Malibu Drone Base

7/29/2019 Malibu Drone Base

1/212

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR THE

WEST COAST HOME BASING OF THE MQ-4CTRITON

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM AT NAVAL BASE VENTURA

COUNTY POINT MUGU,CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2013


2/212


3/212

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR THEWEST COAST HOME BASING OF THE

MQ-4CTRITON UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM AT

NAVAL BASE VENTURA COUNTY POINT MUGU,

CALIFORNIA

NAVAL BASE VENTURA COUNTY POINT MUGU,

VENTURA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2013


4/212


5/212

Prepared by U.S. Department of the Navy1

In accordance with Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 5090.1C, CH12Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) Section 102(2) (C)3

4DRAFT5

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE WEST COAST HOME BASING6 OF THE MQ-4CTRITON UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM AT NAVAL BASE VENTURA COUNTY POINT7MUGU,CALIFORNIA8

FEBRUARY 20139

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Navy10

Title of Proposed Action: West Coast Home Basing of the MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft11

System at Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, California12

Designation: Draft Environmental Assessment13

Prepared By: U.S. Fleet Forces, U.S. Department of the Navy14

Point-of-Contact: Navy MQ-4C Triton UAS Home Basing Project Manager15

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division16

Attn: Code EV22 KP17

6506 Hampton Blvd18

LRA Building A19

Norfolk, Virginia 2350820

Abstract21

An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to analyze the U.S. Department of the Navys22

(Navy) proposal to establish facilities and functions to support the West Coast home basing and23

maintaining of the MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Triton UAS), which were formerly24known as the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance UAS (BAMS UAS), at Naval Base Ventura County25

(NBVC) Point Mugu, California. Under the Proposed Action, the Navy would home base four Triton26

UAS; establish a maintenance hub for the Triton UAS, supporting up to four additional Triton UAS27

undergoing maintenance actions at any one time; conduct an average of five Triton UAS flight operations28

(i.e., takeoffs or landings) per day (1,825 annually); construct, demolish, and renovate facilities and29

infrastructure at NBVC Point Mugu; and station up to 700 personnel, plus their family members, while30

supporting rotational deployments to and from outside the continental United States (OCONUS).31

This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)32

(42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 43214370h), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for33Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations 15001508),34

and Navy Regulations for Implementing NEPA (32 Code of Federal Regulations 775). This EA35

evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of implementation of the Proposed Action36

and No Action Alternative on noise, air quality, safety, socioeconomics, transportation, biological37

resources, water resources, cultural resources, and hazardous materials and wastes. This EA concludes38

that impacts from the Proposed Action would not be significant.39


6/212


7/212

DraftEAforWestCoastHomeBasingofTritonUASatNBVCPointMugu

ExecutiveSummary ES1 February2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1

INTRODUCTION2

Pursuant to Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended;3

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]4 15001508) implementing NEPA; U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) Regulations (32 CFR 775);5

and Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 5090.1C, CH1; the Navy has prepared this Environmental6

Assessment (EA) to analyze the Navys proposal to establish facilities and functions to support the West7

Coast home basing and maintaining of MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Triton UAS), which8

were formerly known as the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance UAS (BAMS UAS), at Naval Base9

Ventura County (NBVC) Point Mugu, California.10

BACKGROUND11

The Triton UAS is a multiple-sensor, unarmed, unmanned aircraft system that is approximately 48 feet12

(15 meters) long and has a wingspan of approximately 131 feet (40 meters). The Triton UAS provides a13

persistent maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance data collection and dissemination14

capability to the serviced Fleet Commander (up to 24 hours per day).15

The Triton UAS is a complement to the Navys P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft and uses the same16

tactical support centers as the P-8A aircraft. The tactical support centers support the command and17

control functions of both the P-8A aircraft and Triton UAS. Environmental analyses addressing the18

establishment of tactical support centers at Naval Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville, Florida, and NAS19

Whidbey Island, Washington, were conducted in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the20

Introduction of the P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft into the U.S. Navy Fleet. Since the Triton UAS21

is an unmanned, remotely controlled aircraft system, it is not necessary for the tactical support center and22home base location for the Triton UAS to be collocated.23

Project Purpose and Need24

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to enhance the ability to identify and process intelligence,25

surveillance, and reconnaissance information for Joint Forces and Fleet Commanders during pre-mission26

planning, mission execution, and post-mission reporting. The Proposed Action is needed to provide27

continuous maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities in support of national28

defense objectives and policies.29

Proposed Action30

Under the Proposed Action, the Navy would home base four Triton UAS; establish a maintenance hub for31

the Triton UAS, supporting up to four additional Triton UAS undergoing maintenance actions at any one32

time; conduct an average of five Triton UAS flight operations (i.e., takeoffs or landings) per day33

(1,825 annually); construct, demolish, and renovate facilities and infrastructure at NBVC Point Mugu;34

and station up to 700 personnel, plus their family members, while supporting rotational deployments to35


8/212



and from outside the continental United States (OCONUS). Specific details of the Proposed Action are1

provided in the following paragraphs.2

Flight Operations. Under the Proposed Action, an average of five Triton UAS flight operations would be3

conducted per day at NBVC Point Mugu. The airfield at NBVC Point Mugu supports more than4

35,000 flight operations (i.e., takeoffs or landings) annually. The addition of approximately five Triton5UAS flight operations per day would equate to a maximum of 1,825 flight operations annually, which6

would represent a 5.2 percent increase in existing annual operations at NBVC Point Mugu.7

Power Check Pad. The existing Power Check Pad at NBVC Point Mugu is approximately 19,350 square8

feet (ft2) (1,798 square meters [m2]). The existing Power Check Pad is not currently designed to support9

the wingspan of the Triton UAS. Under the Proposed Action, the existing Power Check Pad would be10

expanded in fiscal year (FY) 2013 to add approximately 4,800 ft 2 (446 m2). Upon completion of the11

expansion, the Power Check Pad would be approximately 24,150 ft2 (2,244 m2).12

Demolition and Reconstruction Activities. To provide the necessary clearance and space to13

accommodate the Triton UAS wingspan and expansion of the existing Power Check Pad at NBVC Point14

Mugu, Building 328 (air start shelter) would need to be demolished. Under the Proposed Action,15

Building 328 (approximately 495 ft2 [46 m2]) would be demolished and a new air start shelter (providing16

the same functions) would be constructed (FY 2013) approximately 100 feet (31 meters) northeast of the17

current Building 328.18

Maintenance Training Complex. Under the Proposed Action, approximately 24,986 ft2 (2,321 m2) of19

space would be renovated in Building 50 (FY 2013) at NBVC Point Mugu to provide a maintenance20

training complex. Existing parking areas at NBVC Point Mugu would be used to fulfill parking21

requirements for the maintenance training complex.22

Aircraft Wash Rack. The existing aircraft wash rack, immediately south of Building 367 at NBVC Point23

Mugu, is not currently designed to support the wingspan of the Triton UAS. Therefore, the existing24

aircraft wash rack (i.e., the curbed areas) would be expanded in FY 2014.25

Fleet Readiness Center. Building 311 (Fleet Readiness Center) at NBVC Point Mugu provides aviation26

maintenance, repair, and overhaul readiness support for aviation commands and support all aircraft on the27

installation that have Fleet Readiness Center requirements. Under the Proposed Action, approximately28

