[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 236 (Friday, December 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64711-64721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-31024]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Notice of Record of Decision on the Realignment of Naval Air
Station (NAS) Miramar, San Diego, California
SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy has decided to realign NAS Miramar
into Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar. This decision is made
upon careful consideration of all comments on the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) prepared for the realignment action. After review of
the administrative record and information received during the
environmental review process, the Department of the Navy has determined
that no new significant environmental information or circumstances
exist. Consequently, the Department of the Navy has determined that a
supplemental EIS is not warranted. It has been decided to implement the
realignment action using the West-Ramp configuration (Alternative B),
which was both the preferred alternative and also the environmentally
preferred alternative.
DATES: This ROD becomes effective December 2, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additional information regarding this
ROD or the Miramar realignment action may be obtained from Lieutenant
Colonel George Martin at (619) 537-6679.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the entire ROD is provided as
follows:
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Proposed Action
3. Purpose & Need
4. Background
5. Alternatives
6. Implementation
a. Aviation
b. Construction
c. Establishment of Landing Sites in East Miramar
7. Impacts & Mitigation
a. Residual Significant Impacts
i. Noise
ii. Biology
iii. Community Services and Utilities (Schools)
b. Mitigated Below A Level Of Significance
i. Geology and Soils
ii. Water Quality
iii. Biology
iv. Traffic
v. Community Services and Utilities (Potable Water)
c. Not Significant
i. Air Quality
ii. Hydrology
iii. Cultural
iv. Visual Resources
v. Land Use
vi. Public Health and Safety
vii. Hazardous Material and Wastes
viii. Aircraft Operations
ix. Socioeconomics
8. Conclusions
9. Further Information
1. Introduction
The Department of the Navy (DoN) has been studying a proposal to
realign Marine Corps Aviation assets from MCAS El Toro and MCAS Tustin
to other locations in Southern California. The realignment would
include Marine Corps aircraft, their dedicated personnel, equipment and
support. The realignment would be undertaken in accordance with the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC) of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-
510). The DoN has conducted extensive analysis of the proposal under
Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing
NEPA procedures (40 C.F.R. 1500-1508). The process used for the
analysis sought the views of the public and those Federal, State and
local agencies with special expertise. As a result of extensive
interest shown by the public, the process was extended to provide the
public with additional information and an additional opportunity to
comment. Their comments have been carefully considered and have helped
identify and resolve a number of issues and to sharpen the analysis. A
number of the most important issues, and the manner in which they have
been resolved, are set out in this Record of Decision. Having reviewed
the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Supplemental Information
Report, and all the comments and the administrative record in this
matter, the Department of the Navy (DoN) announces its decision to
proceed with the realignment of NAS Miramar to MCAS Miramar.
2. Proposed Action
In compliance with the approved recommendations of the 1993 and
1995 Defense Base Closure Commissions, the proposed action is the
relocation of Marine Corps aircraft, along with their dedicated
personnel, equipment and support, from MCAS El Toro and MCAS Tustin to
NAS Miramar and the conversion of NAS Miramar to MCAS Miramar. The
relocation of aircraft and conversion from a Navy to Marine Corps Air
Station involves: Replacement of Navy fixed-wing aircraft (including
associated maintenance and support functions) designated for
realignment to other Naval Air Stations with U.S. Marine Corps fixed-
wing aircraft (including maintenance and support functions); the
addition of rotary-wing (helicopter) aviation squadrons (including
maintenance and support functions); construction of facilities to meet
the requirements of the Marine Corps; use and modification of existing
fixed-wing flight corridors; designation of new rotary-wing flight
corridors, an increase in fixed-wing missions that involve carrying
air-to-ground ordnance for use at training ranges; establishment of
Confined Area Landing (CAL)/ Mountainous Area Landing (MAL) sites; and
adoption of Marine Corps flight procedures. Upon full implementation of
the proposed action, MCAS Miramar will support approximately 256
aircraft (eight rotary-wing squadrons and nine fixed-wing squadrons),
and approximately 11,000 personnel.
3. Purpose and Need
The purpose and need of the proposed action is to comply with the
1993 and 1995 BRAC Commissions' recommendations for the closure of MCAS
El Toro and MCAS Tustin and relocation of MCAS El Toro and MCAS
[[Page 64712]]
Tustin aircraft, along with their dedicated personnel, equipment, and
support, in a manner that supports the Marine Corps force structure.
4. Background
This action was initiated following Congress' approval of the 1993
recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
established under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990,
Public Law 101-510. Pursuant to that law, recommendations of the
Commission become final if the President sends them to Congress and
Congress does not reject them within 45 legislative days. Once
recommendations become final, 10 U.S.C. 2904 requires that the closures
and relocations must be implemented within six years. The 1993
recommendations included the closure of MCAS El Toro and direction to
``Relocate its aircraft along with their dedicated personnel, equipment
and support to other naval air stations, primarily, Naval Air Station
(NAS) Miramar, California, and MCAS Camp Pendleton, California.''
Included in the same Commission action was a change to the 1991 BRAC
Commission's recommendations for MCAS Tustin, which had named Marine
Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) Twentynine Palms as one of the
receiving sites for helicopter assets being realigned from MCAS Tustin.
The BRAC 93 Commission deleted MCAGCC as a receiving site and directed
relocation to ``NAS North Island, NAS Miramar, or MCAS Camp Pendleton,
California.'' In BRAC 95, the Commission again altered the receiving
site for assets realigned from MCAS Tustin by striking the three
potential sites listed in BRAC 93 and substituting ``other air stations
consistent with operational requirements.''
The proposed action is one of several steps to implement the BRAC
recommendations. In January 1994, the Marine Corps prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the temporary relocation of eight
MCAS El Toro tactical F/A-18 squadrons and certain support elements to
Miramar, replacing 12 squadrons of Navy F-14s. The EA concluded that
the temporary relocation of the F/A-18s, operating within existing NAS
Miramar flight procedures, would have no significant impact on the
environment. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was made in
July 1994. The temporary relocation that was evaluated by the EA has
since been completed. In another interim move subsequent to the BRAC 95
decision, and unrelated to the selection of permanent relocation sites,
all of MCAS Tustin's CH-46Es (medium lift helicopters) were temporarily
relocated to MCAS El Toro in order to facilitate placing a significant
portion of MCAS Tustin in caretaker status. The relocation of four of
these medium lift helicopter squadrons to MCAS Camp Pendleton is the
subject of a separate EIS.
The analysis undertaken for relocation of assets and conversion of
NAS Miramar to MCAS Miramar in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) assumed that
as many as eleven fixed-wing and ten rotary-wing squadrons would be
assigned to Miramar (The Supplemental Information Report (SIR),
discussed below, contained a typographical error that stated the DEIS
and FEIS evaluated the relocation of nine vice ten rotary-wing
squadrons to Miramar). The Marine Corps, through force structure
decisions, has decommissioned one fixed-wing (F/A-18) squadron
previously assigned to MCAS El Toro and transferred another fixed-wing
(F/A-18) squadron to MCAS Iwakuni, Japan. In separate actions to
implement the overall direction of BRAC and meet force structure
requirements, one MCAS Tustin rotary-wing squadron has been relocated
to MCAS New River, and another rotary-wing squadron has been relocated
to Marine Corps Base (MCB), Hawaii. Thus, realignment will actually
include only nine fixed-wing and eight rotary-wing squadrons.
Consequently, much of the EIS analysis overstates the projected impacts
for this action. Further clarification on the overstatement of impacts
was provided in a Supplemental Information Report (SIR).
Although neither addressed by NEPA, nor directed by CEQ
Regulations, the Department of the Navy determined that the use of a
Supplemental Information Report to address comments on the FEIS would
serve as a vehicle for a more thorough discussion of matters over which
there remained public concern. The SIR and the public comment it
generated would also provide the final decision maker with a more
detailed analysis for consideration in coming to a decision, thereby
furthering the purposes of NEPA. The SIR was published on September 6,
1996, with a 30 day public comment period.
