Malibu Drone Base

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE

WEST COAST HOME BASING OF THE MQ-4C TRITON UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM AT NAVAL BASE VENTURA COUNTY POINT MUGU, CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2013

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE

WEST COAST HOME BASING OF THE MQ-4C TRITON UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM AT NAVAL BASE VENTURA COUNTY POINT MUGU, CALIFORNIA

NAVAL BASE VENTURA COUNTY POINT MUGU, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2013

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 37 38 39

Prepared by U.S. Department of the Navy In accordance with Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 5090.1C, CH–1 Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) Section 102(2) (C) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE WEST COAST HOME BASING OF THE MQ-4C TRITON UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM AT NAVAL BASE VENTURA COUNTY POINT MUGU, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 2013 Lead Agency: Title of Proposed Action: Designation: Prepared By: Point-of-Contact: U.S. Department of the Navy West Coast Home Basing of the MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft System at Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, California Draft Environmental Assessment U.S. Fleet Forces, U.S. Department of the Navy Navy MQ-4C Triton UAS Home Basing Project Manager Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division Attn: Code EV22 KP 6506 Hampton Blvd LRA Building A Norfolk, Virginia 23508 Abstract An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to analyze the U.S. Department of the Navy’s (Navy) proposal to establish facilities and functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Triton UAS), which were formerly known as the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance UAS (BAMS UAS), at Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC) Point Mugu, California. Under the Proposed Action, the Navy would home base four Triton UAS; establish a maintenance hub for the Triton UAS, supporting up to four additional Triton UAS undergoing maintenance actions at any one time; conduct an average of five Triton UAS flight operations (i.e., takeoffs or landings) per day (1,825 annually); construct, demolish, and renovate facilities and infrastructure at NBVC Point Mugu; and station up to 700 personnel, plus their family members, while supporting rotational deployments to and from outside the continental United States (OCONUS). This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] §§ 4321–4370h), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations §§ 1500–1508), and Navy Regulations for Implementing NEPA (32 Code of Federal Regulations § 775). This EA evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of implementation of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative on noise, air quality, safety, socioeconomics, transportation, biological resources, water resources, cultural resources, and hazardous materials and wastes. This EA concludes that impacts from the Proposed Action would not be significant.

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended; Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§ 1500–1508) implementing NEPA; U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) Regulations (32 CFR § 775); and Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 5090.1C, CH–1; the Navy has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the Navy’s proposal to establish facilities and functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Triton UAS), which were formerly known as the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance UAS (BAMS UAS), at Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC) Point Mugu, California.

BACKGROUND
The Triton UAS is a multiple-sensor, unarmed, unmanned aircraft system that is approximately 48 feet (15 meters) long and has a wingspan of approximately 131 feet (40 meters). The Triton UAS provides a persistent maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance data collection and dissemination capability to the serviced Fleet Commander (up to 24 hours per day). The Triton UAS is a complement to the Navy’s P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft and uses the same tactical support centers as the P-8A aircraft. The tactical support centers support the command and control functions of both the P-8A aircraft and Triton UAS. Environmental analyses addressing the establishment of tactical support centers at Naval Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville, Florida, and NAS Whidbey Island, Washington, were conducted in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Introduction of the P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft into the U.S. Navy Fleet. Since the Triton UAS is an unmanned, remotely controlled aircraft system, it is not necessary for the tactical support center and home base location for the Triton UAS to be collocated.

Project Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to enhance the ability to identify and process intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information for Joint Forces and Fleet Commanders during pre-mission planning, mission execution, and post-mission reporting. The Proposed Action is needed to provide continuous maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities in support of national defense objectives and policies.

Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action, the Navy would home base four Triton UAS; establish a maintenance hub for the Triton UAS, supporting up to four additional Triton UAS undergoing maintenance actions at any one time; conduct an average of five Triton UAS flight operations (i.e., takeoffs or landings) per day (1,825 annually); construct, demolish, and renovate facilities and infrastructure at NBVC Point Mugu; and station up to 700 personnel, plus their family members, while supporting rotational deployments to

Executive Summary

ES 1

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

and from outside the continental United States (OCONUS). Specific details of the Proposed Action are provided in the following paragraphs. Flight Operations. Under the Proposed Action, an average of five Triton UAS flight operations would be conducted per day at NBVC Point Mugu. The airfield at NBVC Point Mugu supports more than 35,000 flight operations (i.e., takeoffs or landings) annually. The addition of approximately five Triton UAS flight operations per day would equate to a maximum of 1,825 flight operations annually, which would represent a 5.2 percent increase in existing annual operations at NBVC Point Mugu. Power Check Pad. The existing Power Check Pad at NBVC Point Mugu is approximately 19,350 square feet (ft2) (1,798 square meters [m2]). The existing Power Check Pad is not currently designed to support the wingspan of the Triton UAS. Under the Proposed Action, the existing Power Check Pad would be expanded in fiscal year (FY) 2013 to add approximately 4,800 ft2 (446 m2). Upon completion of the expansion, the Power Check Pad would be approximately 24,150 ft2 (2,244 m2). Demolition and Reconstruction Activities. To provide the necessary clearance and space to accommodate the Triton UAS wingspan and expansion of the existing Power Check Pad at NBVC Point Mugu, Building 328 (air start shelter) would need to be demolished. Under the Proposed Action, Building 328 (approximately 495 ft2 [46 m2]) would be demolished and a new air start shelter (providing the same functions) would be constructed (FY 2013) approximately 100 feet (31 meters) northeast of the current Building 328. Maintenance Training Complex. Under the Proposed Action, approximately 24,986 ft2 (2,321 m2) of space would be renovated in Building 50 (FY 2013) at NBVC Point Mugu to provide a maintenance training complex. Existing parking areas at NBVC Point Mugu would be used to fulfill parking requirements for the maintenance training complex. Aircraft Wash Rack. The existing aircraft wash rack, immediately south of Building 367 at NBVC Point Mugu, is not currently designed to support the wingspan of the Triton UAS. Therefore, the existing aircraft wash rack (i.e., the curbed areas) would be expanded in FY 2014. Fleet Readiness Center. Building 311 (Fleet Readiness Center) at NBVC Point Mugu provides aviation maintenance, repair, and overhaul readiness support for aviation commands and support all aircraft on the installation that have Fleet Readiness Center requirements. Under the Proposed Action, approximately 1,397 ft2 (130 m2) of space would be renovated in Building 311 (FY 2014) to facilitate scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of the Triton UAS. Local Triton UAS Control Facility. A local Triton UAS control facility would be required to provide control of the Triton UAS departing and returning from the field. Under the Proposed Action, Building 367 at NBVC Point Mugu would be renovated in FY 2014 to provide a local Triton UAS control facility. Battery Storage Facility. A battery storage facility would be required to store the batteries (lithium ion) required for the Triton UAS when they are not in use. Under the Proposed Action, a new battery storage

Executive Summary

ES 2

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

facility (approximately 300 ft2 [28 m2]) would be constructed in FY 2014 as an addition to Building 385 at NBVC Point Mugu. Maintenance Hangars and Pavements. The Triton UAS airframes require protection from the elements (e.g., hail, rain, wind) when not in use. It is assumed that a maximum of eight Triton UAS will be at NBVC Point Mugu at any given time: four that are assigned for operational missions and four that have been transferred to NBVC Point Mugu from another location to receive maintenance. Under the Proposed Action, the northern portion of Hangar 34 would be renovated in FY 2014 to accommodate four Triton UAS. The total area renovated in Hangar 34 for the Triton UAS would be approximately 70,025 ft2 (6,506 m2). A small pump station (approximately 1,536 ft2 [143 m2]) for aqueous film-forming foam would be constructed in FY 2014 as an attachment to Hangar 34. In addition, a new maintenance hangar would be constructed north of Runway 9/27 and east of Runway 3/21 in FY 2016 to accommodate four Triton UAS. The new maintenance hangar would be approximately 65,952 ft2 (6,127 m2) and would require a maximum of up to 150 parking spaces (approximately 47,250 ft2 [4,390 m2]) and an aircraft parking apron (approximately 146,700 ft2 [13,629 m2]). Storage Facility. A storage facility would be required to support the Triton UAS. Under the Proposed Action, a pre-engineered storage facility (approximately 3,000 ft2 [279 m2]) would be erected southwest of Hangar 34 in FY 2014. Fire Rescue Facility. Building 367, which would be renovated to provide a local Triton UAS control facility in FY 2014, is currently occupied by the Fire Department at NBVC Point Mugu. Renovation of Building 367 would displace the fire rescue services currently occupying the building. Therefore, under the Proposed Action, a new pre-engineered fire rescue facility (approximately 2,400 ft2 [223 m2]) would be erected immediately southwest of Building 367 in FY 2014 for the installation’s Fire Department. Taxiway. Under the Proposed Action, a new taxiway would be constructed in FY 2016 that would connect the new maintenance hangar to the existing airfield. The taxiway would be 750 feet (229 meters) long and 75 feet (23 meters) wide, a total of approximately 56,250 ft2 [5,226 m2]) to ensure adequate lateral wing clearance. 3rd Street and Culvert Crossings. Access to the new maintenance hangar constructed at NBVC Point Mugu would be provided by 3rd Street. 3rd Street, including the existing culvert crossings (which cross jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States), is currently a 20-foot- (6-meter-) wide road located adjacent to the northeastern corner of the proposed project area. Under the Proposed Action, the road would be upgraded and widened to a 40-foot- (12-meter-) wide, two-lane road, and the existing culvert crossings would be replaced in FY 2016. Personnel. Under the Proposed Action, up to 700 personnel would be stationed at NBVC Point Mugu to support the Triton UAS. The 700 personnel and their family members would gradually relocate to NBVC Point Mugu and the surrounding areas in phases (from 2014 to 2020). Of the 700 personnel, approximately 200 would be on rotational deployment at any given time and 500 would be on-installation to support the Triton UAS at any given time. It is estimated that each of the 700 personnel associated with the Proposed Action would be accompanied by an average of about 2.4 family members. Therefore,

Executive Summary

ES 3

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37

it is estimated that up to 2,380 people (700 personnel and 1,680 family members) would be relocated to NBVC Point Mugu and the surrounding areas.

Alternatives
During the initial planning process, all airfields operated by the Department of Defense and National Aeronautics and Space Administration were screened using a three-tier analytical process to determine which airfields would be reasonable for home basing and maintaining the Triton UAS. Though East Coast locations were initially considered, this EA only addresses airfields on the West Coast of the United States. East Coast locations will potentially be considered for home basing at a later date (if the need arises). Upon completion of the screening process, the Navy determined that West Coast home basing of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu would be the best supporting infrastructure solution for meeting the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. The Navy conducted a preliminary analysis of the existing facilities and infrastructure at NBVC Point Mugu and determined that the facilities included under the Proposed Action are available and would be used to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS. Alternative Considered But Eliminated. During the initial planning process, the Navy and U.S. Air Force (USAF) proposed jointly basing the Triton UAS and the RQ-4B Global Hawk UAS (once airframe system upgrades were implemented) at Beale Air Force Base (AFB), California. The Global Hawk UAS is an Air Force-operated UAS that is home based at Beale AFB. Collocating the Triton UAS and Global Hawk UAS (with airframe system upgrades) would allow for shared facilities and support personnel, which would reduce cost associated with maintenance and operation for both aircraft. However, the programmatic airframe system upgrades required for Global Hawk UAS compatibility with the Triton UAS were not implemented. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further detailed analysis because the Global Hawk UAS (without airframe system upgrades) would not have the required airframe commonalities with the Triton UAS to share facilities and personnel. Subsequently, this alternative would not allow for reduced cost from shared facilities and support personnel.

No Action Alternative
CEQ regulations addressing the preparation of environmental documentation require consideration of the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not establish facilities or functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. The No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. It does, however, serve as a baseline against which the impacts of the Proposed Action can be evaluated. Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not achieve the required levels of operational readiness for the Triton UAS.

Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action
Direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that could occur with implementation of the Proposed Action would range from no impact to less than significant impact, with no significant impacts on the natural or man-made environment.

Executive Summary

ES 4

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37

Some environmental resources, including recreation, community/emergency services, environmental justice, visual/aesthetic resources, airfield and airspace management, land use, infrastructure and utilities, and soils and topography have been omitted from further detailed analysis in this EA because the Proposed Action would result in no to negligible impacts on these resources. The potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Action on noise, air quality, safety, socioeconomics, transportation, biological resources, water resources, cultural resources, and hazardous materials and waste management are summarized in the following paragraphs. The analysis of impacts assumes the most conservative scenario (i.e., scenario expected to have the greatest potential to impact the natural and man-made environment) for each of the resource areas. It is not currently known what portion of new personnel (including their family members) would obtain housing on- and off-installation. The most conservative scenario for impacts on air quality, socioeconomics, and transportation assumes that all of the new personnel, plus their family members, would obtain non-Navy housing off-installation in the Ventura County area, and, therefore, would be required to commute to NBVC Point Mugu (approximately 30 miles [48 kilometers (km)]) each working day.

Noise
No significant impacts on off-installation populations would be expected from construction, demolition, or renovation activities associated with the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, most of the construction, demolition, and renovation activities would take place in industrial areas or adjacent to the airfield where buildings include hangars, garages, and paint booths. Improvements to 3rd Street (including replacing the existing culvert crossings) would occur as close as 200 feet (61 meters) from an on-installation residential area. These improvements would be the highest noise levels that populations would be exposed to under the Proposed Action. However, the noise from construction equipment would be localized, short-term, and intermittent. As such, noise generated by construction activities under the Proposed Action would not be significant. The addition of approximately five Triton UAS flight operations per day would equate to 1,825 flight operations annually, which would represent a 5.2 percent increase in existing annual operations and a 0.2 decibel (dB) increase in the existing noise environment. The small percentage of proposed Triton UAS flight operations relative to the total existing operations at NBVC Point Mugu would not result in significant impacts on the existing noise environment at the installation or in the surrounding areas. Since the existing noise levels at NBVC Point Mugu are dominated by aircraft that are louder than the Triton UAS, the Triton UAS flight operations would not be expected to produce a noticeable change in average noise levels within the areas currently exposed to noise from aircraft operations. Therefore, no significant impacts on the existing noise environment would be expected.

Air Quality
Under the Proposed Action, construction, demolition, and renovation activities would take place over a 4-year period (FY 2013–FY 2016). Anticipated construction, demolition, and renovation emissions

Executive Summary

ES 5

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

would represent a negligible percentage of the air emissions inventoried locally in Ventura County and within the South Central Coast Air Basin. Appropriate fugitive dust-control measures would be employed during these activities to suppress emissions. Emissions associated with construction, demolition, and renovation activities would be temporary in nature. Therefore, no significant impacts on local or regional air quality in FY 2013, FY 2014, or FY 2016 would be expected from construction, demolition, and renovation activities at NBVC Point Mugu. The stationing of 700 personnel at NBVC Point Mugu would cause a slight increase in emissions from their privately owned vehicles. An average of five Triton UAS flight operations would represent a 5.2 percent increase in existing annual operations at NBVC Point Mugu. No significant impacts from emissions associated with the additional personnel commuting to the installation or Triton UAS flight operations at NBVC Point Mugu would be expected. Emissions from implementation of the Proposed Action would be well below the applicable General Conformity de minimis thresholds. None of the potential emissions would cause or contribute to a violation of any National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS). Therefore, no significant impacts on air quality would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action.

Safety
The addition of approximately five Triton UAS flight operations per day would represent a negligible (5.2 percent) increase in existing annual operations at NBVC Point Mugu that would not be expected to increase the risk of mishaps. All Triton UAS flight operations would be conducted in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and directives, specific operating manuals, and Department of Defense (DOD) Flight Information Publications. All emergencies or malfunctions associated with the flight operations would be handled in accordance with established aircraft-specific procedures. Existing emergency response plans would also be updated as necessary to account for Triton UAS unique requirements. Therefore, no significant impacts on safety from aircraft mishaps or mishap response would be expected. The Triton UAS flight operations would be conducted in existing controlled airspace at NBVC Point Mugu; therefore, there would be no change in the existing accident potential zones (APZs). Additionally, the Triton UAS is designed with multiple redundant systems and is programmed to perform predetermined maneuvers should communication with the aircraft be interrupted. These maneuvers would minimize risk of mishap. NBVC Point Mugu has prepared a Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) plan to reduce the potential for collisions between aircraft and birds or other animals. Triton UAS flight operations would represent only a small increase in total annual airfield operations and NBVC Point Mugu would continue to manage BASH in accordance with the installation’s BASH plan; therefore, no significant impact on safety from BASH would be expected.

Socioeconomics
It is estimated that each of the 700 personnel associated with the Proposed Action would be accompanied by an average of about 2.4 family members. Therefore, it is estimated that up to 2,380 people (700 personnel and 1,680 family members) would be relocated to NBVC Point Mugu and the surrounding

Executive Summary

ES 6

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39

areas. This would represent a minor increase of approximately 0.3 percent in the total population of the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area. On-installation housing is available at NBVC Point Mugu and an additional military housing complex is located in the City of Camarillo, which is approximately 10 miles (16 km) from NBVC Point Mugu. The additional demand for 700 housing units in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area would represent approximately 4.6 percent of the approximately 15,093 available vacant housing units in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area, based on the 2010 data. Increases in housing demand would result in the reduction of current vacant housing stock and, subsequently, increases in property tax revenue and could increase the value of homes. However, no significant impacts on housing would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action. Of the approximate 2.4 accompanying family members, 1 person is expected to be an adult and, thus, would also contribute to the regional workforce. Including the additional 700 personnel stationed at NVBC Point Mugu, this would result in a total of approximately 1,400 (i.e., 0.3 percent increase in the current workforce) additional workers contributing to the regional workforce and directly stimulating the local economy. Either scenario would result in a relatively minor addition to the existing workforce, but the increase, nonetheless, would have a beneficial effect on the local economy due to an increase in demand for products, services, and supplies found in the local community. Construction, demolition, and renovation activities would initially create a temporary regional increase in employment. The construction of new buildings and facilities and renovation of existing buildings would result in beneficial effects on the construction industry due to increases in payroll, taxes, and the indirect purchase of goods and services. As a result, there would be beneficial impacts on employment. Given the relatively small nature of the Proposed Action when compared to total construction and employment levels in the region, this project would not result in significant impacts on employment. During construction, demolition, and renovation activities, short-term employment provided by civilian contracting firms for up to 1 year would result in beneficial impacts on the local economy due to an increase in demand for products, services, and supplies found in the local community. It is anticipated that, given the large market for similar products, services, and supplies in Ventura County and the Los Angeles metropolitan area, this increase in demand would not result in a scarcity of such products, services, and supplies in the region. It is likely that some of the 2.4 family members would not be school-aged children. However, it is assumed that the family members would consist of one adult and the remainder would be school-aged children. Therefore, the maximum number of school-aged children that would move to Ventura County is estimated to be approximately 980. This would represent a maximum increase of approximately 3.9 percent of the current public school enrollment for the Ventura County school districts for which NBVC Point Mugu is expected to affect. Assuming an approximately even age distribution of these students and an even enrollment distribution within the 20 schools in the districts, there would be an addition of approximately 4 students in each grade per school. Each elementary school in the district has approximately 4 to 5 classes per grade. Based on this conservative scenario, no significant impacts would be expected.

Executive Summary

ES 7

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

Transportation
The additional vehicles (approximately 1,400; assuming a 1:2 ratio of vehicles for the proposed 700 personnel) would result in a 4 percent increase from existing vehicle traffic currently at NBVC Point Mugu (assuming a 1:2 ratio of vehicles to the existing 17,000 personnel stationed at NBVC Point Mugu). However, over the past decade, NBVC Point Mugu has experienced a drawdown in installation personnel and operations. Subsequently, there is excess capacity for transportation and vehicles at the installation because the existing transportation system was originally designed to support a larger population. The increase of personnel and family members associated with the Proposed Action is not expected to exceed the current capacity of the transportation system at NBVC Point Mugu. A slight increase in traffic up to 1,400 additional vehicles commuting to and from NBVC Point Mugu would represent a less than 1 percent increase in the percentage of existing traffic. Additionally, with varying work schedules, deployment schedules, ride-sharing, and other traffic management initiatives at NBVC Point Mugu, a significant increase in traffic congestion would not be expected. Therefore, no significant impacts on transportation would be expected.

Biological Resources
The footprints of the project areas for the new maintenance hangar, parking area, aircraft parking apron, taxiway, and 3rd Street upgrades total approximately 1.4 million ft2, or 31.9 acres. The maintenance hangar would be constructed somewhere within the 1.3-million-ft2 (29.4-acre) maintenance hangar project area. Approximately 332,152 ft2, or 7.3 acres, would be permanently altered by impervious surface area (i.e., facilities and pavement), and vegetation would be permanently removed upon completion of the Proposed Action. However, revegetation would occur in the areas not developed with impermeable surfaces. Therefore, no significant impacts on vegetation would be expected. Noise created during construction, demolition, and renovation activities could result in short-term, indirect impacts on wildlife, migratory birds, and protected species (i.e., Federal- and state-listed threatened and endangered species and California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] species of special concern). However, construction noise would be less than the noise associated with existing aircraft operations at NBVC Point Mugu. Given the current level of air traffic at NBVC Point Mugu, wildlife, migratory birds, and protected species using nearby habitat would be expected to have become habituated to noise and would be expected to move temporarily to adjacent less-utilized habitat and then return to the area. No significant impacts on wildlife or migratory birds, and no effect on protected species would be expected from increased noise associated with construction, demolition, and renovation activities. There would be an increase in the existing noise environment from the additional personnel commuting to and from NBVC Point Mugu and Triton UAS maintenance and flight operations; however, this increase would not be expected to produce a noticeable change in average noise levels within the areas currently exposed to noise from aircraft operations, since the existing noise levels at NBVC Point Mugu are dominated by aircraft that are louder than the Triton UAS. The increase in noise levels would not impact wildlife, migratory birds, or protected species using nearby habitat, as the wildlife would be expected to have become habituated to aircraft noise. Although responses differ among species and

Executive Summary

ES 8

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

situations, literature has shown that in many cases wildlife that experienced noise on a consistent basis were more tolerant, showing less extreme responses than wildlife not exposed on a consistent basis. Migratory birds have been observed nesting in the willows and other trees within the proposed maintenance hangar project area. Potential impacts on migratory birds from clearing vegetation for the new maintenance hangar could be mitigated by conducting a site survey of the project area prior to commencement of construction activities to ensure the absence of migratory birds or by conducting construction activities outside of the migratory bird nesting season (i.e., March through September). If an active nest (i.e., nest containing intact eggs, live hatchlings, or evidence of the presence of an adult) is encountered once vegetation has been cleared and construction begins, the nest would be left in place until the nest has been abandoned. The use of these measures or other mitigation measures, as determined necessary by the NBVC Point Mugu Natural Resources Manager, would ensure that no violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) or Executive Order (EO) 13186 would occur from implementing the Proposed Action. Therefore, no significant impacts on migratory birds or violation of the MBTA would be expected. NBVC Point Mugu has prepared a BASH plan to reduce the potential for collisions between aircraft and birds or other animals. The Navy is authorized for incidental takes of migratory birds for military readiness activities (e.g., operational, training, and maintenance flights). No significant impacts would be expected from Triton UAS flight operations. The Proposed Action would comply with the MBTA, and would not require a permit under the MBTA. The Proposed Action would not result in a “take” of bald or golden eagles. In the unlikely event a bald or golden eagle takes up residence near any of the project areas before construction, demolition, and renovation activities are implemented, NBVC Point Mugu would coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to pursue the best course of action. No effect on threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or CDFW species of special concern would be expected. Because of its industrial/developed use, none of the project areas associated with the Proposed Action have suitable habitat or foraging areas for salt marsh bird’s-beak, light-footed clapper rails, western snowy plovers, California least terns, least Bell’s vireo, or tidewater gobies. None of the proposed construction, demolition, or renovation activities under the Proposed Action would directly impact coastal or aquatic habitats that could be inhabited by Pacific harbor seals, elephant seals, or sea lions protected under the MMPA. Furthermore, implementation of environmental protection measures to control storm water runoff from project areas would prevent the degradation of water quality in the marine waters surrounding the installation. Therefore, the Navy has determined that the Proposed Action would not result in impacts on any marine mammal species by harassment, injury, or mortality as defined under the MMPA. The increase in noise levels associated with the increase in flight operations would not impact marine mammals using nearby habitat, as the Triton UAS flight operations would not be conducted at low altitude over harbor seal haulout areas. Therefore, no impacts on marine mammals would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would occur outside the boundaries of essential fish habitat (EFH) and habitat areas of particular concern, which

Executive Summary

ES 9

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39

include Mugu Lagoon and Calleguas Creek. No effect on EFH or habitat of particular concern would be expected.

Water Resources
Construction and renovation activities would not be expected to result in major vegetation removal; soil compaction, as soils in the project areas are composed of fill material and have been previously disturbed; or alter the natural drainage flow, as pre-construction hydrologic connectivity would be maintained through the use of culverts and other measures, as deemed appropriate. None of the construction, demolition, or renovation activities associated with the Proposed Action would extend below ground surface to a depth that would affect the underlying aquifer. Although fuel or other chemicals could be spilled during construction, demolition, and renovation activities, implementation of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan and immediate cleanup of any spills would prevent any infiltration into groundwater resources. Any additional personnel (plus their family members) that would choose to live on-installation would cause a long-term increase in demand for potable water. However, this long-term increase in demand would not be expected to exceed existing capacity of the regional water supply. NBVC Point Mugu has experienced a drawdown (i.e., decrease) in installation personnel and operations over the past decade. Subsequently, there is excess capacity of potable water because the existing potable water distribution system was originally designed to support a larger population. Therefore, no impacts on groundwater would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action. During construction, demolition, and renovation activities, runoff from site improvements could result in a slight increase in turbidity. Potential impacts from an increase in turbidity would be minimized with implementation of best management practices (BMPs) (e.g., wetting of soils, silt fencing, and detention basins) and adherence to erosion and storm water management practices, as determined by the Navy, to contain soil and runoff on the project areas. Construction, demolition, and renovation activities associated with the Proposed Action are not anticipated to degrade the water quality or affect beneficial uses of surface water or groundwater resources. The Navy would be required to obtain permit coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (“Construction General Permit”) (NPDES Permit No. CAS000002) for the proposed construction activities prior to implementation of the Proposed Action. The Construction General Permit is issued by the California State Water Resources Control Board, and is an NPDES general permit for discharges from construction activities. In addition, under the Construction General Permit, the Navy would develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed construction activities prior to implementation of the Proposed Action. The Navy would be required to obtain a Water Quality Permit (per Section 401 of the Clean Water Act [CWA]) and a wetland permit (per Section 404 of the CWA) prior to constructing the new taxiway and replacing the existing 3rd Street culvert crossings. Upon completion of construction impervious surface area at NBVC requirements of Section 438 of the site hydrology to be maintained or and demolition activities, there would be an overall increase in Point Mugu. The Navy is subject to the new storm water design Energy Independence and Security Act that require predevelopment restored to the maximum extent technically feasible with respect to

Executive Summary

ES 10

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow. Additionally, the Navy is subject to the Construction General Permit post-construction requirements. Upon completion of construction related to the Proposed Action, hydrologic conditions of the areas not developed with impermeable surfaces would be restored to mimic predevelopment site hydrology. In addition, revegetation would occur in the project areas not developed with impermeable surfaces. Storm water runoff, as a result of increased impervious surface area, would be managed in accordance with the installation’s SWPPP for industrial activities, as required by the NPDES General Permit Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activities Excluding Construction Activities (“Industrial General Permit”) (NPDES Permit No. CAS000001). Construction contractors would follow appropriate BMPs to protect against potential petroleum or hazardous material spills. If a spill or leak were to occur, Navy Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), procedures identified in Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST) 5090.1C, and BMPs identified in the installation’s SWPPP for industrial activities and SPCC Plan would be implemented to contain the spill and minimize the potential for, and extent of, associated contamination. Additional mitigation measures to minimize the potential for adverse impacts might be required, as set forth during the Section 401 and 404 of the CWA permitting process. Therefore, no significant impacts on water quality or surface water bodies would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action. Construction of the new taxiway and the proposed improvements to 3rd Street (including replacing the existing culvert crossings) would result in approximately 1 acre of impacts on wetlands and waters of the United States at NBVC Point Mugu. Consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and California Regional Water Quality Control Board would occur, as appropriate, to obtain the necessary permits (i.e., Section 404 and 401 of the CWA) prior to commencement of construction and renovation activities. All potential impacts on wetlands and waters of the United States would be offset by either (1) using the installation’s mitigation bank, which is currently being developed or (2) conducting a separate wetland mitigation restoration project. Details regarding the specific impacts expected on wetlands, the wetland types that would be impacted, and the required mitigation measure ratio for impacts on wetlands would be determined during the Section 404 and 401 CWA permitting process. The project areas for new construction and renovation activities are within the 100-year floodplain of Calleguas Creek. The Navy has determined that there is no practicable alternative to conducting the construction and renovation activities associated with the Proposed Action in the floodplain. The Navy would minimize potential impacts on the floodplain with implementation of BMPs and the installation’s Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP). The Proposed Action would be consistent with the regulations outlined in EO 11988, Floodplain Management. Floodproofing and other flood-protection measures would be applied to the newly constructed and renovated facilities, as deemed appropriate. Therefore, no significant impacts on the floodplain would be expected.

Cultural Resources
There are no known archaeological resources located within the area of potential effect (APE) for new construction actions and the demolition of Building 328. Once the final construction location is

Executive Summary

ES 11

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

determined within the project area, further surveying would be conducted, including subsurface testing for the presence or absence of cultural materials, prior to construction of the maintenance hangar. The APE for architectural resources is limited to Buildings 50, 311, 328, 367, and 385; Hangar 34; and 3rd Street (including the existing culvert crossings). These buildings serve an important function for the daily operations at NBVC Point Mugu; however, they have never been directly related to any particular Cold War asset or program; they do not represent important architectural examples of their type, period, or method of construction; and they do not embody the work of a master. The excavation for expanding and widening 3rd Street would remain in the disturbed footprint (i.e., graded portion of 3rd Street that extends across the golf course), and would not extend below the depth of the existing fill material. The culverts were originally constructed to allow access to the NBVC Point Mugu golf course, and are not directly related to any Cold War assets or programs. Therefore, the Navy determined that none of these buildings or structures meet eligibility criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Navy initiated consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) on January 24, 2013. Consultation with the California SHPO will continue, as appropriate, once subsurface investigations at the installation are completed. The APE for traditional, religious, or cultural significance to Native American tribes is defined by the footprint of the proposed project areas. NBVC Point Mugu notified the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians of the Proposed Action and provided them a copy of the California SHPO consultation letter for review and concurrence. The Santa Ynez Band with Chumash Indians reviewed the consultation letter and provided concurrence with the findings in the letter. In the event that intact subsurface cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during construction, demolition, or renovation activities, the cultural resources would be evaluated for NRHP eligibility and consultation would continue per 36 CFR § 800.4–800.6. The NBVC Point Mugu Cultural Resources Manager would follow the procedures outlined in the installation’s Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP).

Hazardous Materials and Wastes
It is anticipated that the quantity of products containing hazardous materials used for construction, demolition, and renovation activities would be minimal and their use would be of short duration. The quantity of hazardous wastes generated from construction, demolition, and renovation activities would be minor and would not be expected to exceed the capacities of existing hazardous waste disposal facilities. All hazardous wastes generated as a result of construction, demolition, and renovation activities would be handled under the existing DOD Resource Conservation and Recovery Act- (RCRA) compliant waste management programs and, therefore, would not be expected to increase the risks of exposure to workers and installation personnel. Consequently, no significant impacts would be expected from construction, demolition, or renovation activities. It is anticipated that the quantity of products containing hazardous materials used to support Triton UAS flight operations and maintenance activities would be minimal. The quantity of hazardous wastes

Executive Summary

ES 12

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

generated from maintenance activities would be minor and would not be expected to exceed the capacities of existing hazardous waste disposal facilities. All hazardous materials and wastes would be managed in accordance with the installation’s Hazardous Materials Management Plan and Hazardous Wastes Management Plan. Therefore, no significant impacts would be expected from maintenance activities or Triton UAS flight operations. All facilities proposed for demolition and renovation were constructed prior to 1978 and, therefore, could contain asbestos-containing material (ACMs), polychlorinated biphenyl- (PCB) contaminated materials, and lead-based paint (LBP). Therefore, in accordance with Navy policies and procedures, these buildings and Hangar 34 would be surveyed by a state-certified inspector through the on-installation Asbestos Program Manager prior to commencement of demolition and renovation activities. Demolition and renovation plans would be reviewed by NBVC Point Mugu civil engineering personnel to ensure appropriate measures would be taken to remove ACMs, PCB-containing materials, and LBP. In accordance with Navy policies and procedures, all ACMs, PCB-containing materials, and LBP would be removed by state-certified individuals prior to renovation and disposed of at an USEPA-approved landfill. Contractors performing demolition and renovation activities would be responsible for following safety regulations and are required to conduct demolition and renovation activities in a manner that does not pose any risk to workers or personnel. Contractor responsibilities are to review potentially hazardous workplace operation and monitor exposure to workplace chemicals (e.g., asbestos, lead, hazardous materials) to ensure personnel are properly protected or unexposed. The removal of ACMs, PCB-containing materials, and LBP during demolition and renovation activities would result in beneficial impacts by reducing potential exposure to ACMs, PCB-containing materials, and LBP; however, these impacts would not be significant. Building 311 is within the boundaries of Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Site 6. It is not anticipated that contaminated groundwater associated with IRP Site 6 would be encountered during renovation of Building 311. There are potential risks to human health from exposure of vinyl chloride contamination in the groundwater through vapor intrusion in a small interior area of Building 311. However, the current concentrations of vinyl chloride contamination in the groundwater are within the acceptable range for industrial activities, in which exposure would not result in unacceptable impacts on human health. Therefore, no impacts on or from the IRP at NBVC Point Mugu would be expected. If there is IRP infrastructure (e.g., monitoring wells, treatment systems, conveyance pipes) present at any of the project areas for the Proposed Action, project planning would include protection of IRP infrastructure to avoid disruption of clean-up activities and minimize potential impacts on IRP infrastructure.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not establish facilities or functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. No impacts on noise, air quality, safety, socioeconomics, transportation, biological resources, water resources, cultural resources, or hazardous materials and wastes at NBVC Point Mugu or in the surrounding areas would be expected from the No Action Alternative. Existing conditions would be unaffected. The No Action

Executive Summary

ES 13

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Alternative does not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. It does, however, serve as a baseline against which the impacts of the Proposed Action can be evaluated.

Cumulative Impacts
Based on the assessment of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions at NBVC Point Mugu, the Proposed Action would result in environmental effects as a result of the various construction, demolition, and renovation activities and population increases. However, these cumulative impacts would not be considered significant. The following projects are those that have the greatest potential to impact cumulatively the resources assessed in this EA: the Expansion of Unmanned Systems Operations on the Point Mugu Sea Range, the Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program, Homeporting the Littoral Combat Ship, Transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and Implementing the BASH Management Plan. No significant, cumulative impacts would be expected on any of the resources analyzed in this EA.

Summary of Findings
The proposed establishment of facilities and functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu, California, would not result in significant, direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on the natural or man-made environment.

Executive Summary

ES 14

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... ES-1 CHAPTER 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1-1

Background ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 The Proposed Action ............................................................................................................ 1-3 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action ......................................................................... 1-3 The Environmental Review Process ................................................................................... 1-3 1.4.1 1.4.2 National Environmental Policy Act ....................................................................... 1-3 Scope of Analysis ..................................................................................................... 1-4 1.4.2.1 1.4.3 1.4.4 Environmental Resources ......................................................................... 1-4

Public Involvement .................................................................................................. 1-7 Related Environmental and Planning Documents ............................................... 1-7 1.4.4.1 1.4.4.2 1.4.4.3 1.4.4.4 EA/Overseas EA (OEA) for the Navy MQ-4C Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program ................................................................... 1-7 NBVC Activity Overview Plan................................................................. 1-8 Navy Region Southwest Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan ................... 1-8 Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Program ..................... 1-8

1.5

Organization of the EA ........................................................................................................ 1-9 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ..................................................... 2-1

CHAPTER 2 2.1

Description of Proposed Action........................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.1.6 2.1.7 2.1.8 2.1.9 Flight Operations..................................................................................................... 2-1 Power Check Pad .................................................................................................... 2-1 Demolition and Reconstruction Activities ............................................................. 2-3 Maintenance Training Complex ............................................................................ 2-3 Aircraft Wash Rack ................................................................................................ 2-3 Fleet Readiness Center ............................................................................................ 2-3 Local Triton UAS Control Facility ........................................................................ 2-3 Battery Storage Facility .......................................................................................... 2-3 Maintenance Hangars and Pavements .................................................................. 2-4

2.1.10 Storage Facility ........................................................................................................ 2-4 2.1.11 Fire Rescue Facility ................................................................................................. 2-4 2.1.12 Taxiway .................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.1.13 3rd Street and Culvert Crossings........................................................................... 2-5 2.1.14 Personnel .................................................................................................................. 2-5

Table of Contents

i

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

2.2

Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ....................... 2-7

2.3

No Action Alternative .......................................................................................................... 2-8 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................. 3-1

CHAPTER 3 3.1

Noise....................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 3.1.2 Noise Modeling ........................................................................................................ 3-2 Existing Noise Environment ................................................................................... 3-3

3.2

Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 3-4 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 General Conformity ................................................................................................ 3-5 Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................... 3-5 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 3-6

3.3 3.4

Safety ..................................................................................................................................... 3-7 Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 Demographics .......................................................................................................... 3-9 Housing ..................................................................................................................... 3-9 Employment Characteristics ................................................................................ 3-11 Schools .................................................................................................................... 3-12

3.5 3.6

Transportation .................................................................................................................... 3-12 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................... 3-12 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 3.6.4 3.6.5 3.6.6 3.6.7 Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 3-13 Wildlife and Habitat.............................................................................................. 3-13 Migratory Birds ..................................................................................................... 3-14 Bald and Golden Eagles ........................................................................................ 3-15 Protected Species ................................................................................................... 3-15 Marine Mammals .................................................................................................. 3-18 Essential Fish Habitat ........................................................................................... 3-18

3.7

Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 3-19 3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.3 3.7.4 Groundwater.......................................................................................................... 3-20 Surface Water ........................................................................................................ 3-20 Wetlands ................................................................................................................. 3-21 Floodplains ............................................................................................................. 3-23

3.8 3.9

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 3-23 Hazardous Materials and Wastes ..................................................................................... 3-26 3.9.1 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management .................................................. 3-26

Table of Contents

ii

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

3.9.2 3.9.3 3.9.4 3.9.5 CHAPTER 4 4.1

Asbestos .................................................................................................................. 3-27 Polychlorinated Biphenyls .................................................................................... 3-27 Lead-Based Paint................................................................................................... 3-27 Installation Restoration Program ........................................................................ 3-27 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................................ 4-1

Noise....................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Proposed Action....................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1.1 4.1.1.2 4.1.2 Construction Activities ............................................................................. 4-1 Operations Activities................................................................................. 4-3

No Action Alternative ............................................................................................. 4-4

4.2

Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 4-4 4.2.1 4.2.2 Proposed Action....................................................................................................... 4-4 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................. 4-8

4.3

Safety ..................................................................................................................................... 4-8 4.3.1 4.3.2 Proposed Action....................................................................................................... 4-9 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 4-10

4.4

Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................... 4-10 4.4.1 Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 4-10 4.4.1.1 4.4.1.2 4.4.1.3 4.4.1.4 4.4.2 Demographics ......................................................................................... 4-10 Housing ................................................................................................... 4-10 Employment Characteristics ................................................................... 4-11 Schools .................................................................................................... 4-11

No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 4-12

4.5

Transportation .................................................................................................................... 4-12 4.5.1 4.5.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 4-12 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 4-13

4.6

Biological Resources ........................................................................................................... 4-13 4.6.1 Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 4-14 4.6.1.1 4.6.1.2 4.6.1.3 4.6.1.4 4.6.1.5 4.6.1.6 Vegetation ............................................................................................... 4-14 Wildlife and Habitat ................................................................................ 4-15 Migratory Birds ....................................................................................... 4-15 Bald and Golden Eagles .......................................................................... 4-16 Protected Species .................................................................................... 4-16 Marine Mammals .................................................................................... 4-17

Table of Contents

iii

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

4.6.1.7 4.6.2 4.7

Essential Fish Habitat.............................................................................. 4-17

No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 4-18

Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 4-18 4.7.1 Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 4-18 4.7.1.1 4.7.1.2 4.7.1.3 4.7.1.4 4.7.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................... 4-18 Surface Water.......................................................................................... 4-19 Wetlands ................................................................................................. 4-20 Floodplains .............................................................................................. 4-20

No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 4-21

4.8

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 4-21 4.8.1 4.8.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 4-21 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 4-22

4.9

Hazardous Materials and Wastes ..................................................................................... 4-22 4.9.1 Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 4-23 4.9.1.1 4.9.1.2 4.9.1.3 4.9.1.4 4.9.1.5 4.9.2 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management ........................................ 4-23 Asbestos .................................................................................................. 4-23 Polychlorinated Biphenyls ...................................................................... 4-24 Lead-Based Paint .................................................................................... 4-24 Installation Restoration Program ............................................................ 4-25

No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 4-25 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ....................................................................................... 5-1

CHAPTER 5 5.1 5.2

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5-1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ............................................. 5-2 5.2.1 5.2.2 Federal Actions ........................................................................................................ 5-2 Non-Federal Actions ............................................................................................... 5-5

5.3

Potential Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................. 5-5 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5 5.3.6 5.3.7 5.3.8 Noise.......................................................................................................................... 5-6 Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 5-7 Safety ........................................................................................................................ 5-8 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................ 5-9 Transportation ....................................................................................................... 5-10 Biological Resources .............................................................................................. 5-11 Water Resources .................................................................................................... 5-12 Hazardous Materials and Wastes ........................................................................ 5-14

Table of Contents

iv

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

CHAPTER 6 6.1

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

Consistency with Other Federal, State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls ................................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1.1 Federal Acts, Executive Orders, Policies, and Plans ............................................ 6-1 6.1.1.1 6.1.1.2 6.1.1.3 6.1.2 6.1.2.1 6.1.2.2 Clean Air Act and General Conformity Rule ............................................ 6-1 Coastal Zone Management........................................................................ 6-1 National Historic Preservation Act ........................................................... 6-4 NBVC Activity Overview Plan................................................................. 6-4 Navy Region Southwest Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan ................... 6-4

Other Plans Related to NBVC Point Mugu .......................................................... 6-4

6.2 6.3

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................... 6-5 Relationship Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity .......................................................................................................................... 6-5 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 7-1 LIST OF PREPARERS.............................................................................................. 8-1 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT AND CORRESPONDENCE ......... A-1 CALIFORNIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE CONSULTATION ..................................................................................................... B-1 COASTAL CONSISTENCY NEGATIVE DETERMINATION .......................... C-1 RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY .................................................................. D-1 AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS .................................................. E-1

CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 8 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E

Table of Contents

v

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

List of Figures Figure 2-1. Project Area for the Proposed Action ............................................................................... 2-2 Figure 3-1. Photograph of Wetland Areas in the Vicinity of the Proposed Taxiway ..................... 3-21 Figure 3-2. Location of Surface Waters and Wetlands at NBVC Point Mugu................................ 3-22 Figure 3-3. Location of IRP Sites at NBVC Point Mugu ................................................................... 3-29

List of Tables Table 2-1. Summary of West Coast Home Base Location Screening ................................................. 2-6 Table 3-1. Representative SEL for Common Aircraft Departures .................................................... 3-4 Table 3-2. South Central Coast Air Basin Air Emissions Inventory (2008) ...................................... 3-7 Table 3-3. Population Estimates (1990, 2000, and 2010) ................................................................... 3-10 Table 3-4. Vacant Housing Units (2010) ............................................................................................. 3-10 Table 3-5. Overview of Employment by Industry (2011) .................................................................. 3-11 Table 3-6. Protected Species Potentially Occurring on or in the Vicinity of NBVC Point Mugu ............................................................................................................................. 3-16 Table 4-1. Predicted Noise Levels for Construction Equipment ........................................................ 4-2 Table 4-2. Examples of Predicted Noise Levels from Construction Activities .................................. 4-3 Table 4-3. Conformity de minimis Emissions Thresholds ................................................................... 4-5 Table 4-4. Estimated Air Emissions from the Proposed Action in FY 2013 ...................................... 4-5 Table 4-5. Estimated Air Emissions from the Proposed Action in FY 2014 ...................................... 4-6 Table 4-6. Estimated Air Emissions from the Proposed Action in FY 2015 ...................................... 4-7 Table 4-7. Estimated Air Emissions from the Proposed Action in FY 2016 ...................................... 4-7 Table 4-8. Summary of Project Areas and Potential Impacts on Vegetation .................................. 4-14 Table 6-1. Summary of Applicable Statutes and Regulations............................................................. 6-2

Table of Contents

vi

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACM AFB AFFF AICUZ APE APZ AQCR BAMS BASH BMP °C CAA CARB CCND CDFW CEQ CFR CNEL CO CO2 CO2e CPS CWA CZMA asbestos-containing material Air Force Base aqueous film-forming foam Air Installations Compatible Use Zones area of potential effect accident potential zone air quality control region Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard best management practice Celsius Clean Air Act California Air Resources Board Coastal Consistency Negative Determination California Department of Fish and Wildlife Council on Environmental Quality Code of Federal Regulations Community Noise Equivalent Level carbon monoxide carbon dioxide CO2 equivalent coastal pelagic species Clean Water Act Coastal Zone Management Act km LBP LUC m2 IRP dB dBA DOD DNL EA EFH EIR EIS EO ESA °F FAA FONSI ft2 FY GHG HARP ICRMP INRMP decibel A-weighted decibel Department of Defense Day-Night Average Sound Level Environmental Assessment essential fish habitat Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Statement Executive Order Endangered Species Act Fahrenheit Federal Aviation Administration Finding of No Significant Impact square foot fiscal year greenhouse gas Historic and Archaeological Resources Protection Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Installation Restoration Program kilometer lead-based paint land use control square meter

Acronyms and Abbreviations

vii

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

MBTA MMPA NAAQS NAS Navy NBVC NEPA NHPA NMFS NO2 NOA NOx NPDES NRHP O3 OCONUS OEA OPNAVINST Pb PCB PFMC P.L. PM10

Migratory Bird Treaty Act Marine Mammal Protection Act National Ambient Air Quality Standards Naval Air Station U.S. Department of the Navy Naval Base Ventura County National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Preservation Act National Marine Fisheries Service nitrogen dioxide Notice of Availability nitrogen oxide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System National Register of Historic Places ozone outside the continental United States Overseas Environmental Assessment Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction lead polychlorinated biphenyl Pacific Fishery Management Council Public Law particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter

PM2.5 RCRA RONA SAAQS SEL SHPO SIP SO2 SOP SPCC SWPPP tpy UAS USACE USAF U.S.C. USEPA USFWS USV VCAPCD VOC

particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Record of Non-Applicability State Ambient Air Quality Standards Sound Exposure Level State Historic Preservation Office State Implementation Plan sulfur dioxide Standard Operating Procedure Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan tons per year Unmanned Aircraft System U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Air Force United States Code U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service unmanned surface vehicle Ventura County Air Pollution Control District volatile organic compound

Acronyms and Abbreviations

viii

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended; Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§ 1500–1508) implementing NEPA; and U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) Regulations (32 CFR § 775), the Navy has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the Navy’s proposal to establish facilities and functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Triton UAS), which was formerly known as the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance UAS (BAMS UAS), at Naval Base Ventura (NBVC) Point Mugu, California. This section presents background information, an introduction to the Proposed Action, the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, a summary of the environmental review process, and an introduction to the organization of this EA.

