fast Rope Training 1 11 None 037 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV)/Advanced Seal Delivery System (AS 14 40 ≤ 10 lbs C-4 (underwater) 1 Underwater

4.5.6 Construct, Maintain, and Operate Logistics Over-the-Shore

38 OPDS 25 6 None 039 Amphibious Bulk Liquid Transfer System (ABLTS) 10 5 None 040 Barge Ferry/Causeway Coxswain Training 3 54 None 041 Causeway Pier Insertion and Retraction 5 10 None 042 Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) 10 4 None 043 Establish Beach Party Command Post 4 16 5.56 caliber rounds 30 5.56 Blank 

 7.62 caliber blanks 100 7.62 caliber bl

44 Sterngate Marriage to Amphibious Ship/LCU 1 40 None 045 LCU/LCM Beaching 1 60 None 046 LCU/LCM Towing/Being Towed 1 60 None 047 Communications Training 2 2 048 Field Training Exercise with a Beach Camp 14 2 5.56 caliber rounds 30 5.56 Blank 

 7.62 caliber blanks 100 7.62 caliber bl

49 Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) Offload 5 2 None 050 Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 4 4 None 051 Roll-on/Roll-off Discharge Facility 5 2 None 052 MPF Utility Boat Operator Course 9 2 None 053 LARC V Operator Training 6 1 None 0

4.9.1 Conduct Mission Area Training

NSW Diving and Beach Operations

54 Lung Automatic Rebreather (LAR) V Closed Circuit Breathing Divi 1 126 Diver Recall 1 Underwater

55 Open Circuit Breathing Diving 1 12 Diver Recall 1 Underwater56 OTB Field Training Exercise 5 36 Small arm 15000 7.62mm; 19800 .5cal ANN 7.62 mm 

0.5 cal 

57 Rock Portage 1 20 Smoke Grenades/Flares 3 Smoke 

Grenades 

NSW Land Warfare

58 Land Patrolling 1 18 None 0

C-18
SSTC Air Emissions Analysis Table C-18

Ordnance GHG Emissions

Alternatives 1 and 2

Scenario

Type Training

Reference

Days (a)

Operations (b) Ordnance Number Type Co

59 Immediate Action Drills 1 6 .5CAL/7.62 BLANK 5000 RNDS each per operation (30.5 cal 

C-18
Appendix D 

Record of Non-Applicability 

SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

APPENDIX D 

RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY (RONA) 

FOR CLEAN AIR ACT CONFORMITY 

Silver Strand Training Complex EIS 

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published Determining Conformity of General 

Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans; Final Rule, in the 30 November 1993, 

Federal Register (40 CFR Parts 6, 51, and 93). The U.S. Navy published Interim Guidance on 

Compliance with the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule in Appendix F, OPNAVINST 

5090.1C, dated 30 October 2007. These publications provide implementing guidance to document 

Clean Air Act Conformity Determination requirements. 

Federal regulations state that no department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government 

shall engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license to permit, or approve 

any activity that does not conform to an applicable implementation plan. It is the responsibility of 

the Federal agency to determine whether a Federal action conforms to the applicable implementation 

plan, before the action is taken (40 CFR Part 1 51.850[a]). 

Federal actions may be exempt from conformity determinations if they do not exceed designated de 

minimis levels for criteria pollutants (40 CFR Part 51.853[b]). De minimis levels (in tons/year) for 

the air basin potentially affected by the Proposed Action are listed in Table 1. 

Table 1 

De minimis Levels for Criteria Pollutants in the San Diego Air Basin 

Criteria Pollutant De minimis Level (tons/year) 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 

100 

100 

100 

PROPOSED ACTION 

Action Proponent: The U. S. Department of the Navy. 

Location: Silver Strand Training Complex, NAB Coronado, San Diego, California. 

Proposed Action Name: Silver Strand Training Complex EIS 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

APPENDIX D 

Proposed Action Summary: The Navy proposes to conduct and enhance existing and future 

readiness training at Silver Strand Training Complex to meet the evolving military mission of 

combat readiness. The Proposed Action would increase the tempo of training, introduce new types 

of training activities, conduct existing routine training at new locations within SSTC training areas, 

introduce new platforms and equipment, and increase access and availability to SSTC training areas. 