The Department of the Navy received and has considered 277 letters
from the interested public during the comment period on the FEIS. It
also received and has considered 825 letters from the interested public
during the comment period on the SIR. While the SIR substantially
addressed comments received on the FEIS, some of the primary issues are
re-addressed in this Record of Decision.
5. Alternatives
NEPA and the CEQ regulations require the Department of the Navy to
study and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives for accomplishing
the purpose and need underlying the proposed action. Because the
underlying purpose and need of the realignment of assets from MCAS El
Toro and MCAS Tustin is to satisfy BRAC mandates designed to reduce
infrastructure, costs, and personnel requirements, alternative sites
that did not contribute to such reductions did not fall within the
range of reasonable alternatives and did not warrant detailed,
comparative analysis. For alternatives that were initially identified
but subsequently eliminated from detailed study, regulations require
the Department of the Navy only to discuss briefly the reasons for
their having been eliminated.
Potential receiving sites for the assets to be realigned from MCAS
El Toro and MCAS Tustin were screened on the basis of several criteria:
(1) Realignment recommendations approved by the President and accepted
by Congress in BRAC 93 and 95; (2) operational requirements; (3)
infrastructure required to support the realigned assets; and, (4)
personnel requirements.
To achieve the economies that were basic to BRAC, Marine Corps
force structure relies on the location of installations to form
interdependent, mutually supporting regional complexes on the East
Coast, West Coast, and in the Pacific. In order to meet operational and
mission requirements, the selected receiving site(s) should be in close
proximity to the established regional complex. MCAS El Toro and MCAS
Tustin are located within the West Coast regional complex. Receiving
sites for the realigned assets therefore need to lie within the West
Coast region. The Marine Corps regional complex on the West Coast is
centered around MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.
Five possible locations were identified within the West Coast
region: MCAS Camp Pendleton, NAS North Island, NAS Miramar, Naval Air
Facility (NAF) El Centro, and March Air Reserve Base (March ARB). These
five sites were then evaluated based upon operational requirements
(including the ability to conduct aircraft carrier landing practice and
access to high performance air combat maneuvering airspace),
infrastructure (including identification of requirements for runways,
hangars, and maintenance and support facilities,
[[Page 64713]]
as well as the cost of modernizing or building those facilities), and
personnel requirements (including Congressional limitations on end-
strength).
All locations except NAS Miramar were determined to be unreasonable
and were eliminated from the range of alternatives that would be
subjected to detailed study and analysis so that the analysis in the
EIS could be focused upon reasonable alternatives. The FEIS discussed
why the Department of the Navy determined that locations other than NAS
Miramar could not reasonably achieve the purpose and need for the
proposal. Further clarifying information on the criteria used to
evaluate feasibility and the basis for eliminating alternatives from
detailed discussion were provided in the SIR. An independent Department
of Defense review also confirmed that locations other than NAS Miramar
(specifically March ARB) could not reasonably achieve the purpose and
need for the proposal.
The FEIS identified Miramar as the preferred location for the
fixed-wing aircraft realigned from MCAS El Toro and most of the rotary-
wing aircraft realigned from MCAS Tustin. Three alternative site
configurations at MCAS Miramar (East Ramp (A), West Ramp (B), and East
Ramp II (C)) were analyzed in detail. A no-action alternative, which
would not realign aircraft from MCAS El Toro and MCAS Tustin and
thereby prohibit closure, was not evaluated in the EIS because BRAC
exempts from consideration under NEPA the need for closing a military
installation and the need for realigning functions from closing
installations to other receiving installations.
Some comments asserted that a no-action alternative should have
been used to establish baselines for the proposed action. The suggested
no-action alternative would consist of operating NAS Miramar at the
reduced levels it has operated while the Navy realigns assets
elsewhere. This no-action alternative would ignore the reasons for the
reduced Navy operations. The Department of the Navy did develop and use
a no-action alternative for NAS Miramar. Because the BRAC
recommendations relocated Navy aircraft from NAS Miramar to make way
for realigned Marine Corps aircraft, the no-action alternative
considered the environmental impacts associated with operating NAS
Miramar as if no Marine Corps aircraft were realigned there and it
continued to operate entirely with Navy aircraft, using Navy procedures
and operating at its historical usage levels. This no-action
alternative was used as the basis against which to measure the impacts
of the proposed action.
A number of comments addressed the Department of the Navy's
screening of potential sites other than NAS Miramar that might receive
assets relocating from MCAS Tustin and MCAS El Toro, asserting that
alternative locations should have been examined in depth. Most of these
comments focused on the relocation of Marine Corps rotary-wing aircraft
and recommended that the Department of the Navy relocate these aircraft
to March ARB. Some of these comments referred to a December 12, 1994
study from the Commander, Marine Corps Air Bases Western Area
(COMCABWEST). That study suggested that relocating the helicopters to
March ARB would be cheaper than jointly relocating fixed-wing and
rotary-wing aircraft to Miramar,
In response to these public comments, I carefully reviewed the
selection and screening of feasible sites for the relocation of Marine
Corps fixed-wing and especially rotary-wing aircraft. In particular, I
reviewed the 1994 COMCABWEST cost study that was cited in several of
the comments. I concluded that the 1994 COMCABWEST study was limited in
scope, failed to include costs in both dollars and personnel that would
be required to run an additional Marine Corps Air Station, and was
based on assumptions that are now invalid due to closure and
realignment decisions resulting from BRAC 95. The COMCABWEST study
assumed that the majority of facilities at March ARB would be available
to the Marine Corps. In fact, most facilities are not available to the
Marine Corps and significant new construction, in particular hangars
and pavement, would be required. It also assumed that the Navy would
remain at Miramar, however, in accordance with BRAC, most Navy units
have already relocated to various other sites. Finally, it assumed that
the Marine Corps would be operating at March ARB as a tenant unit, not
a host command. However, Air Force officials have stated that reserve
forces cannot host large numbers of active duty forces and the active
force would have to take control of the base with the reserve unit
becoming a tenant.
In response to the public concern expressed about the extent of the
alternatives analysis in the FEIS, the Deputy Secretary of Defense
undertook an independent review of the resource implications of
relocating Marine Corps helicopters. I have carefully studied that
independent review, which concluded that the proposed relocation of
fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft to Naval Air Station Miramar is
significantly more cost effective than relocating rotary-wing aircraft
to March ARB. This independent review established that the non-
recurring Department of Defense construction costs for relocating
Marine Corps rotary-wing assets to March ARB exceed the costs of the
proposed collocation at Miramar of the rotary-wing and fixed-wing by
approximately $250 million. After proponents of moving to March ARB
questioned some portions of the analysis, additional review determined
that the Marine Corps could avoid an estimated $3 million annually in
housing and subsistence allowances by moving the realigning rotary-wing
squadrons to March ARB. The findings of the original OSD review,
however, remain sound and the cost avoidance associated with housing
and subsistence allowances did not alter the conclusion that annual
recurring costs associated with the March ARB scenario are
significantly higher than the recurring costs of collocating the
rotary-wing squadrons with the fixed-wing squadrons at Miramar. As
demonstrated in the SIR, comparing the costs of constructing the
infrastructure and operating March ARB with Marine Corps rotary-wing
aircraft over 20 years shows that it would cost between approximately
$430 and $870 million more than if the rotary-wing assets are
collocated with the fixed-wing squadrons at Miramar. The SIR also
indicates that the relocation of rotary-wing aircraft to March ARB
would trigger a net increase in Marine Corps requirements for
approximately 780 military personnel as compared to the Miramar
alternative. Since Marine Corps end-strength levels are fixed, this
increase would have to come by drawing down other units, and would have
an adverse effect on Marine Corps operations and readiness.