1.1

BACKGROUND

The Proposed Action would occur entirely within the fence line of NBVC Point Mugu. NBVC Point Mugu is situated along the coast of Ventura County, California, approximately 5 miles (8 kilometers [km]) south of the City of Oxnard and 55 miles (88.5 km) west of the City of Los Angeles, California. Previous realignment actions conducted in 2000 resulted in the consolidation of NBVC Point Mugu, NBVC Port Hueneme, and San Nicolas Island into NBVC (see Figure 1-1). NBVC Point Mugu, a component of NBVC, is composed of 4,500 acres of land, including support facilities and infrastructure. NBVC Point Mugu operates and maintains two runways, Runway 3/21 (11,000 feet [3,353 meters] long) and Runway 9/27 (5,500 feet [1,676 meters] long). Runway 3/21 is capable of handling the largest of U.S. Air Force (USAF) aircraft, including the C-5 Galaxy transport plane (CNIC undated). It is also shared with the California Air National Guard, which operates at the Channel Islands Air National Guard Station. NBVC Point Mugu provides real-time control of all air traffic within its coastal area, which permits dynamic reallocation of flight paths to ensure safe, secure, and unhindered military operations. The Triton UAS is a multiple-sensor, unarmed, unmanned aircraft system that is approximately 48 feet (15 meters) long and has a wingspan of approximately 131 feet (40 meters). This system provides a persistent maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance data collection and dissemination capability to the serviced Fleet Commander (up to 24 hours per day). The Triton UAS is a complement to the Navy’s P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft and uses the same tactical support centers as the P-8A aircraft. The tactical support centers support the command and control functions of both the P-8A aircraft and Triton UAS. Environmental analyses addressing the establishment of these tactical support centers at Naval Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville, Florida, and NAS Whidbey Island, Washington, were conducted in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Introduction of the P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft into the U.S. Navy Fleet (Navy 2008). Since the Triton UAS is an unmanned, remotely controlled aircraft system, it is not necessary for the tactical support center and home base location for the Triton UAS to be collocated.

1.0 Introduction

11

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 2 3

Figure 1-1. Location of NBVC Point Mugu, NBVC Port Hueneme, NBVC San Nicolas Island, and Surrounding Areas

1.0 Introduction

12

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

1.2

THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Proposed Action includes the establishment of facilities and functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. It is anticipated that the Proposed Action would be implemented during the 2013–2020 timeframe. The Proposed Action includes the following at NBVC Point Mugu: x x x x Home basing four Triton UAS to support requirements in the Pacific Establishing a maintenance hub for the Triton UAS, supporting up to four additional Triton UAS undergoing maintenance actions at any one time Conducting an average of five Triton UAS flight operations (i.e., takeoffs or landings) per day (1,825 annually) Constructing, demolishing, and renovating facilities and infrastructure to support the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu: o Expanding the existing Power Check Pad and aircraft wash rack (i.e., the curbed area) o Demolishing Building 328 (air start shelter) and construct a new air start shelter o Renovating (i.e., interior renovations and minor exterior site improvements) Buildings 50, 311, and 367; and Hangar 34 o Constructing a new addition to Building 385 o Upgrading and widening 3rd Street, including replacing the existing culvert crossings o Constructing a new taxiway, maintenance hangar, and storage facility o Erecting a new pre-engineered fire rescue facility Stationing up to 700 personnel, plus their family members, while supporting rotational deployments to and from outside the continental United States (OCONUS).

x

Further details regarding the Proposed Action are provided in Chapter 2.

1.3

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to enhance the ability to identify and process intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information for Joint Forces and Fleet Commanders during pre-mission planning, mission execution, and post-mission reporting. The Proposed Action is needed to provide continuous maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities in support of national defense objectives and policies.

1.4
1.4.1

THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] §§ 4321–4370h) is a Federal statute requiring the identification and analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with proposed major Federal actions before those actions are taken. NEPA established the CEQ, which was charged with the development of implementing regulations and ensuring Federal agency compliance with NEPA. The process for implementing NEPA is codified in Title 40 of the CFR, §§ 1500–1508, Regulations for Implementing the

1.0 Introduction

13

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ Regulations). According to CEQ regulations, the requirements of NEPA must be integrated “with other planning and environmental review procedures required by law or by agency so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively” (40 CFR § 1500.2). The NEPA process does not replace procedural or substantive requirements of other environmental statutes and regulations; it addresses them collectively in the form of an EA or EIS, which enables the decision maker to have a comprehensive view of key environmental issues and requirements associated with a proposed action. An EIS is prepared for those Federal actions that might significantly affect the quality of the natural or human environment. An EA is a concise document that provides sufficient analysis for determining whether the potential environmental impacts of a proposed action are significant, requiring the preparation of an EIS, or not significant, resulting in the preparation of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The Navy implements NEPA through Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (32 CFR § 775). Additional guidance is found in Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5090.6A, Environmental Planning for Department of the Navy Actions, and 5090.1C, Environmental Readiness Program Manual. The intent of this EA is to assess the potential environmental impacts from the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu.

1.4.2

Scope of Analysis

The primary focus of this EA is analysis of impacts on resources from the establishment of facilities and functions (i.e., construction, demolition, and renovation activities) to support the Triton UAS. This EA analyzes the impacts from the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative on the nine resources listed in the following section.

1.4.2.1

Environmental Resources

This EA provides the basis for well-informed decisions to be made before the Proposed Action begins. The following resource areas are evaluated in detail in this EA because these resource areas compose the main issues relevant to establishing facilities and functions to support the Triton UAS: x x x x x x x x x Noise Air Quality Safety Socioeconomics Transportation Biological Resources Water Resources Cultural Resources Hazardous Wastes and Materials.

1.0 Introduction

14

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39 40 41 42

Some environmental resources have been omitted from further detailed analysis in this EA because the Proposed Action would result in no to negligible impacts on these resources. The resources omitted from further detailed analysis in this EA, and the basis for their exclusions, are as follows: x Airfield and Airspace Management. Construction activities associated with the Proposed Action would be conducted adjacent to, and in the vicinity of, the airfield at NBVC Point Mugu; however, they would not occur on the runway nor would they significantly increase or alter existing airfield or airspace operations, or affect the existing capacity of the airfield or airspace. The Proposed Action would not involve the creation or modification of any special-use airspace or military operations areas. Triton UAS flight operations would be conducted in existing controlled airspace at NBVC Point Mugu. Currently, the airfield at NBVC Point Mugu supports more than 35,000 flight operations (i.e., takeoffs or landings) annually. The addition of approximately five Triton UAS flight operations per day would equate to a maximum of 1,825 aircraft operations annually, which would represent a negligible (5.2 percent) increase in existing annual operations at NBVC Point Mugu. This increase would not impair the ability of the Radar Air Traffic Control Facility to coordinate flights from the installation within the controlled airspace at the installation. Certificates of Authorization are currently in place with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for other existing UAS operations conducted at NBVC Point Mugu. The Navy would obtain the appropriate authorizations from the FAA before Triton UAS flight operations associated with the Proposed Action are conducted. Therefore, no impacts on airfield or airspace management would be expected. Accordingly, the Navy has omitted further detailed examination of airfield and airspace management in this EA. Land Use. There are 12 land use categories applicable to NBVC Point Mugu: Administration, Community Support, Housing, Fuel Farm, Maintenance, Natural Reserve, Operations, Ordnance, Open Space, Public Works, Training, and Test and Evaluation. For the Proposed Action, all of the project areas are within the Operations land use category, with the exception of Building 367, which is within the Maintenance land use category. The project areas associated with the Proposed Action would necessitate a land use category change from Operations to Air Operations; Maintenance to Air Operations. However, these changes in land use category would be in compliance with the Navy Region Southwest Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan and NBVC Activity Overview Plan, including the Navy Regional Planning Policy Objectives of increasing existing capabilities and sustainability and maximizing efficiency. In addition, the Proposed Action would not introduce any new Land Use Controls (LUCs) or impact any existing LUCs. Therefore, no impacts on land use would be expected. Accordingly, the Navy has omitted further detailed examination of land use in this EA. Infrastructure and Utilities. Over the past decade, NBVC Point Mugu has experienced a drawdown (i.e., decrease) in installation personnel and operations. Subsequently, there is excess capacity of infrastructure and utilities at the installation because the existing infrastructure and utilities were originally designed to support a larger population. The increase of personnel and family members associated with the Proposed Action is not expected to exceed the current capacity of the infrastructure and utilities at NBVC Point

x

x

1.0 Introduction

15

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39 40 41 42

x

x

x

x

x

Mugu. Therefore, no impacts on infrastructure or utilities would be expected. Accordingly, the Navy has omitted further detailed examination of infrastructure and utilities in this EA. Recreation. There are no recreational resources located at any of the project areas associated with the Proposed Action. Furthermore, the Proposed Action would not involve any activities that would alter recreational areas or impact recreational activities at or adjacent to NBVC Point Mugu. Therefore, no impacts on recreation would be expected. Accordingly, the Navy has omitted further detailed examination of recreation in this EA. Community/Emergency Services. Over the past decade, NBVC Point Mugu has experienced a drawdown (i.e., decrease) in installation personnel and operations. Subsequently, there is excess capacity to provide community and emergency services to the installation and surrounding municipalities. The increase of personnel and family members associated with the Proposed Action is not expected to exceed the current capacity of the community and emergency services available at NBVC Point Mugu or in the surrounding municipalities. In addition, the Proposed Action would not impact the response time or efforts of the Federal Fire Department Ventura County, NBVC Fire Department, or force protection personnel. Therefore, no impacts on community/emergency services would be expected. Accordingly, the Navy has omitted further detailed examination of community/emergency services in this EA. Environmental Justice. The Proposed Action would occur entirely within the fence line of NBVC Point Mugu and would not involve any activities that would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations or children (Executive Order [EO] 12898, Environmental Justice for Low Income and Minority Populations and EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). Therefore, no impacts on minority or low-income populations would be expected. Accordingly, the Navy has omitted further detailed examination of environmental justice in this EA. Visual/Aesthetic Resources. Construction and renovation activities associated with the Proposed Action would result in facilities that would be consistent with the current characteristic features of the airfield, aesthetic qualities of the installation, and surrounding areas and landscape of NBVC Point Mugu. The design of new structures would adhere to Navy building guidelines and standards. Therefore, no impacts on the visual/aesthetic environment would be expected. Accordingly, the Navy has omitted further detailed examination of visual/aesthetic resources in this EA. Soils and Topography. According to soils mapping developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there are three types of soils that occur in the project areas associated with the Proposed Action: fill land, Camarillo sandy loam, and Camarillo loam. The Proposed Action would occur in areas already covered by pavement or in areas where soils have been previously disturbed. Implementation of best management practices (BMPs) during construction and demolition activities would minimize potential impacts from erosion and sedimentation into receiving water bodies. Construction and demolition activities associated with the Proposed Action would not significantly alter the topography or geologic features of the installation, and none of the project areas are currently being used for agricultural purposes nor would they be used for agricultural purposes upon completion of the Proposed

1.0 Introduction

16

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

Action. Therefore, no impacts on soils or topography would be expected. Accordingly, the Navy has omitted further detailed examination of soils and topography in this EA.

1.4.3

Public Involvement

Through the public involvement process, the Navy coordinates with relevant Federal, state, and local agencies and notify them and the public of the Proposed Action. Input from public agency responses are incorporated into the analysis of potential environmental impacts, as appropriate. Materials relating to interagency coordination and public involvement are included, as they become available, in Appendix A. A Notice of Availability (NOA) for this Draft EA was published on 22 February 2013 in the Los Angeles Times, Ventura Edition; Ventura County Star; and La Vida to announce the availability of the Draft EA for public review. The published NOA solicited comments on the Draft EA and intended to involve the local community in the decision making process. The public review period will be held for 15 days from 22 February to 11 March 2013. Copies of the Draft EA have been made available at the following five local libraries: x x x x x Oxnard Main Library: 251 South A Street, Oxnard, California 93030 South Oxnard Library: 4300 Saviers Road, Oxnard, California 93033 Colonia Library: 1500 Camino Del Sol, Oxnard, California 93030 Camarillo Library: 4101 East Las Posas Road, Camarillo, California 93010 Ventura County Library: 5600 Everglades Street, Ventura, California 93003.

The Draft EA has been posted on the Commander Navy Region Southwest Web site: http://www.navyregionsouthwest.com/go/doc/4275/1424607/. Comments received from the public and Federal, state, and local agencies will be considered in the Final EA. If the decision is made that an EA is sufficient for the Proposed Action, a FONSI will be prepared and signed, and an NOA will be published in the Los Angeles Times, Ventura Edition; Ventura County Star; and La Vida to announce to the public the finalization of the EA and issuance of the FONSI.

1.4.4

Related Environmental and Planning Documents

While not a comprehensive list, the following related planning documents were considered in the preparation of this document and are summarized in the following subsections.

1.4.4.1

EA/Overseas EA (OEA) for the Navy MQ-4C Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program

The Navy has prepared an EA/OEA that analyzed the potential effects associated with conducting the Navy’s MQ-4C Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program at NBVC Point Mugu, California (Navy 2012b). The Developmental Test Program would be conducted over a 3-year period beginning in FY 2013 at a number of contractor and Department of Defense (DOD) facilities and ranges. The Developmental Test Program evaluated the operational capabilities of the Triton UAS in a variety of mission scenarios. The EA/OEA evaluated two alternatives for staging the Developmental Test Program: (1) NBVC Point Mugu, with portions of the testing requirements occurring at the Sea Range, California,

1.0 Introduction

17

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37

and Northrop Grumman Corporation facility in Palmdale, California; and (2) NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, with secondary locations at the Northrop Grumman Corporation facility in Palmdale, California, and NBVC Point Mugu. The action analyzed in the EA/OEA for the Navy’s Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program, including any associated flight operations, is separate and independent from the Proposed Action, including Triton UAS flight operations, addressed in this EA.

1.4.4.2

NBVC Activity Overview Plan

The Naval Base Ventura County Activity Overview Plan (NBVC 2006a) specifically addresses the regional land and facility requirements and provides land use recommendations. The overall objectives of the NBVC Activity Overview Plan are as follows (NBVC 2006a): x x x Provide a defensible long-range vision reflecting appropriate infrastructure investments, locations, and timing Align shore infrastructure planning and regionalization initiatives to improve support of programs and personnel Identify land and facility alternatives for functional areas, acquisition, maintenance, and disposal.

1.4.4.3

Navy Region Southwest Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan

The Navy Region Southwest Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan (Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan) (NBVC 2006b) provides the official direction on facility and site development at NBVC. It is used in developing, designing, and reviewing all construction, demolition, and renovation projects on the installation. The Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan has been developed in accordance with the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Installation Appearance Guide. The Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan provides aesthetic and functional direction for new development and renovation efforts, and helps to protect and preserve the installation’s natural and historic resources (NBVC 2006b).

1.4.4.4

Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Program

The 1992 AICUZ Study for NBVC Point Mugu (1992 AICUZ Study) (NBVC 1992) serves as an update to the original AICUZ Study, developed in 1977. The purpose of the Navy AICUZ Program is to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare and to prevent encroachment so that the military can fulfill their mission and national security needs. The 1992 AICUZ Study addresses aircraft noise, aircraft safety, and land use compatibility in the vicinity of NBVC Point Mugu and addresses land use planning for safety through demarcation of clear zones and accident potential zones (APZs). For land use planning purposes, the noise exposure from aircraft operations at NBVC Point Mugu is divided into the following three noise zones: x Noise Exposure Zone 1 (less than 65 A-weighted decibels [dBA] Community Noise Equivalent Level [CNEL]) is the area of minimal impact where sound attenuation or noise level reduction is not suggested in most cases. Noise Exposure Zone 2 (65 to 75 dBA CNEL) is an area of moderate impact where some land use controls are needed. California state law does not allow most types of residential

x

1.0 Introduction

18

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

x

development in this zone. Most other land uses are acceptable, although sound attenuation is often required. Noise Exposure Zone 3 (more than 75 dBA CNEL) is the most severely impacted area and the area that requires the greatest degree of compatible LUCs. Residential uses are unacceptable in this zone and most other land uses are incompatible or require sound attenuation measures to reduce the noise level by at least 30 dBA.

While an AICUZ and EA are contemporary documents, they perform different functions and use different methodologies and baseline data. An AICUZ is a land use planning document that is based on reasonable projections of future operations and missions. An AICUZ provides recommendations on compatible development, consistent with military airfield’s mission, to cities and counties. Under NEPA, an EA describes the potential impacts from implementing a proposed action and a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed action, and compares them with the No Action Alternative.

1.5

ORGANIZATION OF THE EA

This EA identifies, evaluates, and documents the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative. The following is the organization of this EA, listed by chapter: x x x Chapter 1 provides background information relevant to the Proposed Action and discusses the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action Chapter 2 describes the Proposed Action, alternatives analysis, and No Action Alternative Chapter 3 describes the baseline conditions (i.e., the existing conditions in which potential impacts from the Proposed Action are measured) for each of the potentially affected resources Chapter 4 describes the potential environmental consequences on the resources described in Chapter 3 Chapter 5 describes the potential cumulative impacts Chapter 6 describes other considerations required by NEPA Chapter 7 contains references Chapter 8 contains a list of all of the individuals that contributed to the development and preparation of this EA.

x x x x x

1.0 Introduction

19

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

(This page intentionally left blank)

1.0 Introduction

1 10

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

CHAPTER 2
2.1

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

The Proposed Action includes the establishment of facilities and functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS, which were formerly known as the BAMS UAS, at NBVC Point Mugu, California. Under the Proposed Action, the Navy would home base four Triton UAS; establish a maintenance hub for the Triton UAS, supporting up to four additional Triton UAS undergoing maintenance actions at any one time; conduct an average of five Triton UAS flight operations (i.e., takeoffs or landings) per day (1,825 annually); construct, demolish, and renovate facilities and infrastructure at NBVC Point Mugu; and station up to 700 personnel, plus their family members, while supporting rotational deployments to and from OCONUS. Construction, demolition, and renovation activities would take place over a 4-year period (FY 2013 to FY 2016) and Triton UAS flight operations would begin in FY 2015. The additional 700 personnel and their family members would gradually relocate to NBVC Point Mugu and the surrounding areas in phases (from FY 2014 to FY 2020). Details of the Proposed Action are provided in the following sections. Figure 2-1 shows the project areas for the Proposed Action.

2.1.1

Flight Operations

Under the Proposed Action, an average of five Triton UAS flight operations would be conducted per day at NBVC Point Mugu beginning in FY 2015. Currently, the airfield at NBVC Point Mugu supports more than 35,000 flight operations (i.e., takeoffs or landings) annually. The addition of approximately five Triton UAS flight operations per day would equate to a maximum of 1,825 flight operations annually, which would represent a 5.2 percent increase in existing annual operations at NBVC Point Mugu. The Triton UAS would conduct straight in approaches and departures. The proposed operational flight profile for the Triton UAS is to climb to a final cruise altitude of approximately 58,000 feet (17,678.4 meters) above mean sea level. The Triton UAS would not conduct any closed pattern operations and they would primarily depart and arrive over the ocean (Wyle 2013).

2.1.2

Power Check Pad

A Power Check Pad would be required to support the Triton UAS. A Power Check Pad is a paved area (rectangular, square, or circular), with an anchor block in the center. It is used to perform full-power engine diagnostic testing for installed (on aircraft) engines while the aircraft is held stationary. The existing Power Check Pad at NBVC Point Mugu is approximately 19,350 square feet (ft2) (1,798 square meters [m2]). The existing Power Check Pad is not currently designed to support the wingspan of the Triton UAS. Under the Proposed Action, the existing Power Check Pad would be expanded in FY 2013 to add approximately 4,800 ft2 (446 m2). Upon completion of the expansion, the Power Check Pad would be approximately 24,150 ft2 (2,244 m2).

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

21

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 2 Figure 2-1. Project Area for the Proposed Action

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

22

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

2.1.3

Demolition and Reconstruction Activities

To provide the necessary clearance and space to accommodate the Triton UAS wingspan and expansion of the existing Power Check Pad at NBVC Point Mugu, Building 328 (air start shelter) would need to be demolished. Building 328 currently houses the aircraft air start system for the Power Check Pad. Under the Proposed Action, Building 328 (approximately 495 ft2 [46 m2]) would be demolished and a new air start shelter (providing the same functions) would be constructed (FY 2013) approximately 100 feet (31 meters) northeast of the current Building 328.

2.1.4

Maintenance Training Complex

A maintenance training complex would be required to provide training for personnel associated with the storage and maintenance of the Triton UAS. Under the Proposed Action, approximately 24,986 ft2 (2,321 m2) of space would be renovated in Building 50 (FY 2013) at NBVC Point Mugu to provide a maintenance training complex. Existing parking areas at NBVC Point Mugu would be used to fulfill parking requirements for the maintenance training complex.

2.1.5

Aircraft Wash Rack

An aircraft wash rack would be required to support the Triton UAS. The aircraft wash rack would contain the rinse water runoff from the Triton UAS. The existing aircraft wash rack, immediately south of Building 367 at NBVC Point Mugu, is not currently designed to support the wingspan of the Triton UAS. Therefore, the existing aircraft wash rack (i.e., the curbed areas) would be expanded in FY 2014.

2.1.6

Fleet Readiness Center

Building 311 (Fleet Readiness Center) at NBVC Point Mugu provides aviation maintenance, repair, and overhaul readiness support for aviation commands and support all aircraft on the installation that have Fleet Readiness Center requirements. Building 311 is the primary Fleet Readiness Center at NBVC Point Mugu; however, there are support functions for the Fleet Readiness Center located in other buildings at the installation. Under the Proposed Action, approximately 1,397 ft2 (130 m2) of space would be renovated in Building 311 (FY 2014) to facilitate scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of the Triton UAS.

2.1.7

Local Triton UAS Control Facility

A local Triton UAS control facility would be required to provide control of the Triton UAS departing and returning from the field. The local Triton UAS control facility would be a secure building that houses the controls for Triton UAS takeoff and landing. Under the Proposed Action, Building 367 at NBVC Point Mugu would be renovated in FY 2014 to provide a local Triton UAS control facility.

2.1.8

Battery Storage Facility

The Triton UAS requires batteries (lithium ion) to operate. A battery storage facility would be required to store the batteries when they are not in use. Under the Proposed Action, a new battery storage facility

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

23

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

(approximately 300 ft2 [28 m2]) would be constructed in FY 2014 as an addition to Building 385 at NBVC Point Mugu.

2.1.9

Maintenance Hangars and Pavements

The Triton UAS airframes require protection from the elements (e.g., hail, rain, wind) when not in use. It is assumed that a maximum of eight Triton UAS will be at NBVC Point Mugu at any given time: four that are assigned for operational missions and four that have been transferred to NBVC Point Mugu from another location to receive maintenance. Therefore, maintenance hangar(s) would be required to house and maintain eight Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. Under the Proposed Action, Hangar 34 would be renovated to accommodate four Triton UAS and a new maintenance hangar would be constructed to accommodate four Triton UAS. Currently, the southern portion of Hangar 34 at NBVC Point Mugu is occupied by the C-130 squadron (VR-55) and the northern portion is vacant. Under the Proposed Action, the northern portion of Hangar 34 would be renovated in FY 2014 to accommodate four Triton UAS. The total area renovated in Hangar 34 for the Triton UAS would be approximately 70,025 ft2 (6,506 m2). A small pump station (approximately 1,536 ft2 [143 m2]) for aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) would be constructed in FY 2014 as an attachment to Hangar 34. The AFFF pump station would be an integral part of the fire protection system for the Hangar 34. Under the Proposed Action, a new maintenance hangar would be constructed north of Runway 9/27 and east of Runway 3/21 in FY 2016 to accommodate four Triton UAS. The new maintenance hangar would be approximately 65,952 ft2 (6,127 m2) and would require maintenance space (approximately 45,100 ft2 [4,190 m2]), administrative space (approximately 8,697 ft2 [808 m2]), operations space (approximately 8,697 ft2 [808 m2]), and storage space (approximately 3,458 ft2 [321 m2]). The new maintenance hangar would require a maximum of up to 150 parking spaces (approximately 47,250 ft2 [4,390 m2]) and an aircraft parking apron (approximately 146,700 ft2 [13,629 m2]).

2.1.10 Storage Facility
A storage facility would be required to support the Triton UAS. Under the Proposed Action, a pre-engineered storage facility (approximately 3,000 ft2 [279 m2]) would be erected southwest of Hangar 34 in FY 2014.

2.1.11 Fire Rescue Facility
Building 367, which would be renovated to provide a local Triton UAS control facility in FY 2014, is currently occupied by the Fire Department at NBVC Point Mugu. Renovation of Building 367 would displace the fire rescue services currently occupying the building. Therefore, under the Proposed Action, a new pre-engineered fire rescue facility (approximately 2,400 ft2 [223 m2]) would be erected immediately southwest of Building 367 in FY 2014 for the installation’s Fire Department.

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

24

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37

2.1.12 Taxiway
A taxiway would be required to connect the new maintenance hangar to the airfield at NBVC Point Mugu. Under the Proposed Action, a new taxiway would be constructed in FY 2016 that would connect the new maintenance hangar to the existing airfield. The taxiway would be 750 feet (229 meters) long and 75 feet (23 meters) wide, a total of approximately 56,250 ft2 [5,226 m2]) to ensure adequate lateral wing clearance. Vertical obstructions (e.g., taxiway lights, signs, vegetation, and airfield markings) surrounding the taxiway must be less than approximately 3.4 feet (1.03 meters) tall to ensure adequate lateral wing clearance of approximately 300 feet (91 meters), or 150 feet (46 meters) from the centerline of the taxiway. The new taxiway would traverse an area with jurisdictional wetlands at NBVC Point Mugu.

2.1.13 3rd Street and Culvert Crossings
Access to the new maintenance hangar constructed at NBVC Point Mugu would be provided by 3rd Street. 3rd Street, including the existing culvert crossings (which cross jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States), is currently a 20-foot- (6-meter-) wide road located adjacent to the northeastern corner of the proposed project area. Under the Proposed Action, the road would be upgraded and widened to a 40-foot- (12-meter-) wide, two-lane road, and the existing culvert crossings would be replaced in FY 2016.

2.1.14 Personnel
Under the Proposed Action, up to 700 personnel would be stationed at NBVC Point Mugu to support the Triton UAS. The 700 personnel and their family members would gradually relocate to NBVC Point Mugu and the surrounding areas in phases (from 2014 to 2020). The personnel would conduct rotational deployments to and from OCONUS to support other Triton UAS home base locations (as they become established). Of the 700 personnel, approximately 200 would be on rotational deployment at any given time and 500 would be on-installation to support the Triton UAS at any given time. It is estimated that each of the 700 personnel associated with the Proposed Action would be accompanied by an average of about 2.4 family members. Therefore, it is estimated that up to 2,380 people (700 personnel and 1,680 family members) would be relocated to NBVC Point Mugu and the surrounding areas.

2.2

ALTERNATIVES

Under NEPA, a reasonable range of alternatives to implement a proposed action must be considered in an EA. Considering alternatives helps to avoid unnecessary impacts and allows an analysis of reasonable ways to achieve the stated purpose. To warrant detailed evaluation, an alternative must be considered reasonable. To be considered reasonable, an alternative must be capable of being implemented and must meet the purpose of and the need for an action. All airfields operated by the DOD and National Aeronautics and Space Administration were screened using a three-tier analytical process to determine which airfields would be reasonable for home basing and maintaining the Triton UAS. The screening process is summarized in the following paragraphs.

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

25

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tier I: Geographically Suitable. The airfields considered were first evaluated for geographic suitability. To be considered geographically suitable, the airfield must be located within 1,500 nautical miles of the East or West Coast of the United States. Though East Coast locations were initially considered, this EA only addresses airfields on the West Coast of the United States. East Coast locations will potentially be considered for home basing at a later date (if the need arises). Table 2-1 provides a summary of the airfields considered on the West Coast of the United States. Screening the airfields through the Tier I requirement yielded 12 airfields. Table 2-1. Summary of West Coast Home Base Location Screening Airfield/Installation* Amedee AAF Beale AFB Bicycle Lake AAF China Lake NAS Edwards AFB Fallon NAS Lemoore NAS Los Alamitos AAF NBVC Point Mugu San Nicolas Island Navy Outlying Landing Field Travis AFB Vandenberg AFB Tier I: Geographically Suitable Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tier II: Compatible Airspace No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Tier III: Compatible Facilities No No No No No No No No Yes No No No

Note: * East Coast locations were initially considered; however, this EA only addresses airfields on the West Coast of the United States. East Coast locations will potentially be considered for home basing at a later date (if the need arises). Key: AAF = Army Airfield; AFB = Air Force Base; NAS = Naval Air Station

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Tier II: Compatible Airspace. The airfields considered were further evaluated for airspace compatibility. There are three parts, or requirements, for Tier II. The first requirement is that airfields must be located within Restricted, Warning Area, or Prohibited airspace. Restricted Airspace includes airspace that is not entirely prohibited for flight activities, but it is subject to restrictions (i.e., acting agency must obtain advanced permission to operate aircraft in the airspace). Warning Area airspace includes airspace that extends from 3 nautical miles outward from the coast of the United States and includes activity that could be hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft. Prohibited Airspace includes airspace that is prohibited due to security reasons. Operating the Triton UAS from an airfield within Restricted, Warning, or Prohibited airspace is required for compliance with FAA Order 7610.4J, Special Military 145 Operations, Chapter 2, Section 9, Remotely Operated Aircraft, which restricts the UAS areas of flight to avoid potential collisions with manned aircraft. The second requirement under Tier II is that airfields must be located where approach and departure flights can be flown without overflight of populated or urban areas for the safety of the personnel and population in the surrounding areas. The third requirement under Tier II is

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

26

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

that airfields must have direct access to overwater operating areas to allow maximum operational flexibility and responsiveness. Screening the airfields through the Tier II requirement yielded 3 airfields (see Table 2-1). Tier III: Compatible Facilities. Lastly, the airfields considered were evaluated for facility compatibility. Under the Tier III requirement, the airfield must be capable of being ready to support Triton UAS operations, maintenance, and personnel by FY 2015. The airfields must not currently be used for incompatible activities (e.g., undergraduate pilot training, flight research and testing, rocket launching) by other tenants/communities. Screening the airfields through the Tier III requirement yielded 1 airfield, NBVC Point Mugu (see Table 2-1), as the installation would be able to support the Triton UAS with existing, renovated facilities beginning in FY 2013 and could ultimately provide permanent facilities to support the Triton UAS by FY 2016. Upon completion of the screening process, the Navy determined that West Coast home basing of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu would be the best supporting infrastructure solution for meeting the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. The Navy conducted a preliminary analysis of the existing facilities and infrastructure at NBVC Point Mugu and determined that the facilities included under the Proposed Action would be available and would be used to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS. In addition, the Navy is required to obtain authorization from the FAA for the operation of UAS in National Airspace. As stated in Section 1.4.4.1, in January 2012, the Navy completed an EA that identified and evaluated the potential effects from conducting the Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program at NBVC Point Mugu. The Navy obtained the required FAA Certificates of Authorization for conducting the Developmental Test Program at NBVC Point Mugu. The Navy assumes that the FAA would provide the same authorizations for the Triton UAS home based at NBVC Point Mugu.

2.2.1

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

During the initial planning process, the Navy and USAF proposed jointly basing the Triton UAS and the RQ-4B Global Hawk UAS (once airframe system upgrades were implemented) at Beale Air Force Base (AFB), California. The Global Hawk UAS is an Air Force-operated UAS that is home based at Beale AFB. Collocating the Triton UAS and Global Hawk UAS (with airframe system upgrades) would allow for shared facilities and support personnel, which would reduce cost associated with maintenance and operation for both aircraft. However, the programmatic airframe system upgrades required for Global Hawk UAS compatibility with the Triton UAS were not implemented. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further detailed analysis because the Global Hawk UAS (without airframe system upgrades) would not have the required airframe commonalities with the Triton UAS to share facilities and personnel. Subsequently, this alternative would not allow for reduced cost from shared facilities and support personnel.

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

27

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2.3

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

CEQ regulations require consideration of the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not establish facilities or functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. The No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action (as described in Section 1.3). It does, however, serve as a baseline against which the impacts of the Proposed Action can be evaluated. Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not achieve the required levels of operational readiness for the Triton UAS. The No Action Alternative will be carried forward for further detailed analysis in this EA as a baseline for comparison with the Proposed Action.

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

28

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37

CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This section provides a description of the environmental resources and baseline conditions that could be affected by implementing the Proposed Action at NBVC Point Mugu, California. In accordance with NEPA, CEQ regulations included in 32 CFR § 775, and Navy regulations, the description of the affected environment focuses on those resource areas that could be subject to impacts from implementing the Proposed Action at NBVC Point Mugu. Therefore, the level of detail used in describing a resource is commensurate with the anticipated level of potential environmental impacts. The affected environment includes the following resource areas: noise, air quality, safety, socioeconomics, transportation, biological resources, water resources, cultural resources, and hazardous materials and waste management, as these resource areas compose the main issues relevant to establishing facilities and functions to support the home basing and maintaining of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. The affected environment does not include recreation, community/emergency services, environmental justice, visual/aesthetic resources, airfield and airspace management, land use, infrastructure and utilities, and soils and topography, as these resource areas have been omitted from further detailed analysis in this EA, as discussed in Section 1.4.2.1.

3.1

NOISE

Noise can be defined as any unwanted sound. Sound is all around us and becomes noise when it interferes with normal activities such as sleep and conversation. The principal human response to noise is annoyance. Human response to noise can vary according to the type and source of the noise, the distance between the source and the human receptor, the perceived importance of the noise, its appropriateness in the setting, and the sensitivity of the person receiving the noise (i.e., receptor). The measurement and human perception of sound involves three basic physical characteristics: intensity, frequency, and duration. Intensity is a measure of the acoustic energy of the sound vibrations and is expressed in terms of sound pressure. As sound pressure increases, the energy carried by the sound increases, and the perception of loudness of that sound also increases. Frequency is the number of times per second the air vibrates or oscillates. Low-frequency sounds are characterized as rumbles or roars, while sirens or screeches typify high-frequency sounds. Duration is the length of time the sound can be detected. The loudest sounds that can be detected comfortably by the human ear have intensities that are a trillion times higher than those of sounds that can barely be detected. Because of this vast range, using a linear scale to represent the intensity of sound becomes very unwieldy. As a result, a logarithmic unit known as the decibel (dB) is used to represent the intensity of a sound. Such a representation is called a sound level. A sound level of 0 dB is approximately the threshold of human hearing and is barely audible under extremely quiet listening conditions. Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 dB and a garbage disposal has a sound level of about 80 dB. Sound levels above 120 dB begin to be felt inside the human ear as discomfort. Sound levels between 130 and 140 dB are felt as pain (Berglund and Lindvall 1995). Because of the logarithmic nature of the dB unit, sound levels cannot be arithmetically added or

3.0 Affected Environment

31

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37

subtracted and are somewhat cumbersome to handle mathematically. However, some simple rules are useful in dealing with sound levels. If a sound’s intensity is doubled, the sound level increases by 3 dB, regardless of the initial sound level (Berglund and Lindvall 1995). The following are examples: x x 60 dB + 60 dB = 63 dB 80 dB + 80 dB = 83 dB.

The total sound level produced by two sounds of different levels is usually only slightly more than the higher of the two. The following is an example: x 60.0 dB + 70.0 dB = 70.4 dB.

The minimum change in the sound level of individual events that an average human ear can detect is about 3 dB. On average, a person perceives a change in sound level of about 10 dB as a doubling (or halving) of the sound’s loudness, and this relation holds true for loud and quiet sounds. A decrease in sound level of 10 dB actually represents a 90 percent decrease in sound intensity but only a 50 percent decrease in perceived loudness because of the nonlinear response of the human ear (similar to most human senses) (Berglund and Lindvall 1995). Noise measurements assessed relative to human exposure are usually expressed using an A-weighted scale that filters out very low and high frequencies to replicate human sensitivity. It is common to add the letter “A” to the unit of measurement (dBA) to identify that the measurement has been made with this filtering process. Human hearing ranges from approximately 20 dBA (threshold of hearing) to between 130 and 140 dBA (threshold of pain).

3.1.1

Noise Modeling

Noise levels in this EA are presented through two noise metrics: Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and CNEL. SEL is a composite noise metric that represents the intensity and duration of a sound. Individual noise events (e.g., aircraft operations) have two main characteristics: a sound level that changes throughout the event and a period of time during which the event is heard. SEL provides a measure of the net impact of the entire acoustic event; however, it does not directly represent the sound level heard at any given time. During an aircraft flyover, the SEL measurement includes both the maximum noise level and the lower noise levels produced during the overflight. In California, the CNEL is the standard for airports and is used in the noise studies conducted for Navy facilities in California, including NBVC Point Mugu. The SEL metric is composed of the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) and CNEL, which account for SEL of all noise events occurring in a 24-hour period. Both the DNL and CNEL apply a 10-dB penalty to noise events occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to account for the increased sensitivity to noise events at night. CNEL differs from DNL by including a 5-dB penalty on noise events occurring between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. (NBVC 1992). Noise levels of the loudest aircraft operations significantly influence the 24-hour average. For example, if one daytime aircraft overflight measuring 100 dBA for 30 seconds occurs within a 24-hour period in a 50-dBA noise environment, the CNEL would be 65.5 dB. If 10 of the 30-second aircraft overflights occur during daytime hours in the 24-hour period, the CNEL would be 75.4 dB. Therefore, a few
3.0 Affected Environment

32

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39

maximum sound events occurring during a 24-hour period would have a strong influence on the 24-hour CNEL even though lower sound levels from other aircraft between these flights could account for the majority of the flight activity.