1,397 ft2 (130 m2) of space would be renovated in Building 311 (FY 2014) to facilitate scheduled and29

unscheduled maintenance of the Triton UAS.30

Local Triton UAS Control Facility. A local Triton UAS control facility would be required to provide31

control of the Triton UAS departing and returning from the field. Under the Proposed Action, Building32

367 at NBVC Point Mugu would be renovated in FY 2014 to provide a local Triton UAS control facility.33

Battery Storage Facility. A battery storage facility would be required to store the batteries (lithium ion)34

required for the Triton UAS when they are not in use. Under the Proposed Action, a new battery storage35


9/212



facility (approximately 300 ft2 [28 m2]) would be constructed in FY 2014 as an addition to Building 3851

at NBVC Point Mugu.2

Maintenance Hangars and Pavements. The Triton UAS airframes require protection from the elements3

(e.g., hail, rain, wind) when not in use. It is assumed that a maximum of eight Triton UAS will be at4

NBVC Point Mugu at any given time: four that are assigned for operational missions and four that have5

been transferred to NBVC Point Mugu from another location to receive maintenance. Under the6

Proposed Action, the northern portion of Hangar 34 would be renovated in FY 2014 to accommodate four7

Triton UAS. The total area renovated in Hangar 34 for the Triton UAS would be approximately8

70,025 ft2 (6,506 m2). A small pump station (approximately 1,536 ft2 [143 m2]) for aqueous film-forming9

foam would be constructed in FY 2014 as an attachment to Hangar 34. In addition, a new maintenance10

hangar would be constructed north of Runway 9/27 and east of Runway 3/21 in FY 2016 to accommodate11

four Triton UAS. The new maintenance hangar would be approximately 65,952 ft2 (6,127 m2) and would12

require a maximum of up to 150 parking spaces (approximately 47,250 ft2 [4,390 m2]) and an aircraft13

parking apron (approximately 146,700 ft2 [13,629 m2]).14

Storage Facility. A storage facility would be required to support the Triton UAS. Under the Proposed15

Action, a pre-engineered storage facility (approximately 3,000 ft2 [279 m2]) would be erected southwest16

of Hangar 34 in FY 2014.17

Fire Rescue Facility. Building 367, which would be renovated to provide a local Triton UAS control18

facility in FY 2014, is currently occupied by the Fire Department at NBVC Point Mugu. Renovation of19

Building 367 would displace the fire rescue services currently occupying the building. Therefore, under20

the Proposed Action, a new pre-engineered fire rescue facility (approximately 2,400 ft2 [223 m2]) would21

be erected immediately southwest of Building 367 in FY 2014 for the installations Fire Department.22

Taxiway. Under the Proposed Action, a new taxiway would be constructed in FY 2016 that would23

connect the new maintenance hangar to the existing airfield. The taxiway would be 750 feet (229 meters)24

long and 75 feet (23 meters) wide, a total of approximately 56,250 ft 2 [5,226 m2]) to ensure adequate25

lateral wing clearance.26

3rd Street and Culvert Crossings. Access to the new maintenance hangar constructed at NBVC Point27

Mugu would be provided by 3rd Street. 3rd Street, including the existing culvert crossings (which cross28

jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States), is currently a 20-foot- (6-meter-) wide road29

located adjacent to the northeastern corner of the proposed project area. Under the Proposed Action, the30

road would be upgraded and widened to a 40-foot- (12-meter-) wide, two-lane road, and the existing31

culvert crossings would be replaced in FY 2016.32

Personnel. Under the Proposed Action, up to 700 personnel would be stationed at NBVC Point Mugu to33

support the Triton UAS. The 700 personnel and their family members would gradually relocate to NBVC34

Point Mugu and the surrounding areas in phases (from 2014 to 2020). Of the 700 personnel,35

approximately 200 would be on rotational deployment at any given time and 500 would be on-installation36

to support the Triton UAS at any given time. It is estimated that each of the 700 personnel associated37

with the Proposed Action would be accompanied by an average of about 2.4 family members. Therefore,38


10/212



it is estimated that up to 2,380 people (700 personnel and 1,680 family members) would be relocated to1

NBVC Point Mugu and the surrounding areas.2

Alternatives3

During the initial planning process, all airfields operated by the Department of Defense and National4Aeronautics and Space Administration were screened using a three-tier analytical process to determine5

which airfields would be reasonable for home basing and maintaining the Triton UAS. Though East6

Coast locations were initially considered, this EA only addresses airfields on the West Coast of the United7

States. East Coast locations will potentially be considered for home basing at a later date (if the need8

arises). Upon completion of the screening process, the Navy determined that West Coast home basing of9

the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu would be the best supporting infrastructure solution for meeting the10

purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. The Navy conducted a preliminary analysis of the existing11

facilities and infrastructure at NBVC Point Mugu and determined that the facilities included under the12

Proposed Action are available and would be used to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining13

of the Triton UAS.14

Alternative Considered But Eliminated. During the initial planning process, the Navy and U.S. Air15

Force (USAF) proposed jointly basing the Triton UAS and the RQ-4B Global Hawk UAS (once airframe16

system upgrades were implemented) at Beale Air Force Base (AFB), California. The Global Hawk UAS17

is an Air Force-operated UAS that is home based at Beale AFB. Collocating the Triton UAS and Global18

Hawk UAS (with airframe system upgrades) would allow for shared facilities and support personnel,19

which would reduce cost associated with maintenance and operation for both aircraft. However, the20

programmatic airframe system upgrades required for Global Hawk UAS compatibility with the Triton21

UAS were not implemented. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further detailed analysis22

because the Global Hawk UAS (without airframe system upgrades) would not have the required airframe23

commonalities with the Triton UAS to share facilities and personnel. Subsequently, this alternative24

would not allow for reduced cost from shared facilities and support personnel.25

No Action Alternative26

CEQ regulations addressing the preparation of environmental documentation require consideration of the27

No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not establish facilities or28

functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point29

Mugu. The No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. It30

does, however, serve as a baseline against which the impacts of the Proposed Action can be evaluated.31

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not achieve the required levels of operational readiness32for the Triton UAS.33

Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action34

Direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that could occur with implementation of the35

Proposed Action would range from no impact to less than significant impact, with no significant impacts36

on the natural or man-made environment.37


11/212



Some environmental resources, including recreation, community/emergency services, environmental1

justice, visual/aesthetic resources, airfield and airspace management, land use, infrastructure and utilities,2

and soils and topography have been omitted from further detailed analysis in this EA because the3

Proposed Action would result in no to negligible impacts on these resources.4

The potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Action on noise, air quality, safety,5

socioeconomics, transportation, biological resources, water resources, cultural resources, and hazardous6

materials and waste management are summarized in the following paragraphs.7

The analysis of impacts assumes the most conservative scenario (i.e., scenario expected to have the8

greatest potential to impact the natural and man-made environment) for each of the resource areas. It is9

not currently known what portion of new personnel (including their family members) would obtain10

housing on- and off-installation. The most conservative scenario for impacts on air quality,11

socioeconomics, and transportation assumes that all of the new personnel, plus their family members,12

would obtain non-Navy housing off-installation in the Ventura County area, and, therefore, would be13

required to commute to NBVC Point Mugu (approximately 30 miles [48 kilometers (km)]) each working14day.15