Some comments state that because March ARB is closer to MCAGCC
Twentynine Palms than NAS Miramar, locating Marine Corps rotary-wing
aircraft to March ARB is more advantageous to the Marine Corps for
operational reasons. Predominately the rotary-wing aircraft that use
MCAGCC Twentynine Palms do so as a deployment exercise in support of
combined arms exercises, rather than as individual aircraft transiting
to the area for routine training. During such exercises, the aircraft
transit to MCAGCC, operate there for several days or weeks, then return
to their home base. As such, there are no substantial savings or
advantages to being closer to MCAGCC Twentynine Palms. Although March
ARB is closer to MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, it is farther than
[[Page 64714]]
Miramar from the amphibious forces that the rotary-wing aircraft also
support.
Several comments also suggested that there is a continuing need to
conduct substantial training of Navy (as opposed to Marine Corps)
pilots at NAS Miramar in support of the aircraft carriers homeported in
San Diego. They state that this ongoing Navy training requirement would
operationally preclude realignment of all of the currently proposed
MCAS Tustin and MCAS El Toro assets to Miramar. These comments argue
that these operational requirements can only be met using NAS Miramar
and thus bar a realignment proposal that would use substantially all of
Miramar's capacity for Marine Corps operations, particularly rotary-
wing operations. As explained in the SIR, the Navy has determined that
it can train its fleet aviation assets without relying on MCAS Miramar.
Most of the individual squadron training, including practice carrier
landings, is conducted in the vicinity of the Navy home bases (such as
NAS Oceana and NAS Lemoore). To the extent that additional shore-side
training is required after units deploy to the carriers, it can be
accomplished using Navy air stations and air fields in California. Navy
use of MCAS Miramar will be minimal, and has been accounted for in the
analysis in the FEIS.
Very late in the process, the Department of the Navy received a
comment on the independent review performed by the Deputy Secretary of
Defense. The comment enclosed a report that purported to show that
moving the rotary-wing assets to March ARB would be less expensive than
realigning them to MCAS Miramar as proposed. Careful review of this
report showed it is generally based on incorrect data, inaccurate
assumptions, and inappropriate cost allocations and therefore results
in faulty conclusions. For example, the report relies heavily on
generalized ratios developed from personnel or aircraft loading and not
on specific requirements and thus incorrectly assumes that a high
percentage of new construction at MCAS Miramar can be attributed to the
inclusion of rotary-wing aircraft. The Department of the Navy's cost
estimates for MCAS Miramar, by way of contrast, are based on detailed
project plans.
In consideration of the public comments received on the FEIS, the
SIR and the independent review by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, I
took a hard look at sites other than Miramar as receiving sites for
realigning Marine Corps aircraft. I have concluded that no other site
is operationally preferable to Miramar and that detailed analysis of
other receiving sites clearly would have been inconsistent with BRAC
and Marine Corps force structure plans designed to reduce
infrastructure, costs and personnel requirements. The locations other
than Miramar could not reasonably achieve the purpose and need for the
realignment. Collocation of fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft at
Miramar best reduces excess infrastructure; reduces construction and
base operating costs; and makes use of common support assets, thereby
reducing personnel requirements.
6. Implementation
Implementation of the proposed action at Miramar would include the
conversion of aviation operations from Navy procedures to Marine Corps
procedures, construction of necessary facilities to support Marine
Corps operations, and establishment of remote landing sites in East
Miramar.
a. Changes to Aviation Operations and Practices Used by the Navy
Implementation of the proposed action will involve changes in
aviation operations at Miramar, beyond the simple addition of Marine
Corps fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft and the associated personnel
and maintenance and support facilities. The NW/SE runway (Runways 6L/
24R) will remain the principal runway for take-off and landing. The
proposed action will also allow for restricted use of the East/West
runway (Runway 10/28) by rotary-wing and some fixed-wing aircraft.
Although no departures for fixed-wing aircraft will be allowed on this
runway, it will still be available for rotary-wing operations as a
helicopter landing pad and for fixed-wing arrested gear landings only.
Changes to flight corridor parameters are also planned. Aircraft
departing to the north/northeast using the Julian corridor will
increase altitude after takeoff at a faster rate. The fixed-wing usage
rate for the Seawolf corridor will decrease from approximately 75% to
50% of total fixed-wing departures while the fixed-wing usage rate for
the Julian corridor will increase from approximately 25% to 50% of
total fixed-wing departures.
The following rotary-wing flight corridors will be added: Seawolf,
IFR Racetrack, Yuma, I-15, GCA Box, north touch and go, and south touch
and go. Based on the original proposal for realigning eleven fixed wing
squadrons and ten rotary wing squadrons, the average daily use of these
corridors (in operations per day) was projected to be approximately 26
for Seawolf, 3 for IFR Racetrack, 14 for Yuma, 23 for GCA Box, 14 for
I-15, 36 for north touch and go, and 87 for south touch and go. The
rotary-wing assets will be serviced at the West end of the airfield
facilities and the fixed-wing assets will be at the East end of the
airfield facilities.
b. Construction
Implementation of the proposed action will require a
reconfiguration and expansion of existing aircraft aprons and
pavements, flightline facilities, and associated support facilities to
meet mission requirements. Major flightline expansion will occur at the
west end of the hangar complex where the helicopter squadrons will be
located, while moderate flightline expansion will occur to the east
with the construction of a new hangar and apron for the single squadron
of KC-130 aircraft. The Marine Corps plans to use the existing ground
training areas, consistent with current NAS Miramar training area
guidelines and procedures. A Mountainous Area Landing (MAL) site and
Confined Area Landing (CAL) site will be located in East Miramar, in
disturbed areas currently supporting various training and maintenance
facilities. Under the proposed action, helicopter landing, takeoff and
hovering activities will occur at these locations and represent a new
land use.
Several construction projects have been proposed to accommodate
assets relocating to MCAS Miramar from MCAS Tustin and MCAS El Toro.
These projects include a new Air Traffic Control Tower, Airfield
Parking Pavement (Aprons), Bachelor Enlisted Quarters, Administration
and Training Facilities, Community Support and Dining Facilities,
Aircraft Maintenance Complex, Ordnance Storage Facilities, Operational
Support Complex, Utilities Improvements, Base Maintenance Facilities,
Storage Facilities, and Tactical Van Pad Facilities.
In addition to the facilities proposed at the Main Station, the
proposed action will also involve the construction of facilities
defined as remote facilities, located at both the Main Station and East
Miramar. Remote facilities that will be located at the Main Station
include the heavy lift pad, Crash Fire Rescue training (to be conducted
at the existing facility), Direct Support Stock Control, and the
Defense Reutilization Marketing Office. Remote facilities that will be
located in East Miramar include the ordnance facilities (ordnance
complex and Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) training facilities),
Mountainous Area Landing site, Confined Area Landing site, and the
Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical training site. The Marine
[[Page 64715]]
Corps plans to use the existing ground training areas in East Miramar
in a manner consistent with current NAS Miramar training area
guidelines and procedures.
7. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The impacts analyzed in the EIS are grouped according to their
degree of significance: residual significant impacts (those that cannot
be mitigated below the threshold of significance); impacts mitigated
below the threshold of significance; and impacts that are not
significant. As discussed below, the Marine Corps will implement a
number of mitigative measures to avoid or minimize environmental harm
from the proposed action.
a. Residual Significant Impacts
i. Noise
I have taken a very close look at the issue of noise, recognizing
that many members of the public are concerned about the noise of
helicopter operations at a future MCAS Miramar. Although Miramar has
operated as a busy master jet base for decades and has successfully
managed the attendant noise, the introduction of substantial numbers of
helicopter operations has raised some additional concerns among some
members of the public. These concerns arise from the perceived
differences in the noise and the addition of new flight corridors. As
discussed below, the Department of the Navy has worked hard to assess
the impact of noise and to mitigate it as much as practical. Although
the mitigation measures should reduce noise impacts, the noise from
aircraft operations cannot be eliminated entirely.