3.1.2

Existing Noise Environment

NBVC Point Mugu is surrounded by lands designated as residential, commercial, industrial, community services, open spaces, agriculture, and undeveloped. These surrounding areas are subject to noise from civilian and military operations, automobile traffic, and construction activities. Noise levels and land use compatibility in these areas are addressed in the AICUZ Program. The noise environment at NBVC Point Mugu is dominated by aircraft operations. NBVC Point Mugu is home to the Airborne Command, Control, and Logistics Wing, which supports the Pacific Fleet and includes four E-2C squadrons; the Naval Test Wing Pacific, which operates 43 T&E aircraft (e.g., S-3B, AH-1Z, FA-18, AV8B, P-3, and SH-60F); and Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 55 (VR-55), which operates five C-130T aircraft. Transient military aircraft include the C-40, FA-18, air carriers, general aviation, and aircraft from other Governmental agencies. Historically, aircraft operations at NBVC Point Mugu have fluctuated over the decades of operation, primarily due to changes in DOD missions. Currently, the airfield at NBVC Point Mugu supports more than 35,000 flight operations (i.e., takeoffs or landings) annually. According to a recent aircraft noise study conducted for NBVC Point Mugu (Wyle 2013), the most frequent aircraft operations conducted at NBVC Point Mugu, are by E-2C and C-130 aircraft (including C-130J aircraft); however, jet aircraft account for most of the noise complaints. E-2C and C-130 aircraft operations account for approximately 30 percent and 10 percent of the total annual aircraft operations, respectively, at NBVC Point Mugu. Transient aircraft (e.g., FA-18) account for approximately 3 percent of the total annual aircraft operations at NBVC Point Mugu (Wyle 2013). The airfield has two intersecting runways for aircraft operations: Runway 03/21, which is 11,098 feet (3,382.7 meters) long and 200 feet (61.0 meters) wide, and Runway 09/27, which is 5,502 feet (1,677.0 meters) long and 200 feet (61.0 meters) wide (Navy 2009a). Aircraft have the ability to conduct operations on a 24-hour basis; however, the airfield hours are generally from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Table 3-1 presents the SEL from departures of commonly operated aircraft at NBVC Point Mugu. The SEL provides the best representation of what people generally and immediately respond to when an aircraft flyover occurs. As shown in Table 3-1, an examination of noise from aircraft departures (i.e., typically the noisiest aircraft operation) identified that the Triton UAS, on departure, would be approximately 7 dB quieter than the E-2 and C-2 turboprop aircraft and approximately 30 dB quieter than the Super Hornet. Other sources of noise, such as general vehicle traffic; existing operational, industrial, and developed area activities; and other maintenance and landscaping activities, are a common ongoing occurrence at the installation. While these sources might contribute to the overall noise environment, they are relatively minor compared to the dominant aircraft-generated noise at and adjacent to the installation. Existing occupational noise exposure prevention procedures, such as hearing protection and monitoring, are undertaken in compliance with all applicable Navy occupational noise exposure regulations.

3.0 Affected Environment

33

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1

Table 3-1. Representative SEL for Common Aircraft Departures Aircraft Type FA-18 E/F FA-18 A/D E-2/C-2 Triton UAS Representative SEL 116 117 94 87

Note: * The representative SELs are for the aircraft listed in the table at departure.

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

3.2

AIR QUALITY

Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to be of concern related to the health and welfare of the general public and the environment and are widespread across the United States. The primary pollutants of concern, called “criteria pollutants,” include 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). Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the USEPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR Part 50) for these pollutants. Areas that are and have historically been in compliance with the NAAQS are designated as attainment areas. Areas that violate a Federal air quality standard are designated as nonattainment areas. Areas that have transitioned from nonattainment to attainment are designated as maintenance areas and are required to adhere to maintenance plans to ensure continued attainment. The NAAQS represent the maximum levels of background pollution that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. Short-term standards (i.e., 1- 3-, 8-, and 24-hour periods) are established for pollutants contributing to chronic health effects. In addition to the NAAQS for criteria pollutants, national standards exist for hazardous air pollutants, which are regulated under Section 112(b) of the 1990 CAA Amendments. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulate hazardous air pollutants emissions from stationary sources (40 CFR § 61). Hazardous air pollutants emitted from mobile sources are called Mobile Source Air Toxics. Mobile Source Air Toxics are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and nonroad equipment, which are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health and environmental effects. In 2001, the USEPA issued its first Mobile Source Air Toxic Rule, which identified 21 compounds as being hazardous air pollutants that required regulation. A subset of six of these Mobile Source Air Toxic compounds were identified as having the greatest influence on health: benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acrolein, acetaldehyde, and diesel particulate matter. In February 2007, the USEPA issued a second Mobile Source Air Toxic Rule, which generally supported the findings in the first rule and provided additional recommendations of compounds having the greatest impact on health. The second rule also identified several engine emissions certification standards that must be implemented (40 CFR §§ 59, 80, 85, and 86; Federal Register 72 No. 37, pp. 8427–8570, 2007).

3.0 Affected Environment

34

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37

Unlike the criteria pollutants, there are no NAAQS for benzene and other hazardous air pollutants. The primary control methodologies for these pollutants for mobile sources involves reducing their content in fuel and altering the engine operating characteristics to reduce the volume of pollutant generated during combustion. Air quality in a given location is described by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere. A region’s air quality is influenced by many factors including the type and amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions. 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 emissions 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.

3.2.1

General Conformity

The USEPA General Conformity Rule applies to Federal actions occurring in nonattainment or maintenance areas when the total direct and indirect emissions of nonattainment pollutants (or their precursors) exceed specified thresholds. The emissions thresholds that trigger requirements for a conformity analysis are called de minimis levels. De minimis levels (in tons per year [tpy]) vary from pollutant to pollutant and also depend on the severity of the nonattainment status. A conformity applicability analysis is the first step of a conformity evaluation and assesses if a Federal action must be supported by a conformity determination. This is typically done by quantifying applicable direct and indirect emissions that are projected to result due to implementation of the Federal action. Indirect emissions are those emissions caused by the Federal action and originating in the region of interest, but which can occur at a later time or in a different location from the action itself and are reasonably foreseeable. The Federal agency can control and will maintain control over the indirect action due to a continuing program responsibility of the Federal agency. Reasonably foreseeable emissions are projected future direct and indirect emissions that are identified at the time the conformity evaluation is performed. The location of such emissions is known and the emissions are quantifiable, as described and documented by the Federal agency based on its own information and after reviewing any information presented to the Federal agency. If the results of the applicability analysis indicate that the total emissions would not exceed the de minimis emissions thresholds, then the conformity evaluation process is completed.

3.2.2

Greenhouse Gases

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gas emissions that trap heat in the atmosphere. These emissions occur from natural processes and human activities. Scientific evidence indicates a trend of increasing global

3.0 Affected Environment

35

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

temperature over the past century due to an increase in GHG emissions from human activities. The climate change associated with this global warming is predicted to produce negative economic and social consequences across the globe. The USEPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule on 22 September 2009. GHGs covered under the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrogen oxide (NOx); and hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and other fluorinated gases including nitrogen trifluoride and hydrofluorinated ethers. Each GHG is assigned a global warming potential. The global warming potential is the ability of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. The global warming potential rating system is standardized to CO2, which has a value of one. The equivalent CO2 rate is calculated by multiplying the emissions of each GHG by its global warming potential and adding the results together to produce a single, combined emissions rate representing all GHGs. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of mobile sources and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions as CO2 equivalent (CO2e) are required to submit annual reports to the USEPA. On a national scale, Federal agencies are addressing emissions of GHGs by reductions mandated in Federal laws and EOs. Most recently, EO 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, and EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, were enacted to address GHGs, including GHG emissions inventory, reduction, and reporting. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32, directs the State of California to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The Climate Change Scoping Plan is California’s strategy to reach the GHG reduction goals required in AB 32. This plan calls for reductions in California’s carbon footprint; on a per capita basis, reducing annual emissions of 14 tons of CO2 for every man, woman, and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020. In an effort to reduce energy consumption, reduce GHGs, reduce dependence on petroleum, and increase the use of renewable energy resources in accordance with the goals set by EO 13123 (subsequently replaced by EO 13423) and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Navy has implemented a number of renewable energy projects. The types of projects currently in operation within Navy Region Southwest include thermal and photovoltaic solar systems, geothermal power plants, and wind generators. The Navy continues to promote and install new renewable energy projects within the Southwest region.

3.2.3

Existing Conditions

NBVC Point Mugu is in Ventura County, which is within the Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) and the South Central Coast Air Basin (USEPA 2012b). The South Central Coast Air Basin is made up of the San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties, California. The air quality in Ventura County (excluding the Channel Islands of Anacapa and San Nicolas Island) has been characterized by the USEPA as a serious nonattainment area for 8-hour ozone (NOx and volatile organic compounds [VOCs]). Ventura County is classified by the USEPA as unclassified/attainment for all other criteria pollutants (USEPA 2011). The California Air Resources

3.0 Affected Environment

36

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Board (CARB) regulates air quality for the State of California. The CARB has designated Ventura County as a state nonattainment area for 8-hour O3, PM10, and PM2.5, and as unclassified/attainment for all other criteria pollutants (CARB 2011). NBVC Point Mugu is in the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) and is subject to rules and regulations developed by the VCAPCD. The VCAPCD is responsible for implementing and enforcing state and Federal air quality regulations in Ventura County. The most recent emissions inventory for the South Central Coast Air Basin is shown in Table 3-2. O3 is not a direct emission; rather, it is generated from reactions of VOCs and NOx, which are precursors to O3. Therefore, for the purposes of this air quality analysis, VOCs and NOx emissions are used to represent O3 generation. Table 3-2. South Central Coast Air Basin Air Emissions Inventory (2008) NOx (tpy) San Luis Obispo County Santa Barbara County Ventura County South Central Coast Air Basin Total
Source: USEPA 2008 Key: tpy = tons per year.

VOC (tpy) 66,006.54 82,213.68 58,105.88 206,326.10

CO (tpy) 52,716.03 67,884.47 78,772.07 199,372.57

SO2 (tpy) 287.90 1,039.10 347.14 1,674.14

PM10 (tpy) 12,475.45 10,539.45 11,605.51 34,620.41

PM2.5 (tpy) 3,423.62 3,049.27 3,185.59 9,658.48

9,214.61 12,802.35 16,136.21 38,153.17

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3.3

SAFETY

The FAA is responsible for ensuring safe and efficient use of Federal airspace by military and civilian aircraft. To fulfill these requirements, the FAA has established safety regulations, airspace management guidelines, a civil/military common system, and cooperative activities with the DOD. While the chances of an accident are remote, the military also defines areas of accident potential for land use planning purposes. The AICUZ Program delineates APZs, which are areas around an airfield where an aircraft mishap is most likely to occur, if they occur. APZs are not predictors of accidents. According to a recent aircraft noise study conducted for NBVC Point Mugu (Wyle 2013), E-2C and C 130 aircraft operations account for approximately 30 percent and 10 percent of the total annual aircraft operations, respectively, at NBVC Point Mugu. Transient aircraft (e.g., FA-18) account for approximately 3 percent of the total annual aircraft operations at NBVC Point Mugu (Wyle 2013). The airfield at NBVC Point Mugu has two intersecting runways for aircraft operations: Runway 03/21, which is 11,098 feet (3,382.7 meters) long and 200 feet (61.0 meters) wide, and Runway 09/27, which is 5,502 feet (1,677.0 meters) long and 200 feet (61.0 meters) wide (Navy 2009a). In general, a runway can be used in two directions and is named for each direction separately (i.e., Runway 09 operates in one direction while Runway 27 operates in the other). There are two basic types of operations

3.0 Affected Environment

37

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37

(e.g., touch-and-go and straight-ins) that occur on Runway 03; consequently, there are two sets of APZs for Runway 03. APZs have not been established for Runway 09, which handles approximately 3 percent of all operations at NBVC Point Mugu, because there are fewer than 5,000 annual operations conducted on the runway. Runway use varies significantly by aircraft type; although, Runway 21 is the primary use runway at NBVC Point Mugu (Wyle 2013). NBVC Point Mugu maintains detailed emergency mishap response plans, which outline procedures for responding to an aircraft accident, should one occur. These plans also assign agency responsibilities and prescribe functional activities necessary for responding to mishaps, whether on- or off-installation. The initial response focuses on evacuation, fire suppression, and ensuring security of the area, followed by a mishap investigation to determine the cause(s) and prevent future mishaps. Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) is defined as the threat of aircraft collisions with birds and wildlife during aircraft operations. It is a safety concern at all airfields due to the frequency of aircraft operations and the possibility of encountering birds at virtually all altitudes. The Air Traffic Control and Environmental Project Offices have primary responsibility for implementing accident-preventative measures at NBVC Point Mugu. NBVC Point Mugu maintains and implements a BASH Plan to reduce the potential for BASH at NBVC Point Mugu by creating an integrated bird control and bird hazard abatement program. The BASH Plan is tailored to address seasonal fluctuations in bird concentrations in the vicinity of the airfield at NBVC Point Mugu. The installation’s BASH Plan establishes a Bird Hazard Working Group, which is responsible for collecting, compiling, and reviewing BASH data; identifying and recommending hazard-reducing activities; recommending operational changes when appropriate; preparing informational programs for aircrews; and serving as the point-of-contact for BASH issues. The majority of reported bird and wildlife strikes occurred with propeller-driven aircraft.

3.4

SOCIOECONOMICS

Socioeconomics is defined as the basic attributes and resources associated with the human environment, particularly characteristics of population and economic activity. Demographics, employment characteristics, and housing occupancy status data provide key insights into socioeconomic conditions that might be affected by a proposed action. Socioeconomic data shown in this section are presented at the U.S. Census Bureau Tract, Metropolitan Statistical Area, state, and national levels to characterize baseline socioeconomic conditions in the context of regional, state, and national trends. A Metropolitan Statistical Area is a geographic entity defined for use by Federal statistical agencies based on the concept of a core urban area with a high degree of economic and social integration with surrounding communities. Data have been collected from previously published documents issued by Federal, state, and local agencies and from state and national databases (e.g., U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis’ Regional Economic Information System). The following discusses the existing demographics (i.e., population), housing, employment characteristics, and schools for the cities in the immediate vicinity of NBVC Point Mugu.

3.0 Affected Environment

38

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

3.4.1

Demographics

NBVC Point Mugu is considered part of the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is the same as the area covered by Ventura County. Nearby cities include Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Camarillo, and Thousand Oaks. The Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area grew 12.6 percent from 1990 to 2000 and 10.4 percent from 2000 to 2010. The rate of growth for the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area from 1990 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010 was less than the rate of the City of Oxnard, but greater than the cities of Port Hueneme, Camarillo, and Thousand Oaks. The population of the City of Oxnard grew 19.8 percent from 1990 to 2000 and 16.1 percent from 2000 to 2010. The rate of growth for the City of Oxnard was greater than both the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area and the State of California during these time periods. The City of Port Hueneme experienced a population increase of 7.5 percent from 1990 to 2000; however, from 2000 to 2010 the city declined in population by 0.5 percent. The City of Camarillo grew 9.1 percent from 1990 to 2000 and 14.2 percent from 2000 to 2010. The City of Thousand Oaks grew 12.1 percent from 1990 to 2000 and 8.2 percent from 2000 to 2010 (Census Bureau 2012a). Overall, from 1990 to 2010, the State of California has experienced a 25 percent increase in population growth. In comparison, with the exception of the City of Port Hueneme, similar growth patterns for the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area (24 percent), and the Cities of Oxnard (39 percent), Camarillo (25 percent) and Thousand Oaks (21 percent) have been documented. Complete population data are summarized in Table 3-3.

3.4.2

Housing

Between 2000 and 2010, permits were issued for 23,9891 new residential units in Ventura County: 84 percent of the permits (20,033 permits) were issued between 2000 and 2005 and 16 percent of the permits (3,956 permits) were issued between 2006 and 2010. Similar to the rest of the state and nation, the local housing market has been directly impacted by the recession and home construction has slowed significantly. Residential building permits declined considerably in Ventura County from 2006 to 2009 in comparison to the first half of the decade (Census Bureau 2012c). As reported in the U.S. Census Bureau 2006–2010 American Community Survey (Census Bureau 2012b), there were approximately 264,305 housing units in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area. The vacancy rate was 5.7 percent, compared to 8.6 percent for California. Vacant housing units in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area numbered approximately 15,093, or 5.7 percent of all housing units, in 2010. Overall, the percent of vacant housing units was lower in the area surrounding NBVC Point Mugu than the State of California. Table 3-4 summarizes the vacant housing data for the cities surrounding NBVC Point Mugu, Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area, and the State of California.

1

Total numbers were determined using “Reported Data” for each year. Reported data include data reported from the respondent or from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Survey of Construction but exclude imputed data.

3.0 Affected Environment

39

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 Location

Table 3-3. Population Estimates (1990, 2000, and 2010) 1990 2000 2010 Percent Change 1990 to 2000 13.8 Percent Change 2000 to 2010 10.0 Percent Change between 1990 to 2010 Decade Periods 25.0

State of California OxnardThousand OaksVentura Metropolitan Statistical Area City of Oxnard City of Port Hueneme City of Camarillo City of Thousand Oaks

29,760,021

33,871,648

37,253,956

669,016

753,197

831,771

12.6

10.4

24.0

142,216 20,319 52,303 104,352

170,358 21,845 57,077 117,005

197,899 21,723 65,201 126,683

19.8 7.5 9.1 12.1

16.1 -0.5 14.2 8.2

39.0 6.9 24.7 21.0

Sources: Census Bureau 2012a, Census Bureau 2012b

2 Location State of California

Table 3-4. Vacant Housing Units (2010) Total Units 13,552,624 264,305 54, 416 8,020 25,702 46, 339 Vacant Units 1,159,772 15,093 3,132 951 1,198 1,947 Percentage Vacant 8.6 5.7 5.6 11.9 4.7 4.2

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area City of Oxnard City of Port Hueneme City of Camarillo City of Thousand Oaks
Source: Census Bureau 2012b

3 4 5 6 7 8

Military personnel stationed at NBVC Point Mugu can obtain military bachelor (officer or enlisted) quarters, privatized military family housing, or housing off-installation in the surrounding areas (Navy 2009a). Currently, on-installation housing is available at NBVC Point Mugu and an additional military housing complex is located in the City of Camarillo, which is approximately 10 miles (16 km) from NBVC Point Mugu. There are 1,781 family housing units located on- and off-installation. In addition to family housing units, there are 1,762 units for single service members (CNIC undated).

3.0 Affected Environment

3 10

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 2 3 4 5 6

3.4.3

Employment Characteristics

The total workforce in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area is approximately 441,537 people. Approximately 0.7 percent (4,315 individuals) of the workforce in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area is employed within the Armed Forces, making it the lowest employment sector of those listed in Table 3-5. Table 3-5. Overview of Employment by Industry (2011) Industry Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining Armed forces Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services Construction Educational services, and healthcare and social assistance Finance and insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing Information Manufacturing Other services (except public administration) Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services Public administration Retail trade Transportation and warehousing, and utilities Wholesale trade
Source: Census Bureau 2012b

Oxnard- Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area (percent) 5.8 0.7 8.3 5.7 18.1 8.4 2.9 10.4 4.7 12.1 4.9 11.6 3.4 3.6

State of California (percent) 2.4 0.4 9.9 5.8 20.1 6.3 2.7 9.9 5.2 12.6 4.9 11.2 4.6 3.1

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

This is comparable with the State of California, in which the Armed Forces employ only 0.4 percent (approximately 131,773 individuals) of the total workforce. Although the Armed Forces is representative of a relatively low employment sector within the regional workforce, in 2010, NBVC contributed approximately $2.0 billion in the regional economy, including $1.2 billion in industrial output, $700 million in direct payroll expenditures, and $79.5 billion in state and local tax revenues (NBVC 2010). The three largest industries and the corresponding percentage of the workforce employed within each for the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area are the education services, and healthcare and social assistance industry (18.1 percent); the professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services (12.1 percent); and the retail trade industry (11.6 percent). The construction industry represents 5.7 percent of the workforce in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area (Census Bureau 2012b). There are currently 17,307 personnel

3.0 Affected Environment

3 11

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

(11,457 military and civilian personnel and 5,850 onsite contractors) employed at NBVC Point Mugu, Port Hueneme, and San Nicolas Island (CNIC undated). Complete employment data for California and Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area are summarized in Table 3-5. Annual unemployment for the State of California shows an upward trend from 2000 to 2010, increasing from 4.9 percent in 2000 to 12.4 percent in 2010. In the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area, the unemployment rate increased from 4.5 percent in 2000 to 10.8 percent in 2010. In the City of Oxnard, the unemployment rate increased from 6.3 percent in 2000 to 14.6 percent in 2010. The unemployment rate in Camarillo increased from 3.6 percent in 2000 to 4.5 percent in 2010. The unemployment rate in Thousand Oaks increased from 3.5 percent in 2000 to 8.4 percent in 2010. Similarly, in Port Hueneme, unemployment rates in 2000 (5.0 percent) were significantly lower than in 2010 (12.6 percent). In comparison with the State of California; the cities of Port Hueneme, Camarillo, and Thousand Oaks; and the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area, the City of Oxnard generally has the highest unemployment rates.

3.4.4

Schools

The Ventura County Office of Education oversees 22 school districts and approximately 140,000 students in Ventura County (CADE 2012). NBVC Point Mugu falls within the Hueneme Elementary School District and Oxnard Union High School District. These districts include 9 elementary schools, 2 intermediate (grades 6 through 8) schools, 5 traditional high schools, 1 community day school, 2 alternative high schools, and 1 adult education school. Together, both school districts serve a combined total of approximately 25,000 students. The closest schools to NBVC Point Mugu are in the City of Oxnard, approximately 4 miles (6 km) northeast of the installation.

3.5

TRANSPORTATION

Transportation includes major and minor roadways that feed into the installation, security gates, roadways, and parking areas on the installation. The primary roadways at NBVC Point Mugu include 13th Street, Main Road, and Ronald Reagan Boulevard. The major highway accessing NBVC Point Mugu is State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway). In addition to State Route 1, other major access roads to NBVC Point Mugu are Hueneme Road, Wood Road, and Las Posas Road. There are three gates providing access to NBVC Point Mugu: Gate 1 (Main Road Gate), Gate 2 (North Mugu Road Gate), and Gate 3 (Las Posas Gate). Gate 1 is currently closed to traffic. Gate 2 is open 24 hours and provides the primary access point. Gate 3 is open during business hours from Monday through Friday and also serves as the commercial vehicle inspection point (NBVC 2012b).

3.6

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Biological resources include native or nonnative plants and animals and the habitats (e.g., grasslands and wetlands) in which they exist. NBVC Point Mugu maintains an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) that was developed in 2002 and reviewed and approved in 2007. The INRMP guides the natural resources management program and allows the installation to achieve its goal

3.0 Affected Environment

3 12

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37

of supporting the military mission, ensuring the sustainability of desired conditions on military lands, and maintaining the viability of the ecosystem.

3.6.1

Vegetation

NBVC Point Mugu consists of a developed area with little to no natural vegetation, an abandoned golf course area dominated by exotic species, and the salt marsh tidal estuary of Mugu Lagoon. The majority of the project areas for the Proposed Action are within the developed, urbanized portions of the installation, adjacent to the runways. Nonnative habitats such as drainage ditches and developed areas are generally highly disturbed and contain nonnative or invasive weedy species. Invasive plant species include pampas grass (Cortaderia spp), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), castor bean (Ricinus communis), tamarisk (Tamarix spp), and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare). Building 328 and the existing Power Check Pad are immediately south of jurisdictional wetlands, which support freshwater marsh vegetation, and Drainage Ditch 1, which is chronically flooded with standing water during the winter. Buildings 50, 311, 328, 367, and 385 and Hangar 34 are within disturbed developed areas where there is little to no vegetation (e.g., landscaping, nonnative and invasive species). On the northwestern side of the proposed maintenance hangar project area, alongside the northeastern end of the proposed taxiway, is a long, narrow section of wetlands. The wetlands contain sparse mowed wetland vegetation. In addition, there is a drainage ditch (Drainage Ditch 2a) on the southeastern side of the proposed maintenance hangar project area.

3.6.2

Wildlife and Habitat

Most of the natural resource areas at NBVC Point Mugu are associated with Mugu Lagoon. The lagoon is an approximately 2,500-acre (1,010-hectare) estuarine coastal salt marsh that provides food, nesting, sheltering, breeding, and nursery habitat for numerous species of benthic invertebrates, fish, birds, and plants. The habitats provided by Mugu Lagoon include intertidal mudflats and sandflats, intertidal salt marsh, tidal creeks, and salt pannes. Other habitats found on NBVC Point Mugu include beaches and dunes; drainage ditches; and transition, disturbed, and developed areas. Buildings 50 and 311 and Hangar 34 are within disturbed developed areas of the installation. Therefore, only habitat generalist wildlife species and those adapted to urban environments such as mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), rock pigeons (Columba livia), northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos), house sparrows (Passer domesticus), European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), rats (Rattus rattus), and raccoons (Procyon lotor) are anticipated to occur within these project areas. Developed areas of the installation do not support significant invertebrate populations. There are no water bodies that support fisheries near the project areas, within the developed portions of NBVC Point Mugu. Herpetofauna in areas of transitional disturbed habitat include California kingsnakes (Lampropeltis getulus californiae), side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis), and southwestern pond turtles (Clemmys marmorata pallida) (NAVFAC 2008). There are jurisdictional wetlands within the immediate vicinity of Buildings 328, 367, and 385; the proposed maintenance hangar project area; and the Power Check Pad that contain marsh vegetation,

3.0 Affected Environment

3 13

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39

which attracts waterfowl, blackbirds, and other wetland species. One drainage ditch, Oxnard Drainage Ditch 2, crosses from northwest to southeast, and is essentially a hydrologic conduit between Calleguas Creek and the game reserves west of the installation. Surface water persists in Oxnard Drainage Ditch 2 throughout the year and serves as an attractant to waterfowl. Oxnard Drainage Ditch 2 is a source of bird runway crossings on a daily basis, as waterfowl tend to follow the drainage ditch each morning from roosting habitat at the game reserves to loafing areas along the drainage ditch, then reversing the route each evening around sunset (NAVFAC 2008).

3.6.3

Migratory Birds

Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. § 703–712) as amended, and EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. The Navy is authorized for incidental takes of migratory birds provided that the Navy adheres to the regulations set forth in the MBTA (Authorization of take incidental to military readiness activities, 50 CFR § 21.15 [authorization] and § 21.3 [definitions]). Military Readiness Activities. Military readiness activities, as defined in the Authorization Act (50 CFR § 21), includes 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. It includes activities carried out by contractors, when such contractors are performing a military readiness activity, in association with the Armed Forces. This includes contractors training personnel on the operation of a new weapons system or testing the interoperability of new equipment with existing weapons systems. For military readiness activities, DOD installations are exempt from incidental taking of migratory birds pursuant to Section 315 of the Authorization Act for FY 2003 (Public Law [P.L.] 107-314, 116 Stat. 2458). Military readiness activities associated with the Proposed Action include Triton UAS maintenance and flight operations. Non-Military Readiness Activities. Non-military readiness activities, as defined in the Authorization Act (50 CFR § 21), includes routine operation of installation support functions (e.g., administrative offices, military exchanges, commissaries, water treatment facilities, storage facilities, recreational activities), routine operations of industrial activities, and the construction or demolition of installation support functions. Non-military readiness activities associated with the Proposed Action include construction, demolition, and renovation of facilities and functions to support the Triton UAS and the additional personnel commuting to and from NBVC Point Mugu. Every bird species at NBVC Point Mugu, excluding rock pigeons, mourning doves, starlings, and house sparrows, is protected under the provisions of the MBTA (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.) of 1918. Migratory birds have been observed nesting in the willows and other trees within the proposed maintenance hangar project area. Migratory bird species observed at NBVC Point Mugu include such species as the willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), snowy egret (Egretta thula), great egret (Ardea alba), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and western meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta). Other migratory birds include the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), and black skimmer (Rynchops niger) (Navy 2002). 3 14

3.0 Affected Environment

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

3.6.4

Bald and Golden Eagles

Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. § 668–668c), as amended. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits the take, possession, or transport of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus); golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos); and the parts (e.g., feathers, body parts), nests, or eggs of bald and golden eagles without authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This includes inactive and active nests. “Take” means to pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest, or disturb. Activities that directly or indirectly lead to a “take” are prohibited without a permit from the USFWS. According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), golden eagles can occur on NBVC Point Mugu (CNDDB 2012); however, there are no records of nests or resident golden eagles at NBVC Point Mugu. Golden eagles were common in adjacent duck clubs during the early 2000s, but now sightings are very rare. Bald eagles occur irregularly during winter. There are no records of nests or resident bald eagles at NBVC Point Mugu.

3.6.5

Protected Species

Protected and sensitive biological resources include listed (threatened or endangered) and proposed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as designated by the USFWS, state-listed threatened or endangered species, and migratory birds. In California, state-listed threatened or endangered species are protected under the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & Game Code §§2050, et seq.) that is administered by the CDFW. There are six federally listed species found year-round or seasonally at NBVC Point Mugu: salt marsh bird’s-beak (Chloropyron maritimum subsp. maritimum), light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), and tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) that was rediscovered in 2011 (NBVC 2012a). Table 3-6 presents a summary of the protected species potentially occurring on or in the vicinity of NBVC Point Mugu and the protection status for each of these species. Descriptions of the federally listed species found year-round or seasonally at NBVC Point Mugu are provided in the following paragraphs. Salt Marsh Bird’s-Beak. Salt marsh bird’s-beak is a semi-parasitic annual plant (i.e., lives for one year and dies) that extends its growing season by siphoning off nutrients from the roots of pickleweed and salt grass. The salt marsh bird’s-beak was listed as an endangered plant species by the USFWS in 1978. The resident populations of salt marsh bird’s-beak at NBVC Point Mugu are primarily distributed west of Runway 3/21. These plants typically form a ring around the periphery of the marsh in elevated or hummock areas at NBVC Point Mugu. Host plants include saltgrass and pickleweed (Navy 2009a). In August 2011, potential habitat for salt marsh bird’s-beak and areas where salt marsh bird’s-beak has grown in the past were mapped. None of the project areas associated with the Proposed Action have suitable habitat for salt marsh bird’s-beak (NBVC 2012a).

3.0 Affected Environment

3 15

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1

Table 3-6. Protected Species Potentially Occurring on or in the Vicinity of NBVC Point Mugu Common Name Scientific Name Mammals California saltmarsh shrew Elephant seal Pacific harbor seal Sea lion South Coast marsh vole Coastal whiptail* Belding’s Savannah sparrow Burrowing owl California brown pelican California least tern Ferruginous hawk Golden eagle Least Bell’s vireo Light-footed clapper rail Western snowy plover White-tailed kite Arroyo chub Tidewater goby Sorex ornatus salicornicus Mirounga angustirostris Phica vitulina richardsi Zalophus californianus Microtus californicus stephensi Reptiles & Amphibians Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri Birds Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi Athene cunicularia Pelecanus occidentalis californicus Sterna antillarum browni Buteo regalis Aquila chrysaetos Vireo bellii pusillus Rallus longirostris levipes Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Elanus leucurus Fish Gila orcuttii Eucyclogobius newberryi Plants Salt marsh bird’s-beak Coulter’s goldfields Estuary seablite Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Suaeda esteroa Endangered – – 1B.1 1B.2 1B.2 – Endangered SSC SSC – – DL Endangered – – Endangered Endangered Threatened – Endangered SSC FP Endangered, FP WL FP/WL Endangered Endangered, FP SSC FP – – – MMPA MMPA MMPA – SSC – – – SSC Federal Status CA Status/CDFW Status/CNPS List

Sources: CNDDB 2012, CDFW undated Note: * The coastal whiptail does not have an official state designation, but it is considered a sensitive species by the CDFW. Key: CA = California; CNPS = California Native Plant Society; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; MMPA = Marine Mammal Protection Act; SSC = Species of Special Concern; DL = Delisted; FP = Fully Protected; WL = Watch List; 1B.1 = Seriously threatened in California (more than 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high-degree and -immediacy of threat); 1B.2 = Fairly threatened in California (20 to 80 percent occurrences threatened/moderate-degree and immediacy of threat)

3.0 Affected Environment

3 16

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39

Light-Footed Clapper Rail. Light-footed clapper rails were listed as an endangered bird species by the USFWS in 1970, with a range extending from Santa Barbara County, California, to San Quintín Bay, Mexico. The light-footed clapper rail is a year-round inhabitant of Mugu Lagoon, with as many as 22 breeding pairs in 2012. They are dependent on coastal salt marsh habitat, which is rare in southern California. Considering the combined acreages of marshes that are regularly occupied, the vegetated marsh and most closely associated habitats at Mugu Lagoon represent more than 25 percent of potential habitat for the light-footed clapper rail in California. The wetland vegetation is dominated by pickleweed (Sarcocornia pacifica) with scattered stands of spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii), critical for their nest placement. Light-footed clapper rails forage along the interface of the mudflat and the marsh. None of the project areas associated with the Proposed Action have suitable habitat or foraging areas for light-footed clapper rails. Western Snowy Plover. The coastal populations of snowy plovers were designated as a threatened bird species by the USFWS in 1993. Western snowy plovers are year-round residents at NBVC Point Mugu. Western snowy plovers nest on sandy beaches, dry salt flats, barrier beaches, and dune-backed beaches. Nesting in Mugu Lagoon begins in mid- to late-March and is generally complete by late July. Fledglings occur on the beach until late August to early September. At NBVC Point Mugu, plovers forage on open beaches, tidal flats (primarily during the winter), and salt pannes (NBVC 2012a). Critical Habitat was previously designated for the western snowy plover at NBVC Point Mugu. However, in accordance with the Sikes Act Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. § 670a–670o) and with implementation of the installation’s INRMP, NBVC Point Mugu is exempt from Critical Habitat designation at the installation. None of the project areas associated with the Proposed Action have suitable habitat or foraging areas for western snowy plovers. California Least Tern. The California least tern was listed as an endangered bird species by the USFWS in June 1970. California least terns are only present at NBVC Point Mugu during the breeding season, wintering south of the United States. California least terns forage in almost all tidally inundated areas throughout Mugu Lagoon, with some foraging offshore. California least tern nesting colonies are found in three locations during the summer along coastal sandy beaches at NBVC Point Mugu (Navy 2009a). California least terns have been observed foraging within the drainage ditches at NBVC Point Mugu and could occur within a wetland area (NAVFAC 2008). The nearest foraging area (i.e., a segment of Drainage Ditch 2a) is approximately 1,500 feet (457 meters) downstream of the proposed 3rd Street improvements (Navy 2002). None of the project areas associated with the Proposed Action have suitable habitat or foraging areas for California least terns. Least Bell’s Vireo. The least Bell’s vireo was listed as an endangered bird species by the USFWS in June 1986 due to habitat loss restricting their breeding range and nest parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). The least Bell’s vireo prefers habitat in dense riparian vegetation dominated by willows with a lush understory. Most foraging occurs within riparian vegetation. Occasionally foraging occurs within oak woodlands and adjacent chaparral; however, these foraging areas are generally within 100 feet (30 meters) of riparian vegetation (USFWS 1989). There has been only one least Bell’s vireo confirmed at NBVC Point Mugu before 2009; however, least Bell’s vireo have been documented at several different

3.0 Affected Environment

3 17

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

locations at the installation since 2009 (Navy 2009a). None of the project areas associated with the Proposed Action have suitable habitat or foraging areas for least Bell’s vireo. Tidewater Goby. The tidewater goby was designated as endangered fish species by the USFWS on 7 March 1994. Prior to 2011, the last recorded observation of tidewater goby in Calleguas Creek was on 6 June 1940. A total of 11 individual tidewater gobies were documented during a 2011 survey conducted along a 500-foot (152-meter) stretch of the Calleguas Creek channel. There is minimal potential for tidewater goby presence within Oxnard Drainage Ditch 2 at NBVC Point Mugu. Drainage ditches in the vicinity of the proposed maintenance hangar project area are not considered potential habitat for tidewater gobies, because the ditches lack habitat components that are essential to the primary biological needs (e.g., foraging, sheltering, and reproduction) of the tidewater goby. The habitat components include coastal lagoons and estuary systems supported by a natural hydrological regime, which results in sufficient streamflow, areas of shallow water, deep pockets of permanent water, sand and silt substrate, a variety of aquatic and emergent vegetation, a diversity of prey species, and an environment free from exotic fish species. None of the project areas associated with the Proposed Action have suitable habitat for tidewater gobies. Natural resources staff at NBVC Point Mugu continue to monitor known occupied and potential tidewater goby habitat for impacts from Navy operations or sources within the Calleguas Creek watershed.

3.6.6

Marine Mammals

All marine mammals in United States waters are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 (16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq.), which requires consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) if impacts on marine mammals are unavoidable. The MMPA is administered by the NMFS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to protect and manage marine mammals. The protection of coastal marine mammal species including Pacific harbor seals, elephant seals, and sea lions is under the jurisdiction of the NMFS. Harbor seals frequent waters and haul out in Mugu Lagoon, with sea lions and elephant seals frequenting waters and individuals occasionally hauling out on beaches. There are no recorded haulout areas within the project areas for the Proposed Action; therefore, no marine mammals would be expected to occur within the project areas.

3.6.7

Essential Fish Habitat

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. § 1801–1882, as amended) requires the delineation and description of essential fish habitat (EFH) by regional fishery management councils, in conjunction with the NMFS, in fishery management plans for all federally managed fish species. The Act defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” Actions that occur outside EFH, that might affect the habitat, must also be taken into account. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) has developed habitat areas of particular concern for coastal pelagic species (CPS), salmon, groundfish, and highly migratory species. EFH for groundfish and CPS are found at Mugu Lagoon and Calleguas Creek at NBVC Point Mugu. Groundfish include rockfish (Scorpaenidae), sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria), flatfish (Pleuronectiformes), and Pacific whiting

3.0 Affected Environment

3 18

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

(Merluccius productus) that are often (but not exclusively) found on or near the ocean floor or other structures. The PFMC identified EFH for groundfish as all waters from the high-tide line (including parts of estuaries) to 11,483-foot- (3,500-meter-) deep water. CPS include finfish such as Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), Pacific chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), and market squid. The east-west boundary of EHF for CPS includes all marine and estuary waters from the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington to the limits of the exclusive economic zone (i.e., the 200-mile limit) and above the thermocline, where sea surface temperatures range between 50 and 79 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (10 and 26 degrees Celsius [°C]). A thermocline is an area where water temperatures change rapidly, typically from colder at the bottom, to warmer on top. The southern boundary of EFH for CPS is the United States and Mexico maritime boundary. The northern boundary of EFH for CPS is more changeable and defined as the position of the 50 °F (10 °C) isotherm, which varies seasonally and annually. Habitat areas of particular concern in the area of the installation include estuaries and seagrass. Habitat areas of particular concern at the installation include Mugu Lagoon and Calleguas Creek.

3.7

WATER RESOURCES

Water resources are natural and man-made sources of water that are available for use by and for the benefit of humans and the environment. Hydrology concerns the distribution of water-to-water resources through the processes of evapotranspiration, atmospheric transport, precipitation, surface runoff and flow, and subsurface flow. Hydrology is affected by climatic factors such as temperature, wind direction and speed, topography, and soil and geologic properties. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act (CWA), is intended to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. The CWA regulates the discharge of pollutants from point sources into waters of the United States. The CWA, as amended in 1987, requires each state to establish water quality standards for its surface waters derived from the amount of pollutants that can be assimilated by a body of water without deterioration of a designated use. The CWA prohibits spills, leaks, or other discharges of oil or hazardous substances into the waters of the United States in quantities that could be harmful. The CWA limits any discharge of pollutants to a level sufficient to ensure compliance with the state water quality standards. Direct discharges of effluents are regulated under numerical limitations contained in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by the USEPA or under state NPDES programs approved by the USEPA. Under the new Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Federal agencies have new requirements to reduce storm water runoff from Federal development and redevelopment projects to protect water resources. Federal agencies can comply using a variety of storm water management practices often referred to as “green infrastructure” or “low-impact development” practices (e.g., reducing impervious surfaces, using vegetative practices, porous pavements, cisterns, and green roofs).

3.0 Affected Environment

3 19

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

3.7.1

Groundwater

NBVC Point Mugu is situated in the Ventura Basin. Six aquifers have been identified in the Ventura Basin. These aquifers are divided into the lower aquifer system, including the Grimes Canyon, Fox Canyon, and Hueneme aquifers; the upper aquifer system, including the Mugu and Oxnard aquifers; and the semi-perched aquifer. The Mugu, Oxnard, and semi-perched aquifers occur at NBVC Point Mugu. Groundwater within these aquifers is recharged primarily through the unconfined aquifer, known as the Oxnard Forebay or Montalvo Basin, in the northeastern portion of the basin. Groundwater elevations are above sea level throughout the area, except in the southern portion of NBVC Point Mugu. At NBVC Point Mugu, the water table begins at a depth of 2 to 10 feet (0.6 to 3 meters) below ground surface (Navy 2002). Ventura County relies on groundwater to meet most of its water needs, and the Oxnard and Mugu aquifers are a major source of groundwater within the county for municipal, agricultural, and commercial purposes. As the rate of groundwater extraction exceeded the rate of recharge, the groundwater gradient within the aquifers began to change and resulted in seawater intrusion. There are areas where groundwater quality has been degraded due to saltwater intrusion. A distinct area of saltwater intrusion exists at NBVC Point Mugu where sea water has intruded into the Oxnard aquifer, Mugu aquifer, and the lower aquifer system to approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) from the shoreline. Groundwater quality continues to deteriorate in the vicinity of NBVC Point Mugu, especially in the lower aquifer system. Groundwater in the semi-perched aquifer contains concentrations of total dissolved solids exceeding 3,000 milligrams per liter and, therefore, is not generally used as a source of water for either domestic or agricultural purposes (Navy 2002).