Noise16

No significant impacts on off-installation populations would be expected from construction, demolition,17

or renovation activities associated with the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, most of the18

construction, demolition, and renovation activities would take place in industrial areas or adjacent to the19

airfield where buildings include hangars, garages, and paint booths. Improvements to 3rd Street20

(including replacing the existing culvert crossings) would occur as close as 200 feet (61 meters) from an21

on-installation residential area. These improvements would be the highest noise levels that populations22

would be exposed to under the Proposed Action. However, the noise from construction equipment would23be localized, short-term, and intermittent. As such, noise generated by construction activities under the24

Proposed Action would not be significant.25

The addition of approximately five Triton UAS flight operations per day would equate to 1,825 flight26

operations annually, which would represent a 5.2 percent increase in existing annual operations and a27

0.2 decibel (dB) increase in the existing noise environment. The small percentage of proposed Triton28

UAS flight operations relative to the total existing operations at NBVC Point Mugu would not result in29

significant impacts on the existing noise environment at the installation or in the surrounding areas. Since30

the existing noise levels at NBVC Point Mugu are dominated by aircraft that are louder than the Triton31

UAS, the Triton UAS flight operations would not be expected to produce a noticeable change in average32noise levels within the areas currently exposed to noise from aircraft operations. Therefore, no significant33

impacts on the existing noise environment would be expected.34

Air Quality35

Under the Proposed Action, construction, demolition, and renovation activities would take place over a36

4-year period (FY 2013FY 2016). Anticipated construction, demolition, and renovation emissions37


12/212



would represent a negligible percentage of the air emissions inventoried locally in Ventura County and1

within the South Central Coast Air Basin. Appropriate fugitive dust-control measures would be2

employed during these activities to suppress emissions. Emissions associated with construction,3

demolition, and renovation activities would be temporary in nature. Therefore, no significant impacts on4

local or regional air quality in FY 2013, FY 2014, or FY 2016 would be expected from construction,5

demolition, and renovation activities at NBVC Point Mugu. The stationing of 700 personnel at NBVC6

Point Mugu would cause a slight increase in emissions from their privately owned vehicles. An average7

of five Triton UAS flight operations would represent a 5.2 percent increase in existing annual operations8

at NBVC Point Mugu. No significant impacts from emissions associated with the additional personnel9

commuting to the installation or Triton UAS flight operations at NBVC Point Mugu would be expected.10

Emissions from implementation of the Proposed Action would be well below the applicable General11

Conformity de minimis thresholds. None of the potential emissions would cause or contribute to a12

violation of any National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or State Ambient Air Quality13

Standards (SAAQS). Therefore, no significant impacts on air quality would be expected from14

implementation of the Proposed Action.15

Safety16

The addition of approximately five Triton UAS flight operations per day would represent a negligible17

(5.2 percent) increase in existing annual operations at NBVC Point Mugu that would not be expected to18

increase the risk of mishaps. All Triton UAS flight operations would be conducted in accordance with19

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and directives, specific operating manuals, and20

Department of Defense (DOD) Flight Information Publications. All emergencies or malfunctions21

associated with the flight operations would be handled in accordance with established aircraft-specific22

procedures. Existing emergency response plans would also be updated as necessary to account for Triton23

UAS unique requirements. Therefore, no significant impacts on safety from aircraft mishaps or mishap24response would be expected.25

The Triton UAS flight operations would be conducted in existing controlled airspace at NBVC Point26

Mugu; therefore, there would be no change in the existing accident potential zones (APZs). Additionally,27

the Triton UAS is designed with multiple redundant systems and is programmed to perform28

predetermined maneuvers should communication with the aircraft be interrupted. These maneuvers29

would minimize risk of mishap. NBVC Point Mugu has prepared a Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard30

(BASH) plan to reduce the potential for collisions between aircraft and birds or other animals. Triton31

UAS flight operations would represent only a small increase in total annual airfield operations and NBVC32

Point Mugu would continue to manage BASH in accordance with the installations BASH plan; therefore,33

no significant impact on safety from BASH would be expected.34

Socioeconomics35

It is estimated that each of the 700 personnel associated with the Proposed Action would be accompanied36

by an average of about 2.4 family members. Therefore, it is estimated that up to 2,380 people37

(700 personnel and 1,680 family members) would be relocated to NBVC Point Mugu and the surrounding38


13/212



areas. This would represent a minor increase of approximately 0.3 percent in the total population of the1

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area. On-installation housing is available at2

NBVC Point Mugu and an additional military housing complex is located in the City of Camarillo, which3

is approximately 10 miles (16 km) from NBVC Point Mugu. The additional demand for 700 housing4

units in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area would represent approximately5

4.6 percent of the approximately 15,093 available vacant housing units in the Oxnard-Thousand6

Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area, based on the 2010 data. Increases in housing demand would7

result in the reduction of current vacant housing stock and, subsequently, increases in property tax8

revenue and could increase the value of homes. However, no significant impacts on housing would be9

expected from implementation of the Proposed Action.10

Of the approximate 2.4 accompanying family members, 1 person is expected to be an adult and, thus,11

would also contribute to the regional workforce. Including the additional 700 personnel stationed at12

NVBC Point Mugu, this would result in a total of approximately 1,400 (i.e., 0.3 percent increase in the13

current workforce) additional workers contributing to the regional workforce and directly stimulating the14

local economy. Either scenario would result in a relatively minor addition to the existing workforce, but15the increase, nonetheless, would have a beneficial effect on the local economy due to an increase in16

demand for products, services, and supplies found in the local community.17

Construction, demolition, and renovation activities would initially create a temporary regional increase in18

employment. The construction of new buildings and facilities and renovation of existing buildings would19

result in beneficial effects on the construction industry due to increases in payroll, taxes, and the indirect20

purchase of goods and services. As a result, there would be beneficial impacts on employment. Given21

the relatively small nature of the Proposed Action when compared to total construction and employment22

levels in the region, this project would not result in significant impacts on employment. During23

construction, demolition, and renovation activities, short-term employment provided by civilian24contracting firms for up to 1 year would result in beneficial impacts on the local economy due to an25

increase in demand for products, services, and supplies found in the local community. It is anticipated26

that, given the large market for similar products, services, and supplies in Ventura County and the Los27

Angeles metropolitan area, this increase in demand would not result in a scarcity of such products,28

services, and supplies in the region.29

It is likely that some of the 2.4 family members would not be school-aged children. However, it is30

assumed that the family members would consist of one adult and the remainder would be school-aged31

children. Therefore, the maximum number of school-aged children that would move to Ventura County32

is estimated to be approximately 980. This would represent a maximum increase of approximately33

3.9 percent of the current public school enrollment for the Ventura County school districts for which34