Noise impacts were assessed using the State of California's
standard, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), expressed in
units of decibel (dB). The State of California's Title 21, Subchapter
6, Section 5006 states: ``The level of noise acceptable to a reasonable
person residing in the vicinity of an airport is established as a
community noise equivalent level (CNEL) value of 65 dB for purposes of
these regulations. This criterion level has been chosen for reasonable
persons residing in urban residential areas where houses are of typical
California construction and may have windows partially open. It has
been selected with reference to speech, sleep and community reaction.''
Section 5014 describes the land uses that are incompatible within the
noise impact boundaries. It provides that noise exposure levels less
than 65 dB CNEL are generally compatible for noise sensitive land uses,
including residential areas and schools. Even after mitigation, the
proposed action will result in significant on-base and off-base noise
impacts related to fixed-wing aircraft operations. Noise contours
defining the areas of impact in 5 dB increments were developed using
the NOISEMAP model and projected operational tempo data.
The outer limits of the mapped noise contours are related to fixed-
wing aircraft. Rotary-wing (helicopter) aircraft noise contours fall
entirely within fixed-wing aircraft CNEL noise contours. Noise impacts
based upon the 65 dB CNEL standard are therefore associated with fixed-
wing aircraft. Noise contours that will result from the realignment
action for only rotary-wing aircraft are provided on page F-71 of
Appendix F, Volume I of the FEIS.
Further reductions in noise levels compared to the noise levels
that were calculated originally (and set out below) will result from
the disestablishment of one F/A-18 squadron and the transfer of another
to Japan. Elimination of the CH-53D operational squadron (realigned to
MCB Hawaii) and the CH-53 FRS squadron (realigned to MCAS New River, NC
and MCBH, HI) will also result in a substantial reduction in touch and
go operations, and consequently in the projected noise levels
attributable to those aircraft.
Specific areas of concern are:
(a) Noise Impacts to Housing. The total acreage within the 65 dB
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour will decrease by
approximately 305 acres; however, the majority of the 65 dB CNEL
acreage decreases will occur in East Miramar where no homes are
located. Approximately 43 homes currently located within the existing
65 dB CNEL contour will fall outside that contour after the realignment
action and will experience a decrease in noise. Conversely,
approximately 128 homes currently located outside of the existing 65 dB
CNEL contour will fall within that contour after the realignment action
and will experience an increase in noise. Overall, the realignment
action will result in a net increase of approximately 85 homes within
the 65 dB CNEL contour. Even though the California CNEL is not
exceeded, the Department of the Navy will continue to assess noise
impacts in affected housing areas to determine what future mitigation
measures may be necessary.
(b) Noise Impacts to Schools. The Department of the Navy has looked
carefully at potential noise impacts to schools. No public school will
fall within the 65 CNEL contour as a result of the realignment action.
However, various San Diego area school districts commented that the
increased noise from aviation operations could require sound
attenuation. The California requirement for sound attenuation is based
on the CNEL noise standard rather than proximity to a flight corridor.
I reviewed these comments, carefully considering the importance of
schools to our communities. As described above, the State of California
Code of Regulations, Title 21, provides that noise exposure levels less
than 65 CNEL are compatible for noise sensitive land uses, including
schools. Noise levels below 65 dB CNEL do not automatically trigger a
requirement for sound attenuation. Nonetheless, the Department of the
Navy is fully committed to continuing to work closely with the Miramar
Technical Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee, consisting of
representatives of communities surrounding Miramar, works with the
Marine Corps to mitigate and/or reduce impacts from Marine Corps
aviation operations on areas surrounding Miramar. The Advisory
Committee is ideally suited to review Miramar's operational impacts on
schools. The Advisory Committee has been meeting regularly since May
1996, and has already successfully achieved noise mitigation measures
such as increasing the altitudes of Marine Corps rotary-wing air
routes.
(c) Noise Impacts to Sleep and Speech. A concern was raised in
public comments that the EIS section regarding sleep and speech
disturbance did not include mitigation measures. In addition to
analyzing noise impacts under the CNEL standard, the Department of the
Navy also measured noise impacts using Sound Exposure Level (SEL)
metrics. SEL can be used as an indicator of annoyance factors such as
sleep disturbance and speech interference, but cannot be used to
``predict long-term human health impacts.'' (``Federal Agency Review of
Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues'', Federal Interagency Committee
on Noise, August, 1992). There are no established noise thresholds of
significance for sleep disturbance and speech interference. Unlike the
case with the CNEL standard, judging sleep disturbance and speech
interference is subjective. Nonetheless, the Department of the Navy
recognizes that sleep disturbance and speech interference may occur in
some residential areas outside the boundary of MCAS Miramar. In an
effort to more fully inform the public and ensure the impacts were
fully considered in the
[[Page 64716]]
decision-making process, the Department of the Navy voluntarily
collected SEL data to provide additional analysis on sleep disturbance
and speech interference. Information on the impacts to the 17
representative test locations is presented in Table 4.11-9 of the FEIS.
The Marine Corps has continued to study the impacts of rotary-wing
operations and to meet with community representatives to understand
their concerns better. The Marine Corps has modified its procedures to
accommodate these concerns. For example, as discussed below, the
altitude of some flight corridors has been raised. The Marine Corps
will continue to meet with community leaders and elected officials to
seek ways in which noise impacts may be further reduced.
(d) Mitigation for Noise Impacts. A primary consideration for the
Department of the Navy was to configure operations to promote land use
compatibility, as defined under California CNEL standards, consistent
with the City of San Diego's Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for
Miramar. In order to minimize noise exposure from aviation operations
to the surrounding communities, the Marine Corps will incorporate the
following noise mitigation measures into its aircraft operations
procedures: (1) Reduce aircraft power settings for Ground Control
Approach operations for F/A-18s (refer to Figure 4.10-4 in the FEIS);
(2) discontinue use of afterburners by departing aircraft upon reaching
the MCAS Miramar boundaries whenever possible; (3) limit repetitive
``pattern'' work to normal operating hours, except where necessary to
meet operational requirements; (4) increase the altitude at which the
aircraft are held in the Julian Standard Instrument Departure from
3,000 to 6,000 feet MSL; (5) divert some helicopter flights from
neighboring communities through a flight corridor (Yuma Corridor) south
of the runways to reduce the effects of helicopter noise; (6) eliminate
a departure route (SVFR Yuma departure route) from the I-15 corridor to
the east; (7) raise the outbound altitude on the Yuma departure from
2,600 feet to 3,000 feet and the inbound altitude from 2,100 feet to
3,500 feet; (8) raise the outbound altitude of the Interstate 15
corridor from 2,600 feet to 3,000 feet and the inbound altitude from
2,100 feet to 3,500 feet MSL; and (9) relocate the primary route
between MCAS Miramar and MCAS Camp Pendleton further offshore, at a
minimum distance of one mile from the coast.
These mitigation measures have already been approved by the FAA.
The Marine Corps will continue to attempt to mitigate noise impacts by
working with the FAA on further changes to the air routes, including a
request to raise the altitude of the Seawolf corridor.
(e) Additional Testing and Future Analysis. Several comments
requested that additional testing and future noise monitoring be
accomplished. The Marine Corps will continue to examine all operational
activities for ways to minimize noise impacts to the surrounding
communities, perform a new noise analysis in the year 2000, and
maintain a noise complaint hotline for the public. The noise analysis
in the year 2000 will come shortly after the realignment of MCAS
Miramar is completed.
I recognize that because noise perception is subjective and models
are imperfect, some households will perceive more noise as a result of
the proposed realignment regardless of what the models may indicate.
Some individuals may even perceive this noise as significant. But, as
explained above and discussed wtih the public in several meetings, the
Department of the Navy recognizes these concerns, has already taken
significant steps to mitigate the noise impacts, and will continue to
analyze noise impacts and work with the public to mitigate any future
problems.
ii. Biology (Vernal Pools--Habitat). Vernal pools consist of three
distinct resources: the habitat (watershed), which is addressed here,
the basins (wetlands), and the species associated with vernal pools.