3.7.2

Surface Water

NBVC Point Mugu is located in the Oxnard Plain watershed, which is the lower drainage area of the Santa Clara-Calleguas Hydrologic Unit. Calleguas Creek and its tributaries, Revolon Slough and Conejo Creek, drain a large portion (approximately 380 square miles [984.2 square km]) of the Oxnard Plain. Currently, increasing wastewater discharges and urban runoff from surrounding cities supply parts of Calleguas Creek and its tributaries with year-round flow (Navy 2002). Calleguas Creek runs through the east side of NBVC Point Mugu and empties into Mugu Lagoon, which is a large tidal estuary located in the southern portion of the installation. Calleguas Creek is the main source of fresh water to Mugu Lagoon. Other surface water bodies on NBVC Point Mugu include a system of channelized drainage ditches and culverts that drain the installation and surrounding agricultural and urban areas and empty into Mugu Lagoon. In addition, the Ventura County Game Preserve and Point Mugu Game Preserve, consisting of approximately 460 acres of artificial ponds and wetlands, are immediately west of Perimeter Road outside the installations fence line. Surface water runoff from the game reserves also supplies fresh water to Mugu Lagoon (Navy 2002). Surface runoff at NBVC Point Mugu is transported to Calleguas Creek, Mugu Lagoon, or the Pacific Ocean via a system of drainage ditches and natural channels. NBVC Point Mugu currently operates under a state-issued general permit (Permit No. CA000001) for discharge of storm water from various

3.0 Affected Environment

3 20

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

industrial facilities on the installation. As part of the permit program, NBVC Point Mugu has prepared a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control storm water discharges from the installation that could impact the water quality in Calleguas Creek, Mugu Lagoon, and the Pacific Ocean. NBVC Point Mugu also reduces the amount of pollutants in storm water discharges by implementing BMPs at industrial facilities. BMPs can include structural modifications including skimmer dams, spill-control gates, oil/water separators, and roof and canopy structures over waste storage areas; or pollution prevention training for personnel.

3.7.3

Wetlands

Wetlands at NBVC Point Mugu were delineated in 1994, 2001, 2007, and 2011. Approximately 2,153 acres of wetlands have been delineated, composing 48 percent of the total area of NBVC Point Mugu. Most of the wetlands are found south of the existing airfield and housing areas, adjacent to Mugu Lagoon. Smaller wetlands are located in the northern portion of the installation (Navy 2009a). Figure 3-1 is a photograph of the existing taxiway and wetland areas north of Runway 9/27 and east of Runway 3/21. Wetlands present in the vicinity of the project areas at NBVC Point Mugu are shown in Figure 3-2.

16 17 Figure 3-1. Photograph of Wetland Areas in the Vicinity of the Proposed Taxiway

3.0 Affected Environment

3 21

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 2 Figure 3-2. Location of Surface Waters and Wetlands at NBVC Point Mugu

3.0 Affected Environment

3 22

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

There are no wetlands or waters of the United States at the location of Building 50, Building 311, Hangar 34, or the project area for the proposed pre-engineered storage facility. There are jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States within the immediate vicinity of Buildings 328, 367, and 385; the new maintenance hangar project area; the new taxiway project area; the Power Check Pad; the aircraft wash rack; and 3rd Street. Wetlands at the locations of Buildings 328, 367, and 385; the Power Check Pad; and the aircraft wash rack are areas with no outflow. These low-lying areas flood in the winter. Buildings 328 and the Power Check Pad are also adjacent to Drainage Ditch 1, which is chronically flooded with standing water during the winter due to accumulated runoff and insufficient outflow. There is a long, narrow section of jurisdictional wetlands alongside the northeastern end of the proposed taxiway and a drainage ditch (Drainage Ditch 2a) on the southeastern side of the proposed maintenance hangar project area (see Figure 3-2). The proposed new taxiway that would connect the new maintenance hangar to Runway 3/21 would dissect the jurisdictional wetlands at the northern end of the taxiway. 3rd Street, including the existing culvert crossings, crosses over two unnamed tributaries of Drainage Ditch 2a (jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States) at NBVC Point Mugu. In addition, there are three surface water features within the proposed maintenance hangar project area; however, these features are former golf course water hazards and deemed man-made nonjurisdictional wetlands, by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Oxnard Drainage Ditch 2, which runs northwest to southeast, is a hydrologic conduit between Calleguas Creek and the game reserves west of the installation. Oxnard Drainage Ditch 2 serves to convey agricultural runoff from the Oxnard Plain to Mugu Lagoon and provides flood control for Calleguas Creek. Surface water persists in Oxnard Drainage Ditch 2 throughout the year.

3.7.4

Floodplains

Poor drainage and runoff characteristics of soils present at NBVC Point Mugu contribute to flooding issues during rain events (Navy 2002). Calleguas Creek, which flows through the eastern portion of the installation, is the main drainage course for the watershed and encompasses approximately 343 square miles (888.4 square km). Flood hazards are mitigated through a system of tide gates, storm drains, and retaining walls and berms that have been constructed around the northern and eastern perimeters of the installation to divert floodwaters. There are also two drainage ditches (Oxnard Drainage Ditch 2 and Oxnard Drainage Ditch 3) that extend across the installation and drain into Mugu Lagoon. The majority of NBVC Point Mugu lies within the 100-year floodplain for Calleguas Creek. The project areas for construction and renovation activities are within the 100-year floodplain.

3.8

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Cultural resources are remnants of past human activity that as a general rule are greater than 50 years of age. Cultural resources can be present within landscapes as districts, sites (including both archaeological sites), or isolated finds. Districts are groups of buildings, structures, and sites that are linked historically by function, theme, or physical development. Sites are the locations of a significant event, or of historical human occupation or activity. They are identified by the presence of artifacts or features within a given space. Sites have the capacity to yield important information about aspects of human history and cultures.

3.0 Affected Environment

3 23

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

Isolated finds are characterized by solitary artifacts or sparse, insignificant groupings of artifacts within a given space. Isolated finds lack the capacity to yield information important to human history and cultures. Cultural resources also include Traditional Cultural Properties, locations with enduring significance to the beliefs, customs, and practices of living communities. In particular, a Traditional Cultural Property is a place defined by its historical association with the beliefs, customs, or practices of an existing community and its continuing, contemporary importance in maintaining that community’s cultural identity. Traditional Cultural Properties are generally considered to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) if they are associated with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (1) rooted in the community’s history and (2) important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. Culturally sensitive locations called Areas of Native American Concern, which might not be considered eligible for nomination to the NRHP, could still be protected under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. In the absence of a Programmatic Agreement for NBVC Point Mugu, compliance with Section 106 for activities occurring at NBVC Point Mugu under the Proposed Action is being conducted by the NBVC command, in accordance with Section 106, as defined under 36 CFR § 800. Buildings and structures at NBVC Point Mugu include administration buildings, aircraft and missile support facilities, maintenance shops, family housing units, food service buildings, and recreational facilities. The Historic and Archaeological Resources Protection (HARP) Plan for NBVC Point Mugu provides a management framework for prehistoric resources based on past cultural resources studies on the installation. The NBVC Point Mugu Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) was produced in 2010 (NAVFAC 2010) and an update is prepared annually. The site-specific summaries and cultural resources presented in this section are referenced in the ICRMP (NAVFAC 2010). Culturally sensitive areas at NBVC Point Mugu include locations on the installation that are situated adjacent to known archaeological sites, areas that are now covered by fill or submerged, and areas where an examination of historic maps and aerial photos indicates the potential for historic resources. Documentation of historic resources includes historic overviews at NBVC Point Mugu and an inventory and evaluation of all real property (Navy 1998). The 1998 report for the inventory and evaluation provided a historic context, an intensive inventory, and evaluation of 786 buildings and structures at NBVC Point Mugu and at outlying facilities. Among 536 properties evaluated on the main installation, 11 were found to be eligible for the NRHP for their association with the development, testing, and tracking of early naval guided missile systems that were developed at NBVC Point Mugu during the early Cold War era. One of those buildings has since been demolished (Buildings 354a); the remaining NRHP-eligible buildings include 36, 55, 97, 98, 354, 375, 390, 727, 728, and 729. The California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with this determination and also concurred that the remainder of the buildings at NBVC Point Mugu were not eligible at the time the inventory and evaluation were conducted (NAVFAC 2010).

3.0 Affected Environment

3 24

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39 40

The area of potential effect (APE) for archaeological resources is defined by the limits of the construction footprint for the project areas for the Proposed Action. The APE for new construction actions and the demolition of Building 328 has the potential to contain intact archaeological deposits. However, there are no known archaeological resources located within the APE. The maintenance hangar project area is on the Point Mugu golf course, which is no longer in use. No archaeological deposits were recorded in the project area prior to construction of the golf course. The golf course was constructed on at least 10 feet (3 meters) of fill material. The excavation for new construction would not extend beyond the fill material. Once the final construction location is determined within the project area, further surveying would be conducted, including subsurface testing for the presence or absence of cultural materials, prior to construction of the maintenance hangar. In the event that intact subsurface cultural deposits are inadvertently discovered during construction, demolition, or renovation activities, the cultural deposits would be evaluated for NRHP eligibility and consultation would continue per 36 CFR § 800.4–800.6. The APE for architectural resources is limited to Buildings 50, 311, 328, 367, and 385; Hangar 34; and 3rd Street (including the existing culvert crossings). Building 50 was constructed in 1950 to serve as an instrumentation building for weapons development and is currently used as administrative offices and storage. Building 50 has been expanded several times to accommodate changing space requirements and was determined ineligible for the NRHP in 2010. Building 311 was constructed in 1965. Building 328 was constructed in 1972 to house a compressor used for the existing Power Check Pad. Building 367 was constructed in 1961 to serve as a facility to calibrate photographic equipment used in missile and target testing and evaluation; however, the evolution of photographic technology has since rendered the building obsolete for its original function. Building 385 was constructed in 1972 and modified in 1975 with an addition (i.e., an avionics maintenance and repair shop). Hangar 34 was constructed in 1950 to serve as an aircraft maintenance hangar. Hangar 34 was originally constructed with protected metal siding (i.e., a corrugated metal that is coated with asphalt); however, in 1982, the metal siding was replaced with corrugated fiberglass siding. The building was constructed with leftover World War II materials, using a standard World War II-era Navy Bureau of Yards and Docks design. These buildings serve an important function for the daily operations at NBVC Point Mugu; however, they have never been directly related to any particular Cold War asset or program; they do not represent important architectural examples of their type, period, or method of construction; and they do not embody the work of a master. Previous inventory and evaluation of these buildings has shown they do not reflect any direct or important roles in the development of NBVC Point Mugu or in the Cold War. These buildings have been used by a wide variety of personnel and are not directly associated with specific individuals important to history. In addition, these buildings do not represent the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. In some instances buildings can serve as sources of important information about historic construction materials or technologies; however, these buildings do not appear to be the principal source of important information about any historic construction materials or technologies. The excavation for expanding and widening 3rd Street would remain in the disturbed footprint (i.e., graded portion of 3rd Street that extends across the golf course), and would not extend below the depth of the existing fill material. The culverts were originally constructed to allow access to the NBVC

3.0 Affected Environment

3 25

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37

Point Mugu golf course, and are not directly related to any Cold War asset or program. Therefore, the Navy determined that none of these buildings or structures meet eligibility criteria for listing on the NRHP. The Navy initiated consultation with the California SHPO under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) on January 24, 2013. Consultation with California SHPO will continue, as appropriate, once subsurface investigations at the installation are completed. Documents related to the consultation with the California SHPO are included, as they become available, in Appendix B. The APE for traditional, religious, or cultural significance to Native American tribes is defined by the footprint of the proposed project areas. NBVC Point Mugu notified the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians of the Proposed Action and provided them a copy of the California SHPO consultation letter for review and concurrence. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians reviewed the consultation letter and provided concurrence of the findings in the letter (see Appendix B).

3.9

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES

This section describes hazardous materials and waste at the installation. Hazardous materials and waste management, asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead-based paint (LBP), and Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites are discussed. The Navy has implemented a strict Hazardous Material Control and Management Program and a Hazardous Waste Minimization Program for all activities. These programs are governed Navy-wide by applicable Chief of Naval Operations Instructions and at the installation by specific instructions issued by the Base Commander. The Navy continuously monitors its operations to find ways to minimize the use of hazardous materials and to reduce the generation of hazardous wastes.

3.9.1

Hazardous Materials and Waste Management

A variety of hazardous materials are used at NBVC Point Mugu, including petroleum, oils, and lubricants; solvents and thinners; caustic cleaning compounds and surfactants; cooling fluids (e.g., antifreeze); adhesives; acids and corrosives; paints; herbicides; pesticides; and fungicides. Hazardous materials are used for aircraft and vehicle repair and maintenance activities at the installation. Activities that generate hazardous waste include painting, solvent cleaning and degreasing, mechanical and chemical paint and rust removal, fluids change-out, electroplating, metal casting, machining, and welding or soldering. If not consumed during use, these materials, and possibly their containers, eventually would be disposed of as hazardous waste (Navy 2009a). NBVC Point Mugu is classified as a large-quantity generator of hazardous waste. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a large-quantity generator generates more than 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms) of hazardous waste, or more than 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) of acutely hazardous waste, per month (USEPA 2012a). NBVC Point Mugu has a pollution prevention program aimed at controlling, managing, reusing, and reducing the use of hazardous materials. Material that cannot be reused or recycled is managed through the installation’s hazardous waste management program. The Hazardous Waste Management Plan for NBVC Point Mugu outlines procedures for the accumulation, collection,

3.0 Affected Environment

3 26

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes. Under the Hazardous Waste Management Plan, hazardous waste is collected, transported, and disposed of by hazardous waste service contractors (Navy 2009a).

3.9.2

Asbestos

All facilities proposed for demolition and renovation were constructed prior to 1980 and, therefore, could contain ACMs. Hangar 34 was constructed in 1950 and renovated in 1987. Building 50 was constructed in 1950 and renovated in 1988. Building 311 was constructed in 1965 and renovated in 1995. Building 328 was constructed in 1972. Building 367 was constructed in 1961 and Building 385 was constructed in 1972. In accordance with Navy policies and procedures, any ACM discovered during demolition and renovation activities would be removed by state-certified individuals through the on-installation Asbestos Program Manager and disposed of at a USEPA-approved landfill. All ACMs would be handled in accordance with applicable Federal and state regulations, the Navy Region Southwest Safety and Occupational Health Program Instruction, and NBVC Point Mugu Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).

3.9.3

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

All facilities proposed for demolition and renovation were constructed prior to 1979 and, therefore, could contain PCB-contaminated materials. Hangar 34 was constructed in 1950 and renovated in 1987. Building 50 was constructed in 1950 and renovated in 1988. Building 311 was constructed in 1965 and renovated in 1995. Building 328 was constructed in 1972. Building 367 was constructed in 1961 and Building 385 was constructed in 1972. All PCB-contaminated materials are handled in accordance with applicable Federal and state regulations, the Navy Region Southwest Safety and Occupational Health Program Instruction, and NBVC Point Mugu SOPs.

3.9.4

Lead-Based Paint

All facilities proposed for demolition and renovation were constructed prior to 1978 and, therefore, could contain LBP. Hangar 34 was constructed in 1950 and renovated in 1987. Building 50 was constructed in 1950 and renovated in 1988. Building 311 was constructed in 1965 and renovated in 1995. Building 328 was constructed in 1972. Building 367 was constructed in 1961 and Building 385 was constructed in 1972. All LBP-contaminated materials are handled in accordance with applicable Federal and state regulations, the Navy Region Southwest Safety and Occupational Health Program Instruction, and NBVC Point Mugu SOPs.

3.9.5

Installation Restoration Program

Hazardous waste-disposal sites at NBVC Point Mugu are investigated under the IRP. Thirty-six sites identified at NBVC Point Mugu have known contamination or potential contamination. Of these 36 sites, 17 are undergoing further investigation and 19 are either closed with no further action required or are undergoing remediation (NBVC 2006a).

3.0 Affected Environment

3 27

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

IRP sites in the vicinity of the project areas at NBVC Point Mugu are shown in Figure 3-3. None of the project areas, with exception to Building 311, are within the immediate vicinity of any IRP sites at NBVC Point Mugu. Building 311 is within the boundaries of IRP Site 6, which was used from 1965 to 1978 to dispose of wastes from shops that generated acidic plating, wastes, paint strippers, paint sludge, thinners, and solvents. Enhanced bioremediation continues to be performed at IRP Site 6 to treat groundwater contaminants, primarily vinyl chloride (NBVC 2004). In August 2008, the Installation Commanding Officer signed a Record of Decision establishing this as the remedy for IRP Site 6 (CRWQCB 2012).

3.0 Affected Environment

3 28

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 2 Figure 3-3. Location of IRP Sites at NBVC Point Mugu

3.0 Affected Environment

3 29

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

(This page intentionally left blank)

3.0 Affected Environment

3 30

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

CHAPTER 4

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section describes the potential environmental consequences that could be expected from construction, demolition, and renovation activities; Triton UAS maintenance activities; and Triton UAS flight operations associated with home basing and maintaining of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. The potential impacts on noise, air quality, safety, socioeconomics, transportation, biological resources, water resources, cultural resources, and hazardous materials and waste management are discussed, as these resource areas compose the main issues relevant to establishing facilities and functions to support the home basing and maintaining of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. This section does not include discussion of potential environmental impacts on recreation, community/emergency services, environmental justice, visual/aesthetic resources, airfield and airspace management, land use, infrastructure and utilities, or soils and topography, as these resource areas have been omitted from further detailed analysis in this EA, as discussed in Section 1.4.2.1. For purposes of this EA, the analysis of impacts assumes the most conservative scenario (i.e., scenario expected to have the greatest potential to impact the natural and man-made environment) for each of the resource areas. It is not currently known what portion of new personnel (including their family members) would obtain housing on- and off-installation. The most conservative scenario for impacts on air quality, socioeconomics, and transportation assumes that all of the new personnel, plus their family members, would obtain non-Navy housing off-installation in the Ventura County area, and, therefore, would be required to commute to NBVC Point Mugu (approximately 30 miles [40.3 km]) each working day. Significance was determined according to Section 1508.27 of the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, as amended (43 CFR § 56003). The primary factors considered for each resource area to determine their significance, as used in NEPA, are context and intensity.

4.1

NOISE

The potential impacts of the Proposed Action at NBVC Point Mugu were assessed by considering CNEL, which is the approved standard measure of noise exposure in California (see Section 3.1.1). Noise intrudes to varying degrees on many human activities; therefore, supplemental metrics are included in the analysis to improve the public’s understanding of noise. This analysis examines how the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative compare to the current baseline conditions at NBVC Point Mugu and nearby surrounding communities.

4.1.1 4.1.1.1

Proposed Action Construction Activities

No significant impacts on off-installation populations would be expected from construction, demolition, or renovation activities associated with the Proposed Action. Construction activities can cause an increase in sound that is well above the ambient level. A variety of sounds are emitted from loaders, trucks, saws, and other work equipment. Table 4-1 lists noise levels associated with common types of

4.0 Environmental Consequences

41

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 2 3 4

construction equipment that are usually used during construction, demolition, and renovation activities. Construction equipment usually exceeds the ambient sound levels by 20 to 25 dBA in an urban environment and up to 30 to 35 dBA in a quiet suburban area. Table 4-1. Predicted Noise Levels for Construction Equipment Construction Category and Equipment Bulldozer Grader Truck Roller Excavation Backhoe Jackhammer Building Construction Concrete mixer Welding generator Pile driver Crane Paver
Source: USEPA 1971

Predicted Noise Level at 50 feet (dBA) 80 80–93 83–94 73–75 72–93 81–98 74–88 71–82 91–105 75–87 86–88

Clearing and Grading

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

To predict how exterior construction activities would impact adjacent populations, the cumulative noise from general types of construction equipment was estimated to determine the total impact of noise at a given distance. For example, expected construction noise (during daytime hours) at specified distances is shown in Table 4-2. These sound levels were estimated by adding the noise from several pieces of equipment (e.g., backhoe, loader, and dump truck) and calculating the decrease in noise levels at various distances from the source of the noise (USEPA 1971). Under the Proposed Action, most of the construction, demolition, and renovation activities would take place in industrial areas or adjacent to the airfield where buildings include hangars, garages, and paint booths. Improvements to 3rd Street (including replacing the existing culvert crossings) would occur as close as 200 feet (61 meters) from an on-installation residential area. These improvements would be the highest noise levels that populations would be exposed to under the Proposed Action. As illustrated in Table 4-1 outdoor noise levels might be as high as 82 dBA. However, the noise from construction equipment would be localized, short-term, and intermittent. In addition, this noise would last only for the duration of construction, demolition, and renovation activities and would be isolated to typical working hours. Noise levels inside residences would be attenuated by the structure of the houses themselves, usually by 15 to 25 dBA depending on whether or not the windows are open and how the house was constructed (USEPA 1974).

4.0 Environmental Consequences

42

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1

Table 4-2. Examples of Predicted Noise Levels from Construction Activities Distance from Noise Source 50 feet 100 feet 150 feet 200 feet 400 feet 800 feet 1,200 feet
Source: HDR extrapolation from USEPA 1971 Key: dBA= A-weighted decibel

Estimated Noise Level 90–94 dBA 84–88 dBA 81–85 dBA 78–82 dBA 72–76 dBA 66–70 dBA < 64 dBA

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

Occupational noise exposure prevention procedures (i.e., hearing protection and monitoring) for contractors performing construction, demolition, and renovation activities would continue to as required at NBVC Point Mugu in compliance with all applicable Navy occupational noise exposure regulations. As such, noise generated by construction activities under the Proposed Action would not be significant.

4.1.1.2

Operations Activities

The addition of approximately five Triton UAS flight operations per day would equate to 1,825 flight operations annually, which would represent a 5.2 percent increase in existing annual operations at NBVC Point Mugu. For a 5.2 percent increase in operations at NBVC Point Mugu, there would be a 0.2 dB increase in the existing noise environment. A 0.2 dB increase in the existing noise environment would not be noticeable or affect the existing noise contours at NBVC Point Mugu. This 0.02 dB increase assumes that all aircraft operating at NBVC Point Mugu put out the same level of noise energy. However, the Triton UAS is the quietest aircraft in the flight mix, about 7 dB quieter than the E-2 and C-2 turboprop aircraft and about 30 dB less than the FA-18 Super Hornet on departure. The small percentage of proposed Triton UAS flight operations relative to the total existing operations at NBVC Point Mugu would not result in significant impacts on the existing noise environment at the installation or in the surrounding areas. The potential for impacts on the existing noise environment from Triton UAS flight operations would be negligible, as the Triton UAS would spend relatively little time operating in the airfield environment. The Triton UAS would conduct straight in approaches and departures. The Triton UAS flight operations would not be conducted in a pattern over the airfields and would not include low-approaches or “touch-and-go” maneuvers that are common with other aircraft types at NBVC Point Mugu. In addition, since the existing noise levels at NBVC Point Mugu are dominated by aircraft that are louder than the Triton UAS, the Triton UAS flight operations would not be expected to produce a noticeable change in average noise levels within the areas currently exposed to noise from aircraft operations. Therefore, no significant impacts on the existing noise environment would be expected.

4.0 Environmental Consequences

43

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

4.1.2

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not establish facilities or functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. No impacts on the existing noise environment at NBVC Point Mugu would be expected from the No Action Alternative. Existing conditions would remain the same, as described in Section 3.1.

4.2

AIR QUALITY

The potential environmental impacts on local and regional air quality near a proposed Federal action are determined based on (1) the increases or decreases in regulated air pollutant emissions and (2) existing conditions and ambient air quality. As stated in Section 3.2, there are no net increases in stationary sources proposed under the Proposed Action. In addition, NBVC Point Mugu is not within 6.2 miles (10.0 km) of a Class I area. For Federal actions in nonattainment or maintenance areas, the General Conformity Rule applies. Table 4-3 presents the General Conformity de minimis thresholds by pollutant. As shown in this table, de minimis thresholds vary depending on the severity of the nonattainment area classification.

4.2.1

Proposed Action

For purposes of this EA, the analysis of impacts assumes the most conservative scenario (i.e., scenario expected to have the greatest potential to impact the natural and man-made environment) for each of the resource areas. The most conservative scenario for impacts on air quality assumes that all of the new personnel, plus their family members, would obtain non-Navy housing off-installation in the Ventura County area. Under the Proposed Action, construction, demolition, and renovation activities would take place over a 4-year period (FY 2013 to FY 2016) and Triton UAS flight operations would begin in FY 2015. The additional 700 personnel and their family members would gradually relocate to NBVC Point Mugu and the surrounding areas in phases (from FY 2014 to FY 2020). It is estimated that approximately 200 of the 700 personnel would be on rotational deployment to and from OCONUS at any given time. Under the most conservative scenario, the personnel would commute to and from NBVC Point Mugu at an average round-trip commuting distance of approximately 30 miles (48 km) each working day, which would cause a slight increase in emissions. It is anticipated that the additional vehicles would represent a small percentage of the existing traffic. In FY 2013, Building 328 (the existing air start shelter) would be demolished and a new air start shelter would be constructed, the existing Power Check Pad would be expanded, Building 50 would be renovated, and personnel would begin relocating to NBVC Point Mugu and the surrounding areas. Table 4-4 lists a conservative analysis of the proposed construction, demolition, renovation activities in one calendar year (2013) and the annual estimated emissions from the additional personnel commuting to and from NBVC Point Mugu in 2013. Emissions calculation spreadsheets and a summary of the methodology used are included in Appendix E.

4.0 Environmental Consequences

44

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 Pollutant

Table 4-3. Conformity de minimis Emissions Thresholds Status Classification* Extreme Severe Serious Moderate/marginal (inside ozone transport region) All others Inside ozone transport region Outside ozone transport region All Serious Moderate No Special Classification All 10 25 50 50 (VOCs)/100 (NOx) 100 50 (VOCs)/100 (NOx) 100 100 70 100 100 100 de minimis Limit (tpy)

Nonattainment Ozone (measured as NOx or VOCs) Maintenance CO PM10 PM2.5 (measured directly, or as SO2, or NOx, or VOC as significant precursors) SO2 NOx VOC Pb (lead) Nonattainment/maintenance Nonattainment Maintenance

Nonattainment/maintenance

All

100

Nonattainment/maintenance Nonattainment/maintenance Nonattainment/maintenance Nonattainment/maintenance

All All All All

100 100 100 25

Source: 40 CFR § 93.153 (9 January 2012) Note: * All refers to every level of classification; including, but not limited to, extreme severe, serious, and moderate/marginal. Regardless of the level of classification, the de minimis limit is the same.

2

Table 4-4. Estimated Air Emissions from the Proposed Action in FY 2013 Activity NOx tpy VOC tpy CO tpy SO2 tpy 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.42 NA No PM10 tpy 0.35 2.86 0.03 0.01 0.24 3.49 100 No PM2.5 tpy 0.34 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.80 100 No

Construction Combustion Construction Fugitive Dust Haul Truck On-Road Construction Commuter Personnel Commuting Total Construction and Operations Activities General Conformity de minimis Exceed de minimis

Construction Activities 4.49 0.41 2.17 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.77 Operations Activities 1.87 1.96 18.62 6.46 50 No 2.47 50 No 21.62 NA No

4.0 Environmental Consequences

45

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

In FY 2014, the existing aircraft wash rack would be expanded; Hangar 34 and Buildings 311, 367, and 385 would be renovated; and personnel would continue relocating to NBVC Point Mugu and the surrounding areas. In addition, a small pump station for AFFF would be constructed as an attachment to Hangar 34 and a pre-engineered storage facility and pre-engineered fire services facility would be erected in FY 2014. Table 4-5 lists a conservative analysis of the proposed construction and renovation activities in one calendar year (2014) and the annual estimated emissions from the additional personnel commuting to and from NBVC Point Mugu in 2014. Emissions calculation spreadsheets and a summary of the methodology used are included in Appendix E. Table 4-5. Estimated Air Emissions from the Proposed Action in FY 2014 Activity NOx tpy VOC tpy CO tpy SO2 tpy PM10 tpy PM2.5 tpy

Construction Activities Construction Combustion Construction Fugitive Dust Haul Truck On-Road Construction Commuter Personnel Commuting Total Construction and Operations Activities General Conformity de minimis Exceed de minimis 4.81 0.12 0.11 1.87 6.91 50 No 0.45 0.08 0.11 1.96 2.60 50 No 2.12 0.34 1.07 18.62 22.15 NA No 0.38 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.42 NA No 0.35 0.48 0.14 0.01 0.24 1.22 100 No 0.33 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.15 0.58 100 No

Operations Activities

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

There are no construction, demolition, or renovation activities proposed for FY 2015. In FY 2015, Triton UAS flight operations would begin and personnel would continue relocating to NBVC Point Mugu and the surrounding areas. The addition of approximately five Triton UAS flight operations per day would equate to a maximum of 1,825 flight operations annually, which would represent a 5.2 percent increase in existing annual operations at NBVC Point Mugu. Emissions associated with Triton UAS flight operations would stem from takeoffs and landings and maintenance activities including ground-turns and the use of ground-support equipment. Table 4-6 lists a conservative analysis of the proposed annual estimated emissions from Triton UAS flight operations and additional personnel commuting to and from NBVC Point Mugu in 2015. Emissions calculation spreadsheets and a summary of the methodology are included in Appendix E.

4.0 Environmental Consequences

46

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1

Table 4-6. Estimated Air Emissions from the Proposed Action in FY 2015 Activity NOx tpy 1.87 4.64 0.46 22.54 29.51 50 No VOC tpy 1.96 0.01 0.00 3.79 5.76 50 No CO tpy 18.62 1.69 0.19 7.47 27.97 NA No SO2 tpy 0.03 1.23 0.13 1.39 NA No PM10 tpy 0.24 0.95 0.10 1.72 3.01 100 No PM2.5 tpy 0.15 0.95 0.10 1.67 2.87 100 No

Operations Activities Personnel Commuting Triton Takeoffs and Landings Triton Maintenance Triton Ground Support Equipment Total Emissions General Conformity de minimis Exceed de minimis

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

In FY 2016, a new taxiway and maintenance hangar (including an associated parking area and aircraft parking apron) would be constructed, 3rd Street would be expanded and improved and the existing culvert crossings would be replaced, Triton UAS flight operations would continue, and personnel would continue relocating to NBVC Point Mugu and the surrounding areas. Table 4-7 lists a conservative analysis of the proposed construction and renovation activities in one calendar year (2016) and the annual estimated emissions from Triton UAS flight operations and additional personnel commuting to and from NBVC Point Mugu in 2016. Emissions calculation spreadsheets and a summary of the methodology are included in Appendix E. Table 4-7. Estimated Air Emissions from the Proposed Action in FY 2016 Activity NOx tpy VOC tpy CO tpy SO2 tpy 0.43 0.05 0.00 0.03 1.23 0.13 1.87 NA No PM10 tpy 0.38 12.95 0.75 0.01 0.24 0.95 0.10 1.72 17.10 100 No PM2.5 tpy 0.37 1.29 0.19 0.01 0.15 0.95 0.10 1.67 4.73 100 No

Construction Activities Construction Combustion Construction Fugitive Dust Haul Truck On-Road Construction Commuter Personnel Commuting Takeoffs and Landings Maintenance Ground Support Equipment Total Construction and Operational Activities General Conformity de minimis Exceed de minimis 5.35 0.2 2.34 0.63 0.45 1.85 0.06 0.07 0.62 Operations Activities 1.87 4.64 0.46 22.54 35.55 50 No 1.96 0.01 0.00 3.79 6.48 50 No 18.62 1.69 0.19 7.47 32.78 NA No

4.0 Environmental Consequences

47

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

Anticipated construction, demolition, renovation, and operations emissions would represent a negligible percentage of the air emissions inventoried locally in Ventura County and within the South Central Coast Air Basin. Appropriate fugitive dust-control measures would be employed during construction, demolition, and renovation activities to suppress emissions. Emissions associated with construction, demolition, and renovation activities would be temporary in nature. Anticipated emissions associated with the additional personnel commuting and Triton UAS flight operations would not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or SAAQS, increase the frequency or severity of a violation of any ambient air quality standard, expose sensitive receptors to substantially increased pollutant concentrations, delay the attainment of any standard or other milestone contained in a State Implementation Plan (SIP) or permit limitations, or exceed any Evaluation Criteria established by a SIP. Therefore, no significant impacts on local or regional air quality would be expected from construction, demolition, renovation, or operations activities at NBVC Point Mugu. Because NBVC Point Mugu has been classified by the USEPA as a serious nonattainment area for ozone (NOx and VOCs), a General Conformity screening analysis is required for NOx and VOCs. Emissions from implementation of the Proposed Action would be well below the applicable General Conformity de minimis thresholds for each year. As shown in Tables 4-4 through 4-7, the estimated emissions from NBVC Point Mugu would be below the USEPA de minimis significance thresholds for NOx and VOCs. None of the potential emissions would cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or SAAQS. Therefore, no significant impacts on air quality would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action. The General Conformity Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) is provided in Appendix D. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The potential impacts from proposed GHG emissions are by nature global and cumulative, as individual sources of GHG emissions are not large enough to have an appreciable effect on climate change. Therefore, an appreciable impact on global climate change would only occur when proposed GHG emissions combine with GHG emissions from other man-made activities on a global scale. GHGs are analyzed in Chapter 5 of this EA.

4.2.2

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not establish facilities or functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. No impacts on air quality in Ventura County or the South Central Coast Air Basin would be expected from the No Action Alternative. Existing conditions would remain the same, as described in Section 3.2.

4.3

SAFETY

There is no generally recognized threshold of air safety that defines acceptable or unacceptable conditions. The focus of airspace managers is to reduce safety risks through a number of measures, including providing and disseminating information to airspace users, requiring appropriate levels of training for those using the airspace, setting appropriate standards for equipment performance and maintenance, defining rules governing the use of airspace, and assigning appropriate and well-defined responsibilities to airspace managers and users. When these measures are implemented, safety risks are minimized, even though they cannot be completely eliminated.

4.0 Environmental Consequences

48

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37

4.3.1

Proposed Action

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not measurably affect safety at NBVC Point Mugu. The total number of operations conducted at NBVC Point Mugu would slightly increase with the addition of Triton UAS flight operations. The flight operations would be conducted in existing controlled airspace at NBVC Point Mugu. Currently, the airfield at NBVC Point Mugu supports more than 35,000 flight operations (i.e., takeoffs or landings) annually. The addition of approximately five Triton UAS flight operations per day would equate to a maximum of 1,825 aircraft operations annually, which would represent a negligible (5.2 percent) increase in existing annual operations at NBVC Point Mugu. This negligible increase in operations would not be expected to increase the risk of mishaps. All Triton UAS flight operations would be conducted in accordance with FAA regulations and directives, specific operating manuals, and DOD Flight Information Publications. All emergencies or malfunctions associated with the flight operations would be handled in accordance with established aircraft-specific procedures. In addition, existing SOPs at NBVC Point Mugu would be employed to ensure appropriate airspace management by all participating aircraft, which would reduce the potential for mid-air collisions. Existing emergency response plans would also be updated as necessary to account for any unique requirements of the Triton UAS. Therefore, no significant impacts on safety from aircraft mishaps or mishap response would be expected. As stated in Section 3.3, APZs follow departure, arrival, and flight pattern tracks and are based on historical accident data. The size and shape of the APZs are not affected by the number of aircraft operations conducted at an installation. The Triton UAS flight operations would be conducted in existing controlled airspace at NBVC Point Mugu; therefore, there would be no change in the existing APZs. Triton UAS pilots receive extensive training prior to controlling actual aircraft flights. This includes extensive practice of emergency procedures to minimize the potential for aircraft mishaps. Additionally, the Triton UAS is designed with multiple redundant systems and is programmed to perform predetermined maneuvers should communication with the aircraft be interrupted. These maneuvers would minimize risk of mishap. Because the Proposed Action would include Triton UAS flight operations, a BASH threat to the aircraft would be expected. NBVC Point Mugu maintains a BASH plan to reduce the potential for collisions between aircraft and birds or other animals. The BASH plan prescribes an ongoing process that involves the distribution of information and active and passive measures to control how birds use the critical areas around the airfield. Methods outlined in the plan to reduce BASH risks include habitat management (i.e., controlling grass height, eliminating bare areas, and removing dead vegetation to maintain the runway and adjacent areas in a manner least attractive to birds), bird dispersal (e.g., horns, sirens, and bird calls used to disperse birds from the airfield), and bird avoidance. Triton UAS flight operations would represent only a small increase in total annual airfield operations and NBVC Point Mugu would continue to manage BASH in accordance with the installation’s BASH plan; therefore, no significant impact on safety from BASH would be expected.

4.0 Environmental Consequences

49

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

4.3.2

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not establish facilities or functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. No impacts on safety at NBVC Point Mugu would be expected from the No Action Alternative. Existing conditions would remain the same, as described in Section 3.3.

4.4

SOCIOECONOMICS

The potential impacts of the Proposed Action at NBVC Point Mugu were analyzed by considering any changes to socioeconomic conditions. This analysis examines how the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative would impact population (i.e., demographics), housing, employment characteristics, and schools for the study area populations.

4.4.1 4.4.1.1

Proposed Action Demographics

A total of up to 700 additional personnel would be stationed at NBVC Point Mugu. Of the 700 additional personnel, approximately 200 would be on rotational deployment to and from OCONUS at any given time, with 500 on installation at any given time. It is estimated that each of the 700 personnel associated with the Proposed Action would be accompanied by an average of about 2.4 family members. Therefore, it is estimated that up to 2,380 people (700 personnel and 1,680 family members) would be relocated to NBVC Point Mugu and the surrounding areas. This would represent a minor increase of approximately 0.3 percent in the total population of the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area. Contractors associated with the proposed construction, demolition, and renovation activities would be provided by civilian contracting firms, drawing employees from a labor pool from the surrounding region. For construction projects of this duration and magnitude, the workforce is generally composed of workers that would commute to job sites rather than relocate their households. As such, the construction, demolition, and renovation activities are not anticipated to result in either an in-migration or relocation of employees to satisfy the need for temporary construction-related employment. Therefore, no increase in population would be expected from temporary workers relocating to the immediate area. During construction, demolition, and renovation activities, short-term employment provided by civilian contracting firms for up to 1 year would result in beneficial impacts on the local economy due to an increase in demand for products, services, and supplies found in the local community. It is anticipated that, given the large market for similar products, services, and supplies in Ventura County and the Los Angeles metropolitan area, this increase in demand would not result in a scarcity of such products, services, and supplies in the region. Use of these services by the temporary workers might constrict their availability to the local population; however, this would only be temporary.

4.4.1.2

Housing

The Navy provides on-installation housing for eligible military personnel in either bachelor (i.e., officer or enlisted) quarters or family housing. On-installation housing is available at NBVC Point Mugu and an

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4 10

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39

additional military housing complex is located in the City of Camarillo, which is approximately 10 miles (16 km) from NBVC Point Mugu. The additional 700 personnel that would be stationed at NBVC Point Mugu would have the choice to obtain non-Navy housing off-installation or Navy housing on-installation. Under the most conservative scenario, it is assumed that the additional 700 personnel (plus their family members) would obtain housing off-installation in the surrounding area. The additional demand for 700 housing units in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area would represent approximately 4.6 percent of the approximately 15,093 available vacant housing units in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area, based on the 2010 data. Increases in housing demand would result in the reduction of current vacant housing stock and, subsequently, increases in property tax revenue and could increase the value of homes. However, no significant impacts on housing would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action.

4.4.1.3

Employment Characteristics

The total workforce in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area is approximately 441,537 people. The additional 700 personnel that would be stationed at NBVC Point Mugu would represent an approximately 4 percent increase in the total personnel population of NBVC Point Mugu and an approximately 0.2 percent increase in the current workforce in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area. Under the most conservative scenario, it is assumed that 1,400 individuals would contribute to the regional workforce. Of the approximate 2.4 accompanying family members, 1 person is expected to be an adult and, thus, would also contribute to the regional workforce. Including the additional 700 personnel stationed at NVBC Point Mugu, this would result in a total of approximately 1,400 (i.e., 0.3 percent increase in the current workforce) additional workers contributing to the regional workforce and directly stimulating the local economy. Either scenario would result in a relatively minor addition to the existing workforce, but the increase nonetheless, would have a beneficial effect on the local economy due to an increase in demand for products, services, and supplies found in the local community. Construction, demolition, and renovation activities would initially create a temporary regional increase in employment. The construction of new buildings and facilities and renovation of existing buildings would result in beneficial effects on the construction industry due to increases in payroll, taxes, and the indirect purchase of goods and services. As a result, there would be beneficial impacts on employment. However, new construction amounted to $9.3 billion in the Los Angeles metropolitan area in 2011 (ENR 2013) and there are more than 25,000 construction workers in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area. Given the relatively small nature of the Proposed Action when compared to total construction and employment levels in the region, this project would not result in significant impacts on employment.

4.4.1.4

Schools

It is estimated that each of the 700 personnel associated with the Proposed Action would be accompanied by an average of about 2.4 family members. Therefore, it is estimated that up to 2,380 people (700 personnel and 1,680 family members) would be relocated to NBVC Point Mugu and the surrounding areas. It is likely that some of the family members would not be school-aged children. However, for the

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4 11

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the family members would consist of one adult and the remainder would be school-aged children. Therefore, the maximum number of school-aged children that would move to Ventura County is estimated to be approximately 980. This would represent a maximum increase of approximately 3.9 percent of the current public school enrollment for the Ventura County school districts for which NBVC Point Mugu is expected to affect. Assuming an approximately even age distribution of these students and an even enrollment distribution within the 20 schools in the districts, there would be an addition of approximately 4 students in each grade per school. Each elementary school in the district has approximately 4 to 5 classes per grade, so an addition of approximately 1 student per class on average would be expected. Based on this conservative scenario, no significant impacts would be expected.

4.4.2

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not establish facilities or functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. No impacts on socioeconomic resources at NBVC Point Mugu or the surrounding areas would be expected from the No Action Alternative. Existing conditions would remain the same, as described in Section 3.4.

4.5

TRANSPORTATION

The potential impacts of the Proposed Action at NBVC Point Mugu were analyzed by considering any changes to transportation and circulation at and in the vicinity of NBVC Point Mugu. This analysis examines how the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative would impact the existing road network and traffic levels that provide access to NBVC Point Mugu. The most conservative scenario (i.e., scenario expected to have the greatest potential to impact the natural and man-made environment) for impacts on transportation assumes that all of the new personnel, plus their family members, would obtain non-Navy housing off-installation in the Ventura County area, and, therefore, would be required to commute to NBVC Point Mugu (approximately 30 miles [48 km]) each working day.