NBVC Point Mugu is expected to affect. Assuming an approximately even age distribution of these35

students and an even enrollment distribution within the 20 schools in the districts, there would be an36

addition of approximately 4 students in each grade per school. Each elementary school in the district has37

approximately 4 to 5 classes per grade. Based on this conservative scenario, no significant impacts would38

be expected.39


14/212



Transportation1

The additional vehicles (approximately 1,400; assuming a 1:2 ratio of vehicles for the proposed2

700 personnel) would result in a 4 percent increase from existing vehicle traffic currently at NBVC Point3

Mugu (assuming a 1:2 ratio of vehicles to the existing 17,000 personnel stationed at NBVC Point Mugu).4

However, over the past decade, NBVC Point Mugu has experienced a drawdown in installation personnel5

and operations. Subsequently, there is excess capacity for transportation and vehicles at the installation6

because the existing transportation system was originally designed to support a larger population. The7

increase of personnel and family members associated with the Proposed Action is not expected to exceed8

the current capacity of the transportation system at NBVC Point Mugu. A slight increase in traffic up to9

1,400 additional vehicles commuting to and from NBVC Point Mugu would represent a less than10

1 percent increase in the percentage of existing traffic. Additionally, with varying work schedules,11

deployment schedules, ride-sharing, and other traffic management initiatives at NBVC Point Mugu, a12

significant increase in traffic congestion would not be expected. Therefore, no significant impacts on13

transportation would be expected.14

Biological Resources15

The footprints of the project areas for the new maintenance hangar, parking area, aircraft parking apron,16

taxiway, and 3rd Street upgrades total approximately 1.4 million ft2, or 31.9 acres. The maintenance17

hangar would be constructed somewhere within the 1.3-million-ft2 (29.4-acre) maintenance hangar18

project area. Approximately 332,152 ft2, or 7.3 acres, would be permanently altered by impervious19

surface area (i.e., facilities and pavement), and vegetation would be permanently removed upon20

completion of the Proposed Action. However, revegetation would occur in the areas not developed with21

impermeable surfaces. Therefore, no significant impacts on vegetation would be expected.22

Noise created during construction, demolition, and renovation activities could result in short-term,23

indirect impacts on wildlife, migratory birds, and protected species (i.e., Federal- and state-listed24

threatened and endangered species and California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] species of25

special concern). However, construction noise would be less than the noise associated with existing26

aircraft operations at NBVC Point Mugu. Given the current level of air traffic at NBVC Point Mugu,27

wildlife, migratory birds, and protected species using nearby habitat would be expected to have become28

habituated to noise and would be expected to move temporarily to adjacent less-utilized habitat and then29

return to the area. No significant impacts on wildlife or migratory birds, and no effect on protected30

species would be expected from increased noise associated with construction, demolition, and renovation31

activities. There would be an increase in the existing noise environment from the additional personnel32

commuting to and from NBVC Point Mugu and Triton UAS maintenance and flight operations; however,33this increase would not be expected to produce a noticeable change in average noise levels within the34

areas currently exposed to noise from aircraft operations, since the existing noise levels at NBVC Point35

Mugu are dominated by aircraft that are louder than the Triton UAS. The increase in noise levels would36

not impact wildlife, migratory birds, or protected species using nearby habitat, as the wildlife would be37

expected to have become habituated to aircraft noise. Although responses differ among species and38


15/212



situations, literature has shown that in many cases wildlife that experienced noise on a consistent basis1

were more tolerant, showing less extreme responses than wildlife not exposed on a consistent basis.2

Migratory birds have been observed nesting in the willows and other trees within the proposed3

maintenance hangar project area. Potential impacts on migratory birds from clearing vegetation for the4

new maintenance hangar could be mitigated by conducting a site survey of the project area prior to5commencement of construction activities to ensure the absence of migratory birds or by conducting6

construction activities outside of the migratory bird nesting season (i.e., March through September). If an7

active nest (i.e., nest containing intact eggs, live hatchlings, or evidence of the presence of an adult) is8

encountered once vegetation has been cleared and construction begins, the nest would be left in place9

until the nest has been abandoned. The use of these measures or other mitigation measures, as determined10

necessary by the NBVC Point Mugu Natural Resources Manager, would ensure that no violation of the11

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) or Executive Order (EO) 13186 would occur from implementing the12

Proposed Action. Therefore, no significant impacts on migratory birds or violation of the MBTA would13

be expected.14

NBVC Point Mugu has prepared a BASH plan to reduce the potential for collisions between aircraft and15

birds or other animals. The Navy is authorized for incidental takes of migratory birds for military16

readiness activities (e.g., operational, training, and maintenance flights). No significant impacts would be17

expected from Triton UAS flight operations. The Proposed Action would comply with the MBTA, and18

would not require a permit under the MBTA. The Proposed Action would not result in a take of bald or19

golden eagles. In the unlikely event a bald or golden eagle takes up residence near any of the project20

areas before construction, demolition, and renovation activities are implemented, NBVC Point Mugu21

would coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to pursue the best course of action.22

No effect on threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or CDFW23

species of special concern would be expected. Because of its industrial/developed use, none of the project24

areas associated with the Proposed Action have suitable habitat or foraging areas for salt marsh25

birds-beak, light-footed clapper rails, western snowy plovers, California least terns, least Bells vireo, or26

tidewater gobies.27

None of the proposed construction, demolition, or renovation activities under the Proposed Action would28

directly impact coastal or aquatic habitats that could be inhabited by Pacific harbor seals, elephant seals,29

or sea lions protected under the MMPA. Furthermore, implementation of environmental protection30

measures to control storm water runoff from project areas would prevent the degradation of water quality31

in the marine waters surrounding the installation. Therefore, the Navy has determined that the Proposed32

Action would not result in impacts on any marine mammal species by harassment, injury, or mortality as33defined under the MMPA. The increase in noise levels associated with the increase in flight operations34

would not impact marine mammals using nearby habitat, as the Triton UAS flight operations would not35

be conducted at low altitude over harbor seal haulout areas. Therefore, no impacts on marine mammals36

would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would occur37

outside the boundaries of essential fish habitat (EFH) and habitat areas of particular concern, which38


16/212



include Mugu Lagoon and Calleguas Creek. No effect on EFH or habitat of particular concern would be1

expected.2

Water Resources3

Construction and renovation activities would not be expected to result in major vegetation removal; soil4compaction, as soils in the project areas are composed of fill material and have been previously disturbed;5

or alter the natural drainage flow, as pre-construction hydrologic connectivity would be maintained6

through the use of culverts and other measures, as deemed appropriate. None of the construction,7

demolition, or renovation activities associated with the Proposed Action would extend below ground8

surface to a depth that would affect the underlying aquifer. Although fuel or other chemicals could be9

spilled during construction, demolition, and renovation activities, implementation of the Spill Prevention,10

Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan and immediate cleanup of any spills would prevent any11

infiltration into groundwater resources. Any additional personnel (plus their family members) that would12

choose to live on-installation would cause a long-term increase in demand for potable water. However,13

this long-term increase in demand would not be expected to exceed existing capacity of the regional water14supply. NBVC Point Mugu has experienced a drawdown (i.e., decrease) in installation personnel and15

operations over the past decade. Subsequently, there is excess capacity of potable water because the16

existing potable water distribution system was originally designed to support a larger population.17