Both the basins and the associated species are addressed in section
7.b.(iii), below. Vernal pool habitat is the only biological resource
that will be significantly impacted. The proposed action will result in
the loss of approximately 4.7 acres of vernal pool habitat, which
cannot be fully mitigated. Less than three percent of historical vernal
pool habitat remains in San Diego County. The proposed action will
result in further depletion of vernal pool habitat. The amount of
habitat being impacted is considered to be significant. Mitigation
measures are discussed in paragraph 7.b.(iii).
iii. Community Services and Utilities (Schools). Of the projected
net increase of 3,875 personnel associated with the proposed action,
approximately 197 will be civilians who will be housed off-base,
independent of military personnel. The resulting net increase will be
3,150 enlisted and 528 officers. It is estimated that a net increase of
1,698 school-aged dependents at MCAS Miramar will be introduced to the
schools of San Diego County upon implementation of the proposed action.
Insofar as these additional personnel choose to purchase or rent
existing homes or apartments in the local community, no impacts will
occur since developer impact fees, which are used to fund school
districts, were or will be paid at the time of construction.
The Department of the Navy Military Family Housing in the greater
San Diego region is managed under a shared-pool system, whereby the
Marine Corps will compete on an equal basis with Navy for available
units in that pool, regardless of actual location within the region. If
military personnel associated with the proposed action choose to live
in existing Military Family Housing, their school-aged dependents will
not impact the San Diego school system as these children have already
been factored into the capacity of the school district. A proposal is
being considered as part of the Fiscal Year 1998 budget to construct
approximately 166 units of Military Family Housing on or near MCAS
Miramar. This proposal is part of a regional housing plan and is not a
component of the conversion of NAS Miramar to MCAS Miramar. If these
166 units of Military Family Housing are constructed on-base, up to
approximately 80 school-aged dependents could be added to the schools
in San Diego County. Most of the schools in the vicinity of NAS Miramar
are operating either at or near enrollment capacity. Even adding only
80 children could be significant. To reduce potential cumulative
impacts to school capacity, the Marine Corps will apprise potentially
affected schools of any military family housing construction programs
approved in the vicinity of MCAS Miramar in an effort to assist the
schools in planning for an increase in student population. Any proposal
to construct military family housing at MCAS Miramar will be evaluated
in separate NEPA documentation.
b. Mitigated to Below the Threshold of Significance
(i) Geology and Soils
As discussed in the FEIS, the proposed action will include
incorporating appropriate erosion control measures and proper
excavation techniques to ensure protection of soil resources. The
proposed action will not affect geologic resources as the facilities
will be designed to reduce the potential for land slides and other
adverse geological activities. No significant impacts to soil will
occur as a result of implementing the proposed action.
[[Page 64717]]
(ii) Water Quality
As discussed in the FEIS, appropriate measures will be implemented
to ensure that potential releases of fuels are minimized. The
installation spill response plan will be updated to cover the new
facilities. No significant impacts to water quality will occur as a
result of implementing the proposed action.
(iii) Biology
The Department of the Navy has carefully studied the potential
impacts of the proposed action on endangered species and wetlands and
in consultation with the requisite agencies, has developed and will
implement appropriate measures to protect these sensitive resources. As
discussed in section 7.a.(ii), above, vernal pools consist of three
distinct resources: The habitat (watershed) discussed in section
7.a.(ii), the basins (wetlands), and the species associated with the
basins. This section discussed the basins and the associated species.
The proposed action will impact vernal pool wetlands and species
because of the loss of the basins. The Department of the Navy will take
a number of actions to mitigate these impacts below a level of
significance.
Based upon consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), three federally-listed endangered/threatened species and two
species proposed for listing as endangered/threatened were identified
as present on NAS Miramar. These endangered species that are included
are the California gnatcatcher (gnatcatcher), the endangered San Diego
button-celery (button-celery), and the endangered San Diego mesa mint
(mesa mint). The San Diego fairy shrimp (fairy shrimp) and the quino
checkerspot butterfly (butterfly), both of which are proposed for
listing as endangered, were also included in the consultation.
The Department of the Navy prepared a Biological Assessment on
these five species and other biological resources. Information provided
to USFWS in the Biological Assessment is summarized in the DEIS, FEIS,
and SIR. Specifically, the DEIS, FEIS, and SIR discussed the existing
condition of these threatened and endangered species as well as other
sensitive species and their habitat in considerable detail. The DEIS,
FEIS, and SIR identified the impacts associated with the proposed
action and discussed mitigation measures that would reduce the
potential for adverse impacts on the threatened and endangered species
and their habitat.
During consultation with USFWS, the Marine Corps provided a list of
20 species and habitat conservation measures that were incorporated
into the proposed action. Six measures dealt with general conservation
measures (e.g., hiring a qualified project biologist, marking sensitive
habitat areas, prohibiting entry into sensitive areas, conducting
surveys for other species). Nine measures dealt with protecting vernal
pools (e.g., seasonal restrictions on construction during the rainy
season, mitigation ratios, development of plans). Five protective
measures dealt with protection of the gnatcatcher and the coastal sage
scrub where it lives (e.g., seasonal restrictions on clearing
gnatcatcher habitat during the breeding season, mitigation ratios,
revegetation, a study of the potential impact of helicopter noise, and
an explicit commitment to re-initiate formal consultation if the
helicopter study finds significant impacts).
On April 11, 1996, the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion in which
it concluded that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the gnatcatcher, button-celery, mesa mint, or
fairy shrimp. The USFWS also concluded that the quino checkerspot
butterfly is unlikely to occur on the Station and therefore any adverse
effect on the butterfly is unlikely. The USFWS Biological Opinion
describes the potential effects, direct and indirect, that the proposed
action would have on the species. In rendering the Biological Opinion,
the USFWS determined that the Marine Corps will undertake the
mitigation measures described in the FEIS and the Biological Opinion
and that the Marine Corps has committed to developing and implementing
a Multi-Species Habitat Management Plan (MHMP) for MCAS Miramar
consistent with the requirements of the Sikes Act. The MHMP, which the
Marine Corps will develop in conjunction with the USFWS, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG), will be designed to conserve natural resources onboard
MCAS Miramar on a day-to-day basis. The MHMP will deal with all natural
resources, but is especially concerned with threatened and endangered
species and their habitat. The MHMP is to be submitted to the USFWS,
ACOE and CDFG by October 1998. The MHMP is designed to enhance
biological diversity on the Station, while simultaneously supporting
the Marine Corps mission at MCAS Miramar.
The Biological Opinion also includes an Incidental Take statement
which describes taking that is incidental to and not intended as part
of the agency action. The Incidental Take statement includes three
Reasonable and Prudent Measures that the USFWS determined are necessary
and appropriate to minimize incidental take: (i) The Marine Corps shall
minimize destruction of gnatcatcher and fairy shrimp habitat and
provide compensation for unavoidable impacts; (ii) the Marine Corps
shall minimize impacts to occupied gnatcatcher territories during
construction activities; and (iii) the Marine Corps shall obtain a
permit from the ACOE, pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
prior to any filling of vernal pools. The Marine Corps will comply with
all terms and conditions associated with this permit.
The Incidental Take statement also contains detailed terms and
conditions that implement the Reasonable and Prudent Measures. These
parallel and sometimes strengthen the mitigation measures described in
the FEIS. The terms and conditions will be incorporated into the final
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, which must be approved by
the USFWS and the ACOE. The list of terms and conditions is set out in
the Incidental Take statement, which is part of the Biological Opinion.
The Marine Corps will comply with all terms and conditions articulated
in the Biological Opinion.
Two comments addressed the reduction in the width of the wildlife
corridor in Rose Canyon as a result of sewer line installation as part
of the proposed action. After review of a number of factors, the
Department of the Navy determined that the impact will not be
significant. Corridors narrower than 400 feet are less likely to be
used by wildlife, as indicated by the Baldwin Otay Ranch Wildlife
Corridor Studies prepared by Ogden. The portion of Rose Canyon that may
be affected is toward the head of the canyon. Wildlife that utilize
this canyon must cross Kearny Villa Road and go underneath Interstate
15 (via a tunnel). The current corridor width of 250 feet provides
limited habitat opportunities to wildlife. Reduction of Rose Canyon is
not expected to adversely affect wildlife. In accordance with the
Biological Opinion, the Marine Corps is considering construction
methods to reduce impacts to Rose Canyon.