4.5.1

Proposed Action

It is estimated that approximately 200 of the 700 additional personnel stationed at NBVC Point Mugu would be on rotational deployment to and from OCONUS at any given time. Under the most conservative scenario, a ratio of 1:2 vehicles to new personnel and family members is assumed. The additional vehicles (approximately 1,400) would result in additional vehicle trips along all major roadways within and adjoining NBVC Point Mugu. The additional 1,400 vehicles would result in a 4 percent increase from existing vehicle traffic currently at NBVC Point Mugu (assuming a 1:2 ratio of vehicles to the existing 17,000 personnel stationed at NBVC Point Mugu). However, over the past decade, NBVC Point Mugu has experienced a drawdown in installation personnel and operations. Subsequently, there is excess capacity for transportation and vehicles at the installation because the existing transportation system was originally designed to support a larger population. The increase of

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4 12

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37

personnel and family members associated with the Proposed Action is not expected to exceed the current capacity of the transportation system at NBVC Point Mugu. The Ventura County General Plan (VCBS 2011) states that the existing roadway system in Ventura County is generally adequate to meet present travel demands. The Ventura County General Plan also states that, in 2000, there were 500,000 licensed drivers in the county. A slight increase in traffic up to 1,400 additional vehicles commuting to and from NBVC Point Mugu would represent a less than 1 percent increase in the percentage of existing traffic. Additionally, with varying work schedules, deployment schedules, ride-sharing, and other traffic management initiatives at NBVC Point Mugu, a significant increase in traffic congestion would not be expected. Therefore, no significant impacts on transportation would be expected.

4.5.2

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not establish facilities or functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS on the West Coast of the United States. No impacts on transportation at NBVC Point Mugu or in the surrounding areas would be expected from the No Action Alternative. Existing conditions would remain the same, as described in Section 3.5.

4.6

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The potential impacts of the Proposed Action at NBVC Point Mugu were analyzed by considering any impacts on biological resources that could occur. This analysis examines how the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative would impact vegetation, wildlife, migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species (including threatened and endangered migratory birds). The level of impact on biological resources is based on (1) the importance (i.e., legal, commercial, recreational, ecological, or scientific) of the resource, (2) the portion of the resource that would be affected relative to its occurrence in the region, (3) the sensitivity of the resource to the proposed activities, and (4) the duration of ecological ramifications. Impacts on biological resources would be considered significant if species or habitats of high concern are adversely affected over relatively large areas, or disturbances cause reductions in population size or distribution of a species of special concern. A habitat perspective is used to provide a framework for analysis of general classes of effects (i.e., removal of habitat, noise, and human disturbance). Under the ESA Section 7(a)(2), each Federal agency is required to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or adversely modify or destroy designated Critical Habitat. In accordance with the Sikes Act Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. § 670a–670o) and with implementation of the installation’s INRMP, NBVC Point Mugu is exempt from Critical Habitat designation at the installation. Under the ESA, “jeopardy” occurs when an action is reasonably expected, directly or indirectly, to diminish a species’ numbers, reproduction, or distribution so that the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild is appreciably reduced. Federal agency action proponents are responsible for making one of the following effects determinations (16 U.S.C. § 1531–1543):

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4 13

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

x

x

x

“No Effect” is the appropriate determination when a proposed action would have no effect on listed species or designated Critical Habitat. For this determination, the effects of a proposed action should be temporally or spatially separated from the listed species. This determination is made by the action agency and does not require further consultation. “May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” is the appropriate determination when the effects of the action on listed species or designated Critical Habitat would be discountable, insignificant, or wholly beneficial. In order to receive concurrence with this determination, the action agency must initiate informal Section 7 consultation. “Likely to Adversely Affect” is the appropriate determination if any adverse effects on listed species or designated Critical Habitat could occur as a direct or indirect result of a proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effect is not discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. Initiation of formal Section 7 consultation would be required and the USFWS or NMFS would be responsible for completing a biological opinion on the action and could issue an incidental take statement.

4.6.1 4.6.1.1

Proposed Action Vegetation

The project areas for the Proposed Action are in highly disturbed, developed portions of NBVC Point Mugu with already impacted vegetation. The footprints of the project areas for the new maintenance hangar, parking area, aircraft parking apron, taxiway, and 3rd Street upgrades total approximately 1.4 million ft2, or 31.9 acres. The maintenance hangar would be constructed somewhere within the 1.3-million-ft2 (29.4-acre) maintenance hangar project area. As shown in Table 4-8, approximately 332,152 ft2, or 7.3 acres, would be permanently altered by impervious surface area (i.e., facilities and pavement), and vegetation would be permanently removed. However, upon completion of construction, demolition, and renovation activities, revegetation would occur in the areas not developed with impermeable surfaces. Therefore, no significant impacts on vegetation would be expected. Table 4-8. Summary of Project Areas and Potential Impacts on Vegetation Project Element New Maintenance Hangar New Parking Area (150 spaces) New Aircraft Parking Apron New Taxiway 3rd Street Upgrade Total Footprint Required Total Footprint of Project Areas Project Area Footprint (ft2) 65,952 47,250 146,700 56,250 16,000 332,152 1.4 million Project Area Footprint (acres)* 1.2 1.4 3.2 1.1 0.2 7.3 31.9

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4 14

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39

4.6.1.2

Wildlife and Habitat

Most of the natural resource areas at NBVC Point Mugu are associated with Mugu Lagoon. None of the project areas for the Proposed Action provide suitable habitat to support a diverse or abundant wildlife population. Most of the project areas are regularly maintained and are surrounded by relatively dense development. Therefore, only habitat generalist wildlife species and those adapted to urban environments are anticipated to occur within the project areas. Noise created during construction, demolition, and renovation activities and Triton UAS flight operations could result in short-term, indirect impacts on wildlife. However, construction noise would be less than the noise associated with existing aircraft operations at NBVC Point Mugu. Predictors of wildlife response to noise include noise type (e.g., continuous or intermittent), prior experience with noise, proximity to a noise source, stage in the breeding cycle, activity, age, and sex composition. It is anticipated that wildlife residing in the vicinity of the project areas would be displaced temporarily as a result of the noise from construction, demolition, and renovation activities. Given the current level of air traffic at NBVC Point Mugu, wildlife using nearby habitat would be expected to have become habituated to noise and would be expected to move temporarily to adjacent less-utilized habitat and then return to the area. A 0.2 dB increase would not be expected to produce a noticeable change in average noise levels within the areas currently exposed to noise from aircraft operations, since the existing noise levels at NBVC Point Mugu are dominated by aircraft that are louder than the Triton UAS. The increase in noise levels from Triton UAS flight operations would not impact wildlife using nearby habitat, as the wildlife would be expected to have become habituated to aircraft noise. Although responses differ among species and situations, literature has shown that in many cases wildlife that experienced noise on a consistent basis were more tolerant, showing less extreme responses than wildlife not exposed on a consistent basis (NPS 1994). No significant impacts on wildlife would be expected.

4.6.1.3

Migratory Birds

Non-Military Readiness Activities. Non-military readiness activities associated with the Proposed Action include construction, demolition, and renovation of facilities and functions to support the Triton UAS and the additional personnel commuting to and from NBVC Point Mugu. Noise created during construction, demolition, and renovation activities and from the additional personnel commuting to and from NBVC Point Mugu could result in short-term, indirect impacts on migratory birds. However, this noise would be less than the noise associated with existing aircraft operations at NBVC Point Mugu. Given the current level of air traffic at NBVC Point Mugu, migratory birds using nearby habitat would be expected to have become habituated to noise and would be expected to move temporarily to adjacent less-utilized habitat and then return to the area. Migratory birds have been observed nesting in the willows and other trees within the proposed maintenance hangar project area. Destruction of active bird nests, eggs, or nestlings from vegetation clearing, grubbing, or other site preparation and construction activities would result in a violation of the MBTA. Potential impacts on migratory birds from clearing vegetation for the new maintenance hangar could be mitigated by conducting a site survey of the project area prior to commencement of construction
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4 15

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39

activities to ensure the absence of migratory birds or by conducting construction activities outside of the migratory bird nesting season (i.e., March through September). If an active nest (i.e., nest containing intact eggs, live hatchlings, or evidence of the presence of an adult) is encountered once vegetation has been cleared and construction begins, the nest would be left in place until evidence shows the nest has been abandoned. The use of these measures or other mitigation measures, as determined necessary by the NBVC Point Mugu Natural Resources Manager, would ensure that no violation of the MBTA or EO 13186 would occur from implementing the Proposed Action. Therefore, no significant impacts on migratory birds or violation of the MBTA would be expected from construction, demolition, or renovation activities. Military Readiness Activities. Military readiness activities associated with the Proposed Action include Triton UAS maintenance and flight operations. A 5.2 percent increase in flight operations at NBVC Point Mugu would equate to a 0.2 dB increase in the existing noise environment. The increase in the existing noise environment from Triton UAS maintenance and flight operations would not be expected to produce a noticeable change in average noise levels within the areas currently exposed to noise from aircraft operations, since the existing noise levels at NBVC Point Mugu are dominated by aircraft that are louder than the Triton UAS. The increase in noise levels would not impact migratory birds using nearby habitat, as migratory birds using nearby habitat would be expected to have become habituated to noise. Although responses differ among species and situations, studies have shown that in many cases wildlife that experience noise on a consistent basis were more tolerant and showed less extreme responses than wildlife not exposed on a consistent basis (NPS 1994). Therefore, no significant impacts on migratory birds or violation of the MBTA would be expected from the additional personnel commuting to and from NBVC Point Mugu or Triton UAS maintenance and flight operations. Because the Proposed Action would include Triton UAS flight operations, a BASH threat to the aircraft would be expected. NBVC Point Mugu has prepared a BASH plan to reduce the potential for collisions between aircraft and birds or other animals. The BASH plan prescribes an ongoing process that involves the distribution of information and active and passive measures to control how birds use the critical areas around the airfield. Methods outlined in the plan to reduce BASH risks include habitat management (i.e., controlling grass height, eliminating bare areas, and removing dead vegetation to maintain the runway and adjacent areas in a manner least attractive to birds), bird dispersal (e.g., horns, sirens, and bird calls used to disperse birds from the airfield), and bird avoidance.

4.6.1.4

Bald and Golden Eagles

The Proposed Action would not result in a “take” of bald or golden eagles. There are no known nests or resident bald or golden eagles at NBVC Point Mugu. In the unlikely event a bald or golden eagle takes up residence near any of the project areas before construction, demolition, and renovation activities are implemented, NBVC Point Mugu would coordinate with the USFWS to pursue the best course of action.

4.6.1.5

Protected Species

No effect on threatened and endangered species under the ESA or CDFW species of special concern would be expected. Conservation of state-listed species is not required by Federal mandate; however, NBVC Point Mugu is taking steps to cooperate with CDFW on the conservation and protection of
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4 16

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39

state-listed species when practicable. Because of its industrial/developed use, none of the project areas associated with the Proposed Action have suitable habitat or foraging areas for salt marsh bird’s-beak, light-footed clapper rails, western snowy plovers, California least terns, least Bell’s vireo, or tidewater gobies. Most of the project areas are regularly maintained and are surrounded by relatively dense development. Therefore, only habitat generalist wildlife species and those adapted to urban environments are anticipated to occur within the project areas. Any increases in noise disturbances from construction, demolition, and renovation activities and Triton UAS flight operations would be negligible. Construction noise would be less than the noise associated with existing aircraft operations at NBVC Point Mugu. Given the current level of air traffic at NBVC Point Mugu, protected species (i.e., Federal- and state-listed threatened and endangered species and CDFW species of special concern) using nearby habitat would be expected to have become habituated to noise and would be expected to move temporarily to adjacent less-utilized habitat and then return to the area. A 0.2 dB increase in would not be expected to produce a noticeable change in average noise levels within the areas currently exposed to noise from aircraft operations, since the existing noise levels at NBVC Point Mugu are dominated by aircraft that are louder than the Triton UAS. Although responses differ among species and situations, literature has shown that in many cases wildlife that experienced noise on a consistent basis were more tolerant, showing less extreme responses than wildlife not exposed on a consistent basis (NPS 1994). Therefore, no effect on threatened and endangered species or species of special concern would be expected from increased noise associated with the construction, demolition, and renovation activities or Triton UAS flight operations. No impacts on threatened and endangered species under the ESA or CDFW species of special concern or their habitat would be expected from construction, demolition, or renovation activities or Triton UAS flight operations.

4.6.1.6

Marine Mammals

None of the proposed construction, demolition, or renovation activities under the Proposed Action would directly impact coastal or aquatic habitats that could be inhabited by Pacific harbor seals, elephant seals, or sea lions protected under the MMPA. Furthermore, implementation of environmental protection measures to control storm water runoff from project areas would prevent the degradation of water quality in the marine waters surrounding the installation. Therefore, the Navy has determined that the Proposed Action would not result in harassment of a marine mammal species by harassment or injury or mortality as defined under the MMPA. The increase in noise levels associated with the increase in flight operations would not impact marine mammals using nearby habitat, as the Triton UAS flight operations would not be conducted low over harbor seal haulout areas. Therefore, no impacts on marine mammals would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action.

4.6.1.7

Essential Fish Habitat

The Proposed Action would occur outside the boundaries of EFH and habitat areas of particular concern, which include Mugu Lagoon and Calleguas Creek. No effect on EFH or habitat of particular concern would be expected. Potential increases in storm water runoff from construction and demolition activities and increased impervious surface area upon completion of the Proposed Action would not be expected to result in increased sedimentation or other potential impacts on Mugu Lagoon or Calleguas Creek, as

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4 17

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

BMPs and other environmental protection measures (e.g., site-specific erosion- and sediment-control measures) would be implemented. Section 4.7.1.2 provides further detail regarding increases in storm water runoff at NBVC Point Mugu.

4.6.2

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not establish facilities or functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. No impacts on biological resources at NBVC Point Mugu would be expected from the No Action Alternative. Existing conditions would remain the same, as described in Section 3.6.

4.7

WATER RESOURCES

Evaluation of impacts on water resources is based on water availability, quality, and use; existence of floodplains; and associated regulations. A proposed action would be adverse if it were to substantially affect water quality; substantially reduce water availability or supply to existing users; threaten or damage hydrologic characteristics; or violate established Federal, state, or local laws and regulations. The potential impact of flood hazards on a proposed action is important if such an action occurs in an area with a high probability of flooding.

4.7.1 4.7.1.1

Proposed Action Groundwater

Renovating Buildings 50, 311, 367, and 385 and Hangar 34; demolishing Building 328 (air start shelter) and constructing a new air start shelter; expanding the existing Power Check Pad and aircraft wash rack; and erecting the pre-engineered storage facility and pre-engineered fire services facility at NBVC Point Mugu would include minor exterior site improvements (e.g., minor grading and landscaping, installation of new signage, repairs to existing slab and asphalt concrete). These activities would not be expected to result in major vegetation removal (see Section 4.6.1.1); soil compaction, as soils in the project areas are composed of fill material and have been previously disturbed; or alter the natural drainage flow, as pre-construction hydrologic connectivity would be maintained through the use of culverts and other measures, as deemed appropriate. None of the construction, demolition, or renovation activities associated with the Proposed Action would extend below ground surface to a depth that would affect the underlying aquifer. Although fuel or other chemicals could be spilled during construction, demolition, and renovation activities, implementation of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan and immediate cleanup of any spills would prevent any infiltration into groundwater resources. Any additional personnel (plus their family members) that would choose to live on-installation would result in a long-term increase in demand for potable water. However, this long-term increase in demand would not be expected to exceed existing capacity of the regional water supply. NBVC Point Mugu has experienced a drawdown (i.e., decrease) in installation personnel and operations over the past decade. Subsequently, there is excess capacity of potable water because the existing potable water distribution system was originally designed to support a

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4 18

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39

larger population. Therefore, no impacts on groundwater would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action.

4.7.1.2

Surface Water

During construction, demolition, and renovation activities, runoff from site improvements could result in a slight increase in turbidity. Potential impacts from an increase in turbidity would be minimized with implementation of BMPs (e.g., wetting of soils, silt fencing, and detention basins) and adherence to erosion and storm water management practices, as determined by the Navy, to contain soil and runoff on the project areas. Construction, demolition, and renovation activities associated with the Proposed Action are not anticipated to degrade the water quality or affect beneficial uses of surface water or groundwater resources. The Navy would be required to obtain permit coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (“Construction General Permit”) (NPDES Permit No. CAS000002) for the proposed construction activities prior to implementation of the Proposed Action. The Construction General Permit is issued by the California State Water Resources Control Board, and is an NPDES general permit for discharges from construction activities. The Navy would select, install, and maintain effective erosion- and sediment-control measures as identified and as necessary to comply with the Construction General Permit (USEPA 2012c). In addition, under the Construction General Permit, the Navy would develop an SWPPP for the proposed construction activities prior to implementation of the Proposed Action. The SWPPP would describe and ensure implementation of practices that would reduce pollutants in storm water discharges associated with construction activities at the project areas and ensure compliance with the terms of the Construction General Permit. The plan would prevent sedimentation and the introduction of pollutants to Calleguas Creek, Mugu Lagoon, and the Pacific Ocean and would prevent violations of applicable regulations and standards. Additionally, the Navy would be required to obtain a Water Quality Permit (per Section 401 of the CWA) and a wetland permit (per Section 404 of the CWA) prior to constructing the new taxiway and replacing the existing 3rd Street culvert crossings. Upon completion of construction and demolition activities, there would be an overall increase in impervious surface area at NBVC Point Mugu. The Navy is subject to the new storm water design requirements of Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (see Section 3.7.2) that require predevelopment site hydrology to be maintained or restored to the maximum extent technically feasible with respect to temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow. Additionally, the Navy is subject to the Construction General Permit post-construction requirements. Upon completion of the Proposed Action, hydrologic conditions of the areas not developed with impermeable surfaces would be restored to mimic predevelopment site hydrology. In addition, revegetation would occur in the project areas not developed with impermeable surfaces. Storm water runoff, as a result of increased impervious surface area, would be managed in accordance with the installation’s SWPPP for industrial activities, as required by the NPDES General Permit Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activities Excluding Construction Activities (“Industrial General Permit”) (NPDES Permit No. CAS000001).

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4 19

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37

Construction and demolition equipment (e.g., bulldozers, backhoes, dump trucks, and cranes) would be stored at the project areas. Fuels, hydraulic fluids, oils, and lubricants would be stored at the project areas during construction, demolition, and renovation activities to support contractor vehicles and machinery. No other hazardous materials are anticipated to be stored at the project areas. Construction contractors would follow appropriate BMPs to protect against potential petroleum or hazardous material spills. Proper housekeeping, maintenance of equipment, and containment of fuels and other potentially hazardous materials would be conducted to minimize the potential for a release of fluids into groundwater or surface waters. If a spill or leak were to occur, Navy SOPs, procedures identified in Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST) 5090.1C, and BMPs identified in the installation’s SWPPP for industrial activities and SPCC Plan would be implemented to contain the spill and minimize the potential for, and extent of, associated contamination. Additional mitigation measures to minimize the potential for adverse impacts might be required, as set forth during the Section 401 and 404 of the CWA permitting process. Therefore, no significant impacts on water quality or surface water bodies would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action.

4.7.1.3

Wetlands

Construction of the new taxiway and the proposed improvements to 3rd Street (including replacing the existing culvert crossings) would impact jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States. It is anticipated that construction of the taxiway and improvements to 3rd Street (including replacing the existing culvert crossings) would result in approximately 1 acre of impacts on wetlands and waters of the United States at NBVC Point Mugu. Consultation with the USACE and California Regional Water Quality Control Board would occur, as appropriate, to obtain the necessary permits (i.e., Section 404 and 401 of the CWA) prior to commencement of construction and renovation activities. All potential impacts on wetlands and waters of the United States would be offset by either (1) using the installation’s mitigation bank, which is currently being developed or (2) conducting a separate wetland mitigation restoration project. Details regarding the specific impacts expected on wetlands, the wetland types that would be impacted, and the required mitigation measure ratio for impacts on wetlands would be determined during the Section 404 and 401 CWA permitting process.

4.7.1.4

Floodplains

The project areas for new construction and renovation activities are within the 100-year floodplain of Calleguas Creek. The Navy has determined that there is no practicable alternative to conducting the construction and renovation activities associated with the Proposed Action in the floodplain. There are no alternative project areas available at NBVC Point Mugu that are not within the 100-year floodplain that could meet the requirements of the Proposed Action. The Navy would minimize potential impacts on the floodplain with implementation of BMPs and the installation’s INRMP. The Proposed Action would be consistent with the regulations outlined in EO 11988, Floodplain Management. Floodproofing and other flood-protection measures would be applied to the newly constructed and renovated facilities, as deemed appropriate. Therefore, no significant impacts on the floodplain would be expected.

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4 20

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37

4.7.2

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not establish facilities or functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. No impacts on water resources at NBVC Point Mugu would be expected from the No Action Alternative. Existing conditions would remain the same, as described in Section 3.7.

4.8

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The potential impacts of the Proposed Action at NBVC Point Mugu were analyzed by considering any changes to cultural resources at NBVC Point Mugu. This analysis includes a determination of the eligibility of potentially eligible structures, and the potential for impacts on these structures or any traditional cultural properties. Potential impacts on historic resources are categorized by criteria established by Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR § 800). These include “No Effect,” “No Adverse Effect,” or “Adverse Effect,” which is defined as follows: x x “No Effect” is defined as no historic properties present or there are historic properties present but the undertaking would have no effect upon them as defined in 36 CFR § 800.16(i). “No Adverse Effect” is defined as “when the undertaking’s effects do not meet the criteria of 36 CFR § 800.5(a)(1) ‘Adverse Effect’ or the undertaking is modified or conditions are imposed to avoid adverse effects.” The agency official, in consultation with the SHPO and Native American tribes, might propose a finding of no adverse effect when the undertaking’s effects do not meet the criteria of 36 CFR § 800.5(a)(1) or the undertaking is modified or conditions are imposed, such as the subsequent review of plans for rehabilitation by the SHPO and Native American tribes to ensure consistency with the Secretary’s standards for the treatment of historic properties (36 CFR § 68) and applicable guidelines, to avoid adverse effects. “Adverse Effect” is defined as when the undertaking could alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that could have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the NRHP (36 CFR § 800.5(a)).

x

4.8.1

Proposed Action

There are no known archaeological resources located within the APE for new construction actions and the demolition of Building 328. No archaeological deposits were recorded in the project area prior to construction of the golf course. The golf course was constructed on at least 10 feet (3 meters) of fill material. The excavation for new construction would not extend beyond the fill material. Once the final construction location is determined within the project area, further surveying would be conducted,

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4 21

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

including subsurface testing for the presence or absence of cultural materials, prior to construction of the maintenance hangar. The APE for architectural resources is limited to Buildings 50, 311, 328, 367, and 385; Hangar 34; and 3rd Street (including the existing culvert crossings). These buildings serve an important function for the daily operations at NBVC Point Mugu; however, they have never been directly related to any particular Cold War asset or program; they do not represent important architectural examples of their type, period, or method of construction; and they do not embody the work of a master. In addition, these buildings do not represent the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The excavation for expanding and widening 3rd Street would remain in the disturbed footprint (i.e., graded portion of 3rd Street that extends across the golf course), and would not extend below the depth of the existing fill material. The culverts were originally constructed to allow access to the NBVC Point Mugu golf course, and are not directly related to any Cold War asset or program. Therefore, the Navy determined that none of these buildings or structures meet eligibility criteria for listing on the NRHP. The Navy initiated consultation with the California SHPO under Section 106 of the NHPA on January 24, 2013. Consultation with California SHPO will continue, as appropriate, once subsurface investigations at the installation are completed. Documents related to the consultation with the California SHPO are included, as they become available, in Appendix B. The APE for traditional, religious, or cultural significance to Native American tribes is defined by the footprint of the proposed project areas. NBVC Point Mugu notified the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians of the Proposed Action and provided them with a copy of the California SHPO consultation letter for review and concurrence. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians reviewed the consultation letter and provided concurrence with the findings in the letter (see Appendix B). In the event that intact subsurface cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during construction, demolition, or renovation activities, the cultural resources would be evaluated for NRHP eligibility and consultation would continue per 36 CFR § 800.4–800.6. The NBVC Point Mugu Cultural Resources Manager would follow the procedures outlined in the installation’s ICRMP.

4.8.2

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not establish facilities or functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. No impacts on cultural resources at NBVC Point Mugu would be expected from the No Action Alternative. Existing conditions would remain the same, as described in Section 3.8.

4.9

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES

The potential impacts from the Proposed Action at NBVC Point Mugu were analyzed by considering any impacts associated with hazardous materials use and hazardous waste generation. This analysis examines how the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative would impact, or be impacted by, hazardous waste use, hazardous waste generation, asbestos, PCBs, LBP, and the IRP.

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4 22

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

4.9.1 4.9.1.1

Proposed Action Hazardous Materials and Waste Management

Construction, demolition, and renovation activities would require the use of certain hazardous materials (e.g., paints, welding gases, solvents, preservatives, sealants). It is anticipated that the quantity of products containing hazardous materials used for construction, demolition, and renovation activities would be minimal and their use would be of short duration. The quantity of hazardous wastes generated from construction, demolition, and renovation activities would be minor and would not be expected to exceed the capacities of existing hazardous waste disposal facilities. Construction, demolition, and renovation activities at NBVC Point Mugu would be similar to, and consistent with, other installation improvement actions. The installation has established measures and programs for the management of construction, demolition, and renovation activities to ensure they are conducted in compliance with Federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations. All hazardous wastes generated as a result of construction, demolition, and renovation activities would be handled under the existing DOD RCRA-compliant waste management programs and, therefore, would not be expected to increase the risks of exposure to workers and installation personnel. Therefore, no significant impacts would be expected from construction, demolition, or renovation activities. The maintenance of Triton UAS would require the use of certain hazardous materials. It is anticipated that the quantity of products containing hazardous materials used to support Triton UAS flight operations and maintenance activities would be minimal. The quantity of hazardous wastes generated from maintenance activities would be minor and would not be expected to exceed the capacities of existing hazardous waste disposal facilities. All hazardous materials and wastes would be managed in accordance with the installation’s Hazardous Materials Management Plan and Hazardous Wastes Management Plan. Therefore, no significant impacts would be expected from maintenance activities or Triton UAS flight operations.

4.9.1.2

Asbestos

Due to its known health risks, ACMs have largely been phased out of construction materials since the 1970s. However, buildings constructed after this phase-out have been known to contain ACMs. All facilities proposed for demolition and renovation were constructed prior to 1980 and, therefore, could contain ACMs. In accordance with Navy policies and procedures, these buildings and Hangar 34 would be surveyed by a state-certified inspector through the on-installation Asbestos Program Manager prior to commencement of demolition and renovation activities. Demolition and renovation plans would be reviewed by NBVC Point Mugu civil engineering personnel to ensure appropriate measures would be taken to reduce potential exposure to, and release of, asbestos. Contractors performing demolition and renovation activities would be responsible for following safety regulations and are required to conduct demolition and renovation activities in a manner that does not pose any risk to workers or personnel. Contractor responsibilities are to review potentially hazardous workplace operations and monitor exposure to workplace chemicals (e.g., asbestos, lead, hazardous materials) to ensure personnel are properly protected and unexposed. In accordance with Navy policies

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4 23

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39 40

and procedures, all ACMs would be removed by state-certified individuals prior to renovation and disposed of at an USEPA-approved landfill. Contractors would be required to adhere to all Federal, state, and local regulations in addition to NBVC Point Mugu management plans. The removal of ACM during demolition and renovation activities would be conducted in accordance with Navy BMPs and would be similar to, and consistent with, other installation improvement actions. The installation has established measures and programs for the management of ACMs to ensure they are handled and disposed of in compliance with Federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations. The removal of ACM during demolition and renovation activities would result in beneficial impacts by reducing potential exposure to ACMs; however, these impacts would not be significant.

4.9.1.3

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

All facilities proposed for demolition and renovation were constructed prior to 1978 and, therefore, could contain PCB-contaminated materials. In accordance with Navy policies and procedures, these buildings and Hangar 34 would need to be surveyed by a state-certified inspector prior to commencement of demolition and renovation activities. Demolition and renovation plans would be reviewed by NBVC Point Mugu civil engineering personnel to ensure appropriate measures would be taken to remove PCB-containing materials. PCB-containing caulk could be disposed of at a non-hazardous waste landfill permitted by the State of California. Contractors would be required to adhere to all Federal, state, and local regulations in addition to NBVC Point Mugu management plans. To ensure that PCBs are not released into the air during demolition and renovation activities, the removal of PCB-containing materials would be conducted in accordance with Navy BMPs and would be similar to, and consistent with, other installation improvement actions. The installation has established measures and programs for the management of PCBs to ensure they are handled and disposed of in compliance with Federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations. The removal of PCB-containing materials during renovation activities would result in beneficial impacts by reducing potential exposure to PCBs; however, these impacts would not be significant.

4.9.1.4

Lead-Based Paint

All facilities proposed for demolition and renovation were constructed prior to 1978 and, therefore, could contain LBP. In accordance with Navy policies and procedures, these buildings and Hangar 34 would be surveyed by a state-certified inspector through the on-installation Asbestos Program Manager prior to commencement of demolition and renovation activities. Demolition and renovation plans would be reviewed by NBVC Point Mugu civil engineering personnel to ensure appropriate measures would be taken to remove LBP. Debris containing LBP would be characterized as demolition waste or LBP-contaminated demolition debris, which would be disposed of at a USEPA-approved landfill. Contractors would be required to adhere to all Federal, state, and local regulations in addition to NBVC Point Mugu management plans. The removal of LBP during renovation activities would be conducted in accordance with Navy BMPs and would be similar to, and consistent with, other installation improvement actions. The installation has established measures and programs for the management of LBP to ensure it is handled and disposed of in compliance with Federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations. The removal of LBP during demolition and renovation activities would result in beneficial impacts by reducing potential exposure to LBP; however, these impacts would not be significant.

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4 24

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

4.9.1.5

Installation Restoration Program

Building 311 is within the boundaries of IRP Site 6. However, the renovation of Building 311 would only include interior renovations to a portion of the building. It is not anticipated that contaminated groundwater associated with IRP Site 6 would be encountered during renovation of Building 311. There are potential risks to human health from exposure of vinyl chloride contamination in the groundwater through vapor intrusion in a small interior area of Building 311. However, the current concentrations of vinyl chloride contamination in the groundwater are within the acceptable range for industrial activities, in which exposure would not result in unacceptable impacts on human health. The continued bioremediation and implementation of LUCs at IRP Site 6 ensures that current conditions in Building 311 are protective to human health and the environment. NBVC Point Mugu has established measures and programs for the management of renovation activities to ensure they are conducted in compliance with Federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations. Therefore, no impacts on or from the IRP at NBVC Point Mugu would be expected. If there is IRP infrastructure (e.g., monitoring wells, treatment systems, conveyance pipes) present at any of the project areas for the Proposed Action, project planning would include protection of IRP infrastructure to avoid disruption of clean-up activities and minimize potential impacts on IRP infrastructure.

4.9.2

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not establish facilities or functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. No impacts on hazardous materials and waste management at NBVC Point Mugu would be expected from the No Action Alternative. Existing conditions would remain the same, as described in Section 3.9.

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4 25

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

(This page intentionally left blank)

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4 26

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

CHAPTER 5
5.1

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

INTRODUCTION

CEQ regulations stipulate that the cumulative impacts analysis within an EA should consider the potential environmental impacts resulting from “the incremental impacts of the action when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR § 1508.7). Recent CEQ guidance in considering cumulative impacts involves defining the scope of the other actions and their interrelationship with a proposed action. The scope must consider overlaps in the location and timing of a proposed action and other actions. It must also evaluate the nature of interactions among these actions. Cumulative impacts are most likely to arise when a relationship or synergy exists between a proposed action and other actions expected to occur in a similar location or during a similar time period. Actions overlapping with, or in proximity to, a proposed action would be expected to have more potential for a relationship than those more geographically separated. To identify cumulative impacts, the following three fundamental questions need to be addressed: x x Does a relationship exist such that affected resource areas of a proposed action might interact with the affected resource areas of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions? If one or more of the affected resource areas of a proposed action and another action could be expected to interact, would the proposed action affect or be affected by impacts of the other action? If such a relationship exists, then does an assessment reveal any potentially significant impacts not identified when a proposed action is considered alone?

x

The scope of the cumulative impacts analysis involves both the geographic extent of the impacts and the timeframe in which the impacts could be expected to occur. It is possible that analysis of cumulative impacts might go beyond the scope of the project-specific direct and indirect impacts to include expanded geographic and time boundaries and a focus on broad resource sustainability. This approach is becoming increasingly important as growing evidence suggests that the most significant impacts result from the combination of individual, often minor, impacts of multiple actions over time. The underlying issue is whether or not a resource can adequately recover from the impact of an action before the environment is exposed to a subsequent action(s). As discussed in Chapter 4, potential environmental impacts from implementing the Proposed Action would be expected from construction, demolition, and renovation activities; the minor increase in population associated with the additional 700 personnel; and Triton UAS flight operations. Potential interactions with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions would be those actions that involve ground-disturbing activities, changes in population levels at NBVC Point Mugu, and aircraft operations at NBVC Point Mugu. For the purposes of this cumulative impacts analysis, construction and demolition activities are grouped together as general ground-disturbing or construction activities.

5.0 Cumulative Impacts

51

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

The temporal span of the Proposed Action is considered the time during which the facilities would be constructed, personnel would be stationed, and the first years of operation (i.e., FY 2013 through FY 2020). The spatial area of consideration for potential cumulative impacts varies by resource area. The spatial area of consideration for some resources might only include the project boundaries, such as for geological resources. Projects having significant air emissions within the Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate AQCR might be important for air quality. Therefore, given the large geographical area that could be considered for potential effects, this cumulative impacts analysis focuses on projects within the boundaries of NBVC Point Mugu and projects in the vicinity of NBVC Point Mugu that affect common resources.

5.2

PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS

Various types of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions not related to the Proposed Action have the potential to affect the resources identified in Chapter 3. The overview of these actions in this section emphasizes components of the activities that are relevant to the impact analyses in Chapter 4. Geographic distribution, intensity, duration, and historical effects of similar activities are considered when determining whether a particular activity might contribute cumulatively and significantly to the impacts of the Proposed Action on the resource areas identified in Chapter 3. Based on a review of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions at NBVC Point Mugu and the region (i.e., Ventura County), it was determined that several actions should be considered when analyzing the potential cumulative impacts of the actions. The projects listed in this section are those that have the greatest potential to impact cumulatively the resources assessed in this EA. These projects are described in the following sections, and the impacts from these projects, in combination with the impacts from the Proposed Action, are described in Section 5.3.

5.2.1

Federal Actions

NBVC Point Mugu Sea Range Countermeasures
The Navy (Naval Air Systems Command) prepared an EA for Point Mugu Sea Range Countermeasures (Navy 2012c) for conducting additional types of countermeasures testing on the Sea Range at NBVC Point Mugu and San Nicolas Island. Countermeasures testing addressed in this EA included directed energy (e.g., high-energy lasers and high-power microwave systems), small arms, missiles, flares, and electronic support systems in nearshore areas at NBVC Point Mugu and San Nicolas Island. For the purposes of this EA, small arms included bullets fired from close-in weapon systems and projectiles up to 5 inches (13 centimeters) in diameter. Effective countermeasure systems testing requires realistic conditions that (1) exist on the Sea Range over land, (2) are in littoral (i.e., nearshore) environments, and (3) are in the open ocean (Navy 2012c).

Expansion of Unmanned Systems Operations on the Point Mugu Sea Range
The Navy (Naval Air Systems Command) prepared an EA/OEA for the proposed expansion of unmanned systems testing and training on the Point Mugu Sea Range, which includes land areas at NBVC Point

5.0 Cumulative Impacts

52

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39

Mugu, NBVC Port Hueneme, and San Nicolas Island (Navy 2012d). The Navy has recently developed a Draft EA/OEA (October 2012). Unmanned systems operations are planned to begin in January 2013. Currently, NBVC Point Mugu approves unmanned systems operations on a case-by-case basis on NBVC-owned property. Under this proposal, capabilities of the Sea Range would be expanded to include UAS and unmanned surface vehicle (USV) exercises up to 250 days per year, with duration of each exercise lasting between 1 hour and 7 days. Under the preferred alternative in the EA/OEA, UAS, and USV operations would be initiated from NBVC Point Mugu and San Nicolas Island, with marine vessels launched from NBVC Port Hueneme. An increase in personnel would be required for the launch and recovery of the vehicles, command and control of the vehicles, and maintenance of the systems and associated equipment. It is anticipated that UAV and USV exercises would begin in 2013.

EA/OEA for the Navy MQ-4C Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program
The Navy prepared an EA/OEA that analyzed the potential effects associated with conducting the Navy’s MQ-4C Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program at NBVC Point Mugu, California (Navy 2012b). The Developmental Test Program would be conducted over a 3-year period beginning in FY 2013 at a number of contractor and DOD facilities and ranges. The Developmental Test Program evaluated the operational capabilities of the Triton UAS in a variety of mission scenarios. The EA/OEA evaluated two alternatives for staging the Developmental Test Program: (1) NBVC Point Mugu, with portions of the testing requirements occurring at the Sea Range, California, and Northrop Grumman Corporation facility in Palmdale, California; and (2) NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, with secondary locations at the Northrop Grumman Corporation facility in Palmdale, California, and NBVC Point Mugu. In total, approximately 2,270 flight-hours are planned for the entire Developmental Test Program. Initially, 2 flights per week averaging 8 hours per flight would occur. Test flights would progress to 4 flights per week and increase in duration until a 24-hour duration for 7 days can be demonstrated. This program would require approximately 125 personnel. No new infrastructure is expected to be constructed. The preferred alternative for the EA/OEA would include a combination of flight hours between the primary location at NAS Patuxent River in Maryland (1,787 flight hours), and secondary locations at Northrop Grumman Corporation Palmdale in California (363 flight hours), and NBVC Point Mugu (120 flight hours). This program would be implemented between FY 2013 and FY 2015.

Homeporting the Littoral Combat Ship
An EA was prepared to identify and evaluate the potential environmental consequences associated with providing facilities and functions to homeport the Littoral Combat Ship on the West Coast of the United States. The homeporting will be conducted in phases over a period of 8 years, beginning in FY 2013. Naval Base San Diego was selected as the homeporting location, though activities associated with homeporting vessels, stationing personnel, and constructing facilities at Naval Base San Diego would have no potential for cumulative impacts at NBVC Point Mugu, and actions at Naval Base San Diego are not discussed in further detail in this EA. The MQ-8B Firescout, a UAS, is one of the supporting aerial systems associated with the Littoral Combat Ships, and the FONSI and Final Environmental Assessment for the Homeporting of the Littoral Combat Ship on the West Coast of the United States support the decision to store, maintain, and conduct test flights of the Firescout at NBVC Point Mugu (Navy 2012a).

5.0 Cumulative Impacts

53

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

Up to 40 operational Firescouts would be required to support the mission modules associated with the Littoral Combat Ships homeported on the West Coast of the United States. The procurement of these 40 Firescouts would occur in phases over a 4-year period from FY 2013 to FY 2016 with the first deployment of a Firescout onboard a Littoral Combat Ship anticipated in FY 2013. Firescout test flights would be required to verify that maintenance has been performed properly. Test flights would consist of preprogrammed profiles and would total approximately 5 hours per month of flying time for all Firescouts. Up to 10 test flights could be conducted each month at NBVC Point Mugu. Storage and maintenance facilities would also be required to support the Firescouts. While on shore, up to eight Firescouts could be in a maintenance cycle at any one time and would need access to an airfield flight line for test flights. The Firescouts not in a maintenance cycle would be stored in a preserved state (i.e., defueled with the battery disconnected) to preserve airframe life. To support the storage, maintenance, and test flights of Firescouts at NBVC Point Mugu, 27 on-installation support personnel would be stationed, or based, at NBVC Point Mugu (Navy 2012a).

Transition to E-2D Advanced Hawkeye
In 2009, the Navy prepared the Final Environmental Assessment for the Transition of the E-2C Advanced Hawkeye, Naval Station Norfolk, VA, Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, CA; a FONSI was signed 9 February 2009 (Navy 2009a, Navy 2009b). The Navy proposes to provide facilities and functions to support the replacement of 44 E-2C aircraft with 57 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft at established Airborne Early Warning home bases. The transition to the E-2D Advance Hawkeye began in FY 2011 and is expected be completed in FY 2022. For the purposes of this cumulative impacts analysis, it is assumed that five fleet squadrons consisting of 25 Advanced Hawkeye would be based at NBVC Point Mugu. It is anticipated that the full transition to the Advanced Hawkeye would take approximately 11 years. Completion of the Advanced Hawkeye transition would result in an increase in the number of squadrons and the number of aircraft per squadron already there (approximately 200 personnel).

Implementing the Bird/Wildlife-Aircraft Strike Hazard Management Plan
The Navy prepared an EA for the implementation of the BASH Management Plan at NBVC Point Mugu in 2008 (NAVFAC 2008). In addition to ongoing BASH management techniques, the Navy proposed various habitat modification projects, including specific grassland and wetland management, and several specific wildlife exclusion projects. The EA identified that 4.9 acres of wetlands would be filled, 28.3 acres of brackish and freshwater marsh and 360.4 acres of transition disturbed habitat would be subject to mowing and vegetation removal, and wildlife abundance near the runways would be permanently excluded. Wetland losses would be offset by using the installation’s existing wetland mitigation bank or by creating new mitigation projects. Operation or equipment and construction would generate minor air emissions. Implementation of BASH management would be expected to reduce hazards that pose a risk to aviation safety.

5.0 Cumulative Impacts

54

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37

5.2.2

Non-Federal Actions

Ventura County General Plan
In 2011, Ventura County updated the General Plan to extend the planning horizon from 2010 to 2020. The updates included updating population, dwelling unit, and employment forecasts; updating transportation and circulation impacts and noise impacts based on updated traffic forecasts; updating appendices based on the updated population, dwelling unit, and employment forecasts; and incorporating specific amendments as directed by the County Board of Supervisors (VCBS 2011). The General Plan identified impacts on air quality, biological resources, agricultural resources, scenic resources, paleontological resources, cultural resources, coastal beaches and sand dunes, fire protection services, hazardous materials and waste and public health, noise and vibration, transportation circulation, airports and airport hazards, water resources and water supply, utilities and energy resources, education facilities, recreational facilities, community character, and housing as a result of direct and induced growth and road projects.

Ormond Beach Environmental Impact Report
The Ormond Beach Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report was developed in 2009 (Oxnard Development Services 2009). The Ormond Beach Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressed the 916.8-acre Ormond Beach Specific Plan Study Area on the Oxnard Plain in unincorporated Ventura County, California, immediately outside the southeastern city limits of the City of Oxnard. The Study Area is currently almost exclusively used for agricultural activities. The Study Area is adjacent to the perimeter of NBVC Point Mugu and is divided into subareas by Hueneme Road: the 322.9-acre Northern Subarea and the 594.8-acre Southern Subarea. The Northern Subarea is proposed to be annexed as the South Shore Specific Plan project area, while a portion of the Southern Subarea would be annexed as the South Ormond Beach Specific project area. The South Shore Specific Plan calls for a variety of residential uses, a small amount of mixed-use commercial development, an elementary school, a high school, a man-made lake, and supporting park and open spaces. The South Ormond Beach Specific Plan, calls for a mixture of light industrial and business park uses, and supporting open space. The South Shore and South Ormond Beach specific annexations would total approximately 700 acres of unincorporated Ventura County. If both plans are approved, approximately 330 acres would either be dedicated (i.e., protected in open space and park uses) or would remain agricultural in use. The Ormond Beach EIR evaluates the environmental effects of these proposed projects.