Therefore, no impacts on groundwater would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action.18

During construction, demolition, and renovation activities, runoff from site improvements could result in19

a slight increase in turbidity. Potential impacts from an increase in turbidity would be minimized with20

implementation of best management practices (BMPs) (e.g., wetting of soils, silt fencing, and detention21

basins) and adherence to erosion and storm water management practices, as determined by the Navy, to22

contain soil and runoff on the project areas. Construction, demolition, and renovation activities23

associated with the Proposed Action are not anticipated to degrade the water quality or affect beneficial24

uses of surface water or groundwater resources. The Navy would be required to obtain permit coverage25

under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water26

Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General27

Permit) (NPDES Permit No. CAS000002) for the proposed construction activities prior to28

implementation of the Proposed Action. The Construction General Permit is issued by the California29

State Water Resources Control Board, and is an NPDES general permit for discharges from construction30

activities. In addition, under the Construction General Permit, the Navy would develop a Storm Water31

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed construction activities prior to implementation of the32

Proposed Action. The Navy would be required to obtain a Water Quality Permit (per Section 401 of the33

Clean Water Act [CWA]) and a wetland permit (per Section 404 of the CWA) prior to constructing the34

new taxiway and replacing the existing 3rd Street culvert crossings.35

Upon completion of construction and demolition activities, there would be an overall increase in36

impervious surface area at NBVC Point Mugu. The Navy is subject to the new storm water design37

requirements of Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act that require predevelopment38

site hydrology to be maintained or restored to the maximum extent technically feasible with respect to39


17/212



temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow. Additionally, the Navy is subject to the Construction1

General Permit post-construction requirements. Upon completion of construction related to the Proposed2

Action, hydrologic conditions of the areas not developed with impermeable surfaces would be restored to3

mimic predevelopment site hydrology. In addition, revegetation would occur in the project areas not4

developed with impermeable surfaces. Storm water runoff, as a result of increased impervious surface5

area, would be managed in accordance with the installations SWPPP for industrial activities, as required6

by the NPDES General Permit Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Associated7

with Industrial Activities Excluding Construction Activities (Industrial General Permit) (NPDES8

Permit No. CAS000001).9

Construction contractors would follow appropriate BMPs to protect against potential petroleum or10

hazardous material spills. If a spill or leak were to occur, Navy Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs),11

procedures identified in Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST) 5090.1C, and12

BMPs identified in the installations SWPPP for industrial activities and SPCC Plan would be13

implemented to contain the spill and minimize the potential for, and extent of, associated contamination.14

Additional mitigation measures to minimize the potential for adverse impacts might be required, as set15forth during the Section 401 and 404 of the CWA permitting process. Therefore, no significant impacts16

on water quality or surface water bodies would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action.17

Construction of the new taxiway and the proposed improvements to 3rd Street (including replacing the18

existing culvert crossings) would result in approximately 1 acre of impacts on wetlands and waters of the19

United States at NBVC Point Mugu. Consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and20

California Regional Water Quality Control Board would occur, as appropriate, to obtain the necessary21

permits (i.e., Section 404 and 401 of the CWA) prior to commencement of construction and renovation22

activities. All potential impacts on wetlands and waters of the United States would be offset by either23

(1) using the installations mitigation bank, which is currently being developed or (2) conducting a24separate wetland mitigation restoration project. Details regarding the specific impacts expected on25

wetlands, the wetland types that would be impacted, and the required mitigation measure ratio for impacts26

on wetlands would be determined during the Section 404 and 401 CWA permitting process.27

The project areas for new construction and renovation activities are within the 100-year floodplain of28

Calleguas Creek. The Navy has determined that there is no practicable alternative to conducting the29

construction and renovation activities associated with the Proposed Action in the floodplain. The Navy30

would minimize potential impacts on the floodplain with implementation of BMPs and the installations31

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP). The Proposed Action would be consistent32

with the regulations outlined in EO 11988, Floodplain Management. Floodproofing and other33

flood-protection measures would be applied to the newly constructed and renovated facilities, as deemed34

appropriate. Therefore, no significant impacts on the floodplain would be expected.35

Cultural Resources36

There are no known archaeological resources located within the area of potential effect (APE) for new37

construction actions and the demolition of Building 328. Once the final construction location is38


18/212



determined within the project area, further surveying would be conducted, including subsurface testing1

for the presence or absence of cultural materials, prior to construction of the maintenance hangar. The2

APE for architectural resources is limited to Buildings 50, 311, 328, 367, and 385; Hangar 34; and3

3rd Street (including the existing culvert crossings). These buildings serve an important function for the4

daily operations at NBVC Point Mugu; however, they have never been directly related to any particular5

Cold War asset or program; they do not represent important architectural examples of their type, period,6

or method of construction; and they do not embody the work of a master. The excavation for expanding7

and widening 3rd Street would remain in the disturbed footprint (i.e., graded portion of 3rd Street that8

extends across the golf course), and would not extend below the depth of the existing fill material. The9

culverts were originally constructed to allow access to the NBVC Point Mugu golf course, and are not10

directly related to any Cold War assets or programs. Therefore, the Navy determined that none of these11

buildings or structures meet eligibility criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places12

(NRHP). The Navy initiated consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)13

under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) on January 24, 2013. Consultation14

with the California SHPO will continue, as appropriate, once subsurface investigations at the installation15

are completed.16

The APE for traditional, religious, or cultural significance to Native American tribes is defined by the17

footprint of the proposed project areas. NBVC Point Mugu notified the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash18

Indians of the Proposed Action and provided them a copy of the California SHPO consultation letter for19

review and concurrence. The Santa Ynez Band with Chumash Indians reviewed the consultation letter20

and provided concurrence with the findings in the letter.21

In the event that intact subsurface cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during construction,22

demolition, or renovation activities, the cultural resources would be evaluated for NRHP eligibility and23

consultation would continue per 36 CFR 800.4800.6. The NBVC Point Mugu Cultural Resources24Manager would follow the procedures outlined in the installations Integrated Cultural Resources25

Management Plan (ICRMP).26

Hazardous Materials and Wastes27

It is anticipated that the quantity of products containing hazardous materials used for construction,28

demolition, and renovation activities would be minimal and their use would be of short duration. The29

quantity of hazardous wastes generated from construction, demolition, and renovation activities would be30

minor and would not be expected to exceed the capacities of existing hazardous waste disposal facilities.31

All hazardous wastes generated as a result of construction, demolition, and renovation activities would be32

handled under the existing DOD Resource Conservation and Recovery Act- (RCRA) compliant waste33management programs and, therefore, would not be expected to increase the risks of exposure to workers34

and installation personnel. Consequently, no significant impacts would be expected from construction,35

demolition, or renovation activities.36

It is anticipated that the quantity of products containing hazardous materials used to support Triton UAS37

flight operations and maintenance activities would be minimal. The quantity of hazardous wastes38


19/212



generated from maintenance activities would be minor and would not be expected to exceed the capacities1

of existing hazardous waste disposal facilities. All hazardous materials and wastes would be managed in2

accordance with the installations Hazardous Materials Management Plan and Hazardous Wastes3