Some comments suggested the discussion of the potential effects of
the proposed action on endangered and threatened species was deficient
because the FEIS did not include the biological information in the
Biological Opinion and the MHMP. These comments expressed concern that
the decision maker should have the
[[Page 64718]]
information in the Biological Opinion and MHMP before reaching a final
decision. The Marine Corps received a draft Biological Opinion prior to
publishing the FEIS, and consequently the FEIS contained all of the
significant biological impacts and a majority of the mitigation and
monitoring requirements contained in the Final Biological Opinion
issued by the USFWS on April 11, 1996. The Biological Opinion was
discussed in the SIR and I have fully considered it in making the
decision on realigning Marine Corps aviation assets.
Some comments suggested that the study of effects of helicopter
noise on gnatcatchers should be completed before a decision to proceed
is made. Given the information already known, the USFWS no jeopardy
determination, and the mitigation agreed upon and set out in the USFWS
Biological Opinion, I have concluded that the proposed action can
safely proceed pending further study. As set out in the SIR, the Marine
Corps is committed to studying the effects of noise on gnatcatchers and
has already begun the research. The study is expected to last five
years and will cost approximately $600,000. Given the commitment of the
Marine Corps to immediately undertake formal consultation if
significant impacts are discovered, the incomplete information is not
essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives at this time.
(iv) Traffic
One off-base intersection and five on-base intersections will
experience higher traffic volumes resulting in a significant impact as
a result of the proposed action. Increases in off-base traffic will
occur at the intersection of Miramar Road and Mitscher Way at the North
Gate, which will worsen the Level of Service (LOS) rating from D to E
in the evening peak hours.
The Department of the Navy will implement the traffic mitigation
measures discussed in the FEIS (4.12-9 & 10) and SIR to mitigate the
impacts to below the threshold level of significance. The Department of
the Navy has decided to install a traffic signal without the delay
associated with conducting further studies. Construction traffic
represents a temporary and nominal increase in traffic volumes;
therefore, impacts to the off-base and on-base circulation system will
not occur during construction.
The California Department of Transportation's comments to the FEIS
included a request for additional traffic studies. The technical
traffic study, as discussed in Section 4.12 of both the DEIS and FEIS,
was conducted using the most current traffic counts available, approved
trip generation and trip distribution assumptions, and the Highway
Capacity Manual methodology for intersection analysis. The study was
sufficient to determine the proposed action's off-base impacts.
Although one comment on the SIR suggested that another computerized
study of traffic is necessary, I have concluded that the methods the
Department of the Navy used, which were specifically tailored to the
Miramar area, were more accurate than the suggested study would be and
thus additional traffic studies are not warranted.
(v) Community Services and Utilities (Potable Water)
The demand on the potable water distribution system is expected to
increase as a result of the proposed action. The existing system is not
adequate to accommodate the demands of the proposed action. To provide
an adequate water supply, the Marine Corps will use the backup
connection from the San Diego water system as a full-time connection.
The City of San Diego has not stated a concern regarding the use of
this connection.
c. Impacts That Are Not Significant
i. Air Quality
The San Diego Air Basin is federally classified as a serious ozone
non-attainment area and a moderate carbon monoxide (CO) non-attainment
area. Pursuant to Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, US EPA
promulgated a final rule ``Determining Conformity of General Federal
Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans'' (General Conformity
rule), 58 F.R. 63214 (Nov 30, 1993) (40 C.F.R. Parts 51 and 93). A
conformity applicability analysis of the air emissions associated with
the proposed action was conducted. As elaborated on in the SIR, the
conformity applicability analysis determined that air emissions
associated with the proposed action (reduced by the amount of emissions
associated with the departing U.S. Navy aircraft) are: (1) Below de
minimis levels (i.e., the net changes in emissions of criteria
pollutants do not exceed threshold levels established in the General
Conformity Rule); and, (2) not regionally significant (they do not
exceed 10% of the San Diego Air Basin's total emissions inventory for
any applicable criteria pollutant). Consequently, the proposed action
is not subject to the General Conformity Rule. (FEIS, Sec. 4.2 and FEIS
Appendix B)
Although the General Conformity rule does not require publication
of an applicability analysis that demonstrates emissions are de
minimis, the Department of the Navy published a summary of its
conformity applicability analysis in both the DEIS and FEIS to more
fully inform the public. (DEIS/FEIS, Sec. 4.2 and DEIS/FEIS Appendix
B).
Several comments expressed concerns regarding the Department of the
Navy's conformity applicability analysis and air quality impact
analysis under NEPA. Particular issues of concern included: (1) The
selection of 1990 for use in calculation of the net emissions for the
conformity applicability analysis; (2) why the emissions in the FEIS
differed from the emissions budget in the San Diego State
Implementation Plan (SIP); (3) why emission estimates in the DEIS and
the FEIS for helicopter emissions differed; (4) whether all appropriate
types of emission sources were included in the applicability analysis;
and (5) whether the methodologies used to calculate emissions were
proper. In its comments on the SIR and in response to a public inquiry,
EPA Region 9 requested additional information to resolve several issues
on how the total of the direct and indirect emissions for the proposal
were calculated.
Use of 1990 to determine net emissions. In conducting a conformity
applicability analysis for the proposed action, the Department of the
Navy selected 1990 as the most appropriate year to reflect Navy
aircraft operations and activities at Miramar as a fully operational
Naval Air Station in normal circumstances. As such, 1990 was used as a
basis to calculate emissions increases and decreases caused by the
proposed action; i.e., the ``net'' emissions considering all incoming
and outgoing direct and indirect emissions. The ``netting'' of
emissions in this manner appropriately accounts for the total direct
and indirect emissions associated with the proposed action and is in
accordance with provisions of the General Conformity Rule. The
Department of the Navy's use of 1990 to analyze net emissions is also
consistent with the San Diego Air Pollution Control District's (APCD)
use of 1990 for determining emissions inventories.
Difference between the FEIS and the SIP--use of best available data
instead of SIP estimates. In conducting its conformity applicability
analysis, the Department of the Navy did not use emission estimates
found in the San Diego SIP air emissions budget. With San Diego APCD's
concurrence, the Department of the Navy calculated the emissions for
1990 that more accurately estimated emissions at NAS Miramar than those
found in the San Diego SIP. Table B-1 in the FEIS, ``1990 Annual Air
Quality Emissions at NAS
[[Page 64719]]
Miramar,'' identified the specific Navy and EPA technical sources
(which did not include the SIP) that the Department of the Navy used to
calculate emissions. The section of that table entitled ``Aircraft
Emissions'', explains how the Department of the Navy calculated
aircraft emissions for the year 1990. Operational data were based on
definitive studies, specific aircraft types, and defined aircraft
operating characteristics. The proposed realignment does not violate
any emission reduction targets for military aircraft, since no
reduction targets exist in the SIP.
Differences in emissions figures for helicopters between the DEIS
and FEIS. Some comments questioned why estimates for emissions from
helicopters varied between the DEIS and the FEIS. The San Diego APCD
responded during the public review period of the Draft EIS with
questions regarding rotary-wing emissions and the inversion layer
height, which is at 2,000 feet for six months and 3,000 feet for six
months of the year. The FEIS addressed these concerns by calculating
rotary-wing aircraft emissions up to 3,000 feet year-round and no
further comments were received from the SDAPCD on this issue. This
change in altitude of the inversion layer accounts for the difference
in rotary-wing aircraft emission estimates found in the DEIS and FEIS.