5.3

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The following analysis examines the potential cumulative impacts on the natural and man-made environment that would result from the incremental impact of the Proposed Action in addition to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. This analysis assesses the potential for an overlap of impacts with respect to project schedules and affected areas. Specific information on all of the projects listed in Section 5.2 is not available so the cumulative impacts of these

5.0 Cumulative Impacts

55

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39

actions cannot yet be quantified. Therefore, this section presents a qualitative analysis of the cumulative impacts, based on activities anticipated for each project (e.g., ground-disturbing activities). To determine the significance of each of the cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action and other actions, significance was determined according to Section 1508.27 of the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, as amended (43 CFR § 56003). The primary factors considered for each resource area in determining significance as used in NEPA requires considerations for both context and intensity. Based on the assessment of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions at NBVC Point Mugu, the Proposed Action would result in environmental effects as a result of the various construction, demolition, and renovation activities; the minor population increase; and Triton UAS flight operations. However, these impacts would not be considered significant. Resource areas that would be impacted by the Proposed Action are analyzed for cumulative effects. These areas include noise, air quality, safety, socioeconomics, transportation, biological resources, water resources, and hazardous materials and wastes. Cultural resources were not analyzed for cumulative impacts due to their lack of impacts from the Proposed Action. Recreation, community/emergency services, environmental justice, visual/aesthetic resources, airfield and airspace management, land use, infrastructure and utilities, or soils and topography, were not analyzed for cumulative impacts, as these resource areas have been omitted from further detailed analysis in this EA, as discussed in Section 1.4.2.1

5.3.1

Noise

The noise impacts from the Proposed Action consist of noise generated from construction, demolition, and renovation activities and Triton UAS flight operations. The transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and BASH management projects would involve additional construction noise sources. Construction-related activities would include the use of heavy equipment for site preparation and development that would result in increased noise levels within the immediate area. However, noise level increases would be temporary and typical of standard construction activities. Overall, construction activities at and within the vicinity of NBVC Point Mugu would collectively increase noise levels in the area temporarily, but variations in the timing of cumulative projects, and the relatively short duration of project effects, would moderate impacts over space and time. Cumulatively, present and reasonably foreseeable activities could increase aircraft operations, and aircraft activities would continue to be the dominant sources of noise at NBVC Point Mugu. Therefore, no significant, cumulative impacts on the noise environment would be expected. The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye is louder than the Global Hawk UAS (94 dB at 1,000 feet above ground level versus 87 dB for departures) and dominates operations at NBVC Point Mugu (USAF 2001, HRPDC 2010). The transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye would result in aircraft noise from increased operations of E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (10 to 20 percent increase) at NBVC Point Mugu. Once the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye transition is completed, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye operations will compose 46 percent of total aircraft operations. This increase in aircraft operations would result in a 16 percent increase in the area of land within the 65 dBA CNEL noise zones; however, no new residences or other sensitive noise receptors would be affected. Peak activity from the proposed Triton (BAMS) UAS 56

5.0 Cumulative Impacts

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39

Developmental Test Program would include approximately 867 flight hours, which would equate to a 5 percent increase in operations at NBVC Point Mugu. However, relative to the total activities at NBVC Point Mugu, the Developmental Test Program would not be expected to contribute measurably to the cumulative CNEL noise levels. Sea Range Countermeasures results in an increase of 320 sorties (e.g., take-offs, landings, touch-and-go maneuvers) per year at NBVC Point Mugu. The types of aircraft used include V-22, C-130, F-18, AH-1, and H-58 aircraft. Triton UAS flight operations would result in an approximate 0.2 dB increase in the existing noise environment, which would not be a noticeable change in average noise levels within the areas currently exposed to noise from aircraft operations. The small percentage of proposed Triton UAS flight operations relative to the total existing operations at NBVC Point Mugu would not result in significant, cumulative impacts on the existing noise environment at the installation or in the surrounding areas.

5.3.2

Air Quality

Construction activities related to the Proposed Action, the transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and BASH management projects would generate air emissions. Construction-related activities would include the use of heavy equipment for site preparation and development that would result in criteria pollutant and GHG emissions within the immediate area. However, air emissions would be temporary and typical of standard construction activities. Overall, construction activities at and within the vicinity of NBVC Point Mugu would collectively increase air emissions in the area temporarily, but variations in the timing of cumulative projects, and the relatively short duration of project effects, would moderate impacts over space and time. Cumulatively, construction-related air emissions would be a small percentage of overall air emissions in the Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate AQCR; cumulative emissions would not result in an exceedance of the VCAPCD’s emissions budgets or cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or SAAQS. Therefore, the cumulative effect of these construction-related actions would not result in significant, cumulative impacts on air quality. Present and reasonably foreseeable activities would result in an increase in personnel and aircraft operations at NBVC Point Mugu. Cumulatively, the Proposed Action, Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program, Firescout maintenance for the Littoral Combat Ship program, and the transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye would result in 1,052 personnel, plus approximately 2,525 dependents (assuming that 2.4 dependents accompany each military personnel; the most conservative scenario). It is anticipated that the additional vehicles associated with the increased personnel would represent a small percentage of the existing traffic. Emissions associated with Triton UAS flight operations, Sea Range Countermeasures, UAV and USV exercises, Firescout test flights, and Advanced Hawkeye would stem from takeoffs and landings and maintenance activities including ground-turns and the use of ground-support equipment. Cumulatively, these activities would be expected to result in long-term increases in air pollutant emissions. However, no significant, cumulative impacts would be expected because these projects would not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or SAAQS, increase the frequency or severity of a violation of any ambient air quality standard, expose sensitive receptors to substantially increased pollutant concentrations, delay the attainment of any standard or other milestone contained in a SIP or permit limitations, or exceed any Evaluation Criteria

5.0 Cumulative Impacts

57

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

established by a SIP. No significant, cumulative impacts would be expected on air quality from these long-term actions. Greenhouse Gases GHGs are not analyzed in Chapter 4 of this EA. The potential impacts from proposed GHG emissions are by nature global and cumulative, as individual sources of GHG emissions are not large enough to have an appreciable effect on climate change. Therefore, an appreciable impact on global climate change would only occur when proposed GHG emissions combine with GHG emissions from other man-made activities on a global scale. Currently, there are no formally adopted or published NEPA thresholds of significance for GHG emissions stemming from actions. Formulating such thresholds is problematic, as it is difficult to determine what level of proposed emissions would substantially contribute to global climate change. Therefore, in the absence of an adopted or science-based NEPA significance threshold for GHGs, this EA compares GHG emissions that would occur due to implementation of the Proposed Action to the permitting threshold identified in the Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule (40 CFR § 98). Construction, demolition, renovation, and operations activities associated with the Proposed Action would contribute directly to emissions of GHGs from the combustion of fossil fuels. The U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2009 gross CO2 emissions in the State of California were 375.8 million metric tons. In 2009, the gross CO2 emissions in the United States were 5,425.6 million metric tons (DOE/EIA 2011). All of the construction, demolition, and renovation activities; personnel increases; and Triton UAS operations and maintenance activities associated with the Proposed Action would represent a negligible contribution (less than 0.0014 percent) towards statewide GHG inventories and an negligible contribution (less than 0.0001 percent) toward national GHG inventories for FY 2016. Construction activities related to the transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and BASH management projects would also contribute directly to emissions of GHGs from the combustion of fossil fuels. Construction-related activities would include the use of heavy equipment for site preparation and development that would result in temporary GHG emissions within the immediate area. The addition of Sea Range Countermeasures, UAV and USV exercises, Firescout test flights, and Advanced Hawkeye operations would also contribute to cumulative aircraft emissions. When assessed together, the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are expected to result in less than significant, cumulative impacts on air quality.

5.3.3

Safety

Cumulatively, implementation of the Proposed Action, Sea Range Countermeasures, Expansion of Unmanned Systems Operations, Firescout maintenance for the Littoral Combat Ship program, Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program, and transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye would not measurably affect airfield safety at NBVC Point Mugu. Under the Proposed Action, the addition of

5.0 Cumulative Impacts

58

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39

approximately five Triton UAS flight operations per day would equate to a maximum of 1,825 aircraft operations annually, which would represent a negligible (5.2 percent) increase in existing annual operations at NBVC Point Mugu. This negligible increase in operations would not be expected to increase the risk of mishaps. All aircraft operations would be conducted in accordance with FAA regulations and directives, specific operating manuals, and DOD Flight Information Publications. All emergencies or malfunctions associated with aircraft operations would be handled in accordance with established aircraft-specific procedures. In addition, existing SOPs at NBVC Point Mugu would be employed to ensure appropriate airspace management for all participating aircraft, which would reduce the potential for crowding or mishaps. Therefore, no significant, cumulative impacts on safety would be expected. The addition of Triton UAS flight operations, Sea Range Countermeasures, UAV and USV exercises, Firescout test flights, and Advanced Hawkeye operations would not require changes to the installation’s safety plans, APZs, or BASH Plan. Methods outlined in the installation’s BASH plan would be implemented to reduce BASH risks (e.g., habitat management, bird dispersal, and bird avoidance). The BASH management project would result in beneficial, cumulative impacts on safety at NBVC Point Mugu from reducing the potential for collisions between aircraft and birds or other animals; however, these impacts would not be significant.

5.3.4

Socioeconomics

The Proposed Action would generate short-term, beneficial impacts on socioeconomic resources through the procurement of goods and services during construction, demolition, and renovation activities. Other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future projects requiring construction activities include the transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and BASH management projects. Construction-related expenditures would not generate any long-lasting cumulative benefits; therefore, no significant, cumulative impacts on socioeconomic resources would be expected from construction activities. The Navy provides on-installation housing for eligible military personnel in either bachelor (i.e., officer or enlisted) quarters or family housing. The Proposed Action would result in 700 personnel, the Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program would result in 125 personnel, Firescout maintenance for the Littoral Combat Ship program would result in 27 personnel, and the transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye would result in 200 personnel. Cumulatively, 1,052 personnel, plus approximately 2,525 dependents (assuming that 2.4 dependents accompany each military personnel; the most conservative scenario), would occur in the vicinity of NBVC Point Mugu. Some of the additional personnel (plus their dependents) would obtain on-installation housing, which would increase cumulative, long-term demand on on-installation housing. Under the Proposed Action, Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program, Littoral Combat Ship, and E-2D projects the most conservative scenario is analyzed for utilities and infrastructure systems where all of the personnel (plus their family members) would obtain housing off-installation in the surrounding area. The additional demand for 1,052 housing units in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area would represent approximately 6 percent of all available vacant housing units in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area, based on the 2010 data.

5.0 Cumulative Impacts

59

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

The maximum number of school-aged children that would move to Ventura County under the Proposed Action, Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program, Firescout maintenance for the Littoral Combat Ship program, and transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye is estimated to be approximately 1,473. This would represent a maximum increase of 5.9 percent of the current public school enrollment for the Ventura County school districts for which NBVC Point Mugu is expected to affect. Assuming an approximately even age distribution of these students and an even enrollment distribution within the 20 schools in the districts, there would be an addition of approximately 6 students in each grade per school. Each elementary school in the district has approximately 4 to 5 classes per grade, so an addition of approximately 1 student per class on average would be expected. Based on this conservative scenario, no significant impacts would be expected. Projected countywide cumulative population growth between 2000 and 2020 is estimated at 153,300 persons (VCBS 2011). The General Plan update concluded that the construction of new housing developments and new schools in Ventura County would be needed to accommodate growth. Cumulatively, 1,052 personnel, plus approximately 2,525 dependents (assuming that 2.4 dependents accompany each military personnel; the most conservative scenario), associated with the Proposed Action, Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program, Firescout maintenance for the Littoral Combat Ship program, and transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye would represent a negligible percentage (2.3 percent) of the total population increase over the next few years, but this increase would contribute incrementally to the demand for new housing and new schools. Increases in housing demand would also result in the reduction of current vacant housing stock and, subsequently, increases in property tax revenue and could increase the value of homes and also provide for increases in school enrollment. As a result, there would be beneficial impacts on housing. The additional demand for 1,052 housing units in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area would represent approximately 6.9 percent of the approximately 15,093 available vacant housing units in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area, based on the 2010 data. Increases in housing demand would result in the reduction of current vacant housing stock and, subsequently, increases in property tax revenue and could increase the value of homes. However, no significant, cumulative impacts on housing would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action.

5.3.5

Transportation

The existing roadway system in Ventura County is generally adequate to meet present travel demands; however, projected population growth by 2020 could place strain on the county’s regional road network (VCBS 2011). Some county roadways are already operating below adequate levels of service, including portions of Highways 101, 23, 33, and 118, and other county roads. An approximate 18 percent2 countywide population increase by 2020 would necessitate expansion of the existing road network, encouragement of alternative transportation modes (e.g., ridesharing and bicycle), and disbursing of peak traffic demand to use the existing road network better (VCBS 2011). Personnel (plus their dependents) associated with the Proposed Action, Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program, Littoral Combat Ship, and E-2D actions would represent a negligible percentage of the total population increase over the
2

This estimate assumes a baseline of approximately 832,000 people in 2010 with an increase of approximately 153,300 people.

5.0 Cumulative Impacts

5 10

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

next few years. Internal roadways on NBVC would be able to accommodate the increase in personnel, as historically the installation has been host to a larger amount of personnel than the cumulative total. Therefore, no significant, cumulative impacts on transportation would be expected.

5.3.6

Biological Resources

The construction and demolition activities associated with the Proposed Action would occur primarily in highly disturbed and developed portions of NBVC Point Mugu; biological resources in the project areas include previously disturbed vegetation and wildlife that would be habituated to noisy airfield activities. Planned BASH management projects including habitat modification, grassland management, wetlands management, wildlife exclusion measures, avian dispersal measures, and humane lethal control measures, would result in the periodic removal of grassland, herbaceous wetland, and wooded habitats to reduce their attractiveness as foraging, resting, or nesting areas for birds. Other periodic BASH management projects, such as exclusion devices, removal of abandoned structures, and fence repair, would specifically discourage the presence of wildlife in close proximity to the airfield. BASH management would reduce attractiveness for migratory birds in areas adjacent to the airfield, which this project would support by its development. Long-term projects, including the Proposed Action, Sea Range Countermeasures, expansion of unmanned systems operations, Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program, use of Firescouts in support of Littoral Combat Ships, and the transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye could cumulatively increase noise levels around the airfield. Given the current level of air traffic at NBVC Point Mugu, it is anticipated that wildlife, including protected species (i.e., Federal- and state-listed threatened and endangered species and CDFW species of special concern) and migratory birds, using nearby habitat would be expected to have become habituated. Although responses differ among species and situations, literature has shown that in many cases wildlife that experienced noise on a consistent basis were more tolerant, showing less extreme responses than wildlife not exposed on a consistent basis (NPS 1994). No significant, cumulative impacts on wildlife, protected species, or migratory birds would be expected due to noise from aircraft operations. Cumulative impacts on terrestrial vegetation and migratory birds could occur from removal of vegetation, increased noise from minor site improvements, and increased activities around the airfield; however, these impacts would not be significant. Vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the airfield is of low habitat value, and the presence of migratory birds around the airfield is discouraged to diminish BASH. Construction and demolition activities and increased impervious surface areas associated with the Proposed Action, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and BASH management plan would take place primarily in highly disturbed, developed portions of NBVC Point Mugu with already impacted vegetation. Areas not developed with impermeable surfaces would be revegetated upon completion of the construction activities. Therefore, no significant, cumulative impacts on vegetation would be expected. Potential impacts on migratory birds from construction and demolition activities associated with the Proposed Action, transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and BASH management projects could be mitigated by conducting a site survey of the project areas prior to commencement of construction

5.0 Cumulative Impacts

5 11

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39

activities to ensure the absence of migratory birds or by conducting construction activities outside of the migratory bird nesting season (i.e., March through September). The use of these measures or other mitigation measures, as determined necessary by the NBVC Point Mugu Natural Resources Manager, would ensure that no violation of the MBTA or EO 13186 would occur from implementing the Proposed Action, transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, or BASH management projects. None of the project areas associated with the Proposed Action have suitable habitat or foraging areas for salt marsh bird’s-beak, light-footed clapper rails, western snowy plovers, California least terns, least Bell’s vireo, or tidewater gobies. No significant, cumulative impacts on protected species would be expected. All potential impacts from the loss of wetland habitat would be offset by either (1) using the installation’s mitigation bank, which is currently being developed or (2) conducting a separate wetland mitigation restoration project, as determined during the Section 404 and 401 CWA permitting process. Construction and demolition activities and increased impervious surface areas associated with the Proposed Action, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and BASH management plan would result in an increase in storm water runoff and turbidity. Potential increases in storm water runoff from construction and demolition activities and increased impervious surface area upon completion of the Proposed Action, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and BASH management plan would not be expected to result in increased sedimentation or other potential impacts on Mugu Lagoon or Calleguas Creek, as BMPs and other environmental protection measures (e.g., site-specific erosion- and sediment-control measures) would be implemented, in accordance with the SWPPP developed for the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP would prevent sedimentation and the introduction of pollutants to Calleguas Creek, Mugu Lagoon, and the Pacific Ocean and would prevent violations of applicable regulations and standards. Upon completion of construction and demolition activities, hydrologic conditions of the areas not developed with impermeable surfaces would be restored to mimic predevelopment site hydrology. In addition, revegetation would occur in the project areas not developed with impermeable surfaces. Storm water runoff, as a result of increased impervious surface area, would be managed in accordance with the installation’s SWPPP for industrial activities, as required by the NPDES General Permit Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with the Industrial General Permit (NPDES Permit No. CAS000001). Therefore, no cumulative effect on EFH or habitat areas of concern would be expected.

5.3.7

Water Resources

Cumulatively, other projects at NBVC Point Mugu and countywide growth would also increase the population and the demand on groundwater resources. The Proposed Action would result in 700 personnel, the Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program would result in 125 personnel, Firescout maintenance for the Littoral Combat Ship program would result in 27 personnel, and the transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye would result in 200 personnel. Cumulatively, 1,052 personnel, plus approximately 2,525 dependents (assuming that 2.4 dependents accompany each military personnel, which is the most conservative scenario), would occur in the vicinity of NBVC Point Mugu. The projected countywide cumulative population growth between 2000 and 2020 for Ventura County is estimated at approximately 153,300 persons. It is anticipated that there is adequate water supply in terms

5.0 Cumulative Impacts

5 12

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

of quantity within Ventura County to accommodate forecasted growth until 2020. However, long-term, cumulative effects could occur from countywide growth because of steady depletion of overall groundwater quality and the possibility of seawater intrusion (VCBS 2011). The General Plan update concluded that population increases would contribute to water shortages in some areas of Ventura County. Personnel (plus their dependents) associated with the Proposed Action, Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program, Firescout maintenance for the Littoral Combat Ship program, and transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye would represent a negligible percentage (2.3 percent) of the total population increase over the next few years, but this increase would contribute incrementally to increased demand on existing groundwater resources. During construction and demolition activities associated with the Proposed Action, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and BASH management plan, runoff from site improvements could result in a slight cumulative increase in turbidity. Potential impacts from an increase in turbidity would be minimized with implementation of BMPs (e.g., wetting of soils, silt fencing, and detention basins) and adherence to erosion and storm water management practices, as determined by the Navy, to contain soil and runoff on the project areas. Construction and demolition activities are not anticipated to degrade the water quality or affect beneficial uses of surface water or groundwater resources. Upon completion of the Proposed Action, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and BASH management plan, there would be an overall increase in impervious surface area at NBVC Point Mugu. Hydrologic conditions of the areas not developed with impermeable surfaces should be restored to mimic predevelopment site hydrology. In addition, revegetation should occur in the project areas not developed with impermeable surfaces. Storm water runoff, as a result of increased impervious surface area, would be managed in accordance with the installation’s SWPPP for industrial activities, as required by the NPDES General Permit Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with the Industrial General Permit (NPDES Permit No. CAS000001). No significant, cumulative impacts on surface water resources would be expected. It is anticipated that construction of the taxiway and improvements to 3rd Street (including replacing the existing culvert crossings) would result in direct impacts on wetlands at waters of the United States at NBVC Point Mugu. All potential impacts on wetlands and waters of the United States would be offset by either (1) using the installation’s mitigation bank, which is currently being developed or (2) conducting a separate wetland mitigation restoration project. The BASH management project would also result in impacts on wetlands. Under the BASH management project, 4.9 acres of poor-quality wetlands would be permanently impacted. The loss of wetlands from the BASH management project would be offset by either (1) using the installation’s mitigation bank, which is currently being developed or (2) conducting a separate wetland mitigation restoration project. Cumulatively, these two projects would result in the loss of poor-quality wetlands in heavily used areas of NBVC Point Mugu. However, the creation or restoration of wetlands (as deemed appropriate under the Proposed Action in consultation with the USACE) in areas of the installation with higher value for habitat and flood control would cumulatively be beneficial. No significant, cumulative impacts on wetlands would be expected.

5.0 Cumulative Impacts

5 13

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

The project areas for new construction and renovation activities associated with the Proposed Action are within the 100-year floodplain of Calleguas Creek. Implementation of the Proposed Action and other present and reasonably foreseeable development projects in the 100-year floodplain at NBVC Point Mugu would result in cumulative impacts on the floodplain. However, potential impacts on the floodplain would be reduced with implementation of BMPs and the installation’s INRMP. Development in the 100-year floodplain at NBVC Point Mugu would be consistent with the regulations outlined in EO 11988. Floodproofing and other flood-protection measures would be applied to constructed and renovated facilities, as deemed necessary. Therefore, no significant, cumulative impacts on the floodplain would be expected.

5.3.8

Hazardous Materials and Wastes

There are 36 IRP sites at NBVC Point Mugu, 17 of which are open and undergoing further investigation. The Proposed Action would increase the short-term use of hazardous materials and petroleum products and the generation of hazardous wastes during construction, demolition, and renovation activities. Other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future projects requiring construction, demolition, and renovation activities include the transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and BASH management projects. These projects would be expected to have similar construction-related impacts as the Proposed Action from increased hazardous materials use and hazardous waste generation. In support of construction and maintenance activities, NBVC Point Mugu manages hazardous materials and wastes in adherence to all applicable Federal, state, and local operations and the installation’s Hazardous Materials Management Plan and Hazardous Wastes Management Plan. It is not anticipated that the types and quantities of hazardous materials used or hazardous wastes generated from operation activities associated with the Triton UAS, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, or Firescout would change compared to what is currently used and generated at NBVC Point Mugu. The overall cumulative increase in hazardous waste generation would not be expected to exceed the capacities of existing hazardous waste disposal facilities. Therefore, no significant, cumulative impacts would be expected. No significant, cumulative impacts would be expected from the removal of ACMs, LBP, or PCB-containing materials. Contractors would be required to adhere to all Federal, state, and local regulations in addition to NBVC Point Mugu management plans. The removal of ACMs, LBP, and PCB-containing materials during demolition and renovation activities would result in beneficial impacts by reducing potential exposure to ACMs, LBP, and PCB-containing materials; however, these impacts would not be significant.

5.0 Cumulative Impacts

5 14

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

CHAPTER 6

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY NEPA

Activities associated with the Proposed Action at NBVC Point Mugu would comply with applicable Federal, state, and local requirements with respect to the human environment. Section 6.1 discusses the consistency of the Proposed Action with other Federal, state, and local land use plans, policies, and objectives. Section 6.2 discusses the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Section 6.3 discusses the relationship between short-term use of the environment and long-term productivity.

6.1

CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS

The Navy adheres to all relevant laws and requirements applicable to its operations, maintenance, and new construction activities. Though not comprehensive, Table 6-1 provides a list, organized by environmental resource, of Federal and state environmental statutes, regulations and EOs relevant to environmental analysis of the Proposed Action and, to a lesser extent, to the supplemental analysis of environmental impacts.

6.1.1 6.1.1.1

Federal Acts, Executive Orders, Policies, and Plans Clean Air Act and General Conformity Rule

The CAA of 1970 and subsequent amendments specify requirements for control of the nation’s air quality. Federal and state ambient air standards have been established for each criteria pollutant. The 1990 amendments to the CAA require Federal facility compliance with all requirements for air pollution control to a similar extent as nongovernmental entities must comply. Emissions from the Proposed Action would not exceed de minimis thresholds. Therefore, it can be concluded, based on the analysis in this EA, that the criteria pollutant emissions associated with the Proposed Action would meet the requirements for conformity, and no further evaluation of conformity is required.

6.1.1.2

Coastal Zone Management

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq., as amended, 15 CFR § 921-930) provides assistance to states, in cooperation with Federal and local agencies, for developing land- and water-use programs in coastal zones. When a state coastal management plan is federally approved, Federal agencies proposing actions with the potential to affect the state’s coastal resources are subject to review under the CZMA Section 307 Federal consistency determination requirement. Section 307 mandates that “Federal actions within a state’s coastal zone (or outside the coastal zone, if the action affects land or water uses or natural resources within the coastal zone) be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the state coastal management plan” (16 U.S.C. § 1456[c][1][A]). Because California has a federally approved Coastal Management Program, the Navy is required to maintain compliance, to the maximum extent practicable, with Section 307 of the CZMA if the Federal action has the potential to affect coastal resources or uses on non-Federal lands.

6.0 Other Considerations Required by NEPA

61

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1

Table 6-1. Summary of Applicable Statutes and Regulations Regulation Noise Noise Control Act of 1972 Occupational Noise Exposure Air Quality Clean Air Act of 1970 and Amendments of 1977 and 1990, including the General Conformity Rule and the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance (5 October 2009) Biological Resources Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (13 April 1976) Endangered Species Act of 1973 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1977 Invasive Species (3 February 1999) Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (5 March 1970) Federal Noxious Weed Act Conservation of Migratory Birds (10 January 2001) California Endangered Species Act Water Resources Clean Water Act of 1972 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 Protection of Wetlands (24 May 1977) Floodplain Management (24 May 1977) Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act Coastal Zone Management The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq., as amended and (15 CFR § 921930) 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., as amended 42 U.S.C. § 300 EO 11990 EO 11988 42 U.S.C. § 17094 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq. 16 U.S.C. § 1801–1882, as amended 16 U.S.C. § 1531–1543 16 U.S.C. § 703–712 16 U.S.C. § 670a–670o, 74 Stat. 1052 EO 13112 EO 11514 P.L. 93-629 EO 13186 Fish & Game Code §§ 2050, et seq. 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., as amended EO 13514 42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq., Public Law (P.L.) 92-574 29 CFR § 1910.95 Source

6.0 Other Considerations Required by NEPA

62

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Regulation Cultural Resources National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 Hazardous Materials and Wastes Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards Defense Environmental Restoration Program Occupational Safety and Health Act

Source 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq., as amended 16 U.S.C. § 470a–11, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 6901, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 103 42 U.S.C. § 133 15 U.S.C. § 53 26 U.S.C. § 9507 EO 13423 EO 12088 10 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 29 U.S.C. § 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Pursuant to the CZMA (16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq., as amended, 15 CFR § 921-930), the term “coastal zone” does not include “lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government” (16 U.S.C. § 1453[1]). Although NBVC Point Mugu is within California’s designated coastal zone (California Public Resources Code, Division 20), NBVC Point Mugu is owned and operated by the Navy, and, therefore, excluded from the coastal zone. However, the Navy recognizes that actions addressed in this EA that occur on Navy property could affect land or water uses or natural resources of the coastal zone not on Navy property via “spill over,” and, therefore, could be subject to the provisions of CZMA. Pursuant to 15 CFR § 930.35, the Navy has developed and submitted a Coastal Consistency Negative Determination (CCND) to the California Coastal Commission under the CZMA (16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq., as amended, 15 CFR § 921-930) because the Navy determined that the Proposed Action is consistent with the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 30200 to 30265.5) and would have no effect on coastal uses or resources (see Appendix C). The CCND incorporates all activities proposed under the Proposed Action at NBVC Point Mugu. The Navy analyzed the impacts of the Proposed Action on the coastal zone by assessing reasonable foreseeable direct and indirect effects on the coastal use or resources, and by reviewing relevant management program enforceable policies and the Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies. Therefore, the Proposed Action would be in compliance with the CZMA.

6.0 Other Considerations Required by NEPA

63

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37

6.1.1.3

National Historic Preservation Act

The NHPA was passed in 1966 to provide for the protection, enhancement, and preservation of those properties that possess significant architectural, archaeological, historical, or cultural characteristics. Section 106 of the NHPA requires the head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally financed undertaking, prior to the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking, to take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property. The APE for new construction actions and the demolition of Building 328 has the potential to contain intact archaeological deposits. However, there are no known archaeological resources located within the APE. The APE for architectural resources is limited to Buildings 50, 311, 328, 367, and 385; Hangar 34; and 3rd Street (including the existing culvert crossings). These buildings serve an important function for the daily operations at NBVC Point Mugu; however, they have never been directly related to any particular Cold War asset or program; they do not represent important architectural examples of their type, period, or method of construction; and they do not embody the work of a master. The excavation for expanding and widening 3rd Street would remain in the disturbed footprint (i.e., graded portion of 3rd Street that extends across the golf course), and would not extend below the depth of the existing fill material. The culverts were originally constructed to allow access to the NBVC Point Mugu golf course, and are not directly related to any Cold War asset or program. Therefore, the Navy determined that none of these buildings or structures meet eligibility criteria for listing on the NRHP, and no historic properties would be affected from implementation of the Proposed Action. Consultation with California SHPO will continue, as appropriate, once subsurface investigations at the installation are completed. Documents related to the consultation with the California SHPO are included, as they become available, in Appendix B. The APE for traditional, religious, or cultural significance to Native American tribes is defined by the footprint of the proposed project areas. NBVC Point Mugu notified the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians of the Proposed Action and provided them with a copy of the California SHPO consultation letter for review and concurrence. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians reviewed the consultation letter and provided concurrence with the findings in the letter (see Appendix B). Therefore, the Proposed Action would be in compliance with the NHPA.

6.1.2 6.1.2.1

Other Plans Related to NBVC Point Mugu NBVC Activity Overview Plan

The NBVC Activity Overview Plan specifically addresses the regional land and facility requirements from a functional point of view, and provides land use recommendations (NBVC 2006a). The Proposed Action would be consistent with the goals identified in the NBVC Activity Overview Plan.

6.1.2.2

Navy Region Southwest Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan

The Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan provides the official direction on facility and site development at NBVC. It is used in developing, designing, and reviewing all construction, demolition, and renovation projects on the installation. The Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan provides aesthetic and functional direction for new development and renovation efforts, and helps to protect and preserve the installation’s

6.0 Other Considerations Required by NEPA

64

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

natural and historic resources (NBVC 2006b). The Proposed Action would be consistent with the goals identified in the Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan.

6.2

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4332 Section 102(2)(C)(v)) as implemented by CEQ regulation 40 CFR § 1502.16 requires an analysis of significant, irreversible effects resulting from implementation of a proposed action. Resources that are irreversibly or irretrievably committed to a project are those that are typically used on a long-term or permanent basis; however, those used on a short-term basis that cannot be recovered (e.g., nonrenewable resources such as metal, wood, fuel, paper, and other natural or cultural resources) also are irretrievable. Human labor is also considered an irretrievable resource. All such resources are irretrievable in that they are used for a project and, thus, become unavailable for other purposes. An impact that falls under the category of the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources is the destruction of natural resources that could limit the range of potential uses of that resource. Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a less than significant irreversible commitment of building materials; vehicles and equipment used during demolition, construction, and renovation activities; and human labor and other resources due to the proposed activities. Energy (i.e., electricity and natural gas), water, and fuel consumption and demand for services would not increase significantly as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action. The commitment of these resources would be undertaken in a regular and authorized manner and does not present significant impacts in this EA.

6.3

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

NEPA requires consideration of the relationship between short-term use of the environment and the impacts that such use could have on the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of the affected environment. Impacts that narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment are of particular concern. Such impacts include the possibility that choosing one alternative could reduce future flexibility to pursue other alternatives, or that choosing a certain use could eliminate the possibility of other uses at the site. The Proposed Action would not result in any environmental impacts that would narrow the range of beneficial uses of the project areas or vicinity. The Proposed Action would not represent new short-term uses or impact the productivity of the natural environment. In addition, biological productivity would not be affected, as no significant, direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on biological resources would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action.

6.0 Other Considerations Required by NEPA

65

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

(This page intentionally left blank)

6.0 Other Considerations Required by NEPA

66

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

CHAPTER 7

REFERENCES

Berglund, B. and Lindvall, T. 1995. Community Noise. Archives of the Center for Sensory Research. 1995. California Department of Education (CADE). 2012. California School Directory. Available online: <http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/index.asp>. (Accessed: 12 November 2012). California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2011. “2011 Area Designations.” 23 June 2011. Available online: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2011/area11/area11.htm>. (Accessed: 8 November 2012). California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Undated. Fully Protected Animals. U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau). 2012a. Demographic Profile Data. Available online: <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml>. (Accessed: 7 November 2012). Census Bureau. 2012b. 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Available online: <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11 _1YR_DP03&prodType=table>. (Accessed: 7 November 2012). Census Bureau. 2012c. Building Permits Survey. Available online: <http://www.census.gov/construction/bps/>. (Accessed: 7 November 2012). California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2012. CNDDB Quick Viewer: Ventura County Species List. Available online: <http://imaps.dfg.ca.gov/viewers/CNDDB_QuickViewer/>. (Accessed: 12 December 2012). Commander, Navy Installation Command (CNIC). Undated. “Welcome to Naval Base Ventura County.” Available online: <http://www.cnic.navy.mil/ventura/index.htm>. (Accessed: 13 November 2012). California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). 2012. Termination of General Waste Discharge Requirements at Installation Restoration Site 6 (Building 311 Yard), 311 11th Street, Naval Base Ventura County, Point Mugu, California. 23 March 2012. U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2011. Table 1. State Emissions by Year. Data Released October 2011. Available online: <http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/state_emissions.cfm>. (Accessed 9 November 2012). Engineering News-Record (ENR). 2013. Total 2011 Construction Starts for Los Angeles. Available online: <http://california.construction.com/california_ construction_cities/2012/0213-TotalConstruction-Starts-Los-Angeles.asp>. (Accessed 2 January 2013). Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC). 2010. Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Planning Map.

7.0 References

71

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC). 2008. Final Environmental Assessment: Implementation of the Bird/Animal Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Management Plan Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, California. June 2008. NAVFAC. 2010. Final Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan for Point Mugu and Port Hueneme, Naval Base Ventura County, California. October 2010. U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy). 1998. Inventory and Evaluation of National Register of Historic Places Eligibility for Buildings and Structures at Naval Air Weapons Station Point Mugu, Ventura County, California. Prepared by JRP Historical Consulting. December 1998. Navy. 2002. Final Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC), Point Mugu, California. March 2002. Navy. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Introduction of the P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft into the U.S. Navy Fleet. November 2008. Navy. 2009a. Final Environmental Assessment Transition of E-2C Hawkeye to E-2D Advanced Hawkeye at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia and Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, California. January 2009. Navy. 2009b. Finding of No Significant Impact for the Environmental Assessment: Transition of E2C Hawkeye to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. January 2009. Navy. 2012a. Final Environmental Assessment for the Homeporting of the Littoral Combat Ship on the West Coast of the United States. April 2012. Navy. 2012b. Draft Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment, Navy Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System Developmental Test Program. June 2012. Navy. 2012c. Environmental Assessment for Point Mugu Sea Range Countermeasures. November 2012. Navy. 2012d. Notification of Preparation of an Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for Expansion of Unmanned Systems Operations on the Point Mugu Sea Range. 13 July 2012. Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC). 1992. Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Study (AICUZ) for the Pacific Missile Test Center, Point Mugu, California. September 1992. NBVC. 2004. Proposed Plan Installation Restoration Program Sites 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 20, and 24: Naval Air Station Point Mugu, Naval Base Ventura County, California. December 2004. NBVC. 2006a. Naval Base Ventura County Activity Overview Plan Final Report. September 2006. NBVC. 2006b. Navy Region Southwest Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan, Activity Overview Plan. September 2006.

7.0 References

72

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

NBVC. 2008. Record of Decision for Installation Restoration Program Sites 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 20, and 24, Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, California. September 2008. NBVC. 2010. Naval Base Ventura County Economic Impact and Community Involvement. NBVC. 2012a. Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu Listed Species Monitoring Report 2011. February 2012. NBVC. 2012b. Gate Hours. Available online: <http://www.cnic.navy.mil/Ventura/InstallationGuide/GateHours/index.htm>. (Accessed: 7 November 2012). National Park Service (NPS). 1994. Report to Congress: Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System. September 1994. City of Oxnard Development Services (Oxnard Development Services). 2009. Ormond Beach Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. November 2009. Available online: <http://developmentservices.cityofoxnard.org/Department.aspx?DepartmentID=7&DivisionI D=76&ResourceID=364>. (Accessed: 14 November 2012). U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2001. Environmental Assessment for Global Hawk Main Operating Base Beddown. March 2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. 31 December 1971. USEPA. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Office of Noise Abatement and Control. March 1974. USEPA. 2008. USEPA’s National Emissions Inventory. Available online: <http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_basic.html>. (Accessed: 9 November 2012). USEPA. 2011. Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Available online: <http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/>. (Accessed: 27 March 2012). USEPA. 2012a. Large Quantity Generators. Available online: <http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/generation/lqg.htm>. (Accessed: 12 November 2012). USEPA. 2012b. Part 81 – Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes – Table of Contents, Subpart B – Designation of Air Quality Control Regions, Sec. 81.17 Metropolitan Los Angeles Air Quality Control Region. 1 July 2012. Available online: <http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title40-vol18/pdf/CFR-2012-title40-vol18-sec8117.pdf>. (Accessed: 9 November 2012). USEPA. 2012c. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Discharges from Construction Activities. Effective 16 February 2012. Expires 16 February 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989. “Ecology and Conservation of the Endangered Least Bell’s Vireo.” Biological Report 89(1). March 1989.

7.0 References

73

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Ventura County Board of Supervisors (VCBS). 2011. Ventura County General Plan. Goals, Policies and Programs. Last amended on 28 June 2011. Available online: <http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/General_Plan/general_plan.html>. (Accessed 10 January 2013). Wyle Environmental and Energy Research & Consulting (Wyle). 2013. Aircraft Noise Study for Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, California. January 2013.

7.0 References

74

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

CHAPTER 8

LIST OF PREPARERS

This EA was prepared by HDR, under direction of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest for the Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command. Members of the Navy staff responsible for the document are listed as follows. U.S. Fleet Forces CDR Michael Bobulinski, Facilities and Shore Readiness Theodore Brown, Public Affairs Officer Richard Keys, Facilities and Shore Readiness Lisa Padgett, Project Manager, Home Basing NEPA, Environmental Readiness Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division Valerie Carpenter-Ho, NEPA Infrastructure Branch Manager Lyn, Coffer, Aircraft Environmental Support George Nelson, Asset Management Facilities Planner Fred Pierson, Asset Management/Mission Compatibility Kelly Proctor, NEPA Project Manager Tara Turner, Asset Management Facilities Planner Commander Naval Air Forces Paul Camardella, Infrastructure Requirements Christopher Fitzgerald, UAS Requirements BJ McGuire, Environmental Requirements John Robusto, Operational Requirements Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Division Amy Kelley, Environmental Planning Commander Navy Region Southwest Suzanne Smith, NEPA Coordinator Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu Allen Adams, Environmental Planning James Danza, Asset Management Catherine Girod, Cultural Resources Hasan Jafar, Air Quality Chad Lousen, Environmental Planning Kathleen Mallory, Asset Management Joe Montoya, Environmental and Conservation Planning Lloyd Nash, Installation Recycling Martin Ruane, Natural Resources Manager Dan Shide, Environmental Planning Valerie Vartanian, Natural Resources

8.0 List of Preparers

81

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38 39 40 41

The HDR staff members responsible for the preparation of this EA are listed as follows. Louise Baxter M.P.A. Public Administration B.S. Political Science Years of Experience: 21 Technical Editor John Chadbourne B.S. Geography Years of Experience: 16 Graphics, GIS Support Rod Dossey B.S. Ecology Years of Experience: 20 Biological Resources, Water Resources Megan Gambone M.S. Biology B.S. Environmental Science Years of Experience: 7 Biological Resources, Water Resources Becky Hartless B.S. Civil/Environmental Engineering Years of Experience: 12 Air Quality SunTemple Helgren, CEP B.S. Geography Years of Experience: 16 Program Manager, Senior Reviewer Todd McConchie M.S. Biology B.S. Biology Years of Experience: 12 Socioeconomics, Hazardous Material and Waste Cheryl Myers A.A.S. Nursing Years of Experience: 22 Document Production/Formatting Yvette Noir B.A. Geography Years of Experience: 2 Socioeconomics 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Kevin Palmer M.A. Archaeology B.A. Archaeology Years of Experience: 24 Cultural Resources Vincent Passaro, QEP M.S. Environmental Science B.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Science Years of Experience: 8 Deputy Project Manager, Noise Steven Peluso, CHMM, CPEA B.S. Chemical Engineering Years of Experience: 26 Air Quality Tanya Perry B.S. Environmental Science B.A. Communications Years of Experience: 11 Noise Jason Smiley M.S. Geography Years of Experience: 12 GIS Management Patrick Solomon M.S. Geography B.A. Geography Years of Experience: 17 Socioeconomics, Transportation Adam Teepe M.E.S.M. Environmental Science B.S. Environmental Geology Years of Experience: 8 Hazardous Materials and Wastes, Transportation Elizabeth Vashro B.A. Environmental Studies Years of Experience: 7 Project Manager, Cumulative Impacts

8.0 List of Preparers

82

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Jeffrey Weiler M.S. Resource Economics/Environmental Management B.A. Political Science Years of Experience: 38 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Review Melissa Wiedenfeld B.A. History M.A. History Ph.D. History Years of Experience: 28 Cultural Resources Mary Young B.S. Environmental Science Years of Experience: 8 Cumulative Impacts

8.0 List of Preparers

83

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

(This page intentionally left blank)

8.0 List of Preparers

84

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

APPENDIX A PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT AND CORRESPONDENCE

Appendix A

A1

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

(This page intentionally left blank)

Appendix A

A2

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

APPENDIX B CALIFORNIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE CONSULTATION

Appendix B

B1

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

(This page intentionally left blank) 1

Appendix B

B2

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1

California SHPO Finding
As part of the EA process for the proposed establishment of facilities and functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu, California, the Navy consulted with the California SHPO. A copy of the consultation letter is included in this appendix.

