Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area

• You are here: EPA Home
• Federal Register
• FR Years
• FR Months
• FR Days
• FR Documents
• From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 

[Federal Register: December 6, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 236)]
[Notices]               

[Page 64711-64721]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]




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


 Introduction

 Proposed Action

 Purpose & Need

 Background

 Alternatives

 Implementation

    a. Aviation

    b. Construction

    c. Establishment of Landing Sites in East Miramar
 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

 Conclusions

 Further Information

 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 fixedwing 
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 endstrength).


    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 rotarywing 
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 nonrecurring 
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 rotarywing 
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 fixedwing 
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 fixedwing 
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 statewide 
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 rotaryand 
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 takeoffs 
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 rotarywing 
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 

Local Navigation

• FR Home
• About the Site
• FR Listserv
• FR Search
• Selected Electronic Dockets
• Regulatory Agenda
• Executive Orders
• Current Laws and Regulations

• EPA Home
• Privacy and Security Notice
• Contact Us