Inclusion of direct and indirect emissions in conformity
applicability analysis. In performing either a conformity determination
or an analysis to determine the applicability of the requirement for a
conformity determination, an agency does not have to include every
indirect emission that could be associated with a project. Implementing
regulations reasonably limit the reasonably foreseeable indirect
emissions that must be considered to those that practicably are subject
to control by the agency in the normal course of its mission. The
Department of the Navy calculated the direct and indirect emissions
associated with the proposed realignment that were both reasonably
foreseeable and practicably controlled under the Department of the
Navy's use of Miramar as a military airfield. The Department of the
Navy has no ``continuing program responsibility'' for most offbase
indirect emissions within the meaning of the regulations governing
conformity determinations.
Appropriate methodologies. I carefully reviewed the public comments
on the air analysis and conformity applicability analysis in the DEIS,
FEIS and SIR. In view of these comments, I reviewed and took a hard
look at the Department of the Navy's method for estimating air
emissions and the supporting data and calculations. The Department of
the Navy's method for calculating aircraft emissions applies the
following elements: number of aircraft operations; type or mode of
operation (power setting); number and type of aircraft engines per
aircraft; time in mode; and, corresponding emission factors. The
emission factors were obtained from studies conducted by the Navy
Aircraft Environmental Support Office (AESO) that are referenced in the
EPA ``Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42).''
After receipt of comments on the SIR, the Department of the Navy
reviewed the applicability analysis and found that the original
analysis assumed that the E-2/C-2 Navy aircraft currently stationed at
NAS Miramar would leave the air basin. No final decision has been made,
however, on relocation of the E-2/C-2 aircraft and they potentially
could remain in the air basin. To determine the impact if the E-2/C-2
aircraft remain, the emissions were recalculated including the E-2/C-2
emissions. Even with these emissions included, the analysis showed that
emissions would still be below de minimis thresholds established by the
General Conformity Rule. This analysis was very conservative, because
it did not reduce projected emissions to account for four Marine
squadrons that were moved outside the air basin. The original analysis
included eleven fixed-wing and ten rotary-wing squadrons. Subsequently,
two fixed-wing and two rotary-wing squadrons were decommissioned or
relocated to other sites outside the air basin. Thus emissions can
reasonably be expected to be lower still.
In response to its comments on the SIR, the Department of the Navy
provided EPA Region 9 with a letter providing additional explanation,
summarized above, clarifying the way it conducted the applicability
analysis, addressing the issues that EPA felt it was unable to resolve,
and offering to provide the underlying data for the analysis. On
November 14, 1996, EPA Region 9 responded that although the
applicability determination is the responsibility of the action
proponent, it had reviewed the information provided by the Department
of the Navy's letter and determined that the methods used by the
Department of the Navy to determine the ``total of direct and indirect
emissions'' from the proposed action was appropriate. The San Diego Air
Pollution Control District had indicated its concurrence in the methods
used by the Department of the Navy in earlier correspondence.
A further comment on the air quality analysis was received on
November 22, 1996. It continued to challenge the accuracy of the
Department of the Navy's estimates of air emissions. The comment argues
that the realignment will result in significant impacts to San Diego's
air quality, that the action violates the Clean Air Act and EPA rules
and regulations, and that the action will result in pollution in excess
of SIP milestone goals, thereby potentially limiting commercial
expansion in the area. The comment revealed no new significant
environmental information or changed circumstances but relied on
incorrect assumptions and methods to reach a much different, and
faulty, result. A thorough review of the Department of the Navy's
applicability analysis confirmed that it is accurate.
In summary, the Department of the Navy has conducted a thorough
review of the data and methods used to analyze whether the requirement
for a conformity determination applies to this proposed action. My
review of the record indicates that the proposed realignment of Miramar
represents a net decrease in air pollution and will contribute to San
Diego's reasonable further progress toward attainment.
ii. Hydrology
As discussed in the FEIS, the proposed action will not have any
significant impacts on the local or regional hydrology. (FEIS,
Sec. 4.3)
iii. Cultural
In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, regulations implementing
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, it was
determined that three cultural sites are eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) agrees with this determination. Similarly,
the SHPO has concurred with the determination that the proposed action
will not affect historic properties FEIS, Sec. 4.5). The proposed
realignment of NAS Miramar will not significantly impact cultural
resources listed or determined eligible for listing on the NRHP.
iv. Visual Resources
As discussed in the FEIS, the proposed action will not have any
significant impacts on the visual resources (FEIS, Sec. 4.6).
v. Land Use
As discussed in the FEIS, the proposed action will not have any
significant impacts on land use as
[[Page 64720]]
designated in San Diego's CLUP for Miramar (FEIS, Sec. 4.7). Land use
compatibility in the context of aircraft and airfield operations is
evaluated on the basis of Accident Potential Zones (APZ) and noise
contours. Both the APZ analysis and the noise analysis using California
CNEL standards indicate that current land uses surrounding MCAS Miramar
are compatible with the proposed aircraft and airfield operations.
Some comments raised concerns that the proposed project will have
significant impacts on existing and planned land uses in the
surrounding communities. The analysis of land use impacts were based on
the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Series VIII forecast
data, which were updated by the Department of the Navy to reflect 1994
conditions. The State of California has adopted the CNEL as the state-
wide standard for land use planning around airports within the state.
This standard is consistent with the adopted CLUP for NAS Miramar and
Lindbergh Field, and is endorsed by the County of San Diego. SANDAG
develops and maintains regional land use databases as part of its
charter to track land use trends and forecast population growth. The
most recent (1990) existing land use GIS database available from SANDAG
was obtained to analyze land use compatibility in the FEIS. SANDAG
updates the database every five years, and is currently working on the
1995 update. In order to update the database to 1994 (the baseline or
existing conditions year for the FEIS), the Marine Corps, in
cooperation with SANDAG, reviewed aerial photographs from the 1994
Thomas Brothers Aerial Photo Map Book. The photos were reviewed
primarily to identify new housing development within the 65 dB CNEL
noise contour surrounding NAS Miramar. In addition, SANDAG maintains a
database of proposed site specific projects which was used as a guide
for the 1994 update process. The Department of the Navy used this
updated data in evaluating noise impacts.
vi. Public Health and Safety
A number of comments were received dealing with safety. Some of
these comments discussed concerns about the safety of operating rotary-
and fixed-wing aircraft at the same airfield. Some of these focused on
the perceived risks during repetitive training operations at the field,
especially Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) approaches. Others
discussed potential risks of operating military aircraft in an area
characterized as the second busiest in the country. The Department of
the Navy takes aviation safety very seriously and recognizes that the
public has legitimate concerns that those who use the nation's airspace
must do so in a safe manner. After carefully looking at the issues and
as discussed in the FEIS and the SIR, I have determined that the
proposed action will not have any significant impacts on the local or
regional public health and safety.
Measures to ensure safety of flight. Some comments raised the issue
of mixing rotary-wing and fixed-wing aircraft, especially combining
close-in patterned FCLPs by fixed-wing aircraft and rotary-wing take-
offs and landings. The Marine Corps will be one of numerous users of
the airspace above and adjacent to MCAS Miramar. Consequently, the
Marine Corps has a vested interest in maintaining safe operations and
will make maximum use of appropriate control measures and operating
procedures to ensure proper time, distance, and altitude separation
between aircraft. The Marine Corps has operated rotary- and fixed-wing
aircraft at a number of other air stations, relying on a combination of
redundant measures to ensure safety of flight at its air stations and
the air corridors nearby. These measures include extensive pilot
training and briefing, established traffic separation schemes, and
watchful air traffic controllers in constant communication with
aircraft. These measures have allowed the Marine Corps to operate
safely in the past in circumstances at least as severe as those its
pilots will face operating from MCAS Miramar.