Appendix B

B3

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

(This page intentionally left blank)

Appendix B

B4

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix B

B5

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix B

B6

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix B

B7

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix B

B8

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix B

B9

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix B

B 10

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix B

B 11

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix B

B 12

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix B

B 13

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix B

B 14

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

APPENDIX C COASTAL CONSISTENCY NEGATIVE DETERMINATION

Appendix C

C1

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

(This page intentionally left blank)

Appendix C

C2

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Coastal Consistency Negative Determination (CCND)
As part of the EA process for the proposed establishment of facilities and functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu, California, the Navy developed and submitted a CCND to the California Coastal Commission. A copy of the CCND is included in this appendix.

Appendix C

C3

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

(This page intentionally left blank)

Appendix C

C4

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix C

C5

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix C

C6

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix C

C7

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix C

C8

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix C

C9

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix C

C 10

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix C

C 11

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix C

C 12

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix C

C 13

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix C

C 14

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix C

C 15

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

Appendix C

C 16

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

APPENDIX D RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY

Appendix D

D1

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

(This page intentionally left blank)

Appendix D

D2

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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 37 38

U.S. Department of Defense U.S. Department of the Navy Clean Air Act - General Conformity Rule Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) for West Coast Home Basing of the MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft System Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, California
The Clean Air Act, as amended, requires Federal actions to conform to an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) designed to achieve or maintain an attainment designation for air pollutants, as defined by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The General Conformity Rule (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§ 93 and 51) applies to Federal actions occurring in nonattainment or maintenance areas. The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) proposes to establish facilities and functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the MC-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Triton UAS) at Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC) Point Mugu, California. The home basing would occur in phases over an 8-year period between fiscal year (FY) 2013 and FY 2020. Under the Proposed Action, the Navy would home base four Triton UAS; establish a maintenance hub for the Triton UAS, supporting up to four additional Triton UAS undergoing maintenance actions at any one time; conduct an average of five Triton UAS flight operations (i.e., takeoffs or landings) per day (1,825 annually); construct, demolish, and renovate facilities and infrastructure at NBVC Point Mugu; and station up to 700 personnel, plus their family members, while supporting rotational deployments to and from outside the continental United States (OCONUS). Details of the Proposed Action are provided in the following paragraphs. Construction Activities. Under the Proposed Action, in FY 2014, a new pre-engineered storage facility, approximately 3,000 square feet (ft2) (279 square meters [m2]), would be erected southwest of Hangar 34 in FY 2014, and a new pre-engineered fire rescue facility, approximately 2,400 ft2 (223 m2), would be erected immediately southwest of Building 367. A new maintenance hangar would be constructed north of Runway 9/27 and east of Runway 3/21 in FY 2016 to accommodate four Triton UAS. The new maintenance hangar would be approximately 65,952 ft2 (6,127 m2) and would require a maximum of up to 150 parking spaces (approximately 47,250 ft2 [4,390 m2]) and an aircraft parking apron (approximately 146,700 ft2 [13,629 m2]). In addition, a new taxiway would be constructed in FY 2016 that would connect the new maintenance hangar to the existing airfield. The taxiway would be 750 feet (229 meters) long and 75 feet (23 meters) wide, a total of approximately 56,250 ft2 [5,226 m2]). Demolition and Reconstruction Activities. Under the Proposed Action, Building 328, the existing air start shelter (approximately 495 ft2 [46 m2]), would be demolished and a new air start shelter (providing the same functions) would be constructed (FY 2013) approximately 100 feet (31 meters) northeast of the current Building 328. Renovation Activities. Under the Proposed Action, in FY 2013, the existing Power Check Pad would be expanded to add approximately 4,800 ft2 (446 m2) and approximately 24,986 ft2 (2,321 m2) of space

Appendix D

D3

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

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

would be renovated in Building 50 to provide a maintenance training complex. In 2014, the existing aircraft wash rack (i.e., the curbed areas) would be expanded and the northern portion of Hangar 34 would be renovated to accommodate four Triton UAS. The total area renovated in Hangar 34 for the Triton UAS would be approximately 70,025 ft2 (6,506 m2). A small pump station (approximately 1,536 ft2 [143 m2]) for aqueous film-forming foam would be constructed in FY 2014 as an attachment to Hangar 34. In addition, approximately 1,397 ft2 (130 m2) of space would be renovated in Building 311 to facilitate scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of the Triton UAS, and Building 367 at NBVC Point Mugu would be renovated to provide a local Triton UAS control facility in FY 2014. A new battery storage facility (approximately 300 ft2 [28 m2]) would be constructed in FY 2014 as an addition to Building 385 at NBVC Point Mugu. 3rd Street, including the existing culvert crossings, is currently a 20-foot- (6meter-) wide road located adjacent to the northeastern corner of the proposed project area. Under the Proposed Action, the road would be upgraded and widened to a 40-foot- (12-meter-) wide, two-lane road, and the existing culvert crossings would be replaced in FY 2016. Flight Operations. Under the Proposed Action, an average of five Triton UAS flight operations would be conducted per day at NBVC Point Mugu. The airfield at NBVC Point Mugu supports more than 35,000 flight operations (i.e., takeoffs or landings) annually. The addition of approximately five Triton UAS flight operations per day would equate to a maximum of 1,825 flight operations annually, which would represent a 5.2 percent increase in existing annual operations at NBVC Point Mugu. NBVC Point Mugu is in Ventura County, which is an air quality control region designated as a Federal nonattainment area for 8-hour ozone (measured as nitrogen oxides [NOx] and volatile organic compounds [VOCs]). Ventura County is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as unclassified/attainment for all other criteria pollutants. The California Air Resources Board has designated Ventura County as a state nonattainment area for 8-hour ozone (measured as NOx and VOCs), particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and as unclassified/attainment for all other criteria pollutants. California has an approved SIP. The USEPA has ruled that some Federal actions are exempted from the requirement for the General Conformity Rule. Under Section 40 CFR § 93.153 of the General Conformity Rule, the exemption indicates that actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas where the total of all direct and indirect emissions are below the de minimis levels are presumed to conform to the SIP. Actions in attainment areas are not subject to the General Conformity Rule. As summarized in Table D-1, the levels of ozone precursors (NOx and VOCs) are below the de minimis levels. Accordingly, the Proposed Action at NBVC Point Mugu is considered to be in compliance with the California SIP and Ventura County Ozone Air Quality Management Plan, and a formal General Conformity determination is not required.

Appendix D

D4

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

1 2

Table D-1. Air Emissions from West Coast Home Basing of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu – Proposed Action (2013–2016) Proposed Action Maximum Construction Emissions a Maximum Operational Emissions b Year 2013 2014 2016 Any NOx (tpy) 4.59
5.04

VOC (tpy) 0.51
0.64

CO (tpy) 3.00
3.53

SO2 (tpy) 0.39
0.39

PM10 (tpy) 3.25
0.98

PM2.5 (tpy) 0.65
0.43

6.04 29.51
50

1.44 5.76
50

4.81 27.97
NA

0.48 1.39
NA

14.09 3.01
100

1.86 2.87
100

General Conformity de minimis Thresholds
Notes: a.

Maximum estimated emissions apply during the demolition, construction, and renovation activities proposed in 2013, 2014, and 2016 for the Proposed Action. b. Operational emissions are annually estimated emissions associated with additional personnel commuting to and from NBVC Point Mugu (annually beginning in 2014) and Triton UAS flight operations (annually beginning in 2015). Key: tpy = tons per year; NOx = nitrogen oxide; VOC = volatile organic compound; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter; NA = not applicable.

3 4

To the best of my knowledge, the information provided is correct and accurate, and I concur with the finding that the Proposed Action would conform to the SIP.

Approved: Dan Shide Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest Environmental Coordinator

Date:

Appendix D

D5

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

(This page intentionally left blank)

Appendix D

D6

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

APPENDIX E AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

Appendix E

E1

February 2013

Draft EA for West Coast Home Basing of Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu

(This page intentionally left blank)

Appendix E

E2

February 2013

Summary

Summarizes total emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2013

Combustion

Estimates emissions from non-road equipment exhaust.

Fugitive

Estimates particulate emissions from construction and demolition activities including earthmoving, vehicle traffic, and windblown dust.

Grading

Estimates the number of days of site preparation, to be used for estimating heavy equipment exhaust and earthmoving dust emissions.

Haul Truck On-Road

Estimates emissions from haul trucks hauling fill materials to the job site.

Construction Commuter

Estimates emissions for construction workers commuting to the site.

Emergency Generator

Estimates emissions from the operation of emergency generators.

AQCR Tier Report

Summarizes total emissions for the South Central Coast Air Basin report for 2008, to be used to compare the Proposed Action to regional emissions.

Summary Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2013

Air Emissions for the Proposed Action for Projects in FY2013 VOC (ton) 0.41 0.02 0.08 0.50

Combustion Fugitive Dust Haul Truck On-Road Commuter TOTAL

NOx (ton) 4.94 0.02 0.08 5.03

CO (ton) 2.17 0.06 0.77 3.00

SO2 (ton) 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.39

PM10 (ton) 0.35 2.86 0.03 0.01 3.24

PM2.5 (ton) 0.34 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.64

CO2 (ton) 560.53 5.50 118.89 684.93

Note: Total PM10/2.5 fugitive dust emissions are assuming USEPA 50% control efficiencies. 621.230 375,800,000 0.00017% 5,425,600,000 0.000011% metric tons (U.S. DOE/EIA 2011) metric tons (U.S. DOE/EIA 2011) metric tons

CO2 emissions converted to metric tons =

State of California's CO2 emissions =

Percent of California's CO2 emissions =

United States' CO2 emissions =

Percent of USA's CO2 emissions =

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (U.S. DOE/EIA). 2012. Table 1. State Emissions by Year (Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide). Available online <http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/state_emissions.cfm>. Data released October 2011. Data accessed 09 November 2012.

Since future year budgets were not readily available, actual 2008 air emissions inventories for the counties were used as an approximation of the regional inventory. Because emissions from FY2013 for the Proposed Action are several orders of magnitude below significance, the conclusion would be the same, regardless of whether future year budget data set were used.

South Central Coast Air Basin

Point and Area Sources Combined NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Year (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) 2008 38,153 206,326 199,373 1,674 34,620 9,658 Source: USEPA National Emissions Inventory (NEI) (http://neibrowser.epa.gov/eis-public-web/home.html). Site visited on 09 November 2012 Air Emissions from the Proposed Action in FY2013

Regional Emissions Emissions % of Regional

NOx (tpy) 38,153 5.035 0.013%

VOC (tpy) 206,326 0.504 0.0002%

Point and Area Sources Combined CO SO2 (tpy) (tpy) 199,373 1,674 3.001 0.394 0.002% 0.024%

PM10 (tpy) 34,620 3.244 0.009%

PM2.5 (tpy) 9,658 0.641 0.007%

Summary Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2013

Combustion Emissions Combustion Emissions of VOC, NO x, SO2, CO, PM2.5, PM10, and CO2 due to Construction and Demolition

1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) Assumed interior renovation activities generate minimal emissions

General Construction and Demolition Activities Demolition of Bldg 328 Construction of new Bldg 328 Expand Power Check Pad Renovation of Bldg 50, Mainteneance Training Complex

Area Disturbed 495 ft2 495 ft2 24,150 ft2 24,986 ft2

Total Construction Area: Total Demolition Area: Total Pavement Area: Total Disturbed Area:

495 0.01 495 0.01 49,136 1.13 24,645 0.57 12 months 240 days

ft2 acres ft2 acres ft2 acres ft2 acres

Construction Duration: Annual Construction Activity:

Assume 4 weeks per month, 5 days per week.

Project Combustion Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2013

Emission Factors Used for Construction Equipment

References: Guide to Air Quality Assessment, SMAQMD, 2004; and U.S. EPA NONROAD Emissions Model, Version 2005.0.0 Emission factors are taken from the NONROAD model and were provided to e²M by Larry Landman of the Air Quality and Modeling Center ([email protected]) on 12/14/07. Factors provided are for the weighted average US fleet for CY2007. Assumptions regarding the type and number of equipment are from SMAQMD Table 3-1 unless otherwise noted.
a c

Grading No. Reqd. per 10 acres 1 1 1 3 NOx (lb/day) 13.60 9.69 18.36 41.64 CO (lb/day) 5.50 3.20 7.00 15.71 SO2 (lb/day) 1.02 0.80 1.64 3.45 PM10 (lb/day) 0.89 0.66 1.00 2.55 VOCb (lb/day) 0.96 0.73 0.89 2.58 PM2.5 (lb/day) 0.87 0.64 0.97 2.47 CO2 (lb/day) 1456.90 1141.65 2342.98 4941.53

Equipment Bulldozer Motor Grader Water Truck Total per 10 acres of activity

Paving
c

Equipment Paver Roller Truck Total per 10 acres of activity

No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 2 4 NOx (lb/day) 3.83 4.82 36.71 45.37 CO (lb/day) 2.06 2.51 14.01 18.58 SO2 (lb/day) 0.28 0.37 3.27 3.93

VOCb (lb/day) 0.37 0.44 1.79 2.61

PM10 (lb/day) 0.35 0.43 1.99 2.78

PM2.5 (lb/day) 0.34 0.42 1.93 2.69

CO2 (lb/day) 401.93 536.07 4685.95 5623.96

Demolition
c

Equipment Loader Haul Truck Total per 10 acres of activity No. Reqd.a NOx (lb/day) 2.38 2.62 1.12 18.36 5.34 9.57 39.40
d

No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 2 NOx (lb/day) 13.45 18.36 31.81 VOCb (lb/day) 0.32 0.32 0.38 0.89 0.56 0.66 3.13

VOCb (lb/day) 0.99 0.89 1.89

CO (lb/day) 5.58 7.00 12.58

SO2 (lb/day) 0.95 1.64 2.58

PM10 (lb/day) 0.93 1.00 1.92

PM2.5 (lb/day) 0.90 0.97 1.87

CO2 (lb/day) 1360.10 2342.98 3703.07

Building Construction CO (lb/day) 1.18 1.97 1.50 7.00 3.33 2.39 17.38 SO2c (lb/day) 0.15 0.20 0.08 1.64 0.40 0.65 3.12 PM10 (lb/day) 0.23 0.32 0.23 1.00 0.55 0.50 2.83 PM2.5 (lb/day) 0.22 0.31 0.22 0.97 0.54 0.49 2.74 CO2 (lb/day) 213.06 291.92 112.39 2342.98 572.24 931.93 4464.51 per 10 acres 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Equipment

Stationary

Generator Set Industrial Saw Welder

Mobile (non-road)

Truck Forklift Crane Total per 10 acres of activity

Note: Footnotes for tables are on following page

Project Combustion Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2013

Architectural Coatings
a

SO2 0.25 0.25 PM10 (lb/day) 0.31 0.31 PM2.5 (lb/day) 0.30 0.30

c

Equipment Air Compressor Total per 10 acres of activity

No. Reqd. per 10 acres 1 1 NOx (lb/day) 3.57 3.57 CO (lb/day) 1.57 1.57

VOCb (lb/day) 0.37 0.37

CO2 (lb/day) 359.77 359.77

a) The SMAQMD 2004 guidance suggests a default equipment fleet for each activity, assuming 10 acres of that activity, (e.g., 10 acres of grading, 10 acres of paving, etc.). The default equipment fleet is increased for each 10 acre increment in the size of the construction project. That is, a 26 acre project would round to 30 acres and the fleet size would be three times the default fleet for a 10 acre project. b) The SMAQMD 2004 reference lists emission factors for reactive organic gas (ROG). For the purposes of this worksheet ROG = VOC. The NONROAD model contains emissions factors for total HC and for VOC. The factors used here are the VOC factors. c) The NONROAD emission factors assume that the average fuel burned in nonroad trucks is 1100 ppm sulfur. Trucks that would be used for the Proposed Actions will all be fueled by highway grade diesel fuel which cannot exceed 500 ppm sulfur. These estimates therefore overestimate SO2 emissions by more than a factor of two. d) Typical equipment fleet for building construction was not itemized in SMAQMD 2004 guidance. The equipment list above was assumed based on SMAQMD 1994 guidance.

Project Combustion Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2013

PROJECT-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTOR SUMMARY
Equipment Multiplier* 1 1 1 1 1 PM2.5 2.469 2.693 1.865 2.744 0.300 NOx 41.641 45.367 31.808 39.396 3.574 CO2 4941.526 5623.957 3703.074 4464.512 359.773

Project-Specific Emission Factors (lb/day) SO2** PM10 VOC CO Source Grading Equipment 2.577 15.710 3.449 2.546 Paving Equipment 2.606 18.578 3.926 2.776 Demolition Equipment 1.886 12.584 2.585 1.923 3.130 17.382 3.116 2.829 Building Construction Air Compressor for Architectural Coating 0.373 1.565 0.251 0.309 Architectural Coating** 1.813 *The equipment multiplier is an integer that represents units of 10 acres for purposes of estimating the number of equipment required for the project. **Emission factor is from the evaporation of solvents during painting, per "Air Quality Thresholds of Significance", SMAQMD, 1994 Example: SMAQMD Emission Factor for Grading Equipment NOx = (Total Grading NOx per 10 acre)*(Equipment Multiplier) Total Days 1 6 1 240 20 (from "Grading" worksheet)

Summary of Input Parameters

Grading: Paving: Demolition: Building Construction: Architectural Coating

Total Area 2 (ft ) 24,645 49,136 495 495 495 Total Area (acres) 0.57 1.13 0.01 0.01 0.01

(per SMAQMD "Air Quality of Thresholds of Significance", 1994)

NOTE: The 'Total Days' estimate for paving is calculated by dividing the total number of acres by 0.21 acres/day, which is a factor derived from the 2005 MEANS Heavy Construction Cost Data, 19th Edition, for 'Asphaltic Concrete Pavement, Lots and Driveways - 6" stone base', which provides an estimate of square feet paved per day. There is also an estimate for 'Plain Cement Concrete Pavement', however the estimate for asphalt is used because it is more conservative. The 'Total 'Days' estimate for demolition is calculated by dividing the total number of acres by 0.02 acres/day, which is a factor also derived from the 2005 MEANS reference. This is calculated by averaging the demolition estimates from 'Building Demolition - Small Buildings, Concrete', assuming a height of 30 feet for a two-story building; from 'Building Footings and Foundations Demolition - 6" Thick, Plain Concrete'; and from 'Demolish, Remove Pavement and Curb - Concrete to 6" thick, rod reinforced'. Paving is double-weighted since projects typically involve more paving demolition. The 'Total Days' estimate for building construction is assumed to be 230 days, unless project-specific data is known.

Total Project Emissions by Activity (lbs)

Grading Equipment Paving Demolition Building Construction Architectural Coatings Total Emissions (lbs):

NOx 41.64 272.20 31.81 9,455.12 71.48 9,872.25

VOC 2.58 15.63 1.89 751.15 43.73 814.98

CO 15.71 111.47 12.58 4,171.75 31.31 4,342.83

SO2 3.45 23.55 2.58 747.92 5.02 782.54

PM10 2.55 16.66 1.92 678.97 6.19 706.28

PM2.5 2.47 16.16 1.87 658.60 6.00 685.09

CO2 4,942 33,744 3,703 1,071,483 7,195 1,121,067

Results: Total Project Annual Emission Rates
NOx 9,872.25 4.936 VOC 814.98 0.407 CO 4,342.83 2.171 SO2 782.54 0.391 PM10 706.28 0.353 PM2.5 685.09 0.343 CO2 1,121,067 560.533

Total Project Emissions (lbs) Total Project Emissions (tons)

Project Combustion Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2013

Construction Fugitive Dust Emissions

Construction Fugitive Dust Emission Factors Units Source Emission Factor 0.19 ton PM10/acre-month MRI 1996; EPA 2001; EPA 2006 Construction and Demolition Activities New Road Construction 0.42 ton PM10/acre-month MRI 1996; EPA 2001; EPA 2006

PM2.5 Emissions PM2.5 Multiplier 0.10 (10% of PM10 EPA 2001; EPA 2006 emissions assumed to be PM2.5)

Control Efficiency 0.50 (assume 50% control EPA 2001; EPA 2006 efficiency for PM10 and PM2.5 emissions)

Project Assumptions

New Roadway Construction (0.42 ton PM 10 /acre-month) Duration of Construction Project 12 months Area 1.13 acres

General Construction and Demolition Activities (0.19 ton PM 10 /acre-month) Duration of Project 12 months Area 0.01 acres

New Roadway Construction General Construction Activities

PM10 uncontrolled 5.685 0.026 Total 5.711

Project Emissions (tons/year) PM10 controlled PM2.5 uncontrolled 2.843 0.569 0.013 0.003 2.856 0.571

PM2.5 controlled 0.284 0.001 0.286

Project Fugitive Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2013

Construction Fugitive Dust Emission Factors

General Construction Activities Emission Factor

0.19 ton PM10/acre-month Source: MRI 1996; EPA 2001; EPA 2006 The area-based emission factor for construction activities is based on a study completed by the Midwest Research Institute (MRI) Improvement of Specific Emission Factors (BACM Project No. 1), March 29, 1996. The MRI study evaluated seven construction projects in Nevada and California (Las Vegas, Coachella Valley, South Coast Air Basin, and the San Joaquin Valley). The study determined an average emission factor of 0.11 ton PM10/acre-month for sites without large-scale cut/fill operations. A worst-case emission factor of 0.42 ton PM10/acre-month was calculated for sites with active large-scale earth moving operations. The monthly emission factors are based on 168 work-hours per month (MRI 1996). A subsequent MRI Report in 1999, Estimating Particulate Matter Emissions From Construction Operations, calculated the 0.19 ton PM10/acre-month emission factor by applying 25% of the large-scale earthmoving emission factor (0.42 ton PM10/acre-month) and 75% of the average emission factor (0.11 ton PM10/acre-month). The 0.19 ton PM10/acre-month emission factor is referenced by the EPA for non-residential construction activities in recent procedures documents for the National Emission Inventory (EPA 2001; EPA 2006). The 0.19 ton PM10/acre-month emission factor represents a refinement of EPA's original AP-42 area-based total suspended particulate (TSP) emission factor in Section 13.2.3 Heavy Construction Operations. In addition to the EPA, this methodology is also supported by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as well as the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) which is funded by the EPA and is administered jointly by the Western Governor's Association and the National Tribal Environmental Council. The emission factor is assumed to encompass a variety of non-residential construction activities including building construction (commercial, industrial, institutional, governmental), public works, and travel on unpaved roads. The EPA National Emission Inventory documentation assumes that the emission factors are uncontrolled and recommends a control efficiency of 50% for PM10 and PM2.5 in PM nonattainment areas.

New Road Construction Emission Factor

0.42 ton PM10/acre-month Source: MRI 1996; EPA 2001; EPA 2006 The emission factor for new road construction is based on the worst-case conditions emission factor from the MRI 1996 study described above (0.42 tons PM10/acre-month). It is assumed that road construction involves extensive earthmoving and heavy construction vehicle travel resulting in emissions that are higher than other general construction projects. The 0.42 ton PM10/acre-month emission factor for road construction is referenced in recent procedures documents for the EPA National Emission Inventory (EPA 2001; EPA 2006).

PM2.5 Multiplier 0.10 PM2.5 emissions are estimated by applying a particle size multiplier of 0.10 to PM10 emissions. This methodology is consistent with the procedures documents for the National Emission Inventory (EPA 2006).

Control Efficiency for PM10 and PM2.5 0.50 The EPA National Emission Inventory documentation recommends a control efficiency of 50% for PM10 and PM2.5 in PM nonattainment areas (EPA 2006). Wetting controls will be applied during project construction.

References: EPA 2001. Procedures Document for National Emissions Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants, 1985-1999. EPA-454/R-01-006. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, United States Environmental Protection Agency. March 2001.

EPA 2006. Documentation for the Final 2002 Nonpoint Sector (Feb 06 version) National Emission Inventory for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants. Prepared for: Emissions Inventory and Analysis Group (C339-02) Air Quality Assessment Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, United States Environmental Protection Agency. July 2006.

MRI 1996. Improvement of Specific Emission Factors (BACM Project No. 1). Midwest Research Institute (MRI). Prepared for the California South Coast Air Quality Management District, March 29, 1996.

Project Fugitive Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2013

Grading Schedule

Estimate of time required to grade a specified area.

Input Parameters Construction area: Qty Equipment:

0.57 acres/yr (from Combustion Worksheet) 3.00 (calculated based on 3 pieces of equipment for every 10 acres)

Assumptions. Terrain is mostly flat. An average of 6" soil is excavated from one half of the site and backfilled to the other half of the site; no soil is hauled off-site or borrowed. 200 hp bulldozers are used for site clearing. 300 hp bulldozers are used for stripping, excavation, and backfill. Vibratory drum rollers are used for compacting. Stripping, Excavation, Backfill and Compaction require an average of two passes each. Excavation and Backfill are assumed to involve only half of the site.

Calculation of days required for one piece of equipment to grade the specified area.

Reference: Means Heavy Construction Cost Data, 19th Ed., R. S. Means, 2005.

Means Line No. 2230 200 0550 2230 500 0300 2315 432 5220 2315 120 5220 2315 310 5020 TOTAL 8 1,650 800 1,950 2,300

Operation Site Clearing Stripping Excavation Backfill Compaction

Description Dozer & rake, medium brush Topsoil & stockpiling, adverse soil Bulk, open site, common earth, 150' haul Structural, common earth, 150' haul Vibrating roller, 6 " lifts, 3 passes

Output

Units acre/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day

Acres/yr Acres per equip-days (project- Equip-days equip-day) per acre specific) per year 8 0.13 0.57 0.07 2.05 0.49 0.57 0.28 0.99 1.01 0.28 0.29 2.42 0.41 0.28 0.12 2.85 0.35 0.57 0.20 0.95

Calculation of days required for the indicated pieces of equipment to grade the designated acreage.

(Equip)(day)/yr: Qty Equipment: Grading days/yr:

0.95 3.00 0.32

Project Grading Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2013

Haul Truck Emissions

Emissions from hauling excavation material and construction supplies are estimated in this spreadsheet. Emission Estimation Method: United States Air Force (USAF) Institute for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health Risk Analysis (IERA) Air Emissions Inventory Guidance Document for Mobile Sources at Air Force Installations (Revised December 2003).

Assumptions: Haul trucks carry 20 cubic yards of material per trip. The average distance from the project site to the materials source is 15 miles; therefore, a haul truck will travel 30 miles round trip. Estimated number of trips required by haul trucks = total amount of material/20 cubic yards per truck 1,851 73 55 73 1,820 101 30 cubic yards Assumes Interior renovations are only minimal removal of building materials cubic yards Assumes 4 feet of building material are needed for each floor cubic yards Assumes 3 feet of material would need to be excavated on average cubic yards cubic yards heavy duty diesel haul truck trips miles

Amount of Building Materials (Interior) = Amount of Building Materials (Above Ground) = Amount of Excavation Material = Amount of Debris = Amount of Paving Materials = Number of trucks required = Miles per trip =

Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) Average Emission Factors (grams/mile) VOC CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 NOx HDDV 6.5 4.7 19.1 0.512 7.73 2.01 1645.605 Notes: Emission factors for all pollutants except CO2 are from USAF IERA 2003.

Emission factors for PM, PM10, SOx are from HDDV in Table 4-50 (USAF IERA 2003).

Emission factors for VOC, CO, and NOx are from Tables 4-41 through 4-43 for the 2010 calendar year, 2000 model year (USAF IERA 2003). Diesel fuel produces 22.384 pounds of CO2 per gallon. It is assumed that the average HDDV has a fuel economy of 6.17 miles per gallon, Table 4-51 (USAF IERA 2003) CO2 emission factor = 22.384 lbs CO2/gallon diesel * gallon diesel/6.17 miles * 453.6 g/lb

HDDV Haul Truck Emissions NOx VOC lbs 43.452 31.419 tons 0.022 0.016 SO2 3.423 0.002 PM10 51.674 0.026 PM2.5 13.437 0.007 CO2 11000.730 5.500

CO 127.682 0.064

Example Calculation: NOx emissions (lbs) = 30 miles per trip * 369 trips * NOx emission factor (g/mile) * lb/453.6 g

Haul Truck On-Road Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2013

Construction Commuter Emissions

Emissions from construction workers commuting to the job site are estimated in this spreadsheet.

Emission Estimation Method: Emission factors from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) EMFAC 2007 (v 2.3) Model (on-road) were used. These emission factors are available online at http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroad/onroad.html.

Assumptions: Passenger vehicle emission factors for scenario year 2013 are used. The average roundtrip commute for a construction worker = Number of construction days = Number of construction workers (daily) = 30 miles 240 days 30 people

Passenger Vehicle Emission Factors for Year 2010 (lbs/mile) NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10 0.00071158 0.00074567 0.00709228 0.00001072 0.00009067 PM2.5 CO2 0.00005834 1.10087435

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. EMFAC 2007 (ver 2.3) On-Road Emissions Factors. Last updated April 24, 2008. Available online: <http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroad/onroad.html>. Accessed 08 Nov 2012. Notes: The SMAQMD 2007 reference lists emission factors for reactive organic gas (ROG). For purposes of this worksheet ROG = VOC.

Construction Commuter Emissions NOx VOC lbs 153.701 161.064 tons 0.077 0.081 CO 1531.933 0.766 SO2 2.315 0.001 PM10 19.584 0.010 PM2.5 12.603 0.006 CO2 237788.859 118.894

Example Calculation: NOx emissions (lbs) = 60 miles/day * NOx emission factor (lb/mile) * number of construction days * number of workers

Construction Commuter Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2013

South Central Coast Air Basin

Row # VOC 287.9 66,006.54 1,039.10 82,213.68 347.14 58,105.88

State 1 CA 2 CA 3 CA

County San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Ventura

All Emission Sources NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO 52,716.03 9,214.61 12,475.45 3,423.62 67,884.47 12,802.35 10,539.45 3,049.27 78,772.07 16,136.21 11,605.51 3,185.59 SO2

Grand Total 199,373 38,153 34,620 9,658 1,674 206,326

SOURCE: http://neibrowser.epa.gov/eis-public-web/home.html USEPA National Emissions Inventory (NEI)

Air Basin Tier Report Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2013

Summary

Summarizes total emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2014

Combustion

Estimates emissions from non-road equipment exhaust.

Fugitive

Estimates particulate emissions from construction and demolition activities including earthmoving, vehicle traffic, and windblown dust.

Grading

Estimates the number of days of site preparation, to be used for estimating heavy equipment exhaust and earthmoving dust emissions.

Haul Truck On-Road

Estimates emissions from haul trucks hauling fill materials to the job site.

Construction Commuter

Estimates emissions for construction workers commuting to the site.

Emergency Generator

Estimates emissions from the operation of emergency generators.

AQCR Tier Report

Summarizes total emissions for the South Central Coast Air Basin report for 2008, to be used to compare the Proposed Action to regional emissions.

Summary Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2014

Air Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2014 VOC (ton) 0.45 0.08 0.11 0.65

Combustion Fugitive Dust Haul Truck On-Road Commuter TOTAL

NOx (ton) 4.81 0.12 0.11 5.03

CO (ton) 2.12 0.34 1.07 3.53

SO2 (ton) 0.38 0.01 0.00 0.39

PM10 (ton) 0.35 0.48 0.14 0.01 0.98

PM2.5 (ton) 0.33 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.43

CO2 (ton) 544.62 29.19 178.62 752.43

Note: Total PM10/2.5 fugitive dust emissions are assuming USEPA 50% control efficiencies. 682.454 375,800,000 0.00018% 5,425,600,000 0.000013% metric tons (U.S. DOE/EIA 2011) metric tons (U.S. DOE/EIA 2011) metric tons

CO2 emissions converted to metric tons =

State of California's CO2 emissions =

Percent of California's CO2 emissions =

United States' CO2 emissions =

Percent of USA's CO2 emissions =

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (U.S. DOE/EIA). 2012. Table 1. State Emissions by Year (Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide). Available online <http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/state_emissions.cfm>. Data released October 2011. Data accessed 09 November 2012.

Since future year budgets were not readily available, actual 2008 air emissions inventories for the counties were used as an approximation of the regional inventory. Because emissions from the Proposed Action in FY2014 are several orders of magnitude below significance, the conclusion would be the same, regardless of whether future year budget data set were used.

South Central Coast Air Basin

Point and Area Sources Combined NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Year (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) 2008 38,153 206,326 199,373 1,674 34,620 9,658 Source: USEPA National Emissions Inventory (NEI) (http://neibrowser.epa.gov/eis-public-web/home.html). Site visited on 09 November 2012 Air Emissions from the Proposed Action in FY2014

Regional Emissions Emissions % of Regional

NOx (tpy) 38,153 5.028 0.013%

VOC (tpy) 206,326 0.648 0.0003%

Point and Area Sources Combined CO SO2 (tpy) (tpy) 199,373 1,674 3.527 0.391 0.002% 0.023%

PM10 (tpy) 34,620 0.976 0.003%

PM2.5 (tpy) 9,658 0.428 0.004%

Summary Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2014

Combustion Emissions Combustion Emissions of VOC, NO x, SO2, CO, PM2.5, PM10, and CO2 due to Construction and Demolition Assumed interior renovation activities generate minimal emissions Assumed interior renovation activities generate minimal emissions Assumed interior renovation activities generate minimal emissions Area Disturbed 56,460 ft2 3,000 ft2 11,000 ft2 5,000 ft2 1,397 ft2 1,536 ft2 300 ft2 2,400 ft2

1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.) 6.) 7.) 8.) Total Construction Area: Total Demolition Area: Total Pavement Area: Total Disturbed Area: 7,236 0.17 0 0.00 5,000 0.11 12,236 0.28 12 months 240 days ft2 acres ft2 acres ft2 acres ft2 acres

General Construction and Demolition Activities Renovation of Hangar 34 Construction of Storage Space Renovation of Bldgs 357 & 367, Triton Control Facility Expansion of existing wash rack Renovation of Bldg 311, Fleet Readiness Center AFFF addition Construction of Lithium Ion Battery Storage PEB Fire Rescue Facility

Construction Duration: Annual Construction Activity:

Assume 4 weeks per month, 5 days per week.

Project Combustion Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2014

Emission Factors Used for Construction Equipment

References: Guide to Air Quality Assessment, SMAQMD, 2004; and U.S. EPA NONROAD Emissions Model, Version 2005.0.0 Emission factors are taken from the NONROAD model and were provided to e²M by Larry Landman of the Air Quality and Modeling Center ([email protected]) on 12/14/07. Factors provided are for the weighted average US fleet for CY2007. Assumptions regarding the type and number of equipment are from SMAQMD Table 3-1 unless otherwise noted.
a c

Grading No. Reqd. per 10 acres 1 1 1 3 NOx (lb/day) 13.60 9.69 18.36 41.64 CO (lb/day) 5.50 3.20 7.00 15.71 SO2 (lb/day) 1.02 0.80 1.64 3.45 PM10 (lb/day) 0.89 0.66 1.00 2.55 VOCb (lb/day) 0.96 0.73 0.89 2.58 PM2.5 (lb/day) 0.87 0.64 0.97 2.47 CO2 (lb/day) 1456.90 1141.65 2342.98 4941.53

Equipment Bulldozer Motor Grader Water Truck Total per 10 acres of activity

Paving
c

Equipment Paver Roller Truck Total per 10 acres of activity

No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 2 4 NOx (lb/day) 3.83 4.82 36.71 45.37 CO (lb/day) 2.06 2.51 14.01 18.58 SO2 (lb/day) 0.28 0.37 3.27 3.93

VOCb (lb/day) 0.37 0.44 1.79 2.61

PM10 (lb/day) 0.35 0.43 1.99 2.78

PM2.5 (lb/day) 0.34 0.42 1.93 2.69

CO2 (lb/day) 401.93 536.07 4685.95 5623.96

Demolition
c

Equipment Loader Haul Truck Total per 10 acres of activity No. Reqd.a NOx (lb/day) 2.38 2.62 1.12 18.36 5.34 9.57 39.40
d

No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 2 NOx (lb/day) 13.45 18.36 31.81 VOCb (lb/day) 0.32 0.32 0.38 0.89 0.56 0.66 3.13

VOCb (lb/day) 0.99 0.89 1.89

CO (lb/day) 5.58 7.00 12.58

SO2 (lb/day) 0.95 1.64 2.58

PM10 (lb/day) 0.93 1.00 1.92

PM2.5 (lb/day) 0.90 0.97 1.87

CO2 (lb/day) 1360.10 2342.98 3703.07

Building Construction CO (lb/day) 1.18 1.97 1.50 7.00 3.33 2.39 17.38 SO2c (lb/day) 0.15 0.20 0.08 1.64 0.40 0.65 3.12 PM10 (lb/day) 0.23 0.32 0.23 1.00 0.55 0.50 2.83 PM2.5 (lb/day) 0.22 0.31 0.22 0.97 0.54 0.49 2.74 CO2 (lb/day) 213.06 291.92 112.39 2342.98 572.24 931.93 4464.51 per 10 acres 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Equipment

Stationary

Generator Set Industrial Saw Welder

Mobile (non-road)

Truck Forklift Crane Total per 10 acres of activity

Note: Footnotes for tables are on following page

Project Combustion Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2014

Architectural Coatings
a

SO2 0.25 0.25 PM10 (lb/day) 0.31 0.31 PM2.5 (lb/day) 0.30 0.30

c

Equipment Air Compressor Total per 10 acres of activity

No. Reqd. per 10 acres 1 1 NOx (lb/day) 3.57 3.57 CO (lb/day) 1.57 1.57

VOCb (lb/day) 0.37 0.37

CO2 (lb/day) 359.77 359.77

a) The SMAQMD 2004 guidance suggests a default equipment fleet for each activity, assuming 10 acres of that activity, (e.g., 10 acres of grading, 10 acres of paving, etc.). The default equipment fleet is increased for each 10 acre increment in the size of the construction project. That is, a 26 acre project would round to 30 acres and the fleet size would be three times the default fleet for a 10 acre project. b) The SMAQMD 2004 reference lists emission factors for reactive organic gas (ROG). For the purposes of this worksheet ROG = VOC. The NONROAD model contains emissions factors for total HC and for VOC. The factors used here are the VOC factors. c) The NONROAD emission factors assume that the average fuel burned in nonroad trucks is 1100 ppm sulfur. Trucks that would be used for the Proposed Actions will all be fueled by highway grade diesel fuel which cannot exceed 500 ppm sulfur. These estimates therefore overestimate SO2 emissions by more than a factor of two. d) Typical equipment fleet for building construction was not itemized in SMAQMD 2004 guidance. The equipment list above was assumed based on SMAQMD 1994 guidance.

Project Combustion Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2014

PROJECT-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTOR SUMMARY
Equipment Multiplier* 1 1 1 1 1 PM2.5 2.469 2.693 1.865 2.744 0.300 NOx 41.641 45.367 31.808 39.396 3.574 CO2 4941.526 5623.957 3703.074 4464.512 359.773

Project-Specific Emission Factors (lb/day) SO2** PM10 VOC CO Source Grading Equipment 2.577 15.710 3.449 2.546 Paving Equipment 2.606 18.578 3.926 2.776 Demolition Equipment 1.886 12.584 2.585 1.923 3.130 17.382 3.116 2.829 Building Construction Air Compressor for Architectural Coating 0.373 1.565 0.251 0.309 Architectural Coating** 6.933 *The equipment multiplier is an integer that represents units of 10 acres for purposes of estimating the number of equipment required for the project. **Emission factor is from the evaporation of solvents during painting, per "Air Quality Thresholds of Significance", SMAQMD, 1994 Example: SMAQMD Emission Factor for Grading Equipment NOx = (Total Grading NOx per 10 acre)*(Equipment Multiplier) Total Days 1 1 0 240 20 (from "Grading" worksheet)

Summary of Input Parameters

Grading: Paving: Demolition: Building Construction: Architectural Coating

Total Area 2 (ft ) 12,236 5,000 0 7,236 7,236 Total Area (acres) 0.28 0.11 0.00 0.17 0.17

(per SMAQMD "Air Quality of Thresholds of Significance", 1994)

NOTE: The 'Total Days' estimate for paving is calculated by dividing the total number of acres by 0.21 acres/day, which is a factor derived from the 2005 MEANS Heavy Construction Cost Data, 19th Edition, for 'Asphaltic Concrete Pavement, Lots and Driveways - 6" stone base', which provides an estimate of square feet paved per day. There is also an estimate for 'Plain Cement Concrete Pavement', however the estimate for asphalt is used because it is more conservative. The 'Total 'Days' estimate for demolition is calculated by dividing the total number of acres by 0.02 acres/day, which is a factor also derived from the 2005 MEANS reference. This is calculated by averaging the demolition estimates from 'Building Demolition - Small Buildings, Concrete', assuming a height of 30 feet for a two-story building; from 'Building Footings and Foundations Demolition - 6" Thick, Plain Concrete'; and from 'Demolish, Remove Pavement and Curb - Concrete to 6" thick, rod reinforced'. Paving is double-weighted since projects typically involve more paving demolition. The 'Total Days' estimate for building construction is assumed to be 230 days, unless project-specific data is known.