Management Plan. Therefore, no significant impacts would be expected from maintenance activities or4

Triton UAS flight operations.5

All facilities proposed for demolition and renovation were constructed prior to 1978 and, therefore, could6

contain asbestos-containing material (ACMs), polychlorinated biphenyl- (PCB) contaminated materials,7

and lead-based paint (LBP). Therefore, in accordance with Navy policies and procedures, these buildings8

and Hangar 34 would be surveyed by a state-certified inspector through the on-installation Asbestos9

Program Manager prior to commencement of demolition and renovation activities. Demolition and10

renovation plans would be reviewed by NBVC Point Mugu civil engineering personnel to ensure11

appropriate measures would be taken to remove ACMs, PCB-containing materials, and LBP. In12

accordance with Navy policies and procedures, all ACMs, PCB-containing materials, and LBP would be13

removed by state-certified individuals prior to renovation and disposed of at an USEPA-approved landfill.14

Contractors performing demolition and renovation activities would be responsible for following safety15regulations and are required to conduct demolition and renovation activities in a manner that does not16

pose any risk to workers or personnel. Contractor responsibilities are to review potentially hazardous17

workplace operation and monitor exposure to workplace chemicals (e.g., asbestos, lead, hazardous18

materials) to ensure personnel are properly protected or unexposed. The removal of ACMs,19

PCB-containing materials, and LBP during demolition and renovation activities would result in beneficial20

impacts by reducing potential exposure to ACMs, PCB-containing materials, and LBP; however, these21

impacts would not be significant.22

Building 311 is within the boundaries of Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Site 6. It is not23

anticipated that contaminated groundwater associated with IRP Site 6 would be encountered during24renovation of Building 311. There are potential risks to human health from exposure of vinyl chloride25

contamination in the groundwater through vapor intrusion in a small interior area of Building 311.26

However, the current concentrations of vinyl chloride contamination in the groundwater are within the27

acceptable range for industrial activities, in which exposure would not result in unacceptable impacts on28

human health. Therefore, no impacts on or from the IRP at NBVC Point Mugu would be expected. If29

there is IRP infrastructure (e.g., monitoring wells, treatment systems, conveyance pipes) present at any of30

the project areas for the Proposed Action, project planning would include protection of IRP infrastructure31

to avoid disruption of clean-up activities and minimize potential impacts on IRP infrastructure.32

No Action Alternative33

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not establish facilities or functions to support the34

West Coast home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. No impacts on noise,35

air quality, safety, socioeconomics, transportation, biological resources, water resources, cultural36

resources, or hazardous materials and wastes at NBVC Point Mugu or in the surrounding areas would be37

expected from the No Action Alternative. Existing conditions would be unaffected. The No Action38


20/212



Alternative does not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. It does, however, serve as a1

baseline against which the impacts of the Proposed Action can be evaluated.2

Cumulative Impacts3

Based on the assessment of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions at NBVC Point Mugu, the4Proposed Action would result in environmental effects as a result of the various construction, demolition,5

and renovation activities and population increases. However, these cumulative impacts would not be6

considered significant. The following projects are those that have the greatest potential to impact7

cumulatively the resources assessed in this EA: the Expansion of Unmanned Systems Operations on the8

Point Mugu Sea Range, the Triton (BAMS) UAS Developmental Test Program, Homeporting the Littoral9

Combat Ship, Transition to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and Implementing the BASH Management10

Plan. No significant, cumulative impacts would be expected on any of the resources analyzed in this EA.11

Summary of Findings12

The proposed establishment of facilities and functions to support the West Coast home basing and13

maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu, California, would not result in significant, direct,14

indirect, or cumulative impacts on the natural or man-made environment.15


21/212


TableofContents i February2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... ES-1

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

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1-11.2 The Proposed Action ............................................................................................................ 1-31.3 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action ......................................................................... 1-31.4 The Environmental Review Process ................................................................................... 1-3

1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act ....................................................................... 1-31.4.2 Scope of Analysis ..................................................................................................... 1-4

1.4.2.1 Environmental Resources ......................................................................... 1-41.4.3 Public Involvement .................................................................................................. 1-71.4.4 Related Environmental and Planning Documents ............................................... 1-7

1.4.4.1 EA/Overseas EA (OEA) for the Navy MQ-4C Triton (BAMS) UASDevelopmental Test Program ................................................................... 1-7

1.4.4.2 NBVC Activity Overview Plan ................................................................. 1-81.4.4.3 Navy Region Southwest Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan ................... 1-81.4.4.4 Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Program ..................... 1-8

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

2.1 Description of Proposed Action ........................................................................................... 2-12.1.1 Flight Operations ..................................................................................................... 2-12.1.2 Power Check Pad .................................................................................................... 2-12.1.3 Demolition and Reconstruction Activities ............................................................. 2-32.1.4 Maintenance Training Complex ............................................................................ 2-32.1.5 Aircraft Wash Rack ................................................................................................ 2-32.1.6 Fleet Readiness Center ............................................................................................ 2-32.1.7 Local Triton UAS Control Facility ........................................................................ 2-32.1.8 Battery Storage Facility .......................................................................................... 2-32.1.9

Maintenance Hangars and Pavements .................................................................. 2-4

2.1.10 Storage Facility ........................................................................................................ 2-42.1.11 Fire Rescue Facility ................................................................................................. 2-42.1.12 Taxiway .................................................................................................................... 2-52.1.13 3rd Street and Culvert Crossings ........................................................................... 2-52.1.14 Personnel .................................................................................................................. 2-5


22/212


TableofContents ii February2013

2.2 Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 2-52.2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ....................... 2-7

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

3.1 Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 3-13.1.1 Noise Modeling ........................................................................................................ 3-23.1.2 Existing Noise Environment ................................................................................... 3-3

3.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 3-43.2.1 General Conformity ................................................................................................ 3-53.2.2 Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................... 3-53.2.3 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 3-6

3.3 Safety ..................................................................................................................................... 3-73.4 Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.4.1 Demographics .......................................................................................................... 3-93.4.2 Housing ..................................................................................................................... 3-93.4.3 Employment Characteristics ................................................................................ 3-113.4.4 Schools .................................................................................................................... 3-12

3.5 Transportation .................................................................................................................... 3-123.6 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................... 3-12

3.6.1 Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 3-133.6.2 Wildlife and Habitat .............................................................................................. 3-133.6.3 Migratory Birds ..................................................................................................... 3-143.6.4 Bald and Golden Eagles ........................................................................................ 3-153.6.5 Protected Species ................................................................................................... 3-153.6.6 Marine Mammals .................................................................................................. 3-183.6.7 Essential Fish Habitat ........................................................................................... 3-18

3.7 Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 3-193.7.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 3-203.7.2 Surface Water ........................................................................................................ 3-203.7.3 Wetlands ................................................................................................................. 3-213.7.4 Floodplains ............................................................................................................. 3-23

3.8 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 3-233.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes ..................................................................................... 3-26

3.9.1 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management .................................................. 3-26