At MCAS Miramar, traffic patterns have been designed to provide the
necessary separation between aircraft. Fixed-wing and rotary-wing
aircraft will be based at opposite ends of the airfield. This
separation will occur on the parking apron, fuel pits, aircraft
movement areas and the landing/departure surfaces. Most rotary-wing
aircraft arrivals and departures and all pattern work will be done on
the north pads while fixed-wing FCLP's are in progress on the 24L
runway located to the south side of the air station. Consequently, to
improve safety, fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft will be laterally
separated and deconflicted while FCLP operations are in progress. Entry
into the patterns is carefully controlled by air traffic controllers.
The air traffic controllers maintain visual and/or radar surveillance
of all aircraft in the vicinity of the field, have communications with
all aircraft in the patterns, and can warn them of dangerous
situations.
MCAS Miramar will use the rules set forth in FAA Handbook 7110.65
to operate rotary- and fixed-wing aircraft while they are within
controlled airspace and under the control of air traffic controllers.
These rules contain separation and sequencing requirements for
operating all types of aircraft and will be applied to all operations
at MCAS Miramar as required. All air traffic controllers are trained
and qualified to provide safe and expeditious handling of all aircraft
under their control. Also, unique operating procedures are developed at
each air station to accommodate the unique mix of aircraft at that air
station and are published in the Air Field Operations Manual. A revised
Air Field Operations Manual will be published for MCAS Miramar to
address the planned mix of aircraft. Most of the aircraft stationed at
MCAS Miramar will also provide some advantages over typical commercial
aircraft and many general aviation aircraft. The helicopters are dual
seat aircraft, allowing one of the pilots to help maintain a visual
scan of the area. The helicopters also have broad windscreens and
better cockpit visibility than many commercial aircraft. The F/A-18s
have clear canopies and are designed to provide excellent all around
visibility. Although nothing can guarantee absolute safety, these
measures provide a substantial margin of safety. Finally, the Marine
Corps is committed to sacrificing efficiency if necessary to ensure
that safety is maintained.
Marine Corps success in operating safely in congested uncontrolled
airspace. Several comments raised the issue of safety and the operation
of rotary-wing aircraft in ``uncontrolled airspace.'' The Department of
the Navy has safely integrated rotary wing aircraft with general
aviation aircraft for many years in the existing San Diego airspace
structure. The comments received have not offered any evidence to the
contrary that would lead me to conclude that the proposed operations in
San Diego can not be conducted safely. The Marine Corps has worked
closely with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Southern
California Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility (SC TRACON), and
the San Diego Airspace Users Group (SAUG) to ensure that the proposed
action will be compatible with the existing airspace structure. Rotary
wing aircraft operate at approximately the same speeds as small general
aviation aircraft and this contributes to these two types of aircraft
operating safely in a VFR environment. Currently, Marine Corps rotary-
wing aircraft
[[Page 64721]]
operate safely in ``uncontrolled airspace'' in other areas, including
equally congested airspace, without incident. For example, over 90% of
the USMC rotary-wing operations in the vicinity of MCAS Tustin in 1995
were VFR operations (95,525 of 104,171), and of those, nearly 20% were
in uncontrolled VFR airspace. This demonstrates the ability of the
Marine Corps to operate rotary-wing aircraft in congested uncontrolled
airspace safely.
Compared with the airspace around NAS Miramar, the airspace around
MCAS Tustin and John Wayne/Orange County Airport is far more congested
with approximately 21,971 operations per square mile (three mile
radius) in 1994, compared to nearly 4,927 operations per square mile
(five mile radius) in 1994 between NAS Miramar and Montgomery Field. If
the area under consideration at Orange County is expanded to include
the operations of MCAS El Toro (a radius of seven miles), the
congestion (approximately 4,675 operations per square mile) is nearly
equal to that experienced near Miramar in 1994. The SC TRACON, as well
as the Marine Corps, is equipped to handle the air traffic volume in
these areas. Thus, the history of operating rotary-wing aircraft at
MCAS Tustin and fixed-wing aircraft at MCAS El Toro in congested
airspace, both controlled and uncontrolled, demonstrates that the
impacts of these operations on general aviation can be managed safely.
Coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration and local
groups. Some comments also raised an issue regarding the operation of
fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft in the same airspace. The
realignment of NAS Miramar to MCAS Miramar necessarily involves a
change in the aviation operations at Miramar. The change in aviation
operations was fully considered in studies associated with the EIS. The
Marine Corps and the Department of the Navy have worked closely
throughout the planning process with the FAA, SC TRACON, and the SAUG
to deal with the change in aviation operations. Of note, the FAA is
charged with overall responsibility for the safe and expeditious
handling of all aircraft in the National Airspace System. As such, the
FAA is responsible for determining whether airspace should be
uncontrolled or controlled (unregulated or regulated). The Department
of the Navy has worked with these agencies to plan for the realignment,
and none of these agencies has submitted an objection to the proposed
action.
Interface with Class B airspace. An issue was raised regarding the
impacts of flight operations for the proposed realignment on Class B
airspace. A comment also argued that the proposed mitigation measures
are insufficient. The point was made that San Diego TRACON is the
second busiest facility in the United States and is predicted to grow
in complexity and congestion. For clarification, the San Diego TRACON
was consolidated into SC TRACON in September, and is now referred to as
the San Diego Sector of the SC TRACON. As described above, the San
Diego Sector of SC TRACON is appropriately equipped for the workload.
The Marine Corps has been working with SC TRACON to ensure
compatibility. The introduction of rotary-wing aircraft will not have a
significant impact on Class B airspace because most helicopter
operations will not be required to operate in Class B airspace. The SIR
explains that 60% of the rotary-wing operations will take place within
the confines of MCAS Miramar, thus these operations will have no impact
except at MCAS Miramar. Further, the impact on Class B airspace will be
reduced as the USMC will conduct fewer total operations in Class B
airspace than the Navy because it will have fewer fixed-wing aircraft
at Miramar than the historic Navy levels. The Marine Corps will
continue to work with the FAA and the Miramar Technical Advisory
Committee, providing an ongoing dialogue to promote regional airspace
safety.
vii. Hazardous Material and Wastes
As discussed in the FEIS, the proposed action will not have any
significant impacts related to hazardous materials or wastes (FEIS,
Sec. 4.9).
viii. Aircraft Operations
As discussed above and in the FEIS, the proposed action will not
have any significant impacts on commercial or private aircraft
operations within the San Diego region. The Airfield and Airspace
Operational Study for MCAS Miramar was prepared by ATAC Corporation in
1995, and is incorporated in the FEIS by reference. The study
encompassed current and projected future operations and considered
impacts upon both military and civilian users of the airspace in the
greater San Diego area. This study, through the use of the Naval
Aviation Simulation Model (NASMOD), demonstrated that the proposed
quantity of fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft can be safely
collocated while operating effectively and efficiently at Miramar.
ix. Socio-Economics
As discussed in the FEIS, the proposed action will not have any
significant local or regional socio-economics impacts (FEIS,
Sec. 4.13). In compliance with Executive Order 12898, an analysis was
conducted to determine if minority or low-income populations would
suffer disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts as a
result of the proposed action (FEIS, p. 4.13-3). It was determined that
these populations would not suffer disproportional impacts. Two
community planning groups raised questions regarding compliance with
Environmental Justice guidelines with respect to Mira Mesa. The impacts
on Mira Mesa were reexamined and it was confirmed that residents of
Mira Mesa are not being disproportionately affected.
8. Conclusion
On behalf of the Department of the Navy, I have decided to realign
NAS Miramar into MCAS Miramar. I have carefully considered all of the
comments, including those urging further analysis. After reviewing the
administrative record and information received during the environmental
review process, I have determined that no new significant environmental
information or circumstances exist. Consequently, I have determined
that a supplemental EIS is not warranted. I have decided to implement
this action using the West-Ramp configuration (Alternative B), which
was both the Preferred Alternative and also the Environmentally
Preferred Alternative.
9. Where To Obtain Further Information
For further information, contact Lieutenant Colonel George Martin
at (619) 537-6679.
Duncan Holaday,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Installations and Facilities.
Dated: December 2, 1996.
M.A. Waters,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-31024 Filed 12-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