Total Project Emissions by Activity (lbs)

Grading Equipment Paving Demolition Building Construction Architectural Coatings Total Emissions (lbs):

NOx 41.64 45.37 9,455.12 71.48 9,613.61

VOC 2.58 2.61 751.15 146.12 902.46

CO 15.71 18.58 4,171.75 31.31 4,237.35

SO2 3.45 3.93 747.92 5.02 760.32

PM10 2.55 2.78 678.97 6.19 690.48

PM2.5 2.47 2.69 658.60 6.00 669.76

CO2 4,942 5,624 0 1,071,483 7,195 1,089,244

Results: Total Project Annual Emission Rates
NOx 9,613.61 4.807 VOC 902.46 0.451 CO 4,237.35 2.119 SO2 760.32 0.380 PM10 690.48 0.345 PM2.5 669.76 0.335 CO2 1,089,244 544.622

Total Project Emissions (lbs) Total Project Emissions (tons)

Project Combustion Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2014

Construction Fugitive Dust Emissions

Construction Fugitive Dust Emission Factors Units Source Emission Factor 0.19 ton PM10/acre-month MRI 1996; EPA 2001; EPA 2006 Construction and Demolition Activities New Road Construction 0.42 ton PM10/acre-month MRI 1996; EPA 2001; EPA 2006

PM2.5 Emissions PM2.5 Multiplier 0.10 (10% of PM10 EPA 2001; EPA 2006 emissions assumed to be PM2.5)

Control Efficiency

0.50 (assume 50% control EPA 2001; EPA 2006 efficiency for PM10 and PM2.5 emissions)

Project Assumptions

New Roadway Construction (0.42 ton PM 10 /acre-month) Duration of Construction Project 12 months Area 0.11 acres

General Construction and Demolition Activities (0.19 ton PM 10 /acre-month) Duration of Project 12 months Area 0.17 acres

New Roadway Construction General Construction Activities

PM10 uncontrolled 0.579 0.379 Total 0.957

Project Emissions (tons/year) PM10 controlled PM2.5 uncontrolled 0.289 0.058 0.189 0.038 0.479 0.096

PM2.5 controlled 0.029 0.019 0.048

Project Fugitive Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2014

Construction Fugitive Dust Emission Factors

General Construction Activities Emission Factor

0.19 ton PM10/acre-month Source: MRI 1996; EPA 2001; EPA 2006 The area-based emission factor for construction activities is based on a study completed by the Midwest Research Institute (MRI) Improvement of Specific Emission Factors (BACM Project No. 1), March 29, 1996. The MRI study evaluated seven construction projects in Nevada and California (Las Vegas, Coachella Valley, South Coast Air Basin, and the San Joaquin Valley). The study determined an average emission factor of 0.11 ton PM10/acre-month for sites without large-scale cut/fill operations. A worst-case emission factor of 0.42 ton PM10/acre-month was calculated for sites with active large-scale earth moving operations. The monthly emission factors are based on 168 work-hours per month (MRI 1996). A subsequent MRI Report in 1999, Estimating Particulate Matter Emissions From Construction Operations, calculated the 0.19 ton PM10/acre-month emission factor by applying 25% of the large-scale earthmoving emission factor (0.42 ton PM10/acre-month) and 75% of the average emission factor (0.11 ton PM10/acre-month). The 0.19 ton PM10/acre-month emission factor is referenced by the EPA for non-residential construction activities in recent procedures documents for the National Emission Inventory (EPA 2001; EPA 2006). The 0.19 ton PM10/acre-month emission factor represents a refinement of EPA's original AP-42 area-based total suspended particulate (TSP) emission factor in Section 13.2.3 Heavy Construction Operations. In addition to the EPA, this methodology is also supported by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as well as the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) which is funded by the EPA and is administered jointly by the Western Governor's Association and the National Tribal Environmental Council. The emission factor is assumed to encompass a variety of non-residential construction activities including building construction (commercial, industrial, institutional, governmental), public works, and travel on unpaved roads. The EPA National Emission Inventory documentation assumes that the emission factors are uncontrolled and recommends a control efficiency of 50% for PM10 and PM2.5 in PM nonattainment areas.

New Road Construction Emission Factor

0.42 ton PM10/acre-month Source: MRI 1996; EPA 2001; EPA 2006 The emission factor for new road construction is based on the worst-case conditions emission factor from the MRI 1996 study described above (0.42 tons PM10/acre-month). It is assumed that road construction involves extensive earthmoving and heavy construction vehicle travel resulting in emissions that are higher than other general construction projects. The 0.42 ton PM10/acre-month emission factor for road construction is referenced in recent procedures documents for the EPA National Emission Inventory (EPA 2001; EPA 2006).

PM2.5 Multiplier 0.10 PM2.5 emissions are estimated by applying a particle size multiplier of 0.10 to PM10 emissions. This methodology is consistent with the procedures documents for the National Emission Inventory (EPA 2006).

Control Efficiency for PM10 and PM2.5 0.50 The EPA National Emission Inventory documentation recommends a control efficiency of 50% for PM10 and PM2.5 in PM nonattainment areas (EPA 2006). Wetting controls will be applied during project construction.

References: EPA 2001. Procedures Document for National Emissions Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants, 1985-1999. EPA-454/R-01-006. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, United States Environmental Protection Agency. March 2001.

EPA 2006. Documentation for the Final 2002 Nonpoint Sector (Feb 06 version) National Emission Inventory for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants. Prepared for: Emissions Inventory and Analysis Group (C339-02) Air Quality Assessment Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, United States Environmental Protection Agency. July 2006.

MRI 1996. Improvement of Specific Emission Factors (BACM Project No. 1). Midwest Research Institute (MRI). Prepared for the California South Coast Air Quality Management District, March 29, 1996.

Project Fugitive Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2014

Grading Schedule

Estimate of time required to grade a specified area.

Input Parameters Construction area: Qty Equipment:

0.28 acres/yr (from Combustion Worksheet) 3.00 (calculated based on 3 pieces of equipment for every 10 acres)

Assumptions. Terrain is mostly flat. An average of 6" soil is excavated from one half of the site and backfilled to the other half of the site; no soil is hauled off-site or borrowed. 200 hp bulldozers are used for site clearing. 300 hp bulldozers are used for stripping, excavation, and backfill. Vibratory drum rollers are used for compacting. Stripping, Excavation, Backfill and Compaction require an average of two passes each. Excavation and Backfill are assumed to involve only half of the site.

Calculation of days required for one piece of equipment to grade the specified area.

Reference: Means Heavy Construction Cost Data, 19th Ed., R. S. Means, 2005.

Means Line No. 2230 200 0550 2230 500 0300 2315 432 5220 2315 120 5220 2315 310 5020 TOTAL 8 1,650 800 1,950 2,300

Operation Site Clearing Stripping Excavation Backfill Compaction

Description Dozer & rake, medium brush Topsoil & stockpiling, adverse soil Bulk, open site, common earth, 150' haul Structural, common earth, 150' haul Vibrating roller, 6 " lifts, 3 passes

Output

Units acre/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day

Acres/yr Acres per equip-days (project- Equip-days equip-day) per acre specific) per year 8 0.13 0.28 0.04 2.05 0.49 0.28 0.14 0.99 1.01 0.14 0.14 2.42 0.41 0.14 0.06 2.85 0.35 0.28 0.10 0.47

Calculation of days required for the indicated pieces of equipment to grade the designated acreage.

(Equip)(day)/yr: Qty Equipment: Grading days/yr:

0.47 3.00 0.16

Project Grading Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2014

Haul Truck Emissions

Emissions from hauling excavation material and construction supplies are estimated in this spreadsheet. Emission Estimation Method: United States Air Force (USAF) Institute for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health Risk Analysis (IERA) Air Emissions Inventory Guidance Document for Mobile Sources at Air Force Installations (Revised December 2003).

Assumptions: Haul trucks carry 20 cubic yards of material per trip. The average distance from the project site to the materials source is 15 miles; therefore, a haul truck will travel 30 miles round trip. Estimated number of trips required by haul trucks = total amount of material/20 cubic yards per truck 5,101 cubic yards 1,072 cubic yards 1,340 cubic yards

Amount of Building Materials (Interior) = Amount of Building Materials (Above Ground) = Amount of Building Materials (Below Ground) =

Amount of Excavation Material =

Number of trucks required = Miles per trip =

Assumes Interior renovations are only minimal removal of building materials Assumes 4 feet of building material are needed for each floor constructed Assumes 5 feet of material are needed for the below ground portion of the storage facility Assumes 12 feet of material would need to be excavated on average for construction of the 3,216 cubic yards storage facility 536 heavy duty diesel haul truck trips 30 miles

Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) Average Emission Factors (grams/mile) VOC CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 NOx HDDV 6.5 4.7 19.1 0.512 7.73 2.01 1645.605 Notes: Emission factors for all pollutants except CO2 are from USAF IERA 2003.

Emission factors for PM, PM10, SOx are from HDDV in Table 4-50 (USAF IERA 2003).

Emission factors for VOC, CO, and NOx are from Tables 4-41 through 4-43 for the 2010 calendar year, 2000 model year (USAF IERA 2003). Diesel fuel produces 22.384 pounds of CO2 per gallon. It is assumed that the average HDDV has a fuel economy of 6.17 miles per gallon, Table 4-51 (USAF IERA 2003) CO2 emission factor = 22.384 lbs CO2/gallon diesel * gallon diesel/6.17 miles * 453.6 g/lb

HDDV Haul Truck Emissions NOx VOC lbs 230.606 166.746 tons 0.115 0.083 SO2 18.165 0.009 PM10 274.244 0.137 PM2.5 71.311 0.036 CO2 58382.616 29.191

CO 677.628 0.339

Example Calculation: NOx emissions (lbs) = 30 miles per trip * 369 trips * NOx emission factor (g/mile) * lb/453.6 g

Haul Truck On-Road Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2014

Construction Commuter Emissions

Emissions from construction workers commuting to the job site are estimated in this spreadsheet.

Emission Estimation Method: Emission factors from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) EMFAC 2007 (v 2.3) Model (on-road) were used. These emission factors are available online at http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroad/onroad.html.

Assumptions: Passenger vehicle emission factors for scenario year 2014 are used. The average roundtrip commute for a construction worker = Number of construction days = Number of construction workers (daily) = 30 miles 240 days 45 people

Passenger Vehicle Emission Factors for Year 2014 (lbs/mile) NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10 0.00065484 0.00070227 0.00660353 0.00001069 0.00009185 PM2.5 CO2 0.00005939 1.10257205

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. EMFAC 2007 (ver 2.3) On-Road Emissions Factors. Last updated April 24, 2008. Available online: <http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroad/onroad.html>. Accessed 08 Nov 2012. Notes: The SMAQMD 2007 reference lists emission factors for reactive organic gas (ROG). For purposes of this worksheet ROG = VOC.

Construction Commuter Emissions NOx VOC lbs 212.169 227.537 tons 0.106 0.114 CO 2139.545 1.070 SO2 3.464 0.002 PM10 29.759 0.015 PM2.5 19.241 0.010 CO2 357233.343 178.617

Example Calculation: NOx emissions (lbs) = 60 miles/day * NOx emission factor (lb/mile) * number of construction days * number of workers

Construction Commuter Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2014

South Central Coast Air Basin

Row # VOC 287.9 66,006.54 1,039.10 82,213.68 347.14 58,105.88

State 1 CA 2 CA 3 CA

County San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Ventura

All Emission Sources NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO 52,716.03 9,214.61 12,475.45 3,423.62 67,884.47 12,802.35 10,539.45 3,049.27 78,772.07 16,136.21 11,605.51 3,185.59 SO2

Grand Total 199,373 38,153 34,620 9,658 1,674 206,326

SOURCE: http://neibrowser.epa.gov/eis-public-web/home.html USEPA National Emissions Inventory (NEI)

Air Basin Tier Report Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2014

Triton Mission Support Personnel Commuter Emissions

Emissions from Triton mission support personnel commuting to NVBC Point Mugu are estimated in this spreadsheet for one year

For the purposes of this EA, it is assumed that up to an additional 700 personnel would be stationed at NBVC Point Mugu. It is assumed 200 would be on rotational deployment at any given time. However, for purposes of this air quality analysis, the most conservative scenario (i.e., scenario expected to have the greatest potential to impact the natural and man-made environment) is presented. Therefore, it is assumed that an additional 700 personnel would obtain housing off-installation in the surrounding area. The personnel would commute to and from NBVC Point Mugu at an average round-trip commuting distance of approximately 30 miles (48 km) each working day each year. Emission Estimation Method: Emission factors from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) EMFAC 2007 (v 2.3) Model (on-road) were used. These emission factors are available online at http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroad/onroad.html.

Assumptions: Passenger vehicle emission factors for scenario year 2013 are used The average roundtrip commute for Triton mission support personnel = Number of Triton mission days = Number of Triton mission support personnel (daily) = 30 miles 250 days 700 people

Passenger Vehicle Emission Factors for Year 2013 (lbs/mile) NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 0.00071158 0.00074567 0.00709228 0.00001072 0.00009067 0.00005834 CO2 1.10087435

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. EMFAC 2007 (ver 2.3) On-Road Emissions Factors. Last updated 24 April 2008. Available online: <http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroad/onroad.html>. Accessed 7 June 2010. Notes: The SMAQMD 2007 reference lists emission factors for reactive organic gas (ROG). For purposes of this worksheet ROG = VOC

Personnel Commuter Emissions Per Year NOx VOC CO lbs 3,735.78 3,914.75 37,234.48 tons 1.87 1.96 18.62 SO2 56.27 0.03 PM10 476.00 0.24 PM2.5 306.31 0.15 CO2 5,779,590.31 2,889.80

Example Calculation: NOx emissions (lbs) = 60 miles/day * NOx emission factor (lb/mile) * number of construction days * number of personnel.

Personnel Emissions

Aircraft
CO CO2 HC CO NOx SO2 PM10 CO2 SO2 PM10

Ops/yr 1.850 0.171 1.449 1.88 2144.48 5.10 0.01 0.02 1573.89 3.567 0.011 0.998 0.773 0.19 204.61 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.13 1.36 632.23 2.337 0.003 0.402 0.311 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2125.89 5.084 0.014 1.348 1.044 1.69 1939.88 4.64 0.01 0.01 1.23 0.95 0.00 0.10 1.05

Emissions per Operation (lbs)

Emissions per Year (tpy) NOx VOC HC

Triton 0

Operation Type Landing & Take Offs

1,825

Triton

Touch & Go

Triton

Ground Turns

260

Notes: 1) 1,825 Triton Landing and Take Off ops/year (Five per day, 365 days per year.) 2) Number of Triton Touch and Go ops were assumed to be zero 3) One engine Ground Turn per aircraft per week assumed for maintenance of Triton UAS. 4) There will be no chase planes needed for Triton flights at Pt. Mugu. 5) Military turbine engine conversion factor for HC to VOC is 1.1046 in accordance with EPA-450/4-81-026d (Revised) Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation Volume IV: Mobile Sources dated 1992.

Aircraft: MQ-4C Triton UAS

APU:

None Emissions from Single Operation (lb/ op) NOx HC SO2 PM10

Operation and Mode

Engine Power Setting Fuel Used (lbs) EI CO CO CO2 EI PM10

Time-in- Fuel Flow No. of Mode per Rate per Engines in Engine Engine Use (min) (lb/hr)

Engine(s): AE3007H Emission Indexes (pounds per 1,000 pounds fuel) EI EI EI EI CO2 NOx SO2 HC

Grnd Idle Flt Idle

Takeoff and Landing (LTO) Start Taxi out Takeoff Climbout Approach Taxi In Shut down Single LTO Totals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3.0 25.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 15.0 1.0 360 660 2,060 1,640 1,210 660 360 18 275 69 27 101 165 6 661 8.90 3.33 0.45 0.69 1.20 3.33 8.90 3221.00 3219.00 3208.00 3211.00 3215.00 3219.00 3221.00 4.09 6.02 15.06 12.35 9.57 6.02 4.09 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.10 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 0.160 0.916 0.031 0.019 0.121 0.549 0.053 1.850 57.978 885.225 220.283 87.767 324.179 531.135 19.326 2125.89 0.074 1.656 1.034 0.338 0.965 0.993 0.025 5.084 0.002 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.014

Flt Idle Grnd Idle

0.037 0.561 0.140 0.056 0.206 0.337 0.012 1.348

0.028 0.435 0.108 0.043 0.159 0.261 0.009 1.044

Touch and Go (T&G) Takeoff Climbout Approach Single Touch and Go Totals 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 5.0 2,060 1,640 1,210 69 27 101 197 0.45 0.69 1.20 3208.00 3211.00 3215.00 15.06 12.35 9.57 0.01 0.01 0.02 2.04 2.04 2.04 1.58 1.58 1.58 0.031 0.019 0.121 0.171 220.283 87.767 324.179 632.23

1.034 0.338 0.965 2.337

0.001 0.000 0.002 0.003

0.140 0.056 0.206 0.402

0.108 0.043 0.159 0.311

Engine Maintenance Ground Turn Start Grnd Idle Flt Idle Systems Check Med Power Check High Power Check Shut down Grnd Idle Single Ground Turn Totals 1 1 1 1 1 3.0 30.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 360 660 1,210 2,060 360 18 330 101 34 6 489 8.90 3.33 1.20 0.45 8.90 3221.00 3219.00 3215.00 3208.00 3221.00 4.09 6.02 9.57 15.06 4.09 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.10 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58

0.160 57.978 1.099 1062.270 0.121 324.179 0.015 110.141 0.053 19.326 1.449 1573.89

0.074 1.987 0.965 0.517 0.025 3.567

0.002 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.011

0.037 0.673 0.206 0.070 0.012 0.998

0.028 0.521 0.159 0.054 0.009 0.773

Notes: 1) LTO and T&G power settings and time in modes are from Environmental Assessment for Routine and Recurring Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Flight Operations at Edwards Air Force Base, California dated November 2006. 2) LTO Ground Idle modes added by Aircraft Environmental Support Office (AESO). 3) Fuel flows and Emission Indexes are from AESO Memorandum Report 9946 Revision E, dated January 2001. 4) Ground Turn power settings and time in modes are estimated by AESO.

Aircraft RQ-4A Global Hawk

GSE Type Generator Heater A/C Light Cart

GSE Model 805 806 MA-3D H1 FL-1D

Operating Time Per Sortie/LTO (hrs) 4.80 4.80 2.00 4.00 6.00

Note 1 1 1 1 1

Notes: 1) GSE type/model/usage is from Air Emissions Factor Guide to Air Force Mobile Sources - Methods for Estimating Emissions Of Air Pollutants For Mobile Sources at U.S. Air Force Installations dated December 2009 2) Generator operating time estimated by AESO. (Four generators running 12 hrs/day, and 5 sorties per day = 4.8 hours per sortie. The USAF estimate was two generators at 24 hrs each per sortie, which would have required ten generators running 24 hours a day, five days a week at Pt. Mugu.)

Emission Factors (lbs/hp-hr)

Emissions Per Sortie/LTO (lbs)

GSE Type NOx CO HC

GSE Model

Operating Time Per Sortie/LTO (hrs) Fuel Flow (gal/hr) NOx CO HC PM10 PM2.5 PM10 2.75 4.7 92 134 0.02 0.02 0.006 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.0014 0.0014 0.00136 0.00136 8.83 12.86 2.65 3.86 0.88 1.29 0.62 0.90 Average Rated Power (hp) 4.80 4.80

PM2.5

Generator

MEP-805A MEP-806B

0.60 0.87

Notes: 1) GSE type/model from Air Emissions Factor Guide to Air Force Mobile Sources - Methods for Estimating Emissions Of Air Pollutants For Mobile Sources at U.S. Air Force Installations dated December 2009. 2) Generator operating time estimated by AESO. (Two generators running 12 hrs/day, and 5 sorties per day = 4.8 hours per sortie.) USAF default time was 24.0 hours per generator per sortie. 3) Generator 805 & 806 fuel flow/hp average ratings are updated to actual ratings by AESO IAW: TM12359A-OD/B USMC Mobile Electric Power Generating Sources dated 2 June 2005. For Generator emission factors (lbs/hp/hr) see note 1 reference, Table 2-2, page 78 .

Emission Factors (lbs/hr)

Emissions Per Sortie/LTO (lbs)

GSE Type

GSE Model

Operating Time Per Sortie/LTO (hrs) Fuel Flow (gal/hr) NOx CO HC PM10 PM2.5

Average Rated Power (hp)

NOx

CO

HC

PM10

PM2.5

Heater A/C

Onan Light Cart

MA-3D H1 FL-1D

2.00 4.00 6.00

4.57 0.39 0.62

110 6.5 10.5

0.64 0.16 0.18

0.06 0.18 0.14

0.28 0.1 0.17

0.145 0.006 0.009

0.141 0.0058 0.0087

1.28 0.64 1.08 3.00

0.12 0.72 0.84 1.68

0.56 0.40 1.02 1.98

0.29 0.02 0.05 0.37

0.28 0.02 0.05 0.36

Notes: 1) GSE type/model/hrs/fuel used/emission factors are from Air Emissions Factor Guide to Air Force Mobile Sources - Methods for Estimating Emissions Of Air Pollutants For Mobile Sources at U.S. Air Force Installations dated December 2009.

Sorties PM2.5 PM2.5

GSE Type

GSE Model

Generator

Heater A/C

Onan Light Cart

805 806 MA-3D H1 FL-1D

per Year 1825 1825 1825 1825 1825 NOx 8.83 12.86 1.28 0.64 1.08 0.60 0.87 0.28 0.02 0.05 0.55 0.80 0.26 0.02 0.05 1.67 NOx 8.06 11.74 1.17 0.58 0.99 22.54

Emissions Per Sortie/LTO (lbs) PM10 CO HC 2.65 0.88 0.62 3.86 1.29 0.90 0.12 0.56 0.29 0.72 0.40 0.02 0.84 1.02 0.05

Emissions Per Year (tons) PM10 CO HC 2.42 0.81 0.56 3.52 1.17 0.82 0.11 0.51 0.26 0.66 0.37 0.02 0.77 0.93 0.05 7.47 3.79 1.72

Summary

Summarizes total emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2016

Combustion

Estimates emissions from non-road equipment exhaust.

Fugitive

Estimates particulate emissions from construction and demolition activities including earthmoving, vehicle traffic, and windblown dust.

Grading

Estimates the number of days of site preparation, to be used for estimating heavy equipment exhaust and earthmoving dust emissions.

Haul Truck On-Road

Estimates emissions from haul trucks hauling fill materials to the job site.

Construction Commuter

Estimates emissions for construction workers commuting to the site.

Emergency Generator

Estimates emissions from the operation of emergency generators.

AQCR Tier Report

Summarizes total emissions for the South Central Coast Air Basin report for 2008, to be used to compare the Proposed Action to regional emissions.

Summary Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2016

Air Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2016 VOC (ton) 0.62 0.45 0.07 1.15

Combustion Fugitive Dust Haul Truck On-Road Commuter TOTAL

NOx (ton) 5.35 0.63 0.06 6.03

CO (ton) 2.34 1.85 0.62 4.81

SO2 (ton) 0.43 0.05 0.00 0.48

PM10 (ton) 0.38 12.95 0.75 0.01 14.08

PM2.5 (ton) 0.37 1.29 0.19 0.01 1.86

CO2 (ton) 611.09 159.12 119.53 889.73

Note: Total PM10/2.5 fugitive dust emissions are assuming USEPA 50% control efficiencies. 806.989 375,800,000 0.00021% 5,425,600,000 0.000015% metric tons (U.S. DOE/EIA 2011) metric tons (U.S. DOE/EIA 2011) metric tons

CO2 emissions converted to metric tons =

State of California's CO2 emissions =

Percent of California's CO2 emissions =

United States' CO2 emissions =

Percent of USA's CO2 emissions =

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (U.S. DOE/EIA). 2012. Table 1. State Emissions by Year (Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide). Available online <http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/state_emissions.cfm>. Data released October 2011. Data accessed 09 November 2012.

Since future year budgets were not readily available, actual 2008 air emissions inventories for the counties were used as an approximation of the regional inventory. Because emissions from the Proposed Action in FY2016 are several orders of magnitude below significance, the conclusion would be the same, regardless of whether future year budget data set were used.

South Central Coast Air Basin

Point and Area Sources Combined NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Year (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) 2008 38,153 206,326 199,373 1,674 34,620 9,658 Source: USEPA National Emissions Inventory (NEI) (http://neibrowser.epa.gov/eis-public-web/home.html). Site visited on 09 November 2012 Air Emissions from the Proposed Action in FY2016

Regional Emissions Emissions % of Regional

NOx (tpy) 38,153 6.034 0.016%

VOC (tpy) 206,326 1.145 0.0006%

Point and Area Sources Combined CO SO2 (tpy) (tpy) 199,373 1,674 4.806 0.477 0.0024% 0.029%

PM10 (tpy) 34,620 14.082 0.041%

PM2.5 (tpy) 9,658 1.862 0.019%

Summary Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2016

Combustion Emissions Combustion Emissions of VOC, NO x, SO2, CO, PM2.5, PM10, and CO2 due to Construction and Demolition Area Disturbed 65,952 ft2 47,250 ft2 146,700 ft2

General Construction and Demolition Activities 1.) Construction of new 4-bay hangar 2.) Construct parking for new 4-bay hangar 3.) Construct aircraft apron

Total Construction Area: Total Demolition Area: Total Pavement Area: Line 2 Line 1 and Line 2 Total Disturbed Area:

65,952 1.51 0 0.00 193,950 4.45 259,902 5.97 12 months 240 days

ft2 acres ft2 acres ft2 acres ft2 acres Line 1

Construction Duration: Annual Construction Activity:

Assume 4 weeks per month, 5 days per week.

Project Combustion Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2016

Emission Factors Used for Construction Equipment

References: Guide to Air Quality Assessment, SMAQMD, 2004; and U.S. EPA NONROAD Emissions Model, Version 2005.0.0 Emission factors are taken from the NONROAD model and were provided to e²M by Larry Landman of the Air Quality and Modeling Center ([email protected]) on 12/14/07. Factors provided are for the weighted average US fleet for CY2007. Assumptions regarding the type and number of equipment are from SMAQMD Table 3-1 unless otherwise noted.
a c

Grading No. Reqd. per 10 acres 1 1 1 3 NOx (lb/day) 13.60 9.69 18.36 41.64 CO (lb/day) 5.50 3.20 7.00 15.71 SO2 (lb/day) 1.02 0.80 1.64 3.45 PM10 (lb/day) 0.89 0.66 1.00 2.55 VOCb (lb/day) 0.96 0.73 0.89 2.58 PM2.5 (lb/day) 0.87 0.64 0.97 2.47 CO2 (lb/day) 1456.90 1141.65 2342.98 4941.53

Equipment Bulldozer Motor Grader Water Truck Total per 10 acres of activity

Paving
c

Equipment Paver Roller Truck Total per 10 acres of activity

No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 2 4 NOx (lb/day) 3.83 4.82 36.71 45.37 CO (lb/day) 2.06 2.51 14.01 18.58 SO2 (lb/day) 0.28 0.37 3.27 3.93

VOCb (lb/day) 0.37 0.44 1.79 2.61

PM10 (lb/day) 0.35 0.43 1.99 2.78

PM2.5 (lb/day) 0.34 0.42 1.93 2.69

CO2 (lb/day) 401.93 536.07 4685.95 5623.96

Demolition
c

Equipment Loader Haul Truck Total per 10 acres of activity No. Reqd.a NOx (lb/day) 2.38 2.62 1.12 18.36 5.34 9.57 39.40
d

No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 2 NOx (lb/day) 13.45 18.36 31.81 VOCb (lb/day) 0.32 0.32 0.38 0.89 0.56 0.66 3.13

VOCb (lb/day) 0.99 0.89 1.89

CO (lb/day) 5.58 7.00 12.58

SO2 (lb/day) 0.95 1.64 2.58

PM10 (lb/day) 0.93 1.00 1.92

PM2.5 (lb/day) 0.90 0.97 1.87

CO2 (lb/day) 1360.10 2342.98 3703.07

Building Construction CO (lb/day) 1.18 1.97 1.50 7.00 3.33 2.39 17.38 SO2c (lb/day) 0.15 0.20 0.08 1.64 0.40 0.65 3.12 PM10 (lb/day) 0.23 0.32 0.23 1.00 0.55 0.50 2.83 PM2.5 (lb/day) 0.22 0.31 0.22 0.97 0.54 0.49 2.74 CO2 (lb/day) 213.06 291.92 112.39 2342.98 572.24 931.93 4464.51 per 10 acres 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Equipment

Stationary

Generator Set Industrial Saw Welder

Mobile (non-road)

Truck Forklift Crane Total per 10 acres of activity

Note: Footnotes for tables are on following page

Project Combustion Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2016

Architectural Coatings
a

SO2 0.25 0.25 PM10 (lb/day) 0.31 0.31 PM2.5 (lb/day) 0.30 0.30

c

Equipment Air Compressor Total per 10 acres of activity

No. Reqd. per 10 acres 1 1 NOx (lb/day) 3.57 3.57 CO (lb/day) 1.57 1.57

VOCb (lb/day) 0.37 0.37

CO2 (lb/day) 359.77 359.77

a) The SMAQMD 2004 guidance suggests a default equipment fleet for each activity, assuming 10 acres of that activity, (e.g., 10 acres of grading, 10 acres of paving, etc.). The default equipment fleet is increased for each 10 acre increment in the size of the construction project. That is, a 26 acre project would round to 30 acres and the fleet size would be three times the default fleet for a 10 acre project. b) The SMAQMD 2004 reference lists emission factors for reactive organic gas (ROG). For the purposes of this worksheet ROG = VOC. The NONROAD model contains emissions factors for total HC and for VOC. The factors used here are the VOC factors. c) The NONROAD emission factors assume that the average fuel burned in nonroad trucks is 1100 ppm sulfur. Trucks that would be used for the Proposed Actions will all be fueled by highway grade diesel fuel which cannot exceed 500 ppm sulfur. These estimates therefore overestimate SO2 emissions by more than a factor of two. d) Typical equipment fleet for building construction was not itemized in SMAQMD 2004 guidance. The equipment list above was assumed based on SMAQMD 1994 guidance.

Project Combustion Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2016

PROJECT-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTOR SUMMARY
Equipment Multiplier* 1 1 1 1 1 PM2.5 2.469 2.693 1.865 2.744 0.300 NOx 41.641 45.367 31.808 39.396 3.574 CO2 4941.526 5623.957 3703.074 4464.512 359.773

Project-Specific Emission Factors (lb/day) SO2** PM10 VOC CO Source Grading Equipment 2.577 15.710 3.449 2.546 Paving Equipment 2.606 18.578 3.926 2.776 Demolition Equipment 1.886 12.584 2.585 1.923 3.130 17.382 3.116 2.829 Building Construction Air Compressor for Architectural Coating 0.373 1.565 0.251 0.309 Architectural Coating** 20.930 *The equipment multiplier is an integer that represents units of 10 acres for purposes of estimating the number of equipment required for the project. **Emission factor is from the evaporation of solvents during painting, per "Air Quality Thresholds of Significance", SMAQMD, 1994 Example: SMAQMD Emission Factor for Grading Equipment NOx = (Total Grading NOx per 10 acre)*(Equipment Multiplier) Total Days 4 22 0 240 20 (from "Grading" worksheet)

Summary of Input Parameters

Grading: Paving: Demolition: Building Construction: Architectural Coating

Total Area 2 (ft ) 259,902 193,950 0 65,952 65,952 Total Area (acres) 5.97 4.45 0.00 1.51 1.51

(per SMAQMD "Air Quality of Thresholds of Significance", 1994)

NOTE: The 'Total Days' estimate for paving is calculated by dividing the total number of acres by 0.21 acres/day, which is a factor derived from the 2005 MEANS Heavy Construction Cost Data, 19th Edition, for 'Asphaltic Concrete Pavement, Lots and Driveways - 6" stone base', which provides an estimate of square feet paved per day. There is also an estimate for 'Plain Cement Concrete Pavement', however the estimate for asphalt is used because it is more conservative. The 'Total 'Days' estimate for demolition is calculated by dividing the total number of acres by 0.02 acres/day, which is a factor also derived from the 2005 MEANS reference. This is calculated by averaging the demolition estimates from 'Building Demolition - Small Buildings, Concrete', assuming a height of 30 feet for a two-story building; from 'Building Footings and Foundations Demolition - 6" Thick, Plain Concrete'; and from 'Demolish, Remove Pavement and Curb - Concrete to 6" thick, rod reinforced'. Paving is double-weighted since projects typically involve more paving demolition. The 'Total Days' estimate for building construction is assumed to be 230 days, unless project-specific data is known.

Total Project Emissions by Activity (lbs)

Grading Equipment Paving Demolition Building Construction Architectural Coatings Total Emissions (lbs):

NOx 166.56 998.08 9,455.12 71.48 10,691.24

VOC 10.31 57.33 751.15 426.07 1,244.85

CO 62.84 408.73 4,171.75 31.31 4,674.63

SO2 13.80 86.37 747.92 5.02 853.11

PM10 10.18 61.07 678.97 6.19 756.41

PM2.5 9.88 59.24 658.60 6.00 733.72

CO2 19,766 123,727 0 1,071,483 7,195 1,222,171

Results: Total Project Annual Emission Rates
NOx 10,691.24 5.346 VOC 1,244.85 0.622 CO 4,674.63 2.337 SO2 853.11 0.427 PM10 756.41 0.378 PM2.5 733.72 0.367 CO2 1,222,171 611.086

Total Project Emissions (lbs) Total Project Emissions (tons)

Project Combustion Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2016

Construction Fugitive Dust Emissions

Construction Fugitive Dust Emission Factors Units Source Emission Factor 0.19 ton PM10/acre-month MRI 1996; EPA 2001; EPA 2006 Construction and Demolition Activities New Road Construction 0.42 ton PM10/acre-month MRI 1996; EPA 2001; EPA 2006

PM2.5 Emissions PM2.5 Multiplier 0.10 (10% of PM10 EPA 2001; EPA 2006 emissions assumed to be PM2.5)

Control Efficiency

0.50 (assume 50% control EPA 2001; EPA 2006 efficiency for PM10 and PM2.5 emissions)

Project Assumptions

New Roadway Construction (0.42 ton PM 10 /acre-month) Duration of Construction Project 12 months Area 4.45 acres

General Construction and Demolition Activities (0.19 ton PM 10 /acre-month) Duration of Project 12 months Area 1.51 acres

New Roadway Construction General Construction Activities

PM10 uncontrolled 22.440 3.452 Total 25.893

Project Emissions (tons/year) PM10 controlled PM2.5 uncontrolled 11.220 2.244 1.726 0.345 12.946 2.589

PM2.5 controlled 1.122 0.173 1.295

Project Fugitive Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2016

Construction Fugitive Dust Emission Factors

General Construction Activities Emission Factor

0.19 ton PM10/acre-month Source: MRI 1996; EPA 2001; EPA 2006 The area-based emission factor for construction activities is based on a study completed by the Midwest Research Institute (MRI) Improvement of Specific Emission Factors (BACM Project No. 1), March 29, 1996. The MRI study evaluated seven construction projects in Nevada and California (Las Vegas, Coachella Valley, South Coast Air Basin, and the San Joaquin Valley). The study determined an average emission factor of 0.11 ton PM10/acre-month for sites without large-scale cut/fill operations. A worst-case emission factor of 0.42 ton PM10/acre-month was calculated for sites with active large-scale earth moving operations. The monthly emission factors are based on 168 work-hours per month (MRI 1996). A subsequent MRI Report in 1999, Estimating Particulate Matter Emissions From Construction Operations, calculated the 0.19 ton PM10/acre-month emission factor by applying 25% of the large-scale earthmoving emission factor (0.42 ton PM10/acre-month) and 75% of the average emission factor (0.11 ton PM10/acre-month). The 0.19 ton PM10/acre-month emission factor is referenced by the EPA for non-residential construction activities in recent procedures documents for the National Emission Inventory (EPA 2001; EPA 2006). The 0.19 ton PM10/acre-month emission factor represents a refinement of EPA's original AP-42 area-based total suspended particulate (TSP) emission factor in Section 13.2.3 Heavy Construction Operations. In addition to the EPA, this methodology is also supported by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as well as the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) which is funded by the EPA and is administered jointly by the Western Governor's Association and the National Tribal Environmental Council. The emission factor is assumed to encompass a variety of non-residential construction activities including building construction (commercial, industrial, institutional, governmental), public works, and travel on unpaved roads. The EPA National Emission Inventory documentation assumes that the emission factors are uncontrolled and recommends a control efficiency of 50% for PM10 and PM2.5 in PM nonattainment areas.

New Road Construction Emission Factor

0.42 ton PM10/acre-month Source: MRI 1996; EPA 2001; EPA 2006 The emission factor for new road construction is based on the worst-case conditions emission factor from the MRI 1996 study described above (0.42 tons PM10/acre-month). It is assumed that road construction involves extensive earthmoving and heavy construction vehicle travel resulting in emissions that are higher than other general construction projects. The 0.42 ton PM10/acre-month emission factor for road construction is referenced in recent procedures documents for the EPA National Emission Inventory (EPA 2001; EPA 2006).

PM2.5 Multiplier 0.10 PM2.5 emissions are estimated by applying a particle size multiplier of 0.10 to PM10 emissions. This methodology is consistent with the procedures documents for the National Emission Inventory (EPA 2006).

Control Efficiency for PM10 and PM2.5 0.50 The EPA National Emission Inventory documentation recommends a control efficiency of 50% for PM10 and PM2.5 in PM nonattainment areas (EPA 2006). Wetting controls will be applied during project construction.

References: EPA 2001. Procedures Document for National Emissions Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants, 1985-1999. EPA-454/R-01-006. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, United States Environmental Protection Agency. March 2001.

EPA 2006. Documentation for the Final 2002 Nonpoint Sector (Feb 06 version) National Emission Inventory for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants. Prepared for: Emissions Inventory and Analysis Group (C339-02) Air Quality Assessment Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, United States Environmental Protection Agency. July 2006.

MRI 1996. Improvement of Specific Emission Factors (BACM Project No. 1). Midwest Research Institute (MRI). Prepared for the California South Coast Air Quality Management District, March 29, 1996.

Project Fugitive Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2016

Grading Schedule

Estimate of time required to grade a specified area.

Input Parameters Construction area: Qty Equipment:

5.97 acres/yr (from Combustion Worksheet) 3.00 (calculated based on 3 pieces of equipment for every 10 acres)

Assumptions. Terrain is mostly flat. An average of 6" soil is excavated from one half of the site and backfilled to the other half of the site; no soil is hauled off-site or borrowed. 200 hp bulldozers are used for site clearing. 300 hp bulldozers are used for stripping, excavation, and backfill. Vibratory drum rollers are used for compacting. Stripping, Excavation, Backfill and Compaction require an average of two passes each. Excavation and Backfill are assumed to involve only half of the site.

Calculation of days required for one piece of equipment to grade the specified area.

Reference: Means Heavy Construction Cost Data, 19th Ed., R. S. Means, 2005.

Means Line No. 2230 200 0550 2230 500 0300 2315 432 5220 2315 120 5220 2315 310 5020 TOTAL 8 1,650 800 1,950 2,300

Operation Site Clearing Stripping Excavation Backfill Compaction

Description Dozer & rake, medium brush Topsoil & stockpiling, adverse soil Bulk, open site, common earth, 150' haul Structural, common earth, 150' haul Vibrating roller, 6 " lifts, 3 passes

Output

Units acre/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day

Acres/yr Acres per equip-days (project- Equip-days equip-day) per acre specific) per year 8 0.13 5.97 0.75 2.05 0.49 5.97 2.92 0.99 1.01 2.98 3.01 2.42 0.41 2.98 1.23 2.85 0.35 5.97 2.09 10.00

Calculation of days required for the indicated pieces of equipment to grade the designated acreage.

(Equip)(day)/yr: Qty Equipment: Grading days/yr:

10.00 3.00 3.33

Project Grading Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2016

Haul Truck Emissions

Emissions from hauling excavation material and construction supplies are estimated in this spreadsheet. Emission Estimation Method: United States Air Force (USAF) Institute for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health Risk Analysis (IERA) Air Emissions Inventory Guidance Document for Mobile Sources at Air Force Installations (Revised December 2003).

Assumptions: Haul trucks carry 20 cubic yards of material per trip. The average distance from the project site to the materials source is 15 miles; therefore, a haul truck will travel 30 miles round trip. Estimated number of trips required by haul trucks = total amount of material/20 cubic yards per truck 9,771 cubic yards 12,213 29,312 7,183 2,924 30

Amount of Building Materials (Above Ground) =

Amount of Building Materials (Below Ground) = Amount of Excavation Material = Amount of Paving Material = Number of trucks required = Miles per trip =

Assumes 4 feet of building material are needed for each floor cubic yards Assumes 5 feet of material are needed for the below ground portion of the building cubic yards Assumes 12 feet of material would need to be excavated on average cubic yards heavy duty diesel haul truck trips miles

Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) Average Emission Factors (grams/mile) VOC CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 NOx HDDV 6.5 4.7 19.1 0.512 7.73 2.01 Notes: Emission factors for all pollutants except CO2 are from USAF IERA 2003. CO2 1645.605

Emission factors for PM, PM10, SOx are from HDDV in Table 4-50 (USAF IERA 2003).

Emission factors for VOC, CO, and NOx are from Tables 4-41 through 4-43 for the 2010 calendar year, 2000 model year (USAF IERA 2003). Diesel fuel produces 22.384 pounds of CO2 per gallon. It is assumed that the average HDDV has a fuel economy of 6.17 miles per gallon, Table 4-51 (USAF IERA 2003) CO2 emission factor = 22.384 lbs CO2/gallon diesel * gallon diesel/6.17 miles * 453.6 g/lb

HDDV Haul Truck Emissions NOx VOC lbs 1256.996 908.905 tons 0.628 0.454 SO2 99.013 0.050 PM10 1494.859 0.747 PM2.5 388.702 0.194 CO2 318233.727 159.117

CO 3693.635 1.847

Example Calculation: NOx emissions (lbs) = 30 miles per trip * 369 trips * NOx emission factor (g/mile) * lb/453.6 g

Haul Truck On-Road Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action inFY2016

Construction Commuter Emissions

Emissions from construction workers commuting to the job site are estimated in this spreadsheet.

Emission Estimation Method: Emission factors from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) EMFAC 2007 (v 2.3) Model (on-road) were used. These emission factors are available online at http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroad/onroad.html.

Assumptions: Passenger vehicle emission factors for scenario year 2016 are used. The average roundtrip commute for a construction worker = Number of construction days = Number of construction workers (daily) = 30 miles 240 days 30 people

Passenger Vehicle Emission Factors for Year 2016 (lbs/mile) NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10 0.00055658 0.00063254 0.00575800 0.00001071 0.00009392 PM2.5 CO2 0.00006131 1.10677664

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. EMFAC 2007 (ver 2.3) On-Road Emissions Factors. Last updated April 24, 2008. Available online: <http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroad/onroad.html>. Accessed 08 Nov 2012. Notes: The SMAQMD 2007 reference lists emission factors for reactive organic gas (ROG). For purposes of this worksheet ROG = VOC.

Construction Commuter Emissions NOx VOC lbs 120.221 136.630 tons 0.060 0.068 CO 1243.727 0.622 SO2 2.312 0.001 PM10 20.286 0.010 PM2.5 13.244 0.007 CO2 239063.755 119.532

Example Calculation: NOx emissions (lbs) = 60 miles/day * NOx emission factor (lb/mile) * number of construction days * number of workers

Construction Commuter Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2016

South Central Coast Air Basin

Row # VOC 287.9 66,006.54 1,039.10 82,213.68 347.14 58,105.88

State 1 CA 2 CA 3 CA

County San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Ventura

All Emission Sources NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO 52,716.03 9,214.61 12,475.45 3,423.62 67,884.47 12,802.35 10,539.45 3,049.27 78,772.07 16,136.21 11,605.51 3,185.59 SO2

Grand Total 199,373 38,153 34,620 9,658 1,674 206,326

SOURCE: http://neibrowser.epa.gov/eis-public-web/home.html USEPA National Emissions Inventory (NEI)

Air Basin Tier Report Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action in FY2016