23/212


TableofContents iii February2013

3.9.2 Asbestos .................................................................................................................. 3-273.9.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls .................................................................................... 3-273.9.4 Lead-Based Paint ................................................................................................... 3-273.9.5 Installation Restoration Program ........................................................................ 3-27

CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 4-14.1.1 Proposed Action ....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1.1 Construction Activities ............................................................................. 4-14.1.1.2 Operations Activities................................................................................. 4-3

4.1.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................. 4-44.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 4-4

4.2.1 Proposed Action ....................................................................................................... 4-44.2.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................. 4-8

4.3 Safety ..................................................................................................................................... 4-84.3.1 Proposed Action ....................................................................................................... 4-94.3.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 4-10

4.4 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................... 4-104.4.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 4-10

4.4.1.1 Demographics ......................................................................................... 4-104.4.1.2 Housing ................................................................................................... 4-104.4.1.3

Employment Characteristics ................................................................... 4-11

4.4.1.4 Schools .................................................................................................... 4-11

4.4.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 4-124.5 Transportation .................................................................................................................... 4-12

4.5.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 4-124.5.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 4-13

4.6 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................... 4-134.6.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 4-14

4.6.1.1 Vegetation ............................................................................................... 4-144.6.1.2 Wildlife and Habitat ................................................................................ 4-154.6.1.3 Migratory Birds ....................................................................................... 4-154.6.1.4 Bald and Golden Eagles .......................................................................... 4-164.6.1.5 Protected Species .................................................................................... 4-164.6.1.6 Marine Mammals .................................................................................... 4-17


24/212


TableofContents iv February2013

4.6.1.7 Essential Fish Habitat.............................................................................. 4-174.6.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 4-18

4.7 Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 4-184.7.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 4-18

4.7.1.1 Groundwater ........................................................................................... 4-184.7.1.2 Surface Water .......................................................................................... 4-194.7.1.3 Wetlands ................................................................................................. 4-204.7.1.4 Floodplains .............................................................................................. 4-20

4.7.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 4-214.8 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 4-21

4.8.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 4-214.8.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 4-22

4.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes ..................................................................................... 4-224.9.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 4-23

4.9.1.1 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management ........................................ 4-234.9.1.2 Asbestos .................................................................................................. 4-234.9.1.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls ...................................................................... 4-244.9.1.4 Lead-Based Paint .................................................................................... 4-244.9.1.5 Installation Restoration Program ............................................................ 4-25

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

5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5-15.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ............................................. 5-2

5.2.1 Federal Actions ........................................................................................................ 5-25.2.2 Non-Federal Actions ............................................................................................... 5-5

5.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................. 5-55.3.1 Noise.......................................................................................................................... 5-65.3.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 5-75.3.3 Safety ........................................................................................................................ 5-85.3.4 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................ 5-95.3.5 Transportation ....................................................................................................... 5-105.3.6 Biological Resources .............................................................................................. 5-115.3.7 Water Resources .................................................................................................... 5-125.3.8 Hazardous Materials and Wastes ........................................................................ 5-14


25/212


TableofContents v February2013

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

6.1 Consistency with Other Federal, State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, andControls ................................................................................................................................. 6-16.1.1 Federal Acts, Executive Orders, Policies, and Plans ............................................ 6-1

6.1.1.1 Clean Air Act and General Conformity Rule ............................................ 6-16.1.1.2 Coastal Zone Management ........................................................................ 6-16.1.1.3 National Historic Preservation Act ........................................................... 6-4

6.1.2 Other Plans Related to NBVC Point Mugu .......................................................... 6-46.1.2.1 NBVC Activity Overview Plan ................................................................. 6-46.1.2.2 Navy Region Southwest Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan ................... 6-4

6.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................... 6-56.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term

Productivity .......................................................................................................................... 6-5CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 7-1

CHAPTER 8 LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................. 8-1

APPENDIX A PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT AND CORRESPONDENCE ......... A-1

APPENDIX B CALIFORNIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE

CONSULTATION ..................................................................................................... B-1

APPENDIX C COASTAL CONSISTENCY NEGATIVE DETERMINATION .......................... C-1

APPENDIX D RECORD OF NON-APPLICABILITY .................................................................. D-1

APPENDIX E AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS .................................................. E-1


26/212


TableofContents vi February2013

List of Figures

Figure 2-1. Project Area for the Proposed Action ............................................................................... 2-2Figure 3-1. Photograph of Wetland Areas in the Vicinity of the Proposed Taxiway ..................... 3-21Figure 3-2. Location of Surface Waters and Wetlands at NBVC Point Mugu ................................ 3-22Figure 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 ................................................. 2-6Table 3-1. Representative SEL for Common Aircraft Departures .................................................... 3-4Table 3-2. South Central Coast Air Basin Air Emissions Inventory (2008) ...................................... 3-7Table 3-3. Population Estimates (1990, 2000, and 2010) ................................................................... 3-10Table 3-4. Vacant Housing Units (2010) ............................................................................................. 3-10Table 3-5. Overview of Employment by Industry (2011) .................................................................. 3-11Table 3-6. Protected Species Potentially Occurring on or in the Vicinity of NBVC Point

Mugu ............................................................................................................................. 3-16Table 4-1. Predicted Noise Levels for Construction Equipment ........................................................ 4-2Table 4-2. Examples of Predicted Noise Levels from Construction Activities .................................. 4-3Table 4-3. Conformity de minimis Emissions Thresholds ................................................................... 4-5Table 4-4. Estimated Air Emissions from the Proposed Action in FY 2013 ...................................... 4-5Table 4-5. Estimated Air Emissions from the Proposed Action in FY 2014 ...................................... 4-6Table 4-6. Estimated Air Emissions from the Proposed Action in FY 2015 ...................................... 4-7Table 4-7. Estimated Air Emissions from the Proposed Action in FY 2016 ...................................... 4-7Table 4-8. Summary of Project Areas and Potential Impacts on Vegetation .................................. 4-14Table 6-1. Summary of Applicable Statutes and Regulations ............................................................. 6-2


27/212


AcronymsandAbbreviations vii February2013

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACM asbestos-containing material

AFB Air Force Base

AFFF aqueous film-forming foam

AICUZ Air Installations CompatibleUse Zones

APE area of potential effect

APZ accident potential zone

AQCR air quality control region

BAMS Broad Area MaritimeSurveillance

BASH Bird/Wildlife Aircraft StrikeHazard

BMP best management practice

C Celsius

CAA Clean Air Act

CARB California Air ResourcesBoard

CCND Coastal ConsistencyNegative Determination

CDFW California Department ofFish and Wildlife

CEQ Council on EnvironmentalQuality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CNEL Community NoiseEquivalent Level

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e CO2 equivalent

CPS coastal pelagic species

CWA Clean Water Act

CZMA Coastal Zone ManagementAct

dB decibel

dBA A-weighted decibel

DOD Department of Defense

DNL Day-Night Average SoundLevel

EA Environmental Assessment

EFH essential fish habitat

EIR Environmental ImpactReport

EIS Environmental ImpactStatement

EO Executive Order

ESA Endangered Species Act

F Fahrenheit

FAA Federal AviationAdministration

FONSI Finding of No SignificantImpact

ft2 square foot

FY fiscal year

GHG greenhouse gas

HARP Historic and ArchaeologicalResources Protection

ICRMP Integrated CulturalResources Management Plan

INRMP Integrated Natural ResourcesManagement Plan

IRP Installation RestorationProgram

km kilometer

LBP lead-based paint

LUC land use control

m2 square meter


28/212


AcronymsandAbbreviations viii February2013

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MMPA Marine Mammal ProtectionAct