SSTC is located on a narrow, sandy isthmus separating San Diego Bay from the Pacific Ocean in 

San Diego County, California. Comprising SSTC-North (SSTC-N) (historically referred to as Naval 

Amphibious Base [NAB] Coronado) and SSTC-South (SSTC-S) (formerly Naval Radio Receiver 

Facility [NRRF]), SSTC has supported naval training operations since 1942. Included in this EIS as 

part of SSTC is that part of the shore and near shore waters of Naval Air Station North Island 

(NASNI) utilized for amphibious and special warfare training, historically from sandy Breaker’s 

Beach to the rocky Zuniga Point and Jetty. 

The goals of the range enhancements are to: (1) increase training realism and diversity by supporting 

dynamic joint U.S. homeland defense requirements, unit and command level mission essential 

training elements, and non-traditional overseas deployment needs; (2) improve access to contiguous 

coastline and over-the-beach training areas; and (3) reduce the constraints of encroachment on 

training, readiness, and Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E). 

The Proposed Action addressed in this EIS combines three elements: 

• Realign existing training activities to achieve training diversity and increased realism 

• Increase existing training operations and introduce new training activities 

• Implement range sustainability measures to enhance training capabilities while meeting 

conservation and stewardship obligations 

Emissions associated with the Proposed Action are attributable to increases in training operations 

and tempo. 

Air Emissions Summary: As described above, the Proposed Action includes increases in training 

tempo and new training activities on the SSTC range. Participants in training activities include 

aircraft, marine vessels, and ground vehicles. Ordnance use is also proposed for training activities. 

Factors needed to derive construction source emission rates were obtained from Compilation of Air 

Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Volume I (USEPA 2007), the EMFAC2007 model (for ground 

vehicles), the Navy Aircraft Environmental Support Office (for aircraft), and the database developed 

for Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) by JJMA Consultants (JJMA 2001) (for marine 

vessels). 

Based on the air quality analysis for the proposed action, the maximum estimated emissions would 

be below conformity de minimis levels for the SDAB and would be less than 10 percent of projected 

regional emissions for the SDAB (Table 2). 
SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX DRAFT EIS JANUARY 2010 

APPENDIX D 

Table 2 

Estimated Total Net Project Emissions - Tons per Year

Pollutant

CO NOx VOC 

Baseline Emissions 200.4 176.5 52.1 

Proposed Action Emissions 248.2 216.3 64.1 

Net Emissions Increase (Decrease) 47.8 39.8 12.0 

General Conformity De minimis

Thresholds (Tons per year) 

100 100 100 

Exceed threshold? No No No 

San Diego Air Basin forecast 

emissions for 2010(1)

270,793 57,451 63,035 

 (1) Emissions for year 2010 are from California Air Resources Board emissions inventory website, 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emseic1_query.php

Date RONA prepared: October 15, 2009 

EMISSIONS EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION 

Emissions associated with operations for the proposed action were calculated based on standardized 

methodologies. Emissions were then compared with de minimis thresholds for the air basins in 

which they would occur. 

The Department of the Navy concludes that de minimis thresholds for applicable criteria pollutants 

would not be exceeded nor would the projected emissions be regionally significant (i.e., greater than 

10 percent of the air basin’s emission budgets) as a result of implementation of the proposed action. 

The emissions data supporting that conclusion are shown in Table 2, which provide a summary of 

the calculations, methodology, data, and references included in Appendix B of the EIS for the 

proposed action. Therefore, the Department of the Navy concludes that further formal Conformity 

Determination procedures are not required, resulting in this Record of Non-Applicability. 

RONA APPROVAL

To the best of my knowledge, the information presented in this Record of Non-Applicability is 

correct and accurate and I concur in the finding that the Proposed Action is not subject to the 

General Conformity Rule. 

Signature: 

Name/Rank: Date:________________________________ 

Position:_____________Commanding Officer:________________Activity:________________