NAAQS National Ambient Air

Quality StandardsNAS Naval Air Station

Navy U.S. Department of the Navy

NBVC Naval Base Ventura County

NEPA National EnvironmentalPolicy Act

NHPA National HistoricPreservation Act

NMFS National Marine FisheriesService

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOA Notice of Availability

NOx nitrogen oxide

NPDES National Pollutant DischargeElimination System

NRHP National Register of HistoricPlaces

O3 ozone

OCONUS outside the continentalUnited States

OEA Overseas EnvironmentalAssessment

OPNAVINST Office of the Chief of NavalOperations Instruction

Pb lead

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PFMC Pacific Fishery ManagementCouncil

P.L. Public Law

PM10 particles less than 10micrometers in diameter

PM2.5 particles less than 2.5micrometers in diameter

RCRA Resource Conservation andRecovery Act

RONA Record of Non-ApplicabilitySAAQS State Ambient Air Quality

Standards

SEL Sound Exposure Level

SHPO State Historic PreservationOffice

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOP Standard OperatingProcedure

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control,and Countermeasures

SWPPP Storm Water PollutionPrevention Plan

tpy tons per year

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System

USACE U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers

USAF U.S. Air Force

U.S.C. United States Code

USEPA U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and WildlifeService

USV unmanned surface vehicle

VCAPCD Ventura County Air

Pollution Control District

VOC volatile organic compound


29/212


1.0Introduction 11 February2013

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION1

Pursuant to Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended;2

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]3

15001508) implementing NEPA; and U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) Regulations4(32 CFR 775), the Navy has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the Navys5

proposal to establish facilities and functions to support the West Coast home basing and maintaining of6

the MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Triton UAS), which was formerly known as the Broad7

Area Maritime Surveillance UAS (BAMS UAS), at Naval Base Ventura (NBVC) Point Mugu, California.8

This section presents background information, an introduction to the Proposed Action, the purpose of and9

need for the Proposed Action, a summary of the environmental review process, and an introduction to the10

organization of this EA.11

1.1 BACKGROUND12

The Proposed Action would occur entirely within the fence line of NBVC Point Mugu. NBVC Point13Mugu is situated along the coast of Ventura County, California, approximately 5 miles (8 kilometers14

[km]) south of the City of Oxnard and 55 miles (88.5 km) west of the City of Los Angeles, California.15

Previous realignment actions conducted in 2000 resulted in the consolidation of NBVC Point Mugu,16

NBVC Port Hueneme, and San Nicolas Island into NBVC (see Figure 1-1). NBVC Point Mugu, a17

component of NBVC, is composed of 4,500 acres of land, including support facilities and infrastructure.18

NBVC Point Mugu operates and maintains two runways, Runway 3/21 (11,000 feet [3,353 meters] long)19

and Runway 9/27 (5,500 feet [1,676 meters] long). Runway 3/21 is capable of handling the largest of20

U.S. Air Force (USAF) aircraft, including the C-5 Galaxy transport plane (CNIC undated). It is also21

shared with the California Air National Guard, which operates at the Channel Islands Air National Guard22

Station. NBVC Point Mugu provides real-time control of all air traffic within its coastal area, which23permits dynamic reallocation of flight paths to ensure safe, secure, and unhindered military operations.24

The Triton UAS is a multiple-sensor, unarmed, unmanned aircraft system that is approximately 48 feet25

(15 meters) long and has a wingspan of approximately 131 feet (40 meters). This system provides a26

persistent maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance data collection and dissemination27

capability to the serviced Fleet Commander (up to 24 hours per day).28

The Triton UAS is a complement to the Navys P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft and uses the same29

tactical support centers as the P-8A aircraft. The tactical support centers support the command and30

control functions of both the P-8A aircraft and Triton UAS. Environmental analyses addressing the31

establishment of these tactical support centers at Naval Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville, Florida, and NAS32

Whidbey Island, Washington, were conducted in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the33

Introduction of the P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft into the U.S. Navy Fleet(Navy 2008). Since34

the Triton UAS is an unmanned, remotely controlled aircraft system, it is not necessary for the tactical35

support center and home base location for the Triton UAS to be collocated.36


30/212



1Figure 1-1. Location of NBVC Point Mugu, NBVC Port Hueneme,2

NBVC San Nicolas Island, and Surrounding Areas3


31/212



1.2 THE PROPOSED ACTION1

The Proposed Action includes the establishment of facilities and functions to support the West Coast2

home basing and maintaining of the Triton UAS at NBVC Point Mugu. It is anticipated that the Proposed3

Action would be implemented during the 20132020 timeframe. The Proposed Action includes the4

following at NBVC Point Mugu:5

x Home basing four Triton UAS to support requirements in the Pacific6

x Establishing a maintenance hub for the Triton UAS, supporting up to four additional Triton7

UAS undergoing maintenance actions at any one time8

x Conducting an average of five Triton UAS flight operations (i.e., takeoffs or landings) per9

day (1,825 annually)10

x Constructing, demolishing, and renovating facilities and infrastructure to support the Triton11

UAS at NBVC Point Mugu:12

o Expanding the existing Power Check Pad and aircraft wash rack (i.e., the curbed area)13

o Demolishing Building 328 (air start shelter) and construct a new air start shelter14o Renovating (i.e., interior renovations and minor exterior site improvements) Buildings15

50, 311, and 367; and Hangar 3416

o Constructing a new addition to Building 38517

o Upgrading and widening 3rd Street, including replacing the existing culvert crossings18

o Constructing a new taxiway, maintenance hangar, and storage facility19

o Erecting a new pre-engineered fire rescue facility20

x Stationing up to 700 personnel, plus their family members, while supporting rotational21

deployments to and from outside the continental United States (OCONUS).22

Further details regarding the Proposed Action are provided in Chapter 2.23

1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FORPROPOSED ACTION24

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to enhance the ability to identify and process intelligence,25

surveillance, and reconnaissance information for Joint Forces and Fleet Commanders during pre-mission26

planning, mission execution, and post-mission reporting. The Proposed Action is needed to provide27

continuous maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities in support of national28

defense objectives and policies.29

1.4 THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS30

1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act31

NEPA (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 43214370h) is a Federal statute requiring the identification32

and analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with proposed major Federal actions before33

those actions are taken. NEPA established the CEQ, which was charged with the development of34

implementing regulations and ensuring Federal agency compliance with NEPA. The process for35

implementing NEPA is codified in Title 40 of the CFR, 15001508, Regulations for Implementing the36


32/212



Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act(CEQ Regulations). According to CEQ1

regulations, the requirements of NEPA must be integrated with other planning and environmental review2

procedures required by law or by agency so that all such procedures run concurrently ra

Malibu Drone Base

Documents

Transcript of Malibu Drone Base